Now is a good time for an NDP-Green Party

I think it is possible to have a Green - NDP coalition.

a) GP needs it's enviro policy to be linked to solid alternatives on finance or the enviro policy will end up greenwash.

b) NDP needs a coalition partner, and a green one would be ideal with a) 

Oh, Centre-Left Humanitarian. First, welcome to babble.

Second, I need to tell you that this conversation has been talked about a lot in the past, especially after Elizabeth May became leader of the Green Party of Canada. We've also talked about this during the most recent federal election. Check out some of the older threads in the "canadian politics" forum. You should know that these conversations rarely go well. Please hang in there. 

Finally, many of us here don't consider the Greens to be particularly left wing on issues other than the environment (and some claim the Greens stole the NDP's green platform. Or was it the Liberals. I can't keep track.)

Other than those tips I don't have much else to add to the topic. I'll be watching and moderating though.

Again, welcome to babble. 

thanks Maysie for your reference to previous conversations.

maybe some key points can be pulled forward, given changes to current conditions  ?

"many of us here don't consider the Greens to be particularly left wing on issues other than the environment"

that's why it's important they work closely with the NDP on '...everything else'.

Ou're assuming the Greens want anything to do with the NDP in the first place. Many of the odd ducks that are involved in that party will breathlessly tell you that they are NOT leftwing at all and that they hate unions just as much as the next guy! On environmental policy, you practicaly need a microscope to find any difference between the NDP and the greens in the first place. And then there are the massive egos involved. EMay could never be involved in anything she didn't run.

Better to just let the greens turn brown, wither and die and then pick up any flotsam remaining.

You really go out of your way to make the NDP look bad by speaking for them.  I'd be interested in reading about this without the rhetoric.  Overtures should be made and welcomed, not dismissed at first sight.

eta:  P.S. - there's no election happening right now.

The way I see it, the Greens don't really have a coherent ideology apart from the environment.  And to some extent, that is what they're going for with things like "not left or right but forward".  So there are right wing Greens like Jim Harris and left wing Greens like the Green Party of Manitoba which is significantly left of the NDP on most or all issues.

I know what the Greens would get with the merger. Seats in the House, increased funding adn prominance on the national stage.

What does the NDP get?

In reality, a merger between two parties that are of such mis-matched size - would essentially be a takeover. The NDP has 37 MPs, the Greens Zero. The NDP has over 100,000 members and MPPs and organization across Canada. The Greens have a couple of thousand members in the whole country and no organization to speak of. You can call it a "merger", but in practice the NDP would quickly become about 95% of the new party and we would be right back to where we were before the Green party came into existence.

I know the math isn't quite this simple, but the NDP had 18.2% and the Greens had 6.8% of the popular vote last time. Their combined total was 25% - not far behind the Liberals at 26.2%.

Simplistic, I know, but...

i think the suggestion, miles and Stockholm, was 'coalition' rather than 'merger', but i could be wrong...

It IS simplistic because we know from past "mergers" that 1+1 never equals 2. A lot of people who voted green were Liberals who didn't like Dion, they will happily go back to where they came from now that Dion is out of the picture. Some were Tories who weren't crazy about Harper. Some were people who just wanted to register a protest vote by voting for a "non-party" if there is no green party on the ballot - they would vote Rhino. Then there are NDP voters who might think twice about voting for the "Green Democrats" if they think the party is now full f crackpots like Jim Harris and Elizabeth May!

The only thing the NDP would really gain would be having one less other party to worry about - and if there was no green party the NDP would never have to worry that raising the profile of environmental issues might also help the greens. But these are minor advantages.

"Coalitions" are what are formed by parties with seats in parliament after an election that produces a minority parliament. If the after the next election the NDP is 10 seats short of a majority and the Green Party has 15 seats - by all means lets have an NDP-Green coalition government!

To those actually interested in disucussion beyond school yard partisan rhetoric ...

Personally, having voted Green in the last election, I oppose a coalition also. For reference material, here is a Toronto Star article: Green Party at a political crossroads

If the NDP is interested in electoral success, I would suggest the Bloc is a much better and more likely coalition partner. That would entail the NDP being able to manage the ensuing and stupid debate over national unity. As an example of the stupidity, I give you Subprime Minister Ignasty: Supporting oilsands a national unity issue [14]

But nevermind the NDP, for now. For the Green Party, it must assess its role and future in Canadian politics. It must decide if it is to be another also-ran within a political system where it will never be anything more than an also-ran, or it it wants to have a genuine and significant impact on Canadian politics and the future.

If it is the former, then it should continue as it has been. It should pretend the environment is not an issue on the left, it should continue to prostitute itself to every elected MP without a home, it should continue to muddy and dilute its message to become palatable to the lowest common denominator. To be truly successful it should promote economy over ecology.

However, if it is the latter, the Green Party should position itself as the political voice of climate and environmental science. It should be prepared to state the dire warnings, now coming from scientists, on the political stage. It should give voice and force to those Canadians seeking a divorce from the destructive forces of globalization and neo-liberal capitalism in favour of building sustainable local and regional economies. It should have as the centre piece to its platform a mandatory 90% cut in CO2 emissions by 2050 without exceptions and it should state a foreign policy focused on supporting those nations with similar goals and decent human rights records.

In other words, the Green Party should seek to become the political voice and conscience of those Canadians and scientists who recognize, clearly, the window of opportunity to preserve a livable world for humans and other species is rapidly closing and requires urgent action.

The last thing Canada needs is yet another just a political party.

On the other hand, 1+1 might equal 3 - if a combined party looked more likely to achieve power. Like it or not, that's one of the biggest reasons people don't vote for third parties.

Anyway, I think my math is right. Let's test it.

From 1993 (the first election where Reform ran) to 2008, in every single election - except one, in 2004 - the PC vote plus the Reform (Canadian Alliance) vote was always around 37% - more or less the same as the merged CPC vote in 2006 and 2008

But under your logic, Stockholm, the merger should have scared off both hardened rightists and red Tories, creating a mass exodus. Never happened.

FM:

"But nevermind the NDP, for now. For the Green Party, it must assess its role and future in Canadian politics. It must decide if it is to be another also-ran within a political system where it will never be anything more than an also-ran, or it it wants to have a genuine and significant impact on Canadian politics and the future."

--------------------------------------------------------------------

And here I thought that the Green Party's most urgent consideration was what to tell its members who looked forward to living off the proceeds of green corporations after seeing a carbon tax lay low all the market bad guys... Or am I imagining that they were depending on the market just a weensie bit much?

And was that only the Jim Harris libertarian section, anyway?

Don't get started on me here George as you know yourself the NDP is a market party. What I am arguing is that the Greens, and perhaps you too, stop focusing on the past and look to the future. I am suggesting they re-invent themselves as a party that might actually have relevence in Canada's political discourse and in its future as a nation on a planet under threat from ourselves. If they wish to be a lesser Liberal party they have no future and, besides, the NDP has already laid claim to that particular market niche. Sorry, that was a shot ...

You're right, we need non-market alternative to our ecological problems, but it's not like the NDP's cap-and-trade plan isn't relying on the market.  Cap and trade and carbon tax are both insufficient.

I like FM's suggestions

The way I see it, the best possible outcome would be for the Greens to drop the "not left or right but forward" crap and become a committed ecosocialist party which also focuses heavily on activism.

A green ndp alliance? Just what this party needs...more wackos who are out of touch with the center to left center crowd.  green-ndp would be a disaster. their unpublished right wing agenda is also quite scary as are their relatively unknown wild eyed fanatical candidates.

quite scary as are their relatively unknown wild eyed fanatical candidates.

------

Who had the vetting issues in the last election?

Quite apart from anything else, I don't think the Green Party is interested in a merger. I think there's a reason why Green Party members are not members of the NDP, and vice versa.

Stepping over the poorly disguised bait to address Coyote, I agree with you on the first part. And neither they should be. On the second part, I agree but for different reasons. The perspective of the NDP, right or wrong, is that of a centre-left labour party. It is pro-market because its membership, derived from the labour movement, earn their living from market enterprises as well as public enterprises. 

The Green Party, right or wrong, is perceived as single issue eco party. I think they should embrace that.

Not because strategically it is the best thing for the electoral prospects of the party, but because we desperately need an uncompromising advocate for the environment in Canadian (and for that matter global) politics.

We require a party that will actively seek votes based on that uncompromising, and I would say radical, agenda in order to shift political debate toward the environment.

Only the Green Party, because of the public perception, is capable of doing that without creating a whole other party ten years (probably a lot more) behind the necessary curve.

Are you talking about Greens or Dippers?

Your post is deliciously ambiguous.

Stockholm and I would agree on this.  A coalition government between two independent parties.  That argument is moot until the Greens first elect members AND enough to form that kind of difference.  Any talk on the part of Greens in being part of a coalition government before then is just internal ego boosting.  One Green MP does not make a coalition government by any stretch of the imagination so it wouldn't matter if Elizabeth became the lone MP and became a minister. 

A merger isn't possible because the size difference would require the Greens to fold and simply become the ndp.  I doubt anything would even be affected within the ndp itself.  Most members would leave anyway and drift over to the liberals or conservatives.  They may even start a new party. 

The Greens have a solid platform on other issues other than the environment and it is tiresome to hear the same ridiculous arguments over and over.  I know for a fact that we have a solid foreign policy because I'm one of the ones driving it within and I've read our policy history.  Social justice is also prominent.  If politicians listened to activists and people working on the ground in grassroots organizations you would actually see no real difference between any party.  We don't need to steal anything from new democrats we just have to listen to the same people.  The answers to homelessness and poverty are the same no matter what party you belong to.  It's whether the party cares or not.  The liberals and conservatives don't care.

It is equally tiresome to hear the left/right argument.  The Greens have never said they were left wing.  Only right wing people argue that.  Left wing people argue we're right wing.  Not even the ndp are left wing so what's the point of the argument anyway.  The only party that needs to fade into oblivion is the liberal party.  That would be the most progressive thing to ever happen in Canadian politics except maybe proportional representation. (although PR would probably bring about the same result eventually)  It can happen without a merger.  The Greens just have to get their organizational act together and passionately contest the election without waivering.  It just remains to be seen whether this leadership can achieve that.  They're listening.  Now they have to prove they can act.      

"they're listening"? Referring to EMay, as they is a bit royal, eh?!

Actually remind I meant what I said.  The leadership issues within the Greens go beyond Elizabeth.  But yes, she is listening as well. 

I've come around to that view, I really don't see the point of having two parties for Harper and Iggy, there is very little they disagree on, surely they can get along within one organization.  And Liberal voters do seem to provide the greatest market for growth for the Greens, especially now that Iggy is cancelling the pact and singing the praises of the oil patch, hopefully, the Greens actually start levelling some fire that way.  Other than some nice shots at Harper in the English debate, the Greens have been pretty useless at the Federal level, hopefully we see a less Liberal friendly and more strategically astute party in the future.

I agree.  As a side note I think the debate format has to change in order to expand the debate itself.  Pitting the Prime Minister against all challengers without any real exchange between the opponents themselves was deceptive.  It actually made Harper appear stronger with a four on one offensive.

FM:

"Only the Green Party, because of the public perception, is capable of doing that without creating a whole other party ten years (probably a lot more) behind the necessary curve. "

-------------------------------------------------

I'm with you on the urgency curve, FM.

But neither you, nor most of the public, have met Jim Harris or debated with the wingnut crew of techno dreamers who justify their "alternative power" mouthings with Buck Rogerish  creativity.

Correct me if I'm wrong on those speculative points, please.

So, I'm banking on collapse of the market to the point that both NDP and Greens are freed from the speculative market dreams that have screwed up left thinking from Reagan's time....and since unions won large pension concessons and did not give a fiddler's fart about the creativity involved and market dependency.

We all became little speculators, FM. Little capitalists. Let's rebuild public pensons on the ashes of the pile of garbage created for us by the enemy - good, solid old bonds and utilities and food and all the things that the big pension funds are now seeking out. 

But you see, George, that is my argument too I just need you see to a little beyond your distaste for the GP's market analysis. Let me give you an example. A few years ago, I was at an event and the topic of water was under discussion. A fellow was there from the GP and he argued that corporate executives care about water too because their children drink it. What that told me, George, is that the market proponents really don't understand the market. 

The market is supposed to be efficient, really, at only one thing: the distribution of goods and services. But as Maude Barlow so expertly uncovers, over and over again, in her book, Blue Covenant, the market doesn't distribute goods and serivces where they are most needed (an essential ingredient, I would think, to being labeled efficient), but disproportionately to where there exists a disproportionate surplus of wealth. In other words, the market shifts surpluses to where there already exists surpluses compounding a growing and dangerous social, economic and environmental imbalance.

What we require is a party that will discuss that imbalance, that will argue an alternative vision, and that will point out that the status quo is a model for collapse at every level.  We need a party that will speak the unvarnished truth, George.

A party committed to tailoring its message to the widest possible consumer voters, can't to do that. A party committed to reframing the debate can. And to be relevant, it must be going after votes in order to force the electoral parties to respond to the message.

I submit to you the best vehicle for that is the Green Party. It isn't starting from zero, it already has the perception of a single issue party, and most Canadians have never heard of Jim Harris so it is only the opinions of a few that are soured by history.

I would argue that the GP could become very relevant in the next election if it were to adopt an agenda as being the political voice of the scientific community with regard to climate change, bio-diversity, energy, food, etc ...

That would mean ditching the market ideologues, yes, but that is not unreasonable or impossible. Committed green activists, like many others, will have to come to terms with the critique of capitalism as saviour which, in real terms, is an argumemt for a guilt free status quo. And it is as impossible as it sounds.

If they shuck their market dependency and commit to protection of public rights to the foundations of life itself, like water, and develop means by which the people of this country can hope to have a life  after their working days, I'm on board.

But who, to roughly paraphrase Henry (was it the II ?) will rid us of this goddam market priest?

The young who have everything to lose.

An electoral alliance? Or a coalition? or a merger?

Germany: coalition, since they have proportional representation.

France: electoral alliance, since they have winner-take-all for their National Assembly, with a two-round system. It worked well, giving the Greens four seats, giving the Socialist Party the Green votes in the rest of the country in the second round, and giving the left some unity even though they lost.

Spain: local electoral alliances with farther-left groups, not too productive.

Netherlands: they call it GreenLeft, the Greens plus a small radical group, but Labour and the main farther-left Socialists are separate.

Denmark has something called the Red-Green Alliance or Unity List, but it's actually an electoral alliance of three far-left parties, no Greens as such.

In Sweden the Greens run on their own, but could have been in a coalition cabinet with the social democrats if they had not been opposed to the EU.

In Norway we find a Red-Green coalition, but it's a misleading name: the Green component is the Agrarians. The Green Party failed to get a seat.

Thanks.

She's no ideological socialist, but I had the chance to hear her on a radio show last year and she destroyed the myth that she's a capitalist. She praised the Scandinavian model, and the Irish model. Apparently, Ireland had the biggest economic turnaround in the last 10 years due to high unionization, universal health care, universal education and fiscally efficient expenditures. She emphasized the fact that she and the Greens have been fighting for a guaranteed minimum monthly (or yearly) wage as an inalienable right for all citizens.

I'd say she is certainly left-flexible.

All signify flexible cooperation. And the fact that you list several attempts at multi-party cooperation proves my point... this is commonplace in Europe. It happens once in North America and the media, and the rightwingers go absolutely apeshit crazy.

We are backwards here, on the NA continent. We never think outside the box, and that is why the left is doomed.

Now, you pull off a merger, coalition, or alliance with the Greens, then get David Suzuki to formally endorse it, and you could very well be seeing Jack Layton as PM.

Dare to dream. If the results are repeatedly insufficient, change the strategy and approach. That is, if you really want to see the NDP form a federal government, albeit under "The New Green Democrats", or any other title.

Pfft just another thing the GP stole from the NDP.

Centre-left :

"We are backwards here, on the NA continent. We never think outside the box, and that is why the left is doomed."

---------------------------------

 The "left" is "doomed" CLH? In NA but not in all of EU?

Does that leave an opening for the centre left? Would they be the ones who have privately embraced the market opportunities offered them by the big apples of Bay and Wall streets? Been sucked in by the promise of the good life after work? Hope not. Even some in the "left left" teetered on that one.

I hope you represent the vanguard - as centre left - of those who don't buy the individual-in-the-market route to a good life just before death.

What is the centre-left other than the status quo?

Now you're goin' Confucian, FM!

It's already confucian enough.

Why would the NDP want GP debt?  Don't they have enough of their own?

I don't hear NDP voters calling for a merge. I do hear GP members asking for a merger or co operation, but frankly, many people who vote for the GP vote for them, because they wouldn't vote NDP under any circumstances. There is enough of the NDP environmental policies to put the GP on the backburner 19 times out of 20. Infact, the NDP environmental policies actually deal with the environment and not shifting capital around.

Which then leaves what could be merged? The Green Party is tied to an economic policy which punishes poor people and does nothing for the environment. Governments like it, because it raises taxes.  And governments want tax revenue to increase. Environmentalists want to see reductions in bad environmental behaviour and these need to be legislated and enforced. Not driven by the "market".

Which then leaves people with "what" could the GP offer the NDP? Not alot really.  The few voters in each riding might result in 20% of commited GP voters choosing to vote NDP, but that might be optimistic. So an extra 40 to 200 votes isn't going to do much in many ridings across Canada.

The GP have no base, and paper candidates. People may vote GP because they like the name. Green is excellent brand marketing. But the Greenwashing leaves alot to be desired.  To vote for the NDP, you don't get the marketing hype or the gift of the name. To vote NDP requires a committment and hard work. It is how they win seats and keep them.

Having followed Babble for sometime now, and discovering that there aren't alot of regular posters, I find it surprising that GP posters (some that I thought were crazy) would appear ..... and then just as quickly disappeared. There are a handful of GP supporters here, who post regularly and are willing to broach topics like this.

But at the end of the day. The GP hasn't done anything to warm over any party.  I think they are boxed into a corner without many options. I think that the Liberal Sales Job on the Green Party Platform has doomed both parties. For the Liberals, you will never see them play with Taxes under the Environmental covers, and you will not see the Green Party with anymore support then we do today. With the economy tanking, and the Liberals moving their focus to Oil and Exports, means that the Environments voice will only be heard through the NDP until the next election cycle.

There is no reason for the NDP to change their name just because the Green Party is without seats, money and options.

I also can't imaging putting the Green Party in charge of the environment, as they caved in on Nuclear Power, before even having one MP elected.  The NDP has not done this federally.  One party is no better then the other on the environment, except that the NDP has a long track record on the environment, where as the Green Party has no track record.  Selling out the environment to be used as a method to create government revenues is further proofs the environment comes 2nd and tax revenues 1st. 

I had a  friend who used to run for the Green Party. He used to get around 500 votes. When He died, so did the Green Party. They get between 1,800 and 3000 votes today, but at the cost of selling out everything he stood for.  What he stood for, might have been alot closer to the NDP, then any other party.

The Green Party appeals to alot of Rich Conservatives. Perhaps the Green Party should use its Conservative Elites to merge with the Conservative party and make it more environmentally friendly. This would complete the process of Bringing the Conservatives to the Centre, while the LPC continues it's hard right turn.  The Conservatives could even absorb the GP debt :)

As for a Coalition? How? The LPC are working with the CPC and the NDP have no dance partners. The GP spent an entire election cycle with the LPC playbook bashing the NDP at every turn. Even undermining one of the ridings in which the NDP came closest to unseating a Conservative MP.

The GP just had their convention or something. 200 people all confirmed the party was going in the right direction with Elizabeth May at the helm.

Isn't that good enough? 

GREENS MORE UNITED THEN EVER 

I think people are going to have to decide each election cycle on what party they vote for. Be it Conservative, Liberal, NDP, Green, Or BQ in Quebec. 

I don't see any mergers on the horizons from any of the parties. 

200 delegates?  That's not even 1 per riding.

So if May and the Greens don't adopt NDP policy they are evil, and if they do they are evil too.

That's cynical defeatism.

Madmax, I vote exclusively NDP. I want Jack to ACTUALLY be PM. With the Greens in there picking up votes but no seats, the NDP would do best to swallow them up.

You are wrong when you say that giving the poor a guranteed minimum income punishes them. You are wrong when you say that rich cons vote predominantly vote for the GP - those rich cons want to decrim/legalize pot, tax polluters, expand public transit and give a guaranteed income to the poor ? If so they are not cons.

Again, there is ZERO basis for rejecting a merger with the Greens. The Greens are politically between the NDP and the Libs. Merging would give the NDP 20-30% in the polls, rather than the permanent 14-18%.

And Europe DOES have more left representation in their parliaments than North America. Anyone who thinks that Ireland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Germany and the Netherlands are as far rightwing as North America doesn't have a clue about reality.

The cynical, dismissive attitude here dooms the NDP to being a parliamentary ornament with very little power and no federal governance... EVER. Either the left here is so stagnant and STUPID or it is inundated with rightwing political operatives who have schemed to relegate the NDP to permanent insignificance, helping out a Harper majority.

CLH, I've spent a bit of time examining those numbers on a riding-by-riding basis, and am forming the impression that the Green votes did not *come* from the NDP in most cases of ridings where we're competitive (but rather from the old PCs and from the Liberals over the course of the last 3-4 elections).  However, I thought I saw some opinion research towards the end of the campaign suggesting that when they break (i.e., when they leave the Greens), about 50% of them go NDP.

You can certainly see that in seats the NDP either won for the first time or came close to winning in 2004 and 2006 ... the Green vote dropped rather dramatically, given the chance to actually elect a New Democrat.  2006 examples would include Western Arctic, Victoria, Vancouver Island North, and New Westminster-Coquitlam.

By 2008, the NDP was picking up seats *in spite of* the Green vote increasing in them (probably by this point because the Greens were really drawing on the Liberal vote that did not switch NDP or stay home): examples here include Nickel Belt, Sudbury, Vancouver Kingsway, both Thunder Bay seats, the Algoma seat, Welland and Edmonton Strathcona.

I think because the NDP targets its efforts a lot more ruthlessly, it appears not to be a viable option in a lot of ridings where the Greens have set up shop instead.  But very few of those ridings would really be winnable for the Green Party either, barring flukish circumstances which can always happen.

I would be prepared to consider arguments for or against a merger, but I'm not convinced the current Green Party leadership (nor indeed their prospective replacements) are remotely interested in the concept.  The topic has been raised a few times on their party's public blogs, but does not appear to have any traction in my reading of it.

My reading is the Greens picked up votes from the Liberals more than anyone else (i.e. split the pro-carbon tax vote) and the NDP in some urban ridings esp. in Toronto.  I don't think there was any Tory swing to the Greens.  Maybe some pre-merger PC's are voting Green, but contrary to the claims by some I don't there was any move of Harper voters in '06 going over to the Greens.

 I know when I was campaigning in the last election that quite a few "new young voters" said they were voting "green" cause they were for the environment. It was branding of "green" and were unaware that the NDP were the forerunners on the environment. It's these voters I would like to vote for the NDP as they really lacked any political awareness except they care about the environment. So even a name change would widen our brand.

______________________________________________________________________________________ Our kids live together and play together in their communities, let's have them learn together too!

You have a coalition when elected members of more than one party form a caucus or government. Since the Greens have no elected members, it's impossible to form a coalition with them.

 If what you're actually talking about is an electoral alliance, when two parties get together and stand aside candidates in favour of each other, well look how well that worked for Stephane Dion. The NDP would have to be absolutely nuts to consider such an alliance with the Greens.

 As Stockholm said, a merger with the Greens would essentially result in them being submerged within the NDP, which is exactly why the Greens would never consider it.

1) I never suggested that, don't put words in my mouth.

2) The Green Parties tax shifting is a gift to the rich and a curse on the environment, and a burden upon the poor.

3)If you vote exclusively for hte NDP and you want "Jack Layton" to be the Prime Minister, I suggest you join the riding association and put forth a resolution for a GAI.  The idea of a GAI is ancient. Most people cannot tolerate the poor receiving welfare. Many even get angry when disabled and mothers receive a helping hand.  Spreading this money around to the Harpers, Martins, and Corporate Executives, has always been controversial, let alone finding the money.  But we do have other universal programs.

 Merging with the GP would give the NDP possibly a percentage point.   In 2006 the NDP candidate Challenged Peter Mckay and gave him the strongest challenge of his political career. This was while the Liberals RAN a candidate. In 2008, the Liberals ran NO candidate and the Leader of teh Green Party, received LESS votes then did the NDP candidate in 2006. 

The GPs just had a convention. If merger didn't come up on the floor, this is a pointless exercise.  

You say you vote NDP. Do your best to get your friends to, and rebuild all the things the NDP have watched get GUTTED by Consecutive Liberal and Conservative Governments.

Polls are suggesting that the NDP values are becoming more popular since the election. This rarely translates into votes on EDay but it does start turning the ship around.  It was with Strong CCF and NDP MPs in minority parliments that moved the governments to adopt things that many Canadians use cherish and complain about today. But Canadians were behind these initiatives and they became popular in the PCs and LPCs of the day.

The GP votes are not going to change the direction of the LPC or the CPC.  The best way for the NDP to gain support of people who voted for the GP is to earn it.  Like any other party.

The problem with traditional parties other than the Greens is that they all, including the NDP, rely on selling a concept that further growth can lead to social justice even as they tart that idea up with their own colours:

The conservatives of the old spectrum say that individual work can close the gap so that everyone can make more without disturbing the wealth of the better off. Indeed they think you can stimulate the wealth of the bottom by giving more to the top through tax cuts etc.

The centrists believe that they can make real gains for the less fortunate without disturbing the wealth of the richest in society- the idea of additional wealth to close the gap is identical to Conservatives except that the Liberals propose to be a little more active about it rather than relying on the individuals themselves to do it alone.

The traditional leftists try to gain respectability by pretending that they can be like the Liberals in a hurry, that they can get more involved and create even more wealth with only modest increases in taxes on the best off.

The Greens understand that there is a finite amount of resources and capacity in the world for wealth in a sustainable world. Some of them address social inequality by downplaying it and saying well, if the whole world is not sustainable we will all be poor and dead anyway so why care about social inequity, let's focus on the environment. Some actually admit that social justice involves moving some of those finite resources from the wealthy people who have it to those who do not.

Environmental socialists have to bridge both gaps. Essentially they need to admit that we are in a finite world and growth is not an engine that can close the gaps of social injustice. As socialists (unlike other greens who only concern themselves with an ecological sustainable society no matter how unjust it is) they must find other means to close the social inequities. Problem is there are only two: 1) they can find non-material wealth, such as the advancement of non-material cultural wealth such as the arts and 2) they must redistribute the material wealth currently available while admitiing that nothing can replace what is being taken from those who have too much. This is problematic in a society where the vast majority of us have too much-- Seen in a global perspective most Canadians have more material wealth than the planet can support and therefore the platform of the party would essentially threaten most Canadians with being less well-off. Indeed that is the only possible trade-off for a real sustainable future: Canadians all need to learn to live with less material wealth than they currently have- or aspire to have.

 As I say, this might sound bleak but in fact there is technology that can help. Much of us have much of our lives as virtual, on the internet and are therefore in cultural realms that have less to do with physical wealth. (I do not mean fantasy games but entertainment, information etc.)

A society where we travel less, use physical resources less, rely on connection to pure culture and information rather than physical wealth can offer hope because in fact all persons in the world in theory could have this. 

But then again there is still a massive problem: much of the world does not have the essentials of life, clean water, health care etc. So a substantive amount of growth is required to settle these inequalities only making the essential contraction on the part of the overly wealthy more problematic. You can't give people virtual water.

This is a huge change. Some things will have to be very different to address these-- we likely can't afford to have a society where we all live in large mostly empty heated spaces-- our idea of housing must change-- we will have to return to living with extended families in smaller spaces, this is one of the reductions in wealth that will be essential. We can't afford to import some of the lovely fresh food we bring in from thousands of kilometres away and will have to return to the idea of "winter vegetables." We can't travel as much until we find a better way of doing it without fossil fuels. Many things we take for granted have to change. This is the change needed.You can easily be pro-Green at the cost of social justice, or you can be pro-social justice at the cost of the environment but if you want to be enviro-socialist then you have to bridge these gaps in ways that will be painful for the world's elites, a group that includes the vast majority of Canadians. It is a tough sell. But this is what the party would have to be committed to.

Perhaps the NDP cannot go there, in its desire to be electable, or the Greens either for that matter, both parties not wanting to bring the bad news to Canadians that we cannot have BOTH social justice and environmental sustainability without sacrifice and a real reduction in the false wealth most Canadians enjoy at the cost of one or another. Perhaps it is only another new party that can do this. And perhaps this new party could elect some people and try to influence the national debate. However, it will take an understanding and a commitment that you cannot have social equality without environmental sustainability and eventually we will need to address these gaps together in order to have a world to pass on to future generations.

I recognize this is horrible to contemplate as it makes clear the real challenge we face and puts the lie to all those who pretend we can make progress on one or the other piecemeal. But also, this might explain why it has not happened. After all, who doesn't like social justice and the environment? If these things were easy, we would have done it by now.

Unfortunately, I beleive we will have to endure more pain due to having these out of balance before we can get enough people to be willing to put up with the painful changes required to set things right.

Setting aside my more important discussion above to address the political: If the point is people like the name Green and they want a commitment to sustainability, the NDP does not need a merger or anything from the Green party which is a small enough group.

Instead the NDP could:

1) rename itself to include Green in the name or if this is not allowed - the word environmental

2) review and recast all policies accordingly- most are probably already in line but some need to change

3) produce a clear set of principles that go in the party constitution by which all policies will be tested

Then simply invite the current members and supporters of the Green party to walk on over. You don't need to wait for n impossible and improbable consensus- you can show leadership by acting unilaterally.

That said, this does not change my comment above which is that a commitment to both environmental responsibility and social justice is not an easy or painless one if it is real and sincere and not political posturing.

Put simply the Green party is hardly strong enough to require a merger in order to move on and it does not have any property rights over the concepts of sustainability and proporer environmental practices.

The NDP is there most of the time- it needs to be there all of the time. It needs to swear off eternal growth if it wants to be an ecological party.

Sean, your comments are very astute.

The Green Party has a huge advantage in addressing both environmental and social justice because they have a base that is more committed, certainly to the first item.  Or maybe it's more accurate to say they have less of a disadvantage.

The NDP has a large achilles heel with respect to both of these issues.  That achilles heel is union support.

Unions might claim to be green but unions are first and always agents for their members.  Often, issues are portrayed as environment vs jobs and unions will take jobs (as long as they're unionized of course) every time.  Also, I've known lots of unionized workers who drive big 4x4's, live in big houses and own other environmentally unfriendly toys like boats and snowmobiles.  In short, I think a big portion of the NDP base have a shallow commitment (at best) to environmental issues.

In terms of social justice, I'd say the same thing.  I've been in a union for a lot of years and I know some union organizers who are deeply committed to social justice.  But the rank and file mostly see the union (and, by extension the NDP) as a way to keep secure, good paying jobs.  I've known lots of union members who were pulling down 6 figures and for the most part, they're not eager to change the world so they'll have less and someone in the third world will have more.

So Sean, I hear what you're saying.  Maybe I'm a polyanna but I am more optimistic than you on what can be done (not saying that it will).  By sharing technology, we could greatly reduce the environmental footprint of growth in developing countries.  If they refrain from our destructive car-centred lifestyles, that would go a long way as well.  Most of the world's population lives in warmer climates so their carbon footprints will not have to account for heating in -40 weather.  In short, maybe we can move back from our overconsumptive ways as they move ahead.   If they develop in a smart fashion, maybe we wouldn't have to give up as much as you think.

Anyway, thanks for the food for thought.

What "base` are you talking about in the green party that is supposedly so ``committed`` - this is a party that has never come close to winning a seat only got 6% of the vote and is a very, very, very small membership abnd almost no organizatiion.

``Also, I've known lots of unionized workers who drive big 4x4's, live in big houses and own other environmentally unfriendly toys like boats and snowmobiles.  In short, I think a big portion of the NDP base have a shallow commitment (at best) to environmental issues.``

That well describes an awful lot of people who like to call them selves environmentalists aswell. You don`t have to look far to find people who think they are God`s gift to the world because they vote green and put a few newspapers in a Blue Box - meanwhile they drive their SUVs everywhere.

The word `green`in a party`s name is a double edged sword. It certainly attracts a certain sub-set of people, but for a much larger party like the NDP - the word `green`` can also be a turn-off because it sounds fringe and flaky and like a one issue party. The NDP is trying to show Canadians that it is CREDIBLE on economic and social issues. You add the word green and suddenly people imagine some naive vegetarians wearing Birkenstocks.

Yes, Stock, there is still a schizoid public attitude toward names like "green"...for instance, a fellow, hereabouts, takes pictures of trees, and is trying to save a 150-year-old maple from being cut down. He defends it as a beautiful subject for his camera.

But he's quick to add that he's "not one of those tree huggers".

I had thought that name dead and buried with others as the realities of our exploitation unfold.  There seems to be no bottom to the ignorance.

Thanks

I work for a union myself -- certainly some union members are more committed than others-- as in any group-- but I feel the need to dispute an assumption you might be making about unions.

Polls consistently show the NDP can barely get 25% of the union vote. I don't think it is reasonable to suggest that this slightly higher than national support means that union membership supports the NDP or that union membership looks to the NDP by extension to protect their jobs or anything else. In fact while most union leadership generally supports the NDP, it is fair to say that the NDP is more open to unions than union membership is open to the NDP. This has always been a source of frustration to the NDP.

I am not convinced that the unionized workers who happen to have 4X4s or boats and big houses are substantially within the 25% who vote NDP (or 5% who vote Green for that matter). In fact they are more likely to be in the 30% of unionized workers who vote Conservative or the 30% who vote Liberal or even 10% who vote BQ. Why assume inconsistency and hypocrisy when there is no evidence of that? Right wing union members behave like right wing people and vote right wing.

Sure there are many unionized workers who are uncommitted to the environment but can you argue that they represent more than the 75% who don't vote NDP?

And when it comes to pro environmental policies, unions at times are on the wrong side but when I look at what they actually advocate they are more pro-environment than most politicians and even most citizens and often on the leading edge. I think this second assumption that unions are against the environment needs some evidence if it is going to be taken as credible-- again some unions may take anti-environmental positions in favor of jobs at times (and somehow this is seen to be worse than taking anti-environmental positions consistently in favour of profit). However, to suggest that these are necessarily coming form the 25% who happen to support the NDP would require evidence. I think it is more credible that the 25% who are NDP supporters are also more likely the same people who support environmental sustainability. And while unions at times will do the wrong thing on the environment to protect jobs, it is actually rarer that jobs come in conflict with environmental sustainability compared to how often profits are. Indeed, it is more sustainable to buy and build local than ship around the planet in order to pay less than local minimum wage.  Workers need work- but workers do not get to decide what they build. Often workers organizations advocate better practices to deaf employers-- the auto unions here have long argued that the big three are building out-of-touch products but then are told that they are being anti-environment when they complain about job cuts that could have been avoided if the union's advice had been taken years ago. Workers are also consumers.

As far as union practice- consider the new CLC building in Ottawa. There was no public fanfare about this building but it happens to be one of the most green buildings in Ottawa- not to make a point, not to garner support but proper practice, in practice. The union I am working for has brought in a whole raft of policies with respect to the environment- these are quiet- not for publicity purposes but borne only out of environmental commitment. Our union represents some 150 thousand workers in Canada.

There are always inconsistencies and conflicting priorities as I said above with respect to social and environmental justice but the suggestion that worker's organizations are rampant with hypocrisy, moreso than business or the general public is as inaccurate as it is offensive. I can understand where it is coming from- this plays in to the stereo-types laid out by right wing corporates to defeat unions. You then are conditioned to see the 4 X 4. And if you go to our parking lot no doubt you will notice the 4 X 4 before you will notice my 4 cylinder engine car which while it is more than ten years old is the most environmentally responsible car I could afford or any of the other cars like mine-- they simply don't stand out.

I certainly don't want to offend you but feel the need to point out that this impression that is being raised is one stoked by propaganda more than reality. But then whenever a union does something that is positive for the environment, that is just not newsworthy, at least not in the mainstream.

"But he's quick to add that he's "not one of those tree huggers"."

-------------------------------------------------------

This fellow is not hypocritical, he's socialized to run with the herd.

Came up against it while I defended a high school acquaintance working one summer in an engineer's office - he happened to be gay. He needed a straight defender...particularly back in those days.

Again, up the line in Labrador, dismantling a snare that guys on a work crew  set out for a black bear . I was (safely) a member of the engineering crew.

It is the stuff of literature, the norms of social behaviour in one's social group that are broken only at risk. The tree photographer was really telling his work mates (through the reporter) that his esoteric behavious was limited to photography. Very possibly his sensibility ran to protection of trees because of their own right to life - but that would not be understood back at the shop.

Sean

First, I should say that my main NDP exposure is to the BC NDP, not the federal party.   I wasn't aware that the federal NDP only gets 25% of the union vote.  The BC party gets 65% + when the NDP wins.  I can't know for sure but I would be greatly surprised if that 65% didn't include some of the guys with boats and 4x4's.

Second, I have accused nobody of hypocrisy or inconsistency.  I said that for some of the union membership, I didn't think the environment was a priority.

Third, I never said that unions don't try to be environmentally friendly.  I said that when push comes to shove and it's a choice between jobs and the environment, the union will choose jobs.  This isn't a knock against them - it's simply an acknowledgement of where their interests lie.

Fourth, I agree with you that unions can't control the environmental policies of the Corporation.  Once again, this is about interests.  The CAW has a vested interest in an automobile-centric society.  Even if you improve fuel efficiency and clean up emissions, an automobile-centric society will never be really green.

Fifth, yes some of what I said does correspond to stereotypes.  However, I'm not relying on stereotypes, I'm working from personal experience.  I would love to have statistics but I don't know where to get them.  I take exception to the term "propaganda" and the suggestion that I am somehow a dupe of the right wing.  Nobody who knows me would suggest I'm anyone's dupe.

Finally, you haven't addressed how unions who support workers pulling down six figure salaries factor into social justice. 

I think you read considerably more into my post then I intended.   My points were:

1)  The NDP has a strong ties to unions.

2)  There are a lot of union members and in many cases union executives who are going to find themselves on the wrong side of the debate when it comes to environmental and social justice, at least the way you framed them in your earlier post.

3)  If some or all of these union members don't vote NDP, it's not going to matter that much because they're going to insist that the union take their position back to the NDP.

Reefer Madness:

Green Party voters and candidates drive SUVs, 4X4s, Atvs, snowmobiles etc.  Time to get back to reality of political parties, candidates and voters.

Maybe you're right but I doubt that there are large numbers of them.  It hasn't been my experience in any case.

The riding with the largest Green Party result supported Nuclear Power, and a Pro Nuclear Power Candidate.

You present myths of the Unions and union voters and stereo types of the NDP. 

My experience with the Green Party is to have Pro Coal used as an argument to keep a coal plant.  Pro Nuclear to keep a Nuclear plant. Because in those ridings, they can count votes and Jobs.  This occured in the last federal election.  And the talk of the Green Party apoligists was that they weren't bending their policy but becoming more "inclusive".

Watching my local Green Party in action, they do a great job of getting rid of low income housing projects, and replacing the area designated for infill along a prestine river, to be used as estate housing. If that is what there base is, that is what the environmental concerns are.

Green Party members in the country are working hard to keep snowmobile trails and ATV users access to private and public properties.

Other Green Party members want nice public trails built along the river, and fight the environmentalists who want to have nature left alone.

There is a huge difference between environmentalists and the Green Party. The same difference exists with the NDP.

Environmentally, I have seen nothing from the Green Party that moves them to the environmental forefront in the real world. 

But with regards to Unions.... the NDP supports Unions and Union rights. This means the rights of unions to support and vote for whoever they so choose of any political party, and they do not choose the NDP in the majority of circumstances. After that with the rank and file it goes down lower. Numbers can be lower then the national average.

As for the Numbers of Green Party members who drive SUVs, 4*4s and ATVs? Well there aren't alot of Green Party votes, but I can assure you that when people switch votes or run for the Green Party, they don't sell their 4*4 Trucks or any other consumer good. Their are people that think the Smart Car is Smart, effiecient, economical and environmentally sound. A nice marketing job, like the Green Party name. It produces no better gas mileage then an old 1983 Dodge Charger 1.7ltr. And that line of car was dirt cheap to buy.  

That said, I agree with you that a car of anykind is not environmentally friendly. In the 80s, they did not focus on one style of vehicle when forcing the industry to move into fuel injection, but all vehicles. Today the pulpit is driven by anti SUV zealots who moved on from protesting the minivan. Makes no difference to me. I used to build and service the emissions testing equipment for BC back in the 80s.

The industrial revolution happened over 150 years ago, and unions existed centuries before then.  It was unions, not governments that lead the charge to cleaner environments. Not corporate, not "the Market", and then government was forced to address these issues on the strength of what used to be a labour movement.  It was unions who brought forth many of the environmental standards of industries today. It is these standards that are being eroded by globalization and corporate greed. Yet I hear cheers from Green Party members as each job is lost. Some no longer cheering as they find themselves unemployed and without any answers, beyond once putting a sign on their flowerbed, because it looked nice. 

If the NDP ever did receive 65% union support, they would be passing Ed Broadbents old record in seats.

The NDP already carries the "Green" colour on their election signs. They have a strong environmental policy.  If people want to vote for them, the choice is always there to choose on the ballot.

Max, you and Sean both seem to see my posts as anti-union, anti-NDP or both.  In fact, it was meant to be neither.  I've worked in a unionized environment for most of the past 20 years, a lot of it as a union member.  I've known some incredibly dedicated activists that I deeply respected and some militant yahoos that made me fear for my life.

I think that unions were once powerful forces for social justice and in some parts of the world, they still are.  In some ways, they still are in wealthy countries.  However, in my view, the primary role of unions is to act as agents for people who are, in many if not most cases, already upper middle class.  In some cases, the individuals are quite wealthy. 

As for the environment, as I said before, unions are mostly pro-environment.  But they won't come out for the environment if it costs jobs.

The bottom line is that the unions will find themselves conflicted if the debate is put in Sean's terms.  And if the NDP continues to position itself too closely to the unions, it will affect the party's ability to lead in these areas.

As for the 65% figure, as I said, it's a BC provincial figure I got from something written by Bill Tieleman who was close to Glen Clark.  He should know.

I don't see there being a merger between Green and NDP.  I've long felt that to be comfortable in the NDP, you need to hold certain viewpoints, not just in terms of the ends or objectives but also in terms of means. 

I see the Green Party as a more open vehicle more welcoming to independent thought.  I think this is why I've heard a lot of comments that the Greens are 'right wing'.  Honestly, though, I've examined the website and don't see anything there that can really be called right wing.

I do think that the NDP and Green Party share enough common goals to form a coalition, though. 

If it ever came to that.

Will any Green Party member come out for the environment if it means directly losing "their" job? Cause I am trying to think of a "purely" environmentally friendly job, where the environmental purists can stand and proclaim their superiority from, and I can't really seem to find one.

And I will add what short sighted thinking you have, do you think workers rights, in non-union environments, would be there if not for unions? A testimony to how good the anti-union propaganda is, is that not all workers are demanding they be unionized. Which is their fault for accpeting the propaganda and not the unions.

Pretty broad statement. However, are you suggesting that all upper middle class are unfriendly to the environment? Or just ones in unions?

I don't care what party they vote for..... but are you suggesting that the Firefighers Union, Police Union, Teachers Unions, ALL THE GOVERNMENT PUBLIC SECTOR UNIONS are anti environment? Or is is just the PRivate sector unions?

Or is it the Private sector employee that is anti environment?

I think your on a rediculous track, because many people regardless of union affliation will compare, the values of a job against the environment.

What I find most interesting is that you haven't mentioned the largest growing sector of society. The Placement Agency indefinit fulltime temp employee. Just what is their environmental stance and vote pattern.

Quite frankly, many unions have turned their back on the largest growing sector of working poor. And few political parties address it. However, the NDP candidate in my riding fought hard against the assinine statements from Conservatives, Liberals and Green Party Candidates who all supported these parasitic infestations.

ALL people will compare the value of a job against the environment. A project or development against the environment. It has nothing to do with unions and everything to do with human nature. Take the union away and nothing changes. 

When an industrial operation is functioning, we can implement laws, to keep them inline, to clean up the soil, the air, the contents, and protect the employees and the community. 

When we allow foreign purchasers to come and buy up a profitable CDN operation and SHUT IT DOWN, throwing everyone out of work, the Community gets the benefit of a BROWNSFIELD, contamination and the city is holding the bag, as the new foreign ownership cut and run to create even greater environmental harm elsewhere.

To hear my idiotic Green Party candidate say she was glad to see the smokestack no longer emitting, I could ony think. What a fool.

Now the City is on the hook  for millions and millions to clean up one industrial mess and will be stuck with hundred of these at the rate that plants are leaving Ontario.

It sickens me to hear, oh, we will build windmills. With what the fuck are we going to build windmills, when we are selling out all our technology and the turbines are on hold, because our government is purchasing from offshore.

I guess, what gets me, is you said that unions won't defend the environment if it costs jobs.  Perhaps you haven't been paying attention. Trying to save the environment creates jobs.  That doesn't mean we have to allow our country to sell out our current jobs.

Maybe you need to recognise that all this importation and globalization is not supported by the majority of unions. THere is a reason why they campaigned against this stuff for over 20 years. And like the NDP, the lose these battles because people have bought into the consumption and market models and pay no attention to their own local economies.

This is a model fully supported by the Green Party. Eco Capitalism does not suit the NDP. It would actually be a good fit for Conservatives, but for whatever reason, this brand of Conservatives have missed the environmental boat by choice. 

Perhaps the Green Party needs to look at other parties to merge with. In the meantime, the NDP environmental policies are leaps and bounds above everyone else.  Unless you think a tax or an energy audit is an environmental policy.  Blaming unions is not an environmental policy either. 

You have only one thing to agree or disagree with.

The right of everyone to associate and join a union.  There is NO mainstream political party in Canada that deny's that right. Not the Conservatives, not the Liberals, not the NDP , and not even the Green Party.

If you wish to have a dialogue with each union or union local and express to them 1,000 acts of green, you would be far more productive then claiming that because of them, the NDP are environmental sows.

In the meantime, until the Unions recognise the Temporary Employment Agencies as a threat to their existence and an Exploiter of people, I have to agree with you. Unions have in many cases only concerns for their own internal environment and bread and butter issues.  But it hasn't always been that way. 

If you look at the Canadian Labour Congress's advocacy on behalf of lower income people you might have a hard time squaring that with the impression of the fat nasty union only looking for selfish gain.

In fact ironically the only group that consistently fights for lower income people apart from the NDP is the union movement.

 Also the Unions have been fighting for better environmental policies in many respects including asking their employers to make more Green jobs but also support of Kyoto was stronger among unions than anywhere else.

The only party that even comes close to addressing both the environemnt and social justice is the NDP- sure it can go further and I want ti to do so but the Greens tend to ignore the social justice side of the equation most of the tiem without realizing that unless you address this you can't deal effectively with the environment either. Funding green technology does not work unless people have access to it.

remind, if you read Sean's original post, he's saying that if we are truly in favour of environmental and social justice (ultimately, in my view they are the same thing), then it isn't just the rich that need to be prepared to sacrifice, it's most of the population in Canada.  My point, which nobody seems to want to address honestly, is that the unions will hamper the NDP from ever taking this position.  Not because they are inherently evil but because they are organized, powerful and militant.

I don't doubt that there are Greens in similar positions but they aren't organized and I don't think there are proportinonally as many.

madmax, I don't mean to be rude but I won't respond to you other than to say that you've grossly misrepresented my position.

This point illustrates what I was saying about why a lot of people don't feel comfortable in the NDP.  Unions are 100% good and always right.  Businesses are 100% bad and always wrong.  Anyone who attempts to take a more nuanced position is a patsy or a spy.

I don't agree.  I've heard this claim repeated over and over in this and other fora but have never seen anything to back it up.

My parents were business people and employers, they were also signatories to the CCF and later the NDP. I am a small business owner and a member of a union.  The 2 are NOT mutually exclusive, as you are depicting, or attempting to. In fact, as I was saying you are delusional to first of all think that the NDP is all union all the time, and secondly to try and spread that delusion here.

Fuck I am sick of union bashing here.