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

Exactly,  it was not me who brought it up as a strawhorse, and yes I took it as union/worker bashing too...

....apparently we should believe those dasterdly unions are stand alone in their environmental destruction bent,  and are forcing those companies they work for to pollute and destroy the environment.

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

Classic.  The minute anyone even infers anything the least bit critical of unions, it's "union-bashing".  This illustrates what I was trying to say.  Unions are a sacred cow to the NDP, never to be questioned.

Freethinker, take note.  If you join the NDP, you need to remember not to say anything about unions that could in any way be taken as negative.

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.

hsfreethinkers- I've been following your parallel discussion in a Green blog.

You might know that I'm a partipant on a few of those blogs. I suspect I rather stand out, and I use my own name.

I don't expect anyone to notice that there is a line I keep to about where I make comments. I never get involved there, as I do here, in discussions that are really nothing more than the Green Party [NDP] is better than the NDP [Green Party]. I would consider that disrespectful of the space, of people who tolerate and/or welcome me, let alone just pointless. Nor do I get involved in substantive policy discussions, probably out of the sense that its going to lead to that.

I have a keen interest in organisation and party governance that goes beyond party boundaries. I'm happy to share that, and have people that reciprocate. That leads to some private discussions I have with some Green activists.

So I'd never intervene in the discussion that you started that follows from the one you started here. And I've enjoyed reading its wanderings. But you made a comment yesterday that reflects directly on the substantive discussions here, and rather than take it up there, I'm bringing it here:

Excuse me, but you said you wanted to make sincere substantive policy and position comparisons.

I gave very precise accounts precisely along the lines of argument which you mention elsewhere. I addressed your questions here about why the NDP took the positions it did. There is no indication here or there that you payed any attention. You weren't expected to agree. But proceeding as if nothing was said is another matter.

Clearly, you don't agree with me. You asked the questions, I gave answers, maybe you could explain where we differ?

I also argued that the GPCs policies are anything but coherent, and that their construction is all about looking good. In case you don't get it, thats the same as saying things "just to get elected". Perhaps you would like to enlighten us and give us some substantive grounds for your obvious disagreement with me. 

I don't quibble with people saying we're the ones with guts, or I only have respect for the leader of my party. That goes with the territory- it would be serious cognitive dissonance for partisans to be otherwise.

But you said you came here for a substantive discussion.

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.

I can understand that as far as what you said when you started, you didn't get out of it what you were looking for.

And I give you credit, that I hope is warranted, that you include yourself as giving what are essentially only partisan answers.

But I beg to differ, at least somewhat.

The discussion extended to carbon tax and climate change action in general. But you started that. And you returned to your earlier points about the NDP. With dotted lines drawn to the general point that you find the NDP too prone to being cute and gamesmanship.

I gave a detailed rendition of where the NDPs policy construct came from. And since you brought it up- included some instances of May's rather blatant gamesmanship around the issue. You never commented on any of that- which as partisan as it is, was chock full of substance. You are completely free to ignore it. But that would be ignore it, and drop the subject. Instead, you kept repeating your points about the NDP without offering a substantive basis- here, let alone the comment in the other blog.

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

Just a note that people might find the threading construction of the discussion hard to follow. You might have to play with the settings at the top of the blog.

And a request that people not bring in here everything that bothers them. I brought what I did because it comments directly on a discussion here.

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? 

Could you elaborate on that point Fidel? I thought the NDP was for the auto bailout. The Ontario NDP was:

And it looks like the Federal NDP [13] was for it from the outset (as was the CAW):

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.

Speaking of the NDPs Green Agenda- in that blog you linked to hsft, either you or Steve May, or both were repeating the presumably comforting myth that the NDP stole the platform from the GPC. As I pointed, the NDP developed and annpunced its climate change package before the Green Vision came out. And that climate change policy package was the last or one of the last elements of the Green Agenda.

The other myth being that the NDP's election platform was attacking that of the Liberals and Greens. Two problems with that. Viz the Liberals, it was deliberate communications strategy to say as little as possible about them. Since the "Green Shift" created such a big splash, Layton was constantly asked to compare. And of course he said the NDPs is better. But the main emphasis was on the green initiatives. In fact, it was the primary focus of at least a couple of weeks of Jack's tour- saying what the Green Agenda would specifically bring to that area. Sounds like politics as it should be done to me. And they made sure that stuff was in the national media. That means they chose it as a priority. Whenever I heard May using those maximum covergae windows it was to talk about how the Greens were doing politics differently. And the NDP didn't mention the GPC at all, let alone compare themselves to its platform.

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.

You would have to live in Ontario and be following politics here to understand what the NDP has been saying throughout this neoliberal meltdown and even before that. The ONDP has criticized the inaction at both levels of government. The $4 billion dollar bailout comes without several NDP recommendations that include buy Ontario/Canada policies, a special manufacturers incentive tax in place in other provinces. The ONDP has recommended regional electric power rates to help out industries in trouble. But giving taxpayers money away without any strings attached is typical of the two old line parties. They've done it for many years, and especially to the US auto industry operating in Canada. The NDP at both levels have demanded that something be done about our $100 billion dollar infrastructure deficit in Canada's largest provincial economy. Starving infrastructure spending has been key to the neoliberal voodoo. 

The NDP has demanded financial help for laid off Nortel employees whose pension funds have been terribly mismanaged. But there is no bailout for actual Canadian corporations and employees, and this is typical of the pro-USA policies of the two old line parties in Ottawa, one of which Elizabeth May has thrown support to in the last election. The Liberals have handed a lot of our economic sovereignty to US interests over the years, and this is what Elizabeth May supports. Afterall, she was born in the USA as was CD Howe, another American who came to Canada and helped orchestrate the pawning off of our natural resources and crown assets to big business in the 1950's. No bailout for Avro Arrow sent to the USA along with thousands of jobs in the 1950's, and they are handing Nortel and its valuable assets to the wolves similarly today. Ben Disraeli once said about the Britain's colonies raided for their resource wealth: ~"Never let them make so much as a hair pin" And that's been the plan for Canada all along. The Yanks want our fossil fuels and massive amounts of hydroelectric power. And our two old line parties have been on the take ever since St Laurent and Diefenbaker and even before that to a lesser extent.

There is no old line party plan to create a prosperous economy independent of our imperial master nation raiding our resources decade after decade.

And the federal NDP has criticized corporate  welfare handouts to the oil and gas industry for many years not to mention neoliberal trade deals and US takeovers of Canadian assets. Our manufacturing sector is more than 50% owned and controlled by foreigners and mainly Americans. Our energy sector is largely owned by US corporations who dictate national energy policies to the feds and provinces.

If Elizabeth May tells you again to vote Liberal anywhere outside Central Nova, then I think you have to decide for yourself whose interests she really does represent. I will never vote for the big business and bankster-friendly and pro-corporate USA Liberals or Tories by proxy of any other party that sides with them when the chips are down. Choose wisely.

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.

I live in Ontario and follow politics here, and I don't recall hearing boo from the NDP against the auto bailout. I gather from those news articles that they strongly supported it. While they may have prefered some conditions, it doesn't change the fact that they supported it. Contrast the Green Party position:

Greens are In the House: May sets out fall agenda, November 18, 2008

The Green Economy: Bail Out Planet, Not Polluters, January 8, 2009 [20]

Green Party Opposes Bailout, June 5, 2009 [21]

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.

That press release from Horwath is pretty recent and it doesn't establish that the Ontario NDP isn't for massive bailouts if it protects jobs in the auto sector. Also, I've written off the neoliberal parties (Liberals / Conservatives) so you are preaching to the converted. My point is it appears the Green Party would have been tougher on the auto sector, and used government money more carefully with the objective of transitioning our industries towards environmental sustainability.

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.

I believed Dion was serious on the environmental file, and I actually joined the Liberals after he became leader. That had nothing to do with Elizabeth May. However, it was clear the knives were out for Dion from the get-go, so I joined the Greens. I have since veered left in my views, again nothing to do with the Greens or Elizabeth May. I am an independent thinker. I'm interested in learning more about the NDP, since I believe we need to move left in Canada. However, it is looking like my support will still go to the Greens. The NDP would have to change a lot in substance and style to attract my support.

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. 

How far left do you want the country to go? I think that the country will go left incrementally over time, like Swedes did eventually after natural resource capitalists stripped that country bare of its timber.  When Canada's fossil fuel exports become so obviously a tax on Canadians for subsidizing the refinement of oil from tar sands and siphoned off to the states for a song - and when we start importing oil and gas for use west of Quebec City - and when Canadians can't afford to pay US rates on light bills for electric power generated in Canada, then I believe Canadians will be ready for socialism. Too many people want to continue believing the lie that they, too, can become rich by system that is already years into failing. The oligarchs still only need about 25% of registered voter support to prop up the imperialism. And then there are the temporarily embarrassed millionaires, and those whose parents voted old line party out of family tradition. Old habits are hard to break. But they will break eventually. I think the Green Party leaders are leading people astray. The net effect of voting Green or Liberal is to guarantee that nothing will change in this country until the time is ripe for change - until the country and perhaps the rest of the western world is pregnant with revolution. Birth pangs of socialism will come for the western world, some day. There will be more hard lessons to be learned for lower class slobs and non-voting Canadians in the mean time.

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?

oh for chrissake  here we go round

the Canadian Oxford Dictionary definition.

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!

Canadian Oxford: "1. an advocate of liberty, esp. of an almost absolute freedom of expression and action. 2. a believer in free will". Sorry, that doesn't help me. I'll assume you mean US-style free-market capitalist libertarianism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism .

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.

As Gertrude would have put it, a rose is a rose is a rose.  I would love to leave the field to this chap, but he corrupts. Did not answer to anything, just took us off down another pointless path.  A libertarian is someone like M'lord Black and his missus.  Landowners with a think about "green", and a party that is going to use the bloody market to save us. 

I have taken great pains to be patient with this type, but for some the urgency of the human situation, so well enunciated by FM, is just another intellectual plaything.   

It would appear that FM's stated decision to retire quietly from the field is the only rational  one, rather than playing some childish game with this type in a setting where innuendo is fair ball.

It is some time since I have been "asked many times" , as you darned well know. But what the hell, the subject only has to do with preserving a  habitable planet for the grandkids.  Not as though it is something important where one's ability to utter every despicable descriptive word imaginable is being used to test one's cultural  sympathy, one's humanity toward one's fellow beings, one's  political correctness.

Editing to add:

Quote:

"Yeah, too bad the Israeli government still gets given "gobs of cash" by the US to spend on terrorizing Palestinians and stealing their land and water, huh?  Let me guess - that's okay, though.  Am I right?"

This is accusing a babbler of supporting crimes against humanity, somewhat beyond being a "pain in the ass". But as long as there is not a name, one can intimate until the cows come home, apparently.

Beyond strange. I'll have to remember the formula.

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.

Theoretically I find left-libertarianism / libertarian socialism [36] appealing, but I don't think humanity is ready for it. I think people are too selfish, short-sighted, and unwilling to embrace change. I'd like the country to go as far left as possible, but the pressing thing right now is climate change. If I believed the Conservatives were the strongest on the climate file I just might hold my nose and vote Conservative. Of course, we know they are the worst.

Policy-wise, while neoliberalism has failed, western governments won't admit it. They are still negotiating free-trade deals and propping up the financial sector. In my view we should: reduce inequality by setting a minimum and maximum annual income and achieve a steady-state economy (like Herman Daly [37] suggests); strengthen local economies and local self-sufficiency; minimize international trade (have fair-trade for some products); abolish the IMF, World Bank, WTO; localize decision-making as much as possible; strengthen and democratize the UN and establish a world currency and clearing-union to minimise trade-imbalances; nationalise the banks and/or bring in monetary reform and support local currencies; reduce national armies and perhaps have one UN army; et cetera...

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.

To save me the effort, if I may I'll direct you to my post on the Green Party blogs "Re: Voting Green" for my view on strategic voting. Also, on the ideological issue of supporting the left, the NDP is clearly social-democratic rather than socialist. The NDP seems to me more like what the Liberals *should* be, and the Liberal Party is more like the Progressive Conservative Party, while the Conservatives are just Fascists.

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

Most of the western banking world has succumbed to the liberal financial regime at one time or another. So, then, how is it that oil exporting Norway has become a net creditor nation at the same time Canada's neoliberal ideologues were throwing us down a debt hole?

Sure there would be more money available for social spending with GCM and debt financed through the Bank of Canada. But what if we simply raised overall federal tax revenues as a percentage of GDP to just the OECD average? ~$35 billion more per year for social spending

Or what if Ottawa raised overall tax revs to the EU-15 average, again as a percentage of GDP? ~ $70 billion for social programs and infrastructure. Canada is not considered a "high tax socialist country" as those on the right would have us believe. In fact, there are capitalist countries which tax and spend at a greater rate than Ottawa does. And they are also rich countries.

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.

And I didn't say that. I was debunking the claim that the [auto] bailouts are bad for the environment. And while not said here, the really common follow-up that then we can get on with green manufacturing. That in fact, if anything, the transition will be made more difficult the more dismantling there is in auto manufacturing.

At bottom the bailouts and policy that facilitates transition to manufacturing for a greener economy are two different things.

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?

Don't get me wrong- there's definitely a case to be made for having let the auto companies be liquidated [not just bankrupt, liquidated is what would have happened]. In actual discussions we;ve had on babble, I've not really argued in favouur of the bailouts, just debunked peoples notions that letting them go is going to help.

The GPC did what its limited range of supporters- and potential supporters who might somehow hear when presss releases go out- want to hear: let the big bad polluters go.

End of story.

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.

George Victor, who are you quoting and why are you bringing that into this thread?

As long as we use income taxes as the primary means of wealth redistribution, then I support raising taxes substantially on the higher income tax brackets as an easy and immediate step we can take to reduce inequality. I've advocated for that on the Green Party blogs, and I mention that for those of you who have decided that I am Satan spawn. Some Green Party members argue individually that we need land reform to truely address inequality, but that isn't Green Party policy.

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.

This thread appears like a fishing expedition for some activists.

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?

Fine, I agree. But it's all idle talk until we fight for and win modern demcracy in Canada. Until then the right will continue backing either of two old line parties and masqueraded as fair elections. Whether black or white cats, we have to recognize who the mice among us are,  and rise up as a lionized political force with a clear goal to win what Marx described as the battle of democracy.

Divided we can never have fair representation in the halls of power. Divided, all talk of democratizing the financial system will be scoffed at by a powerful elite. Divided, paternalistic governments will continue taking voters for granted. Divided we will never fall, because we will never have been united in the first place.  

Holey moley. Fishing and then fish stories.

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

Find your way, KenS, please, because I for one respect your comments.  Seemed like I was being accused of trawling for support for something.

I was trying to offer another example of how, by the culture of the parties, one was ahead of the other, and showing how that actually translated into policy or pronouncement bits, the other party slower to "get it". Again, I still really do care less at this point about specific people and policies than the culture of it all.  But I thought this to be a concrete enough example to discuss.  How is it not? It's current, it's serious (deadly), the parties are differentiated, I'm forced to choose as a voter/supporter, so the fact that the ears of one group are more attuned than the other, that tells me something, a lot actually.

Now if the BQ (which I'd bet we'd vote for if we were still living in Quebec) runs with this, that tells me something, something about possibility and timing and political approach. If Greens are currently impotent, I still think it still unfair to judge them all that harshly, even at the risk of seeming paternalistic.  The NDP, well, I'm waiting and wanting.  The more the NDP pick up on the themes Greens have shown political interest in first, the far greater the public interest, and there would be a common ground for leftish-rightish debate with a (one day maybe) together GPC in the aftermath of an awful modernism.

You know, I am one of those who believes that inter-human mistreatment is a deeper basis for mistreatment of the beautiful world we are in. So I rate human equity concerns, what I take to be a leftist staple, as logically prior to "environmental" concerns.

So what makes me a Green still? Just as in traditional Chinese medicine the surface ailment must be dealt with first, what presents itself with urgency must be tended to before the deeper things can be tonified, of course never losing sight of the deeper disarray, so I feel that Greens have been closer to having a handle on how to go at things as they present today. 

How does my example not speak to the thread theme?

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.

A riding is safe for either of the two old line parties as long as overall voter turnouts are low and their greying support base turnout in full on election day. There is no incentive for people to vote if they know the result ahead of time and that the likelihood is fair to good that their vote will be wasted like millions of votes are wasted every FPP election.

Yes I agree. The public has to get behind electoral reform. 80% of Canadians hold no membership in any political party, and voter turnouts for federal and provincial elections are now at historic lows. And I think that at least one of the two oldest political parties in Canada must decide some day to actively support electoral reform in order for their support base to do the same. And there are people in both the Liberal and Tory parties advocating for electoral reform just not those in the inner power circles where it would count. It's a new day when television and newspaper journalists on the right like Andrew Coyne talk up the need for electoral reform. And there are women in the two old line parties who recognize the need for more female members of parliament and provincial legislatures and realize that proportional democracy has been the solution for this problem in the advanced democracies.

The CCPA says that Canadians were indebted like no other time since the 1930's leading up to this recession. Sir Tony Benn said to Michael Moore in 'Sicko' that he believes people in debt become hopeless. And hopeless people don't vote. If that's true then it could well be that what we have in Canada is about a quarter to 40% of adult Canadians voting to protect what they perceive are their interests when they vote of either of the two old line parties. A similar theory says that this is why voter turnouts in Nordic social democracies tends to be significantly higher than in North America - because voters there feel they have something to protect. 

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.

Yep, it's just bust-a-gut stuff, for sure, existential  concerns aside.

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

Actually, the CPCCA put me up to this. It's part of a plot to cause havoc on rabble/babble.

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

Oh

C.R.A.P.

LOL. 

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?

I don't think either NDP supporters, including trade unionists, or Green party supporters can deliver a knock-out punch in this debate.  All that we can accomplish is to weaken each other to the point where we become easy pickings for the right.

I know the interests of the NDP, unions and Greens aren't identical.  I'm an NDP riding president, and I get very frustrated with the way union bureaucrats throw their weight around at NDP events and try to run the party as if it were their private club.  I'm also an executive member of my union and appreciate the critical role that unions play in the lives of their members and their communities.  These sentiments are not mutually exclusive.  I have no problem supporting the NDP and criticizing unions when they deserve to be criticized.  Finally, I don't think New Democrats and Greens are any more or less committed to solving environmental problems.

Instead of magnifying our differences to win the battle, we need to explore our common interests to ensure that the right doesn't win the war.

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.

Well, the overall tone in this thread reminded me of the quote on Monbiot's blog, "Tell people something they know already and they will thank you for it. Tell them something new and they will hate you for it." I sense people feel this is an NDP space and that I've encroached on their territory. I haven't lurked here in the past, and I've only recently started reading and supporting rabble. Given the left-progressive orientation of rabble.ca and the organisations that support the site, I'm not surprised that there are a lot of NDP supporters here. Still, this isn't an NDP site and all progressives ought to be welcome here.

As you know, I've been upfront with my views on Israel. I favour the one-state solution.

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.

Geoff: "Finally, I don't think New Democrats and Greens are any more or less committed to solving environmental problems."

Arguably correct, Geoff. And I certainly respect your position out there in the real world.

However, the people coming to either party are separated by principles. For instance, if one believes that the market is our bet noire, the fundamental cause of our inability to turn around our impact on the natural world, one is not understood by a "Green". There can never be dialogue across such a chasm, and when there comes only the chatter of an ego, as demonstrated above, the wise will retire before their blood pressure does them harm.

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.

I often ask myself in an exasperation why it is that more people don't seem interested in world affairs, political issues, and consequently aren't involved in trying to make the world a better place. Perhaps more people would if others didn't question their motives or be so eager to attack them personally. Perhaps you ought to join the wise.

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!

JKR, you make a very good point.  AFAIK, NDP provincial governments have done nothing to further the cause of voting reform.  The parties pay lip service but it's always so far down the priority list, nothing happens.

In fairness, though, that seems to be the rule for most political parties.  I don't have a huge degree of confidence it would be any different if suddenly, the Green Party were in a position to form a phony majority government.

If you look at the history of proportional representation in western democracies, you'll find that a lot of them were instituted in the early 20th century to prevent Socialists winning phony majorities under FPTP rules.

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.

As you folks know, in the two provinces where it has come to plebiscite, a majority (vast majority in Ontario's case) have voted against the idea. One can only presume that a majority - perhaps vast majority - would feel that it's a matter for plebiscite, not fait accompli?

That is, again, a statement about the level of political consciousness of the Great Misled (and the Great Turned Off, ages 18-28. who vote in even fewer numbers on plebiscite questions. Ah, the waste of those century old struggles for universal suffrage.)

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.

Electoral reform should be enacted just as all other majour legislation has been enacted.

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

2 - If that political party gains power, it implements that policy.

Requiring a referendum to enact a policy just plays into the hands of those who want to maintain the status quo.

Would we have medicare today if it had to pass a referendum?

Trudeau enacted the Charter of Rights, the heart of our constitution, WITHOUT a referendum. Electoral reform would not change our constitution. If changing our constitution does not require a referendum, then electoral reform does not require a referendum.

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.

It makes sense to me Sean that a comprehensive plan could include both carbon taxes and cap-and-trade, and this is the Green Party view to my knowledge. Also, the GPC claims it would implement a carbon tax in a way that doesn't unduly burden "low and middle income Canadians": :

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.

Creatively creating a compare between the GP and the NDP is very funny, given that the GP, has about 3% support these days, after 26  years of being.

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. 

Intersting observation about other forums, what do they talk about in respect to political parties then?

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.

I think the best point made in the last thread on this came from Fidel. If I understood him correctly it is not about imposing a tax to punish people for using the only options available to them (something that would be very regressive) or the introduction of a cap and trade system that must have loopholes built in to avoid economic catastrophe, that will get us through. Either plan solution has the potential to work only if the alternative options exist. The problem, as Fidel laid out, is governments remain hostile to making the required investments in alternate green technologies. The countries who are making the most progress are not necessarily those with this or that system but those with a real industrial plan to move to the alternatives.

Also, as Fidel pointed out, the NDP has a track record of pushing for those alternatives.

I'll acknowledge that the Green party has also called for such investment but this is not something that can distinguish the parties and there is little need to move from the bigger electorally successful NDP to the Greens who are saying the same thing on this but who have never won a seat.

Where the parties differ is not in favour of the Greens. The NDP has a stronger sense of public good-- including that of the environment. The NDP also is willing to use public enterprise to achieve quickly what the private sector may never do. When it comes to hope for environmental change I'm afraid I have to prefer the NDP approach.

The Greens do have an admission that we have to halt growth. Unfortunately they do not have a plan to manage the finite resources equitably. Perhaps because the Greens are so far out of power as to be insignificant they ahve not ahd to address what it really means to say stop all growth. The NDP is wrestling with the social effects of climate change. I am not sure that the Greens, however pure, are really engaging this side of the equation at all. As an environmental lobby group-- or one issue party- they do not have to. The NDP aspires to govern and so must seek to find social justice in the immediate as well as sustainability. The federal party is not exactly the same as the provincial parties and it has a lengthening track record of positions that address this.