Now is a good time for an NDP-Green Party

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

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.

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.

[quote=remind]

Fuck I am sick of union bashing here.

[quote]

I'd go so far as to say that the only force powerful enough, and so inclined, to ever push the world to address environmental change is in fact organized labour.

Like the rest of the world it takes convincing to get people to accept change- especially painful change, but I believe that the best chance will be leadership from labour. 

It is labour not corporations interested in social justice, rights for the vulnerable, equality, children, the lives of people who are affected by the environmental changes.

It is labour not individuals who will have the strength to fight the corporations on issues that mean something to ordinary people.

Labour understands that it is workers who will face the environmental changes, big business thinks that there is enough money to shelter them from those changes.

Labour can address the needs of families and that is the point of employment in the first place.

So if you want change- get involved, if you are in a union push them on this issue, but stop pretending that anyone else will give enough of a crap to actually care about these things when there is money to be made.

Yes, I made the point upthread that there are conflicts but again labour and the party associated with it, the NDP, which is committed to people are the most likely to resolve these in a positive direction.

There are more and more people understanding that social sustainability and environmental sustainability essentally are becoming the same struggle. Environmental sustainability is a necessary bi-product of social justice. Social justice on the other hand does not necessarily come from environmental sustainability. Therefore if you look at the problem from a social justice perspective you are more likely to capture both than if you approach this from an environmental perspective only. Put another way you could, in theory, have environmental sustainability in an oppresive world but you cannot have environmental collapse in a socially just and sustainable world.

Ultimately, it is more likely to be concern for humanity that drives us to take better care of the planet. To this end the unions ought to be seen as an ally and structure to work in rather than an enemy.

keglerdave wrote:

The Green Party supports proportional representation of any type because they know that thats the only way that they have any hope of getting a single member elected to the house of commons. In effect they are saying, "we can`t win the game the way its played. So let`s change the rules entirely."  It took years for the CCF-NDP to get members elected into the House of Commons as well as into the provincial houses of power.  Yet here we are, constantly listening to the harpings and moanings of the Greens, trying to figure out a way to allow them into the House.

Really.  Nationally, the NDP supports PR, even including it as part of the platform on their website.  Nationally, the NDP would get more seats (providing it kept the same percentage of vote). 

Here in BC, Carole James refuses to comment on BC-STV saying it should be 'non-partisan'.  The no campaign is being headed up by NDPers left over from the Glen Clark days.  There is nothing at all about PR of any kind on their website.  In BC, the NDP has been (and could be in the future) the beneficiaries of artificial majorities thanks to the FPTP system.

Ya see a pattern here?  Where it's in the NDP's interest, they're in favour.  Where it's not, they whistle and hope it goes away.

Quote:

  Why not go out and play the game by the rules in place.  Why is it that suddenly the way we`ve done it for 132 years is suddenly wrong. I don`t understand it, .....

Because in the 2005 BC election, "the rules" left over 160,000 Green voters unrepresented.  Or maybe you believe in democracy only when "the rules" happen to be in your favour.  That figure doesn't include all of the people who would have voted green had they not decided that the vote was wasted because of our archaic voting system.  Maybe the Liberals and the BC NDP, both beneficiaries of strategic voting, are afraid of a system where people are suddenly free to vote how they wanted. 

keglerdave wrote:

It took years for the CCF-NDP to get members elected into the House of Commons as well as into the provincial houses of power.

Well of course that's not true at all, the CCF became the official opposition in several provinces in the very next election after it was formed, and elected a good number of MP's in the next federal election as well.

 Speaks volumes to the amount of real support behind the CCF/NDP and Green Party respectively.

remind wrote:

Fuck I am sick of union bashing here.

I pointed out that unions are in a conflict of interest situation when it comes to social/environmental justice.  You call that union-bashing? 

This is why many people can't deal with the NDP.  There are too many sacred cows.  Ask the wrong questions and you're attacked. And if your reaction is typical of how the leadership react to something they don't like, I can't see you being in a coalition with anyone.

Quote:

You seem to fail to realize people do vote how they want, and they chose NOT to vote Green Party.

In the future, maybe you could respond to what I said, not what you'd like me to have said.

What I want is representation for all points of view that have a significant portion of the popular vote.  In BC, the Green Party pulls 9% of the vote even under the archaic voting system that punishes small parties.  The 160,000+ people who voted Green in 2005 deserve to have the point of view heard in the legislative assembly.  That's called democracy.

Quote:

Moreover, you seem to fail to realize for years NDPers went unrepresented, and that caused us to work harder, not ask for the system to change to accommodate us.

You're wrong - I just don't care.  The fact that you were denied representation 75 years ago (or even yesterday for that matter) is a ridiculous excuse for denying the Green vote representation now.

Quote:

Say nothing of the fact that people who voted GP are really not "Unrepresented", no moreso anyway, than any other voter, whose pary of choice failed to win in their riding.

I don't feel that way and I'd be willing to bet the majority of Green voters don't either.  A couple of years ago, I e-mailed my MLA (NDP) about an issue of concern.  It wasn't on the NDP's priority list and I didn't even get the courtesy of a reply.  Is that the type of representation you're talking about?

In 2005, Carole James received fewer votes in her riding than did STV.  Yet she refused to take her constituents wishes forward and ask the Government to implement it.  Under FPTP, the only time you're really represented is if you're connected or the party who won your seat can use your issue for political points.

You are not responding to the attackers with the proper degree of snarkiness, RM.  You are making some important observations. Don't wilt.

But your attention is directed only on NDP and labour vulnerabilities. It's been my experience, as one of the founders of the Ontario Green Party, that these folks can these days make any silly claim (technologically) and go unchallenged. And when you do dig, you uncover the fact that a great many people with them are libertarians looking for a market fix of the whole business of business at risk. A huge number of Green Party voters don't understand "libertarian" (hell, only a few months ago in this forum there was a violent defense of libertarian...which has somehow extended its meaning to include well-meaning folks of the left...!)

Anyway, RM, perhaps if you enlarged your challenge, looked into those aspects of the Green Party , displayed doubt about more than the hard-pressed New Democrats, the path toward unity (ending in a cliff at the moment for the above reasons, among others) might be less bumpy.!

Just a thought (or two).

Reefermadness handle is quite appropriate when it comes to this thread. He must be imbibing from the bong to think that there could even be a merger between Liz`s party and the NDP. Its about power politics, governmental politics, whatever you choose to call it. Hell let`s talk about a merger between the Libs and Cons. I would dare say its far more feasible for that to occur than for the greens and the NDP to merge. In terms of being solely a union based party... give your head a shake. Federally, they are barred from accepting contributions from unions. Period end of story. And as this is a thread on Canadian Politics, one must deduce that you are talking on a federal level.

That being said, how come you don`t attack with equal verocity the way business pulls the strings with the Libs and Cons. Go and watch Mouseland a few times Reefer, between tokes. And the Greens, they`re just a shill for the Libs, as evidenced by the last election. The greens are the ones who are lost in the wilderness here, not the NDPèrs. And to continue to perpetuate the lie that the Green Party of Canada is centre left, is farcical at best. Why not talk about the Green Party`s policy and attitudes towards free and collective bargaining.  It`s madness out of a bong to think that the 2 entities will ever come together.

And brookmere`s comment (once again on a federal thread, but well taken) proves how ineffective the Green Party is. I don`t agree with PR, though am a member of the NDP both provincially and federally. I think its a cry in the wilderness to try and get in the back door what you can`t achieve through the front.  That doesn`t mean that on that basis alone that I run to the Fibs or Cons. If you totally and completely agree with every single point of a platform of any political party, frankly, you`re a shill or a kool aid drinker.

And to the guy who talked about the Greens being an A- on the environment vs the NDP being a B+, do you need lessons on optics and splitting hairs. Give it up.

keglerdave wrote:

Reefermadness handle is quite appropriate when it comes to this thread. He must be imbibing from the bong to.....

When people start making fun of my handle, it's a sure sign they're frustrated because they've run out of intelligent things to say.  It doesn't usually come this soon, though.

If you can't debate in a more mature fashion than that, consider yourself ignored.

George Victor wrote:

You are not responding to the attackers with the proper degree of snarkiness, RM.  You are making some important observations. Don't wilt.

But your attention is directed only on NDP and labour vulnerabilities. It's been my experience, as one of the founders of the Ontario Green Party, that these folks can these days make any silly claim (technologically) and go unchallenged. And when you do dig, you uncover the fact that a great many people with them are libertarians looking for a market fix of the whole business of business at risk. A huge number of Green Party voters don't understand "libertarian" (hell, only a few months ago in this forum there was a violent defense of libertarian...which has somehow extended its meaning to include well-meaning folks of the left...!)

Anyway, RM, perhaps if you enlarged your challenge, looked into those aspects of the Green Party , displayed doubt about more than the hard-pressed New Democrats, the path toward unity (ending in a cliff at the moment for the above reasons, among others) might be less bumpy.!

Just a thought (or two).

Thanks for your input, George.  And for your even tone.

All I've talked about are my personal experiences and observations.  I don't dispute what you observed regarding the Green Party but my experiences have been different.  I am certainly no libertarian but I do think independently. 

Frustrated Mess wrote:

Quote:

Are you done?  What a crock of shit!

Welcome to babble where it's never done and the crocks of shit overfloweth.

I guess you include yourself in that little ditty then eh, FM?

Reeefermadness, your ability to ignore the truth because it is inconvienent to your personal hypothesis, is amazing. You indeed were/are union basing.

NDP and Green supporters are not necessarily the same.  While there is an environmental commitment from many in both groups, NDP supporters are more social democratic than Green supporters who may be all over the left-right poltical spectrum.  I can give an example of my dad who voted Green in the last federal election.  He's not an enviro-fanatic other than placing a few things in the blue box for the weekly garbage and recycling pick-up.  His economic views are conservative.  He voted Green because he didn't like Harper or Dion.  With Dion out and Iggy in, he might switch to the Liberals in the next election.  An NDP-Green merger would definitely move his vote away from the so-called left.

1+1 does not equal 2 as Stockolm had mentioned (if I am correct).

I was riding my motorcycle through Guelph During the By Election. I wish I had a camera.  There was a Modest House with a beautiful flowerbed/garden and a Mike Nagy Sign sweetly planted in the Flowerbed. This seemed to be common in Guelph as many parties took to moving signs closer to houses and into the greenery. However, along the beautifully manicured lawn on this one Friday were a couple of other signs in front of the GP sign because it had just been sprayed with pestisides.....so erm stay off :) . 

Prof. Barry Kay on the Green vote.  I think Inglehart's stuff about post-materialism really applies here.

Quote:

The demographic correlates with Green Party supporters in the Ipsos election day on-line survey indicate that they tend to be better educated and younger (almost twice the proportion among the 18-34 age group as among those over 55), and at greater levels among both ends of the income variable. Green voters are more likely to be found among students, the self-employed and retired people. The lower income Green voters are probably explained by age, but at the higher level they might be attributable to a theory of Prof. Ron Inglehart from the Univ. of Michigan known as “post-materialism”. The working hypothesis is that those of higher income and more materially comfortable are more predisposed politically to collective concerns like a cleaner environment, than to promises of bettering their individual economic situation. For other Green voters, there appears to be a “none of the above” appeal as the party does somewhat better among those disenchanted with the political system.

When one examines how 2006 Green voters behaved in the previous 2004 election, the Ipsos data suggest that vote switchers were somewhat more likely to have previously supported the NDP or Liberal Party. Other data derived from different sources, are somewhat more mixed on this question. Additional items from the survey indicate that Green voters favour Jack Layton among other party leaders, see themselves as “liberal” rather than “conservative”, and are somewhat more likely to favour access to abortion and gay marriage.

This is from 2006 - but it certainly seems to apply just as much for the 2008 election.

http://www.wlu.ca/lispop/fedblog/?p=17

I bet most people who voted Green last time had zero idea what was in the party platform.

"I bet most people who voted Green last time had zero idea what was in the party platform."

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

Can't recall substantive specifics myself.

Yeah, the market ecology stuff (save the carbon tax) wasn't exactly front and center with May in the last election.  Since she spent most of her time denouncing Harper and in the debate she sounded more left than right, I don't think there's much crossover between Harper Tories and Green voters.It's quite possible some Joe Clark-style PC's who opposed the merger are now voting Green though.

It's naive to suggest that just because the Greens aren't all that leftwing that therefore they don't take from the NDP.  They certainly do.  

Tell me who is critical of the Tar Patch....(again)  please.

No M'Lord P, I'm not missing the point, because I am NOT defending the NDPs program for carbon emissions.

 But why will you or anyone on this goddam thread not answer the simple goddam question.  What party pisses all over Alberta's Tar Patch (and I don't mean Ms May's flyby account of how it looks. And , what do they propose?