Green Party coup

592 posts / 0 new
Last post
nicky

Malovesprole, if Mulcair was so unpopular in Nanaimo, why did the NDP only drop 12% there in 2011, while falling the same 12% across the country?
and why did he hold the seat where Singh lost it?
And why did the NDP fall a further 9% in Nanaimo once he was gone?
 

melovesproles

jerrym wrote:

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.

I’m not saying the loss was due to his terrible stance on Palestinian rights but it was directly tied to the way he tried to bend MPs and the membership views to his will and Palestinian rights was a flashpoint just like it has been with Paul and Zatzman and the Greens. Smearing Davies sent a strong message and blocking Manly showed his contempt for the members who nominated him. His support for ‘balanced budgets’ aka austerity was probably more important in completely confusing NDP supporting about what the party stood for anymore, but it is all part of the same hubris that the leader can just impose their will upon the members and MPs without any internal democracy or debate. It is exactly the same problem that Paul has and the biggest difference I can see is that the Greens are pushing back immediately while NDP members had to wait until after the election (which they were promised would bring the party to government if only they followed the media’s advice to keep moving to the ‘centre’) to vote out someone who clearly didn’t hold their values.

melovesproles

nicky wrote:

Malovesprole, if Mulcair was so unpopular in Nanaimo, why did the NDP only drop 12% there in 2011, while falling the same 12% across the country?
and why did he hold the seat where Singh lost it?
And why did the NDP fall a further 9% in Nanaimo once he was gone?

It amazes me how people who are clearly close observers and analysts of politics think each election is it’s own little cordoned-off bubble and put no stock into momentum or positive/negative credibility.

Up until 2015, the NDP had election after election of building momentum and credibility that came at the Liberals' expense. That completely reversed with Mulclair and I hate to break it to you but those things don’t bounce back after one election (if they every do). In fact once the rationale for ‘moving to the centre’ backfires like Mulclair disastrously saying post-2008 financial crisis, the government should focus on ‘balanced budgets’ and allowing Trudeau to outflank him on the left to great success, there has been a negative cascading effect on the NDP’s credibility. That’s why the party has had to switch its message to being a minority government pressure group and can no longer campaign to be a potential government, no one trusts them to be much better than the Liberals anymore. I don’t think a leadership change will be enough. The party needs real reform to get that credibility back.

I don’t know why you are pretending Mulclair didn’t gift the Greens Nanaimo/Ladysmith. Did the NDP’s 12% drop across the country all go directly to the Greens like it did in Nanaimo/Ladysmith?

In 2011 no one was picking Nanaimo/Ladysmith as a Green pickup because they had 7% of the popular vote. Now it’s as safe a seat as the Greens have. If Mulclair hadn’t blocked the ridiing’s nomination, Manly would be sitting as an NDP MP today. Paul might have lost a third of the Green’s MPs, but Mulclair doubled them.

NDPP

GPC Votes - Green Left Canada

https://twitter.com/dimitrilascaris/status/1418637685783138309

"Green Party of Canada members are now voting on policy motions, constitutional amendments and Federal Council elections.

Green Left Canada has issued a list of the motions and candidates whom we support. You can see the list here..."

nicky

Malesproles, it is doubtful that Manley would have won the NDP nomination in Nanaimo in 2011 if his candidacy had been approved. He was opposed by Sheila Malcolmson, a much more estimable figure than him. She would have more likely got the nomination than him.

How did Mulcair "smear" Davies? He said nothing personal about her. He simply disassociated himself from her stance on Palestine. At that time he was not the leader, only the MP for Outremont, a riding with a large Jewish population which disagreed with Davies's position.

And as for Nanaimo being "safe" for the Greens, it is highly likely Manley will lose now that the NDP has got past the dislocations of the Krog affair.

The trend back to the NDP is reflected not just in current polling but in the results of last fall's provincial election where the NDP crushed the Greens in the two Nanaimo seats - by 55% to 23 in Nanaimo and 50% to 30% in Nanaimo-Cowitchen.

Keep in mind as well that the Greens got 15% in the provincial election. Current polling puts them at only about half that level in B.C.

I think Manley is for the high jump.

nicky
nicky

As amusing as it is to witness the Green self-imolation the causes are still quite murky to me.

Who is it who opposes Paul? Is it the left in the party? The so-called "eco-socialists" ? Is Lascaris playing an active role or just beneath the surface, or at all?
 

At the same time Paul seems to be undermined by the right wing in the party exemplified by Elizabeth May. Her husband of course is on the executive which is confronting Paul. Does May want to reclaim the leadership?

So is Paul's leadership being attacked simultaneously by both left and right?
 

If so, it it really a policy matter? Atwin cited Palestine as the reason for her defection but then joined the Liberals and immediately declared her stance on Palestine to be identical with the Liberals which would then align it with Paul's apparent position.

All this makes me think that the feud is not so much concerned with policy as personality. Does Paul have some huge personality issues that the media is reluctant to air? What are they?
 

And who is the Green president, Liana Canton Cusmano, who seems to be the one most conspicuously confronting Paul? What faction is she with and what are her motivations?
 

The Greens remind me of the Soviet politburu where everything happens in secrecy with a few hints seeping out from time to time.

I would be interested in any insights, particularly yours Pondering since you seem to know something of the Greens' inner machinations.

Pondering

Elizabeth May's husband quit the council. 

Zatzman declared his intention to defeat Green MPs and replace them with Zionists. Paul refused to denounce him and kept him on as volunteer when he was fired. 

If Singh declared his alligence to Zionists I doubt he would fair well within the NDP.

I am amused to discover that Nicky is so much farther right than I am. She could almost be a Liberal!

contrarianna

kropotkin1951 wrote:

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...


Really? You must be living on a different Vancouver Island than me.

On Randall Garrison, NDP Defense "critic" Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke

July 22, 2021 · 19:18
Where’s NDP on fighter jet purchase?
....
“As wildfires blaze in western Canada amidst record breaking heat waves, the Liberal government is planning to spend tens of billions of dollars on unnecessary, dangerous, climate destroying fighter jets”, explains a public letter released last week by the Canadian Foreign Policy Institute and Canadian Voice of Women for Peace. The letter was signed by Canadian musicians Neil Young, Teagan and Sarah and Sarah Harmer as well as environmentalists David Suzuki and Naomi Klein. The No New Fighter Jets for Canada statement is also endorsed by authors Michael Ondaatje Yann Martel and Gabor Maté as well as four former NDP MPs, city councillors, a senator, NDP MPP and former leader of the Ontario NDP Stephen Lewis. Prominent international figures such as Roger Waters, Daryl Hannah and Noam Chomsky have also backed a call addressed to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

The Green Party’s two MPs, Elizabeth May and Paul Manly, signed the statement. But no NDP MP was an initiating signatory. (After former NDP foreign affairs critic Svend Robinson complained on Twitter “Is there no NDP MP opposing this outrageous waste?” Leah Gazan signed on.)

I doubt that Matthew Green, Niki Ashton, Alexandre Boulerice or even other less internationalist minded members of the NDP caucus want public resources going to fighter jets over, as the letter puts it, “a just recovery, green infrastructure and investing in Indigenous communities.” But Randall Garrison is the NDP defence critic and he’s a staunch militarist, so they tread carefully on the issue...

https://yvesengler.com/tag/randall-garrison/

and
https://yvesengler.com/2021/04/01/why-the-ndp-needs-a-new-defence-critic/

Although there may be specific NDPers one may be friends with, Garrison's militarism here is not an exception, he is the torch bearer for the NDP power centre, continuing Saint Jack's formal embrace of US/NATO, along with it's imperialism and it's regime change operations.

robbie_dee

If the Green Party did not want their leader's employment rights decided by confidential arbitration they shouldn't have signed an agreement with her providing to that effect. I agree it seems remarkable that an arbitrator would enjoin the Party from engaging in (what I presume is) a constitutional process to let its members decide on the status of her leadership, as opposed to allowing such a process to run and simply ordering that regardless of its outcome she still be paid whatever she is owed. Perhaps the arbitrator went outside the scope of their authority and the court will slap him down. But usually these guys are pretty savvy and presumably both the Party and Paul agreed on the arbitrator (or at least the method for selecting the arbitrator) in advance.  I think that Paul is probably in the drivers seat in terms of deciding what happens now.

melovesproles

nicky wrote:

Malesproles, it is doubtful that Manley would have won the NDP nomination in Nanaimo in 2011 if his candidacy had been approved. He was opposed by Sheila Malcolmson, a much more estimable figure than him. She would have more likely got the nomination than him.

That makes Mulclair micromanaging the riding and blocking Manley's nomination even worse if it was unnecessary. He obviously was scared enough to intervene though.

Look I've answered several of your questions and you've still ducked mine although I've asked it repeatedly. Do you honestly think the Greens would have won Nanaimo-Ladysmith if Manly was not their candidate? Just a yes or no please.

melovesproles

contrarianna wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

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...


Really? You must be living on a different Vancouver Island than me.

On Randall Garrison, NDP Defense "critic" Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke

July 22, 2021 · 19:18
Where’s NDP on fighter jet purchase?
....
“As wildfires blaze in western Canada amidst record breaking heat waves, the Liberal government is planning to spend tens of billions of dollars on unnecessary, dangerous, climate destroying fighter jets”, explains a public letter released last week by the Canadian Foreign Policy Institute and Canadian Voice of Women for Peace. The letter was signed by Canadian musicians Neil Young, Teagan and Sarah and Sarah Harmer as well as environmentalists David Suzuki and Naomi Klein. The No New Fighter Jets for Canada statement is also endorsed by authors Michael Ondaatje Yann Martel and Gabor Maté as well as four former NDP MPs, city councillors, a senator, NDP MPP and former leader of the Ontario NDP Stephen Lewis. Prominent international figures such as Roger Waters, Daryl Hannah and Noam Chomsky have also backed a call addressed to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

The Green Party’s two MPs, Elizabeth May and Paul Manly, signed the statement. But no NDP MP was an initiating signatory. (After former NDP foreign affairs critic Svend Robinson complained on Twitter “Is there no NDP MP opposing this outrageous waste?” Leah Gazan signed on.)

I doubt that Matthew Green, Niki Ashton, Alexandre Boulerice or even other less internationalist minded members of the NDP caucus want public resources going to fighter jets over, as the letter puts it, “a just recovery, green infrastructure and investing in Indigenous communities.” But Randall Garrison is the NDP defence critic and he’s a staunch militarist, so they tread carefully on the issue...

https://yvesengler.com/tag/randall-garrison/

and
https://yvesengler.com/2021/04/01/why-the-ndp-needs-a-new-defence-critic/

Although there may be specific NDPers one may be friends with, Garrison's militarism here is not an exception, he is the torch bearer for the NDP power centre, continuing Saint Jack's formal embrace of US/NATO, along with it's imperialism and it's regime change operations.

Yeah I do take issue with the idea that Canadians are unable to see the connection between climate change and a fuel-chugging chemical and pollutant spreading military that sucks up billions of public funds while poisoning the planet. It's actually a very easy argument to make and understand. It's shameful the NDP hasn't been making it.

kropotkin1951

nicky wrote:

Malovesprole, if Mulcair was so unpopular in ç, why did the NDP only drop 12% there in 2011, while falling the same 12% across the country?
and why did he hold the seat where Singh lost it?
And why did the NDP fall a further 9% in Nanaimo once he was gone?

Because Mulcair was largely irrelevant to the Nanaimo situation. People on this Island do not vote NDP because of the leader. Our campaigns in Burnaby Douglas, when Saint Jack led the party, always threw the boxes of Elect Jack posters into a dark corner of the office were they deserved to be. Tom Mulcair destroyed the NDP for at least a generation in his home province. People on VI didn't like his austerity, balance the budget message but that didn't stop them from voting for the most viable progressive options for MP's, who were mostly NDP.

kropotkin1951

contrarianna wrote:

Although there may be specific NDPers one may be friends with, Garrison's militarism here is not an exception, he is the torch bearer for the NDP power centre, continuing Saint Jack's formal embrace of US/NATO, along with it's imperialism and it's regime change operations.

I totally agree with this analysis.

kropotkin1951

I left federal politics as a volunteer when Bill Siksay was treated shamefully by Jack and the Ottawa cabal. He was proposing a Ministry of Peace and was actively advocating a "peace portfolio" as a caucus critic area. My current MP is great on local environmental and indigenous issues but lets people like Garrison advise him on foreign affairs. Last election my wife and I supported him financially but since he was one of the 266 sheep who bought into the anti-China rhetoric he is getting no money and no sign location and I have told his office that. He will still get my vote because of the stupid system we live in if he lost votes to the Greens then I likely get a Conservative MP.

NDPP

Re #415: Yes.

"Listen to Radhika Desai explain Green Left to Chris Cook on Gorilla Radio @CFUV: an ecosocialist movement not a party, starting from 13:30 here..."

https://twitter.com/GreenLeftCanada/status/1418974034180681735

Pondering

robbie_dee wrote:

If the Green Party did not want their leader's employment rights decided by confidential arbitration they shouldn't have signed an agreement with her providing to that effect. I agree it seems remarkable that an arbitrator would enjoin the Party from engaging in (what I presume is) a constitutional process to let its members decide on the status of her leadership, as opposed to allowing such a process to run and simply ordering that regardless of its outcome she still be paid whatever she is owed. Perhaps the arbitrator went outside the scope of their authority and the court will slap him down. But usually these guys are pretty savvy and presumably both the Party and Paul agreed on the arbitrator (or at least the method for selecting the arbitrator) in advance.  I think that Paul is probably in the drivers seat in terms of deciding what happens now.

Arbitration is probably part of her original labour contract with the Green Party Fund.  She has no contract with the Green Party. They are two separate legal entitities. The Party is arguing that the Green Party Fund has no jurisdiction over the Green Party.

It seems like a reasonable argument to me. It would make no sense for the Green Party Fund to have authority over the party in any thing other than allocation of funds and that at the behest of the party.

The way I read what is happening is:

  • Zatzman made his comment stating that he wanted to defeat sitting MPs and replace them with Zionists which Paul did not repudiate.
  • The National Council fired Zatzman and demanded that Paul denouce him or face a vote of non-confidence. 
  • Paul refused and kept Zatzman on as volunteer advisor. 
  • Paul used the arbitration clause in her contract with the Green Party Fund to argue that the National Council did not have the authority to demand that she make a specific announcement. 
  • The arbitrator ruled in her favor based on her labour G with the Green Party Fund which likely says nothing about the National Council having the power to dictate her words and which requires confidenciality. 
  • The Green Party appeals to the Ontario Supreme Court arguing that the arbitrator overstepped the bounds of their power in dictating to the National Council.

My take is that while it may be true that the Council cannot dictate words or actions to the leader it is also true that they are tasked with voting non-confidence in the leader if they lose confidence for whatever reason. The Constitution doesn't lay out any special criteria that the Council has to meet before holding such a vote other than the meeting must be specifically for that purpose. This does not result in ousting the leader. It triggers a vote by the membership in which the leader must obtain 60% approval. 

Preventing the council from having a vote of non-confidence which then goes to the membership for any reason seems well outside the scope of an arbitrator. 

nicky

1. Prince is unfair in saying Mulcair destroyed NDP prospects in Quebec for a generation. He retained a quarter of the vote and 16 MPs which looks pretty good today.

His personal popularity in Quebec remained high and if he were still the leader in 2019 the NDP would have done hugely better than they did.

What did cripple the NDP in Quebec was the repudiation of Mulcair at the Edmonton convention. He had been endorsed by EVERY Quebec NDP MP. After he was ousted support in Quebec evaporated.

2. To answer MeLovesproles' question: Manley was certainly a strong local candidate for the Greens but that alone did not win them the seat. He lost by a wide margin when he ran in 2019. His win in the by-election was largely a reaction to the unseemly NDP game of musical chairs caused by the Krog resignation from the legislature. Could another green candidate have won? Maybe but he or she would likely not have done as well as Manley.

Let me ask you, and especially other from Van Is, this: what are Manley's prospects for re-election?

nicky

1. Prince is unfair in saying Mulcair destroyed NDP prospects in Quebec for a generation. He retained a quarter of the vote and 16 MPs which looks pretty good today.

His personal popularity in Quebec remained high and if he were still the leader in 2019 the NDP would have done hugely better than they did.

What did cripple the NDP in Quebec was the repudiation of Mulcair at the Edmonton convention. He had been endorsed by EVERY Quebec NDP MP. After he was ousted support in Quebec evaporated.

2. To answer MeLovesproles' question: Manley was certainly a strong local candidate for the Greens but that alone did not win them the seat. He lost by a wide margin when he ran in 2019. His win in the by-election was largely a reaction to the unseemly NDP game of musical chairs caused by the Krog resignation from the legislature. Could another green candidate have won? Maybe but he or she would likely not have done as well as Manley.

Let me ask you, and especially other from Van Is, this: what are Manley's prospects for re-election?

Pondering

Mulcair managed to be more of a Liberal than even Trudeau. 

A strong Green Party could help out the NDP if the point is just to win. 

The past, Conservatives were centre right, Liberals were centre left, the NDP was left.

The future, Conservatives far right, Liberals centre right, NDP centre left, Greens far left. 

So far my theory seems to be progressing as expected. The Conservatives are going to join the Republicans as unelectable nationally. 

The two main parties will become the Liberals and the NDP.  The Conservatives will remain much stronger than the Greens, akin to the old NDP but on the right. Their electoral approach will be similar but from the right. That is, they will run on stopping the Liberals from going too far left. 

The Greens will replace the NDP as the party of revolution as the NDP left that identity far in the past. 

melovesproles

nicky wrote:

To answer MeLovesproles' question: Manley was certainly a strong local candidate for the Greens but that alone did not win them the seat. 

[snip]

Could another green candidate have won? Maybe but he or she would likely not have done as well as Manley.

I think that's highly unlikely. The Green's don't win Nanaimo-Ladysmith without Manly as their canddiate. And they don't have Manly as their candidate if Mulclair doesn't block his nomination. Spin away, but Mulclair doubled the Green's MP count.

nicky wrote:
He lost by a wide margin when he ran in 2019.

Voter preference is often very stable and it's extremely hard for fringe parties to break through. The Greens were at 7% of the vote share before Manly and a pure protest vote. After Manly became the Green candidate the NDP lost 12% and the Greens gained 12% bumping the Green's percentage of the vote to 20%. Suddenly, voters who wanted to elect a candidate, and not just make a statement by throwing their vote away on the Greens, had an option. Saying the Krog riding juggle was the more important factor ignores that the Greens weren't even a factor before Manly became their candidate.

Quote:
Let me ask you, and especially other from Van Is, this: what are Manley's prospects for re-election?

I never said he was a safe win, I said he is as safe as the Greens have other than May. Theirs are the only two seats the Greens have any potential to win in the next election. It helps that Manly has a strong connection to the riding and that he is not associated with Paul. I would put his prospects at retaining the seat as fair.

On an anecdotal level, my parents just moved to the riding and they have always voted NDP federally and regularly donate to the party but voted Green in the last provincial election. They are unhappy with Horgan's environmental record and I think it will be fairly easy to convince them to vote for the Greens in the upcoming election because of Manly's historical connection to the NDP and the reason he left.

cco

nicky wrote:

1. Prince is unfair in saying Mulcair destroyed NDP prospects in Quebec for a generation. He retained a quarter of the vote and 16 MPs which looks pretty good today.

His personal popularity in Quebec remained high and if he were still the leader in 2019 the NDP would have done hugely better than they did.

What did cripple the NDP in Quebec was the repudiation of Mulcair at the Edmonton convention. He had been endorsed by EVERY Quebec NDP MP. After he was ousted support in Quebec evaporated.

Have you ever set foot in Quebec? Serious question. I've explained a few times on babble that I was part of the Quebec delegation at that convention, went there with the express purpose of getting Mulcair out, and I was far from alone. This narrative that Quebecers were so wounded by the NDP's rejection of Mulcair that we all swung to the Liberals is utterly disconnected from reality.

I see the appeal of the narrative for the right-wingers in the party establishment like Anne McGrath, who are convinced that the party should have no policies whatsoever and should simply be a personality vehicle. The simple fact is that Mulcair took the NDP from 59 seats in Quebec down to 16, that he and his staffers bullied and alienated not only caucus but everyone down to volunteers on the ground, and that many, many people I know and respect (in Quebec, to reiterate) left the party when he was leader, figuring that there was no point in replacing one right-wing bully at 24 Sussex with another. The conservative provincial party he came from, incidentally, is currently polling at 4th place among Quebec francophones.

The cause of the NDP's decline in Quebec is very simple: an attitude from both Mulcair and Singh, and their close advisers, that the NDP shouldn't actually care about Quebec's priorities, but should devote its time to explaining to Quebecers that they're racist for speaking French and not going to church. It's an attitude that treats the Quebec voter as uniquely toxic, ignorant, and tolerated by the enlightened anglo establishment only because some idiot accidentally let Quebec have 78 seats in the House of Commons. (One look at Mulcair's editorials in anglo media over the past year will make this blatantly obvious.) As long as the attitude persists, the NDP has given up on Quebec, and party HQ seems quite comfortable with this – certainly more comfortable than if they had to adopt some kind of left-wing policies.

nicky

I was at the Edmonton convention as well. Although there was a small minority from Quebec who voted against Mulcair the vast majority was in his corner. 
I don't think you can name one of the 16 MPs who did not back him. The collapse of the party in Quebec during the 2015 election was largely because of the Niqab issue exploding when it did. Up to that point the NDP had a strong lead in Quebec.

Ifyou were right and Mulcair alienated the province, why did he maintain such strong support until blindsided by the Niqab ruling?

Ken Burch

nicky wrote:

I was at the Edmonton convention as well. Although there was a small minority from Quebec who voted against Mulcair the vast majority was in his corner. 
I don't think you can name one of the 16 MPs who did not back him. The collapse of the party in Quebec during the 2015 election was largely because of the Niqab issue exploding when it did. Up to that point the NDP had a strong lead in Quebec.

Ifyou were right and Mulcair alienated the province, why did he maintain such strong support until blindsided by the Niqab ruling?

It isn't possible to lose more than half of your party's seats in your first campaign as leader and then ever lead it to any significant gains in the second.  Also, Mulcair was never going to lead the NDP to any popularity again if

1) He was going to stay with the balanced budget pledge- pledging a balanced budget means pledging perpetual austerity and the only reason people would ever vote NDP was to elect an anti-austerity government that sizably increased social benefits while creating major progress in building a more egalitarian society;

2) He unquestioningly supported the foreign policy status quo, which was never going to gain any votes for the NDP because people who support that foreign policy status quo, as has repeatedly been shown, are never going to vote NDP no matter what;

3) He could never lead the party to a comeback in Quebec if he kept it totally isolated from the Quebec student left-nobody who opposed the student protests ever would ever vote anything but Liberal or Conservative or "A Few People's Party"- and Idle No More- again, nobody whose against indigenous rights anywhere in Canada would ever vote anything but Con or Liberal or "A Few People's Party";

4) He was never going to lead the party to a comeback if he kept treating the activists who are the party's backbone with contempt- there was no good reason for Mulcair to keep blocking them from debating and passing policy resulutions at the annual convention and no good reason to keep them voiceless in party governance and policy direction, and no good reason to keep any of the Hill and Knowlton types NDPP so rightly denounces in any positions of influence in the party's campaign apparatus at all, given that it's not even clear that such people would ever WANT to elect an NDP government;

And yes, Singh led the party to MORE losses- but it's worth noting that Singh was the candidate the "Change Nothing Caucus" in the party insisted on as Mulcair's successor, so his failure in 2019 is clearly on the heads of the stay-the-course types.  The party is only doing better now because he has finally distanced himself from Mulcair.

 

Pondering

May and Manly have both distanced themselves from Paul so I don't see why they wouldn't get re-elected. Some people will want to save the Green Party. 

Ken Burch

Pondering wrote:

May and Manly have both distanced themselves from Paul so I don't see why they wouldn't get re-elected. Some people will want to save the Green Party. 

True.  

The NDP should also encourage its candidates in Saanich-Gulf Islands and Nanaimo-Ladysmith to stand as ecosocialists, and should allow the same for every NDP incumbent standing for re-election on Vancouver Island.

kropotkin1951

Pondering wrote:

May and Manly have both distanced themselves from Paul so I don't see why they wouldn't get re-elected. Some people will want to save the Green Party. 

May's seat if she runs again is safe for her. If she does not run it all depends on the quality of the respective NDP and Green candidates.

Manley's seat is also reasonably safe for him. I don't live in his riding but if he has good proactive staff working with community groups then incumbents have a big advantage. Also Paul will be like Svend or Bill and get donations from across the country. If I am a Green voter in another province and I want a voice in parliament I will be donating to his campaign. Having a donor base from outside a single riding is a big advantage. Our campaigns in Burnaby Douglas always were able to spend what was needed, unlike other ridings with good candidates.

nicky

I'm trying to get a grip on the Mulcair Derangement Syndrome so prevalent here.

If I understand it right:

1. Even tho the NDP won Nanaimo in 2015 when he was leader, Mulcair was responsible for them losing it in 2019 when he was not leader.

2. Even tho the NDP won 16 seats in Quebec in 2015 when he was leader, Mulcair is responsible for them losing 15 of those seats in 2019 when he was not leader.

There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in thy psephology, MeLovesproles (and Ken.)

melovesproles

nicky wrote:

I'm trying to get a grip on the Mulcair Derangement Syndrome so prevalent here.

If I understand it right:

1. Even tho the NDP won Nanaimo in 2015 when he was leader, Mulcair was responsible for them losing it in 2019 when he was not leader.

I find it hilarious you are struggling with this. Not a big fan of logic I guess.

a) If the Greens couldn't have won Nanaimo-Ladysmith without Manley.

and

b) The reason Manly ran for the Greens is because Mulclair blocked his nomination.

How is Mulclair not responsibile?  Is A+B too complicated for you to follow? The fact that you think there were other mitigating circumstances only matters if A isn't true. Which means you think that a party with 7% of the vote share before Manly became the candidate was going to beat the NDP because Leonard Krog resigned his seat. That's weak analysis.

nicky wrote:

2. Even tho the NDP won 16 seats in Quebec in 2015 when he was leader, Mulcair is responsible for them losing 15 of those seats in 2019 when he was not leader.

Of course when Mulclair was leader, he inherited a party that had been making gains every election and for the first time in its history had become Official Opposition. That makes it easier for people to suck it up and hope that the promised land of government was worth the party continually moving to the centre. Of course when that completely backfires and Trudea capitalizes by outflanking Mulclair on the left, the party's centrist leadership is totally discredited. Why anyone would think that this would have no effect on NDP future election results, I have no idea. 

Ken Burch

nicky wrote:

I'm trying to get a grip on the Mulcair Derangement Syndrome so prevalent here.

If I understand it right:

1. Even tho the NDP won Nanaimo in 2015 when he was leader, Mulcair was responsible for them losing it in 2019 when he was not leader.

2. Even tho the NDP won 16 seats in Quebec in 2015 when he was leader, Mulcair is responsible for them losing 15 of those seats in 2019 when he was not leader.

There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in thy psephology, MeLovesproles (and Ken.)

The point is that

1) the massive losses the NDP suffered under Mulcair in 2015 prove that the party was doomed never to make any comeback at all while Mulcair was leader, and that therefore there was no justification for Mulcair trying to stay on after the 2015 election AT ALL, or any justification for his not resigning immediately after he was repudiated by the delagates in Edmonton. 

2) While the party did hold Nanaimo-Esquimalt in 2015, it only lost it because Mulcair's heavy-handed treatment of Manly- something Manly did nothing at all to deserve- is why  Manly switched to the Greens and took a much higher vote share for the party in the '15 contest, which is itself the only reason the Greens, with Manly as candidate, took the seat at the by-election.  There is no way that that was caused entirely by the musical chairs thing- voters don't care that much about trivialities like who holds the provincial seat vs who holds the federal seat.

3) Mulcair set the stage for the NDP collapse in '15 by distancing the party from supporting anything where the Left was showing energy and growth.  Going into the '15 campaign, the only votes the NDP could pick up compared to '11 were people who would want real change but hadn't voted in '11- he was never going to pick up any votes from anyone who'd insist that any government stay the course on discredited, useless right-wing delusions like balanced budgets and keeping taxes low for the SAKE of keeping taxes low- people who wanted that were never going to vote NDP.  People who opposed Idle No More were never going to vote NDP.  People who opposed the Quebec students were never going to vote NDP- and guess what- it 2015, nobody who opposed the Quebec students or Idle No More voted NDP anywhere in the country.  2015 proved that the NDP could never win a federal election on "respectability politics".  2019, where Singh stayed with respectability politics and kept the party totally distanced from activists and activism, proved it again.

There was simply no case at all for keeping Thomas Mulcair as leader of the NDP for the 2019 election.  Everyone knew he wouldn't have led the party to any gains anywhere and likely would have led them to just as many losses as Singh did.

Why even pretend otherwise?

Mulcair proved that "respectability politics" was a dead end for the NDP...just as Ed Broadbent proved it in 1988 when he refused to campaign against NAFTA during the election and refused to promote any transformative vision of the future...and I say that as someone who liked Broadbent...and just as David Lewis proved it when he spent his entire tenure telling the entire Quebec Left to go to hell-there was no such thing as a left-federalist in Quebec by 1971 and Lewis knew he was dooming the party to years in the political wilderness there by refusing to support Quebec self-determination, just as he was driving its vote down by refusing to work with left activists and treating them like they were all in the CP or something...

It's not about Mulcair...it's about the futility of "respectability".

 

nicky

So when the NDP dropped overnight in Quebec from 45 to 25% in mid Sept 2015 that had nothing to do with the Niqab ruling which coincidentally landed at that time?
 

It was because Quebecers overnight at the same time suddenly realized Mulcair was not left wing enough for them?
Do I have that right Ken?

Or did they suddenly also remember at the same time the perfidies of David Lewis from decades before?

Mighty Middle

kropotkin1951 wrote:

 but since he was one of the 266 sheep who bought into the anti-China rhetoric

I'm glad someone has said this. For the longest time I have distrubed by the anti-China rehtoric by the Conservatives and surprised that the NDP would jump in. In fact I was disappointed with Jenny Kwan voting for this as well.

Ken Burch

nicky wrote:

So when the NDP dropped overnight in Quebec from 45 to 25% in mid Sept 2015 that had nothing to do with the Niqab ruling which coincidentally landed at that time?
 

It was because Quebecers overnight at the same time suddenly realized Mulcair was not left wing enough for them?
Do I have that right Ken?

Or did they suddenly also remember at the same time the perfidies of David Lewis from decades before?

If it was "the Niqab ruling" why was the dramatic collapse in Quebec almost entirely a swing from the NDP, a party that opposed the anti-niqab frenzy, to the Liberals, who also opposed the anti-niqab frenzy?  Your argument would make sense if the swing had been from the NDP to the Cons or the Bloc- both of whom were openly Islamophobic in that campaign- but it's absurd to acribe it to the niqab when the swing was to a party that took the exact same position on the issue as the NDP.

Also, I didn't blame David Lewis for the 2015 result- nobody can personally cost their party votes in an election held a third of a century after their own death, obviously- but for the fact that he made Quebec a no-go zone for the NDP from his election as leader until at least the Chambly by-election by committing it to a hardline federalist position in a time when federalism was becoming a reactionary, antiworker position in Quebec.  

Can anyone really deny that Lewis' intransigent opposition to Quebec self-determination did the party massive electoral damage for decades in a place where they were going to have to make a breakthrough if they were to get out of third-party status?  That Mulcair's refusal to back the Quebec students and his more-or-less renunciation of the Sherbrooke Declaration hurt the party there in '15?

In both cases, what failed was "respectability politics", just as respectability politics in the hands of Annamie Paul is holding the Greens back from the significant breakthrough that party could make as an antiwar, anti-austerity party that backed the Green New Deal.

Pondering

Whether or not Mulcair was responsible for the loss of seats he was more Conservative/Liberal than NDP. The niqab wasn't the turning point, the deficit was, but had it not been that it would have been something else. Mulcair was and is a really nice man but he is not NDP material. 

The NDP is benefiting greatly by the implosion of the Green Party but it won't last forever. They will survive this and regroup under a new leader. The party may or may not become eco-socialist but it is more certainly moving left.  I'm totally good with the NDP going eco-socialist I just don't see it happening. 

nicky

So if the Niqab was irrelevant to the decline of the NDP in Quebec, how come Mulcair was dominating Quebec until the Niqab ruling came out about Sept. 13?

nicky

Pondering

The Liberals took the same position as the NDP defending the right of women to wear the niqab yet somehow they won anyway. 

robbie_dee

I think the psephology of the NDP vote in 2015 and 2019 is interesting and the ultimate outcome was the result of a variety of moving parts. With respect to Nanaimo Ladysmith specifically,  it seems obvious that without Paul Manly's exclusion as an NDP candidate in 2015, he would not likely have run as a Green Party candidate at all much less ended up being the successful one in the 2019 byelection and subsequent general election. And it also seems obvious that his victory in the byelection was an important one for the Green Party to demonstrate its ability to compete outside of the one solitary seat it previously held. It is still just one seat though. I don't know enough about the situation on the ground to predict whether he's been an effective enough constituency M.P. that he will be able to withstand a more general turn of the tide against his party. But I do think that turn is coming right now based on the party's total organizational disarray. Whether Manly survives or not, this election is nonetheless shaping up to be a disaster for the Greens who should have been looking to add another seat or two in B.C., expand their beachhead in Atlantic Canada and perhaps even to break into the all important Ontario heartland. What a shame.

josh

nicky wrote:

I'm trying to get a grip on the Mulcair Derangement Syndrome so prevalent here.

If I understand it right:

1. Even tho the NDP won Nanaimo in 2015 when he was leader, Mulcair was responsible for them losing it in 2019 when he was not leader.

2. Even tho the NDP won 16 seats in Quebec in 2015 when he was leader, Mulcair is responsible for them losing 15 of those seats in 2019 when he was not leader.

There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in thy psephology, MeLovesproles (and Ken.)

Are you a Thatcher fan the way he is?  And Blair.

jerrym

Mighty Middle wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

 but since he was one of the 266 sheep who bought into the anti-China rhetoric

I'm glad someone has said this. For the longest time I have distrubed by the anti-China rehtoric by the Conservatives and surprised that the NDP would jump in. In fact I was disappointed with Jenny Kwan voting for this as well.

And you're not upset with the fact that Trudeau "reacted angrily to China’s calls for an investigation into the discovery of the remains of indigenous children at the site of a former boarding school in Canada." (https://www.smh.com.au/world/asia/as-un-members-ask-about-uighurs-china-...) ?

Ken Burch

josh wrote:

nicky wrote:

I'm trying to get a grip on the Mulcair Derangement Syndrome so prevalent here.

If I understand it right:

1. Even tho the NDP won Nanaimo in 2015 when he was leader, Mulcair was responsible for them losing it in 2019 when he was not leader.

2. Even tho the NDP won 16 seats in Quebec in 2015 when he was leader, Mulcair is responsible for them losing 15 of those seats in 2019 when he was not leader.

There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in thy psephology, MeLovesproles (and Ken.)

Are you a Thatcher fan the way he is?  And Blair.

Nicky seems to be.  And remember, Blair's first guest at 10 Downing Street after becoming prime minister was Thatcher- which means that Blair and all of those who want Labour to go back to his policies are supporters of Thatcherism, holding to the delusion that Thatcherite economics and humane social values can co-exist- spoiler alert: they can't, and the only parts of Blair's tenure that were successful were those that stepped gingerly away from Thatcher's economic policies.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

If they succeeded I'd cream my jeans but what percentage of support will they get? 5%? 10%?

This is just going to cost the NDP supporters and we will remain what we have been for 100 years....a 2 party system. Hold your nose and vote for the better of the 2.

Business as usual.

JKR

nicky wrote:

So if the Niqab was irrelevant to the decline of the NDP in Quebec, how come Mulcair was dominating Quebec until the Niqab ruling came out about Sept. 13?

I think the biggest factor in the NDP's downturn was Trudeau's underlying popularity. When Trudeau became Liberal leader the Liberals moved into first place in the party standings and the NDP fell back into 3rd. Before the 2015 Election the NDP made a comeback but that evaporated when Trudeau proved he could simply compete with Mulcair and Harper. Harper and Mulcair depended on framing Trudeau as "just not ready" and when Trudeau proved otherwise he had a big advantage.Moreover,  Trudeau's outflanking Mulcair on the left was the key to the Liberals winning the 2015 Election. Mulcair's and Hardee's condescending attitudes toward Trudeau also helped Trudeau win the 2015 Election. 

 

Pondering

robbie_dee wrote:
But I do think that turn is coming right now based on the party's total organizational disarray. Whether Manly survives or not, this election is nonetheless shaping up to be a disaster for the Greens who should have been looking to add another seat or two in B.C., expand their beachhead in Atlantic Canada and perhaps even to break into the all important Ontario heartland. What a shame.

It’s not a shame. Turmoil can be a good thing as long as it is non-violent and democratic.

I have read time and time again condemnations of the Green Party for being too right wing. A centrist Green Party was an oxymoron. Neoliberalism is not compatible with saving the planet. We need a party that can propose genuine solutions to climate change and inequality.

The Green Party should be eco-socialists because anyone who has the faintest understanding of the challenges we are facing knows that we require radical change in the form of rapid and massive investment in sustainable infrastructure for living and travel. Only socialism can save us. We can’t just tweak the system around the edges.

An eco-socialist take-over of the party is democracy at work because socialism goes hand in hand with environmentalism. You can’t have one without the other.

In the short term it helps the NDP which is our best hope for holding the Liberals to a minority. It's win win. 

jerrym

alan smithee wrote:

If they succeeded I'd cream my jeans but what percentage of support will they get? 5%? 10%?

This is just going to cost the NDP supporters and we will remain what we have been for 100 years....a 2 party system. Hold your nose and vote for the better of the 2.

Business as usual.

And look at what the US ended up with by keeping the two party system. I can't take the stink.

Pondering

Whether or not it takes votes from the NDP will not define whether or not the NDP wins power. If the NDP were that close to power strategic voting would put them over the top. 

If eco-socialism fails we are screwed. It's out of style now but political parties have to work to earn support rather than relying on the other guy to mess up so badly that voters have no choice. 

The NDP is not an eco-socialist party. They are free to choose to be so. Denying eco-socilalists a home suppresses the youth vote. It doesn't automatically go to the NDP. 

nicky

"Eco-socialist" has become the flavour of the day here.

Perhaps someone can define it and how Lascaris's policies differentiate him from the rest of the Greens and from the NDP. And from the Peoples' Front of Judaea for that matter?

 

Pondering

 

Ecosocialism maintains that:

The ecological crisis is grounded in the inherent contradictions and irrationality of unfettered neo-liberal corporate capitalism; the solutions lie in eco-socialist alternatives which can reverse the current destructive trajectory and deliver a just and green prosperity.

Eco-socialist alternatives:

Eco-socialism is a movement that recognizes that the main cause of the current ecological crisis—and of much other human suffering — is capitalism, and its distorted and irrational demand for perpetual growth.

An eco-socialist society, by contrast, is characterized by eight key conditions:

  1. a green, sustainable economy
  2. the elimination of poverty, homelessness and extreme wealth
  3. democratic control of industries that are essential to the well-being of the people
  4. the elimination of discrimination in all its forms
  5. recognition of the oppressive legacies of settler-colonial states and active solidarity with the leadership of Indigenous groups
  6. free access to healthcare, education and legal representation
  7. an unwavering commitment to non-violence, both in domestic affairs and in international relations
  8. a commitment to promote peace and disarmament, and the delegitimization of war

That is from the GreenLeft site but defines ecosocialism in general.  I will address how Lascaris specifically differs from others in my next post. 

Pondering

Lascaris' incomplete platform is here:

https://greenleft.ca/en/platform/

Excerpt from it:

  • End Sanctions that harm the Innocent. Criticise and end Canada’s acquiescence in the US withdrawal from the nuclear deal with Iran and the US inhuman sanctions on Iran, Cuba and Venezuela.
  • Resist the annexation. Impose political, military and economic sanctions on Israel for its illegal occupation and settlement.
  • For the universal application of international law. Demand that the International Criminal Court (ICC) end its exclusive focus on war crimes committed by the American government’s official enemies. American and other western state war criminals must be made equally accountable for their crimes.
  • Stop exporting arms. Cancel the Saudi arms deal and impose a ban on trading in arms with all states that do not comply with UN Human Rights protocols and any states whose governments are engaged in violations of such human rights.
  • Total nuclear disarmament. Accede immediately to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.
  • Resume relations with Iran. Restore diplomatic relations with Iran as desired by Iranian Canadians, ending our complicity in US led efforts to target Iran.

 

Pondering

Eco-socialism and Lascaris' proposals are so extreme that May will quit the party if he becomes leader. She was prepared to resign over BDS. If that happens it is likely the Greens will lose the seats they have even while possibily eventually getting a higher vote share through attracting new voters but they could easily drop to a few percentages. 

Canadians are no where near adopting eco-socialism. The Greens will not be an electoral threat short term and maybe not even long term.

The value in having an eco-socialist party in Canada is multi-fold.

Just as Occupy put income inequality into mainstream conversation so too with an eco-socialist party expand consciousness of what we need to do to address climate change. 

I believe that eco-socialism is our sole avenue to survival. It's just a matter of how bad it has to get before people revolt as they have throughout history. When people are looking to revolt a leader will emerge. It is said that luck is when preparation meets opportunity. When the opportunity arrives, we must have a political party prepared to show the path to salvation that people will be looking for. No current party, including the NDP can fulfil that mandate because they must contend with what people are prepared to hear now. 

Conservatives love to portray the NDP as the far left. The MSM says the Liberals are on the left, the NDP on the far left, and that there is no room for another left-wing party, meaning the Greens. Turning the Greens into a fully eco-socialist party moves the Overton Window. It more clearly situates the Liberals on the right. As the Conservatives decline and more fiscal conservatives move to the Liberals it will become even more apparent. Progressive liberals will move to the NDP further cementing the NDP as the party of the centre-left. 

I could see a future in which the NDP becomes the "natural governing party" if the Liberals are held responsible for not acting sooner on climate change. 

My hope is that there is an awakening and subsequent peaceful revolution in the form of electing an eco-socialist party but it is completely unpredictable. The best we can do is have a political party ready to take advantage of the catastrophic weather events to come. 

When I think of the tenacity it has taken for the environmental movement to advance it strenthens my resolve to support eco-socialism. This is an epic war of decades of greater historical significance than the industrial revolutions and all the wars mankind has fought combined. 

Parts of the planet are becoming uninhabitable either due to heat or floods. The dramatic weather events have just begun. The MSM is having to admit that weather events that would have been impossible without climate change are now happening. Before they always cautioned that no specific event could be tied to climate change. 

The problem with the right wing is that it isn't reality-based. Climate change will continue to prove it's existence and the right wing answer to that will be mitigation. That we can't stop it so we will have to learn to live with it. The problem with that line is that it will continue to get worse every year. Eventually it will become obvious that to continue is suicidal. 

The wrath of the people must be turned in the right direction. We must unite to overthrow the ruling classes. 

 

Pages