NDP or Greens? / "Path to a Peace Economy" Part 2

I know Remind you did not mention unions but the original poster did. Denegrating folks affiliations does not endear oneself.

Was the word "denigrating" directed at me? If so, I'd ask you to consider why you think that based on what I wrote. I'd like to see more unionisation (and I support several pro-union organisations), but if they are fulfilling their function the position of the union on any particular issue may not agree with the position I would like my political party to take. Where there is an explicit association between a union and a political party, the union may influence policy in a direction I wouldn't support. I am not saying the union-NDP association is wrong, or that ties should be severed. However, it may limit the NDP's prospects for growth when citizens feel that the NDP's association with unions conflicts with the NDP's representation of its individual members.

KenS, I have read all the comments here, and I'm sorry you feel I have ignored yours. I was seeking a policy discussion here, as I am reconsidering where to place my support, and because I am interested in global justice issues. This thread did not go where I expected. The responses were immediately partisan, and there wasn't much talk about global justice policy. As with many discussons on babble, it drifted from the subject of the original post. Still, I've learned something and contributed something.

Here is the link to the discussion on the Green Party blogs if anyone is interested in reading the whole thread.

Which political party do the power workers union in Bruce support Provincially? And I wouldn't be surprised if Union Presidents and Rank and file don't support the NDP.  The NDP position on NO MORE NUCLEAR power and against coal and clean coal, isn't the friendliest position for the NDP to take vs Power  Union interests.  In a riding dominated by Nuclear, what political parties currently hold power in the Bruce region? 

There's nothing terribly wrong with the auto bailout itself. There are public policy merits to it on many fronts. And it would be absolute delusion to think that letting the Canadian auto industry crash would do a thing to encourage its replacement by greener alternatives. In fact, this being the real world not a paroulr room discussion, the dislocation and dispersion of capacity would probably harm transition to a production from greener transportation. The existing system is the leverage for investment in greener transportation- which Michigan is showing in spades while the Ontario and federal governments sit back and watch.

What we lack is a green transition strategy. And the NDP's Green Agenda has more than enough elements of that to get started.

KenS, I don't recall anything about stealing platforms and I have no knowledge of that. Also, but for this thread, I've never heard of the NDP's "Green Agenda". I'm more interested in comparing policies and discussing which party can best represent progressive Canadians going forward. I'd like to see more progressive policies. It doesn't matter which party brings them in, or whether parties are "stealing" policies.

I sympathize with the workers whose jobs are affected by slow death of dinosaurs such as GM and Chrysler.  In fact, I empathize with them because it was not too long ago that I was laid off from a place where I had worked many years.  So, I can appreciate how some people might consider the bailouts good public policy.  I could debate that point but what I don't buy is the implication that somehow, bailing out GM and Chrysler might be good for the environment.  For years, North American auto makers have fought tougher mileage standards so they could continue to sell ridiculous, gas-guzzling SUV's and pickup trucks.  In fact, GM was implicated in the early 20th century conspiracy that undermined public transit so it could sell the public on the concept of the automobile.

Horwath slams McGuinty's Navistar inaction

The NDP has for years criticized the two old line parties for using taxpayers money to subsidize the offshoring of Canadian jobs. The old line parties have shovelled money at big business and banks without strings attached for many years. And here is Liberal MPP Sandra Pupatello parroting the words of the cultists who worship at the altar of "democratically" elected impotence:

"I will reiterate again: There is no role for the Ontario government . . ."

Our two old line parties both practice the art of feigned impotence when in government. It's what they do - they are powerless to do anything except dole out taxpayers money to uncompetitive industries and old world fossil fuel based economy. And everything else can go to seed.

So why would Elizabeth May tell Canadians to vote Liberal in the last election? Is she really opposed to the neoliberal agenda? Is the Green Party really for protecting the environment? If I was a GPC supporter, I would be very confused about the message the Green Party is communicating to its voters. Because apparently a vote for the Liberal Party is the equivalent of voting Green.

As one of the dozen or so founding members of the Green Party of Ontario, I would just like to say, freethinkers, that your type were always a pain in the ass, and one of the substantive causes for the GPO's fall into the Harris trap and takeover by libertarians. To say that 311 is just a cynical move is an insult to we who came to the party as the only legitimate party with green credentials. So put a sock in it, mate. You did not come to learn, just to demonstrate your seemingly inexhaustible capacity to turn. 

When you say libertarian, do you mean left-libertarian / libertarian socialist or the extreme right-wing
libertarian as the term is understood in the United States?

You might "just like to say it" but saying it is a personal attack and against the rules on babble.  As you know, because you've been asked many times to stop attacking people during discussion.

If you can't post in this thread without attacking other people, don't post at all.  Thanks!

I think the right-rightists are dreaming if they think the auto sector is going to dry up and blow away. Those people have had it drummed into their minds for years that unionized workers were killing car companies. They will be making cars for many years to come. It's not where I think billions of dollars should be invested, and you are misleading yourself when you say that the NDP is for car company bailouts period. The NDP is not for car company bailouts full stop. The NDP recognizes that there are other important sectors of the economy in need of funding and especially on the macroeconomic side of things. The old line party you say you've supported in the past supported no-strings attached bailouts in bad times, as well as no-strings attached taxpayer handouts to profitable corporations in good economic times. Mixed market economies can and do work. Social democrats in Nordic countries have proven that there are valid alternatives to  neoliberal ideology.

Social democrat governments in other countries have avoided politically conservative "no-strings" corporate welfare payments, and the result is that Nordic countries have been more economically competitive than Canada for many years and with Canada only just making the top ten in the last two years. The same is true of social democrat attitudes toward no-strings corporate welfare and socialism for the rich in Canada.

He's probably in a prairie province or BC. I think that's where most of the US funding is targeted for rightwing Libertarian politics in Canada. The NDP would be their natural enemy.

Sounds good to me.

But what about the voting system in Canada?  A vote for the Greens at least sounds good. But what actually happens when we split the leftwing vote under our dated FPTP system? In the last election the left lost to two old line parties, one whch garnered 22% of the registered vote and the other one with some percentage less than that. I think it's a war of inches and big money backing from Bay Street. The NDP alone cannot compete with old line party campaigns funded by big money and a newz media favouring Bay Street's point of view. The NDP carries all of the left's interests with electoral reform a plank in the NDP's platform.  The left could really go places with fair and proportional representation in Ottawa. I am leftwing socialist, and I really think it's in all our interests to vote NDP if only for electoral reform in addition to what will be a long and hard fight to rest control of the country and economy from private interests, and from foreign interests as well. Political right-rightists have nothing to fear from a fragmented left. We are divided and conquered, and the unspoken and unwritten agenda for exchanging democracy for corporate rule continues unabated.

LMAO......... positioning the Green Party to the left of the NDP is freaking hilarious....omg....can't stop laughing......

Fair enough. You must not have made the comment. But it was part of an exchange that was panning what the NDP put out for the election- what interests are pandeered to, who is allegedly attacked, etc.

I do think your interest in substantive comparison is genuine, but so is the interest in purely partisan comparison. The Green Agenda was on the website at least through the election- can't say that it still is. This points again to the apples and oranges comparison between how the two parties use policy. IE, the GPC puts out a shopping list that summarizes the process of what activists involved with its production like [or don't]. Its read by almost no one, and when it comes to climate change and environmental specifics, is virtually never referred to when the Leader has her real communication opportunities [again: presss releases are seen by no one except the closest of supporters]. The NDP puts out less, but actually puts resources into getting it on the public stage. You might not hear about the words Green agenda during the elction from Jack, but a lot of the specifics were out in daily circulation, and the csarce resources of limited real public openings via the media were used to make sure of that.

Nice rhetoric. Where's the plans, even sketches of plans, or reference to them, of how we make a trasition to manufacturing greener products? Or an explanation of how letting the auto industry slide away helps? where would the bailout money go instead, and what is it applied to?

Doesn't just appear that the GPC would be tougher [at least from where it sits now]. Like I said, thats what its supporters want to hear. But use the money where? How? From what base? Outlines even. And/or was there a reference to this wher, how, etc?

In case you missed it, there's a theme here.

If you want to make comparisons, one place to start is by re-examining points that are made about the NDP/Layton being too cute by half, pandering and posturing, etc. If you are going to be including the colour of the pots in the comparison, consider your own as well.

Not the only theme. I encourage anyone to look at whats really in the policy and how much goes into it getting beyond the converted. but the other theme is there too- and before I joined in calling attention to it.

Permit me to use another example that I have become very exercised about: The widespread proliferation of wireless dependencies is responsibly seen by many to be the greatest urgent health, safety & environmental threat. GPC issued a statement in support of the milestone Bioinitiative Report of 2007, where a coalition of international researchers, in sharp dissent from studies co-opted by the industry, spoke decisively against current dangerous standards (this especially applies to Canada). The GPC leader, or so I thought, has had an instinctive and probably somewhat knowledgeable aversion to cell telephony. Those two factors, plus the internationally snowballing awareness of the current and growing dangers, including political success in Europe recently (surpising showing by green coalition esp. based on activism in SE France vs cell radiation, see particularly on Michèle Rivasi's leadership), should have led GPC to seize the issue forcefully, using what openness remains in some mainstream media to airing GPC views. By being publicly associated with anticipating correctly which way the winds are blowing on this grave matter, one right up the "green" alley, GPC could have reaped -- maybe it's not too late in sleepy & complacent Canada -- political reward, at a minimum a moral reward for pushing it out there for other parties to deal with. GPC has failed dismally. Is it from (much criticized internally) overfocus on the difficult election campaign of its leader? Is it from lack of funds and people? Is it from realizing that the vast majority of esp. youthful supporters are dumbly reliant on the dangerous technology? Does GPC now share too much of that sleepiness & complacency because it finds itself trying to appeal (delusionally in the short term) to a larger mass of Canadians? Combinations of all the above for sure, add your own angles to it.

What keeps the NDP from speaking out? Just as they can carp about bank charges but shy away from going to the root, knowing that it would be a dangerous game to play (just now anyway), the NDP goes after extra charges on texting, or something about 911 wireless access, completely neglecting what so many activists have been putting out on the issue. Good idea, eh: make it cheaper to injure oneself, and easier to call 911, 'cause you'll more likely need it one day. At least among Greens I feel there is (was) more likelihood of some existing awareness of the gravity of all this. Direct appeals to provincial & federal NDP parliamentary critics elicit not even a peep of acknowledgement.

The industry entrenchment is particularly severe in Canada, as is its nexus with government and media. GPC as "misfit" (see a prior comment of mine) could act still in NGO style to its eventual political benefit, but seems to avoid doing so because it feels it is on the cusp of making it into the mainstream (or at least its leader). NDP seems already too entrenched to act.

What's an activist to do, even one with already low expectations from federal politics? GPC at least has a word on the Bioinititive. What best accounts for NDP-ers' failure to do at least that? GPC has a rudimentary policy, for a long time already, on the books calling for, however inadequately, an approach in common with the preference of the City of Toronto (which it outrageously can't enforce due to jurisdictional overstep) to lower radiation levels by some arbitrary factor. What keeps NDP from waking up to this, if not aspects of its culture? What puts GPC relatively out front on this, if not aspects of its culture? Thus far, this is an example of why I tilt GPC-ward. Or show me an individual provincial or federal NDP-er interested, the follow up would be immediate, and with some results, the political tilt could change as well.

It's not a question here of wanting to like the left, as I said somewhere above. It really is a question of life versus debility and death. If there is political paralysis all around, but one still has to choose based on this matter, the (very) slight tip goes to GPC.

Fishing? Hardly. Some wanted something more concrete to compare with.  The carbon tax, carbon this, carbon that, it seems to me too nebulous to so some useful comparing.

So what about this topic as an example of Greens' having been out front, even if incapable of following up, vs NDP incapable of even broaching the topic? Seems to me rather on topic for this thread.

And if any of you "fish" sensibly want to pick up on the grave matter, well, maybe you wouldn't want to for betraying.. just what? That's what I want to see argued, why there is a lag among leftists (never mind Greens' internal political growing pains).  Do they not think it serious? Do they not want to jeopardize others' employment?  Tell me what? Why not even the courtesy of a "thank you for your interest" blah blah from all the appropriate parliamentarians contacted?

I know full well how dangerous this issue is that only independent-minded can broach.  But Greens, being somewhat of a critically more independent mode, were able to more easily pick up on something as hugely important as the Bioinitiative, which, nota bene, the EU Parliament is using as a basis to reconsider these matters deeply, Green-types having led the way there, too.  What's up with the NDP? Or maybe someone has said something somewhere I missed?

I know the BQ to be, even unwittingly, playing a "postmodern" (regionalist/localist) role that I figure should be Greens' self-conscious role (making federal politics difficult, but very useful if approached right). The BQ I think is presenting a petition on the subject in Parliament, or has done so already.  I think they are disappointing the petitioners by not speaking to the matter, just neutrally presenting the petition.  But they do it.

NDP? I'm not trying to discuss off topic. This is a cutting edge political thing, like the "organic" stuff I mentioned earlier, that no way NDP was highlighting back when we were first watching in the 80s like Greens were inclined to, one more thing among many that had us (very respectfully) turn away from some pretty illustrious socialist forbears in the family. So Greens are out front again. Who will pick up on it, who will dare among the other parties?  One would think, based on the protestations of some here against claims of useful singularity to the Greens, that NDP would be the first. Do we just have to wait and see? No analysis from anyone? Just a fish story?

Holey moley. Fishing and then fish stories.

I don't know what the 'fishing' comment referred to. But I'm really lost now.

I'd like to see electoral reform, but nothing turns on what I think or how I vote - my riding is a safe Liberal seat. Would supporting the NDP really give us electoral reform? My understanding is that the majority of the public does not support electoral reform. In my view, to win hearts and minds, we need to support multi-partisan initiatives like Fair Vote Canada. If it's just the small parties advocating for this, it looks self-serving. Also, if the Greens and/or NDP were more popular with the population then electoral reform wouldn't matter so much to either party. Yes, currently we would do better with electoral reform, but the public has to be behind it.

LOL. It was just an observation and directed to no one and no partyin particular.  Have you ever played go fish?

Does your party support bailouts? Go fish

Does your party support Unions? Go fish

Does you party support the environment? Go fish

Does your party support nuclear? Go Fish

Does your party support Carbon Tax? Go Fish

Does your party support Harmonized Tax? Go Fish

Does your party know we did this first? Go Fish

I enjoy the comments.... LOL.

Well george I see madmax's point,  I believe the Green Party is playing a game with our lives

See what you mean, remind.  Hard to distinguish the dilettante from the di...  No, better not go there again.

see what happens here, mate, M V, get a bit too deep or incisive, or show too much feeling (except anti-Israel vitriol -- did I catch you almost at that, too?), and you know you're unwelcome -- it won't be from babblers that i'll be convinced to vote/support ndp, but i didn't expect to be, i just saw your blog item over on the other party's blogsite and followed you over here...i've been here a few times before, and while there is occasionally interesting and intelligent comment that leads one somewhere, judging persistence here to be worthwhile would be stretch for me, but we're glad there's a babble, just wish there were an associated political party i could be drawn to back, from my perspective, which must be less valued than among Greens (however much I irritate them, too -- who likes an independent thinker, an experienced one worse, or a "freethinker")...guess that's it for your thread, no?

There are certainly complementary angles available to the two issue-examples I brought up, in a joint effort at downing the stupid "right". If Greens sense the "environmental" and health danger first, re non-organic agriculture and cell telephony, enriching the perception of danger by including what Greens might tend to gloss over is very valuable indeed.  From my TCM analogy, NDP would maintain cognizance of deeper matters to "tonify", while GPC might focus on the problem that most emphatically "presents" itself. So one commenter here rightly broadened the canvas regarding agriculture (again i strongly recommend Sally Miller's fine book, which i have now finished, mentioned on part one of the thread when only halfway through it), whereas too many green-inclined might be merely consumeristically interested in organic ag. (not a bad thing in itself, but a bad thing in isolation). On cell telephony, still waiting.  Another activist just suggested a possible NDP opening there for us. We'll see. I could see NDP focusing on the lock industry has over government regulators on this matter. And on jurisdictional outrage -- a local sympathetic veteran city politician, the best one we've dealt with, is no doubt an NDP-er, but his complementary angle mostly regards the jurisdictional snafu.  There is so much complementarity available, probably on almost every issue, if not on prescription, at least on angle of attack. Good of Geoff OB to extend a hand, if that was what intended. But best of all would be a forceful NDP stand on electoral reform (not just Senate abolition) which I can't see happening.

Another recent and striking difference between GPC & NDP was in the Linda Keen affair, where NDP caved in to parliamentary brutality, probably not wanting to be seen on the wrong side to cancer patients, even if there was no wrong side but the idiotic claim the "lives were at stake".  That was easily debunked. I blogged a fair bit on that sorry affair at the time, the GPC picked up on it & singularly among the parties ran with the opposition to it all.  Who else pointed out the lie about the lives being at stake" used to railroad parliament? If NDP could take issue with the outrageous affair in terms of governance, that complements the crying out regarding the actual health claim (although the GPC leader herself shied away from going as far as she could have with that).  More complementarity, but there again I support the Greens, who stood opposed on a more fundamental point.

So three examples now for the specificity-oriented, indicating why a guy like me leans GPC-ward & not NDP-ward.  The hope, however, is that GPC would maintain its relative independence of thought and action as it gets bigger and more electorally interesting, and I have reasons to doubt that that would be the case in Canada.  So I am homeless, but with preferences.

I think it goes like this.

Everyone is in fact welcome. But there are a lot of NDP supporters here. And given the number, its guaranteed that a certain number would show no restraint whatsoever.

Not to mention that policy discussions are inherently close to the bone. If I brought similar questions and statements to Green blogs, as you have hear, I'm sure I'd never hear the end of it. As mentioned above, I don't out of a respect for the space, There isn't an equivalent for you here because it is not an NDP space. But the outcome ends up being the same because NDP space or not, Dippers have the numbers here.

But for what its worth, one can draw much more flack for 'failing' a host of litmus tests on 'leftiness' than you would ever draw from Dippers in a thread like this.

Electoral reform is a plank in the NDP's election platform. And in parliament, in May of 2007, the NDP proposed to restart the federal study on electoral reform. But our two oldest political parties voted it down. Did anyone from the Green Party make a public statement at that time? Just curious.

The NDP governments in Manitoba and Nova Scotia could enact electoral reform ASAP, if they wanted to.

Maybe it's time NDP'ers put some pressure on their governments to act on this issue. Otherwise it is sheer hypocracy to only demand electoral reform in jurisdictions where it benefits the party in a partisan way.

"Electoral reform only in areas where we can't win a false-majority" is a pathetic motto for the NDP to support.

Imaginge what a boost it would be to electoral reform if the governments of Manitoba and Nova Scotia enacted Fair Voting for their next elections!

It's an interesting point, especially given the fact that the Provincial NDPs have closer ties to their Federal counterpart than do the other major parties. Perhaps the seasoned NDPers can put this in some context.

On average, the ties are closer than with the other parties. But thats quite a qualifier. At any rate, whatever the ties, when it comes to both policy and 'material interests', the feds and prov sections go their own ways- totally. So don't read from what the provincial parties do or want to what the federal party really wants. The federal party wants PR. Period.

I follow with some dismay the attacks between the NDP and the Greens on cap and trade vs green tax.

I don't think either party is doing this for political purpose alone.

I see a purpose in a green tax and I understand the cap and trade well enough to understand why it is likely to do more to creating change.

A green tax encourages behaviour change by punishing people for using what is at least to some degree an essential so some would be able to afford to continue to waste while others could no longer afford to live. The green tax does nto actually cap overall emissions. To its credit a modest green tax could be a visible reminder of what is or is not sustainable. I support a low green tax-- not one added to other consumption taxes but one where other consumption taxes get reduced. It needs to be visible to work and not punative- so the amount collected should not be that high. It can simply be a point of sale reminder and that has value. I would take the federal GST off activities that are green and rebrand that as the green tax. I would collect the lost revenue from a new top end income tax bracket. I realize there is no party currently proposing a green tax such as I have outlined that would replace the GST. I get that the Green party wants a visible green tax as in part a consciousness changing daily reminder. If limited to that purpose it actually could have some effect-- but I think it is pointless without cap and trade.

Cap and trade is not just useful -- it is essential and actually would bring down emissions and is a a way of making corporate consumers pay realistically for an increases they use and reward them for decreases. I get that the NDP wants this program for the purpsoe of making real change.

We can argue between Greens and NDP on policies but there is no substance to accusations from either side that the other is not sincere about the policy-- apart from being patently ridiculous there is nothing to gain by it. I am happy to debate how each tool can be used and as I said above I like them both although not equally and I do think they should both be employed in a comprehensive green plan that includes investment in green and sustainable technologies (including the arts) and regulation to limit or eliminate certain unsustainable practices.

As well any green plan needs to be socially sustainable.

A transfer of resources from national defence initiatives that are military to national defense that is ecological is a part of a green plan as well-- in recognition that our greatest threat is no longer military.

As far as electoral reform is concerned-- I think there ought to be pressure placed on all parties to do bring in more representative government-- and that includes provincial NDP governments.

Above there was a comment that electoral reform does not change our constitution-- well it actually could-- I agree with the poster that we could construct a more representative solution that does not and that might be the focus however from a practical point of view.

quote:

"Electoral reform should be enacted just as all other majour legislation has been enacted." (the theory)

"1 - A political party makes a policy a part of their platform.

2 - If that political party gains power, it implements that policy." (the hard parts that came with universal suffrage package...universal responsibility with responsible government)

So, knowing that the idea has the aura of a skunk at a garden party, the party proposes it as a plank in their election platform.  Of course.

Green Party polling in BC = 16%.  Outcome in By Election 4.3%

Green Party Polling in Que = 13% Outcome in By Election 1.7% and 3.3%

Green Party Polling in NS= 9% Outcome in By Election 3.3%

Other parties also have decent policy and similar electoral weakness. However this thread is for Green Party supporters to compare and contrast their policies to the NDP. The Canada Action Party was also known to do this in order to fine tune and develop policy as well as messaging for the next election campaign.

By Elections are the time political parties test market their messages and with smaller parties like the NDP and Green Party by elections allow get a real opportunity to pool resources to make an impact. Parties can compete on a relatively equal footing in comparison.

Green Party activists in my region ready to throw support behind another candidate.   They are shopping for a party that best meets their perspective but it looks like a split between NDP and not voting.  

The results in BC have to be gutting for the Party Leader who just arrived to bring in better fortunes in a region that is supportive. The media no longer considering the GP Leader to be a contender following the blowout out in Nova Scotia. The media has lots its appetite to promote a leader they think is going to finish 3rd under the best of circumstances.  Speaking of Nova Scotia, IIRC a woman named Alexa Mc Donough started speaking up a few short years before Elizabeth May.  Her commitment to the region lead her to become the first Woman leader in Nova Scotia and the 2nd in the country. She helped plant the seed that became the NDP Provincial government. She also became the Federal Leader of the NDP.  She was also able to win her seat by remaining committed to the region she was from. She ran many times.  Comparing the former NDP leader to the current GP leader and the problem becomes self evident.  The Green Party leader lacks commitment to any region. The party leader started something in the early 80s and then left. Comes back 25 years later and calls NS home. Then no sooner then you can say Stephan Dion is gone she leaves the region. A similar occurence in London.  What gets harvested? 3.3% in support across Canada.

Why leave one coast for another? For 1%? 4.3% to 3.3%?   The GP leader will fair in the 9% to 11% range.  While that's not bad its certainly not worth relocating.  Thus if there was a bigger picture, it is evident in the by-election results in BC or NS or Que.

People on babble..... more then any other forum I visit... tend to talk and compare policy. Babble is a forum for policy debate and to compare and contrast.  

Electoral chances aside, the NDP and GP policy have more common ground then the banter here may indicate. 

I'm not sure you meant this, but anyway I should say that I started this thread on my own initiative and not on behalf of the Green Party. I'm currently a Green Party member, and I recently started blogging on the Green Party site (for the same reason I started this thread actually - to learn more about the GPC, their policies, and where they stand on issues of importance to me). I didn't put that in the initial post as I honestly didn't expect this thread to be so partisan. If I'd spent more time on babble before posting I would have known better. Still, it's been a learning experience and I'm still torn between the NDP and Greens and pissed with FPTP and strategic voting.