Elizabeth May resigns as leader of the Greens

I think we'll have to wait and see who becomes leader and whether the Greens go  back to being a grass-roots organization.  If they become an eco-Socialist party, they may attract NDP members and activists.

It's going to be a while before the tensions between the Greens & NDP can be resolved.  Look at the type of stuff May is saying this week:

Asked why the Greens didn't break through more in this election, @ElizabethMay points to "nasty and dishonest campaigning" by the NDP. "I had multicolour leaflets coming in my own mailbox to tell me that I was a liar."

https://twitter.com/PnPCBC/status/1191476569740660737

I support proportional representation. Having said that, we are stuck with FPTP, we are not moving away from that system any time soon, and every referendum attempt to move away from FPTP in recent memory has gone in flames. Let's stop wishing about how things would be in a different electoral system and try to figure out how to respond to this challenge within the constraints of the electoral system we currently have.

JKR wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

I support proportional representation. Having said that, we are stuck with FPTP, we are not moving away from that system any time soon, and every referendum attempt to move away from FPTP in recent memory has gone in flames. Let's stop wishing about how things would be in a different electoral system and try to figure out how to respond to this challenge within the constraints of the electoral system we currently have.

In that case the NDP and Greens should probably merge and make electoral reform one of their top priorities.

Unless electoral reform becomes a top priority of voters, it isn't going to matter what the NDP and the Greens do.

The first step is to start a national dialog, get a conversation based on reconciliation going between the two broad groups of people supporting both parties, rather than the specific parties themselves. 

The ultimate goal would probably be to create a unified new ecosocialist party, with other means of cooperation tried before the new party would be officially created.

voice of the damned wrote:

Unless electoral reform becomes a top priority of voters, it isn't going to matter what the NDP and the Greens do.

And a top priority for politicians elected under FPTP and political insiders will likely continue to be to prevent PR from ever being established. Here in BC the provincial BC NDP benefits from FPTP as it keeps them in a top two position. The leading supporter of FPTP that has led the anti PR side in referendums here has been Bill Tieleman, a BC NDP insider. Big wig political insiders love FPTP because it favours and protects the big parties and the people who make a living off of being connected to the big-two parties. Political insiders have successfully used every lie in the book and every scare tactic available to prevent PR from being established in Canada.

In the real world Winnipeg Centre is not representative of the average Canadian riding. In the real world the NDP is the 4th place party nationally with just 16% of the national vote and the Greens are the 5th place party with just 8% of the national vote. In the real world the NDP only has 7% of the seats in the House of Commons and the Greens only have 1% of the seats. In the real world the NDP and Greens have never won an election or even been part of a federal government. In the real world a large section of the electorate feels that voting doesn't matter and that politicians are just in it for themselves and are incapable of working across party lines for the greater good.

JKR wrote:

In the real world Winnipeg Centre is not representative of the average Canadian riding. In the real world the NDP is the 4th place party nationally with just 16% of the national vote and the Greens are the 5th place party with just 8% of the national vote. In the real world the NDP only has 7% of the seats in the House of Commons and the Greens only have 1% of the seats. In the real world the NDP and Greens have never won an election or even been part of a federal government. In the real world a large section of the electorate feels that voting doesn't matter and that politicians are just in it for themselves and are incapable of working across party lines for the greater good.

In the real world the NDP is run by blairites/mulcairites, and the Green Party is dominated by eco-capitalists (at least until it chooses a new leader). Neither group is left-wing, and rapproachment at present between the NDP and greens would empower these elements in the two parties at the expense of more eco-socialist minded elements. That is a project that I would want no part of.

Left Turn wrote:

JKR wrote:

In the real world Winnipeg Centre is not representative of the average Canadian riding. In the real world the NDP is the 4th place party nationally with just 16% of the national vote and the Greens are the 5th place party with just 8% of the national vote. In the real world the NDP only has 7% of the seats in the House of Commons and the Greens only have 1% of the seats. In the real world the NDP and Greens have never won an election or even been part of a federal government. In the real world a large section of the electorate feels that voting doesn't matter and that politicians are just in it for themselves and are incapable of working across party lines for the greater good.

In the real world the NDP is run by blairites/mulcairites, and the Green Party is dominated by eco-capitalists (at least until it chooses a new leader). Neither group is left-wing, and rapproachment at present between the NDP and greens would empower these elements in the two parties at the expense of more eco-socialist minded elements. That is a project that I would want no part of.

Under the current electoral system the compromise you oppose is probably the only way to have relevance. 

The party could find a balance between opting for a merger into a two party system with no influence and purity with so little power that elections are about symbolic victories.

We are not ever going to agree, I know. However, I thinkwe have to find that middle ground becuase we owe it to the people we stand and say we hold as a priority: the vulnerable in our society who cannot eat or sleep under or get paid by our purity.

Being not viable reduces support. We can see this in many ways. The NDP position is probably more popular than the Liberal one but the Liberals manage the centre vote plus people who want to vote for a party that can do something to make a change. They are dissapointed becuase the Liberals are too much of a compromise. 

But a merger with a smaller party that the NDP woudl not get lost in but would bring the total up to the point of competing enough to be a reliable balance of power and once in a while govern and even get a chance to change the electoral finance and voting system is a value worth compromising a little for. The Greens, many of them can be right politically but merged with the NDP their right wing would be solidly outvoted and they would convert or find a new home. The NDP is the bigger party and many in the Greens are very close to the NDP. Thinking that the left cannot dominate a merged NDP Green party is defeatist.

It is true that the NDP cannot always deliver purity itself and betrays people. It sucks you know. Sometimes, when you believe in democracy you cannot get all you want AND work with others to make a change.

Our social structure is not improving we are neither ecologically nor socially sustainable. We need more than a sideline debating society talking about what we would do if only everyone else saw the light and voted for us. The alternative is to grow the movement politcally and rely on our skills, our persuasion and convince others. 

Put really, really bluntly: if we cannot convince a majority of the members of the Green party in a new party of the value of our ideals then we should disband now as we will have no chance whatsoever of convincing enough Canadians to support them in order to do anything.

I completely respect people who are uncompromising in beliefs. However, when you are in politics you are in a power trust situation: you are asking people to support you in exchange for really trying to make their wishes a part of the power structure. Voters are trusting us to advance their priorities in an existing framework. You can write a book if you want, but if you are in politics asking for votes, you should have a plan to influence the system at least.

The NDP influence is waning. The party is facing an uncertain financial future and the competition with the Greens threatens the chance that the NDP might be able to get in a position to really influence power. By that I do not mean being one of two parties the Liberals will play off agaisnt each other to produce the policies they want - but reall influence of power to change the lives of the people who support us.

I really dislike the idea of a merger of unequals with the Liberal party and do not think it is needed but when it comes to the Greens -- what exactly do we have to lose that we actually have in reality not some fantasy ?

At what point do we consider that loyalty to party is not as important as loyalty to the principle of making a real difference. In the Liberal-NDP merger, the NDP will get voted down almost every time. In a merger with the Greens that larger unit is going to agree with the NDP principle better than 50% of the time which is more than we have now with 7% of the seats in the House of Commons and little prospect to believe we can count on more.

The NDP just had an election with what we accept is a capable leader when it comes to elections (some 80 percent think so). We faced a Liberal party in scandal and a Conservative party about to tear itself apart because it nows it under-performed. And in that we got 7% of the seats.

This was the kind of election the NDP should be moving forward in.

The Liberals in opposition sound like New Democrats. The NDP only does well when either the Liberals are on the ropes and the Conservatives are likely to have power or when the Liberals are in power and full of scandal. This 7% is not a low water mark. This was an election that should have produced a high water mark.

Things have changed. The planet is in trouble. Without a merger the Greens are not going away and they are going to attract people that we want to vote for the NDP. Party finances have gotten much worse and likely will only deteriorate from here. There is little chance that the people will get a vote on electoral reform and no great likelihood that they would vote for it if it was on the table.

The planet may not survive long enough for the NDP to get lightning to strike three times in the same place such that it gets a shot at a federal government again. 

But sure -- let's watch just how much power the NDP balance of power really will deliver: when the Liberals want to do a policy we like they will ask for ourr votes. When they don't they will get the votes from the Conservatives. The present system in the House. I am yet to be convinced that minority is really now going to be that much different from majority. Balance of power only gives you some say in choosing which cats you want to have run the system. Any other power comes less often than a comet on a bicentenial track.

Ciabatta2 wrote:

I'm convinced that the popular support for a Liberal minority is founded less in the influence the NDP can have over the Liberals and more in the sheen of respectability that having the NDP involved will give Liberal decisions that are right wing. Personally, I don't think that voters aren't hoodwinked by Liberal campaigning and positioning - instead, they actively want a government that campaigns on the left and governs on the right. That makes them feel good about their vote, says something about their positions, while ensuring that any resulting political actions won't really disrupt their lives or the status quo.

I agree wholehearted that the NDP needs to work something out with the Greens for electoral viability, but I'm not convinced that the NDP has enough to offer the Greens in return to make it worthwhile. The only thing the NDP has going for it right now is its leader - yes, it's that dire - and the Greens won't want Jagmeet at the helm after the NDP attacked their positions during the election. (As ridiculous and unsophisticated as that reaction is.)

I can't see the two parties merging - why would the Greens want to take on the NDP's institutional crust, the unions, and the larger membership? They'd be swamped and lose their brand for no electoral gain. Voters voting Green do not want to vote NDP.

The only viable alternative is a co-operation pact, where the parties agree on key environmental approaches/policies/outcomes, and candidates don't run in select ridings in favour of the other party. That lets each party be separate and selfdetermining and take differing positions on their respective nuances.

Would this get roasted as a "coalition"? Sure. But anyone opposed to coalitions isn't voting NDP or Green anyway.

I am fine with two parties seperate but not running in the same ridings. I thnk many people would be offended by this and that it might backfire but there could be a good way to promote this and it would be by admitting that it is a step from a merger that may or may not happen. The parties would also have to agree on a common platform that they would agree to (each could have seperate issues on top of that. I say this becuase we are talking about denying the potential to vote for the one of these parties not running in their riding.

Still I agree something drastic must be done to prevent the current situation of them wastng resources fighting each other and then both being too small to count anyway.

CBC: Interim Green leader hopes to court JWR for permanent job

Quote:

Green Party interim leader Jo-Ann Roberts has started to outline ideas for the party's post-Elizabeth May future — and she's mulling over the idea of former Liberal MP Jody Wilson-Raybould taking the helm.

"I'd like to have a conversation with her [to] see what her vision is, what does she see going forward," Roberts told host Chris Hall in an interview on CBC Radio's The House airing Saturday.

When asked whether Wilson-Raybould, now an Independent MP, might be willing to replace May as party leader, Roberts said it's "possible."

"Elizabeth asked her once before, and I think because they'll be working together quite closely in the House, I'd be very surprised if Elizabeth is not doing the recruiting," Roberts told Hall.

Sean that's a much more sophisticated but likely more effective version of what I was thinking.  That's an excellent idea. Two questions - I'm not clear on what the PIN voting is for, switched in core agreed upon policy? And does each party run candidates against the other in elections?

The point I am making here is that if the two parties want to remain distinct, they can hold primaries to decide which one runs in each riding and create a joint list using a variety of possible mechanisms.

This is realistic since the chance of either party getting a majority government is nil and they would have to cooperate anyway so why not start before the election. Voters are not losing much therefore. If they want to participate they can sign up as members as vote in the primary.

In the House both parties can keep both leaders. If they were to get a government they can alternate or let the caucus decide which is PM.

I don't get why May & Roberts assume Wilson-Raybould wants to be a Green.  If she wanted to be a Green she could have run as one in the 2019 election and she chose not to do so.

Wilson-Raybould also has a somewhat conservative outlook according to her former legal colleagues who posted about it earlier in the year.