Treasure

[jme]

Shortly after the GPC elected Ms Paul as our first new leader in thirteen years, a group was formed “to assess the potential value and feasibility of inter-party collaboration in the next federal election.” So far, One Time Alliance has persuaded neither Ms Paul nor Mr. Singh to embrace such collaboration; it's a radical idea, after all.

Angela Keller-Herzog shared her notes from the Greens’ Ottawa Centre AGM on January 26th, where Ms Paul covered the issue in the Q & A:

Ralph: Would you accept a strategic alliance so that the NDP can stand down where you are running and we can stand down somewhere else?

Annamie: I will not duck the question. It is still important to answer that we have constitutional impediments to that. We are committed under our existing rules to run a candidate in every riding …

It is not feasible under our existing rules. That is [for] the members to consider. More intel: the NDP [Singh] has made it very clear that he does not have any interest in alliance or standing down. Made it clear in Toronto when I ran. They made it clear that they would run everywhere, that it is not a negotiable for him.

There are significant differences between us that have been highlighted recently. We do not support new pipelines, the NDP committed to Coastal Gaslink. Just last week they said they don’t support TMX but support Coastal Gaslink. We [support] decriminalization of drugs and universal post-secondary education—they do not share this currently.

[Strategic cooperation] comes up quite a lot. It is tempting but I cannot do that. I cannot be appointed. I need to run.  … I would not be able to reciprocate by asking somebody to stand down.

I think this a great thing for us to talk about. I certainly have my opinion but that is not what matters. But it is not a practical consideration for the coming election. So we are not working on it.

One Time Alliance members (there are at least half a dozen of us in Ontario) have discussed Ms Paul’s answer at great length. OTA has extensive data supporting collaboration and views Davenport as an important riding because of how close the NDP usually come to wresting this seat back from Liberal MP Julie Dzerowicz.

The Davenport EDA met last Thursday, February 18th, but unfortunately I missed the meeting and await news (the meeting minutes).

Like the other OTA members, the motivation for me is that the federal political system—in particular, the first-past-the-post election process (FPTP)—impedes the expression of diverse voices. OTA is an effort to work around FPTP and win seats for united progressives.

Where does your treasure lie? Family, health, peace? Many in both the GPC and NDP understand we have no time to waste in making legislation centred on addressing climate change. More than ever, Canadians need to speak with their neighbours, friends and colleagues; we need to unite for the common good.

Davenport is exceptionally diverse, full of creative and engaged people. The Greens are a natural choice for grassroots collaboration for progress on climate change. Let’s not be partisan, let’s unite, win seats and press a minority government to make good laws.

[jme]

The EDA meeting of March 11 included a fair discussion of the OTA collaboration project but the consensus was against collaboration. On March 28, the GPC newsletter included the results of the Party survey, showing electoral reform ranks #4 after climate change, just transition and Guaranteed Livable Income. (Curiously, the second most popular reason for belonging to the Greens is "I know the change Canada needs must come from politics done differently.")

The March 11 meeting showed strong enthusiasm for taking on the NDP and Liberals in Davenport. Mistrust of the NDP was a particularly strong (and unchallenged) argument against making a plan to help them beat the incumbent Liberals—a victory that seems attainable. In other words (although this was not spoken), "We don't mind if it turns out we're partly responsible for a Liberal majority."

CAN WE TALK?

I have resigned from the EDA (it's just a one year term anyway) because it wouldn't be right for me to promote losing the election, which I do without reservation because, like Greens across Canada, climate change is my #1 concern. Confused? My brain is full, too!

I propose we have a discussion at the AGM, maybe even a vote, about not taking votes away from the NDP in the Davenport contest. Meanwhile, let's talk this up, ok!?

Topic: Voting NDP for the environment

Time: Apr 14, 2021 08:00 PM Eastern Time (US and Canada)

Join Zoom Meeting

https://us04web.zoom.us/j/71579330195?pwd=MnQyRU04YUtNcWlFTlFlM04rV0JVQT09

Meeting ID: 715 7933 0195

Passcode: Metis

Host: James Ker (greenpartybuzz)

in community

jme

[jme]

Given the shortness of the Zoom meeting (30 min.), we'll ask people to speak in favour or against the question, "Should GPC members in Davenport vote NDP in the next federal election?"

Fans of CBC's Sunday afternoon radio show Cross-Country Checkup know this format. It's the quickest way to allow the most input from attendees.

jme

--

"If you come here to help me, you are wasting your time; if you come here because your liberation is bound up in mine, then let us work together."

                                                                                                  Lilla Watson

[jme]

report

My wife joined late. After five minutes or so she signed off unexpectedly. Nobody else appeared for the meeting about "voting NDP for the environment".

Please don't hesitate to ask for the recording of the meeting.

comments

The no-show outcome makes sense. Davenport Greens don't bother joining a discussion of whether or not Davenport GPC members should vote NDP in the next election. Greens in Davenport = a large bunch of Greens voting NDP and a small bunch voting GPC (because they are loyal and don't want to ackowledge signals, they just want to carry the banner onward as NDP stalwarts do).

No, apathy isn't lying behind the Greens historically voting NDP here. It's the Davenport attitude: vote strategically with neither regret or guilt. Be effective as you can inside the first-past-the-post system.

variant

Why tonight's Voting NDP for the environment is an unpopular subject:

• "Voting NDP for the environment" is an off-putting email Subject line
• been there done that attitude of Greens who vote NDP ("Greends")
• we got this attitude of Greens who actually vote Green here

But now we have a variant—and it may take hold. Once you think loving the environment comes before fighting for a voice in a cacophonous Commons that cannot be un-thought.

We are not disloyal to the GPC if here in Davenport we vote for the environment by voting NDP. It's the opposite: we're following the local tradition of exploiting FPTP. We're joining the Davenport Greends.

[jme]

recently discovered*:

From: Smoke Department <smoke.de...@gmail.com>
To: davenport greenparty <davenport-...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: 
Bcc: 
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2021 00:14:46 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Treasure

"... I feel like a stranger in my own sweet home"         Colin Linden

report

"Sorrow and confusion will surely pass away".

My wife joined late. After five minutes or so she signed off unexpectedly. Nobody else appeared for the meeting about "voting NDP for the environment".

Please don't hesitate to ask for the recording of the meeting.

Here's the question under discussion:

[ attached image = gpb_OTA_question_21-04-14.jpg ]

There's a lot of sense in the no-show outcome. Davenport Greens don't bother joining a discussion of whether or not Davenport GPC members should vote NDP in the next election. Greens in Davenport = a large bunch of Greens voting NDP and a small bunch voting GPC (because they are loyal and don't want to acknowledge signals, they just want to carry the banner onward as NDP stalwarts do).

No, apathy isn't lying behind the Greens historically voting NDP here. It's the Davenport attitude: vote strategically with neither regret or guilt. Be effective as you can inside the first-past-the-post system.

variant

Why tonight's Voting NDP for the environment is an unpopular subject:

• "Voting NDP for the environment" is an off-putting email Subject line
• been there done that attitude of Greens who vote NDP (Greends)
• we got this attitude of Greens who actually vote Green here

But now we have a variant—and it may take hold. Once you think loving the environment comes before fighting for a voice in a cacophonous Commons that cannot be un-thought.

We are not disloyal to the GPC if here in Davenport we vote for the environment by voting NDP. It's the opposite: we're following the local tradition of exploiting FPTP. We're joining with Davenport Greens.

[YouTube / greenpartybuzz / Davenport Lakeshore Days]

"Call me any name you like, I will never deny it/

But farewell, Angelina, I must go where it's quiet."

"Remember this rule: intuition cannot be trusted in the absence of stable regularities in the environment."

                 - Daniel Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow

On Wednesday, April 14, 2021 at 9:13:47 AM UTC-4 jme wrote:

Given the shortness of the Zoom meeting (30 min.), we'll ask people to speak in favour or against the question, "Should GPC members in Davenport vote NDP in the next federal election?"

Fans of CBC's Sunday afternoon radio show Cross-Country Checkup know this format. It's the quickest way to allow the most input from attendees.

jme

--

"If you come here to help me, you are wasting your time; if you come here because your liberation is bound up in mine, then let us work together."

                                                                                                  Lilla Watson

______________________________

* includes the first use of 'greends'