Does anyone know of a good resource for a point-by-point comparison of the NDP and the Green Party? (I acknowledge I'm looking for an easy way out of reading both policy platforms in their entirety.)

I've been a life-long supporter and financial contributor to the NDP. I live in Jack's riding and have worked on his campaigns.

However, the NDP's clumsy messaging over the last few years is really starting to alienate me. Dumbed-down analogies and outmoded working class rhetoric.

The worst example, IMHO:

"I told him that if he's prepared to quit his job he can explain that failure to Canadians. I intend to apply for his job..."

Not only is the 'quit his job' metaphor laughably inept, the quote also positions Jack as a supplicant. [EDIT: In /direct/ opposition to the 'new kind of strong' brand of their recent commercial.]

At any rate, looking to consider the Green Party as an alternative.

Thanks,

Tal.

[ 09 September 2008: Message edited by: Taliesan ]

I believe Elizabeth May was the president of the Sierra Club at the time.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Taliesan:
I've been a life-long supporter and financial contributor to the NDP. I live in Jack's riding and have worked on his campaigns.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nicky:
In 2004 the Sierra Club endorsed the NDP environmental position over that of the Greens.

I believe Elizabeth May was the president of the Sierra Club at the time.

Does anyone have a link or the quote?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott Piatkowski:

Yes, in every election campaign, babble is overrun by "lifelong supporters of the NDP" coming here to criticize the party. Welcome.

---

Thanks! Glad to see this is an open forum. Your warmth and hospitality are helping my decision.

Tal.

[ 09 September 2008: Message edited by: Taliesan ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Taliesan:
Your warmth and hospitality are helping my decision.

---

Clearly a non-partisan.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus:

Clearly a non-partisan.

---

In this election though I am unsure if I should vote for my fingers as they are telling me if I only tried I could walk on my hands.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott Piatkowski:

Yes, in every election campaign, babble is overrun by "lifelong supporters of the NDP" coming here to criticize the party. Welcome.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
Excuse me, you guys, but this person is new, he hasn't done anything wrong, and you're not allowed to call other babblers liars, especially newbies. (And yes, that's exactly what you were implying.)

Cut it out.

---

But how are they supposed to get NDP supporters back if not by insulting them?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trevormkidd:

But how are they supposed to get NDP supporters back if not by insulting them?

The New Strong.

---

I don't know Trevor. But our new rabble rouser sure opened up the post with being offensive, and that is so attractive.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Taliesan:

Wow! Do I need to post my bank statements showing the monthly withdrawals by the NDP?

---

Well Tal has most likely left the building for good, as probably have many others who have received similar welcomes on this board ...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
Excuse me, you guys, but this person is new, he hasn't done anything wrong, and you're not allowed to call other babblers liars, especially newbies. (And yes, that's exactly what you were implying.)

Cut it out.

---

So in keeping with your direction I will not imply that this ex-NDP'er is not what they claim. I will thought continue to tell people I am a Green supporter who is disillusioned with them and now m voting NDP. And Michelle I am sure you won't let anyone try to call me a liar.

You said that NDP messaging of the last few years is 'clumsy'. What would you say is better or might be better- about what you see- of Green Party messaging?

IE, what do you see that gets you thinking that the grass on the other side might be greener?

[ 09 September 2008: Message edited by: montrealer ]

Maybe we should all stop drinking our own babble bathwater long enough to realize that there are lots of people out there who do not always share our point of view on everything. I remember one time, a couple of friends of mine that I worked with on the Ontario referendum campaign here decided to join babble and see what people thought about a scheme where the Greens and NDP would "trade" a certain number of ridings where they normally split the vote. Neither of them were Green Party members.

I warned one of them when she told me she was going to do it. I told her, I don't know if you want to do that, because you're going to run into a lot of hostility. You're going to be hazed.

Then I thought to myself, what kind of board are we, where I worry about a couple of retired NDP supporters who are passionate about electoral reform and democracy being trashed if they join babble and try to discuss whether or not trading MPs is a good idea? Isn't it sad that I should have to warn them ahead of time that they'll be treated to anger and hostility just for bringing it up.

And sure enough, they joined, started a discussion topic on it, and that's what they got. A bunch of sneering and hostility and anger. They were accused of being Green Party trolls. They were told to piss off. They were treated like crap. The next time I saw one of them, I was totally embarrassed and apologized to her for the way she was treated here. But she learned her lesson and won't be posting here again. Too bad, really, because she's a brilliant woman, lots of experience and smarts about electoral systems, a strong feminist, and an all around warm, funny, and fun person.

So, just so you know, yes, it's entirely possible that people really are who they say they are. It might make you feel way better to think that it couldn't be possible that there is anyone in the entire country who thinks about politics differently than you do, or who might change their mind or whatever, but I can assure you, there definitely are.

We're probably getting lots of traffic being directed to babble from our election blog. That means new people are going to come along, and they're not all going to agree with you. Please get used to it and stop attacking them personally.

[ 09 September 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
So we get Moderator Michelle wading in on various threads in support of the Green party. Great moderating.

---

No. I'm wading in on THIS thread to stop you and the others from personally attacking this newbie.

I'm allowed to have opinions and state them on babble - moderators always have here. We participate as well as moderate. While it's clear that I have an opinion about the issue at hand, the problem in THIS thread is that you are attacking and mocking a new member of this forum.

quote:

---

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
So in keeping with your direction I will not imply that this ex-NDP'er is not what they claim. I will thought continue to tell people I am a Green supporter who is disillusioned with them and now m voting NDP. And Michelle I am sure you won't let anyone try to call me a liar.

Imagine a party so desperate they will take damaged goods from the Liberal party. They don't deserve to be in the debate. I was going to vote for them really I was but this bullshit MP business is just too big a fraud on the people so I am no longer supporting the Greens.

---

And people will be free to quote from your previous posts where you were supporting the NDP and to challenge you based on that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by coeus:
The NDP were given an "A" for their environmental policies.

---

Bloc - B
Cons - F+
Libs - B+
Green - A-
NDP - B

quote:

---

Originally posted by beibhnn:
Ahem. Make that an A+.

---

And they are still the only party willing to target the polluters and insist they stop polluting.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
He wasn't "offensive" at all. He stated a political point of view and didn't attack anyone here. In return, he got attacked from all sides.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenS:
You said that NDP messaging of the last few years is 'clumsy'. What would you say is better or might be better- about what you see- of Green Party messaging?

IE, what do you see that gets you thinking that the grass on the other side might be greener?

---

Not sure, which is why I asked my initial question.

For those still doubting my NDP cred - I have the honour of having been stepped-on by Ed Broadbent when I was a toddler playing the aisles of an NDP rally in Saskatchewan, where I grew up.

I voted for Layton in the leadership election because I saw in him a (slightly) post-boomer, urban, sophisticated candidate whose gimmicky messaging was firmly tongue-in-cheek. Someone who didn't feel we had to meet in church basements, drink out of plastic cups, and call each other 'brother' and 'sister' and sign e-mails 'In-sol'.

(And, yes, that last little bit is bait, but I feel it's justified given the context of this thread. I was actively involved in the drive that unionized the Movenpick Marche in the 90s.)

I think Jack has lost that edge and am looking to see if there are alternatives.

In case anyone's still interested in the original subject of this post, I've resigned myself to reading the big policy books of the NDP and the Greens this weekend; something I haven't done since university and should probably rectify.

I'll post an analysis if I get the time to put one togther.

In sol',

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:

Yep, but 4 years later we are somehow supposed to believe that the NDP has downgraded their environmental policies, which is an untruth, as they have actually enhanced them ...

---

No, the NDP have improved their policies, but other parties have done better.

The Sierra Club is calling for the implementation of both a carbon tax an cap and trade in order to for developed countries to reduce their emissions 25-40% below 1990 levels by 2020 and 80-
95% below 1990 levels by 2050.

Although the NDP cap and trade proposal would result in future reductions, there is no plan for a carbon tax which could be implemented almost immediately. This is why the NDP scored lower this time.

How is ONLY cap and trade be better than cap and trade AND a carbon tax?

quote:

---

It seems that the Sierra Club has further co-opted itself, and rendered itself even more irrelevant, by its apparent hypocrisy and bias.[/qb]

---

Right. When the Sierra Club endorsed NDP policy they were heroes, and when the endorse another party and explain why, they are zeros.

There seems to be an assumption within the NDP that environmental NGOs somehow owe the NDP some kind of allegiance. They don't.

[ 09 September 2008: Message edited by: scott ]

I understand the urge to let your membership lapse - did it myself. I can even understand voting Green as a protest vote in this one election as a way of protesting their exclusion. (Not sure I can bring myself to do that..I'll probably just not vote at all, or throw it away on the commies or something )

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
If implying that a newbie is a liar after their first post is your idea of being "welcoming", then perhaps you should.

---

While Greens and Dippers and Libs bash each other about the brains and slime each other with feces, the Harper-cons will glide to victory and perhaps even succeed in becoming the natural governing party as is their strategy.

So what is the outcome of partisan party politics on the left? Right wing victory.

Way to go. At least, as the social programs are being ravaged, civil rights are rolled back, as more Canadians are committed to more US wars, as the fundies decide what we can watch and read, we can all take comfort and not having been fooled by them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
Honestly, Tal, I think you'll find that the Green Party leaves a lot to be desired in comparison to the NDP on a lot of economic issues. If you're looking for a left-wing party, you're not going to find it in the Greens. I'm betting you'll find that the NDP has a much better environmental plan which doesn't throw class issues under the bus.

---

let me make a few things clear:

1. I am a newbie too, this is my first time posting
2. I am totally undecided on who to vote for, and like Tal, would like a way to make an informed decision.
3. I am lazy and don't want to read the policy books either.
4. (from the reaction to Tal's post in this forum, I am re-thinking #3)

I think Tal asked a very good question: is there a resource out there that does a point to point comparison of the parties? (I would like to see all of them listed, not just Green VS NDP) This would be a great way for people to make up their own mind who they like to vote for. In fact, I think this would encourage more people to vote and feel good about their decisions.

quote:

---

Originally posted by coeus:

You have yet to show how the NDP is better for the environment than the Greens

---

Au contraire, there exists a real world example where cap and trade has worked to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions in North America.

A Massachusetts Institute of Technology study published this year praises current progress made by countries participating in European cap and trade.

I stated in another thread I was a very early Green. We used to have 'large regional meetings" in a persons kitchen. I kid you not.

When I became disillusioned with the direction of the Greens I met someone who many of you know running for the NDP in my riding of Huron-Bruce. Despite the fact I had been rather rude to him at political gatherings in the past he responded with grace to my question of why the NDP and not the Greens given his very long history of involvement with environmental issues.

His answer was simple. "I believe in a sustainable environment, but I beleive just as strongly in a sustainable community. The NDP answers both questions for me." I had never really thought about it that way before.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Noob:
....okay.....

let me make a few things clear:

1. I am a newbie too, this is my first time posting
2. I am totally undecided on who to vote for, and like Tal, would like a way to make an informed decision.
3. I am lazy and don't want to read the policy books either.
4. (from the reaction to Tal's post in this forum, I am re-thinking #3)

I think Tal asked a very good question: is there a resource out there that does a point to point comparison of the parties? (I would like to see all of them listed, not just Green VS NDP) This would be a great way for people to make up their own mind who they like to vote for. In fact, I think this would encourage more people to vote and feel good about their decisions.

Thanks!

---

Welcome. There will likely be a many different resources out there making comparisons based from different points of view. For instance the Sierra Club analysis that's been mentioned.

Usually most of these types of things come from a specific social group. So you might get something from a group that supports and advocates on childcare issues or health issues.
I don't know of one, more neutral comparison...yet. Maybe someone else knows.

I found the Sierra club links very useful and would love to know if people would be interested in helping to post similar links in this thread? You are right, it's a lot of work for one person to go and find all the information, but if everyone contributes, then newbies (to the forum and politics in general) like me will have a much easier time getting up to speed.

quote:

---

For instance the Sierra Club analysis that's been mentioned

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Left J.A.B.:

You might want to wait for a more impartial organization like Greenpeace and others. When a group aligns itself with a political cause it can unintentionally blur the line between partisan politics and advocacy. IMHO the Sierra Club has done this with May's involvement. For instance if you prefer cap and trade AND carbon taxing it makes no sense to demote one for not including carbon taxing, but not the other for not including cap and trade. The Sierra Club has jumped the shark in terms of credibility I am afraid.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Noob:
....okay.....

let me make a few things clear:

1. I am a newbie too, this is my first time posting
2. I am totally undecided on who to vote for, and like Tal, would like a way to make an informed decision.
3. I am lazy and don't want to read the policy books either.
4. (from the reaction to Tal's post in this forum, I am re-thinking #3)

I think Tal asked a very good question: is there a resource out there that does a point to point comparison of the parties? (I would like to see all of them listed, not just Green VS NDP) This would be a great way for people to make up their own mind who they like to vote for. In fact, I think this would encourage more people to vote and feel good about their decisions.

Thanks!

---

hi noob. i've been an election junkie and political nerd for a while now and what i like to do is download the party platforms from all the parties and print them out, and keep them in my bag for the duration of the election. that way, you can read them at your leisure, and if a discussion (debate/argument) suddenly breaks out, kablam! there you have it! right from the party's mouth, so to speak. the platforms are not the full policy docs but they are far less onerous to read.

i do a tonne of canvassing for the NDP and my favorite is the door-to-door. you meet all kinds of folks, and if you can honestly answer thier questions, relatively rhetoric free, it's really amazing the great conversations you can have. in fact some of my best chats were with non-ndp voters and we had my platform books out doing comparisons.

You are right, the best way to make an informed decision is to spend the time and read through available information yourself. However, I can relate to where Tal is coming from in that not all of us has the time given other competing priorities in life like child caring, family and work. We want simplified, un-biased information that will help us make up our minds and not to be told who is better. (idealistic, yes...)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Noob:
There's nothing wrong with being a nerd. ;-)

You are right, the best way to make an informed decision is to spend the time and read through available information yourself. However, I can relate to where Tal is coming from in that not all of us has the time given other competing priorities in life like child caring, family and work. We want simplified, un-biased information that will help us make up our minds and not to be told who is better. (idealistic, yes...)

As for speaking to candidates in my riding. I have had experiences in the past where I really really enjoyed talking to candidates from parties I just don't want to vote for and hated talking to the candidate in my riding from the party I support. I wonder if others in this forum has had similar experiences?

---

Everyone comes from a different place. I went from not paying much attention and either not voting at all or just voting a certain way because it was a family tradition. I have no problem admitting that. When I did start paying closer attention and actually learn and try to figure everything else it was daunting. One of the first things I did learn is that in politics there really is no such thing as completely un-biased information. Not that that helps any. Politics inherrentlly is biased to a particular POV and way of looking at the world. So comparison between whats good and bad policy is subjective. Subjective to whomever is giving the information as well as subjective in how you understand it.

It is more a matter of less bias vs crazy bias.

Also politics is about 'this is better' and hopefully as it should be, 'this is better because...' The whole point of an election is competing outlooks telling everyone who is better and why... vote this way. That's the point, so no matter where you go you're going to come across that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by farnival:
as for the candidate thing, yeah, it is often more fun speaking with the people you aren't going to vote for. sometimes talking to the one you support is like hearing yourself, if you believe the same things. haha. what i like is contrary views from people who know how to debate rather than argue. much more fun.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
Excuse me, you guys, but this person is new, he hasn't done anything wrong, and you're not allowed to call other babblers liars, especially newbies. (And yes, that's exactly what you were implying.)

Cut it out.

---

quote:

---

I think Tal asked a very good question: is there a resource out there that does a point to point comparison of the parties? (I would like to see all of them listed, not just Green VS NDP) This would be a great way for people to make up their own mind who they like to vote for. In fact, I think this would encourage more people to vote and feel good about their decisions.

Thanks!

---

Except for specific and limited policy areas [and often less than neutral] you are never going to find such an animal. Think about it, who would want to do that?

One thing that would make it difficult is that parties do not make their policies opaque. They change [greatly] what they want to emphasize. They treat policies as de facto dead without telling anyone [another thing you need inside knowledge or a political sixth sense to discern]. They put out initiatives without them being formal 'policy' or 'platform'. The list is endless.

Which touches back on your earlier point:

quote:

---

3. I am lazy and don't want to read the policy books either.

4. (from the reaction to Tal's post in this forum, I am re-thinking #3)

---

Id re-rethink the policy book thing. I honestly don't know what to suggest to get a realistic picture of what parties stand for.

There must be some subsitute for being a political junkie that has been following what they do and say for long enough to know what is the real polci[es] are- the ones they take on the road, invest resources in promoting, etc. But I don't know what it is.

[ 09 September 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]

Parties can change their policies and they do. But if there is lack of coherence to this change it makes me look closer. Is there a flip-flop and why? What prompted that - polls? WILL THEY FOLLOW THROUGH?

Political party books that are long on principals but lack fleshing out the practices that flow, also make me look closer.

Next, I look at priorities of that party. So party B may say they really, really care about the poor, but just never get around to doing anything about it, because their other priorities are the main thing. To me that is called platitudes, and they are just saying that stuff because it sounds nice.

I also read authors that I have grown to appreciate their insights and their analysis.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Noob:

2. I am totally undecided on who to vote for, and like Tal, would like a way to make an informed decision.

---

I was in the same boat a couple of days ago so I went through both parties' 2006 platforms (couldn't find 2008 copies). The platforms are strikingly similar (anti-NAFTA, proportional representation, pension funding... whole lot of other issues) but I did come across a few differences that made me lean toward the GPC. I jotted down some notes. The Greens...

- emphasize preventative health care
- will eliminate registration fees on hunting firearms
- will regulate marijuana like alcohol and tobacco
- propose a 35 hour work week
- with First Nations consent, phasing our the Indian Act

And of course the environmental aspects are more comprehensive:
- ban cosmetic pesticides
- discourage raw log exports
- add clean air/water to the charter of rights and freedoms
- walkable communities
- make employee parking a taxable benefit
- NDP is for greener cars, GPC is for reducing cars

There are strengths in the NDP platform as well - faster generic drugs, low income housing, more specific in their goals all around - but more ticks wound up on the Green side of the ledger for me.

I stumbled across this thread while Googling for comparisons to the other parties platforms - hope my late reply isn't bad form.

[ 11 September 2008: Message edited by: Sean in Ottawa ]

The Greens as a party have a commitment to the environment without any other competing priority. The end is a healthier environment.

The NDP has a commitment to social justice. The means includes a healthier environment. Even if your only priority is the environment-- you will find it addressed by the NDP because the NDP-- at least in recent years considers a healthy environment as a requirement for social justice. So by supporting the NDP you do not give up any emphasis on the environment but the approach and purpose will affect the policy that comes out.

The Greens and in fact most parties also have a commitment to social justice but it is framed in a different way. (For example, the right wing believes this commitment is satisfied through trickle down theory (if the table for the elite is bountiful enough the scraps that fall to the floor for the rest of us will be juicier.

The Greens believe that equal access to resources will create social justice. Of course that contradicts the trickle down theory because the Greens admit that the resources are limited and there will never be enough to go around. They argue that government should be small, as do the Cons but that you will achieve justice once resources are available to all (not necessarily the means to buy them however). Once you have a fair market for the resources and equal access then, you are on your own.

The NDP also believes that we need equal access to the resources and a clean environment but does nto stop there. Social justice involves equal access to many more things than limited environmental resources-- education as well for example. The NDP also recognizes that access goes further than havign your share reserved for your purchase-- it also means an economy that creates equitable access. The Greens see the environment as THE public good -- the NDP identifies many more public goods that also are shared and belong to societies rather than elites.

These differences are reflected in policies. The Greens see the need to involve people -- as many as possible in the changes we need to move to a sustainable society. Everyone should pay part of the cost and not use more of the resources than are sustainable. The assumption seems to be that we all have equal capacity for that involvement. In that sense, a carbon tax applied broadly as the Greens (and now the Liberals) propose makes sense. It can be brought in with a limited government role.

The NDP, on the other hand, considers that some people are more vulnerable than others and that we all already are economic actors. The NDP is looking for a practical approach to clean up as much of the environment as possible while recognizing that we are not all causing as much damage and not all able to influence the environment to the same degree. The NDP does not mind having the government get its hands dirty trying to achieve something directly either. The NDP would make the polluters pay, would direct some government resources to invest in alternatives-- Green cars for example. Rather than relying on independent action of millions of people the government would compel the fewest worst offenders and make huge changes that way instead of letting them off the hook while focusing on individuals who have less effect and perhaps less means to make that difference. The Greens may not mind saying we'll punish all those who use carbon. The NDP would consider that people with lower income have less means to purchase hybrids and are less likely to own their own homes in which they can replace the windows with more energy efficient ones. By focusing on the big abusers of the environment the NDP can bring about as much change as the Greens but with less cost to the most vulnerable. The cost is of course a willingness for the government to intrude into the economy and get some things done-- to regulate and cost big capital. The Green program can achieve a lot without involving bigger government and perhaps involving the most individuals while the NDP can get a lot done without negatively impacting social justice for the most vulnerable by pushing those with the most power to do their part. Both policies reflect the priorities of both parties.

The environment would benefit by both but the NDP plan has a much stronger social justice awareness and component while the Green plan is far more libertarian.

The Liberals are like a light version of both with version A light minimizing the chance of upsetting version B light.

The Liberals are quite the mixture. They include some who go there just out of an interest in power. But there are also some who are too libertarian to consider NDP policies but want some measures to moderate social justice concerns. They are such a big tent that they tend to compromise themselves into complete inaction on most important issues.

Anyway, I hope these observations are helpful to stimulate some discussion. For my part I am a strong believer in the principles of social justice, that there are roles only the government can perform, that the market cannot resolve these issues and neither can tax-- you need regulation. I do not believe a carbon tax can work -- it is not reasonable that people should be able to pollute freely and waste resources simply because they have the means to pay the penalties in tax while others, even doing everything they can to live responsibly, are unable to make ends meet. The environment should not be a market item some can afford and others cannot. It should be something that contributes to social justice rather than contributing to the gulf between those with more means and those with less. So I find myself sympathetic to the Green's environmental goals which the NDP shares but repulsed by the party's refusal to consider the social context of disparities of all forms of wealth not just those related to environmental resources. I also consider that necessary environmental adjustments are only sustainable if they do not hurt people disproportionately-- or as Left JAB put it, socially sustainably. I believe environmental sustainability is only achievable along with social sustainability otherwise the compromises will make neither really achievable.

quote:

---

Originally posted by picaroon:

The Greens...

- will regulate marijuana like alcohol and tobacco
-

---

Look back over babble and you will see Dana Larsens contributions to this forum. Go Dana GO

Also, it doesn't seem to make sense that if the pollution tax is to replace the revenue from the income tax, what happens if the taxation actually works and people pollute less? Then where will all the money come from to run the social programs they promise?