Green Party coup

502 posts / 0 new
Last post
melovesproles

Yeah it's pretty clear on the website that this is a group meant to apply pressure internally within already existing parties and primarily within the Green party. It's a good move to get organizing now. 

Too bad the leadership review is off but it obviously won't be that far away.

robbie_dee

Help me if I've missed something but isn't this the worst possible outcome for the Green Party? Their leader is critically wounded and unfunded in her own riding but, still, the leader? Half your party doesn't want you but we should still vote for you because...? 

melovesproles

robbie_dee wrote:

Help me if I've missed something but isn't this the worst possible outcome for the Green Party? Their leader is critically wounded and unfunded in her own riding but, still, the leader? Half your party doesn't want you but we should still vote for you because...? 

It's probably the second worst outcome for the Green party. I think a leadership review where Paul barely clings on to power would have been even worse. Paul likes to overinflate the importance of meaningless moral victories-see her second place showing in the Toronto Centre by-election, so it's easy to imagine how insufferable she might have been if she had (barely) survived a leadership review. 

I personally would have been much more impressed if the Green party had turfed Paul but this will probably get the civil war somewhat out of the news cycle and Paul and Zatzman will be unable to accuse the party of antisemitism until after the election when the party's probable poor showing will be reason enough for a change in leadership.

Debater

The question is, has Paul learned anything from this recent leadership crisis?

Geoff

Mighty Middle wrote:

jerrym wrote:

It is not clear to me that this is a new party or a movement

Dimitri Lascaris has just clarified his tweet saying he's still part of the greens and that it's not a political party.

The Green Waffle?

robbie_dee

melovesproles wrote:

It's probably the second worst outcome for the Green party. I think a leadership review where Paul barely clings on to power would have been even worse. Paul likes to overinflate the importance of meaningless moral victories-see her second place showing in the Toronto Centre by-election, so it's easy to imagine how insufferable she might have been if she had (barely) survived a leadership review.

Honestly I was kind of indifferent to whether Paul stayed or left. But for a political party competing for seats, I think having a compromised leader is bad. If she had something to "crow" about, even just a bare victory by a handful of votes, she could claim the party was ready to put the dispute behind it and invite her critics to either get with the program or get out.  If she lost, the party would have looked bad for turfing their first black leader, but at least then they could have slid Elizabeth May back into the position and carried on. Now they've just frozen the conflict for the duration of the pending election and set all of their candidates up  to answer a bunch of awkward questions.

robbie_dee

Geoff wrote:

The Green Waffle?

I think its called Banh Kep La Dua?

melovesproles

robbie_dee wrote:

melovesproles wrote:

It's probably the second worst outcome for the Green party. I think a leadership review where Paul barely clings on to power would have been even worse. Paul likes to overinflate the importance of meaningless moral victories-see her second place showing in the Toronto Centre by-election, so it's easy to imagine how insufferable she might have been if she had (barely) survived a leadership review.

If she had something to "crow" about, even just a bare victory by a handful of votes, she could claim the party was ready to put the dispute behind it and invite her critics to either get with the program or get out. 

Except the 'critics' in this case include the only MPs with a chance of winning seats and it's hardly even fair to call Manley a critic since it was her advisor that called for his defeat. 

I don't see how the Green party candidates could have avoided awkward questions in any situation with Paul as leader. I agree with you that this is bad for the Greens and the party will be battered in the election but I think Manley and May probably have a chance only because they are not going to be as associated with Paul. It's probably better for them not to have Paul cling to power after a prolonged campaign for immediate leadership review, and realistically they are the only hope the Green party has of getting any representation. 

jerrym

Elizabeth May's lukewarm call for party unity, saying she supports the party without saying she supports the leader tells you where she really stands. Her statement “Rumours have prompted media to continue to ask for clarification if I am playing some role in party matters. I have no role – official or unofficial – in any of the Green Party governing bodies.” is no endorsement and of course as the only elected federal Green until recently she still has a lot of influence in the party, in addition to having a husband who was on the party board until May of this year.  

She added, “I can provide no insights into recent events.” which makes it clear she is not happy with Paul as leader. She then goes on to say the loss of Atwin was painful, which of course is directly related to Paul's failure to take action her senior advisor when he said he would work to defeat Atwin and Manly for their support of the Palestinian cause. 

Neither May or Paul come out of this looking good, to say the least. 

Ms. May said in her statement that Ms. Atwin’s exit constituted the only recent party events “that remain deeply troubling and about which I did have first-hand knowledge.”

“That loss is painful, but the misplaced anger, blame and name calling that have followed it are doing even more damage than the event itself,” she wrote.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-no-insight-into-green-p...

NDPP

The Man Who Upended Canada's Green Party

https://twitter.com/dimitrilascaris/status/1417533237489029126

"As Elizabeth May states, it is 'deeply shocking' that the senior adviser of the Canadian Greens leader, publicly smeared two of our MPs with false allegations of anti-Semitism without being reprimanded and immediately removed from the leader's office."

Why are so many Canadian politicians so cowed by these obnoxious Zionists?

Pondering

(I've been to Toronto and back to visit my daughter for the first time since Covid. Was a wonderful trip but what a rollercoaster catching up on the Green happenings. )

Do people expect an ecosocialist party with money to spring up out of nowhere or do they think the NDP can be transformed? [/quote]

melovesproles wrote:
  I think the likelihood is pretty low on both counts and I'm not as optimistic as you are that Lascaris would be a shoo-in in another leadership contest. I had a hard time getting people to back him in the last run as no one knew he was and the Green party was seen as not worth joining. I don't think that much has changed.
 

A shoo-in, no, people have to take action or it won’t happen. Winning this kind of war takes a long time but fortunately for progressives Lascaris has been fighting that war for a long time and already has a lot of supporters. We are johnny come lately. He has kept the faith. Even immediately after losing he was optimistic focusing on all the support he did get. He has had success in passing policy resolutions.

melovesproles wrote:
  Lascaris has a good twitter game but he needs to do something to get noticed-a strong showing in an election where he builds a team and knocks on doors is still his best chance to get that ball rolling in my opinion. I think people greatly overestimate the power of the 'online' left. It's enough to generate some numbers but it usually comes across as stronger than it actually is to those who are obsessed with politics on the internet.
  

Paul was only a member of the party for 8 months and she won the leadership. I didn't join in time to vote. I am positive I alone can get him another 5 to 10 votes through my daughter, maybe more. New members will come primarily from the under 30 or under 40 crowd because they know that they are screwed and who screwed them.

Lascari was crystal clear on his politics both foreign and national proudly proclaiming himself to be ecosocialist.

Paul was non-committal on foreign policy and talked a good game on poverty and racism making her appear to be leftist on the surface. When I first reviewed the candidates I preferred Lascaris but thought that Paul was pretty impressive too. Kropotkin didn't like her so that prompted me to take a closer look after which I agreed with him.

Paul won by only 2K votes with May in her corner from the beginning funding her and propping her at every opportunity. Being female and black was in no way a hindrance. It was a double bonus. While racism and sexism still impact people far more negatively than positively the desire of fair-minded people to make up for the past leads to individualized affirmative action. That is, genuinely progressive people will likely favor people from disadvantaged communities over the blessed, all other things being equal. Paul had a lot of advantages the next candidate backed by the establishment will not have. 

nicky

The Green civil war still rages.

The executive just sent out this notice to the membership advising that it has filed a lawsuit against Paul. It refrains from explaining the nature of that lawsuit.

Any guesses?

Image

Pondering

I'm a member and I didn't get the email. I can't find the notice on the site either. Other than that, great news. It seems the "right" hand still doesn't know what the left hand is doing. Paul keeps declaring she has won only to get poked again.

I'm pretty sure the only place the Green Party is headed is left.

Mighty Middle

The Green Party has gone to court in a bid to overturn an arbitrators decision that said they could no longer immediately peruse a non-confidence motion against Leader Annamie Paul

Debater

Legal action underway related to Greens’ internal turmoil, Annamie Paul: Party

July 21, 2021

https://globalnews.ca/news/8048315/green-party-annamie-paul-legal-action/

jerrym

Pondering wrote:

I'm a member and I didn't get the email. I can't find the notice on the site either. Other than that, great news. It seems the "right" hand still doesn't know what the left hand is doing. Paul keeps declaring she has won only to get poked again.

I'm pretty sure the only place the Green Party is headed is left.

I can't see them being able to switch leaders for the upcoming election. Furthermore, with all the prolonged in-fighting going on inside the Greens, even if the 'left' wins later, there will be many within the party or having departed the party whose primary goal will be to sabotage it out of personal animosity or because their desired leader was defeated, ignoring what social and economic goals they share with the other side in the process. How often have we seen this happen in parties across the political spectrum, even when the animosity had not been so consuming? I realize there are important differences on many issues but a lot of voters will see it as a fight between the Judean People's Front and the People's Front of Judea and look elsewhere when it comes to vote as in the video below. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHHitXxH-us

kropotkin1951

jerrym wrote:

I realize there are important differences on many issues but a lot of voters will see it as a fight between the Judean People's Front and the People's Front of Judea and look elsewhere when it comes to vote as in the video below. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHHitXxH-us

Given the fact that her main advisor started this shit storm with his pro-Israeli arrogance the Monty Python skit is rather delicious.

Pondering

jerrym wrote:

Pondering wrote:

I'm a member and I didn't get the email. I can't find the notice on the site either. Other than that, great news. It seems the "right" hand still doesn't know what the left hand is doing. Paul keeps declaring she has won only to get poked again.

I'm pretty sure the only place the Green Party is headed is left.

I can't see them being able to switch leaders for the upcoming election. Furthermore, with all the prolonged in-fighting going on inside the Greens, even if the 'left' wins later, there will be many within the party or having departed the party whose primary goal will be to sabotage it out of personal animosity or because their desired leader was defeated, ignoring what social and economic goals they share with the other side in the process. How often have we seen this happen in parties across the political spectrum, even when the animosity had not been so consuming? I realize there are important differences on many issues but a lot of voters will see it as a fight between the Judean People's Front and the People's Front of Judea and look elsewhere when it comes to vote as in the video below. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHHitXxH-us

I'm not voting Green nor donating as long as Paul is leader which she probably will be for this election. Even if she were not a new leader wouldn't be elected before the next election. Good news for the NDP I think. 

It's fine if people leave the party as long as they aren't eco-socialist. It's better if they go. The eco-socialists within the party are supporters of Lascaris and Haddad. 

The weaker the party, the better the chance that eco-socialists will be able to elect Lascaris. As an eco-socialist party it is difficult to say if they could get as many votes as they currently do. That would be nice but it isn't the goal, at least not for me. Who knows, maybe they would get even more votes.

For me the only goal right now is for a national eco-socialist party to come into existence. Six months after the election there will be a leadership review at which point Paul can be voted out if she refuses to resign. I predict members will have had enough of her. I imagine it takes around six months to set up and have a leadership contest. During that time it will be important to drive up membership so Lascaris can be elected leader.

Climate change is becoming more dramatic by the year. Maybe people will continue sleep-walking but I have to believe there is at least a chance, and I think it is a good one, that enough people will wake up. The Greta generation could become the most politically active generation in a century. The world has never faced such a monumental threat so history cannot predict. 

Over the next 5 to 15 years I predict that eco-socialism will grow as fast as climate change or faster. As there was for the Quiet Revolution there will come a turning point when the establishment is fully rejected. At that moment there has to be a party, like the PQ, ready to ride the sentiment. 

There will be deadly heatwaves every summer. The fires are going to get worse not better. So will the flooding and droughts. There will be more mass die-offs like the shellfish on the coast of BC. More invasive species both plant and animal will decimate local populations. Climate refugees will increase. Refugees are already treated brutally, left to drown, even children, while billionaires take vanity flights to space. 

It's not going to happen slowly anymore. We have burned exponential amounts of fossil fuels for the past 40 years. 

When people look around for a leader or a party that has not betrayed them we need to have a home ready for them. 

The establishment of the Green Party under May finds eco-socialism far too extreme. They believe they can gain more support by being more moderate while still going left of the NDP. They have significant support. Significant though they may be so is the support of eco-socialism. Many environmentalists recognize the inherent contradiction between neoliberal capitalism and environmental conservation.  Among people who regard the environment as their number one issue I think it is a fairly common viewpoint. 

This is a rare opportunity for eco-socialists to take over an established national party. It's going to take some effort + 10$ for a membership with voting priveledges, which can be done online. If there aren't that many eco-socialists in Canada then we are doomed. 

nicky

A couple days ago Paul proclaimed that the leadership issues were resolved and behind her.

surely she knew they were only temporarily stalled by a arbitration ruling that was going to be challenged.

Granted I am no fan of Paul's, but I am even more put off her by this phony, even deceitful, triumphalism - basically lying that everything is just fine.

cco

I don't think that's unique to the Green Party – remember Trudeau's "Her presence in cabinet speaks for itself!" right before JWR resigned. Pretending everybody on the team loves each other while they're consumed with mutual loathing might be the defining characteristic of partisan politics. (Which isn't to say it isn't amusing in this case.)

Pondering

cco wrote:
I don't think that's unique to the Green Party – remember Trudeau's "Her presence in cabinet speaks for itself!" right before JWR resigned. Pretending everybody on the team loves each other while they're consumed with mutual loathing might be the defining characteristic of partisan politics. (Which isn't to say it isn't amusing in this case.)

Except in this case we are talking major party split. Trudeau's leadership has never been under any threat. 

From the party's constitution:

2.1.5.2

The Leader may be removed from office by motion at a general meeting, following a non-confidence vote supported by 3/4 of Federal Council at a meeting called for that purpose.

 

Paul undermines her own leadership by repeatedly declaring victory without having come to terms with the Palestinian issue. 

She is trying to shut down dissent while maintaining her own position on Israel and Palestine through minimizing her comments so she doesn't directly contradict policy. But, she is required to support policy not just avoid contradicting it. 

Zatzman has doubled down on what he said and Paul refuses to disagree with him. Paul is trying to make it about the Council trying to rule her rather than the Council demanding that she support Green policy which is within their official duties as representatives of the membership. 

I find it interesting that only Global is reporting on this:

https://globalnews.ca/news/8048315/green-party-annamie-paul-legal-action/

The Green Party of Canada Fund said that an arbitrator exceeded their authority when they required party executives to call off their vote of non-confidence against Paul last weekend, according to court filings.

The filings argued that Paul’s employment contract was with the Green Fund and not with the federal council, the latter of which is the main governing body of the party that had tried to boot the green leader.

According to the Canadian Press, the filings said that the arbitrator had no authority to impose orders, like backing down on the non-confidence vote, on the council, which is not connected to Paul’s contract.

https://globalnews.ca/news/8048315/green-party-annamie-paul-legal-action/

So her labour contract must include requiring an arbitrator. Even so I don't think an employment contract can supercede the constitution of the party. She isn't fulfiling her duties. 

This is about more than just the Palestinian issue at this point.  It is about the power of the National Council to force the leader to adhere to party policy. Even if they agreed with her on Palestine and would not have voted non-confidence it is now a fight to the bitter end because she is challenging their power. 

I think the National Council is right. I don't see how an employment arbitrator can override the constitution of a political party. 

robbie_dee

It sounds to me like the resolution to this dispute may involve the Green Party paying Annamie Paul some money (probably her salary for some period of time and possibly some additional damages, depending on the terms of her contract and relevant employment law principles), and she then stepping aside to make way for an interim leader (probably Elizabeth May). It's not the best situation for a party that is short on cash, but going into another election with her as leader is untenable. Also, my understanding is that getting a court to set aside an arbitration award is quite difficult (albeit not impossible). If the Green Party council really wants this to go away before an election they are hopefully going to be talking settlement with Ms. Paul's lawyers and better be prepared to pony up a chunk of cash pretty quickly.

cco

Any conceivable settlement would, I'd think, have to involve an agreement on her part not to trash the Green Party and her successor publicly as racists and anti-semites. Since that's going to be her entire explanation for the failure of her leadership, it'd be a tough pill to swallow – reducing chances of a book deal and Senate seat.

Pondering

Not if the arbitrator overstepped the bounds of their power. To vote in favor of Paul would transfer power in the party from the Federal Council to the leader.  

The constitution gives the federal council the right and responsibility to call a meeting to express non-confidence in the leader. That is the sole mechanism that makes the leader accountable to the membership between leadership reviews. 

How can an employment arbitrator have the right to override the constitution of the party?

I agree that it would be best for the party if she goes ASAP even if it costs them a lot of money. From another perspective it doesn't matter.  If we succeed in transforming the Green Party to an eco-socialist party it will be such a radical change it will dictate how well the party does not old news. 

There will certainly be people who quit the party and/or stop funding it. 

kropotkin1951

I think this analysis of Paul is very good. It is an interesting perspective from the Green heartland on VI. Note however that even this Green opinion piece seems to think that the best path for the Greens is to defeat sitting NDP MP's.

The feud within the Green Party of Canada comes at the worst possible time. Political parties should never air their dirty laundry in public, especially not when Justin Trudeau is expected to within weeks.

But that’s exactly what the Green Party is doing. The party executive just announced they are firing half of the Green Party staff, and a no-confidence vote is scheduled for the party leader. As a result, the Green’s chances of expanding their success into northern Vancouver Island – or anywhere in Canada – are evaporating faster than the Canadian’s lost the Stanley Cup.

I’m sure there is a lot of blame to share around, but the ultimate person responsible for the mess within the Green Party is its leader, Annamie Paul.

Why? Because leaders need to lead, and many of Paul’s problems are self-inflicted wounds.

Not to say that the party executive hasn’t made serious mistakes. Of course they have, but it is the job of a leader to minimize the impact of others’ mistakes, not blow them up as Paul has done.

Let’s examine Paul’s performance against some of the critical traits of a successful leader.

...

Potential Green Party voters on northern Vancouver Island must be gritting their teeth over the timing of Paul’s leadership failures. With heat domes smashing records, algae bloom fouling coastlines, and fires destroying cities, climate change has moved to the top of people’s list of concerns.

Who is better positioned to take advantage of this in a summer or fall election? Certainly not the Green Party.

Instead of ratcheting up their efforts to set up the voter contact systems, train the volunteers, and raise the money to rally the troops for a breakthrough election in ridings like Courtenay-Alberni and North Island-Powell River, Greens are feuding among themselves around issues marginal to their core.

https://vanisle.news/why-green-party-leader-annamie-paul-is-toast/

jerrym

cco wrote:
I don't think that's unique to the Green Party – remember Trudeau's "Her presence in cabinet speaks for itself!" right before JWR resigned. Pretending everybody on the team loves each other while they're consumed with mutual loathing might be the defining characteristic of partisan politics. (Which isn't to say it isn't amusing in this case.)

"Amusing". The worst thing for a politician is to be laughed at. 

Pondering

I have to disagree. I think it completely misses the point of what is happening in the party. It has nothing at all do do with Paul's leadership ability. It is about her refusal to support party policy and her MPs. Lest we forget this is the comment she is refusing to condemn:

Zatzman responded with a Facebook post stating that Greens “will work to defeat you and bring in progressive climate champions who are antifa and pro LGBT and pro indigenous sovereignty and Zionists!!!!!”

https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/fallout-from-greens-feud-continue...

The Green Party is not Zionist. If the Israel/Palestine conflict is so insignificant then Paul should have no trouble supporting party policy and denouncing Zatzman. Keeping him on as advisor is a slap in the face of members and MPs. 

While important from a global human rights perspective, I doubt the ins and outs of the Green Party’s Israel-Palestine policy will be the ballot box issue for many Canadian voters.

Which is why Paul's refusal to support party policy and her rehiring Zatzman as a volunteer has nothing to do with leadership skills. 

The job of the leader in the Green Party is to support policy determined by the membership. 

May and cohorts want to stop Lascaris. They even tried to prevent him from running for the leadership but they failed because he never does anything to give them the justification. He is invariably respectful in his proposals and requests. 

His support within the party, unlike Paul's, is solid because he is a long-standing member that is nationally known. Though not nearly as old he is the Bernie Sanders of the Green Party. May sold Paul to the membership. Had May kept her word and not interfered Lascaris would have won. Granted, one way or another, he lost and percentage wise it wasn't close.

My confidence rests in his policy positions and ability to communicate them. He reminds me of Yanis Varoufakis,

Pondering

A taste of Lascaris proposal for democratization of party governance:

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/dimitrilascaris/pages/983/attachme...

The Party needs to broaden and deepen democratization of the Party both nationally and

locally.

At the national level:

● At our general assemblies (the real governing body of the GPC), full disclosure is

required of the actions and decisions of the Federal Council, of the Executive

committee and of the GPC fund. Such actions and decisions will be subject to

approval by motion by the members.

● General Assemblies require full reports on the conduct of all committees of council

and of caucuses of the party.

● A leadership contest will be held automatically no later than nine months after the

leader has served for two elections.

● The Deputy Leaders and members of Shadow Cabinet will be elected directly by the

members.

● We will use a Canada-wide consultation process with members and relevant

stakeholders to produce key party documents, including a long-term Strategic Plan

and an Annual Plan, to guide the decisions and resourcing of the Federal Council.

● We will reduce the filtering of proposed policy resolutions by Federal Council,

Shadow Cabinet and the Leader:

○ Any policy resolution sponsored by at least 25 GPC members in good

standing will be eligible for submission to a pre-convention online vote.

○ All policy resolutions receiving a stipulated minimum level of member support

in that online vote will be debated and voted upon at convention.

● The Leader will be campaign for and defend all policies adopted by members; and

the Party electoral platform may not contradict any policy duly adopted by members.

If the Leader is unable in good conscience to defend member-approved policies, then

the Leader’s obligation is to resign and to allow another member who agrees with

member-approved policies to assume the role of Leader.

● The number of nominations required to run for election to federal council will be

increased to 20 (from 5) for nominations to regional members, and to 50 (from 20) for

nominations to executive positions.

● We will abrogate the Carver Plan (Policy Governance Model), replacing it with a

parliamentary style governance model.

● We will require more democratic processes for election to the board of the GPC

Fund.

● We will require that no Federal Councillor serve more than 2 consecutive terms, and

that no Federal Councillor be related by marriage or family to any other Federal

Councillor.

Debater
Ciabatta2

While this is all terribly embrassing for Green party insiders, I don't see this as a death knell for their electoral hopes this summer.

Anyone espousing the view that they are turned off the Greens because the recent hoopla shows that these guys couldn't organize a sock drawer (insert stock get off my lawn crank here) wasn't every going to vote for them anyway.

Manly and May aren't going to lose their seats. Atwin did them a favour by defecting because she was at risk of losing hers. Paul has zero expectation to win hers but is within striking distance.

In essence, expectations can't get any lower. So as long as they keep her as leader for the upcoming election, any outcome will be acceptable. And if they improve on their two seats, Paul will be a hero. There is no downside to all the attention Paul has received.

If anything, she's built name recognition over the past few months. And while I don't think the situation reflects well on her (party leader taking part to arbitration to keep their job? What?) or the party (opposing the arbitration outcome? Really?), certainly there must be others that feel she's been unfairly maligned, possibly bullied - and the vast majority of potential Green voters won't have paid attention or won't care.

Does she strike me as a good leader? No. 

But Paul is one well-timed heat wave and a good leader's debate performance from the best come back story Canadian politics has every seen.

eastnoireast

Ciabatta2 wrote:

But Paul is one well-timed heat wave and a good leader's debate performance from the best come back story Canadian politics has every seen.

other than the party's unresolved internal stagnation, and paul's toxic hubris, everything should be fine.

NDPP

From the vantage point of the critical historical challenges they continue to evade,  continuing machinations and power-plays of bourgeois politicians and their empty promises will be the death of us all. Hope something serious, corrective and grassroots positive can be up and running on behalf of our collective survival soon.

Pondering

But Paul is one well-timed heat wave and a good leader's debate performance from the best come back story Canadian politics has every seen.

Unless you call holding steady a come back story I don't think you are right. We just had shellfish cooking on the shores of BC. It won't be worse than that over the next few months. She will get nailed on foreign policy in the debates. "No comment" isn't going to cut it. She will be challenged to uphold Green policy on Israel and she won't do it. She would not repudiate Zatzman because (in my opinion) she is Zionist. During the election period there is no way she will be allowed to "no comment" her way through the Israel issue. There's blood in the water.

The membership voted overwhelmingly in favor of BDS. When May threatened to quit they voted overwhelmingly in favor of an ammendment that still called for economic sanctions against Israel, just not called BDS. 

May was forced to leave behind her "not left not right but forward" position. Paul's platform was decidedly left because it had to be to have any hope of winning the leadership. The Green Party membership will not support Zionism.

melovesproles

Ciabatta2 wrote:

But Paul is one well-timed heat wave and a good leader's debate performance from the best come back story Canadian politics has every seen.

I would bet against that quite confidently. I watched Paul in all the leadership debates and she is way too condescending and arrogant to mount a comeback or improve the Green party's appeal. The Greens picked a very poor communicator. If May and Manly hold on to their seats, it will solely be because they are popular in their ridings. Paul doesn't stand a chance in Toronto Centre. I do agree that the Greens are somewhat lucky that a lot of their support comes from voters that don't pay a lot of attention to politics and are brand-motivated. 

Pondering wrote:

I have to disagree. I think it completely misses the point of what is happening in the party. It has nothing at all do do with Paul's leadership ability. It is about her refusal to support party policy and her MPs. Lest we forget this is the comment she is refusing to condemn:

Zatzman responded with a Facebook post stating that Greens “will work to defeat you and bring in progressive climate champions who are antifa and pro LGBT and pro indigenous sovereignty and Zionists!!!!!”

Yeah, I am amazed how much of the analysis on this misses that point. I think there is also a clear parallel with Mulclair and his attack on Libby Davies and blocking of Manly. In a lot of ways this is just Mulclair 2.0 in a much smaller party. The NDP lost more than half their seats and have never recovered, we could see the same with the Greens. Zionists seem to have a real knack for deep-sixing left of centre parties.

nicky

I doubt if one Canadian voter in a thousand casts his or her vote on the basis of what is happening in Palestine, however egregious that certainly is.
Many voters however are turned off by:

1. Politicians who obsess over issues that have little relevance to their own lives.

2. A party that tears itself apart over such issues.

It is ironic that with the planet literally burning up the Greens are seen to be ignoring their best issue.

melovesproles

The issue must have a fair amount of significance to Mulclair and Paul since they felt it was important enough to attack their own membership and MPs over it-kneecapping their parties. Mulclair handed Nanaimo-Ladysmith to the Greens and his attacks on Libby Davies, one of the best MPs in Parliament, signalled the NDPs increasing hostility to the left under his leadership. Trudeau took advantage of that and the NDP has never got close to the support it had before Mulclair became leader. 

The scale is obviously different-the Greens won't lose as many MPs as the NDP did but the percentage of MPs lost will probably be about the same. One thing in the Greens favour is that there was strong immediate pushback, the NDP membership wasn't able to do anything until after Mulclair had driven the party over a cliff.

robbie_dee

Thanks for posting the court application, Debater. I'd love to see the actual arbitration award if/when that ever becomes public. The fact that this application turns on an apparent jurisdictional question could give the Green Party a slightly higher chance of success but I still believe they will have an uphill battle to overturn an arbitral award in court. Moreover, court challenges take time, which they really don't have.  Absent either a remarkable display of efficiency from the court, which Paul's counsel would probably have to cooperate with at least to some degree, or in the (more likely) alternative: settlement, I expect the Green Party will be going into the next election with Paul as their leader. And while I agree with the posters above that anything can happen in an election, I think an election campaign fought while a party is in the process of suing its leader is going to be a really challenging one for both that party and its leader. I was actually considering voting Green this election but probably won't now.

Pondering

A Green vote is often a vote for "none of the above" + the environment just as a vote for the marijuana party was a vote for "none of the above" and marijuana legalization because it delivers a message about an issue important to the voter.

If a person is simply voting for the environment then party politics doesn't matter at all. The same message gets sent. No one sane actually expects the leader of the Green Party to become Prime Minister and run the country any time soon. 

My guess is that May and Manly will still win their seats which is likely their motivation for trying to stay far away from the controversy.

No significant damage is being done to the party. The loss of votes will be 1 to 3% points plus the one seat they were set to lose anyway. It's just a reset not an implosion. 

It is ironic that with the planet literally burning up the Greens are seen to be ignoring their best issue.

I hear the right-wing lamenting the same thing. Heaven forbid that a political party criticizes Israel without equally condemning the Palestinians in the same breath. Any political party that does so is putting an insignificant foreign conflict ahead of important issues as per the MSM. Certainly not something the NDP will do.

If this issue is so extraneous then whatever position is taken should be equally unimportant. The truth is it is just more propaganda from Zionists who want criticism of Israel off the table. They desperately want to make this about general internal party turmoil, racism, anti-semitism, and loyalty due a leader. 

The leader's advisor's stated goal is to defeat sitting MPs and replace them with Zionists. When he was understandably fired she refused to denounce him AND reinstated him as a volunteer. Her volunteer advisor is a man who wants to defeat Green MPs and replace them with Zionists and has doubled down on that message. 

This next election is insignificant in comparison to the longterm development of the party.  Will it be a one issue party like the establishment wants it to be or will it be a serious contender for power?

We have entered a period of go big or go home. Saving the planet requires radical change so might as well be in for a penny in for a pound. We already have a centre left party in the NDP that moderates its positions for electoral success. We don't need another one. 

Has it hurt the NDP in BC for the Green Party to have had a seat? Was it bad for BC?

I wonder Nicky, where the root of your hostility towards the Green Party lies? I think you consider it a threat to the NDP but it doesn't have to be. And if it is, what is more important, climate change and social justice or the NDP? 

 Luck is when preparation meets opportunity. Much groundwork has been laid to transform the Green Party into a vehicle for eco-socialism which is a natural evolution. Capitalism as we know it is incompatible with rapid transition. There is no free market solution to climate change. Incremental change is not going to cut it. 

I wonder what the environmental cost is of repeated bombing of Palestinian infrastructure. Would that be a more fit topic for the Green Party than the deliberate bombing of civilians including children? 

In my view this shouldn't be a controversial topic. Israel is commiting crimes against humanity. BDS is justified.  I'm grateful to have politicians willing to defend that perspective. 

If there is one thing environmentalists know to be an absolute truth it is that we live on one planet. 

kropotkin1951

Pondering wrote:

I have to disagree. I think it completely misses the point of what is happening in the party. It has nothing at all do do with Paul's leadership ability. It is about her refusal to support party policy and her MPs.

I think that it is very much on point for what is happening to the Green's on Vancouver Island. The core group of activists have made it their mission in life to supplant the NDP. That is what the primary Green focus is and always has been. The Salish Sea is boiling and the whales are all moving to  colder waters and the Green's here are saying they should be taking away votes from the other progressive party. I especially hate it because if they did steal enough NDP votes we get the Conservatives holding two seats on Vancouver Island. The two northern ridings on the Island have gone back and forth between the Cons and NDP many times.

The environment should be the focus not defeating the NDP or backing Israel and defaming Palestinians. Besides this is Canada and until the Green's show the ability to win even one seat in either Ontario or Quebec they are nothing but a fringe party. I like your white knight as well but as far as I am concerned he needs to win a seat in Central Canada before he can become credible.

robbie_dee

So kropotkin, I understand that saying "let's not talk about Israel/Palestine it's so far away and Canada has such a limited impact there anyways" unfortunately ends up being an endorsement of the status quo there. But there are all kinds of horrible things happening all over the world. And indeed imo they all ultimately revolve around certain horrible, general themes, particularly unfettered capitalism and imperialism. I understand that our human survival will ultimately depend on tackling those monsters. But electoral politics is a limited playing field for doing so and it seems so easy to get distracted by one issue or another to miss the forest for the trees. I feel like the best recipe for success, electorally, is to tie your party's appeal to things that your prospective voters are experiencing directly and want to see changed and in Canada it's unfortunately hard for me to see that achieving justice for Palestinians is really the type of issue that will help further that objective by connecting to people outside of a certain bubble. The raging fire in our backyards, on the other hand, is awfully immediate, as is the pandemic that we are still quite in the middle of that (like most human diseases) has its origins in human exploitation of animals. I want to vote for a party that I see talking about those things.

nicky

Pondering, you ask about my hostility to the Greens. Prince Krpotkin has largely answered that before I could.

The Grrens, especially under May, made it their mission to undermine the NDP at every opportunity. Paul in fact announced her major electoral goal as taking seats from the NDP.

It is hard to discern any meaqningful differences between the NDP and the Greens on the environnmeant and the Greens stand to the right of the NDP on most other issues. So I question why we need the Greens except to split the progressive vote.

And Malesproles, you are quite wrong in saying Mulcair handed Nanaimo to the Greens. When he was leader Janet Malcolmson successfully defended the seat.

The big problem for the NDP in Nanaimo was in fact the former MLA Leonard Krog. He resigned his seat in a huff when Horgan would not make him a cabinet minister. It looked like the Liberals would win the by-election and with it would overturn the minority goverbnment. So Malcolmson was recruited to salvage the provincial seat, which she did.

This of course opened up the federal seat for a by-election. Manley won largely because people were sick of NDP musical chairs. I doubt if Mulcair or Palestine influenced a single vote.

 

contrarianna

nicky wrote:

Pondering, you ask about my hostility to the Greens....

The Grrens, especially under May, made it their mission to undermine the NDP at every opportunity....

Having a right-wing shill for the most despicable aspects of New Labour plugging for today's version of the NDP should give pause to those still attached to the current party.

Pondering

We don't need another May/Paul/NDP style Green party. That's the point. As such the party is a waste of space. Until the Green party become an eco-socialist party vote NDP not Green. 

If, however, the Green Party becomes eco-socialist, which is necessary to fight climate change, then the NDP becomes the waste of space, or the Liberals, but certainly not the Greens. 

That you and others want the Green party to be single issue is not the problem of the Greens. If the NDP is having trouble competing with the Greens it is because the NDP is liberal lite. All parties go after each other's seats. You sound just like Paul wanting the NDP to stand down for her and accusing the Liberals of being anti-feminist for poaching an MP. 

There has been nothing and is nothing preventing the NDP from going eco-socialist other than the fact that they would lose almost all their seats. An eco-socialist Green Party is less threat to the NDP than the current rendition.  If you want to help the NDP help turn the Green Party eco-socialist. 

There is a good chance an eco-socialist party won't win any seats at all. May would quit, probably Manly as well, even if they netted considerably more votes country wide. I don't think the eco-socialist vote is concentrated enough in individual ridings to deliver a single seat. 

If you want to weaken the Green Party electorally over the short term then you should be strongly supporting the eco-socialist take over of the federal party and the defeat of Man and Manley.

 

 

kropotkin1951

robbie_dee wrote:

 The raging fire in our backyards, on the other hand, is awfully immediate, as is the pandemic that we are still quite in the middle of that (like most human diseases) has its origins in human exploitation of animals. I want to vote for a party that I see talking about those things.

I do to and on this Island the NDP MP's all take that message to Ottawa already. Now if you want to talk provincial politics that is another matter. But then Svend during the last Battle in the Woods was getting arrested and the BC NDP was in power.

Our system was designed to make major shifts in public policy almost impossible. After all it has always benefited our ruling class so it has worked so far. Given we our in a planet threatening emergency you would think our political class would be meeting to develop joint programs. but alas we are building a pipeline and arresting anyone who tries to stop it.

The politicos are not protesting the insanity they are all to busy trying to get elected. The Liberal's instead of looking to deal with the problems are spending all their energy on getting a four to five year dictatorship so they can rule without consulting any other party. Democracy has proven to be a failed system in the face of these global perils.

We also have money to build military bases outside of Canada for our navy and air force to project NATO power. We are so fucking fucked.

melovesproles

nicky wrote:
And Malesproles, you are quite wrong in saying Mulcair handed Nanaimo to the Greens. When he was leader Janet Malcolmson successfully defended the seat.

Are you seriously trying to say the Greens would have won Nanaimo-Ladysmith with a different candidate? 

2011   

NDP 45% of vote 

Greens (distant 3rd) 7.1% of vote

2015 Mulclair hyped by media to lead NDP to government  blocks Manly. 

NDP 33% of vote (-12% of vote)

Greens 19.75% of vote (+12.58% of vote)

2019

Greens 37.26% of vote (+17.5%)

NDP 23% of vote (-10%)

The trend was clear as soon as Mulclair blocked the nomination of a popular candidate with roots in the riding. What Mulclair did was Herculean, he did what is almost impossible in Canada, he got a Green elected to Parliament.

Paul and Zatzman are just using the Mulclair playbook. At least the Green party is fighting back. Mulclair was able to smear Libby Davies and block Manly with very little resistance. 

Pondering

https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/2021/07/23/green-party-presiden...

Green party president blames Annamie Paul for need to launch a legal challenge

In the email, which was obtained by the Star, Cusmano addresses the legal challenge that the party filed in Ontario Superior Court this week. The party wants the court to overrule private arbitration decisions that blocked a planned confidence vote in Paul’s leadership and suspended a review of her party membership.

Cusmano states in the email that these decisions “ostensibly limit the party’s internal governance and membership review process,” and blames Paul for creating this situation by launching the private arbitration.

“That must be made clear,” Cusmano’s email says. “Secondly, these proceedings, as initiated by Ms. Paul, were meant to be conducted in private without the full view of members. Why the secrecy? You can only ask Ms. Paul.

“As a result, the (Green Party of Canada)’s ability to speak openly about this matter has been constrained.”

This is not about Paul's leadership anymore. It doesn't matter if the council is there for only a few weeks. That cannot be allowed to be a reason for the leader to be able to make a power grab setting a precedence to override policy and internal governance structures. 

edited to add 

The Star contacted all 24 council candidates this week to ask if they support Paul’s leadership. Of the 10 that responded by Friday afternoon, only one — Thomas Trappenburg, who is running for New Brunswick representative — said he supports Paul. But Trappenburg also would not say whether he opposed holding a confidence vote in her leadership because he does not have all the details of the conflict.

Pondering

Do people have a problem with joining the Greens while voting NDP?

jerrym

melovesproles wrote:

The issue must have a fair amount of significance to Mulclair and Paul since they felt it was important enough to attack their own membership and MPs over it-kneecapping their parties. Mulclair handed Nanaimo-Ladysmith to the Greens and his attacks on Libby Davies, one of the best MPs in Parliament, signalled the NDPs increasing hostility to the left under his leadership. Trudeau took advantage of that and the NDP has never got close to the support it had before Mulclair became leader. 

While I support BDS and Palestinian rights and thought Libby Davies was a great MP, I don't see the evidence that Mulcair lost  badly in 2015 over these issues. Yes, there is a group of Palestinian, left wing, and Zionist voters for whom Palestinian rights or Zionism are the predominant issue, but they make up a very small percentage of the population. Its like Northern Ireland in the 1970s to the 1990s. My mother, who was as apolitical as they come, couldn't have her two best friends over on the same night because one was Protestant, whose nephew was killed by a Catholic mob, and the other was married to a former IRA commander, who the English were ordered to shoot on sight, no questions asked, and was therefore sent to Canada to keep him alive and to collect money for the IRA. For most voters this never touched their lives and they never considered it in voting.   Most voters vote on issues that directly affect them. Mulcair, with his Jewish wife, and Paul pushed an issue that they were passionately interested in, but the vast majority of the population does not consider issues not directly related to their lives. Mulcair did not suffer a large loss in vote over this issue. Paul is suffering in the polls not over this issue but because of her failure to deal with her advisor Zatzman threatening 2/3 of their MPs with electoral challenges, thereby threatening the party's immediate future at a time when climate change gives them an opportunity to gain considerable support. 

Mulcairs largest loss of seats came in Quebec where the "NDP dropped 20 points in 48 hours after supporting the niquab" (https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/thomas-mulcair-accepts-responsibility-1...). That rapid decline after leading earlier in the polls, and after already punishing Davies, helped accelerate further declines as people sought out Trudeau to defeat Harper. Mulcair's balanced budget campaign promise also made the NDP appear further to the right than Trudeau with his proposal for a $10 billion deficit (Boy how times have changed on this issue). Mulcair is also a poor campaigner on the personal level because he is socially awkward. While good in a setpiece attack as he was in Parliament's Question Period, watching his acceptance speech for the NDP leadership, his opening comments on stage in the 2015 election, and his awkwardness in the TV debates where he could not always give a rehearsed answer reflect this. For someone, like me, who is much more in issues than presentation, this doesn't make a lot of difference in itself, but it does for many voters as can be seen in the response to Trudeau's warmth and charisma, however insincere they are. After all, most successful politicians are extroverts, although there are exceptions especially when their approach appears to meet the needs of the time, who are smooth in dealing with people. No one ever thought Mulcair was another Jack Layton when it came to personality. 

kropotkin1951

Jack loved to work a room and Tom has a resting bitch face, like many of us.

I think that the niqāb was the last straw but not the main problem. I think that his muzzling, of what on paper looked like the largest progressive caucus every elected from a single province, led to voters seeking a change, to go elsewhere.

eastnoireast

the troubles are not palestine's troubles, although there are of course correlations.

palestine (in a world of billions of oppressed people) punches above it's weight in importance because it's so fucking obvious that it is iconic; personally, i don't think one can be "progressive" and not call it for what it is.  

the battle over bds/sanctions within the greens thus became emblematic of the larger activist vs may/old guard stuggle.  it was slugged out pretty good, with questionable moves by the old gaurd and the activists/dimitri basically winning.  so what we're seeing is the continuation of, and hopefully conclusion of, that.

election or no, there's no point in the greens attempting anything till this is resolved - ie, paul gets turfed -  otherwise, what would the sell be - hi, we're dysfunctional, but we're a pretty green colour?

hell, do the election leaderless, and every canditate "could be the next leader".  the plucky democratic shrub that just gave itself a needed pruning.  come join !  rahrah.

and, palestine is important because it and it's closest oppressor tie into damn near everything.  like green politics in canada.  like governing politics in canada.  and the walrus, and the massey lectures, and every university, and ... 

the greens are a multi-issue party. 

the greens, and i suppose the "communist umbrella" are the two most international of all political parties.

Pages