Green Party coup

227 posts / 0 new
Last post
epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..without ecosocialism there are no movements to come on board. ecosocialism was the only reason to come on board. the world will not change from the top down. we need to learn that lesson. otherwise we continue with the lesser evil vote..infinity. 

Ken Burch

The question now is...will the strong second place showing Lascaris made be the base from which ecosocialists can take over the party after Paul?

Or will the GPC stay in the "we don't stand for much of anything" dead zone it's been in for years?

Mighty Middle

In a previous story on CBC - Green Party spokesman said, should Annemie Paul win the leadership, the Green party would expect the NDP NOT to run a candidate against her, just as the Greens did not run anyone against Jagmeet Singh when he was elected federally for the first time in a Feb. 25, 2019 byelection. 

Already Green Party Supporters are flooding twitter saying its is the right thing to do for the NDP NOT to have a candidate against Annemie

jerrym

Mighty Middle wrote:

In a previous story on CBC - Green Party spokesman said, should Annemie Paul win the leadership, the Green party would expect the NDP NOT to run a candidate against her, just as the Greens did not run anyone against Jagmeet Singh when he was elected federally for the first time in a Feb. 25, 2019 byelection. 

Already Green Party Supporters are flooding twitter saying its is the right thing to do for the NDP NOT to have a candidate against Annemie

Paul is running in the Toronto Centre byelection,  I guess you would like the Liberal candidate to drop out too to be fair. 

Mighty Middle

jerrym wrote:

Paul is running in the Toronto Centre byelection, so I guess you would like the Liberal candidate to drop out too to be fair. 

Green Party specifically said the NDP candidate needs to drop out, as it is only fair.

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

Full Results

Appears to me as though there was a significant number of people who were against Dmitri Lascaris becoming the leader, and this appears to be reflected in their down ballot candidate rankings.

jerrym

Mighty Middle wrote:

jerrym wrote:

Paul is running in the Toronto Centre byelection, so I guess you would like the Liberal candidate to drop out too to be fair. 

Green Party specifically said the NDP candidate needs to drop out, as it is only fair.

In the eyes of a Liberal.

Misfit Misfit's picture

Pondering wrote:

"The Green Party supported basic income and pharmacare before the other parties."

Cut the Annamie Paul propoganda bullshit please.

The Saskatchewan NDP government had a pharmacare program as far back as the 1970s. The PC government scrapped it in the early 80s.
 

Saskatchewan had the highest minimum wage in Canada when they had the NDP in government before the Devine PC's took power.
 

This all took place before there ever was a Green Party of Canada. And as long as I can remember, the NDP have been advocating for higher minimum wages and affordable living standards ever since they have been a political party.

Cut your nauseating bullshit!!! 
 
Pondering, I mean it. Get this through your skull now!!!
 

The left in Canada has advocated for the rights and living conditions for the poor and disenfranchised in Canada for as long as there has been a left wing organized base in Canada. 

The Green Party has introduced nothing new and nothing innovative that hasn't been proposed and expressed elsewhere in this country by better people who are more committed to reform than they are.

 

Mighty Middle

jerrym wrote:

In the eyes of a Liberal.

No I'm just repeating what the Green Party is saying.

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

This was just the first round not the war. We are still much much much closer to taking over the Green Party than we are the NDP.

Even if people want to continue voting for and supporting financially the NDP party I implore you to join the Green Party to continue its transformation. 

The proof will be in the next election. If the new leader and the leadership hopefuls cannot become MP's there is nothing to build on. Methinks that mother nature will intervene to make our dysfunctional political system irrelevant long before they even get a significant caucus . How many election cycles do you predict it will take to elect a Green government?

I think Paul may not win her seat but other candidates will. Even if that were not the case it doesn't mean there is nothing to build on. If that were the case there would never be any new parties. Living in Quebec I am accustomed to upstart parties winning quickly. The PQ and CAQ both rose quickly and QS may not be new but it has done pretty well for itself. 

Mother Nature intervening is exactly what I expect. It would be nice if progressives could win the next election and take over Canada but that isn't likely. Winning will not be a slow build (in terms of political time).  The party needs to position itself for a future in time which is bound to come sooner rather than later. Climate change is not increasing linearly because every year we have burned more fossil fuels and cleared more forests than the year before. We are headed into a scale of natural disasters we have never seen even now. Fires in California will be worse in five years than they are now. We are headed into a climate horror show. 

There will be a moment when people are fully receptive to eco-socialism because the right has no solutions and will have proven it amply. 

This pandemic, and the ones to come, were and are predictable. That we are not prepared is by design or at least deliberate negligence. There are no free market right wing policies to deal with it. People want to be rescued and only the left does that. The deficit boogie man only works in good times.

Likewise as the impact of climate change hits communities they will want government help not platitudes about not leaving a debt to our children as though leaving a damaged planet is a better option. 

When that moment comes a capable party has to be able to step forward to lead transition. Eco-socialists have come very close to taking over the party. Lascaris and Haddad aren't quitting. Grassroots create policy not the leadership. Until now leadership has been able to ignore the grassroots resolutions by just not talking about them. With eco-socialists having made such a good showing we can't be ignored. It won't take much growth to overcome the moderates. Somewhere around 2,000 votes more would have led to a Lascaris victory. I am confident that Haddad will easily get that many new members on board among youth. By the time the next convention rolls around eco-socialists could be in position to depose Paul if we make the effort. The more the merrier. Get membership up by 5K or even 10K and we would have the power to take down Paul. It's easier to take over the structure of an existing party than to create a new one. 

If we all go around like Eeyore we are sure to lose. 

jerrym

Mighty Middle wrote:

jerrym wrote:

In the eyes of a Liberal.

No I'm just repeating what the Green Party is saying.

Stop denying you are a Liberal presenting what is best for the Liberals. No one believes it. 

Mighty Middle

jerrym wrote:

Stop denying you are a Liberal presenting what is best for the Liberals. No one believes it. 

I'm just telling you what Annemie Paul is saying, if you have a problem with it - take it up with her.

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

Mighty Middle wrote:

In a previous story on CBC - Green Party spokesman said, should Annemie Paul win the leadership, the Green party would expect the NDP NOT to run a candidate against her, just as the Greens did not run anyone against Jagmeet Singh when he was elected federally for the first time in a Feb. 25, 2019 byelection. 

Already Green Party Supporters are flooding twitter saying its is the right thing to do for the NDP NOT to have a candidate against Annemie

Mighty Middle wrote:
Green Party specifically said the NDP candidate needs to drop out, as it is only fair.

Has the Green Party officially taken this position -- ie. passed a motion to that effect at their national council -- or did the green party "spokesperson" you paraphrased merely assume that this would be an official Green Party position if Paul won the leadership? There's a difference.

Misfit Misfit's picture

Annamie Paul intends to run candidates in all the ridings in Canada all the time. She said it herself in the debate on democracy.

Misfit Misfit's picture

Here is an interesting exchange between Annamie Paul and Meriam Haddad.

https://twitter.com/hezbolsonaro/status/1312550061956505600?s=21

"Haddad: "Annamie, when you were the Green Party of Canada’s Foreign Affairs Critic you did not condemn the coup against Evo Morales, an Indigenous elected leader in Bolivia. I was wondering how you justify talking about letting indigenous communities make their own decisions as decolonization and then endorse colonialism for it, imperialism in another country? Thank you"

 

Annamie Paul: “Thank you. That is a lot of incendiary language there. Um, as I said, you know, I’m an international human rights lawyer. I worked in conflict prevention. My husband actually worked in the office of the first indigenous Vice President of Bolivia, and he accompanied Evo Morales on a trip and interviewed him while he was there, so I can tell you that no one is a bigger supporter of the rights of indigenous peoples in Bolivia than I am, but I am also someone who is a foreign policy expert, and I am nuanced, and I can tell you that I go to excellent sources for information. Ahhhh, I want to see an election as soon as possible. I want to make sure that it is free and fair, and let’s try to be a little more careful with our language.”"

The first indigenous Vice President of Bolivia is Victor Hugo Cárdenas. He is the Minister of Education in the current military coup government. This may help to explain why she never spoke out against the military coup and where she selects her "excellent sources of information" from.

One of the things that really bothers me is her condescending tone when questioned about her positions on issues. Her "incendiary language" and "careful with language" comments clearly highlight what I worry is going to be a major problem with her attitude towards others in the future.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Pondering wrote:

This was just the first round not the war. We are still much much much closer to taking over the Green Party than we are the NDP.

..your almost full circle. who is we?

josh

Left Turn wrote:

Full Results

Appears to me as though there was a significant number of people who were against Dmitri Lascaris becoming the leader, and this appears to be reflected in their down ballot candidate rankings.

Well, he got 42%, so I guess 58% didn't want him.

Strong showing nonetheless.

josh

Misfit wrote:

Here is an interesting exchange between Annamie Paul and Meriam Haddad.

https://twitter.com/hezbolsonaro/status/1312550061956505600?s=21

"Haddad: "Annamie, when you were the Green Party of Canada’s Foreign Affairs Critic you did not condemn the coup against Evo Morales, an Indigenous elected leader in Bolivia. I was wondering how you justify talking about letting indigenous communities make their own decisions as decolonization and then endorse colonialism for it, imperialism in another country? Thank you"

 

Annamie Paul: “Thank you. That is a lot of incendiary language there. Um, as I said, you know, I’m an international human rights lawyer. I worked in conflict prevention. My husband actually worked in the office of the first indigenous Vice President of Bolivia, and he accompanied Evo Morales on a trip and interviewed him while he was there, so I can tell you that no one is a bigger supporter of the rights of indigenous peoples in Bolivia than I am, but I am also someone who is a foreign policy expert, and I am nuanced, and I can tell you that I go to excellent sources for information. Ahhhh, I want to see an election as soon as possible. I want to make sure that it is free and fair, and let’s try to be a little more careful with our language.”"

The first indigenous Vice President of Bolivia is Victor Hugo Cárdenas. He is the Minister of Education in the current military coup government. This may help to explain why she never spoke out against the military coup and where she selects her "excellent sources of information" from.

One of the things that really bothers me is her condescending tone when questioned about her positions on issues. Her "incendiary language" and "careful with language" comments clearly highlight what I worry is going to be a major problem with her attitude towards others in the future.

That was a pretty disgusting response.  And she failed to condemn the coup.  So she should fir right in.

Misfit Misfit's picture

They did have an election. Evo Morales won that election. There was a coup. She never spoke out against the coup. 

Pondering

epaulo13 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

This was just the first round not the war. We are still much much much closer to taking over the Green Party than we are the NDP.

..your almost full circle. who is we?

Only 3,000 more members and eco-socialists would have won.  That's a very small number. 

Why wouldn't we keep trying? Take over the party in the next round.

How many decades have people stuck with the NDP hoping they might turn left someday?

P.S. "we" is eco-socialists.

Pondering

When did the NDP condemn the attempted coup in Venezuela?

Misfit Misfit's picture

https://www.ndp.ca/news/ndp-statement-military-mobilisation-venezuela

"Guy Caron, NDP Foreign Affairs Critic, issued the following statement:

“Recent developments in Venezuela are extremely troubling. We are witnessing a military power struggle, and the real losers will be the Venezuelan people. Venezuela is facing an extremely serious political and humanitarian crisis that military confrontation will only worsen and intensify the impacts on civilians.

The New Democratic Party condemns any attempted coup with the assistance of the military, as was announced today by Juan Guaidó, the President of the National Assembly. In response to Juan Guaidó’s announcement that he was launching Operation Liberty, many ministers of the Maduro government stated they have the support of the Venezuelan armed forces, and are committing to fight the armed forces that support Juan Guaidó. Military intervention in this crisis will not lead to a sustainable resolution.

We are calling for the de-escalation of violence and add that the only way to end this crisis, and not harm civilians, is to hold free and democratic elections. It’s up to the Venezuelan people to choose their government and Canada must continue working with its local allies to find a peaceful and democratic solution.

The NDP believes that a national dialogue is necessary to ease tensions in Venezuela, and that all available humanitarian aid must be allowed to reach the Venezuelan people, with no political conditions. Since this crisis began, 3 million Venezuelans have been forced to flee their country due to economic hardship, food shortages and lack of access to medicines. We must keep our attention turned to the needs of the people.""

Misfit Misfit's picture

Pondering wrote:

"How many decades have people stuck with the NDP hoping they might turn left someday?"

I don't know if you are doing this deliberately just to stir up a reaction or if you are genuinely clueless.

The NDP is a left wing party. The issue with many on this board is that it is not left wing enough.
 

The NDP is more left wing than you are.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Pondering wrote:

epaulo13 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

This was just the first round not the war. We are still much much much closer to taking over the Green Party than we are the NDP.

..your almost full circle. who is we?

Only 3,000 more members and eco-socialists would have won.  That's a very small number. 

Why wouldn't we keep trying? Take over the party in the next round.

How many decades have people stuck with the NDP hoping they might turn left someday?

P.S. "we" is eco-socialists.

..your politics are liberal not ecosocialist. eta: meaning you act in the interests of the liberals.

Pondering

epaulo13 wrote:

..your politics are liberal not ecosocialist

I'm shocked and disappointed. I thought you were better than that. Care to be more specific? I did support legalizing Cannabis which was a Liberal position the NDP opposed. I also supported deficit spending, also a policy the NDP opposed. Both those policies put the NDP to the right of the Liberals. Other than that which policy or policies do I support that you consider liberal? 

To Misfit:

The NDP position on Venezuela  is the same as Paul's, hold free and fair elections. Mauduro was elected. That one opposition party boycotted doesn't make the election invalid. Lascaris, whom I support, wants us to leave the Lima group, Nato and Norad and the 5 eyes. Does the NDP want Canada to leave the Lima group or any of the others?

I am a member to support Lascaris/Haddad Greens and to vote left on all party resolutions because it appears the Green party leadership is unable to prevent leftist resolutions from making it to a vote. The NDP has prevented BDS and legalization of Cannabis from making it to a floor vote. 

May's voice, and Paul's, are still too poweful within the party but I have more of a voice than I would as a member of the NDP. The socialist wing of the Green party has a much larger presence than the NDP socialists.

Notice I said socialist not left. 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ndp-votes-to-take-socialism-out-of-part...

Delegates voted 960 to 188 in favour of the change. The result was met with cheers of "NDP! NDP!"

960 to 188, voted to take socialism out of the constitution.

On the other hand 42% of Greens voted for an eco-socialist leader. 

I see now that at least some NDP supporters are more dedicated to the team than the politics. No wonder Mulcair had so much support within the party and on the board. Not a soul on this board has admitted the NDP was better off not winning under Mulcair because that would have solidified the move to the centre and Mulcair would have left the NDP with the same reputation as Rae did. 

I'm going to keep hanging around on the board because I enjoy it but I don't see the board as a place to fight for eco-socialism. Too old-fashioned a platform with too old-fashioned politics  supporting an old-fashioned party too fearful to oppose pipelines. 

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Pondering wrote:

I see now that at least some NDP supporters are more dedicated to the team than the politics. No wonder Mulcair had so much support within the party and on the board. Not a soul on this board has admitted the NDP was better off not winning under Mulcair because that would have solidified the move to the centre and Mulcair would have left the NDP with the same reputation as Rae did.

I was never under any illusion about Mulcair, but I thought that he could win, and that his government would keep its promise of proportional representation. If that had happened we could have actually had an eco-socialist party with several dozen MPs by now. But once Trudeau won, that was the end of that idea for my lifetime.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

epaulo13 wrote:

 

..your politics are liberal not ecosocialist

 

I'm shocked and disappointed. I thought you were better than that. Care to be more specific? I did support legalizing Cannabis which was a Liberal position the NDP opposed. I also supported deficit spending, also a policy the NDP opposed. Both those policies put the NDP to the right of the Liberals. Other than that which policy or policies do I support that you consider liberal? 

..when you 1st started posting on this board, i confided to you, in a posting, of my paranoid fantasy the words to the effect that you where a mole. this was because of the language you used and the positions you took.

..over a couple years i thought i saw some change in your politics. i'm sure there was as your language began to change. at one point i almost complimented that change. down deep though that paranoid fantasy feeling never really went away. 

..the 1st egregious moment i felt from you was when the leap first came out. they placed indigenous folk and their struggles at the very top of their agenda. that was also pointed at the ndp and how they should do the same. you spoke out against that back then and did so again not that long ago. your main argument was canadians don't care. the ndp doing so would have have surely brought the spotlight on the liberal colonial agenda. the ndp would have surely brought a different perspective. it might have forced them to not take the positions they take today. the leap proposal was transformative. you protected the liberals with that position.

..the 2nd egregious moment came with the lng pipeline. you came out for a pro pipeline group of wet'suwet'en that did not have the support of the people and had ties to lng. you insinuated that there was no evidence hereditary chiefs where on the side of the environment. that in spite of their whole struggle being headlined as water and land protectors. i believe these were not just incidental positions but an attempt to inflame division on this topic to which there was some. that in contradiction to a couple years of you dissing pipelines. you were protecting the liberals.   

..and to the here and now. in the ndp vs green thread you make light of socialism and ecosocialism. in yet another thread you framed ecosocialism as not left or right. you suggested it not be ideological. you turn effective strategy into mush. into meaningless politics. while i have my druthers on the ndp i still see their usefulness in ottawa. not so with the greens under paul. she represents the cabal and the cabal controls the party. you want people to go to greens to make the ndp less effective. not because your an ecosocialist. your doing so to protect the liberals. 

Misfit Misfit's picture

No one is defending the NDP. You mentioned two policies. Two policies does not make the NDP to the right of the Liberal party. Sorry but that doesn't wash.

Mulcair was booted out of the NDP because he made a mess of it by shifting the party to look more like the Liberal party and it hasn't gone back.

Social democrats do need a proper voice. Either that be the Greens or the NDP or form an entirely new party altogether. You cannot have all these parties splitting roughly 20% of the Canadian vote to be effective at anything.

In the early 70s, Tommy Douglas stood alone in the House of Commons and he spoke out against the War Measures Act. He was unpopular with Canadians and he took a dive in the polls because of his position. He was right and history recognizes that today. We don't have a political party that will take a strong stand like that anymore. The NDP is a hollow shell of what it used to be. But it is still the only left of centre party in the House of Commons today and it is to the left of the Liberal party despite the odd issue that the Liberal Party did make which was progressive and right.

Misfit Misfit's picture

The removal of socialism from the NDP constitution was a very serious mistake. Jack Layton and Tom Mulcair wanted to do that so that they could appeal more to Quebec mainstream voters where the NDP had historically never been able to make inroads and still are unable to make inroads as far as I am concerned.

Socialism needs to be reinstated. The NDP needs to recognize Palestinian rights and support BDS. The NDP needs to show more conviction on international issues like the coup in Bolivia. They need to be a strong voice for human rights and if they won't then fuck them!

cco

Misfit wrote:

The removal of socialism from the NDP constitution was a very serious mistake. Jack Layton and Tom Mulcair wanted to do that so that they could appeal more to Quebec mainstream voters where the NDP had historically never been able to make inroads and still are unable to make inroads as far as I am concerned.

I wasn't in Layton or Mulcair's heads, but the idea that socialism is particularly toxic in Quebec makes no sense. Not only does Québec solidaire (the farthest-left party with elected representation anywhere in Canada) hold 10 seats in the National Assembly, the only NDP MP I've heard use the word "socialism" positively in speeches in the last few years is Alexandre Boulerice. The idea that Quebec was pushing the party rightward, rather than Mulcair and the Hill & Knowlton types surrounding the leader's office, isn't supported by evidence. I say this as someone who was at that convention and one of the 188 who voted against the change.

Now that the NDP has a much more hands-off leader, it's easy to forget what an overbearing micromanager Mulcair was. His loyalists vetted everyone running to be a delegate to every convention for as long as he was leader, and did their best to exclude anyone they considered too left-wing or disloyal to Mulcair. The fact he was eventually turfed at the Edmonton convention despite his iron-fisted control is one of the reasons I still believe the NDP has internal democracy – and speaks to the depths of the anger among party members that his decision to run hard to the right didn't pay off like he promised it would.

As far as putting socialism back into the constitution, I'd rather see socialist policies in the policy book than a bit of boilerplate language about socialism in the constitution. But then, no NDP leader has ever felt bound by policies adopted at convention.

Pondering

paranoid fantasy the words to the effect that you where a mole

That really is a paranoid fantasy and reflects the narcissistic nature of this board. Why would anyone bother being a mole here? How many people even post here regularly? As much as I have been supporting Lascaris I have still said by all means vote NDP. Why would I say vote NDP if I were a Liberal mole? Why would I be against TMX and in favor of free public transportation?

 your main argument was canadians don't care. the ndp doing so would have have surely brought the spotlight on the liberal colonial agenda. the ndp would have surely brought a different perspective. it might have forced them to not take the positions they take today. the leap proposal was transformative. you protected the liberals with that position.

Not that they don't care at all, but that it isn't the way to appeal to the majority of Canadians. To protect the Liberals this board would have to be in a position to sway people. The Leap had no chance of success within the NDP nevermind the public at large.  It never had a chance to have even a tiny impact on the Liberals. The Liberals are back in majority territory and I can assure you it has nothing to do with me. You mistake recognizing reality as supporting it. 

..the 2nd egregious moment came with the lng pipeline. you came out for a pro pipeline group of wet'suwet'en that did not have the support of the people and had ties to lng. you insinuated that there was no evidence hereditary chiefs where on the side of the environment

I never supported the pro-pipeline group. I questioned the exclusion of matriarchs by the hereditary chiefs. 

 that in contradiction to a couple years of you dissing pipelines. you were protecting the liberals.   

So I spend years dissing pipelines, then I question the hereditary chiefs and that means I'm supporting the liberals. That's ridiculous. That would mean I spent years undermining the Liberals as my cover so I could do what as a mole? 

..and to the here and now. in the ndp vs green thread you make light of socialism and ecosocialism.

I have no idea what you mean. I take it very seriously. Lascaris is an open ecosocialist as is Haddad and I support them both although I support Lascaris as the future leader of the party. 

in yet another thread you framed ecosocialism as not left or right. you suggested it not be ideological. you turn effective strategy into mush. into meaningless politics.

No it is definitely on the left. No doubt about that so I don't know what you are talking about. 

while i have my druthers on the ndp i still see their usefulness in ottawa.

I have repeatedly said VOTE NDP if they have any chance at all of taking a seat. How many times do I have to say it?  How am I supporting Liberals when I say VOTE NDP?  

not so with the greens under paul. she represents the cabal and the cabal controls the party. you want people to go to greens to make the ndp less effective. not because your an ecosocialist. your doing so to protect the liberals. 

Yet again I say VOTE NDP  just join the Greens so that when policy votes come up there will be more voices to support ecosocialist policies. 

I'm a new member so I don't know exactly how things work but there must be  some mechanism when party members can vote non-confidence in the leader. 

Lacaris lost 42% to 58%.  That doesn't sound great until you take into account that Paul only won with 12k to 10K votes. 2,600 votes would have delivered the win to Lascaris.  

So all we have to do is scounge out 3K votes and ecosocialists could take over the Green party.

How could anyone possibly be against that especially when you can still go ahead and vote for and donate to the NDP if you want to. 

Join the Greens but if the NDP can win in your riding VOTE NDP but I will also say if it is between a Conservative and a Liberal, vote Liberal. That doesn't make me a Liberal supporter it makes me a strategic voter. 

NDPP

Misfit wrote:

 They need to be a strong voice for human rights and if they won't then fuck them!

NDPP wrote:

They won't. Fuck them!

Pondering

cco wrote:
 Now that the NDP has a much more hands-off leader, it's easy to forget what an overbearing micromanager Mulcair was. 

Why do you say that?

Ken Burch

In the short-term, inertia and fear of change won the day in the GPC.  

Everyone who voted for Paul knew they were voting to keep the party exactly as it is under May and. probably. to keep internal party democracy suppressed.

We can already assume that the GPC will make no meaningful changes at all, will remain sectarian centrist in its policies, will continue to perpetuate the delusion that there can be an environmentally sound capitalism, will continue to keep absolute silence on foreign policy-and therefore, can be assumed to continue to endorse militarism, the myth of "humanitarian intervention" and economic imperialism.

And we can assume that staying the course means the GPC will remain completely irrelevant in Canadian politics and, at best, keep the three seats it now holds.

Any possibility of anything different and better, any real break with any part of the neoliberal, warmongering status quo  is dead as long as Paul is leader.

And we can assume that Elizabeth May will remain the puppet master of the GPC for the forseeable future and that Paul will find as many spurious grounds as possible to throw out ecosocialists, just as she intervened to smear Lascaris with what she knew were bogus insinuations of AS on the eve of the vote- an intervention that may well have tipped the contest.

It is sad that so many in the GPC voted to keep the party in a dead zone, to preserve it's current, pointless identity as the party that stands for so little, that no one notices it's there.

And it's horrifying to realize that we have every reason to think that Paul may well believe that war and "green values" can somehow co-exist.

 

Misfit Misfit's picture

cco wrote:
As far as putting socialism back into the constitution, I'd rather see socialist policies in the policy book than a bit of boilerplate language about socialism in the constitution. But then, no NDP leader has ever felt bound by policies adopted at convention.

Mulcair said himself that Quebec didn't like the socialist aspect to the NDP. I have no idea if they did polling or market research to come to that idea but that was the reason given for them doing that. I certainly did not support the idea.

Yes socialist policies are vital.  If you want socialist policies then reintroduce socialism back into the preamble of your reason for being.  The two work together. What is the purpose of having socialism in the constitution and then not run on a socialist platform? And if you run on a socialist platform then state that as your reason for being and be proud of it. When you have that written into your constitution then you will speak out and actually be the voice for those issues rather than worrying about polls and how speaking out will look to a bunch of people who have no intention of ever voting for you anyway.

Pondering

Just to be 100% clear I am a Lascaris Green. I don't think either Lascaris or Haddad are going to give up and as long as they don't give up neither will I. 

I am joining the 42% of Greens voted for Lascaris because I want to help change the party.  Epaulo, you and whomever else wants to can sit on the sidelines and wait for us to succeed. 

I think personally I can generate at least one more new member who could probably generate at least ten more if not a chain who would all be supporters of eco-socialism. 

Pondering

Ken Burch wrote:
In the short-term, inertia and fear of change won the day in the GPC....  

Thank you for saying it that way because I am not giving up. 42% is not chickenfeed. Haddad apparently promoted membership on a gamer's network. She isn't done by a long shot. It took 9 months for the Greens to sign up 15K new members. Not all were ecosocialists of course but many of them must have been. 

Ken Burch wrote:
And we can assume that staying the course means the GPC will remain completely irrelevant in Canadian politics and, at best, keep the three seats it now holds.  

I hope that is the best they can do. The less money they have the easier it will be to overthrow Paul/May.

NDPP

Pondering wrote:

Just to be 100% clear I am a Lascaris Green. I don't think either Lascaris or Haddad are going to give up and as long as they don't give up neither will I. 

I am joining the 42% of Greens voted for Lascaris because I want to help change the party.  Epaulo, you and whomever else wants to can sit on the sidelines and wait for us to succeed. 

I think personally I can generate at least one more new member who could probably generate at least ten more if not a chain who would all be supporters of eco-socialism. 

NDPP wrote:

It remains a worthy project.

Misfit Misfit's picture

Pondering, I do trust your sincerity on the environment and climate change. The Liberal Party has been a dominant force in Quebec and I think that you stem from your natural surroundings in Montreal where many progressive people were, in fact, Liberal. Many of them made a positive and lasting legacy in this country who spent their political careers working within the Liberal party.

Actually, there are/were some pretty good red Tories as well. Flora McDonald was just one example. These Liberals and Progressive Conservstives are/were progressive but they weren't socialist. Progressive and socialist are not the same thing.
 
You are meeting resistance because although you do care, I don't think that you fully grasp the socialist element to this discussion. 

And as for you being on this board. I hope you stay. I just wish that you would overcome your insatiable urge to redefine what the NDP is all the time. That is so not cool.

Ken Burch

NDPP wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Just to be 100% clear I am a Lascaris Green. I don't think either Lascaris or Haddad are going to give up and as long as they don't give up neither will I. 

I am joining the 42% of Greens voted for Lascaris because I want to help change the party.  Epaulo, you and whomever else wants to can sit on the sidelines and wait for us to succeed. 

I think personally I can generate at least one more new member who could probably generate at least ten more if not a chain who would all be supporters of eco-socialism. 

NDPP wrote:

It remains a worthy project.

Indeed.  The next step might be a grassroots fight within the GPC for internal party democracy. Given the vote break on this, that might succeed.

It's likely that Paul won because of May's last-minute intervention to smear Lascaris.  It is possible that a significant number of people who might have voted Lascaris were intimidates into voting Paul at the end out of fear that May would quit the GPC caucus and take the right-wing GPC MP from New Brunswick with hear, leaving a Lascaris-led GPC with no MPs other than Manly.

Don't think she wouldn't have done it.

Haddad's showing was much weaker than expected- I think she was badly hurt by her temporary exclusion from the ballot- it's entirely possible that there was a swing from her to Kuttner because people weren't sure votes cast for Haddad would still count.

Pondering

I'm not redefining what the NDP is. I look to what they present to me as a voter. I did not join to vote for the leadership but I supported Guy Caron.

When Singh won I defended him and I believed he would move the party farther left. I supported him for a long time but now I can see that he is a centrist. People are claiming he had some big impact on the Liberal budget even though people will still be falling through the cracks. It's like the 15$ minimum wage for federally regulated jobs. Nice but not some big benefit. 

I don't think you fully grasp the impact Lascaris has had on my politics. A frequent argument for me has often been there is no use supporting X because not enough people will support it.  I have long defended the need in the past, emphasis on past, to go centrist to win. But I have also stated that I agree with the notion that parties tend to fight the last election instead of the one in front of them. The Conservatives are a perfect example. Scheer's problem wasn't being clearly pro-choice so now that O'Toole has said he is, problem solved. 

It is still necessary to go centrist to win an election in Canada for now. I see times changing for the future. Now I am saying, and have been for awhile, that within 8 to 16 years the environment will be everything. It will be number one. The Liberals and Conservatives are the tobacco companies of the future. That is why I have been saying for years that the NDP has to firmly embrace environmentalism. They would then be the party that was presient.   

If Mulcair had won an election and become the first NDP Prime Minister of Canada he would have had an iron grip on the party as strong or stonger than Layton's. And yet that is what many posters here wanted.  Seemed really short-sighted to me. I still don't see how anyone thought that would be a good thing. 

In my opinion it is time to get ready for the flip and I have thought that for a long time. Theoretically I have always been in favor of socialist policies and specfically social democracy. I also think people should be allowed to own a shoe store and hire employees and that is capitalism so I can't call myself anti-capitalist. 

LASCARIS. I would never follow anyone blindly but he was so convincing on Canada's Place in the World that I was sold even though foreign affairs is very low on my list of things Canadians care about. Then I heard him speak on many other topics. He has positions I support but didn't think possible or realistic to reach for. He convinced me. He is a brilliant man. I support Haddad but Lascaris is the one with the leadership ability. I was accused of cheerleading for Trudeau which I denied but you ain't seen nothing yet.

I am absolutely crushing on Lascaris and so should you. I agree I was not an eco-socialist before but I am now to the extent that Lascaris is. If you don't think he is an eco-socialist then I'm not one either. Call me a eco-Lascarisian. I still have two questions for him but I will wait a week or so before asking them. 

1) If we tax at 100% over 500K a year won't all the billionaires just leave? Won't the credit agencies downgrade us? Won't businesses leave if we have a min-max rule?

2) Leaving the Lima group is fairly easy but wouldn't leaving NATO and 5-eyes and even NORAD leave us endangered? Other countries will still spy and we won't know what is going on. 

I hope he can answer me because although I have confidence in him these questions need to be answered in order to convince others. 

Pondering

Michael Moriarity wrote:

Pondering wrote:

I see now that at least some NDP supporters are more dedicated to the team than the politics. No wonder Mulcair had so much support within the party and on the board. Not a soul on this board has admitted the NDP was better off not winning under Mulcair because that would have solidified the move to the centre and Mulcair would have left the NDP with the same reputation as Rae did.

I was never under any illusion about Mulcair, but I thought that he could win, and that his government would keep its promise of proportional representation. If that had happened we could have actually had an eco-socialist party with several dozen MPs by now. But once Trudeau won, that was the end of that idea for my lifetime.

For that the NDP needed a majority. They should have accepted a ranked ballot as a start. It isn't true that Liberals would get a majority of second votes because they are in the middle. Many Conservatives would never vote Liberal and ranked balloting allows a voter to choose their favorite first without fear that their vote will be wasted. Not ideal but no need for strategic voting. 

kropotkin1951

Pondering wrote:

1) If we tax at 100% over 500K a year won't all the billionaires just leave? Won't the credit agencies downgrade us? Won't businesses leave if we have a min-max rule?

2) Leaving the Lima group is fairly easy but wouldn't leaving NATO and 5-eyes and even NORAD leave us endangered? Other countries will still spy and we won't know what is going on. 

I hope he can answer me because although I have confidence in him these questions need to be answered in order to convince others. 

One of my favorite songs from fifty years ago. We'd all love to change the world.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzrUqAtUcpU

cco

Pondering wrote:

cco wrote:
 Now that the NDP has a much more hands-off leader, it's easy to forget what an overbearing micromanager Mulcair was. 

Why do you say that?

A decade of experience in the NDP. There's an enormous difference in the way it felt for on-the-ground activists under Mulcair and how it feels now.

Misfit wrote:

Mulcair said himself that Quebec didn't like the socialist aspect to the NDP. I have no idea if they did polling or market research to come to that idea but that was the reason given for them doing that. I certainly did not support the idea.

And it was quite convenient for him to do so, blending his public personae as the one who'd deliver Quebec and the one who'd finally bring the NDP around to the "serious" conservative identity he and his crew sold as the only way to win.

Ken Burch

cco wrote:
Pondering wrote:

cco wrote:
 Now that the NDP has a much more hands-off leader, it's easy to forget what an overbearing micromanager Mulcair was. 

Why do you say that?

A decade of experience in the NDP. There's an enormous difference in the way it felt for on-the-ground activists under Mulcair and how it feels now.

Misfit wrote:

Mulcair said himself that Quebec didn't like the socialist aspect to the NDP. I have no idea if they did polling or market research to come to that idea but that was the reason given for them doing that. I certainly did not support the idea.

And it was quite convenient for him to do so, blending his public personae as the one who'd deliver Quebec and the one who'd finally bring the NDP around to the "serious" conservative identity he and his crew sold as the only way to win.

Given the variety of radical political traditions in Quebec over the years, it's bizarre that Mulcair would imply that people there couldn't tolerate the idea of socialism.  For much of the first two-and-a-half decades of its existence, the Bloc could have been characterlized as a strongly left-of-centre party, and so could the PQ during Levesque's first term-and outside of electoral politics, Quebec had had a strong and militant tradition of labour struggle, and there was the strong Quebec small-l left support for the anti-Vietnam war movement, Central America solidarity, the anti-apartheid movement, Palestinian self-determination, and FN struggles.

From what I could see, the actual dealbreaker for Quebec with the NDP was its' stubborn insistence, prior to Jack, on staying with rigid, bourgeois, Trudeau-style federalism.  Jack broke through that with the Sherbrooke Declaration, but then Mulcair started watering down the NDP commitment to the Declaration's principles.  Federalism was always going to be a vote-loser for the NDP in Quebec, since the federalist cause is overwhelmingly-not exclusively, but overwhelmingly- an economic royalist and Anglo-supremacist position.

Misfit Misfit's picture

There was also the Caisse Populaires, Quebec Hydro, and the quiet revolution which were all very positive.

My question is why if Quebec was so in line with the ideology of the NDP were they never able to penetrate the province before 2011 aside from the few riding wins?

Ken Burch

Misfit wrote:

There was also the Caisse Populaires, Quebec Hydro, and the quiet revolution which were all very positive.

My question is why if Quebec was so in line with the ideology of the NDP were they never able to penetrate the province before 2011 aside from the few riding wins?

Prior to 2011, the federal NDP was perceived in Quebec as an exclusively federalist and Anglophone party.  It never addressed the deep links in Quebec between radicalism and support for some form of sovereigntism, and tended to come across as though it saw Quebec francophones-whether sovereigntists and federalists-as people who were making a big deal over nothing in their attitude about their historic treatment by Anglo-Protestants.

Pondering

Deleted because it doesn't matter anymore. (Quebec politics)

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:

One of my favorite songs from fifty years ago. We'd all love to change the world.

">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzrUqAtUcpU

Great song and it reminds me of two things Lascaris said that got through to me. There is a german word that means something to the effect of pointing out something so obvious everyone knew it but never acknowledged it. I guess it is a bit similar to the elephant in the room but not quite. 

Lascaris said we only have a few years to stop catacysmic climate change. That is getting more obvious by the day and we sort of accept it as true but not really because if we really accepted it we would change immediately. There would be no talk of expanding the oil sands to pay for greening the economy. (my eyes are rolling)

Somehow the way Lascaris put it made it really real. The effects will not go up linearly because we increased burning fossil fuels every year by a lot. All our little measures so far have done virtually nothing. They are a drop in the bucket of the damage we are doing. 

I've been saying 8 to 16 years but I really think it will be within the decade and could happen much sooner. The 9/11 of climate change will happen in the US or Canada. This will happen in unison with young people becoming much more likely to vote and do so squarely on the issue of the climate change. Disasters are going to bring them to the polls in droves if there is someone to vote for. Anyone under 40 right now has been taught about climate change. 

Lascaris made me realize there is no choice. Continuing to destroy the only planet we have to live on is insane. So I still have questions about how it will work, the high taxes and withdrawal from all those groups. It's scary. It is still the only option. 

The Conservatives, Liberals and NDP all accept the basic structure and assumptions about what can and can't happen and what people will accept or reject. 

Lascaris mentioned manufactured consent which I had heard of before. I googled and skimmed so got the main idea. Lascaris mentioned polls that indicate Canadians are considerably more left than you would think from what is presented in the media. 

I know this is getting really long but I must also mention the military. I have been swayed by what I learned here concerning our involvement in Libya and Syria and the Ukraine so I was prepped in that sense for what Lascaris proposes. He also supports other policies which I first heard of here, like borrowing from the Bank of Canada at zero % and BDS and other stuff I don't remember off the top of my head. My point being my "transformation" is not that sudden. Like quitting smoking it doesn't happen in one instant. The ground work was there, then I saw a leader who convinced me he could make it happen. 

Misfit Misfit's picture

Pondering wrote:

"I've been saying 8 to 16 years but I really think it will be within the decade and could happen much sooner. The 9/11 of climate change will happen in the US or Canada."

It is already happening.

If you are interested in climate and the environment I recommend you look up Maude Barlow from the Council of Canadians. She has written many books and is an expert on the environmental impacts of trade deals and the sell off of Canadian water.

Jusr like Lascsrius, she is extremely articulate and her books will get your blood boiling. And she is a Liberal.

ETA: I shouldn't project a political party onto her. Forty years ago she wrote favourably of the Liberal party and against the PC's. She has always written like she is someone who is left wing. Then she would write in her books to put all political faith into the Liberal party. She doesn't do that anymore.

If you want a good history of government policy in Canada, read all of her books going back 35 years.

Pages