Green Party coup

nicky wrote:

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

https://www.tooclosetocall.ca/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pondering wrote:

nicky wrote:

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pondering wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Michael Moriarity wrote:

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

One Time Alliance For Democratic Reform wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think there were only seven rounds.

Round 1 = 8 candidates, one dropped.

Round 2 = 7 candidates, one dropped.

Round 3 = 6 candidates, one dropped.

Round 4 = 5 candidates, one dropped.

Round 5 = 4 candidates, one dropped.

Round 6 = 3 candidates, one dropped.

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

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

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

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

<snip>

Build a united socialist movement

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

<snip>

Pondering wrote:

Lascaris is not trying to "go left". Trade unions aren't particularly eco-socialist. 

Once again you dismiss unions as have no significance in an ecosocialist movement. Most ecosocialissts I know would strongly disagree. Your attitude sounds very bourgeoisie and fits in with what happened in BC where the  Greens in the NDP-Green alliance blocked a vote to allow union signup by card signing rather than a secret ballot, where the company can harass workers during the period before a union vote, often thereby scaring the workers out of joining the union with threats of closing the business and moving elsewhere etc. 

This also fits in with what eastnoireast quoted: 

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

All the structures of the Green party are controlled by the pro-capitalist bureaucracy built by Elizabeth May over the last decade and a half. ...

The class base of the Greens is another important difference with the British Labour Party and the NDP. The Greens are a formation based on petit-bourgeois intermediate layers, eco-friendly small businesses, students, etc, with no base in the working class. They have even been hostile to organized labour at some points in history. This is seen in some recent polls of Green voters that show general sentiments to the right of NDP voters, and sometimes to the right of Liberal voters. For example, during the dispute between the Ford Conservatives and the teachers, 87 percent of NDPers supported the teachers compared with 80 percent of Liberals and 64 percent of Greens.

This was also seen when the Green Party, against all its principles and years of support for a Victoria sewage plant to treat raw sewage, came out against it the 2012 byelection in the wealthiest metro Victoria suburb, Oak Bay, because its wealthy taxpayers did not want to fund it even after Prime Minister Harper put up one third on money for it. In terms of a victory at-all-costs strategy to beat NDP candidate Murray Rankin, the tragedy is it almost worked as he won by a thin margin. However, it did help BC Green Party deputy leader (and later leader) Andrew Weaver win in the next provinical election in the very same riding provincially. It is truly ironic that on this issue even Harper was more 'green' than the Greens. It is not surprising with this background the BC Greens blocked the passage of bill allowing card signing as a way of certifying a union in a workplace. 

Very bourgeoise of the Greens. And this is the problem with a takeover strategy of this party - even if you win you will alienate a large part of its current base, leading to an image of a divided party that doesn't know where it's going. Could it work? Yes, but highly unlikely. Here's more on what happened in Victoria on the raw sewage treatment plant. 

In 2012 the “Harper Government” announced it was prepared to fund one-third of the cost of building Victoria’s first sewage plant and so end Greater Victoria’s practice of dumping its untreated raw sewage directly into the ocean.

Vancouver Island environmentalists, including the Green Party, had long been pursuing this goal.  The UFAWU’s T. “Buck” and the  Suzuki Environmental Foundation, of which I was a director at the time, had been heavily involved in the campaign. ...

Despite a veneer of “scientific” evidence to support the continued dumping of raw sewage (1), the plant’s opponents, in fact, were opposed to the increase in the region’s property taxes required to fund it. The core of the opposition was to be found in one of Canada’s wealthiest municipalities, Oak Bay.

We expected the opposition to continue; we did not expect the opposition now to include the Green Party. But it wasn’t hard to understand why the Greens – both federal and provincial – flipped their position and suddenly in effect supported dumping raw sewage into the ocean for the foreseeable future.

There was a by-election being held in the federal riding of Victoria and the Greens believed that attacking the sewage plant could help them take the riding away from the NDP, and with the BC Green’s deputy leader, Andrew Weaver, planning to run in Oak Bay in the 2013 provincial election, it wouldn’t hurt to have him on record opposing the plant as well.

The plan was only partially successful. Murray Rankin, an environmental lawyer and the only candidate to support the sewage plant, held Victoria for the NDP, albeit by a very narrow margin.

Andrew Weaver, on the other hand, took Oak Bay from the BC Liberals with 40% of the vote.

I have never forgiven either wing of the Green Party for this betrayal. ...

The Green Party’s record in the Victoria sewage plant affair shows that when an opportunity arose to elect a second MP by supporting dumping raw sewage into the ocean, the Greens had no hesitation in seizing it.

Their behaviour begs this question: “If the Green Party can’t stand up for the environment when a chance comes to score political points, what use are they?”

https://richardhughes.ca/how-the-green-party-came-to-support-dumping-raw...

Pondering wrote:

Some right wing types co-opted the cause of environmentalism by forming the Green Party.

uh, no.    the green party of canada has international roots, starting in germany (though that may have been the second country).   iirc, anti-nuke was one of key early issues.  petra kelly being a founder and key player, akin to elizabeth may in canada, one might say.  

i've never understood the greens-as-right-wing trope.   in my canadian experience it's a mix of the-environment-is-on-fire motivated folks, a smaller proportion of democracy-is-on-fire folks, then people with more specific local issues, then a "cohort" of misc folks seeking any way around the gridlock of the standard parties, for various reasons.  ex-natural law partyers, libertarians, catch-the-green-wave vacutarians, and such.

the fact that people are drawn to the party by issues, rather than class theory, in part explains the perceived green-union schism.  both because one can be, say, concerned about the environment and yet ignorant of said class theory, and also because it's a different lense - whether the tarsand oil or saudi-bound lav was union or scab made is secondary, as it should be.

e may was a firebrand in early days, and kicked ass at it.  i saw her defend peace protesters in halifax, her first case since law school,  she was amazing.  check out her book, budworm battles, or the film herbicide trials, for early may. 

eco-socialists are not the only political entity who have eyed the green party(s) for takeover (or arguably, reclaimation, in the case of the eco-soc's). 

and probably more signifigantly, power corrupts, as my dad used to say; and moves towards conservatism.  people and the organizational brain becomes entrenched in their scene, the bubble forms, dissenters exit, power concentrates and begins to rot; the masses rush the bubble with their social-media pitchforks and aaalmost make it and... voila, annamie paul.

Pondering wrote:

The history of [insert here] doesn't matter at all.

That does seem to be the consistant theme in most of your posts.

Actually something to get riled up about is that capitalism is not going to solve our global climate warming emergency. There have been 2 capitalist parties running Canada since its inception. There is only one reason Canada's mainstream press has been fawning over the Greens, and that is because they are as capitalistic as the Liberals or Conservatives. We will not adequately address our climate warming emergency until we first address the gap between the rich and the poor. Do we really need a third capitalistic political party called Greens?  

eastnoireast wrote:

Misfit wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Unions in general are not specifically eco-socialist with an emphasis on the eco...

The NDP seems really threatened by an eco-socialist Green Party...

Some healthy competition will do the NDP good. If they lose members or even MPs it is their own fault...

Well, you do not define what unions are. You do not speak for them.

The hatred that you express towards the NDP and unions is extreme.

 

pondering may not speak for unions, but she is free to observe truisms.

> unions in general _are not specifically eco-socialist with an em-phasis on on the eco.

misfit, the hatred that _you express towards the greens is extreme, also.

fptp; now there's something to get riled up about.

 

Um, nope!

Pondering wrote:

 I heard on the news last night that the NDP is down to 13% with support going to the Liberals. NDP strategy isn't working. 

For a more accurate reflection of the polls here are the percentages the NDP and Greens received in all polls in October: 

    NDP                                 Greens

October 1  18%                   6%

 October 4  20%                  4%

October 6  16%                   5%

October 11  21%                  6%

October 16  13.4%             7.6%

October 18 18%                  6%

October 19 13.7%              8.7%

October 21  15%                5%

October 25  18%               5%

October 26  17%               7%

Oct Average 17.01%          6.03% 

2019 election 16.0%        6.5%

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_44th_Canadian_fede...

In other words, both parties bounced up and down in the polls within certain margins with the NDP in October up 1.0%and the Greens down 0.5%  in their October average compared to their results in the 2019 election. For comparisons sake the Liberals average for October is 36.6%, up 3.5% in October compared to the 2019 election, while the Conservatives averaged 31.3%  in October, down 3.0%  compared to the 2019 election. So most the voter movement has occurred between the Liberals and Conservatives, with the NDP up slightly and the Greens down slightly on average. The margins for a Liberal majority are paper thin and at the outer limits of the margin of error if an election is called in the immediate future. While an election campaign could dramatically increase or decrease any party's vote share depending on what happened, there is no guarantee that would benefit or harm any particular party or leave the end results pretty much as they are right now, as campaigns each have their own rhythm.