Elizabeth May resigns as leader of the Greens

31 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthReport
Elizabeth May resigns as leader of the Greens

.

cco

Is there any real desire for that among party members? How is thinking we can just annex the Greens and add their vote totals seamlessly to our own any different than the Liberals looking at our votes and thinking they were really just Liberal voters throwing a tantrum by being slightly left-wing?

Badriya

I think we'll have to wait and see who becomes leader and whether the Greens go  back to being a grass-roots organization.  If they become an eco-Socialist party, they may attract NDP members and activists.

JKR

cco wrote:
Is there any real desire for that among party members? How is thinking we can just annex the Greens and add their vote totals seamlessly to our own any different than the Liberals looking at our votes and thinking they were really just Liberal voters throwing a tantrum by being slightly left-wing?

If we didn't have FPTP vote-splitting, even if it is just a minority of a party's votes, wouldn't be a problem. I think if the NDP and Greens want to remain separate and become more relevant they should probably agree to the Liberals idea of switching from FPTP to instant runoff voting.

Debater

It's going to be a while before the tensions between the Greens & NDP can be resolved.  Look at the type of stuff May is saying this week:

Asked why the Greens didn't break through more in this election, @ElizabethMay points to "nasty and dishonest campaigning" by the NDP. "I had multicolour leaflets coming in my own mailbox to tell me that I was a liar."

https://twitter.com/PnPCBC/status/1191476569740660737

nicky

In her resignation press conference May claimed that she has never lied.

well, there's one to start

Aristotleded24

I support proportional representation. Having said that, we are stuck with FPTP, we are not moving away from that system any time soon, and every referendum attempt to move away from FPTP in recent memory has gone in flames. Let's stop wishing about how things would be in a different electoral system and try to figure out how to respond to this challenge within the constraints of the electoral system we currently have.

JKR

Aristotleded24 wrote:

I support proportional representation. Having said that, we are stuck with FPTP, we are not moving away from that system any time soon, and every referendum attempt to move away from FPTP in recent memory has gone in flames. Let's stop wishing about how things would be in a different electoral system and try to figure out how to respond to this challenge within the constraints of the electoral system we currently have.

In that case the NDP and Greens should probably merge and make electoral reform one of their top priorities.

voice of the damned

JKR wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

I support proportional representation. Having said that, we are stuck with FPTP, we are not moving away from that system any time soon, and every referendum attempt to move away from FPTP in recent memory has gone in flames. Let's stop wishing about how things would be in a different electoral system and try to figure out how to respond to this challenge within the constraints of the electoral system we currently have.

In that case the NDP and Greens should probably merge and make electoral reform one of their top priorities.

Unless electoral reform becomes a top priority of voters, it isn't going to matter what the NDP and the Greens do.

Hurtin Albertan

You need to think even bigger.  Just think of the electoral success that could be achieved under the banner of the New Green Liberal Christian Western Seperatist Marxist-Leninist People's Conservative Democratic Bloc Quebecois Heritage Party.

The campaign slogan could be "Something for everyone in the NGLCWSMLPCDBQHP!"

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

The first step is to start a national dialog, get a conversation based on reconciliation going between the two broad groups of people supporting both parties, rather than the specific parties themselves. 

The ultimate goal would probably be to create a unified new ecosocialist party, with other means of cooperation tried before the new party would be officially created.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

As an early step, the NDP should officially apologize to Manly for what Mulcair did to him.  If it weren't for that episode, Nanaimo-Ladysmith would STILL be a safe NDP riding and the Dippers would probably hold every seat on the Island.

JKR

voice of the damned wrote:

Unless electoral reform becomes a top priority of voters, it isn't going to matter what the NDP and the Greens do.

And a top priority for politicians elected under FPTP and political insiders will likely continue to be to prevent PR from ever being established. Here in BC the provincial BC NDP benefits from FPTP as it keeps them in a top two position. The leading supporter of FPTP that has led the anti PR side in referendums here has been Bill Tieleman, a BC NDP insider. Big wig political insiders love FPTP because it favours and protects the big parties and the people who make a living off of being connected to the big-two parties. Political insiders have successfully used every lie in the book and every scare tactic available to prevent PR from being established in Canada.

Aristotleded24

JKR wrote:
Aristotleded24 wrote:

I support proportional representation. Having said that, we are stuck with FPTP, we are not moving away from that system any time soon, and every referendum attempt to move away from FPTP in recent memory has gone in flames. Let's stop wishing about how things would be in a different electoral system and try to figure out how to respond to this challenge within the constraints of the electoral system we currently have.

In that case the NDP and Greens should probably merge and make electoral reform one of their top priorities.

We have had this conversation many times before. In particular, many Green activists see the NDP as part of the political establishment and will not want to join forces with them again.

You want to know how the NDP can deal with the Green challenge? Come to Winnipeg Centre. That riding contains the provincial seat that had a legitimate shot of going Green. Many people who voted Green in that provincial seat voted for Leah Gazan of the NDP federally.

It is possible if you do the hard work, instead of trying to game the results by assuming you can just add 2 or 3 parties votes together and voila, you win. Let's try and work in the real world, okay?

JKR

In the real world Winnipeg Centre is not representative of the average Canadian riding. In the real world the NDP is the 4th place party nationally with just 16% of the national vote and the Greens are the 5th place party with just 8% of the national vote. In the real world the NDP only has 7% of the seats in the House of Commons and the Greens only have 1% of the seats. In the real world the NDP and Greens have never won an election or even been part of a federal government. In the real world a large section of the electorate feels that voting doesn't matter and that politicians are just in it for themselves and are incapable of working across party lines for the greater good.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

(self-delete. I quoted someone else's post, meaning to comment on it, and didn't do so.  I've now forgotten whatever point I was going to try and make, so there's no reason to just leave the post I was quoting.)

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

JKR wrote:
In the real world Winnipeg Centre is not representative of the average Canadian riding. In the real world the NDP is the 4th place party nationally with just 16% of the national vote and the Greens are the 5th place party with just 8% of the national vote. In the real world the NDP only has 7% of the seats in the House of Commons and the Greens only have 1% of the seats. In the real world the NDP and Greens have never won an election or even been part of a federal government. In the real world a large section of the electorate feels that voting doesn't matter and that politicians are just in it for themselves and are incapable of working across party lines for the greater good.

In the real world the NDP is run by blairites/mulcairites, and the Green Party is dominated by eco-capitalists (at least until it chooses a new leader). Neither group is left-wing, and rapproachment at present between the NDP and greens would empower these elements in the two parties at the expense of more eco-socialist minded elements. That is a project that I would want no part of.

Nahanni

The NDP and Greens are different parties.  if they both wish to advance their positions and ensure real action on Climate Change, they need to co-operate.  Merger is not a solution.

JKR wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

 

I support proportional representation. Having said that, we are stuck with FPTP, we are not moving away from that system any time soon, and every referendum attempt to move away from FPTP in recent memory has gone in flames. Let's stop wishing about how things would be in a different electoral system and try to figure out how to respond to this challenge within the constraints of the electoral system we currently have.

In that case the NDP and Greens should probably merge and make electoral reform one of their top priorities.

Sean in Ottawa

Left Turn wrote:

JKR wrote:
In the real world Winnipeg Centre is not representative of the average Canadian riding. In the real world the NDP is the 4th place party nationally with just 16% of the national vote and the Greens are the 5th place party with just 8% of the national vote. In the real world the NDP only has 7% of the seats in the House of Commons and the Greens only have 1% of the seats. In the real world the NDP and Greens have never won an election or even been part of a federal government. In the real world a large section of the electorate feels that voting doesn't matter and that politicians are just in it for themselves and are incapable of working across party lines for the greater good.

In the real world the NDP is run by blairites/mulcairites, and the Green Party is dominated by eco-capitalists (at least until it chooses a new leader). Neither group is left-wing, and rapproachment at present between the NDP and greens would empower these elements in the two parties at the expense of more eco-socialist minded elements. That is a project that I would want no part of.

Under the current electoral system the compromise you oppose is probably the only way to have relevance. 

The party could find a balance between opting for a merger into a two party system with no influence and purity with so little power that elections are about symbolic victories.

We are not ever going to agree, I know. However, I thinkwe have to find that middle ground becuase we owe it to the people we stand and say we hold as a priority: the vulnerable in our society who cannot eat or sleep under or get paid by our purity.

Being not viable reduces support. We can see this in many ways. The NDP position is probably more popular than the Liberal one but the Liberals manage the centre vote plus people who want to vote for a party that can do something to make a change. They are dissapointed becuase the Liberals are too much of a compromise. 

But a merger with a smaller party that the NDP woudl not get lost in but would bring the total up to the point of competing enough to be a reliable balance of power and once in a while govern and even get a chance to change the electoral finance and voting system is a value worth compromising a little for. The Greens, many of them can be right politically but merged with the NDP their right wing would be solidly outvoted and they would convert or find a new home. The NDP is the bigger party and many in the Greens are very close to the NDP. Thinking that the left cannot dominate a merged NDP Green party is defeatist.

It is true that the NDP cannot always deliver purity itself and betrays people. It sucks you know. Sometimes, when you believe in democracy you cannot get all you want AND work with others to make a change.

Our social structure is not improving we are neither ecologically nor socially sustainable. We need more than a sideline debating society talking about what we would do if only everyone else saw the light and voted for us. The alternative is to grow the movement politcally and rely on our skills, our persuasion and convince others. 

Put really, really bluntly: if we cannot convince a majority of the members of the Green party in a new party of the value of our ideals then we should disband now as we will have no chance whatsoever of convincing enough Canadians to support them in order to do anything.

I completely respect people who are uncompromising in beliefs. However, when you are in politics you are in a power trust situation: you are asking people to support you in exchange for really trying to make their wishes a part of the power structure. Voters are trusting us to advance their priorities in an existing framework. You can write a book if you want, but if you are in politics asking for votes, you should have a plan to influence the system at least.

The NDP influence is waning. The party is facing an uncertain financial future and the competition with the Greens threatens the chance that the NDP might be able to get in a position to really influence power. By that I do not mean being one of two parties the Liberals will play off agaisnt each other to produce the policies they want - but reall influence of power to change the lives of the people who support us.

I really dislike the idea of a merger of unequals with the Liberal party and do not think it is needed but when it comes to the Greens -- what exactly do we have to lose that we actually have in reality not some fantasy ?

At what point do we consider that loyalty to party is not as important as loyalty to the principle of making a real difference. In the Liberal-NDP merger, the NDP will get voted down almost every time. In a merger with the Greens that larger unit is going to agree with the NDP principle better than 50% of the time which is more than we have now with 7% of the seats in the House of Commons and little prospect to believe we can count on more.

The NDP just had an election with what we accept is a capable leader when it comes to elections (some 80 percent think so). We faced a Liberal party in scandal and a Conservative party about to tear itself apart because it nows it under-performed. And in that we got 7% of the seats.

This was the kind of election the NDP should be moving forward in.

The Liberals in opposition sound like New Democrats. The NDP only does well when either the Liberals are on the ropes and the Conservatives are likely to have power or when the Liberals are in power and full of scandal. This 7% is not a low water mark. This was an election that should have produced a high water mark.

Things have changed. The planet is in trouble. Without a merger the Greens are not going away and they are going to attract people that we want to vote for the NDP. Party finances have gotten much worse and likely will only deteriorate from here. There is little chance that the people will get a vote on electoral reform and no great likelihood that they would vote for it if it was on the table.

The planet may not survive long enough for the NDP to get lightning to strike three times in the same place such that it gets a shot at a federal government again. 

But sure -- let's watch just how much power the NDP balance of power really will deliver: when the Liberals want to do a policy we like they will ask for ourr votes. When they don't they will get the votes from the Conservatives. The present system in the House. I am yet to be convinced that minority is really now going to be that much different from majority. Balance of power only gives you some say in choosing which cats you want to have run the system. Any other power comes less often than a comet on a bicentenial track.

Ciabatta2

I'm convinced that the popular support for a Liberal minority is founded less in the influence the NDP can have over the Liberals and more in the sheen of respectability that having the NDP involved will give Liberal decisions that are right wing. Personally, I don't think that voters aren't hoodwinked by Liberal campaigning and positioning - instead, they actively want a government that campaigns on the left and governs on the right. That makes them feel good about their vote, says something about their positions, while ensuring that any resulting political actions won't really disrupt their lives or the status quo.

I agree wholehearted that the NDP needs to work something out with the Greens for electoral viability, but I'm not convinced that the NDP has enough to offer the Greens in return to make it worthwhile. The only thing the NDP has going for it right now is its leader - yes, it's that dire - and the Greens won't want Jagmeet at the helm after the NDP attacked their positions during the election. (As ridiculous and unsophisticated as that reaction is.)

I can't see the two parties merging - why would the Greens want to take on the NDP's institutional crust, the unions, and the larger membership? They'd be swamped and lose their brand for no electoral gain. Voters voting Green do not want to vote NDP.

The only viable alternative is a co-operation pact, where the parties agree on key environmental approaches/policies/outcomes, and candidates don't run in select ridings in favour of the other party. That lets each party be separate and selfdetermining and take differing positions on their respective nuances.

Would this get roasted as a "coalition"? Sure. But anyone opposed to coalitions isn't voting NDP or Green anyway.

Sean in Ottawa

Ciabatta2 wrote:

I'm convinced that the popular support for a Liberal minority is founded less in the influence the NDP can have over the Liberals and more in the sheen of respectability that having the NDP involved will give Liberal decisions that are right wing. Personally, I don't think that voters aren't hoodwinked by Liberal campaigning and positioning - instead, they actively want a government that campaigns on the left and governs on the right. That makes them feel good about their vote, says something about their positions, while ensuring that any resulting political actions won't really disrupt their lives or the status quo.

I agree wholehearted that the NDP needs to work something out with the Greens for electoral viability, but I'm not convinced that the NDP has enough to offer the Greens in return to make it worthwhile. The only thing the NDP has going for it right now is its leader - yes, it's that dire - and the Greens won't want Jagmeet at the helm after the NDP attacked their positions during the election. (As ridiculous and unsophisticated as that reaction is.)

I can't see the two parties merging - why would the Greens want to take on the NDP's institutional crust, the unions, and the larger membership? They'd be swamped and lose their brand for no electoral gain. Voters voting Green do not want to vote NDP.

The only viable alternative is a co-operation pact, where the parties agree on key environmental approaches/policies/outcomes, and candidates don't run in select ridings in favour of the other party. That lets each party be separate and selfdetermining and take differing positions on their respective nuances.

Would this get roasted as a "coalition"? Sure. But anyone opposed to coalitions isn't voting NDP or Green anyway.

I am fine with two parties seperate but not running in the same ridings. I thnk many people would be offended by this and that it might backfire but there could be a good way to promote this and it would be by admitting that it is a step from a merger that may or may not happen. The parties would also have to agree on a common platform that they would agree to (each could have seperate issues on top of that. I say this becuase we are talking about denying the potential to vote for the one of these parties not running in their riding.

Still I agree something drastic must be done to prevent the current situation of them wastng resources fighting each other and then both being too small to count anyway.

Sean in Ottawa

I do not think there is a model presently around for cooperation that is capable of dealing with the present situation and this is the reason I called for a merger.

However, one could be devised that could produce the result looked for. As a think project here is one model I can imagine (there could be others):

Keep the parties with different leadership and memberships and even individual platforms to a point. The parties agree to live together for a term but not get married.

1) Have a base agreement on principles for a joint list: the fundamental principles both parties can agree to. By this I do not mean a constitution that would exist over a long term but I mena a set of principles determined by members before each election. Have the members vote at this convention (but also from home) whether they want to continue the partnership. At any convention Members could vote to split for the next election.

2) Make memberships in both parties free (this is somethign that should have been done long ago as using membership fees for fundraising is a bad idea as it is not tax deductible. A free membership gives the party a larger database to interact with. Change the consitution to allow members to have to have a membership in a provincial party. 

3) Select party nominees as follows: i) allow members in each party in each riding to cast a vote using a PIN from home (there are a number of ways to do this safely). ii) rank the ridings for each party by volume of support iii) in a second round have the members choose which party they want to support for the present election (often people would choose the one they have a membership in but not always) iv) the proportion of the vote each party obtains is the proportion of the canddiates it will get. The nominees with the greatest support in the first round will be selected for each party until each riding has one of the two parties as candidates.

This is practicing what we preach when it comes to PR.

This is like a primary system where two branches face off allowing that they can remain distinct but in the end not oppose each other in a general election. Both parties would have leaders in the House

As far as behaviour in the House: loosen the party control so MPs are allowed to vote as they choose except for the issues from the first step coming from the membership's fundamental principles. We could have some flexibility as things can change and to balance that with membership control. This is how that could work: both leaders would have to agree. Then the change would be taken on the floor of the House. A leadership review would be triggered by this, however, where the members could accept or have the right to change both leaders within 60 days.

The wonders of technology allow people to work in real time to allow a system like this. I am confident that a voting system can be devised to handle this safely. Here is an example:

Person calls in and authenticates themselves as a voter with a live person using a PIN (like you do when you go to vote). They are transfered to a  system with a second PIN number valid for a short time. Scrutineers from each candidate are on the call. There is no audio in from the voter. Scrutineers do not hear the PIN authenticated. The person makes a selection by pressing a number. That results in an audible selection the person calling in to vote hears and they confirm this is the right selection. Scrutineers see the tally for that candidate go up. Once the person has voted the voting PIN expires and their original PIN is marked as voted. If they do not go through with it the voting PIN will expire and the original PIN will not so they can try again.

Pretty hard to hack that as the person hears confirmation and scrutineers see it selected and can keep their own tally if they want. Person is anonymous just tones being pressed.

I am sure we can devise many other fail-safe methods. This might not work for a general election held on the same day due to volume but you could hold ten ridings or so on one day like this in order to select canddiates for the general election. Members would be calling in first to select a nominee and then to choose which of the party nominees would get support in that riding. Members would have the added advantage that if they do not like the candidate their party selected they have the option to choose the other partiy's nominee once they see them both.

This system sounds more complicated than it actually is and people would get used to it quickly. It would promote cooperation and PR and prevent votes being wasted.

We could call it the Sustainability joint list

robbie_dee

CBC: Interim Green leader hopes to court JWR for permanent job

Quote:

Green Party interim leader Jo-Ann Roberts has started to outline ideas for the party's post-Elizabeth May future — and she's mulling over the idea of former Liberal MP Jody Wilson-Raybould taking the helm.

"I'd like to have a conversation with her [to] see what her vision is, what does she see going forward," Roberts told host Chris Hall in an interview on CBC Radio's The House airing Saturday.

When asked whether Wilson-Raybould, now an Independent MP, might be willing to replace May as party leader, Roberts said it's "possible."

"Elizabeth asked her once before, and I think because they'll be working together quite closely in the House, I'd be very surprised if Elizabeth is not doing the recruiting," Roberts told Hall.

nicky

Does anyone know:

1. What are the respective NDP and Green membership numbers?

2. In how many ridings in the recent election did the Green vote exceed that of the NDP?

both of these would be very relevant considerations in any merging of the parties.

Ciabatta2

Sean that's a much more sophisticated but likely more effective version of what I was thinking.  That's an excellent idea. Two questions - I'm not clear on what the PIN voting is for, switched in core agreed upon policy? And does each party run candidates against the other in elections?

Sean in Ottawa

Ciabatta2 wrote:

Sean that's a much more sophisticated but likely more effective version of what I was thinking.  That's an excellent idea. Two questions - I'm not clear on what the PIN voting is for, switched in core agreed upon policy? And does each party run candidates against the other in elections?

The PIN is to secure the vote to allow all membes to vote from home. I do not like the idea that people have to spend a great deal of money to participate in physical conventions. The NDP has done this in the past as have other parties.

No, the parties would not run against each other in a general election. They would run in primaries and then the combined members would vote so that the proportion of NDP vs Green candidates would be determined and the most supported canddiates on the slate from the primaries would become the candidates. Alternately, you could do a varient where you do not employ PR where you simply run off the nominees for each party. PR is not really as needed in this circumstance because there are only two parties so it is unlikely to have smaller voices shut out.

Sean in Ottawa

The point I am making here is that if the two parties want to remain distinct, they can hold primaries to decide which one runs in each riding and create a joint list using a variety of possible mechanisms.

This is realistic since the chance of either party getting a majority government is nil and they would have to cooperate anyway so why not start before the election. Voters are not losing much therefore. If they want to participate they can sign up as members as vote in the primary.

In the House both parties can keep both leaders. If they were to get a government they can alternate or let the caucus decide which is PM.

 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

robbie_dee wrote:

CBC: Interim Green leader hopes to court JWR for permanent job

Quote:

Green Party interim leader Jo-Ann Roberts has started to outline ideas for the party's post-Elizabeth May future — and she's mulling over the idea of former Liberal MP Jody Wilson-Raybould taking the helm.

"I'd like to have a conversation with her [to] see what her vision is, what does she see going forward," Roberts told host Chris Hall in an interview on CBC Radio's The House airing Saturday.

When asked whether Wilson-Raybould, now an Independent MP, might be willing to replace May as party leader, Roberts said it's "possible."

"Elizabeth asked her once before, and I think because they'll be working together quite closely in the House, I'd be very surprised if Elizabeth is not doing the recruiting," Roberts told Hall.

If May insists on using the antidemocratic structures she as set up within the GPC to simply impose Wilson-Raybould, she will destroy that party.  there is no good reason for May to work to prevent the democratization of the GPC or to try and block there being an open contest for the leadership.

Debater

I don't get why May & Roberts assume Wilson-Raybould wants to be a Green.  If she wanted to be a Green she could have run as one in the 2019 election and she chose not to do so.

Wilson-Raybould also has a somewhat conservative outlook according to her former legal colleagues who posted about it earlier in the year.

Sean in Ottawa

Debater wrote:

I don't get why May & Roberts assume Wilson-Raybould wants to be a Green.  If she wanted to be a Green she could have run as one in the 2019 election and she chose not to do so.

Wilson-Raybould also has a somewhat conservative outlook according to her former legal colleagues who posted about it earlier in the year.

I think her plan is to run for LPC leadership but I do not think that will work.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Debater wrote:

I don't get why May & Roberts assume Wilson-Raybould wants to be a Green.  If she wanted to be a Green she could have run as one in the 2019 election and she chose not to do so.

Wilson-Raybould also has a somewhat conservative outlook according to her former legal colleagues who posted about it earlier in the year.

Well, May has a somewhat conservative outlook, and the last thing May wants is for democracy to break out inside the GPC.