It’s probably pretty obvious from this blog that my political philosophy most closely aligns with the Liberal Party. What’s less obvious is that it’s hardly a tight fit. Its more of an alignment of averages. Some probably perceive me as radical left (for example I believe in a guaranteed annual income for all Canadians), some as radical right (along with guaranteed income comes the cancellation of many social assistance programs). I believe in competition, but I don’t subscribe to the interpretation that competition requires traditional capitalism.
In last night’s English leader’s debate, not only was the voice of the Green Party excluded by an irresponsible (in both senses, reckless and unaccountable) “consortium of media companies”, but the environment seems to be a non-issue with all “mainstream” party leaders.
This is grossly unacceptable. If it doesn’t make you angry, wake yourself up. The environment is the single biggest issue of our generation. It’s one of the top issues for a majority of voters. Yet our leaders are silent. Harper could care less, it’s all about the present for him. Ignatieff and Layton seem to have been terrified by Stephane Dion’s attempts to push too far, too fast. Somehow they believe that the voting populace is so shallow that we can’t decouple Dion, who few wanted to see as Prime Minister, from environmentally responsible policies.
So what do we have? Three leaders who care more about votes than about the country they purport to serve. Oh yeah, and Duceppe, who serves the concept of another country.
Well screw them. Screw them all. It’s time to flush the lot of these self-serving myopic power seekers out of politics. This time around I’m voting Green in protest, and I urge you to do the same, independent of your usual political inclinations. I realize that if all 50 of my readers go Green, not much will change, so if you buy into my argument, encourage as many people as you can to do the same.
It seems the only way to get environmental issues on the policy agenda is through a measure of popular vote. In the absence of voting reform (another Green party policy), the only way the political establishment will take on the environment before it’s a full blown crisis is if the populace put their votes where their concerns are.
I can see some objections to this approach, and I want to address them.
Voting Green will split the left and give Harper a majority. Bull. Take a closer look at the Green Party platform. It’s right of the Liberals. To hell with Harper swinging left in a desperate attempt to pick up a majority, it might even be right of the Conservatives in some respects. The Greens should be splitting the vote on the right.
If the Greens win, they won’t have the experience to govern. Absolutely true. But the chances of even a Green minority are somewhere between getting hit by lightning twice and winning a lottery. On the other hand, if they score a few seats, they’ll actually be able to keep the environment on the agenda. Besides, can you imagine the NDP in a minority situation? It’s not much prettier, but people vote for them.
Are there good counter-arguments? Post them in the comments.
Alan, can’t say I agree with all your points, but on the environment you are spot on. Voted Green last time predominantly for that reason and will be doing the same again. Bring on proportional representation!
What I find really odd is that the environment is being characterized as a “youth issue” and the major parties are pushing “family” issues like health care and pensions.
Meanwhile, every day that we fail to address the environment, we put everything at greater risk. How can there be improved health care if we’re spending billions — if not trillions — dealing with the costs of a degrading environment? Pension plans will already be near bankrupt by the time we’ve paid for the boomers ahead of us. If we don’t act soon, there will be no money left when you and I need it. Family friendly my ass, this is an issue that should matter to all of us.