NDP or Greens? / "Path to a Peace Economy" - YES! Magazine

I can't imagine the left coming to federal power in Canada without advanced democracy and therefore some kind of power sharing arrangement. And the way our electoral system works today, we on the left are restricted by an extreme vote distorting methof for elections. It should make all kinds of sense for left-minded and green oriented voters to support the NDP and fight for a proportional voting system under one banner. Not all leftists in Canada support the NDP, it's true. But I think that in order for the left to pursue Marx' own suggestion that we win the battle of democracy, we must be united under one party in order to break the right's long-time monopoly on federal power in Ottawa. If the NDP is only ever able to give us a proportional voting system at the federal level, then that should be considered the holy grail for a united left in Canada. United we stand.

Oh and thank you for the article enjoyd reading it.

If we are to have an honest discussion of politics we must start from an honest place. The NDP is a market oriented party.

But the NDP is also the only party with members in parliament and has demonstrated a willingness to put forward meaningful legislation. As well, the NDP comes from a history of social justice.

The challenge is moving the broad left behind the NDP for purely pragmatic political reasons while ensuring the NDP does not move toward the so-called 3rd way, which translates into a total betrayal of tradition and values, for political success.

Perhaps I ought to disclose that I am a member of the Green Party (I've been a member for about a year). I'm somewhat familiar with their policies, though I'm still trying to figure them out - particularly where they fit on the traditional left/right spectrum. As I've grown older I've drifted left, and have taken a hard left lately. I'm interested in the NDP, but I have reservations. I am not very familiar with the NDP's policies. The GPC's member-approved policies are easy to find on their website. I'm not sure it is the same for the NDP. I couldn't find much information on the NDP site.

My sense of the NDP from the media is that they don't have a very coherent overall set of policies. They seem to drift and just say things they think the public wants to hear (like the Liberals). Instead of conveying a clear vision of where they want Canada to go, they emphasize trivial things like bank machine fees.

On the environment, my understanding is the NDP favours cap and trade exclusively whereas the GPC supports a carbon tax and cap and trade. Also, according to Vision Green (which is based on approved policy) the GPC proposes to give the required six months notice and withdraw from NAFTA, and negotiate a "fair trade" agreement. Does the NDP intend to scrap NAFTA?

For purposes of this discussion, could we ignore strategic voting issues and focus on policy? I'm interested in strategic voting and whether the GPC and NDP should merge, but I'd prefer to discuss that in another thread if that's okay? No problem if not.

Farmpunk that has no place here.  If you have something to say say it properly or don't say it at all.

Yup.  In the last election the NDP railed against the carbon tax in favor of the neoliberal cap and trade system.

If people are interested, I posted an article by Jeffrey Sachs, infamous proponent of free market economics and recently won-over to the Nordic country economic model as a valid alternative to the neoliberal-neoclassico voodoo. I won't post the article again here, but the Harvard trained economist does say that cap and trade and other taxation strategies for CO2 are incomplete, half-baked gimmicks for dealing with the real problem - which is a glaring lack of viable alternatives to fossil fuels. And that's not to say that Sachs is for waiting until the planet dies before we do anything about it. What's missing is a concerted effort to invest in green technologies of the future. Or at least, that's what was missing in his country during crazy George's time in the sun. The NDP also does not dwell only on cap and trade. If one makes the effort to find out, the NDP does have a plan for greening the economy and providing fewer free handouts to the ones doing the polluting and creating bad designs in everything from cars to the dirty tar sands oil Canadian taxpayers pay corporate America to take off our hands. The NDP has green cred'.

Babblers - why not help the Left come back to power and run for office?

I'm not certain what you mean by ideological reasons, though I'd say the environment is the most important issue and I have more confidence in the Green Party on that front. Since I joined the Greens I have become increasingly aware of and concerned with the extent of corporate influence on government. I am appalled by how governments, including ours, handled the current economic crisis by bailing out private banks and the automotive industry. We need substantial changes in the way things are done, and I'm trying to figure out whether the Greens or the NDP have the best policies and political will to bring in those changes. I watch the political scene more than your average person, and while I now prefer the NDP to the Liberals (I liked Dion, sad to see him get trounced) I haven't previously supported them federally as they haven't gained my confidence. I still find the NDP is too cute by half with the political gamesmanship and it makes me wonder what they would do once in power. That said, I'd like to take a closer look at their policies and reassess.

Yes, I've thought of that. Still, even without any seats the Greens are having a positive impact on federal politics. I will support the party that I feel has the best policies and who I'd like to see govern the country. If we all choose our second favourite for strategic reasons we will get the representation we deserve. At the moment I support the GPC, though I'm a freethinker and no party can count on my vote. In my riding the Liberals always win, so I have the luxury of ignoring strategic voting issues for my personal vote. Of course, like many Canadians I am not pleased with how the first-past-the-post system distorts the representation in Parliament. I'd like to see a Green Party government with an NDP opposition (or vice versa).

Well, if there was a close race in my riding between the NDP and Liberal candidate I'd vote for the NDP candidate (though I'd still support the Greens financially unless I change my mind on which party has the better policies.)

If you depend on a market-oriented solution, you aren't going to solve anything.  I'm convinced now, FM, that Jeff Rubin is only talking about an already warming world, when the oil runs out, that will just keep on warming.

The NDP is proposing a degree of radical action that is already unpalatable to the mainstream, and if you separated the libertarian element from the rest of the Green Party, you'd find only a shrunken remnant with hopeful opinion. The NDP is ideologically "best aligned" to a solution when it finally becomes clear that half-assed measures won't do - just ask the CCF rump (with its full Monty approach. )  :)

The NDP are politcally responsible for the climate change which is more than can be said for any other party. Why should the NDP comment on the Suzuki report? Their climate bill set hard targets to be achieved by whatever means. You can study the policies until the Arctic is ice free. Good luck.

How much studying of policies does one need?

We are still going backwards. We have a government with a "plan" that has window dressing tragets that are guaranteed not to be met. We already have over a decade of that starting with Chretien's government.

We need some progress. But that it be firm.

How fancy a policy does that require?

Is whats in the recently sidelined NDP bill a sufficient start- for people who are nowhere now?

Sidelined or not, that bill, and more important follow-ups to it, are a political vehicle that continues?

And the alternative is? And the GPC and its policies fit where?

I don't actually know the answer to that question unionist, but I think I'm safe in guessing you are right.

My point in raising that is that it is a particular illustration of how much stock to put in Green policies. There is no question that they have more of them out there. But they also freely contradict them when there is some local reason to do, or even if its the leader's whim to do so. Other parties would be crucified for doing the same thing, so they are naturally more careful about what they stand behind.

There is more going on than your suspicions. In the first place- they may have commented as quietly as has the GPC. But even if they haven't, it isn't necessarily out of fear of taking on a liability.

Climate change is the opposite of a simple issue on which to actually gain 'communication traction' with the broader public.

Anybody can issue press releases and catch the attention of people like us. But that isn't what is required.

And I will reiterate what KenS said above, "when one has an opportunity for press one pushes what's important to them and "timely". So hence, talking about their "green bill" which the cons and the ungreen libs didn't support. That is relevant right now and leading up to Copohegan.

Up until May releasing the press release, anytime she was given the mike she talked, not about the environment but about herself. About herself getting elected and how important it is. Why, well she never says but it's all about her. So really when all is said and done May just talks about her herself as if she is "it".

From NDP.ca 2008:

Neither Wall St nor Bay St want anything to do with financing money-losing bottomless nuclear money pits. That leaves US and Canaidan nuclear power contractors out in the cold unless they lobby our weak and ineffective(and corrupt) old line party governments.

Linda Duncan wrote:

There is no energy shortage in Canada. That's an old line party lie of FTA-NAFTA proportions. The energy shortage is in corporate America, home to the world's most wasteful and most unsustainable economy in the world. Canada has an obligation to the rest of the world to help curb America's voracious appetite for cheap Canadian fossil fuels, as well as massive amounts of Canada's hydroelectric power. And right now and for a long time we've been paying them to take it off our hands. We need a made in Canada national energy policy.

"This is what I could find for the NDP's plan for NAFTA. Basically, it's entering into negotiations to try to reform it. Well, I prefer the Green plan of simply giving our six months notice, and then negotiating a new fair trade agreement."

Yes, you don't have to worry about details of maintaining workers in jobs that way. Clean slate beginning. Roll the dice stuff.

The puzzling thing is the different approach in the NDP plan towards the US and the EU. It calls for renegotiating NAFTA and "exploring opportunities for a model fair-trade deal with the European Union." Why not a fair trade deal with the US?

Well, carbon taxes isn't actually the sum total of the Green Party's energy and climate strategy is it? For example, see: Making actual reductions in CO2 emissions.

And I didn't say it was. I said the policy was massively contradictory.

The green initiatives for reducing emissions will require substantial new revenues. The pandering "revenue neutrality" part of the carbon tax package that Dion liked so much not only removes all the carbon tax revenues from the package, but the income tax cuts make it imposssible to raise revenues otherwise.

The reason Dion didn't promise any green spending intitiatives is because they knew about this fundamental contradiction, and unlike the GPC, the Liberals would be pilloried if they made promises like that. So the Liberals just pretented the carbon tax would decrese emissions by itself.

Fidel, the NDP may be against subsidizing nuclear but that does not suggest that it is against nuclear energy per sa. The Green's are against nuclear energy as a form of energy resource and would shut down nuclear power plants.

That is different than saying we are not going to give subsidies to them. I'm from the Bruce and the major employer for our area is Bruce Nuclear. I am not against nuclear power and it has it's place as a mixed energy source.

Vision Green says the GPC would work with the Provinces to phase out nuclear power, so that doesn't sound like something that would happen overnight. We are splitting hairs again.

KenS: "GPC has more in Vision Green because its full of contradictory policies"

I'd very much appreciate your pointing them out, ie what do you mean by, "full of".

On policy formation in general, I think many Greens are deluded in thinking that a pure populist approach as they have had can be extended, as Greens risk becoming a more serious player. I have drawn attention among them to the demise of several Canadian (& one Australian) party with such policy methodology, and I don't know if the Greens can get the act together in time to avoid major stumbling or embarassment (which latter might not be all that important for so few people watching).
That would be a real shame. Their important populist aspect can be retained as ultimate frequent veto power over policy more expertly developed and handled, of course with lots of ongoing populist input & discussion. It is in the renewal, using some combnation of on-the-ground & internet means, of citizen engagement that maybe their best contribution can be made. Any party can take up any policy as the political winds blow. But the voted-for policy on their books contains some difficult items that could be dragged out in full view if Greens threatened anyone electorally. That would be sad, because, as the thread initiator here has said, they are having important positive influence.

For me it comes down to something I think I saw a moderator here say once, that it really is about the culture of the party, however difficult that is for those who want to put a definite finger on things. We have "lived green" as dissidents in so many "life ways" for so many years already, and while we have ready connexion with many longtime stalwart NDP-ers, we have felt that much of our dissidence was away from that to which most left-inclined assimilated. All the while we're most appreciative of the historic place of the left in its own dissent from aspects of our brutal reigning authorities. But it's the culture that sways us mostly.

Part of that culture regards the admissibility of and comfort level with some traditional/religious approaches to politics. I once tried to dig up on the old format babble some threads on religion & the NDP, but couldn't find my way, someone do help me if you can, I expected to find much food for thought, if only to push off of as a Green-inclined.

But we could vote NDP. I need convincing like M V (yes, I am that D V), I don't think I'll be convinced except tactically, as others suggest. I do hope the Greens don't wither or self-destruct, I spent a lot of time trying to help them improve, to some effect, of course never enough.

I feel a bit more comfortable among misfits, even ones I can't agree with on much. NDP-ers mostly don't seem misfit to me.

It's janfromthebruce's lack of negative feelings there that trouble me.  That's part of what I meant by assimilation. And why I remain something of a misfit even among Greens, who as noted have rather many friends of nuclear among them.

On the referred to candidacy of Mr Hibma, I was responsible I'm sure for quite a bit of discomfort at the time, see throughout webpage http://www.greenparty.ca/node/4799 . I was an almost solo dissenting voice, not that many/most Greens didn't see it my way, just that they are mostly too Canadian-polite or -shy too speak forthrightly, something that has repelled me from them somewhat, I kept telling them they have to import some rudeness from the left, on which permit me to quote, "I heard a few years ago on CBC Radio none other than Judy Rebick praising the gentlemanliness of Corocoran (in contrast, she said, to her closer poltical colleagues!), someone whose words (other than "hello" & "good-bye" one supposes) she never agreed with", that being from something I posted throughout webpage http://www.greenparty.ca/blogs/7/2009-07-14/stephen-harper-bashes-religi... .

Anyway, the candidate during the campaign eventually posted, then took down, a statement less equivocally anti-nuclear, which I praised on that webpage before it disappeared. 

But the originating fundamental "green" culture of opposition to nuclear as modernist gargantuism, that's the kind of thing that attracted me, and still abides among enough greens to have me not totally abandon them, although I have let off contributing directly, too many other disappointments, enough already accomplished for now anyway.

So janfromthebruce will not convince this voter to vote NDP. But at that 1st webpage I did comment somewhere favourably commiserating about "when Hampton couldn't get a hearing even "naked down Yonge St."" Maybe I can go provincial NDP (the Ont. provincial Greens are sadly barely supportable for me), but not federal.

The Green Party cannot be taken with any degree of seriousness or responsibility. Especially when it comes to the environment.

giggle, l love commercials.....

Then why isn't Jack Layton talking about it? Does he think the public likes debt slavery and being part of a flawed economic / monetary system that concentrates wealth and threatens our social fabric and democracy? Does he think the public is too stupid to understand if it was explained to them how the monetary system works?

I think I've already told this anecdote online somewhere among Greens, but I went canvassing with a promising young Green candidate some by-election ago, and we got to talking about more than the door-to-dooring we were doing, and he expressed some impatient comment about the left, to which I suggested that their much longer experience versus the monied, has them play a more politically realistic game, (which is what I mean by assimilation unfortunately), that the Greens risk playing unwittingly into those monied hands even worse I might have said, implying some naivete on his part, but he did constructively turn it around to claim possible benefit to unformed naivete. THAT's the kind of potentially positive attitude behind why I hung around openly contributing to Greens as long as I did, to make it harder for that youngish naivete to slide where it shouldn't.

It is a bit laughable that bank fees were made so much of. I think the fees slid in after the last great wave of sour bank loans, to defaulting countries that time. Now it's a defaulting world. It is legitimate to go after the fees, except that why not attack that as maybe all that the banks should have as profit, mere administration costs? Why not go to the root? Because the bank dominance is too entrenched as it is? Too culturally formative in Canada? Too historically formative? NDP membership too uncomprehending, even if grumblingly, of how to get to the deeper root of a matter? Too worried about consequences threatened by those they'd oppose (like must have been behind passage of the October bailout in the US)? It is a near impossible jam. Greens are also way too lacking in knowledge & understanding about this particular root matter. But it could be exactly THEIR dissident & less attached office to promote alternatives (like some GAI, with a reference to the overall negative influence of banking as it is), and let whichever other party run with it. Who knows how it will politically play out. I prefer to support the more daring in the more dire circumstance we're in. I fear Greens are becoming less daring and less interesting, and that the NDP really don't have it in them to get to the root either.

I read the Korten. He's getting better, getting to the root. I wonder how some around here can nod approvingly at what he says, though, drawing in all that spiritual talk stuff (eh, hs'?). I don't nod all that approvingly at his style, but I acknowledge he is definitely improving from what I've read/heard previously. Especially important, of course, is the money talk. But I think he is trying to be more inspirational than comprehensive, and my own fault is too great a philosophic attraction for the comprehensive.

Yes!-mag kind of stuff has a better chance of getting pulled off first in the US, regardless of political party stuff, because they look that much less to central authority. So practical action is more likely more quickly (but then so is mayhem), specific party policies not all that important.

Maybe if Liberals get squished to a parliamentary rump in a next election will there arise a coalition for parliamentary reform, after which NDP-ers and Greens, more assured of placement, can both with more confidence act in line with their deeper originating pools of dissent. Then what should emerge is the occupation of vague left vs right positions by NDP vs Greens. A real creative tension.

[Eyebrows raised...]

That might make for interesting reading, but the story so far has a sad ending. The NDP/CCF gave up and became complicit in a conspiracy of silence, as economic inequality increased...
 

Exactly, so where is the NDP? I can understand why the Conservatives and Liberals are silent (they cater to the oligarchy). The NDP is supposed to be the people's party. Is there even a paragraph on their website explaining our monetary system
and its implications? Should people be left to figure it out for themselves? Don't you think that if the NDP made an effort to explain this to the public, that the public would be shocked and would demand some significant reform? Governing parties should have the ethics to lead on this issue right now.

No! All of the information one could possibly desire on the monetary system is widely and freely available. People don't care so long as the drive-thru line is open and the television is on. The same is true of climate. Even those who have a modicum of understanding with an awareness that we're deep up the shit hole still would rather debate the finer points of policy than actually take up the fight.

David Suzuki once said, to paraphrase, we're in a car travelling at 120 kph and headed straight for a brick wall and we're arguing over what's on the radio. When your kids ask you what you did to prevent climate change you can tell them you debated the finer points of policy.

I gave you details of a policy contradiction that could hardly be considered more fundamental. And without commenting on that first, you want more?

I do want more to "fill" out your rhetoric, KenS.  It is obvious to me that there is haphazard or disjointed thought behind some things GPC has as policy. That is why I go on about the policy formation method & the doomed populisms.  Coherence would certainly come with more central control in policy formation, while maintaining what it has pioneered with the means of our generation (internet esp.) in citizen engagement.  I think that taxation needs a major public rethinking altogether.  I can forgive Greens in their enthusiasm for putting forth what are novel policy ideas for Canadians, as long as they get around to seeing how they are at times philosophically incoherent, and start working on that.  I've berated some principals there privately for going on talking about a carbon tax as if it were a sensible basis for outright positive things one wants to fund.  I saw the criticism get accepted, somewhat.  And those who criticize Eliz. May when she makes a foray into talking about finance & monetary matters, well, I, too, wish there would be more delegation among party principals, which does seem to be developing as well.  Patience. But I have had low expectations, so I am not thrown much by their lack of coherence as they develop. Still I fear it might not hold together in the medium term if some things don't come together, like improved policy development.  It's still better to be a bit incoherently errant than to put out what some parties do. 

And so where else is the "full of"?  For example, I've been in organic food business for some 30 years, and what other party has tried to speak to this utterly fundamental basis to remaking the country almost all those years, having members prioritize it in a way not expectable from NDP?  If a few pieces don't match in that policy file, that they have addressed it with priority speaks to the underlying party culture, different from the NDP, whcih I really would like to like more, but accept as a complement. (Actually I don't accept the Greens as anything special, just a better cultural fit for someone from my angle, and the fit seems to be eroding sometimes, which is part of why I find myself here at babble sometimes.)

Well, there are orthographic "amatures", too, we see.

Why the vitriolic tone?  The Greens can't have been as big an irritant to the NDP as they should have been stimulant.  When do political parties nowadays invent ideas?  Greens are in a different league now, esp. in having gotten the attention and transient membership of very many more hopeful people, which is why their policy framework cannot hold, but contains the germ of something maybe very good.  As for novel policy, there must be all kinds of Canadian political novelty throughout their 26 or so years, at least in terms of prioritizing. As with my example, had I heard something serious from other parties about my livelihood field all those long years, I would have paid them more attention than finding a home in the political wilderness among Greens.  (We actually got involved way back in '83, but left off for there being too few like-minded, concentrating on not directly political dissent in family-rearing & livelihood &c all those years until some of that load lifted a few years ago allowing a peek back into politics and finding some catching on of some things we tried to help get going a generation ago. I haven't voted Green all those years where possible for reasons of people   or policies, but because they wre inclined to ask better questions -- again, it's the culture of it all.) Anyway, I'm not dodging, I don't fell inclined either to take up a vitriolic challenge.

After some prompting, this is a reply to my earlier comments. Which were as follows: 

I don't know what the relevance is, why you mentioned, that the carbon tax plan would not be revenue neutral for industry. I'm clearly talking about revenue neutral for individuals, as it was clear that was what the GPC was talking about. If there was a reason for bringing up revenue neutrality for industry or companies, you should explain that.

And its not necessary to know the costing of the programs in the Green Vision- except as a very general assessment. You pointed out yourself the necessity to have both the carbon tax and the green intitiatives to boost spending on emission reduction. Carbon pricing, of any kind, will not do the job alone... and it will have negligible effect in its own right at the levels proposed in the early years of any plan proposed.

Re-summarised here are how those 2 fundamental pillars in the Green Vision work together.

1.] Without even rough costing figures [and I think that there were some in the Green Vision] it is obvious that the program spending for the various intitiaves is on such a scale that some new revenue source is required. At that scale, unless the biggest ticket items like health care or income transfers are to be cut, that means new sources of revenues.

2.] The most obvious source of revenues is the new carbon taxes. But as with Dions plan, a big deal is made of how the revenues will all be returned to individuals in the form of tax cuts [and credits for those who pay little or no tax]. So that source of revenues is out. which leaves paying for aggressive green spending with income tax increases. But no matter what your politics, you can't do that when you've just given people a tax cut. It would be blatant bait and switch.

As pointed out, this is why Dion only offered re-warmed versions of far too modest spending initiatives promised when he was Martin's Enviro Minister. The Liberals would be crucified for such a blatant contradiction. But the media doesn't care about what the GPC promises, and its supporters don't notice the contradictions. [Don't really care either when it comes down to it.]

The NDPs program promised the carbon pricing and the green initiatives. And only promised income relief from carbon pricing to low income households. Since that would only take roughly one third of the new carbon pricing revenues, that leaves lots of new revenue for the green spending intitiatives that were promised [around which Jack Layton made an extended series of local anouncements, especially for mass transit spending].

I'll admit to having a very hard time following your writing style, so maybe I am missing something.

From what I understand you are claiming that the Greens are the only ones who have been talking about the importance of organics and that the NDP has only paid lip service to this issue.  Is this a correct characterization?

If so I call BS.  As a long time organic activist and farmer the NDP has been the political leader on these issues.  When no one in mainstream political discourse was talking about organic food production and associated issues, there was the NDP.  In fact I have been criticial of the NDP for being too focused on organic food production as if it was a panacea for all things wrong in agriculture - because it isn't- won't and can't ever be. 

So you are either ignorant of what NDP policies are or willfully blind so that you can do the usual old-school partisan sniping the Greens in my book have become all to well known for.

It isn't that its deliberately kept obscure. Or even that caution has the consequence of keeping it obscure.

Its primarily a question of priorities and allocating resources. With the significant additional influence of being careful about what you put out there- but thats only germane when it comes to things that are on the 'wish list'.

There is less pressure coming from fear of putting out something that will bite, with stronger and more general pressure from the need to be focused if you want to be heard. If you want to hit all the bases, even in one policy area, its not remotely as simple as writing a coherent edifice. If you want it to mean anything, you have to be sure that the totality does not swamp the pieces. Otherwise, its DOA.

Which is why only the in crowd referrs to Green Vision. And you won't more often than a blue moon hear May using her time in the public spotlight to make substantive reference to something progromatic  in it.

To make the NDPs climate change policy and program package work to its potential would require putting more long term planned "communication investment" then they put into anything. To my mind, the lack of clear written summary is just symptomatic of the larger problem.

Or Perhaps the left wing environmentalists could join the NDP, the Right Wing environmentalists and eco capitalists join the Conservatives, and the fluctuating flip flopping Greens could join the Liberal Party. Then all parties will have a stronger environmental voice and each voice coming from their perspective.  This could avoid some of the contradictory and convienent dual messaging that exists within recent Green Party policies. Actually, If I were to classify. Older hipper Greens were more in line with the NDP. Newer Harris style Greens are the rightwing Eco Cons. And the recent Greens who support May are Liberals or Gliberals. The flip flopping and say anything message of convienence with hard attacks on the NDP is more in line with actions of the Liberal Party. However, with a Green voice amongst the Liberals, they may actually do something. 

Right now the NDP is to me the most environmentally sound.  Members of the Green Party are more in line with Liberal and Conservative policies, and to move an agenda forward, they should return to their party roots. Even Mulroney had an environmental base. Harpers is no where to be found. And this isn't good for government.

No major party is going to merge with a party that comes in at 6% during elections. Its the other way around.

Ironically, the Conservatives have policy and messaging and media.

The Liberals have little policy (depends on the direction of the wind), but they have messaging and media.

The NDP has policy and messaging but no media.

But there is little doubt that the NDP messaging has been punching above its weight as of late.  Regardless the NDP is a party that traditionally weighs in around 13% to 19% nationally, and there are many people who realize that you have to do your own research and not base your decisions on the propoganda coming from the leaders of political parties.

They only have so much time, a soundbite, to get across complex ideas. And a short time to choose a message to focus on.

In all seriousness, very few of the 900,000 people who voted green have even heard of Green Vision.  And when you see how people vote, you realize that sometimes policy has nothing to do with the choice.  I recall travelling through Guelph during the By Election period. It was ironic to see a beautiful lawn with a Green Party sign, right next to the chemical spray sign....keep off the grass. LOL.   I wouldn't be surprised if this person is against the McGuinty government next provincial election, because the Liberals banned pesticides.

I believe all society benefits when political parties are able to lay out their policies. Regardless, in each election campaign a political party releases a platform. Most people don't even pay attention to it.  Infact they paid so little attention that the Conservatives didn't release a  platform  until there was only 5 days left in the campaign, and they were rewarded.

One of the few successful parties to run off their platform was the Liberals with their little red book. It was so good they never implemented any of the ideas but the LPC got to run on those popular ideas.... election after election after election.

Regardless, if you can't find anything of value within the 3 major political parties that support your beliefs, then continue supporting the Green Party. However much of what you are speaking to are staple products of the CCF/NDP.

DV, it wasn't called "pro-organic" back then, it was spoken of as pesticide and herbicide free policies

people fought hard within the NDP, back in the 60's, which helped to get DDT banned in 1969,  that is how far back it goes within the party's framework.

the same is true for CFC's....

Hmm I wonder why Norway, another fossil fuel exporting nation like Canada, is switching to EU-ETS ?

And then there is Rbst and a whole host of issues that the NDP was the only voice on.  I remember trying to get the help of Greens in a totally nonpartisan way on that issue - and it was too practical or something, anyway they never showed up to help, but New Democrats did, along with a number of non-aligned people too I might add from the NFU.

If you look at the records of actual NDP governments, you'd have to conclude their progress to making Canada a "champion of global justice and environmental sustainability" has been modest at best.  Out here on the left coast, it was the NDP who first championed our Olympic bid and it under an NDP government that Betty Krawcyk first went to jail for protecting Clayquot Sound from logging.  Certainly the NDP looks progressive against all of the foil of present day neoconservativism but so would the Greens.

If you are (as your handle implies) truly a "free thinker", I think you may feel more at home in the Green Party.  My personal observation is that NDPers have more a tendency to be ideology-bound.  Unions - good.  Business - bad.  Life isn't that black and white.  I think the Green Party has a tendency to atrract a wider range of views and might appeal more to a free thinker.

Personally, I think the Green Party has a stronger and better articulated platform.  And I think that the NDP is too deeply indebted to unions whose interests are often misaligned with the environment and sometimes misaligned with social justice.

The bottom line is that you're not going to bring down global capitalism any time soon no matter how you vote.  And you won't get objective advice from political junkies.  So give each a look and go with your gut.

Capitalist corporations who control the markets are on the side of social justice, more so than unions?

What unions are more misaligned with the environment,  than the corporations who are  controlling the markets and often the union workers?

Here's an alternative POV. Corporations just wanna pay their taxes, treat workers fairly and contribute to the greater public good! [/Walt Disney's world]

I was quite disappointed when the NDP came out against carbon taxes. It seemed more of a partisan position than sound policy. There's been renewed criticism of cap-and-trade lately. For example: Friends of the Earth attacks carbon trading

Do you think the NDP will flip-flop on carbon taxes?

In BC, they already have; although I prefer to see it as a reconsideration of a flawed and reactionary policy.  In the May election, there was a big dust-up between prominent environmentalists and the BC NDP over the NDP's "axe the tax" campaign.  Environmentalists such as David Suzuki were worried that if the BC election were lost over the carbon tax (so soon after the Federal Liberals were hammered over it), other North American politicians would be afraid to even raise the idea.  Suzuki publicly criticized the NDP, who didn't appreciate having their environmental creds tarnished.  For their efforts, Suzuki, Berman and others were personally attacked by many in the NDP (including some who regularly contribute to Babble) as being "pretend" environmentalists with secret right-wing biases.

After the election, Carole James dumped the "axe the tax" policy and committed instead to making the tax fairer.  IMV, it's a very sensible policy but it came too late.

Reefermadness, it was you who brought up "unions" as the strawhorse. It sounds like the Greens are distainful of unions which really is about about folks pooling their labour capital to work together in order to gain a living wage, healthy and safe working environment, and by extension sustainable and healthy communities.

I have read enough on Green blogs to understand that there is some strong anti-worker/union sentiment in the Green Party.

Personally when May quits kissing liberal party butt - a party in govt which did squat for the environment except sign Kyoto and do photo-ops (LOL) - I might consider being more charitable towards the Greens but your leader sure picks strange bed fellows and coat-tails to hang on to.

We've had carbon taxes for years with home heating fuel, 4%, and gasoline at 10 cents a litre and about 30% or so total hidden taxes at the pump. And Canada's CO2 emissions increased across Canada every year the Liberals were in Ottawa.

And after a dozen years with carbon taxes not working to reduce CO2 output in their oil-exporting country, Norwegians are signing on the European ETS.

The greenest possible answer to the problem is the NDP's platform for investing in green economy, renewable energy, conservation and efficiency, and writing our own made in Canada national energy policy.

Here's one of the reasons why corporate polluters in Canada are laughing all the way to the bank at thoughts of a "carbon tax"

Corporate tax rate in Canada was 30% in 2000

Liberals slash corporate taxes to 21% by 2004

Harper cuts corporate taxes further to 19.5% by 2008

By 2012, the Harpers will have slashed corporate taxes to 15% and one of the lowest corporate tax standards in the developed world. The result will be a cumulative loss of $170 billion in revenue according to a recent study by the Parliamentary Library. Massive corporate tax cuts in Canada since 2000 are proof that there is no link between lower corporate taxes and economic prosperity. The country's hemorrhaged somewhere around a third of a million jobs since turn of the decade.

Are our Can-Am natural resource capitalists worried about a carbon tax amounting to a slap on the wrists? They're already laughing all the way to the bank with our two old line parties pandering to their every whim for lower and lower corporate taxes.

Perhaps the most disappointing thing about the global warming argument, is that people have reduced it to a tax policy. It has nothing to do with climate change.  The HST will do as much for climate change. Such thinking if put into 1991 terms, the argument would go like this.

We are shifting taxes from production and onto goods and services. A new tax, the GST will be applied to Gasoline at the pumps. This will reduce global warming.  This tax is progressive in nature, the higher the price of fuel, the more the end user will pay in GST. This tax will be applied on top of already existing taxes, thus a tax on tax. The planet will then start cooling.

Then expand the tax to the HST and put it on home heating fuel. Yup, I can feel the artic chill as the planet starts freezing.

Seriously. Climate change is a real problem with an input output mechanism. It will not be governed by a tax, other then as an extra source of revenue collection. It may give out a feel good approach to people who falsely believe that a tax is helping the planet, but bottomline, its about government revenues and not the planet.

Even worse about the Carbon Tax, when jokers promote it as "revenue neutral" is that in order for the tax to replace other tax income, and provide services, is that revenues become dependant upon carbon emmissions. 

Also a Carbon tax is extremely limited in scope. It has no effect in the country of origin in reducing emissions and yet puts their own businesses at a disadvantage while subsidizing foreign ventures. 

Carbon trading, is stock market version, and of course it will be subject to market forces. Holes to drive a bus through. However, it does have the potential to level the playing field and possibly reduce emmission, however, its the loopholes that give countries a free ride, thus I am not certain if I would trust any stats thus far.

Regardless, it is one mechanism outside of rationing that has the potential to be negotiated and if corruption is avoid and greenwashing is avoided, it can work or become the next thing since the Liberals signed Kyoto and did nothing.

Regulation is going to do more for the environment. A CAP is required.  

The NDP is right in opposing the Carbon tax, because of its regressive nature.  It does fall in line with Conservative and Liberal governments who want to bottom feed on the lower end of the tax base and give those with greater ability to pay and consume a tax break. 

The NDP flip flop in BC is a bad decision and a sign of weakness.

Here's an expansion hsft on that point about the NDP and why the carbon tax. Or a history.

But remember the crucual underlying point, we're not talking generally about carbon tax versus cap and trade, we're talking about their politics HERE.

The NDP was the first out of the gate on this. It took place in the House committee work rewriting C-30 that started in late 2006. Supposedly it was joint work of all the opposition parties, but the Liberals and Bloc just stalled and the NDP did all the research and development work.... which the Liberals only signed onto when they couldn't stall any more and the choice was vote for what the NDP had proposed, or the existing government bill... the infamous and so called 'Clean Air Act'.

The thinking was that in practice for launching some kind of carbon pricing, all parties and al the NGO's chose ONE of tax or cap and trade  to back. Essentially, hard enough to get one, let alone try to launch with both. Wonk discussions tended to focus on which was the most achievable.

So it was only going to be one of them, and it made sense that when you look at the detaills and how they will be presented to a public that is not overall going to be thrilled- the carbon tax had more booby traps. Cap and trade has other advantages that dovetailed with the better optics.

So cap and trade it was. And the Liberals eventually signed on. [Sidenote: just over a week before the announcement of the package, Elizabeth May wrote an absolutley scathing letter about what a harmful role the Committe was playing, etc. Apparently her buddy Dion neglected to tell here th Liberals were changing position. She did more than a 180 degree tirnabout. Not only praising what good legislation it was, but even richly claiming a role in it for herself. End of diversion.]

Obviously, everyone else agreed with the NDPs thinking that the carbon tax would be too much of an uphill political battle. But the Green solution announced a couple months later was to wrap the promise of "revenue neutrality" around the carbon taxit. Blithely ignoring the fiscal Trojan Horse that would undermine ANY expansion of green spending, such as the initiatives in the Green Vision. When asked to compare the Greens plan May said the "Liberal and NDP plan" [the rewritten C-30] was "more bureaucratic" while the GPC plan relied on market mechanisms. And thats not a paraphrase.

This followed with the BCLib govt, then the Dion Liberals taking the same carbon tax plus revenue neutrality approach. Except that those two, needing to keep to some minimal standards of consistency, simply abandoned any pretense of green spending initiatives. All the evidence we have is thatany kind carbon pricing alone will do sweet fuck all unless it comes in with agressive green spending initiatives- at least not until the price per ton of carbon is really big. ... which would be an unconcionable thing to do to people without providing them the tools to reduce emissions. And as noted, people keep talking about the sucess of carbon taxes in Europe, but thats with aggressive inititiatives already in place.

No the NDP does not support no-strings-attached corporate welfare handouts. You're misinformed.

Where to start?  First, I did not bring up unions as a "strawhorse".  I brought up the NDP's close alignment and indebtedness to unions as a party bias.  I've belonged to a couple of unions for over a dozen years.  They have good and bad qualities, just like everything else in the world.

Second, Elizabeth May is not "my leader".  In fact, I don't have a leader.  I've never belonged to any party and likely never will.  The Green Party policies happen to resonate best with me at this point in time.  My political views don't sit neatly in a left/right continuum and no party really articulates them.

Finally, I'm sure if you look hard, you can find some strong anti-union sentiment in the Green Party because GP members have a diversity of views.  However, I don't see evidence of an anti-union bias in their policies or their statements.  And I don't have an anti-union bias either.

So when Elizabeth May told people to vote Liberal except Central Nova, then I can only assume that the Green Party supports the federal Liberals' record for selling the environment to Exxon-Imperial and the fossil fuel industry - and massive, taxpayer funded corporate welfare payments to profitable US and Canadian corporations stealing us blind. I can only assume that whatever comes out of the mouths of Green Party leaders isn't the truth.