[ 15 October 2007: Message edited by: The Wizard of Socialism ]

quote:

---

Layton and Dion, start your photocopiers!

---

Daniel Grice:

quote:

---

Wow. The rabble intelligentsia is out in force this morning.

---

Was that rabbid or rabble? A wee bit of hyperbole never hurt a message board.

Re the GP link: A quite attractive site, despite the need to side-scroll.

[ 15 October 2007: Message edited by: bliter ]

quote:

---

Because it leaves everyone else out of the system, and weakens demand for more accessible systems

---

quote:

---

Green Party MPs will:

* Re-establish a federal minimum wage of $10 an hour under the Canada Labour Code.
* Advocate for changes in the Canadian Labour Code that establish a minimum of three weeks paid vacation and a managed reduction in the standard work week to 35 hours.
* Support federal “anti-scab” legislation.
* Support changes to the Employment Standards law to provide equal protection to contract and temporary workers.
* Strengthen non-union workers’ rights and protections to close the widening gap between union and non-union workplaces.
* Increase federal inspections and establish stronger deterrents to illegal unpaid overtime work to achieve full compliance with Canada Labour Code standards. This will save money by reducing the costs related to stress and social impacts.
* Change federal labour law to include a requirement that a poster outlining workers’ rights be placed in all federally regulated workplaces as is the case under all provincial labour laws.
* Offer tax rebates to companies that provide on-the-job-site daycare, healthy food and facilities for exercise and commuting by bicycle.

---

The Tax Shifting stuff. It sounds nice, but I don't think it makes any sense. Every time I've asked a Green this they never answer, or they dodge the question, or they claim that you're being negative for even asking them the question in the first place! So fine, assume increased taxes on gas etc will truly drive down useage, and not simply drive down the economy, once that happens and people have switched to environmentally friendly alternatives where do you get your revenue? Do you raise income taxes at that point?

Also, they say they'll allow income splitting which is good if you want lower taxes. But if you have lower taxes then you'll have lower revenue and then you won't be able to fund all the programmes, whether they're the foreign aid/diplomatic stuff the Greens are advocating, or the poverty fighting measures. This is truly a have your cake and eat it too moment. Or do they not believe in having a balanced budget?

I'll note that they do propose to include a higher tax bracket, with a higher tax rate than the highest current rate. I think that's a good thing. But it sort of counters their claim that they'll have lower income taxes. It's especially contradictory when keeping the tax-splitting argument in mind, because people making over 150K will be able to avoid this new bracket if they income split.

Also, because the tax thing refered me to their position on "people" section 4 I decided to go there out of curiosity. I noticed 7a) Women's Equality. I'm kind of curious to hear what people think about this:

quote:

---

Green Party MPs will:

* Oppose any possible government move to diminish the right of a woman to a safe, legal abortion. We fully support a woman’s right to choose. We will also expand programmes in reproductive rights and education to avoid unwanted pregnancies, and expand supports for low-income mothers.
* Pass pay equity legislation, as recommended by the Pay Equity Task Force, immediately implement full pay equity for women employed in the federal sector and develop tax incentives for companies to meet the highest standards of gender and pay equity.
* Establish specific job re-entry programmes for women with children who want to restart their working life either part-time or full-time.
* Reestablish funding for Status of Women Canada and for a Women’s Program that funds not-for-profit women’s groups that advocate women’s rights.
* Ensure that the criteria for a new independent agency appointing members to public boards and agencies includes equal opportunity for women.
* Support greater engagement of women in the political life of Canada by advocating that all political parties nominate, train and support more women candidates.

---

That being said,

-I don't trust Elizabeth May
-The Green Party's internal disputes make me wary
-I don't think the Greens have the resources or infrastructure to compete with the other parties
-I think this vision is extremely ambitious, to the point of being unrealistic

So i think that it's largely a feel-good piece. But it has left me feeling better than any NDP literature that i've seen in a few years.

[ 15 October 2007: Message edited by: wage zombie ]

quote:

---

Green Party MPs will:

* Change tax policy to create a new pool of long term municipal infrastructure funding by allowing municipalities to issue new Municipal Registered Retirement Savings Plans Bonds (MRRSPsBs) which can be held in RRSPs and self-directed RRSPs.
* Allocate one cent from GST on an approximate per capita basis to municipal governments for “Green Cities” initiatives, ensuring (through contractual agreements) that the funding is not used in ways that encourage urban sprawl, but instead to reduce sprawl and greenhouse gas emissions, conserve electricity and water, increase densification, expand convenient, safe, reliable and affordable public transit, and build cycling and walking paths. This funding could be transferred through Municipal Superfunds.
* Create six Municipal Superfunds of $500 million/fund/year (an average of $100 for every citizen per year) to which municipalities can apply for grant funding to replace the less specific Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund (CSIF). The proposed funds are:
1. Community Brownfield Remediation (CBR) Fund to provide assistance in cleaning up toxic and brownfield sites;
2. Water and Waste Treatment Facilities (WWTF) Fund to upgrade water treatment, sewage treatment and recycling facilities to make them efficient, safe and sustainable;
3. Sports, Cultural and Recreational Facilities (SCRF) Fund to support the development of green recreational and cultural facilities and refurbish existing facilities;
4. Mass Transit Promotion (MTP) Fund to improve and expand urban mass transit infrastructure and inter-modal connections, as well as car-sharing initiatives;
5. Cycling and Pedestrian Promotion (CAPP) Fund to support pedestrian and cycling infrastructure and smart-growth developments that transform urban areas and towns into walkable communities linked by transit to reduce the need for owning and using cars; and,
6. Community Housing Options Promotion (CHOP) Fund supporting a national housing program to build energy efficient co-ops and affordable housing units where there is a shortage of such housing options.
* Increase the Gas Tax Transfer to municipalities to 5 cents/litre to be used in funding the above sustainable transportation initiatives such as public transit, cycling and pedestrian infrastructure and rural roads.
* Make transit passes tax-deductible to encourage workers and businesses to use public transport and make employee parking a taxable benefit.

---

Oh, and back to child care, for a moment:

quote:

---

Green Party MPs will:

* Restore and revamp the 2005 agreement reached between the federal government, provinces and territories to achieve a universal child care programme in Canada.
* Specifically ensure that Canada’s universal child care programme provides workplace child care spaces wherever possible.
* Tax shift to make advertising directed at children ineligible for corporate tax write-offs.
* Accelerate the creation of workplace child care spaces through a direct tax credit to employers (or groups of employers in small businesses) of $1500 tax credit/child per year.
* Value the decisions of parents who choose to stay home with children.
* Promote and facilitate access to Roots of Empathy Programme to every Canadian child at some point in their elementary school years.

---

quote:

---

Tax shift to make advertising directed at children ineligible for corporate tax write-offs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
I don't think they are trying to compete with the other parties. I think they are directly competing with the NDP, and no one else. They percieve that the NDP has credibility problems and is vulnerable from the left so they are playing to the sentiment.

---

eta: this was in response to cueball

[ 15 October 2007: Message edited by: wage zombie ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vansterdam Kid:

Just like when the NDP criticizes the Liberals, because they feel that they're vulnerable on their left flank, and they perceive the Liberals to have credibility problems as well. Thus they are playing to those sentiments as well.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

Yes, its a mess isnt it. It's to bad the party of principle didn't stick to them, because then it would not be possible for the GRN's to do what they are doing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
I don't think so. I think it is a very carefully thought out document aimed at the heart of urban Canada. Municipalities will be very hard pressed to ignore what is in this document and this goes way beyond anything put forward by the NDP in terms of the so-called "new deal" for cities which is essential to developing any meaningful policies around sustainability.

---

Yes it's all of that, very carefully thought out and goes way beyond anything put forward by the NDP. I'm saying it's a feel good piece because the Greens do not have much chance of becoming the government and wouldn't have the mandate to make these sweeping changes if they could. Drawing up a plan like this and thinking about dream policies feels wonderful but i don't think things would go very smoothly if the Greens somehow won a majority this fall.

So in that sense it's a feel-good piece. The GP are speaking directly to voters and communicating that they understand the issues. At this point they have a lot of support to build. But their advantage is that their perspective and predictions will be more valued as time goes on. There are a lot of people who have been waiting for truth like this, and they'll feel good as they read the Green vision.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wage zombie:
But it has left me feeling better than any NDP literature that i've seen in a few years.

---

My first reaction (summary) is that this is a shift to the left for the Greens. They've parsed out a lot of Jim Harris style policies, and moderated some of the harshest aspects of Green tax-shifting. Instead opting for selective carbon taxing, and income tax reductions. There are major changes in healthcare, childcare, and labour.

At the end of the day this is tit-for-tat comparable to an NDP platform. I'm now asking why is it necessary to spend so much time and energy carving out a second NDP? The grassroots of the NDP could use the organizers and attention of those who are now in the Greens, and I ask why.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Daniel Grice:
Someone was wondering about the tax shift and declining revenue over time. While it is true that are projection would decrease, even best case scenarios are looking at 50% reductions in 20 years.

The GPCs plan does escalate the costs from $50-$100 a ton by 2020.

---

This reply is confusing. Are you referring to the decrease in carbon output? Cause I was referring to the fact that shifting the tax burden onto carbon, if it does actually cause carbon outputs to go down, will lead to a lower tax base since the point of a carbon tax would be to discourage carbon output. Income tax doesn't have the same effect, because obviously no one who advocates that we have an income tax advocates that no one make income, they simply want some of that income to be returned to the public purse. And if they're progressive, they'll advocate that people who make more money, return more of it to the public purse. So what I'm saying is that the Green tax plan will lead to less government revenue cause I'm not sure that such a massive increase in Carbon tax will prove to be a sustainable way to continue funding in the long run. Especially with the income-splitting loop hole, because what that does is allow families with one very high income earner more flexibility to hide some of their income. Besides, some of the language in this platform gives me the impression that the Greens think taxing income is bad. Income Taxes, which are obviously where governments get the bulk of their revenues from, are necessary to pay for social programmes. I think tax shifting can be good in itself, but only in so far as it's cutting taxes for environmentally friendly products, activities, actions etc while raising them on environmentally unfriendly activities.

[ 15 October 2007: Message edited by: Vansterdam Kid ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ravijo:
At the end of the day this is tit-for-tat comparable to an NDP platform. I'm now asking why is it necessary to spend so much time and energy carving out a second NDP? The grassroots of the NDP could use the organizers and attention of those who are now in the Greens, and I ask why.

The outcome could well be the Greens preventing enough NDP MPs from winning seats, possibly giving the Conservatives a majority. I will pre-empt this by suggesting eMay will have to reconsider whether she's going to become the Nader-factor in the upcoming elections.

---

In the very long term, that may be true. If its successful enough, then we will have to eventually look at other measures to make up for revenue. Our plan is to gradually increase the tax over time, while seeing the overall emissions drop so that their is a constant push for efficiencies.

This plan is to get us to 2020 based on these projections.

ie: I dont need to inform myself, NDP sound-bites and propaganda can inform me what the Green Party is all about.

I remember watching the ontario election on CTV. and they had Olivia Chow as one of the guests. And they asked her about the Green Party, and she spent the next 3 minutes making up policy, really really bad policy, that has never been and will never be in our books... But there was no green panellist to refute her lies, and only 50% of Canadians say they have an idea of what we stand for (let alone the number of those 50% that actually do) so the NDP can keep spitting out lies and propaganda about our party, because they know when we start polling above the NDP, voters will switch in droves. We polled at 8-9% in ontario, we finished with 8.1%. If we can poll at 15% during a federal election , we can finish above 10%.

Can any of the Green supporters here tell me why the Green party is such an alternative to fed up Conservative voters? How, exactly, is the Green Party going to appeal to these lost Cons and the left at the same time?

quote:

---

Originally posted by ravijo:
The outcome could well be the Greens preventing enough NDP MPs from winning seats, possibly giving the Conservatives a majority. I will pre-empt this by suggesting eMay will have to reconsider whether she's going to become the Nader-factor in the upcoming elections.

---

Sorry for posting twice in a row.. but THE NADER FACTOR?!?!
Are you kidding? Do you know what democracy means? it means you vote for who ever you want, there's no wasted vote! If Al Gore wanted those Green Party votes, he should have made climate change a bigger issue in his campaign, or promised electoral reform, that was him selling out, not the Green Party voters. And if anything... Layton is the Nader of Canada!
NDP - 17%
LIB - 30%
CONS - 35%
Greens - 14%
Bloc 10%

Those 14% of Green Votes, if they didn't have the Green option, would go 30% NDP 20% Lib 10% Cons, and 40% stay home (i would be one of the latter). not changing a whole lot considering the most we will pass on is 4 points to the NDP, which will be offset by giving to Libs and Cons.

Meanwhile the were the NDP gone, it would go 50% Liberal 50% Green (according to Nick Nanos figures) giving the Liberal Party a tie in the polls with the Cons, and putting the green party at over 20% to hold the balance of power...

quote:

---

If the Greens are trying to go after the NDP voters, why do they manage to snag more upset Conservatives than anyone?

---

quote:

---

The outcome could well be the Greens preventing enough NDP MPs from winning seats, possibly giving the Conservatives a majority.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
If the Greens are trying to go after the NDP voters, why do they manage to snag more upset Conservatives than anyone?

---

Besides, I am not sure that is true, given the recent election in Ontario, where NDP stalwart Rosario Marchese, (in possibly one of the most left ridings in Canada) had his vote percentage slip ominously by the same amount as the increase in the GRN vote, with no change in the precentage vote for the other parties.

[ 16 October 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Bunk. The market has been doing a pretty good job of getting the prices right (check out the price of oil), yet every year Canada emits more carbon than the year before.

To pretend that revenues from a carbon tax can simply be used to reduce income and payroll taxes is selling Canadians a false bill of goods.

Since acknowledging I voted Green and engaging in what amounts to 90% juvenile attacks, 5% scare mongering, and 5% intelligent discourse from the self-declared NDP contingent, I have become more comfortable with my choice and more committed to it.

With friends like you two (three) no wonder the NDP can't win an election.

[ 16 October 2007: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

quote:

---

Since acknowledging I voted Green and engaging in what amounts to 90% juvenile attacks, 5% scare mongering, and 5% intelligent discourse from the self-declared NDP contingent, I have become more comfortable with my choice and more committed to it.

---

I wouldn't put too much stock in that.

[ 16 October 2007: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
What a couple of losers you two (sorry, three) are. Not an intelligent comment to be had, just "Boogieman! Boogieman!"

Since acknowledging I voted Green and engaging in what amounts to 90% juvenile attacks, 5% scare mongering, and 5% intelligent discourse from the self-declared NDP contingent, I have become more comfortable with my choice and more committed to it.

With friends like you two (three) no wonder the NDP can't win an election.

[ 16 October 2007: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotleded24:

Have you seen this?

---

[ 16 October 2007: Message edited by: The Wizard of Socialism ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Wizard of Socialism:
I wish people would quit mentioning the name of The Party in the same paragraph as the so-called NDP. Everytime it happens, it damages our brand and gives backroom Layton's gang of "merry amateurs" credit they don't deserve. Let's get this straight once and for all - the difference between the party of Pierre Trudeau is so great that to go from one to the other would require a decompression chamber.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
So you are a disgruntled Green who didn't get his way at the riding association. Where I grew up we termed that a sore loser. But I understand. Let me show you: there, there.

[ 16 October 2007: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

---

quote:

---

Besides, I am not sure that is true, given the recent election in Ontario, where NDP stalwart Rosario Marchese, (in possibly one of the most left ridings in Canada) had his vote percentage slip ominously by the same amount as the increase in the GRN vote, with no change in the precentage vote for the other parties.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John K:
Of all the failings of this self-described green vision, perhaps the greatest is the hopelessly naive reliance on the invisible green hand of the market. According to this document, all you have to do is to "get the prices right" and the market will take care of the rest.

Bunk. The market has been doing a pretty good job of getting the prices right (check out the price of oil), yet every year Canada emits more carbon than the year before.

To pretend that revenues from a carbon tax can simply be used to reduce income and payroll taxes is selling Canadians a false bill of goods.

Green taxes (including a carbon tax but also including taxes on other wasteful uses of resources) can play a useful role but only if the revenues are used to build a green economy.

---

This is a good point, are people really driving less now a days? And some of their assumptions seem to be based on the mythical creature Homo Economicus and his perfectly rational economic choices.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess: Since acknowledging I voted Green and engaging in what amounts to 90% juvenile attacks, 5% scare mongering, and 5% intelligent discourse from the self-declared NDP contingent, I have become more comfortable with my choice and more committed to it.

---

When a party is around the 20-25% range of the popular vote, our FPTP system rewards small increases in the popular vote with big increases in seat totals. If the Greens worked within the NDP, they could help elect more progessive MPs and also have a big hand in creating NDP policies.

If the Greens exist to have their platform adopted by the other parties, then they'd be more successful joining other parties and working to shape their policies from within.

Anyways, I liked seeing this in the Green platform:

quote:

---

6. Ending the war on drugs

In 2005, according to the Treasury Board, Canada spent $368 million targeting elicit drugs, with 73% of that money going to law enforcement. Most of that was for the “war” against cannabis (marijuana). Marijuana prohibition is also prohibitively costly in other ways including criminalizing youth and fostering organized crime. Prohibition, which has gone on for decades, has utterly failed and has not lead to reduced drug use in Canada.

Our Vision

After analyzing the recommendation of the Canadian Senate’s 2002 Special Committee on Drugs and the examples of strategies used by some European countries, the Green Party of Canada has come to the conclusion that it is time to legalize the adult use of marijuana. Furthermore, the Green Party believes that drug addictions should be treated as more a health problem than a criminal offence.

Green Solutions

Green Party MPs will:

Legalize marijuana by removing marijuana from the drug schedule.

Create a regulatory framework for the safe production of marijuana by small, independent growers.

Develop a taxation rate for marijuana similar to that of tobacco.

Establish the sale of marijuana to adults for medicinal or personal use through licensed distribution outlets.

Educate the public about the health threats of marijuana and tobacco use.

Launch a public consultation on the decriminalization of illicit drugs, considering the high costs currently used on the law enforcement effort, as well as for treatment facilities, rehabilitation of addicts, and consider shifting to prevention through educational programmes instead.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dana Larsen:
I believe that those working within the Green Party would have a much greater chance of implementing their ideas if they chose to work within a more mainstream party.

---

I disagree. All of the mainstreem parties are completely ossified, except perhaps the Conservatives, which we forget is still a failry young party. The Liberal moto is do nothing by design, and the NDP is at loggerheads with itself so much that for the most part nothing new can be introduced.

quote:

---

When a party is around the 20-25% range of the popular vote, our FPTP system rewards small increases in the popular vote with big increases in seat totals. If the Greens worked within the NDP, they could help elect more progessive MPs and also have a big hand in creating NDP policies.

---

quote:

---

A smaller party is so much easier to influence through participatory preassure, especially when it is new, and setting up its whole policy agenda.

---

quote:

---

The Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) is a new and innovative accounting method that embraces a more systematic and comprehensive definition of well-being.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Policywonk:
From Vision Green:

The GPI has been around for well over a decade and has been Federal NDP policy since 1997. Not only that, there is not one GPI but quite a few, adapted to local circumstances. Not that it couldn't be applied nationally.

---

quote:

---

Support the trucking industry, reducing pollution through add-on generators to avoid the need to idle to maintain air conditioning and refrigeration, while ensuring the right fit of trucking in a more efficient, rail-based intermodal system.

---

quote:

---

copy and pasting doesn't have the same ring to it!

---

quote:

---

Since wind energy generates power 30% of the time, solar 20% of the time, and other renewables 30 – 50% of the time, the planned capacities from renewables need to be larger than capacities from firm power generation.

---

quote:

---

The Liberal moto is do nothing by design, and the NDP is at loggerheads with itself so much that for the most part nothing new can be introduced.

---

quote:

---

Canada will support the development of Kyoto’s clean development mechanisms focused on verifiable greenhouse gas reductions in developing nations.

---

Weak. What is required is a major effort to build renewable energy infrastructures in developing nations. This could be funded by carbon taxes in the North, a tax on international airline travel, and/or a Tobin Tax (which is a surprising omission from these documents).

quote:

---

A Nitrous Oxide Task Force will be established to recommend ways to reduce Canada’s N2O emissions by 85% by 2025.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
So you are a disgruntled Green who didn't get his way at the riding association. Where I grew up we termed that a sore loser. But I understand. Let me show you: there, there.

[ 16 October 2007: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

---

quote:

---

Change federal labour law to include a requirement that a poster outlining workers’ rights be placed in all federally regulated workplaces as is the case under all provincial labour laws.

---

quote:

---

The Afghan government also needs to be strengthened institutionally and practically so that it is not forced into making deals with drug warlords

---

Somewhat naive because the government is partly made up of drug warlords.

quote:

---

We were proud of our previous government’s decision to say “no” to joining the US invasion of Iraq.

---

It now appears that we were not asked to join in the first place.

Canada not asked to join Iraq mission

quote:

---

Originally posted by Life, the universe, everything:
Cameron W
Instead of juvenile boosterism why don't you reply to my post above with a substantive response to someone who has seen the Greens inside out from almost the beginning

---

LTUE, you seem to enjoy telling 'new greens' how it is, eh?

I was complimenting the group for a great discussion in this thread, and you popped in to share your spite and negativity.

I've known a few 'old-time' greens like yourself; upset that you didn't get to dictate what the Greens would become. Upset that you were unable to force the Green Party to do what you wanted. Well, fortunately the collective will of the general membership has been able to exert its right to be heard (grassroots democracy) and the general membership has been able to write the policies that laid the foundation of the new Vision Green policy document.

I like the Green Party more than the other major national parties. I guess you think I'm silly, eh? You've laid this on me before and I think I know your angle. You're sure that you're right and I'm wrong, and you're more interested in attacking the GPC and it's supporters than you are in contributing to positive discussion.

I like the way the Green Party works and what it stands for. It seems you've given up on the Green Party. Why don't you want to contribute and be a part of the solution?

Also the rest of the so-called solutions are market driven and Green only in name. As well the origninal notion of tax shifting, which include tax burden shifting has been bastardized to the point that is now the most unprogressive tax proposal going. Even the Conservative tax plan has more in it and less negative impact than the Green on and that is a hard standard to beat.

A true European Green would laugh their asses off, before they got pissed off, for the Canadian Greens for abusing the Green legacy.

Yes I am pissed off that the Greens have become a green party only in name. The GPC has chucked peace and justice in favour of a vendetta against the only other peace and justice party in Canada. They day Elizabeth May inked her deal with Dion and then made the statement that Jack Layton would rather talk with the Taliban than her, was the day the Green party died in Canada once and for all. Sure there is a GPC, but it is just an old-line party with a few recycling bins around for effect.

Did you never stop to ask yourself why the people who founded the party have almost all left in disgust. Shouldn't you? And no it was not because they didn't get their way but because their idealism and effort was sold out to right-wing interests.

[ 19 October 2007: Message edited by: Life, the universe, everything ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Life, the universe, everything:
It is mostly cribbed from the NDP.

---

No, it isn't, although there are a few common policies. You'd like for the NDP to take credit for the GPCs Vision Green, but you can't have it that way.

quote:

---

Also the so-called solutions are market driven and Green only in name.

---

Your so-called analysis is inaccurate and unspecific. Your fear of market driven policies is illogical, and you assumption that that is what the Greens are promoting throughout their policies regardless of the effect on issues relating to social justice is incorrect.

quote:

---

A true European Green would laugh their asses off, before they got pissed off, for the Canadian Greens for abusing the Green legacy.

---

The Green legacy you speak of will be carried on by the younger members of the Green Party of Canada for many years to come, and believe me, if anyone knows about keeping the GPC on track with the Global Greens Charter and the Key Values, it's the youth of the party.

There are many different Green Parties around the world, and they all share a common set of values and subscribe to the global greens charter. If the GPC didn't it wouldn't be one of the many Green Parties.

I now understand that you think the GPC is different than other Green Parties around the world. On this you are correct. Canada is a different country, and the Green Party of Canada has different policies from other Green Parties around the world. They can't all be exactly the same, nor should they.

You should have a talk with Monica Frassoni, (google her) something I did at the '06 GPC convention in Ottawa. She seems to think the GPC is a wonderful Green Party that is needed in a country where old-line political parties continue to drop the ball on the real issues.

quote:

---

Yes I am pissed off that the Greens have become a green party only in name.

---

This is the same old accusation meant to scare Green Party supporters into thinking the GPC has somehow succumbed to old-line politics in the short time it's been around. I can speak from personal experience that the GPC is the ONLY national political party in Canada that is truly, truly GREEN.

quote:

---

The GPC has chucked peace and justice in favour of a vendetta against the only other peace and justice party in Canada.

---

That's silly. The Green Party of Canada and it's thousands of members views peace and justice as two extremely important values. The Greens base their policies in part on these values, along with a few others. As an old time member you should know that.

quote:

---

Sure there is a GPC, but it is just an old-line party with a few recycling bins around for effect.

---

That's silly. Why would you say that? Look around my friend. The GPC is a vibrant young national political party with policies that cover all issues, supporters from all walks of life, and executive members who walk the talk.

I have no idea what you think the Green Party of Canada should be, but I do know that what you think it is is completely incorrect.

quote:

---

Did you never stop to ask yourself why the people who founded the party have almost all left in disgust. Shouldn't you? And no it was not because they didn't get their way but because their idealism and effort was sold out to right-wing interests.

---

I did, when I first got involved. I even phoned a few of them up, along with emailing a few others. I'll share some of that experience with you.

I got in touch with members of the Peace & Ecology Party (something I doubt many other newer members of the party did) in an effort to find out why they left the Green party. I emailed and phoned vocal critics to speak with them. It turned out that much of the discontent was largely personal issues and disagreements with other active members, along with the fact that exerting personal will above that of the general party membership and its representatives was something they were unable to get away with. So they left. Others were extreme left wing idealists, and anything 'right' of suggesting we all move to the extreme left was considered 'right wing'. One old time member was even caught up with other members who chose to wear suits, saying it was 'right wing'. That is how you are coming across to me, but I suspect that you might be a reasonable person who had some personal hangups with other active members, or maybe you would like the GPC to move to the extreme left and are upset that it isn't happening.

Let me quote that last bit you said again:

quote:

---

Did you never stop to ask yourself why the people who founded the party have almost all left in disgust. Shouldn't you? And no it was not because they didn't get their way but because their idealism and effort was sold out to right-wing interests.

---

On second thought, maybe you are someone who would like the GPC to move to the extreme left and is upset that it isn't happening.

To be clear, I consider myself left of center on most everything, I respect the six fundamental principles of the Green Party of Canada, and I have read and fully understand the Global Greens charter.

- - - - -

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
I haven't read it, but here it is:
http://www.greenparty.ca/visiongreen

---

I've read it and I'm excited by it.

You should read it!

No, it isn't, although there are a few common policies. You'd like for the NDP to take credit for the GPCs Vision Green, but you can't have it that way.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also the so-called solutions are market driven and Green only in name.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your so-called analysis is inaccurate and unspecific. Your fear of market driven policies is illogical, and you assumption that that is what the Greens are promoting throughout their policies regardless of the effect on issues relating to social justice is incorrect.

No friend Cam.
Much of the positive initiatives can be found in earlier NDP and for that matter BQ platform documents. Take your partisan hat off, which I don't have these days and you would realize it. However, despite stealing some good ideas the underlying approach of the Greens is doomed to failure. The NDP plan it is true is not perfect either, but is is a country mile ahead of the Greens.

Friend Cam you clearly do not understand the implications of the GPC platform and 'vision' statement. Market forces can not and will never affect change on environmental and ecological issues. They are at the very root of the problem.
Tax shifitng, as now espoused by the Greens, simply moves the burden for our wasteful and environmentally degrading ways to those who can least afford it. Slap a big tax on Hummers and the fuel they take and it will make no difference, because the people who buy Hummers are not compelled to act on price - or they wouldn't buy Hummers. But a struggling, young rural family who has no other transportation alternative but their old gas guzzling, but dirt cheap 20 year old Oldsmobile they are glued, screwed and tatooed under the Green plan.

You can not seperate, ecology, economic justice and equality which is done at the very heart of the Green vision. Like the ecology of life they are all interconnected. The Greens have drifted into a kind of Reagonomic tricke down belief that ask the market to pretty please behave and everything else will follow.

History has proven time and time again that it will not work. Go back and read some of the arguments from the antebellum South. The essesnce of their arguments was that the economic underpinnings of society would be destroyed if they were not allowed to exploit human slaves. It is in essence, although to a much less odious degree, used by those who justify a pure market approach today.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Life, the universe, everything:

Friend Cam you clearly do not understand the implications of the GPC platform and 'vision' statement.

---

Actually I do understand it. Have you read it? It seems like you've missed the point, and you're way off base suggesting that the tax burden would be shifted to the poor.

I suggest you reread the Vision Green, contact the Green Party of Canada's Shadow Advocates that are experts in fields related to social justice.

Your cynicism and negativity betrays you.

Again with the passive aggressive bs

I have read it, several times. If you are so up on history have a look back in the Green archives, if they haven't been purged, you will find my fingerprints all over some of the original green economic documents.

You see I actually understand and study these things, I am not just following E-Me's talking points. The claims you make are not supported by the evidence you provide - namely the so-called "Green Vision". The tax burden shifting from the more well off to those with more limited means is clear if you follow through with the document into the kind of legislation and regulations that would be required to implement them.
I have referenced several cases where the Green 'vision' is not progressive. All you say is "No it's not" It reminds me of a kid sticking her fingers in her ears yelling la la la when told to do chores. You do not provide any substance what so ever.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Life, the universe, everything:

I have referenced several cases where the Green 'vision' is not progressive.

---

No you haven't. You've said that you don't think it's progressive, and proceeded to misrepresent Green party policy.

Just because you say it, it doesn't make it so.

Your cases aren't cases but straw man arguments that you then proceed to knock down. I know this messaging trick and you should be aware that you're using it. Maybe you weren't consciously aware of this.