Green Party supporters: What would other parties have to do to convince you you didn't need to keep your party going?

Name me a single "meaningful gesture" on the part of the federal green party? Once you get past having a cute name that has a certain amount of global "brand equity", they take the cake in terms of being the party that coasts on the most superficial cliches and platitudes of all!

Well, I don't want to get into defending the Federal Green party, like I said I've never voted for them and don't currently plan to but I thought May made some good points that were more than cliches or platitudes in the debates and the Greens were ahead of the curve in calling for a Stop Harper Coalition before the idea of a coalition became popular amongst NDPers.  Obviously that coalition was different and evil ect. and I think you're right that there is a bit of a double standard when it comes to crediblity for the Greens, partly because voting for them is a statement for change which transcends their organization, but I think these debates aren't what Ken is looking for.

"Greens were ahead of the curve in calling for a Stop Harper Coalition"

That's funny, I could have sworn that EMay was "ahead of the curve" in calling for a Stop Layton Coalition. To the extent that May expressed any support for the coalition back in December - it was only in the context of her not-very-helpful musing about getting appointed to the Senate as part of the deal.

A deal that had nothing to do with the Green Party of Canada - so may the disaster decided to add fuel to a fire and re-affirmed "fears" that those un-electable would get in through the back door. Way to go May - democracy was irrelevant.

OK, let me try to respond fairly to the OP.

"There were good reasons to start a Green Party in Canada, but at some point you'd have to ask yourselves if it's worth the effort to try to keep it going."

The answer will always be YES because as long as they get at least 2% of the national popular vote - they will get about a million dollars a year in funding and that will keep May and few of her sycophants gainfully employed for the foreseeable futue. On top of that, there is another thin layer of people who like being in the Green Party because they can be a proverbial "big fish in a small pond" (or more likely a small fish in a kitchen sink) - the Green party isn't exactly brimming with top level political strategists - if the party folded tomorrow do you think there is ANYONE in that party that the NDP or the Liberals would be in a big rush to offer jobs to???

"What would you have to see from ANY other party before you'd say "OK, we don't need to stay with this, we can join THEM now"?"

I suspect that NO, there is NOTHING that any other party could offer that would make anyone still in the green party say "OK, we don't need to stay with this, we can join THEM now". A chunk of ex-greens already moved over to the NDP when Layton took over the party - given that he has greener credentials than just about anyone in the green party itself. A few others went Liberal after Dion took over. I think that the diehards who are still "Green" will stick with that party forever - no matter what policies any other party puts forth for the reasons cited in my answer to the first question.

In my particular circle of friends and activists, there was a lot of support and hope given to Layton earlier in his leadership of the NDP.

Indeed, the Marijuana Party essentially did what you are wondering if the Greens will ever do... Most of the leadership and membership of the Canadian MJ Party joined the NDP when Layton came out firmly in favour of legalization.

If the BC NDP leadership had been as forthright in their support for legal weed, it's likely the BC Marijuana Party would have folded up shop already.

But once Layton started qualifying his support for marijuana law reform, many of these people started saying they were going to vote Green.

So perhaps, among other things, the NDP taking a more principled and firmly-based stand on marijuana legalization would help lure the Greens into the NDP fold.

I'd actually advocate for the NDP to unify with / absorb the Green Party, and change our name to the "Green Democratic Party" which I think would lead to a surge for us in the polls and electoral success.

The best way for the NDP to convince the Greens to dissolve their party would be for everyone in the NDP to join the Greens and then vote for the Greens to join the NDP. Kind of like what the Reform Party did to the Progressive Conservatives.

Clever, but I don't think the Greens are going anywhere just yet as I think its now evident that their only reason for existance still is to block the NDP.  They mostly represent the centre right now, though, so probably taking more potential votes from the Liberals now.   Maybe they could start up merger talks with the new Vision BC party though, that might be a better fit. 

Yeah, I was perhaps being a bit cynical myself in regards to the average Green member, but I see no sign that their leadership or general drift is about anything anymore than...well, getting on my nerves really.  My nerves in particular.  I think Stockholm secretly enjoys their antics.

Good topic, interesting question.

I think the general statements have been made about the GPC and their membership is more or less accurate from pervious posts and this one.  

to whit:

- The GPC is (very?) right of centre, politically, however the people who vote for them do so for a myriad of reasons:

1. There are right wing eco-capital business types and libertarians who genuinely are informed about what the GPC represents. They MIGHT go to nearest main stream party on the right, but unlikely. 

2. The "rhino"/ "none of the above" people who will vote strictly as a protest - Many of whom (though certainly not all), I believe, are more or less progressives who have a misunderstanding of the NDP due to MSM media.

3. The uninformed progressive / environmentalist voter that votes "Green" strictly because of the "green=environment=good" axiom. These voters are for sure progressive and with proper outreach/education by Team Orange on which party has trail blazed on the environment, has a history of doing so and has leader who is Greener then the vast majority Green Party "insiders.". Also important to these progressive voters is to hit home point 1 above.  IMHO these are the bulk of what remains of GPC voters.   

That said, the viritol from progressives re: E may and the GPC (which has been right-wing long before she came around) is the same many feel for the modern LPC. IOW, they are not "progressive" by any standard that counts, but try & skate by on the myth that they are. My hunch is that group 1 will stay around to keep them on life support (short term) while group 2 (to a certain degree) will spit - some will stay, some will go- and Group 3 will go Orange. 

"gatherings should be frequent, informal and fun - rather than a punishing chore. "

Oh man, I remember the gatherings in SK, bands, funny speeches, kid's rides, BBQ's, ball games, they were too much fun actually.

Even the dinners and other fund raisers that happened in BC, were fun, in the earlier days. Then somehow in the 80's all the fun got drained out. Like it was supposed to be "serious" business or some damn thing, with no fun allowed.

Perhaps it had something to do with all the "serious" business of environmental fighting going on, afterall, all that tree spiking and getting arrested for the cause, is serious business and we would not want it trivialized. And the NDP had to appear to be "serious" contenders.

I agree with that assessment Stock.

OK, I think we now know all that we ever wanted to know about the REAL mentality of the Green party.

If your views are typical of the the Green Party, then it confirms to me my worst suspcions that they are a party of union-bashing, poor-hating Tories with composters.

If you would read my comment without your orange coloured glasses and think about what I said you see that I am not against unions.  I am advocting that the success of the NDP might increase if it would change it tactics. I am saying that pissing people off doesn't make for electoral success.

I'm not sure what "tactics" you're even referring to. Its been a long time since I've seen anyone from the NDP walking any picket lines in support of any public sector unions, since the ban on corporate and union donations labour has had less influence on the NDP than ever before and I I watched the last federal election campaign very closely and I don't recall the NDP making much noise about labour issues or about the virtue of unions etc... the most high profile "union boss" (sic.) in canada Buzz Hargrove seems to have run off to support the Liberals and their green acolytes etvc... so you are really flailing against a straw dog.

To answer the opening post: I've voted Green before, and even been a member and volunteered for them federally. For me, the reasons I returned to the NDP were that I found working to make the NDP policies more sustainable was a heck of a lot easier then building a brand new party. I'm just a quitter, I guess.

I joined the Green Party in my twenties, when I moved to an area the NDP was weak (AB) after living in a province where the NDP was always an also-ran (NS)... the environment was always my 1st, 2nd and 3rd issue, so 'Green' seemed a purer choice at the time then fitting into a bigger NDP tent where my choices were (very occasionally) ridiculed. 

Since then, I've learned more about how to work towards a consensus and how to find common ground with people who don't think the environment is both the 1st, 2nd and 3rd most important issue of our time. And since moving back to the NDP (in NS again) I've been surprised at how they've welcomed me... I've heard that's been an issue for others in other provinces - young people (young being anyone under 35) are treated as NDP Youth instead of regular members.

I moved back to the NDP, in part, because I noticed the NDP had beefed up their environment policies (and had been recognized by enviro-orgs as having done so)... at this point I think by reaching out to exhausted Green supporters, telling them they can have an effect now (working on policy now, working for the twenty strongest NDP supporters of environmental initiatives now), instead of a distant future when the Greens win a few dozen seats (20 years? 50 years?) but doing so with an appreciation of why they feel more comfortable in the GP, will have some effect on improving the NDPs fortunes. I'm talking about the committed left of centre Greens, not the average voter, though. But take those activists, and you make their party weaker and yours stronger.

The Green Party is here to stay, especially now that they get dollars for votes. But there are divisions in that party - reformers versus utopians and pure market economics versus state intervention policies - and those divisions can exhaust people. I'd advise New Democrats to reach out to active leftist Greenies (they do exist) and invite them over to discuss the relative benefits of organic imported beer versus local union-made. 

How to reach the average voter? Much harder. Much more expensive. TV commercials. Sponsor green events and initiatives. Every candidate should be ready to speak out about climate change, but also about 3 local issues that will generate local press.

But the party might want to concern itself more with how to win Liberal votes. Let Canadians know that the debate on the environment should not be a partisan one... Ignatieff thinks he'll win votes by calling the tar-sands a national treasure and saying National Geographic has nothing to teach him... Canadians need to understand that the Liberals are failing them - that even Margaret Thatcher believes we need strong and immediate action. Canadians who care about the environment must learn that voting Liberal is not an option for them. I think the Liberals are incredibly weak on the environment, and it might just be the issue that helps New Democrats explain to Canadians that they cannot keep switching back and forth between the Liberals and Tories. 

I don't know of ANY jurisdition in the entire western industrialized world that has ever outlawed all strikes by anyone in the public sector across the board. If the Green Party of canada is advocating that - its news to me. So far that seems to be too much of a rightiwng tinfoil hat policy for even the Tories to touch!

I am not the Green Party. If you want the Green Party's stand on something read Green Vision. It amazes me that you people cannot have a discusion without putting labels on people.

I joined the Greens for many reasons. Their policy on legalization of drugs.  By education I am an economist. I agree with Milton Friedman. It hasn't worked, isn't working and won't work in the future. Their policy on a gaurenteed annual income. Their policy on assisting people to pay for higher education.

My experience is that most small business people would not go anywhere near the NDP.  They tend to be Conservative.

I am not going to be taken over by a corporate concern.  I am going to retire comfortably after a life time of work.  Thank you very much.

And finally I was a VP of the local C of C. A fine group of people who do a lot of good work in the Community.

I am not a parrot I can think for myself.

I'l bet you are boycotting because they do not have the sign of your party up, not because they have signs up. I'll bet things would be different if you liked their sign.

I agree business doesn't look at whether it is a union town or not. Money is money.  As I said many of your tactics will not help you get elected.

Confrontation rarely works in my opinion. If you think it is good for you go for it. But don't be surprized when the NDP looses a few more points in the polls.

Thinking about the opening post from other parties' points of view (where the Liberal and Conservative Parties are some Green voters second choice) I can only speculate that if the Liberals and Cons entered into an honest discussion, where they embrace science, look to be world leaders, and stop worrying about moving to where they think the votes are and move to where good policy is, then some weak Green votes would follow.

This is tricky for the Cons before an election and the Liberals afterwards. Somehow, the environment has stopped being a motherhood issue in North America (sorry for the misuse of 'motherhood') and become polarized and partisan, where it actually makes sense from the Conservative point of view to not take action on the environment as a way of rallying their base who believe climate change is a socialist scheme. But if the goal for the Cons is to win right-wing Green votes, and for the purpose of this thread it is, then the Cons need to act now on environment policy that uses market forces, instead of legislation and restrictions, to reward and punish consumer behavior. Or, they need to work closely with the USA and hope that together they can implement a cap-and-trade system that works. These two ideas are contradictory (a cap and trade seems to be a big government solution, but here I think for the casual right-wing Green voter, helping out Obama would help out Harper.

An honest discussion would be tricky for the Liberals afterwards because, well, they lie. This time, they'd have to actually do something when in government to keep those newly re-won Green votes.

What the heck do you guys have against the Council of Canadians?

Just trying to introduce some humour into the discussion. So, smalltownguy, getting back to the thread topic, what would the Libs or Cons have to do to win your support?

In a few inner city ridings, the Green votes might come slightly more from the NDP than from the Liberals, but a lot of the "green vote (such that it exists) is in places like Calgary, the Okanagan, certain rural parts of Ontario etc... where there was never much of an NDP vote to begin with.

The smalltownguy comes from one of those "rural parts of Ontario".

Support the legalization of marijuana

Support a carbon tax

Return support to women's organizations.

What would they have to do to get you in the fold?