Anyone watch these?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sa_ATdGAzWU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCUFiyuZFTg
I don't know a lot about the candidates and the majority of them spewed the usual 'not left or right but forward' BS but I thought Meryam Haddad, Dimitri Lascaris and Annamie Paul all sounded like strong possible picks.
Dimitri Lascaria is the best of the bunch - wicked smart, very progressive and a truly decent human being.
What really scared me about the Green candidates is that they are ideologically all over the map. One, in fact, sounded like an environmental Conservstive discussing cutting "out of control" deficit spending and then talking about solid social program investments in another segment.
Ok, they like the environment and are all anti-pipeline, but they are shallow on everything else and have no cohesive vision for running the country. One, in fact, claimed that some social programs were invented by the Greens and the NDP latched onto them because they sounded popular, and this came from the mouth of one of the more credible hopefuls.
One candidate really stood out but sounded more like a future leadership hopeful for the NDP than to lead that scattery group. Your candidates have to have more of a cohesive ideology and grounding in order to be credible and I didn't get that from the debates tonight. They need some kind of manifesto that they can all agree on.
They lack depth and substance and should just go away and die as a political party. And the one who really shone will likely win the leadership and the party will continue to be a festering hemorrhoid for the NDP for years to come.
And, before there was the Green Party there was the NDP. The NDP has always been a home for socially conscious environmentalists. There are many socially conscious environmentalists within the NDP. It is much easier just to revamp the NDP than it is to pretend that a flaky "environmental" party is a constructive asset to this country.
And the 1% stands to benefit the most by keeping the left divided between two parties, which may explain why the Green Party has always worked with a junk constitution and is not even a credible environmentalist party.
Unite the Right also means divide the left and keep it perpetually decentralized and destabilized with ongoing cluster fuck nuttiness. The Harper Conservatives don't want an organized NDP and they don't want a real environmental party like other countries have that can gain any relevant foothold in this country. The oil sector and Bay Street is guaranteed to win all the time with a Liberal/Conservativr two party corporate establishment party system just like the United States has.
Dimitri Lascaria is the best of the bunch - wicked smart, very progressive and a truly decent human being.
Yeah, I'm impressed. This was a good interview:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXHtbz2o-zA
The NDP hasn't had leadership with a grasp like that on foreign policy in my lifetime. I wonder if he has a shot.
Dimitri Lascaria is the most refreshing breath of fresh air that I have had the pleasure of listening to in such a long time. He needs to draft a strong manifesto that speaks to his cause. He needs to effectively weed out the superficial riff raff from the party and then I believe we will have the political party that the left can truly rally behind.
He is a fantastic leader but he needs to re-create the Green Party into something concrete and tangible and I think he plans to do just that. :)
the gpc has been internally trashed by the scorched-earth cult politics of e may, but it's nice to see it on the mend. there's a lot of capable people who have been waiting for her to clear before returning.
According to this article dated February 3, 2020:
“A three-member vetting committee will review applications and can deny any candidate the chance to run without explaining why”.
Perhaps this is to weed out any potential undesirable leadership hopefuls who do not fit with the vision of the party establishment.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Green_Party_of_Canada_leadership_election
“Lascaris' candidacy was rejected by the party's vetting committee, which was appealed.[34] The appeal was accepted on June 2, and his candidacy was reinstated and approved.[74]”
He was the only candidate who was rejected and had to have his chance to run appealed. This tells me that he is already considered an outsider from within the Green Party of Canada and that the party is resistant to any formal change in vision or direction.
It is unfortunate to see that people still need a "label" (left or right) to help them identify with a party's platform. It's so 20th century. Let's start living in the 21st century. The policy platform of the Green Party of Canada speaks for itself and I urge people to actually read the party's plaform. I left the NDP because I am sick and tired of partisan politics, anti-Green propaganda and scare tactics. Canadians have made it clear they want to see a parliament that works more cooperatively in the best interests of all Canadians. The status quo parties donot even have this principal in their constitutions, the GP does. The candidates standing for the GP Leadership is the most exciting slate of leadership candidates from ALL regions of the country that I have ever seen. Not only is it a great time to be Green but it's also a critical time to Green.
Political ideology is a big deal and political parties don't just "get along" because they have radically different cultural, regional, fiscal, and social ideologies and agendas.
Yeah I agree with Misfit. The post-ideology rhetoric is a huge red flag. Political movements come out of political traditions. If you can't ground yourself in history at all, you are either hiding something and being dishonest or your analysis is very superficial. If the Greens are going to continue to refuse to pick a side, they shouldn't be taken seriously. That and the 'beyond partisan politics' while constantly dumping on the NDP rhetoric of the May-led Greens was why I could never consider voting for them Federally.
My MP is Gord Johns, one of if not the hardest working green MP in the House. EMay has done nothing compared to the Bills he has put forward and got passed. I hate party politics because all parties are run by control freaks however since we all only elect one MP not a party I know who I will support.
The policy platform of the Green Party of Canada speaks for itself and I urge people to actually read the party's plaform.
Indeed people should, if they did they would realize that the Green party isn't actually a party that believes in environmental sustainability, its just a brand. See the Green Party's policy in the last election that called for the construction of more crude oil refineries (and presumably though not explicitely stated, pipelines to feed these new refineries.) The Green party excused this saying it would decrease emissions because this would displace foreign fuels from overseas. Nonsense.
pietro_bcc, what planet do you come from? Clearly responses to my comment just prove my point: pick a side! We can really see how that has made the world a better place. It also amazes me how NDPers get so rattled by a party that has the enviorment at its center calling them "flakes" and "air-heads" just like the Conservatives! We need a progressive Green party be cause the NDP thinks envirnmentalists are flakes and air heads. Just keep putting your foot in your mouth . . . it looks pretty confortable there. Enough said.
pietro_bcc, what planet do you come from? Clearly responses to my comment just prove my point: pick a side! We can really see how that has made the world a better place. It also amazes me how NDPers get so rattled by a party that has the enviorment at its center calling them "flakes" and "air-heads" just like the Conservatives! We need a progressive Green party be cause the NDP thinks envirnmentalists are flakes and air heads. Just keep putting your foot in your mouth . . . it looks pretty confortable there. Enough said.
I suggest you follow your own advice and read the green party platform.
https://www.greenparty.ca/sites/default/files/mission_possible_letter_en...
From the Green Party's "Mission Possible" plan point #13
" Turn off the tap to oil importsEnd all imports of foreign oil. As fossil fuel use declines, use only Canadian fossil fuels and allow investment in upgraders to turn Canadian solid bitumen into gas, diesel, propane and other products for the Canadian market, providing jobs in Alberta. By 2050, shift all Canadian bitumen f rom fuel to feedstock for the petrochemical industry."
The Green party's platform last election was in favor of investing in new oil refineries, to refine tarsands bitumen to displace foreign oils and was only in favor of stopping to use the tarsands in 2050. As I also stated the plan doesn't explicitely call for new pipelines, but if you're building a bunch of new refineries to process Canadian crude, you would need some way to transport the oil to them.
We need a progressive Green party be cause the NDP thinks envirnmentalists are flakes and air heads. Just keep putting your foot in your mouth . . . it looks pretty confortable there. Enough said.
I like my Island MP he is a very effective environmentalist. I have to laugh at people who claim to be non-partisan and then dismiss all MP's from other parties because they don't belong to their party. EMay was in parliament for an eternity and didn't accomplish as much as Gord Johns has in two terms. She was a flake, sorry if you don't see that but I get that love is blind.
Green party leadership hopeful Annamie Paul has solidified herself as the frontrunner to win the party's vote in October, opening up a wide fundraising gulf between herself and her nearest opponent.
The 47-year-old Torontonian has been ahead in fundraising in both the first- and second-quarter results. This week, party data show as of the end of July, Paul's fundraising haul was almost $121,000, more than a third of the money raised by all nine candidates in the race.
Ontario lawyer Dimitri Lascaris is a distant second, with $52,610. He eclipsed British Columbia lawyer David Merner, who had been in second at the end of June, but fell to third at the end of July, having raised a total of $46,718. Former Ontario Liberal cabinet minister Glen Murray and B.C. astrophysicist Amita Kuttner round out the top five.
Front-runner annointed.
Why, unlike most Green parties in the world, does Canada's Green party not have co-leaders? Paul + Lascaris is not a bad look for a party.
In post #3 I wrote:
"One, in fact, claimed that some social programs were invented by the Greens and the NDP latched onto them because they sounded popular, and this came from the mouth of one of the more credible hopefuls."
Annamie Paul is the one who spoke like this in the first debate listed in post #1.
Here it is here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sa_ATdGAzWU
She sounds so level headed and articulate until she starts her anti-NDP rant at 23:40 into the tape and ends at 25;10. This is where she loses credibility.
Green party leadership hopeful Annamie Paul has solidified herself as the frontrunner to win the party's vote in October, opening up a wide fundraising gulf between herself and her nearest opponent.
The 47-year-old Torontonian has been ahead in fundraising in both the first- and second-quarter results. This week, party data show as of the end of July, Paul's fundraising haul was almost $121,000, more than a third of the money raised by all nine candidates in the race.
Ontario lawyer Dimitri Lascaris is a distant second, with $52,610. He eclipsed British Columbia lawyer David Merner, who had been in second at the end of June, but fell to third at the end of July, having raised a total of $46,718. Former Ontario Liberal cabinet minister Glen Murray and B.C. astrophysicist Amita Kuttner round out the top five.
Front-runner annointed.
Why, unlike most Green parties in the world, does Canada's Green party not have co-leaders? Paul + Lascaris is not a bad look for a party.
Hilarious capitalist politics. Our billionaire media anoints the leader based on the amount of money they can fund raise. Now that's real democracy.
One vote per dollar.
At perhaps the most critical time in world history western politicians are about as uninspiring as they come. Truly it is said if the people lead then the leaders will follow. Otherwise, unless and until, - you'll get whatever the misleaders decide to give you. Which will increasingly become less and less looks like...
Here's a question I'd like to see asked at the Green Party leadership foreign policy debate:
If the other major all-Canada parties are all going to back the militarist/imperialist consensus, is there any reason why the Greens can't provide the choice a huge number of Canadians would like to have at the next election...a peace party?
Maybe not an outright pacifist party, but at least one party does run as "more of the same" on foreign policy, on military intervention, on the use of force?
It's not as though there could ever be a military intervention that was consistent with any notion of "green values", or that any possible military intervention could ever serve the cause of climate justice or environmental sustainability.
May always refused to let the GPC be a peace party...given how little electoral good her refusal did the GPC, what possible argument could there be for staying the course with May's hawkishness?
Team Dimitri Releases Foreign Policy Platform
https://twitter.com/dimitrilascaris/status/1295036320985821184
"We are honoured to have earned the endorsement of physician author and renowned anti-nuclear activist Dr Helen Caldicott. To check out our 'Cooperative Foreign Policy for a Multipolar World' visit here..
'...he supports reducing the military budget, getting Canada out of NATO and disbanding NATO, he opposes nuclear energy and is pushing for Canada to ratify the UN treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.' - HC-
Good for Team Dimitri.
In post #3 I wrote:
"One, in fact, claimed that some social programs were invented by the Greens and the NDP latched onto them because they sounded popular, and this came from the mouth of one of the more credible hopefuls."
Annamie Paul is the one who spoke like this in the first debate listed in post #1.
Here it is here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sa_ATdGAzWU
She sounds so level headed and articulate until she starts her anti-NDP rant at 23:40 into the tape and ends at 25;10. This is where she loses credibility.
I'm kind of dreading hearing that. Does she parrot May's talking point blaming the NDP for Harper because they didn't vote with the Liberals on the no-confidence motion the Liberals were going to lose no matter what?
Leaving NATO is a good start but I would really like to see a party that promotes peaceful dialogue throughout the globe and eschews neo-liberal "humanism" concepts of regime change and political interference.
In post #3 I wrote:
"One, in fact, claimed that some social programs were invented by the Greens and the NDP latched onto them because they sounded popular, and this came from the mouth of one of the more credible hopefuls."
Annamie Paul is the one who spoke like this in the first debate listed in post #1.
Here it is here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sa_ATdGAzWU
She sounds so level headed and articulate until she starts her anti-NDP rant at 23:40 into the tape and ends at 25;10. This is where she loses credibility.
I'm kind of dreading hearing that. Does she parrot May's talking point blaming the NDP for Harper because they didn't vote with the Liberals on the no-confidence motion the Liberals were going to lose no matter what?
Ok, I typed out her verbal diarrhea. Here it goes...
"If the Liberals and the NDP just swallowed our environmental policies whole; they’ve decided, they’re converted, they’re on board, is there a reason for the Green Party to exist? And I believe, absolutely, that there is a reason for the Green Party to exist. And I have touched upon it already before and it’s all about we’re the ones that proposed those policies that they absorbed, and that happens time and time and time again. Whether you’re talking about the NDP’s new found, and I’m happy, I’m personally very happy, their new found interest in guaranteed liveable income, or the growing consensus around universal pharmacare, or plans for free tuition post secondary education, it is the Greens that have put these into the political discourse. And we do it based on evidence, and we do it without fear. And we do it on behalf of the people of Canada. We are the party that occupies that space and it is unfortunate that we are the only ones and I welcome and invite the other parties to join us there. But, until there is another party that prioritized the people first and the evidence based policy first there will always be a role for the Green Party in Canada."
I unfortunately doubt if Dimitri will win the leadership and if he does that begs the question; "is there a seat he can run in and get elected?" As for the new leader, if he or she is not elected to the House in the next election and EMay remains then the new leader will have a very tough job that requires a Kevlar vest.
In post #3 I wrote:
"One, in fact, claimed that some social programs were invented by the Greens and the NDP latched onto them because they sounded popular, and this came from the mouth of one of the more credible hopefuls."
Annamie Paul is the one who spoke like this in the first debate listed in post #1.
Here it is here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sa_ATdGAzWU
She sounds so level headed and articulate until she starts her anti-NDP rant at 23:40 into the tape and ends at 25;10. This is where she loses credibility.
I'm kind of dreading hearing that. Does she parrot May's talking point blaming the NDP for Harper because they didn't vote with the Liberals on the no-confidence motion the Liberals were going to lose no matter what?
Ok, I typed out her verbal diarrhea. Here it goes...
"If the Liberals and the NDP just swallowed our environmental policies whole; they’ve decided, they’re converted, they’re on board, is there a reason for the Green Party to exist? And I believe, absolutely, that there is a reason for the Green Party to exist. And I have touched upon it already before and it’s all about we’re the ones that proposed those policies that they absorbed, and that happens time and time and time again. Whether you’re talking about the NDP’s new found, and I’m happy, I’m personally very happy, their new found interest in guaranteed liveable income, or the growing consensus around universal pharmacare, or plans for free tuition post secondary education, it is the Greens that have put these into the political discourse. And we do it based on evidence, and we do it without fear. And we do it on behalf of the people of Canada. We are the party that occupies that space and it is unfortunate that we are the only ones and I welcome and invite the other parties to join us there. But, until there is another party that prioritized the people first and the evidence based policy first there will always be a role for the Green Party in Canada."
Actually, I was expecting far worse than that. It's not inherently unreasonable for someone seeking a party leadership to make a case for the reasons the party she seeks to lead should, in fact, continue to exist.
To me, the real concern in her candidacy is that it looks as though she is positioned as the "Continuity May" candidate-that electing her will ensure that no real change occurs in the Green strategy or message, that she will continue May's tradition of keeping internal party democracy virtually nonexistent, that she will prevent the party from addressing the militarist, imperialist character of Canadian foreign policy and the servile relationship with the U.S Canada's current government has willingly embraced.
In post #3 I wrote:
"One, in fact, claimed that some social programs were invented by the Greens and the NDP latched onto them because they sounded popular, and this came from the mouth of one of the more credible hopefuls."
Annamie Paul is the one who spoke like this in the first debate listed in post #1.
Here it is here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sa_ATdGAzWU
She sounds so level headed and articulate until she starts her anti-NDP rant at 23:40 into the tape and ends at 25;10. This is where she loses credibility.
I'm kind of dreading hearing that. Does she parrot May's talking point blaming the NDP for Harper because they didn't vote with the Liberals on the no-confidence motion the Liberals were going to lose no matter what?
Ok, I typed out her verbal diarrhea. Here it goes...
"If the Liberals and the NDP just swallowed our environmental policies whole; they’ve decided, they’re converted, they’re on board, is there a reason for the Green Party to exist? And I believe, absolutely, that there is a reason for the Green Party to exist. And I have touched upon it already before and it’s all about we’re the ones that proposed those policies that they absorbed, and that happens time and time and time again. Whether you’re talking about the NDP’s new found, and I’m happy, I’m personally very happy, their new found interest in guaranteed liveable income, or the growing consensus around universal pharmacare, or plans for free tuition post secondary education, it is the Greens that have put these into the political discourse. And we do it based on evidence, and we do it without fear. And we do it on behalf of the people of Canada. We are the party that occupies that space and it is unfortunate that we are the only ones and I welcome and invite the other parties to join us there. But, until there is another party that prioritized the people first and the evidence based policy first there will always be a role for the Green Party in Canada."
Actually, I was expecting far worse than that. It's not inherently unreasonable for someone seeking a party leadership to make a case for the reasons the party she seeks to lead should, in fact, continue to exist.
To me, the real concern in her candidacy is that it looks as though she is positioned as the "Continuity May" candidate-that electing her will ensure that no real change occurs in the Green strategy or message, that she will continue May's tradition of keeping internal party democracy virtually nonexistent, that she will prevent the party from addressing the militarist, imperialist character of Canadian foreign policy and the servile relationship with the U.S Canada's current government has willingly embraced.
If you look at their constitution which I haven't but has been alluded to by other posters, the Greens don't really stand for any of your concerns anyways. Dimitri Lascarius seems to be the only candidate that wants to address your issues and concerns head on. He was also the only candidate who was denied the right to run for the leadership and had to fight to get his termination overturned.
She can run for the leadership of a party but that does not give her the right or entitlement to completely redefine what her opposition, ie., the NDP stands for both currently and historically. She is either totally politically out to lunch and/or she is being deliberately disingenuous.
She is a lawyer. She is articulate enough. If she is sincerely a progressive like she claims to be then why is she so critical of the NDP on the very issues that define their mandate to run as a national party. It simply doesn't make any sense.
Her remark exposes her as being insincere as real progressive. Therefore it seems to me that her role as leader is going to continue to be to attack the NDP incessantly to try to drain their vote and keep them out of contention as a viable theat on the national stage.
I'll put it bluntly. She is intending to be another Elizabeth May to attack the NDP and troll for the Liberals.
Having read what she wrote, the strongest line of attack against it is the absurdity in her claim that the Greens invented social programs that the NDP somehow latched onto later. Given that the NDP and its predecessor, the CCF, existed for decades before the birth of the Greens, how can she possibly justify such an assertion.
I'd also be worried about how she could potentially exploit identity politics if she won the leadership- you can easily imagine her making the argument that, because she happens to be black and Jewish, it is now sexist, racist AND antisemitic to vote NDP instead of Green. We should also prepare ourselves for Paul to make a point of either flying to Jerusalem or getting her picture taken with Netanyahu in the service of this tactic, and potentially to be even more ruthless than May in silencing any criticism of the Israeli government within the GPC if she wins the leadership.
Ken wrote:
"I'd also be worried about how she could potentially exploit identity politics if she won the leadership- you can easily imagine her making the argument that, because she happens to be black and Jewish, it is now sexist, racist AND antisemitic to vote NDP instead of Green. We should also prepare ourselves for Paul to make a point of either flying to Jerusalem or getting her picture taken with Netanyahu in the service of this tactic, and potentially to be even more ruthless than May in silencing any criticism of the Israeli government within the GPC if she wins the leadership."
I find this unsettling. She hasn't done any of these things. Your concerns are speculative.
There are Jewish people who support Palestinian rights and BDS. I honestly don't know what her positions are.
I read her wiki bio. She is a human rights lawyer. Surely she should know that the 1947 Saskatchewan Bill of Rights became the legal blue print for the 1948 United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In fact, it was the Saskatchewan government that was commissioned by the UN to formally lead the team on drafting the UN law.
Saskatchewan had pay equity enacted into law in 1953.
Saskatchewan had the highest minimum wage in Canada when the NDP left office in 1981.
I could go on and on. Tommy Douglas enacted laws which set the standard for other jurisdictions to follow in so many categories. And most Canadians who are progressive and who do want government to put people first do not support her party but support the NDP because of their proven record on fighting for the interests of people.
Rosemary Brown was the first woman in Canada to run as a serious contender for the leadership of a national party in Canada. Rosemary Brown was the first black woman to run for the national leadership of a mainline political party in Canada. Rosemary Brown was the first black woman to be elected to a public legislature in Canada. Rosemary Brown was appointed as Chief Comissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission based on her solid work fighting for human rights in Canada. Rosemary Brown was awarded an Officer of the Order of Canada. She was awarded the Order of BC. She was awarded with 15 honorary doctorate degrees from universities across the country. She spent her entire political career serving with the NDP.
Annamie Paul trivializes the work and accomplishments of Rosemary Brown and the many other distinguished Canadians who have tirelessly fought for human rights and social, gender, and racial equality in this country through their work with the NDP.
My real concern is that Annamie Paul is no Rosemary Brown.
I am fully aware the many Jewish people support RoR and BDS, and I salute them for that. And yes, I was speculating, based as much as the advice I could imagine May giving her, since she seems to be the "continuity May" candidate.
She should know the history you reference there- but even without that, it is utterly bizarre that she could actually believe the GPC created social programs the NDP later took credit for when A) The NDP existed first; and B) There has never been anything close to a Green government anywhere in Canada-and no, the BCNDP-BCGP coalition doesn't count- even if it did, to my knowledge, that coalition hasn't started any social programs that didn't previously exist in that province.
I am fully aware the many Jewish people support RoR and BDS, and I salute them for that. And yes, I was speculating, based as much as the advice I could imagine May giving her, since she seems to be the "continuity May" candidate.
She should know the history you reference there- but even without that, it is utterly bizarre that she could actually believe the GPC created social programs the NDP later took credit for when A) The NDP existed first; and B) There has never been anything close to a Green government anywhere in Canada-and no, the BCNDP-BCGP coalition doesn't count- even if it did, to my knowledge, that coalition hasn't started any social programs that didn't previously exist in that province.
Exactly!
The NDP of today is not the same as the NDP of the past. There are many who long to see a turn to the way things were. Mulcair did a number to erode the social democratic values which were the foundation of the NDP. Either reform the NDP or create a new party which more closely aligns with the values of many social democrats.
If Annamie Paul wants the Green Party to be that new voice for the people then she has to go straight to their constitution and make it what she talks of it being and I really don't think that she intends to do that. Therefore my impression of her is that talk is cheap.
It's Time For Greens to Reinvent Themselves
https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2020/08/31/Time-Greens-Reinvent-Themselves/
"A BC Green Party co-founder urges a radical new path. Pursuing electoral power hasn't paid off, and the planet can't wait..."
The Time is Now for Conversations on Benches About A Green Economy & the Future of Work (and vid)
https://twitter.com/dimitrilascaris/status/1300962338145808384
"TeamDimitri video.
Green Leadership Candidates to Debate Foreign Policy: Thursday, Sept 10, 7pm EDT
https://yvesengler.com/2020/09/01/green-leadership-candidates-to-debate-...
"Debate is the lifeblood of democracy and a good one is fun to watch or listen to. Hopefully an upcoming Green Party debate will accomplish that while simultaneously strengthening progressives' foreign policy expectations and infrastructure..."
Here's a recent interview with Lascaris. I would certainly consider voting for a Green Party with the policies he proposes.
Dimitri Lascaris is the best choice to the take the Green Party forward
quote:
On the left, the NDP is moribund, captive of a centre-right social democratic (dare we say Blairite?) policy paradigm that is not only repelling voters, but is incapable of responding to the fundamental crisis of capitalism, the ecological emergency and the challenges of a rapidly changing world order.
Until now, the Green Party, under Elizabeth May’s leadership, while advocating some exemplary policies, also cleaved too closely to the mainstream. With May’s decision to step down, however, an opportunity has opened up for an unprecedented shift to the left with the candidacy of Dimitri Lascaris, a long-time activist and former class-action lawyer who is running as an eco-socialist and anti-imperialist.
Lascaris’s platform includes a plan for net zero emissions by 2030, a reduction in military spending by half, and a socially just, egalitarian economy aimed at ‘Just Green Wellbeing.’ Perhaps most importantly, Lascaris is openly intent to push the Green Party to the left, and his ideas are a welcome alternative to those of many other parties still wedded to illusions of ecological sustainability being compatible with infinite growth on a finite planet.
Putting Lascaris at the helm of the GPC could help transform the political scene, expanding the real estate of the left on the political spectrum and putting pressure on the NDP to reacquaint itself with radicalism—opening the possibility of collaboration between the country’s only two progressive parties.
Online voting for members opens on September 26, and results will be announced live on October 3. To vote, you must be a member of the GPC by September 3 at midnight. The GPC is using a ranked ballot, so if you’re looking for your second choice, CD recommends Meryam Haddad, a self-declared ecosocialist from Québec.
