All posts by Chris Tindal

Layton Asked Greens For A Deal In 2004

climate crisis, democracy and good government, green party, ndp

Darnitall. I keep wanting to stop fighting with the NDP on this. I really do. But I’m exceptionally bad at backing down from a debate. Call it a weakness.

It was upsetting enough to listen to Ed Broadbent, a person who I respected, yell angrily at Elizabeth May on the radio in what I felt was an irrational, inconsistent and purely partisan way. And it’s been upsetting enough to listen to what I would call Jack Layton’s hypocrisy in opposing cooperation with Elizabeth after he’s been cooperating with Stephen Harper all this time, and by refusing to talk to her while instead saying he’d like to talk to the Taliban.

Now, it turns out the hypocrisy runs even deeper. Today The Toronto Star reports that Jack Layton asked then-Green-Party-Leader Jim Harris not to run candidates against the NDP in 2004.

Former Green party leader Jim Harris says NDP Leader Jack Layton sought a deal with him before the 2004 federal election, so he’s baffled why New Democrats are suddenly saying that it’s wrong for the Greens and Liberals to co-operate in the next campaign.

“Methinks they doth protest too much,” Harris said in an interview yesterday, describing a meeting he held at a College St. café in Toronto with Layton before the 2004 campaign.

Layton has been one of the most vocal opponents of the pact reached last week between Green Leader Elizabeth May and Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion, by which both parties agree to let the leaders run unchallenged in their Nova Scotia and Montreal ridings in the next campaign.

Layton has condemned this as “wheeling and dealing” that denies citizens the right to vote for parties of their choice.

But according to Harris, Layton asked for the Greens not to run candidates in 2004 and to endorse the NDP instead. A 2004 newspaper story makes mention of the meeting and includes confirmation from an NDP strategist that Layton was looking for the Greens to back his party.

To review, what Elizabeth and Stephane Dion did was decide not to run candidates against each other, and to endorse each other as valuable Parliamentarians. Elizabeth did not endorse the Liberal party itself, and, of course, Green candidates including myself will be giving Liberal candidates a run for their piles and piles of money all across the country. Layton, on the other hand, wanted Jim Harris and the Green Party to actually endorse the NDP and not run many or any candidates against them.

I’ve sent a few messages to NDP friends over the past few days trying to make peace, and I know that by pointing out this latest development I’m probably not helping my cause. But this is the first time I’ve actually gotten emotional about this whole thing. I don’t mind my party or my leader being attacked — in fact, I welcome it. Greens are now being taken seriously and criticism comes with the job. I just wish those attacks were based on fact and integrity. I don’t think that’s too much to ask.

Hopefully we can all get our eyes back on the rapidly overheating ball that we call home soon. Name calling is fun and all, but when we are (or should be) in crisis mode, it’s pretty irresponsible.

Listen to the people on electoral reform, says Green Party

democracy and good government, green party,

From http://www.greenparty.ca/en/releases/18.04.2007…

A fair system for electing members of parliament.

OTTAWA – The results of Ontario’s public consultation on electoral reform send a clear signal to the federal government to abandon its ludicrous “private” public consultation and start listening to what Canadians want – a fair system for electing members of parliament, Green Party leader Elizabeth May said today.

“The Harper government promised in the Throne Speech to consider reforming our archaic first-part-the-post voting system,” said May, “but they have no real interest in changing a system that puts them in power with 36% of the vote.”

This became clear, she said, when the government appointed a conservative think tank to run the closed-door focus groups that will be the basis for its “public” consultation on electoral reform.

May called for an open and transparent nationwide consultation on the issue. “Ontario’s Citizens’ Assembly is a great model,” she said, “and the fact that it has come out overwhelmingly in favour of the change to proportional representation proves that this is an idea whose time has come.”

Green Party electoral reform spokesperson Chris Tindal said that members of the Citizens’ Assembly underwent intensive education and public consultation phases, and heard from all view points before reaching their decision.

“It was a truly democratic, grassroots and unbiased process, in stark contrast to the Harper government’s current $900,000 closed-door think tank process, which can produce questionable results at best,” he said.

“Politicians should take note of the overwhelming majority (92%) by which the Citizens’ Assembly voted in favour of change. This proves that not only do most people want a fair voting system, but that their support for proportional representation increases the more they know about it.”

“Democracy belongs to citizens, not politicians,” said Tindal. “For too long, Canadians have sensed that something is wrong with their voting system but have not known what to do about it. Ontario now has a chance to take democracy back. The rest of Canada deserves the same chance.”

-30-

My Canada Includes The Laws Of Thermodynamics

ecology, energy

There’s an episode of the Simpsons where Lisa, who has a lot of free time due to a teachers’ strike, builds a perpetual motion machine. Homer is upset, and yells “Lisa, get in here! In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!”

Stay with me, I’m going somewhere with this.

Last night I had a nice long political debate with a friend of mine. Let’s call him “Sean,” because, well, that’s his name. (I think it’s unfortunate and somewhat dangerous that talking about politics with friends and family is increasingly considered impolite. I don’t know how we expect democracy to work otherwise.) Our conversation jumped around a lot, but the argument basically came down to Sean’s belief that the status quo was more or less great and that concerns about converging environmental crises were overblown or entirely made up. I, uh, maintained a different viewpoint.

I love debate, and one of the things I enjoy doing is getting a good understanding of why people think what they do. As a result, Sean and my conversation got more and more fundamental, as I searched for things we could agree on. Eventually, I said, “ok, well I know that we can at least agree that the Earth has limits.” Sean did not agree. “Um, ok,” I continued, “well, let’s make it more specific then. We can agree that energy cannot be created….” But again, Sean did not agree.

That’s when we changed the subject. The first two laws of thermodynamics state, in essence, that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, and that you can’t get something for nothing. Somehow, there are now at least a handful of people in Canada and throughout the western world who think (actually, feel might be a better word) that that’s not true. As James Howard Kunstler points out in The Long Emergency, some of our culture’s most basic assumptions have become misaligned with the realities and limitations of the physical world. For example, energy policy is based on the assumption that energy is “generated” (created), and can continue to be created in increasing quantities in perpetuity. Similarly, much of our economic activity is based on the assumption that it’s reasonable to get something (like, money) for nothing (see speculativebubble.com).

Sean’s not a dumb guy. He’s no Homer. In fact, that’s the crazy part — he’s come to his conclusions in a rational way by observing the world around him. Problem is, the world he and I have grown up in is currently in the process of throwing all the wood on the fire, so of course we’re lacking perspective. (Except, of course, that instead of wood we’re using oil, which, well, doesn’t grow on trees.)

Brownie points will go to the first MP willing to stand in Parliament and say, “Mr. Speaker, be it resolved that this House will obey the laws of thermodynamics.”

Nomination Crashers

liberal party, toronto

Claire and I crashed the Toronto Centre Liberal nomination meeting tonight. (How amused was I to see at least four or five other people at the meeting who I know are supporting my campaign? We exchanged knowing glances and Sting-style nose-taps. I guess it was just the place to be.) As of right now neither the blogosphere nor Google News are reporting the results of the vote between Bob Rae and Meredith Cartwright.

In conversation with Rob Oliphant and Mathieu Chantelois (a former nomination contestant and once rumoured nomination contestant, respectively) I heard a funny story. First though, some background.

A few weeks back I was sitting outside of Starbucks on Church Street with some friends, people watching. One man walked by wearing a Michael Ignatieff scarf. “Hey look,” we said. “That guy’s wearing a Michael Ignatieff scarf.” Then, two minutes later, Bob Rae walked by. “Hey look,” we said. “There’s Bob Rae.” So I got up and introduced myself as the Green candidate, we chatted for a bit, and then he continued on his walk.

Now, back to the nomination meeting. When Rob introduced me to Mathieu as the nominated Green candidate, Mathieu said, “oh, so you work at Starbucks.” Not having the above story fresh in my mind, I thought he was making some strange joke. (“Because the Starbucks sign is green?,” I thought.) But yes, as it turns out there’s a story going around in the Rae campaign (Mathieu hadn’t heard this directly from Bob) that Bob met me when I sold him a coffee.

No? Ok, well, it was funny to me.