May elected in B.C. riding

Well, one good thing to come out of this election. We need a few greenies in parliament. Now that May has broken the barrier, maybe we'll get a few more.

wasted seat, should have gone either NDP or Con to be able to do anything more that just sit and smile there.

God,please don't encourage her to smile


"My Number One immediate goal, because I know one MP can do it, is to end heckling in question Period," she said. "I think that will be a very worthy first goal going out the door," she said

Well I am sure her constituents will sleep sounder knowing that her priority is to cut down on heckling in parliment. Way to aim for the clouds!!

If we look at all the heckling she did because she wasn't invited to the leader's debate, I find that hard to believe.

Not at all. They both got plenty of seats. We need somebody to put forth a green agenda, and May can do that without causing problems for her party. Then hopefully some of those ideas might trickle down to the other parties, and be combined with some pragmatism. If we get another burst of environmental concern at some point, with the greens now being viable it might goad the other parties to pay attention too.

In Vancouver we used to have Harry Rankin. He was a commie, but got more votes than any other alderman, meaning the righties were voting for him too. He kept the rest of council honest, but of course didn't have much of a base to push forward his own agenda. Just give em shit when they veered too far right. I'm thinking May can be like that. Time will tell.

I would have liked to have seen a couple of greens elected, but not May. The party would be better served by a more postive media personality than May, which might translate into more future votes. I cringe at the thought of hearing sound bites from May for the next 4 years. If others react like myself then her message is lost. In the long run that is not good for the party's future.

I would have liked to have seen a couple of greens elected, but not May. The party would be better served by a more postive media personality than May, which might translate into more future votes. I cringe at the thought of hearing sound bites from May for the next 4 years. If others react like myself then her message is lost. In the long run that is not good for the party's future.

I admit to never having seen her on TV. I would have preferred Adriane Carr, or both of them win. But as I say, better than nothing.

She'll be a gadfly - that's the word I was trying to think of.

As long as May doesn't talk it's all good.

Bringing back a certain level of civilly and decorum to the house is a very good thing. Now if we can bring back civility back to the campaigns themselves as well it would be extra nice.



May is probably one of the best spoken candidates I've seen. Sharp and very understandable she'll be a good representative. I can't understand why you people have an issue with her voice.

For the same reason many people fear Harper: we don't tolerate extremism in Canada. She represents extremists.

Well, we just handed Harper a majority, so you could be wrong there.

When I look at the people who were brought to parliament as Conservatives, I don't see that, andy. I'm leery of Harper. I don't trust him. I don't trust the Alliance-Reform element that still makes up a segment of the CPC. But the CPC candidates who won seats in Ontario are middle-of-the-road, red Torries. I'll look to those people to effectively check and balance, within a majority government framework, the same way that the Liberals did over the past several years in a minority-government setting. The sky hasn't fallen.

Ok, the eastern cons are more liberal, you would know better than me. I'm surprised that there are no Mike Harris conservatives among them - are you sure about that?

But I was referring to Harper. I believe he is an extremist, and with the control he has will try for an extreme agenda. He seems to run it as a one man show.

Anyway, there's only one of May. She can't do any harm, and I think gadflys are all to the good. I looked up the word and it turns out it was first applied to Socrates, so she's in good company. We do have to address the environment, can't just keep using it as if it's a free lunch. I would like to see economists including the real costs of the environment in their calculations, and setting up a cost scheme for people who want to use it in some way, whether pollution or resource extraction. If we could get some fairly solid numbers about the true cost of what we are doing, maybe it will put the whole debate on a more solid footing.

Just as I'd like to see economists include social costs in their calculations. Eg (you knew I was gonna go there) min wage loses some jobs, say. But what are the social costs, in dollar figures of having a large poverty class, how much does it cost in health care, how much in justice system, how much in lost productivity, etc. Seems to me that would be a much more exciting area of research than refining the Laffer curve or something.

I'm so going to enjoy the next four years, considering the amount of fear over Harper. It's going to be fun.