Green Party coup

227 posts / 0 new
Last post
Pondering

nicky wrote:

From what I read the Greens could suffer a big setback in theBC election.

https://www.tooclosetocall.ca/

They often boast that they have never lost a riding they previously won but they may not be able to say that after the 24th.

It looks like Murray Rankin is well placed to win Andrew Weaver’s seat and the other two Green seats also look vulnerable to the NDP.

Perhaps Prince Koprotkin or someone else from Vancouver Island has a better view of this.

Maybe they have inherited the curse of the NDP. Federally, when the NDP has been successful in forcing the Liberals to be more progressive the Liberals got credit for it. 

The NDP has so impressed the population they have gained support and that is hurting the Greens.

The line there should be it is safe to vote Green because you work well with the NDP. Because it took both to maintain power the government had to be more open to the public and to compromise. 

jerrym

nicky wrote:

From what I read the Greens could suffer a big setback in theBC election.

https://www.tooclosetocall.ca/

They often boast that they have never lost a riding they previously won but they may not be able to say that after the 24th.

It looks like Murray Rankin is well placed to win Andrew Weaver’s seat and the other two Green seats also look vulnerable to the NDP.

Perhaps Prince Koprotkin or someone else from Vancouver Island has a better view of this.

I live in Metro Vancouver but I have a rough idea of what is happening on Vancouver Island. The most recent poll is from Ipsos on Oct. 8-11 coming just before the debate. It  found the NDP at 52%, the Liberals at 34%, the Greens at 11% and Others at 3%, which is in rough agreement with previous polls. Ipsos found "The NDP has a large 29-point lead on Vancouver Island (54% NDP vs. 25% Libs) and a 23-point lead in Metro Vancouver (56% NDP vs. 33% Libs). Voter preferences are a statistical tie in the Southern Interior/North (44% NDP vs. 42% Libs)." [https://rabble.ca/babble/alberta-and-british-columbia/next-british-colum...

Most people think Furstenau won the debate, particularly because of her comment on race, although there was no knockout blow. Horgan defended the NDP record fairly well but slipped up in a major way on the race question for which he immediately apologized after the debate and today also. 

Wilkinson apologized for the sexist and racist comments made about NDP MLA Bowinn Ma that came after the release of a video showing 9 BC Liberal party candidates, including Wilkinson, laughing at sexist and misogynistic comments made about Ma by Liberal MLA Jane Thornewaite. However he failed to reply to the other classist and sexist commments that were included in the same question: (1) on the BC housing crisis where he said quoted "calling renting a “wacky time of life,” “fun,” “enjoyable” and a “rite of passage” to becoming mature; and (2) his calling domestic abuse a case of "a tough marriage".  Throughout the debate Wilkinson inserted the fact that he was doctor into nearly answer even if it appeared to have no relevance to the question and sometimes included the fact that he is also a lawyer, strongly indicating his hierarchical view of humanity that typified his patrician attitude to the debate. My prediction is that the Liberals will go right-wing populist with their next leader, although not Trumpist because of the high percentage of minority groups in BC, with their next leader to overcome the problems they have had because of Wilkinson. 

When asked how they each personally reckoned with their own privilege as white political leaders, Wilkinson told a story about being a doctor (for the fourth or fifth time in the debate) and that he delivered an Indigenous baby that was later named after him. 

For his part, Horgan said that growing up he played lacrosse with Indigenous youth, and that "for me, I did not see colour. I felt that everyone around me was the same."  Both Horgan and Wilkinson, after those somewhat confusing answers on privilege, then turned to attacking each other. It was left to Furstenau to talk about interactions people of colour have with the police, and to say, "We aren't all equal. I wish we were, but we're not."   

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/election-debate-2020-bc-...

 

After the debate, Horgan apologized for the language he chose.

"This is the answer I wish I gave on stage," he wrote on Twitter, posting a video of a redo of his answer. ...

Saying "I don’t see colour" causes pain and makes people feel unseen. I’m sorry. I’ll never fully understand, as a white person, the lived reality of systemic racism. I’m listening, learning, and I’ll keep working every day to do better. 

https://rabble.ca/babble/alberta-and-british-columbia/next-british-colum...

 

The poll numbers from before the debate suggested the Greens were in trouble even in the three Island seats they held. In addition, former Green leader Andrew Weaver, who is resigning with the election call, endorsed the NDP rather the Greens in his riding. Furstenau did well in the debate, especially in answering the race question.

However, she also polled 41% behind Horgan for Best Premier in one poll, primarily because she is not well known throughout the province, having just been chosen leader last month. The debate may save her and the other Green ridings, but she has a long hard climb to win a lot of seats, although that happened in 1991, when the people were already sick of the Socreds and saw the NDP and Socreds bickering during the debate. The problem for the Greens in this regard is the polls do not show that the people are sick of the NDP, primarily because of their capable response to Covid, that has resulted in Horgan having the highest ranking of any federal or provincial leader. The Greens, even with their second MLA (Adam Olsen) being First Nations, also have the problem of primarily drawing support among white voters according to the polls, although what happened during the debate could help them with the non-white vote, but again that is a large gap to make up there. Because of the quick election call after Furstenau was chosen leader, they were unable to find even a token candidate in 12 ridings off of Vancouver Island. 

kropotkin1951

The Greens are disorganized. I like many environmentalists are disgusted by the BC NDP but in my riding I can vote for a flake running for the Green's or an accomplished woman who is the Mayor of Tofino running for the NDP. The Green's are going to keep the leader's seat for sure and I am cheering for Alexandra Morton but she is running in a safe NDP seat so it is an uphill battle. I see no breakthrough because people believe a change in government to a Liberal one would be a disaster and in many seats voting Green could elect Liberal's. I am in a safe seat so I can choose to spoil my ballot if I want to.

Badriya

Pondering wrote:

nicky wrote:

 

Pondering, where does that study come from, and does it identify the seats the Greens would win?

It seems very dubious to me that they cd win 15 seats through an accommodation with theNDP. They only finished aheaD of the NDP in about15 seats, mainly of them safe seats for other parties.

I don't know where the numbers came from. I am not at all knowledgable on seat distribution. From what you are saying I imagine she is being optimistic that Green+NDP votes plus just one person running could tip the balance.

I would rather the Greens don't win more seats because Paul would be credited. I suspect if Lascaris won the leadership those seats would no longer be in play for the Greens. 

That figures comes from a document by the One Time Alliance for Electoral Reform.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/14Q4ty_b4OpLqG1kVWWx4n7Nn_DoHdliqFANP...

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Thanks for the link, Badriya. A quick look at it seems to show that they are not pulling the numbers out of their nether regions.

One Time Alliance For Democratic Reform wrote:

Our analysis takes the 2019 election results and voting patterns by riding as a base. Although each party is allowed to dream about how much better it might do on its own in the next federal election, let us assume that in the absence of cooperation, the next federal election would yield results similar to those obtained in 2019: 24 seats for the NDP; 3 for the Greens. Cooperation in a handful of seats is not going to change that in any meaningful way, so that is not what we are talking about here.

Our analysis suggests that there could be 57 “winnable” ridings in all under an alliance scenario: 50 for the NDP; 7 for the Greens. These include the 27 incumbency ridings for the two parties and 30 other ridings in which the combined vote share of the NDP and Greens exceeded or approached that of the winner from another party in 2019 (total equalling 80% or more of the winner’s votes share). You can find these listed in the “winnability” column of our worksheet.

Also shown there are any number of “stretch” ridings, including 43 ridings where the NDP and the Greens together equaled 60-80% of the winner’s vote share and 48 others in the 50-60% range. This yields a total of 148 ridings (57+43+48) in which collaboration could increase the chances of one or the other party winning under the alliance umbrella.

Pondering

Thanks for all the info. What do you think? Would a Lascaris win lead to fewer seats or more? What is your gut feeling on Paul so far? Will she be able to increase support for the Greens?

kropotkin1951

jerrym wrote:

Because of the quick election call after Furstenau was chosen leader, they were unable to find even a token candidate in 12 ridings off of Vancouver Island. 

This was definitely done deliberately for that reason, as well it truncated the NDP's nominations and thus meant that Horgan's insider team got to hand pick many candidates. In the lead up to an election next year it would not only have been the Green's that were more organized but also the NDP "dissidents."

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Pondering wrote:

Thanks for all the info. What do you think? Would a Lascaris win lead to fewer seats or more? What is your gut feeling on Paul so far? Will she be able to increase support for the Greens?

I'm not sure whether these questions were directed at me, but in case they were, here goes.

First, I don't really understand the question about Lascaris. He didn't win. If he had, I would have considered supporting the eco-socialist Green Party, but that's just alternative facts now.

But considering the purely hypothetical question of electoral performance by an eco-socialist party, I can see good arguments for both sides. In my optimistic moments, I imagine that such a party could get 15% to 20% and at least 12 seats in its first try, and then get stronger from there. In my pessimistic periods, I think it would barely be noticed by the voters, and not budge the vote much, except that some of the "conservatives with composters" might then leave the Greens and go non-voting or else Liberal. I have no idea which scenario is more likely.

As far as Paul and the actually existing Green Party, I have no interest in supporting them, and I see little difference between the new leader and the old one. I see no reason why the popularity of this party should change much from the 5% to 7% it has maintained with May as leader.

Pondering

But considering the purely hypothetical question of electoral performance by an eco-socialist party, I can see good arguments for both sides. In my optimistic moments, I imagine that such a party could get 15% to 20% and at least 12 seats in its first try, and then get stronger from there. In my pessimistic periods, I think it would barely be noticed by the voters, and not budge the vote much, except that some of the "conservatives with composters" might then leave the Greens and go non-voting or else Liberal. I have no idea which scenario is more likely.

That is sort of what I was getting at. I think your more pessimistic moments are closer to the truth, for the moment. 

Paul only won on the fourth ballot. She did not have strong support even though May had been promoting her from the moment the race was called. That shows that May's influence over members is weak. She had respect as the only member of parliament for so long but she has been accused of being abrasive to the point of abuse. Paul seems like a chip off the block but instead of having the only seat she doesn't have any seat at all. Keeping her is not keeping a seat. 

When we move to depose her she will again cite the historic nature of her win and being the first Black Jewish Woman leader of a party. She will use it as a shield inferring that to challenge her is to be racist but people don't like having their arm twisted. 

Long before that she will be challenged through resolutions supporting Palestine and eco-socialist policies. That will happen by January. It's just a few months from now. Members vote to decide which resolutions get to the top of the docket. The admin recently moved to limit the resolutions to 150 words but that is just a speed bump. 

A hostile takeover of a political party doesn't happen in one night. Lascaris received the endorsment of an idle no more founder just one day before the vote closed. He lost by less than 2K votes determined by Howard supporters who placed 3rd. 

Paul was not annointed leader for life. There will be an opportunity to vote non-confidence in her triggering a new election. Between now and then, to be on the safe side, we only need 4K new members. I think it can be done.

I will post here when the resolutions are being voted on and which are rising. 

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

For those who might not remember, the shift to the right taken by the Greens happened before Elizabeth May's tenure. Have you forgotten her predecessor, Jim Harris:

"Green Party leader Jim Harris, a former Tory and a motivational speaker for large corporations, is again preoccupied with running as many candidates as possible (he ran candidates in all 308 ridings in 2004). This is to ensure that there is a Green Party franchise in every riding in the country so the party’s government funding remains intact. He knows that a certain percentage of voters will vote Green no matter what - and each vote brings the party $1.75. The party received over a million dollars under election financing rules implemented for the first time in 2004. Yet, Harris has been almost invisible since the last election, has done little organizing, no membership drive, has managed to raise just over $200,000 and has paid virtually no attention to policy development."

https://thetyee.ca/Views/2005/12/16/GreensArentGreen/

nicky

The “study”linked by Badyra which projects 15 Green seats presupposes that the NDP stands down in preference to the Greens in a dozen ridings  where the NDP got more votes than the Greens.

That is notlikely to happen

Badriya

Michael Moriarity wrote:

Thanks for the link, Badriya. A quick look at it seems to show that they are not pulling the numbers out of their nether regions.

One Time Alliance For Democratic Reform wrote:

Our analysis takes the 2019 election results and voting patterns by riding as a base. Although each party is allowed to dream about how much better it might do on its own in the next federal election, let us assume that in the absence of cooperation, the next federal election would yield results similar to those obtained in 2019: 24 seats for the NDP; 3 for the Greens. Cooperation in a handful of seats is not going to change that in any meaningful way, so that is not what we are talking about here.

Our analysis suggests that there could be 57 “winnable” ridings in all under an alliance scenario: 50 for the NDP; 7 for the Greens. These include the 27 incumbency ridings for the two parties and 30 other ridings in which the combined vote share of the NDP and Greens exceeded or approached that of the winner from another party in 2019 (total equalling 80% or more of the winner’s votes share). You can find these listed in the “winnability” column of our worksheet.

Also shown there are any number of “stretch” ridings, including 43 ridings where the NDP and the Greens together equaled 60-80% of the winner’s vote share and 48 others in the 50-60% range. This yields a total of 148 ridings (57+43+48) in which collaboration could increase the chances of one or the other party winning under the alliance umbrella.

It is a serious document, and provides a number of different scenarios.  They seem to have done their homework, addressing the campaign expenses reimbursement, etc.  

That being said, because of the two debacles with strategic voting in the past I am a bit hesitant to support this idea, but it could work.  

Badriya

Pondering wrote:

But considering the purely hypothetical question of electoral performance by an eco-socialist party, I can see good arguments for both sides. In my optimistic moments, I imagine that such a party could get 15% to 20% and at least 12 seats in its first try, and then get stronger from there. In my pessimistic periods, I think it would barely be noticed by the voters, and not budge the vote much, except that some of the "conservatives with composters" might then leave the Greens and go non-voting or else Liberal. I have no idea which scenario is more likely.

That is sort of what I was getting at. I think your more pessimistic moments are closer to the truth, for the moment. 

Paul only won on the fourth ballot. She did not have strong support even though May had been promoting her from the moment the race was called. That shows that May's influence over members is weak. She had respect as the only member of parliament for so long but she has been accused of being abrasive to the point of abuse. Paul seems like a chip off the block but instead of having the only seat she doesn't have any seat at all. Keeping her is not keeping a seat. 

When we move to depose her she will again cite the historic nature of her win and being the first Black Jewish Woman leader of a party. She will use it as a shield inferring that to challenge her is to be racist but people don't like having their arm twisted. 

Long before that she will be challenged through resolutions supporting Palestine and eco-socialist policies. That will happen by January. It's just a few months from now. Members vote to decide which resolutions get to the top of the docket. The admin recently moved to limit the resolutions to 150 words but that is just a speed bump. 

A hostile takeover of a political party doesn't happen in one night. Lascaris received the endorsment of an idle no more founder just one day before the vote closed. He lost by less than 2K votes determined by Howard supporters who placed 3rd. 

Paul was not annointed leader for life. There will be an opportunity to vote non-confidence in her triggering a new election. Between now and then, to be on the safe side, we only need 4K new members. I think it can be done.

I will post here when the resolutions are being voted on and which are rising. 

Pondering, Paul won on the 8th round of balloting.  This was a preferential ballot: there were 8 candidates so there were 8 rounds.  

Pondering

Thank-you, I knew it took awhile, didn't realize it was 8 rounds because once someone reaches 50% they win. So, if it took 8 rounds for her to win that shows even more that her support is weak. 

Now that she is leader she could buikl more support but  I doubt it. The Geeen Party has right wingers at the top, and probably the attitude that they can win the most seats that way thereby promoting the green agenda.

It looks like there has been a strong push to the left by the members even under May otherwise the BDS resolution would never have passed. Paul is the establishment's attempt to "go left" without really doing so. That is why Paul has no answers are foreign affairs. They don't want to go left. They want to remain "centrist". Paul's image of progressiveness is projected by her non-controversial dedication to diversity. 

I agree that the NDP won't agree to stand down in any seats at the moment or anytime soon. A lot would have to happen before that would be a possibility. 

I agree that a Lascaris win is not inevidable. It is only a possibility because it depends on enough eco-socialists participating in the hostile takeover of the party. It is still much more realistic than eco-socialists trying to take over the NDP because the Green party is so much smaller. 

jerrym

Pondering wrote:

Thank-you, I knew it took awhile, didn't realize it was 8 rounds because once someone reaches 50% they win. So, if it took 8 rounds for her to win that shows even more that her support is weak. 

Now that she is leader she could buikl more support but  I doubt it. The Geeen Party has right wingers at the top, and probably the attitude that they can win the most seats that way thereby promoting the green agenda.

It shows that everyone who ran had relatively weak support. It will take a masterful job of leadership for anyone to build a consensus over time behind this leader or any other, even if another leader were chosen in the future. That is possible but not easy. 

kropotkin1951

Paul is going to be less than irrelevant when the House sits. She will not win in Toronto and is going to crash and burn instead. May the control freak will smile for the cameras in Ottawa and run the party from the back rooms. What power does Paul have in reality anyways? If she doesn't control the party bureaucracy and isn't an MP then she is just another pawn on the political chess board.

eastnoireast

laine lowe wrote:

For those who might not remember, the shift to the right taken by the Greens happened before Elizabeth May's tenure. Have you forgotten her predecessor, Jim Harris:

"Green Party leader Jim Harris, a former Tory and a motivational speaker for large corporations, is again preoccupied with running as many candidates as possible (he ran candidates in all 308 ridings in 2004). This is to ensure that there is a Green Party franchise in every riding in the country so the party’s government funding remains intact. He knows that a certain percentage of voters will vote Green no matter what - and each vote brings the party $1.75. The party received over a million dollars under election financing rules implemented for the first time in 2004. Yet, Harris has been almost invisible since the last election, has done little organizing, no membership drive, has managed to raise just over $200,000 and has paid virtually no attention to policy development."

https://thetyee.ca/Views/2005/12/16/GreensArentGreen/

that's defined as right wing?

aka, why is the left scared of cashflow?

i'd say it's exactly what was needed at that point in the party - it takes cash to build infrastructure...

which can then be *almost* seized by the eco-socialist hordes, 16 years later.   

guess we shoulda tried harder.

aka, thank you mr harris; whoops.

i was also a big fan of the per-vote funding setup.  it limited private political funding, and was a de-facto playing-field-leveler; even with fptp, the small/new party you supported received some support. 

eastnoireast

the canadian greens were deep in the political wilderness back then.  the machine had to be built, and scaled up to a national level. 

" ... has managed to raise just over $200,000 and has paid virtually no attention to policy development."

sounds like a non-wing dreamer buisness guy who's wheelhouse was fundraising.

the lack of membership and riding level organizing would probably be valid critisism, and a pretty daunting task- i'm guessing there would have been only a handful, out of 308 riding associations that were active in between elections.

Pondering

It shows that everyone who ran had relatively weak support. It will take a masterful job of leadership for anyone to build a consensus over time behind this leader of any other, even if another leader were chosen in the future. That is possible but not easy. 

The goal isn't to transform the existing membership. It is to sign up enough eco-socialists to defeat the leadership.  One of the means of achieving that goal is to pass resolutions that will appeal to them. May accused them of trying to hijack the party and said the justice greens are not part of the party. 

I think Haddad in particular should embrace the message that eco-socialists are hijacking the party. 

Misfit Misfit's picture

I think there were only seven rounds.

Round 1 = 8 candidates, one dropped.

Round 2 = 7 candidates, one dropped.

Round 3 = 6 candidates, one dropped.

Round 4 = 5 candidates, one dropped.

Round 5 = 4 candidates, one dropped.

Round 6 = 3 candidates, one dropped.

Round 7 = 2 candidates. The winner of this round is the winner.

Badriya

Pondering wrote:

Thank-you, I knew it took awhile, didn't realize it was 8 rounds because once someone reaches 50% they win. So, if it took 8 rounds for her to win that shows even more that her support is weak. 

Now that she is leader she could buikl more support but  I doubt it. The Geeen Party has right wingers at the top, and probably the attitude that they can win the most seats that way thereby promoting the green agenda.

It looks like there has been a strong push to the left by the members even under May otherwise the BDS resolution would never have passed. Paul is the establishment's attempt to "go left" without really doing so. That is why Paul has no answers are foreign affairs. They don't want to go left. They want to remain "centrist". Paul's image of progressiveness is projected by her non-controversial dedication to diversity. 

I agree that the NDP won't agree to stand down in any seats at the moment or anytime soon. A lot would have to happen before that would be a possibility. 

Here is a link to the ballot results.

I agree that a Lascaris win is not inevidable. It is only a possibility because it depends on enough eco-socialists participating in the hostile takeover of the party. It is still much more realistic than eco-socialists trying to take over the NDP because the Green party is so much smaller. 

On a ranked ballot, all voters rank the candidates in order of preference, in this case 1-8.  On the first round, the candidate with the lowest number of votes is dropped, and those votes go to second choice.  On the second round, the candidate with the lowest number of votes is dropped, and those votes go to their second choice, and so on until one candidate gets over 50%.  (On this particular ranked ballot it was not necessary to rank all eight candidates, so I voted Haddad-Lascaris-Kuttner.  In some cases with ranked ballots all candidates must be ranked.)

At one point Lascaris was leading because, Haddad's and Kuttner's votes went to him.  But there were more centrist and right-wing candidates, which is why Paul ultimately won.

Here is a link to the results of every ballot.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Green_Party_of_Canada_leadership_elec....

Pondering

Thank you for all that information.

I think the best place to find more supporters will be in colleges and universities. I think the most successful message will be that it is a take-over of the Green Party by the left. The same message can be given to idle no more and anyone else likely to support the eco-socialist agenda. Members as young as 16 can vote. 

We shouldn't be shy about the message that it is a takeover because the Green agenda cannot be accomplished through right wing politics. 

The population we have to get on board is the under 30s and idle no more. These are the people who will support a radical green agenda. The are the most condemning of traditional government. Alone with the 42% of Greens that already voted for Lascaris new young members can easily overthrow the curent leadership. 

I think the message has to be not that they are not joining the Green Party. The plan is to transform it into an eco-socialist political vehicle in which seats are secondary to the commitment to stop climate change through eco-socialism.

eastnoireast

just to belabour the point - $200,000,  308 ridings....  that's $650 per riding.

very right wing.  slippery slope.  what's next, financial planning and paid staff?

NorthReport

My only experience with the Greens was in the last federal election. I have visited, not joined, but spent a weekend with the Emissaries of Devine Light in BC. Don't laugh, they own a multi-million dollar home in Shaughnessy. Anyway, the Greens remind me of that cult.

eastnoireast

Eco-socialist almost wins Green Party leadership: What does this mean?

<snip>

Could Lascaris have won?

However, despite the attempts to block and diminish the eco-socialist faction the final result was very close. It is not at all ruled out that Lascaris could have won the vote. But what would have happened then?

All the structures of the Green party are controlled by the pro-capitalist bureaucracy built by Elizabeth May over the last decade and a half. A Lascaris leadership would have found itself blocked at every turn and would have likely fallen victim to a coup or a split. Lascaris does not have the base enjoyed by Jeremy Corbyn in the Labour Party, with Corbyn having recruited more than 200,000 new members. Corbyn also had areas of support in the trade unions and a small layer of socialist MPs. Lascaris only had new members, and not a mass wave like Corbyn. Not only did he not have any supportive MPs, but he isn’t even an MP himself.

The class base of the Greens is another important difference with the British Labour Party and the NDP. The Greens are a formation based on petit-bourgeois intermediate layers, eco-friendly small businesses, students, etc, with no base in the working class. They have even been hostile to organized labour at some points in history. This is seen in some recent polls of Green voters that show general sentiments to the right of NDP voters, and sometimes to the right of Liberal voters. For example, during the dispute between the Ford Conservatives and the teachers, 87 percent of NDPers supported the teachers compared with 80 percent of Liberals and 64 percent of Greens. A more recent poll asked Canadians who they would vote for in the US election (if they could): six percent of NDPers said Trump, versus 7 percent of Liberals and 11 percent of Greens. There is a logic to this when one considers the number of anti-vaccination activists who often vote Green in Canada, but are part of the Trump movement in the US. All this adds up to the conclusion that the class base to turn the Greens into a radical socialist party is very narrow indeed.

Some reply that Lascaris had no choice but to run for the Greens as the NDP bureaucracy would have blocked his candidacy. This is probably true, given that the latter disqualified and sabotaged a series of left-wing and pro-Palestinian candidates for the 2019 federal election, including former OFL president Sid Ryan. However we should not prettify the Green bureaucracy which also tried very hard to block and sabotage the left.

<snip>

 

eastnoireast

i found the above article a considered and wider-context look at lascaris and the greens, and then the punch line - (paraphrased)

all the parties are fucked and impenetrable, so let's abandon the electoral field to them, and advocate from the outside!

<snip>

Build a united socialist movement

In our view, Lascaris should reach out to socialists inside the Greens, the NDP, the unions, plus unaffiliated socialists, to form a mass movement for an anti-capitalist socialist workers’ party. This movement would not run in elections against the Greens or NDP, but would advance a series of policies that could be the founding principles of such a party. Dimitri’s call for social ownership and democratic planning of the economy, plus an anti-imperialist foreign policy, would be a good place to start the discussion.

<snip>

Pages