Spinning Green

Elizabeth May of all things has attempted to campaign on the premise that she has integrity and honesty, and that above all things she will not choose power over principle. I've discussed why I don't think she can claim that she is achieving all too much of those things, but in the light of C-30 being rewritten, it's time to check in once more with the Green ethics, and how the "sunflower power" brand has given them cart-blanch to say and do whatever they want. For May this means allowing herself to blabber on with her opinions, regardless of the political consequences, or with concern for following through on her promises. Those who witnessed the London North-Centre bi-election made note of her rule-by-decree approach to policy which attempted to present the Greens as a party with a full platform.

We know now that she is able to criticize the strategy of another political party, without concern for her own. In this audio clip we'll hear two points:

1) The criticism that the NDP thinks only in terms of political expediancy, and will attack the Liberals because they are closer in policy than the Conservatives.

2) The clean air act amendment process is a manifestation of Jack Layton's power hungery agenda, should not be taken seriously, and essentially that the Green party doesn't support it.

While they have not gone as far as removing it from their site, the Greens are now happy to claim responsibility for the results of the committee without a whisper of their original opposition to the committee.

Her stance on the NDP's integrity with respect to C-30 hinges on when the election would be called. I should point out that the NDP were all alone in the committee as they both put forward their proposed amendments in November, and pushed for a 4-week timeline-- well before any threat of an election. It was the Conservatives who delayed the bill, the Liberals who filibustered it, and both who asked for an 8-week time line. It was well known that the 8-week time line was putting the bill dangerously close to the potential election call (in and around the budget).

Of note is the extent to which May outlines her disgust for Jack's collapsing of the Liberal minority government in late 2005 because of the scheduling conflict between the elections and the climate change conference. "How could you sleep at night" she alleges to have asked in phone messages to Jack. The progress of the C-30 was clearly working out for the better when the recent Conservative budget was released. Elizabeth May was almost first to the microphones to say that not only could she not support it, but that she "would fight an election over it". I suppose for May the benefits of the C-30 committee were "not worth losing sleep on". I shoud note that I would not have supported the Conservative budget either, but this is a far cry from the commitment to the environment she claims to hold.

May tries to distance herself from the strategy of attacking those who have policies that are most alike her own. I would then draw your attention to "Green Bleeding Red" , where I outline how she has aligned herself with the Liberal environment roadmap. Once again I question whether or not what's good for the NDP is good enough for the Greens.

Coverage of the Green amendments and their suspicious similarity to some of the NDP's proposals, I won't take that on. What I will say is that she clearly won't follow through on the promise she made in this interview. Do you actually expect May to say this: "Gee, I was wrong to even worry about what his motives were - this has turned out well!". I wouldn't. She is far too sanctimonious and self-interested. The truth is she can say whatever she wants without repercussions, I wonder how she sleeps at night.