« the west wing is ridiculous | Main | antonio, heed this »




Jack Layton's trendy beard and Svend's diamond can bite me. I am so incredibly dissolutioned.


the ndp has caused fidel to dissolve!


First of all, i'm not really sure why you hate the federal NDP for being holier-than-thou (HTT). Especially since you usually support the Green Party, which is HTT on speed. Therefore, you should be able to happily support HTT parties, since you already do. :)

As for Bev, I have nothing mean-spirited to say about her and I don't think there was a grand conspiracy against her. She lost the nomination. People outside of the riding can't vote in a nomination. This was a decision made by the people in Churchill.

This wasn't even Chuck Cadmanish, she was allowed to run for the nomination and never was kicked out of the party. And now she is going to split the vote by running as an indepedent due to her own bitterness.

p.s. I should read babble more.


the greens do have their fundies, but they also have a pretty broad spectrum going on. i mean, preston manning sees us as attractively hijackable for frigs sake. we also dont go around alternately saying "there is no such thing as vote-splitting, we are SO DIFFERENT from the liberals" and "dont vote green, team up to fight campbell"

provincial, federal, bca, youre all the same folk, pretty much.


also, this isnt exactly a conspiracy theory, let alone a grand conspiracy theory. dude, parties dispatch hacks to do their bidding all the time.


Isn't saying "we are neither left or right" the most HTT statement ever though? Like the Greens are actually holy and through divine powers rise above ideological spectrums. Admit it, the Greens have HTT syndrome too! Haha.

I never underestimate the strength of the riding members though. They defeated many of the provincial NDP's office selection in the BC race (David Chudnovsky and Shane Simpson weren't party exec choices). If Bev really had a lot of support in her riding she could have won easily.

But she didn't, and she lost. And now its possible the NDP will loose that seat if she runs as an indepedent.


saying that is kind of
a) slagging the idea of green as its own ideology created well after the 1789 idea of left and right, which is just bitchy
b) implying that greens think there is something wrong with leftness or rightness

its all about sustainability, and if that makes us down with htt, yeah you know me

all partisan hacks go around propagating their hackery. i wouldnt say the greens, or anyone, have a monopoly on it.

if you check out andrea reimer, youll see that this elected green official tends to be more results-oriented than whining-oriented.


dudes...y'all should read Dobson. Green ideology is NOT part of the political spectrum. According to Dobson the green movement is one that opposes the super ideology that is INDUSTRIALISM. Dude... we are combatting the damded capitalists of technology. The one's that think that the end of being rich capitalist mofos is more important than the means of destroying the earth and human well-being. go dobson go! future generations for lyfe.


Thats totally HTT, since thats implying that the Greens have a monopoly on sustainability. I'm all for sustainability and so is the NDP. Thats why I support the stache, since he has actually gotten some sustainable shit done in Toronto and actually some good ideas he wants to do federally. Thats quite results-orientated approach if you ask me.

I'm just not convinced a political party can escape the ideological spectrum unless if it just subscribes to a single issue. If the party has policies on many positions then those positions end up sitting somewhere on the spectrum. Thats all i'm sayin'.

As for destroying the profit motive in capitalism to promote sustainability, i'm all for that kind of socialism. :)


dude..i aint got nothin to say about monopolies..and neither do the greens(actually..maybe some do..i dont know?).
I think that it is totally a viable option to have a party that exists outside the traditional political spectrum. I think its an innovative idea.
Moreover..Dobson's ideas are way more profound than traditional sustainable policies...(let alone the stash's half-assed excuse for a moustashe.)Deep Green ideology (ecology) is about a change in lifestyle. A complete change..and i think this is what takes it off the traditional spectrum. MOreover...the changes that the greens stress are in direct opposition to industrialism. Although..some ideals may fall in line with right..or left ideals..the main objective of the ideology is to opose industrialism. I think this is what makes it different. (if anyone says im being to absolutist about this..im going to kick their asses..violently..ok raul?)


I'm all for that idea and philosophy and will read if you provide the authors first name so I can look it up.

I'm not in love with the spectrum or anything and if something wants to live outside of that its fine. In the end its just a way to understand what people believe. If you want to construct an environmental spectrum we could do that to.

Maybe my point is being confused in this deeply theortical thread. Simply what i'm proposing isn't sinister. Just that some policies any party has is bound to fit into a political spectrum. For example, if the Green party is for or against tax cuts. That would place them somewhere on the traditional spectrum. So any party in our current system is bound to have at least several policies that fit within the traditional left-right spectrum.

But perhaps there are policies that fall outside of a traditional left-right spectrum like industrialism as you say. And I accept that reality. Perhaps other political parties may also be able to be outside of the spectrum on certain issues.

Does that synthasize the discussion?


first name: andrew
last name: Dobson

Fuck the spectrum.

yes..i feel synthesized.


but the thing with deep green ideas is that ideology is focussed on industrial development. colonialism, marxisms obsession with the economic base, etc.


"Maybe my point is being confused in this deeply theortical thread"

ok, dude, this isnt deeply theoretical yet. nobody has called on marcuse and the rest of the f-unit.


"For example, if the Green party is for or against tax cuts. That would place them somewhere on the traditional spectrum. So any party in our current system is bound to have at least several policies that fit within the traditional left-right spectrum."

yeah, if you are going to continue to interpret policy according to the industrialist bottom line, then yeah, the greens are plottable on some kind of axis-thingy by some geek out there with a calculator. im sure the ndp also has goals outside the realm of industrialization, and i think contributions from the womens, environment, labour, and other movements have a lot to do with that. naturally, the green party of canada is not as deep green as andrew dobson. i just dont see why prioritizing green ideals should motivate me to vote for the ndp when theres already a pragmatic enough green party for my liking


fidel, i saw your comment after i wrote mine, because im an eager beaver and respond to them individually as i find the emails in my inbox. the nicest thing about blogging is getting shit in the inbox. so yeah, fidel said all that shit first. basically, i tried to make a jug of haterade, but hers tasted better, so i stole the recipe.


This is as theortical as I get these days since my academic activities consist of marking a course called Canadian political economy and starting a research project about public policy and democratic theory.

Proably also this is better explained IRL anyways...

"basically, i tried to make a jug of haterade, but hers tasted better, so i stole the recipe."

mmmmmm, haterade! better market that whenever political discourse doesn't get ornery or surley enough.

The comments to this entry are closed.