I was sort of among those who originally saw Elizabeth May's run at Central Nova as quixotic. The way things are going, it could prove to be visionary.
I'm not a member of any political party (and I'm really not planning to change that) so I've sort of treated the Dion-May alliance/fiasco as a kind of spectator sport (albeit one with potential long-term consequences). Naturally all kinds of opinions have been flying, particularly between Grits and Dippers. My attention was caught today though by something that Jason Cherniak said:
"...if Jack [Layton] were smart he would agree to not run a candidate against Elizabeth May. Then Dion would gain much less from his deal and May would no longer be able to attack the NDP. As things now stand, if May loses and MacKay gets less than 50% of the vote, then Layton will be solely to blame. How many non-partisan progressive voters will like that one? I suspect May understands that she needs to take down #3 before she can even think about Green Party government."
I suppose, given Jason's roll in the Liberal party, he's just doing his job. That said, let me give a response to his rhetorical question about what "non-partisan progressive voters" (like me) would think about May losing Central Nova. First of all, it's one seat. I don't see how Layton would be "solely" to blame anyway. If May runs a mediocre campaign is that Layton's fault? What if the NDP candidate finishes ahead of May, is it then solely May's fault that the NDP lost? Moreover, the NDP never insisted that May run in Central Nova - a riding where the NDP was competitive (at least more so than either the Greens or the Liberals).
Now I don't want to sound like someone who's adopted NDP talking points or anything, so let me just reiterate: I don't think that anyone could point to a single individual and say that they are at fault for an undesirable outcome in an event as complex as a Canadian election.
This is starting to remind me of the bickering liberation fronts in Life of Brian, remember, what the "non-partisan progressive voter" (i.e.: me) wants is for Harper to go away.
Greg Morrow of democraticSPACE crunches some numbers and shows a way that Elizabeth May could actually make a play for Central Nova. My instincts (such as they are) make me skeptical about this (more so than Scott is at least), but it is at least plausible. Put another way, right now, I'd still put money on MacKay, much as I'd prefer he'd lose.
One wonders though, how much money the Greens will have to spend in Nova Scotia that they might have spent in those BC ridings where we are always told they might make a breakthrough.
Well, he of the sad dog is probably staying put. I hope he's not pouting for photo-ops today. Stephane Dion and Elizabeth May (it's everywhere in the Canadian blogosphere, I'm too lazy to link to it) have forged a little alliance against MacKay but I doubt it will unseat him. (Go to the results and do the math yourself.)
I can't help but feel as though the Dion-May thing was set up like a last-call one-night stand, all bets are off after the next election I suppose. That's not to say that such an agreement couldn't work - it just comes off as, I don't know, a tad desperate for both of them. I doubt it will have the longevity of the Harper-MacKay shotgun wedding of a few years back (an up-and-comer married into a storied old family for some respectability - and connections), and I'm not sure what, if any, results it will produce for either party at the ballot box.
In extending all these relationship metaphors, the NDP is playing the part of the sanctimonious single type - disgusted by its skanky acquaintances but secretly really REALLY hurt that no one asked it to roll in the hay. Even if it would have totally said "no" such an offer.
