Greens vs NDP on rabble.ca
I started a discussion on rabble.ca to explore how the Green Party and NDP compare on global justice issues. I haven't learned much about NDP policy, and instead of the discussion I was looking for I've ended up defending and advocating for the Green Party. Anyway, it's an interesting discussion and is still ongoing.
- Michael Vaillancourt's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Recent Comments
- Rick Mitchell |
- Anne Marie Benoit |
- Frances Thauberger |
- Paul Maillet |
- Steve May |
- 1 of 2222
- ››
Comments
Greens vs NDP
I note the following exchange from that discussion:
GPC proponent, (I presume you):
"This is what I could find for the NDP's plan for NAFTA. Basically, it's entering into negotiations to try to reform it. Well, I prefer the Green plan of simply giving our six months notice, and then negotiating a new fair trade agreement."
Rabble user response (I presume an NDP):
"Yes, you don't have to worry about details of maintaining workers in jobs that way. Clean slate beginning. Roll the dice stuff."
It's very easy for the GPC to put a NAFTA withdrawl plan into Vision Green. Our plan to give minimum notice and withdraw is needlessly reckless. Of course, it's just rhetoric. Without fear of actually having to make such a decision, we can say whatever we want.
NAFTA exit needed to negotiate
(I posted on this before but it disappeared)
Any plan (like the NDP's) to just request re-negotiation of NAFTA is pointless, because there is no effective mechanism or pressure for that. The Americans would just say "not interested, next topic".
By giving notice, we force the need for negotiation. The Americans have as much interest as us in having good trade relations, because we are such a major energy source for them as they try to wean themselves from "foreign" oil. (NAFTA lets them essentially consider us a "domestic" source). Six months' notice does not mean an end to NAFTA, but it would kick-start negotiations to remove or reform the most odious portions (like Chapter 11), and if progress is being made we could certainly extend until the new deal is in place.
NAFTA is not necessary to maintain trade with the US. We are their largest trading partner not because of deals, but because we are geographically linked, share the same language, have very similar economic & political systems, similar education and culture, and many other aspects that make trade extremely convenient. We also have what they need, and are a significant market for their products. With or without a trade deal we'll still be their biggest trading partner, as we were before FTA. In contrast, we sell a lot of resources to China and buy a lot of their exports, despite having no special trade deal with them. Trade happens if it suits both markets.
It's debatable whether NAFTA was such a good thing for us job-wise, and there's no way to prove what our job situation would have been without it. Certainly things like the Auto Pact were more clearly blue-collar job creators.
Without NAFTA we'd still be goverened by WTO rules which provide a lot of trade protections, especially between developed nations. In many ways, WTO is fairer because it doesn't feature the negative NAFTA provisions like mandatory water or energy exports or the ability for corporations to sue states for lost income resulting from regulatory changes.
Erich Jacoby-Hawkins, Barrie ON - although I'm on Cabinet (Nat'l Rev. and Ecol. Fiscal Reform), views here are my own and may not reflect official GPC positions. Please visit www.ErichtheGreen.ca
NAFTA exit
Perhaps you forgot what got
Perhaps you forgot what got us along the free trade path with the US in the first place. They threatened to drastically increase tarriffs on us if we didn't join a free trade zone.
Let's also not forget that it is the GPC's plan to drastically curtail tarsand energy production. What exactly do they need us for again? It is our non-antagonistic trading status of goodwill with the US that buys us some leverage when it comes issues that are more important to Canadians than the US.
Perhaps we could enumerate everything we plan on accomplishing when we say "NAFTA withdrawl" and instead simply state *that* in our platform and not even mention NAFTA. If the time comes, we can engage the US through whatever diplomatic means most appropriate at that time. To explicitly state that we will withdraw from NAFTA means that it is in itself an end, not a mean.
WTO & other energy
The threat of tariffs wouldn't work so well now with the WTO (of which we are both signatories) so well ensconced. But as David Barclay notes below, the 'Merkins already feel free to ignore NAFTA whenever they like - softwood lumber, "Buy American", etc. It turns out NAFTA doesn't provide as much support as we might have hoped when the chips are down.
The oilpatch has a lot more to offer than tar sands. We pipe plenty of non-sandy conventinal crude south over the border, alongside natural gas. In future, the West (both Alberta and BC) have vast potential for alternative energy exports - wind, solar, perhaps even geothermal - unless we let the Americans get too far ahead of us (as it the current trend, sadly).
Support for NAFTA rests on a lot of assumptions that are rather shaky when examined.
Erich Jacoby-Hawkins, Barrie ON - although I'm on Cabinet (Nat'l Rev. and Ecol. Fiscal Reform), views here are my own and may not reflect official GPC positions. Please visit www.ErichtheGreen.ca
WTO
Correct me if I am wrong, but the WTO doesn't mandate free trade. It simply facilitates tarriff arrangements, and works toward tarriff reductions.
Regardless, the US can create an unfavourable tarriff schedule if they so choose under WTO rules. They can choose not to protect our merchant traffic on the high seas. They can choose not to support any of our claims to the arctic. They can choose to ignore the air and water pollution they create which affects us. They can make it difficult to transport goods and people over or through their territory. There is a lot more they can do.
There is plenty of risk with such an antagonizing manouevre that may not even come up in the course of negotiating a side agreement.
Great Topic...
...yet for a wide-open forum, you need a very narrowly defined issue to compare. Otherwise the banter goes in every direction. Michael, is your primary concern: trade, International Criminal Justice, the negative impact of globalization, international monetary fund?
...now that Pandora's box has been opened, I do feel that although the two parties differ in some very significant ways, they do split some of the; progressive vote, youth vote, social conscience vote, environmental vote, and last but not least, the protest vote. And in this way actually benefit the two status-quo parties.
Yet I don't see any possibility of merger. The NDP have been rightly or wrongly branded by the Media and their own style of communication (à la social-worker) as 'socialists' (a dirty word in N.America although not in Europe) and 'labour union' representatives. And have stalled completely.
Great Topic (Greens vs NDP)
Yes, the topic was deliberately broad, but I was hoping for a serious policy discussion rather than a partisan discussion. Also, I was hoping to be on the receiving end of the information exchange rather than on the giving end.
About my primary concern, but for the ICJ the other things can be lumped together and yes that's it. That isn't the only issue I care about of course.
The Pandora's box... yes, I agree with you. It seems to me the NDP itself is a bit of a mess torn between the socialist element and the "third way" element. I'd prefer the NDP to really embrace socialism and champion a positive vision of socialism (e.g. community rooted and democratic, rather than authoritarian state socialism), so that people who prefer socialism to capitalism have a party to vote for.
The Greens have their left and right members, but overall the policies seem coherent and appear to be socially progressive (though I'm not sure how economically progressive the GPC is - perhaps we won't know until the GPC becomes a larger force and can influence government policy more directly).I'm not sure whether the socialist/union branding is the primary factor that is limiting the NDP's appeal. Maybe it is, and that sort of makes merger less appealing as the Greens would be branded a socialist party. I suspect the Greens have more potential for growth by just focusing on being progressive generally. We certainly don't need another right-wing party. We already have two.
Bram, I hope you aren't right about Vision Green.
Re: Vision Green
The problem I have with some Green policies is that they naively rely on everyone behaving altruistically. To their credit, NDPers in that discussion thread realize that jobs are scarce and suggest that seeking to antagonize trading partners is a risky proposition.
Vision Green willfully denies the consequences of antagonizing the U.S. A withdrawl from NAFTA does not return us to 1987. It is questionable that blue collar jobs will sprout if we renegotiate FTAs.
My points are threefold about our NAFTA policy: (1) It is needlessly quick; (2) it is needlessly severe; and (3) it is blind to the likely consequences.
NAFTA in practice:
NAFTA. Take the same approach as the Yanks did with softwood lumber; if we don’t like a situation, renege. Hypothetical examples: put an export tax on non-renewable natural resources for a ‘resources exploration fund’. They ban our meat based on ‘health concerns’ we quietly ban some of their GM foodstuffs on same basis to help some industry that’s struggling. They renege when it suits them, and make-up a plausible story; so can we without creating a political firestorm by tearing up an agreement, that is in the end, unenforceable. The history of trade is evading when it suits, and honouring when it’s a win-win.
And if the Greens plateau?
When comparing ourselves to other parties it is important to look at our party with humility. In terms of actual election results the NDP has received 3X as many votes (in %) as the Green Party and has 36 seats compared to our 0. Presumeably we should all be working very hard to bridge that gap(time frame anyone?). One thing for sure is that it will take a lot of work to achieve. Once we've reached a couple dozen seats and roughly 15-20% of the vote then we'll be in a position to make demands of other parties.
The climb to the top(that is the goal right?) will doubtlessly be hard. But on the way we should try to make as many allies as we possibly can. I think the NDP is the one party with which we should be looking to build as much concensus as possible. We certainly don't make any friends by being antagonistic towards the NDP. Thank you Michael for raising those issues on rabble.ca
As for the NDP being labelled as "socialists," I think you'll find that that is just as dirty a word as being labelled an "environmentalist" in many quarters. Also, given that the Green Party lists "social justice" as a key value, aren't we tied ideological in some way to the NDP?
Matthew Piggott
Kitchener Centre
"People of good faith, figuring out where we are, not falling victim, making choices, based on our values, with the best available information." These views are my own and do not represent the official position of the Green Party of Canada.
What benefit?
Comparing and contrasting policies or approaches with the NDP is not antagonistic. If we didn't have significant differences there'd be no point in being separate parties. Exploring our differences (or overlaps) helps folks understand us better.
I look forward to building consensus between Green and NDP MPs in future parliaments to pass good legislation, but I don't know what would be the value in trying to build consensus with them at this point. The likely effect of that would just be to subtly condone "strategic" voting for the NDP instead of Greens, which would set back the Green cause. Jack Layton already gets lots of mileage out of his "Greens, lend us your vote" deception, I don't want to feed that.
I don't think we have particularly more in common with the NDP than with (for example) the Liberals or even the Conservatives. Sure, the NDP is identified with "the environment" and social justice, but we have very different philosophies than they do on how to achieve sustainability or social justice, just as we believe in fiscal responsibility but don't align with Conservative budget plans. And provincial NDP governments (5 so far) have shown that, once elected, the NDP aren't any better on environmental issues than the Liberal or PC regimes they replace. So to me it seems to be more about attracting votes than actually accomplishing goals. I wish it were just cynicism but their governing record can't be denied.
Erich Jacoby-Hawkins, Barrie ON - although I'm on Cabinet (Nat'l Rev. and Ecol. Fiscal Reform), views here are my own and may not reflect official GPC positions. Please visit www.ErichtheGreen.ca
NDP vs Greens / Capitalism
Consensus and Socialist
One concern is that if there is too much consensus between the Greens and the NDP, then it doesn't make sense to be separate parties. All we do is split the progressive vote and we end up with one of the two neoliberal parties in power. I think we are pretty close to the NDP on the social justice front. The NDP isn't a socialist party obviously, no matter how many times Harper says it. Perhaps Canada needs a real socialist party.
NDP VS. GREENS
Perhaps a merger with the NDP is a good idea in light of the fact that we agree on "the polluter pays principle" and on the importance of social justice. It would also be practical because, for example, in my riding of Dufferin-Caledon the NDP is a non-presence and NDP supporters would do better to support Green candidates. Some ridings are the other way round. However, there are some major problems with the NDP that would need to be worked out first:
1. The NDP is too ideological and ALWAYS believes more government is better government. For example, they are talking about doubling CPP payments and thus, CPP premiums. This is catering to seniors at the expense of those of us who have to pay for the retirement of the baby boomers in many other aspects (ask a working teacher how much of their salary they have to pay for that oh-so-coveted pension plan.. you'd be amazed!)
2. The NDP throws the baby out with the bathwater and makes stupid decisions for the sake of their principles. For example, voting with the Conservatives to extend the Afghanistan mission instead of voting with the Liberals to end it several years later because "the mission should end now" is the most ridiculous example of foolish doublethink I've ever seen.
Just a few thoughts.
Timing and perception
Have to agree that the NDP are identified with Big Government solving everything. Whereas the Greens have an approach that integrates private capital and government initiatives.
But the GPC needs to market itself more broadly before the media labels and relegates it to a convenient box of, ‘just tree-huggers’. Which they will, to help the two status-quo parties to whom they owe all their free gala dinners.
The NDP is at the moment stalled and fading. No point in jumping onto a sinking ship. If the Greens can show momentum, perhaps we can attract some of their disenchanted members. However, a merger would be very tricky; how to avoid being branded by the media as the ‘New, New (left-wing) Democrats.’? Yet no question that we split progressive, youth, environmental, and protest votes. Problematic.
NDP - Liberal
Lately the media seems to be pushing for an NDP/Liberal merger. In some cases as a 'do not compete' and in others as a straight merger. Both carry issues for both parties of course. Some media include the Green Party but I really, really, really hope we don't fall into the trap.
Basically, if we work with those two we'll be merged with them very quickly. Why? Because we'd run in only those ridings we came in 2nd in - thus no Guelph Green for example. That would, obviously, be a mistake. Also if we ran in just 5 ridings we'd have under 1% nationally and bye-bye funding, bye-bye awareness, bye-bye GPC. Even if we won one or two seats we'd be a dead party ready to be eatten up by the others.
The NDP has a lot to gain as they have over 30 seats and an agreement would make those into safe seats with potential to gain more. The Liberals have even more to gain as they would probably win a minority government. Harper though could easily say the Liberals = NDP (much like the Liberals said CPC = Reform) and that would hurt them in the next election. We'd quickly move towards a US style 2 party system where 3rd parties cannot slip in for more than the odd fluke riding win.
A merger or deep 'working agreement' would lead to no end of issues. Just look at the last election for examples of what we'd see said in the media. If people want to vote NDP, or adjust the NDP to be more like the GPC then join the NDP. If you want the Liberals to be more like us, join the Liberals. Do not try to get the GPC to merge though as that is political suicide and we'd see green issues shifted even further down the list of priorities.
John Northey
Wellington-Halton Hills
Merger
For those who missed it, this is the article: Liberals and New Democrats together could unseat Harper. I agree that isn't a good move for the Greens. I don't think it is a good idea in general. Even the suggestion makes Harper look strong and the opposition weak and desperate. It would backfire.
On the issue of merger generally, particularly with the NDP, I might be supportive depending on the details. I'd have to hear the arguments for and against and consider the pros and cons. In the meantime, I'm concerned we are splitting the progressive vote. On the other hand, what's wrong with two progressive parties? I'd rather fix the real problem via electoral reform. Let the NDP and Liberals sort that one out.
Voting Green
Let me try this out on you...
Top Ten Reasons to Vote Green
I Vote Green Because…
Re: Voting Green
Alright, I'll address each point in turn. This is just my opinion of course, and I'm not asserting that I'm right and that everyone should hold the same opinion.
1) "I want to feel good about my vote. I want to vote for someone, not against someone."
Voting Green doesn't solve the problems inherent in our electoral system. I don't feel very good about voting at all. Whether I vote Green or NDP, the Liberal candidate will win. Bob Rae is my MP. In general, progressives must choose between the NDP or Greens. By splitting the progressive vote, we make it easier for one of the neoliberal / corporate controlled parties to gain power.
2) "I am socially progressive, fiscally responsible, and committed to environmental sustainability - just like the Green Party."
The NDP are socially progressive and, while there are some policy differences, my gut feeling is they can be trusted on the environment. On fiscal policy, the responsible thing now given this recession is to spend a lot on green infrastructure. We can't worry about the debt or deficits at the moment. I also don't find the implication that the NDP is fiscally irresponsible very persuasive. In my view, the further right we go the more fiscally irresponsible the parties become.
I'm not sure that any party can claim to be fiscally responsible without bringing in monetary reform. Isn't our government borrowing from private banks and paying interest to private banks? Why are we doing that when the government can borrow from the Bank of Canada? Is it fiscally responsible? For that matter, why don't we nationalize the banks? If I have to pay interest when I borrow money, I'd rather pay it to the government than private investors. It is scandalous that we allow private banks to create money "out of nothing" and charge interest on that money when a customer takes out a loan. There isn't enough debt money in circulation for everyone to pay back their principal and interest. Bankruptcy is built-in and inevitable for some, and the private banks take the collateral even though they didn't really have the money they lent out in the first place. So, we should have monetary reform, figure out how to deal with the government debt and then we can talk about being fiscally responsible. Otherwise, it doesn't make sense to me.
3) "I want my great grandchildren to be proud of me. I want them to have a sustainable future, a green economy, and better democracy."
The party that is prepared to be, and can be relied upon to be, the most aggressive with business is the one that deserves public support. I sense the Greens are more business-friendly than the NDP, so there is a problem. Will the Greens have the gumption to do what needs to be done when the oligarchy and business community howls in rage? I am concerned that, should the Greens become more of a political force, supporters of the business community will infiltrate the Green Party and/or influence its policy and focus as they do with the Conservatives and Liberals.
4) "I have guts. I am willing to vote for what I believe in, because I know that’s the only way to get what I want."
I do too. Is there a left-libertarian / libertarian-socialist party I can vote for? Seriously though, while I care about the environment, I'm not sure I really believe any party has the right ideas. People have to find the closest fit, and it is tough to ignore strategic voting issues. One could argue it is folly to ignore it completely. If your party of choice is that low in the polls, you should work towards improving that situation between elections. When it comes time to vote, you have to consider the impact of your vote.
5) "I believe in good ideas, not partisan ideas"
Partisan ideas can be good ideas. What is partisan?
6) "I want my vote to change Parliament for the better. Politicians from all elected parties have squabbled for years. It’s time to try something different."
The Greens squabble as much as any party.
7) "I have seen Green Parties around the world get elected, govern countries and make the world a better place."
I've heard of one or two Green MPs in the European parliament, but I'm not aware of any others.
8) "I believe in my local Green Party candidate".
I respect mine, but Bob Rae...
9) "I support the six fundamental principles of the global Greens: ecological wisdom, social justice, participatory democracy, non-violence, sustainability, and respect for diversity."
I think the NDP is pretty similar ideologically. It is the differences I'm more interested in finding out about.
10) "I know it is time for action. The issues of today cannot wait to be tackled, and I know we big and small, young and old, English and French, can tackle them together."
That's why I'm very very concerned that by supporting the Greens, I may be doing harm to the environmental cause politically. While the Liberals and Conservatives are pretty similar, it would be better to have anyone but the Conservatives in power. The Greens need to make the case that, even though they may be helping to elect Conservatives, it helps the environment to vote Green anyway (e.g. that we are effective despite having little or no representation in Parliament). My money is on Elizabeth May in SGI by the way.
The NDP are products of a fossilized mindset
Michael, I've been following your posts and comments for some time now, as you search within yourself to figure out which party may be the best fit for you, the Greens or the NDP. I went through a similar conundrum a while back, and I ended up here...and I'm still here.
I'm going to ask that you take into consideration a few points about the NDP. First off, the NDP has a record for governance in Canada, albeit at the provincial level. Take a look at the environmental legislation enacted by NDP governments and I think that you will find it to be superfiscial and wanting, particularly with regards addressing climate change.
Recently, the British Columbia provincial election, the NDP campaigned against taxing pollution in the form of a premium on greenhouse gas emissions imposed by the Liberal government (what some refer to as a "carbon tax"). The reason for this was the NDP were intent to capitalize on the notion that people were upset about having to pay a new tax, even one which would ostensibly lead to fewer emissions.
When push comes to shove, the NDP have consistently shown that the environment will take second place to the NDP's number one priority: electing NDP members to legislatures.
Federally, the NDP's denigration of the Liberal's and Green's proposed carbon pricing emission reductions proposals in the 2008 election was absolutely shameless. The NDP offered the alternative of a Cap and Trade system, which they said would hit big emitters only, and not the "working families" who would be directly hit by a carbon tax. It was a complete and utter bullshit argument, designed to obfuscate and complicate. The fact is that putting a price on pollution is going to effect everyone who benefits from pollution, and whether the pricing is done through emissions trading or a direct premium, the cost of carbon-intensive goods and services will go up for everybody.
But the NDP denied this reality, and preferred to hit Green and Liberal candidates over the head with the proposed "tax" plan, versus their own plan which would only target the polluting corporate community. And they likely scored points doing this, too, because the issue of how costs are going to rise is a complicated one.
Finally, one last thing to consider: the NDP has been and continues to be beholden to union interests. Canada's biggest unions have direct influence over the outcomes of NDP policy conventions, as they are allocated as-of-right votes at policy conventions such as the one which took place in Halifax this past August.
While I believe that we are better off as a society with Unions, I am uncomfortable with the notion of belonging to a political party which is directly influenced by these organizations. Further, let's be honest about these powerful unions here: largely, they represent workers who are engaged in the brown economy: autoworkers, steelworkers, mine workers, etc. Yes, there are public sector unions too, but largely the workers in these unions benefit through the perpetuation of the brown economy, and would consider themselves to be at risk from the emerging green economy.
And that's why the NDP supported the bail-out of the auto sector. Here in Ontario, the unions were able to get their chosen, Andrea Horwarth, elected Leader of the NDP, over grassroots campaigner Gilles Bisson. Horwarth is in the pocket of the unions. And the Unions themselves are far from green organizations: that is not their calling.
The NDP does not seek to change our system of capital and labour, they merely seek to reset the balance in favour of labour, which would otherwise be a worthy goal. But since both businesses and labour have a vested interest in perpetuating an economy which will fail (based as it is on the notion of inexpensive energy), those parties which march to the tune of business or labour drummers will not be in a position to lead us through the climate change and Peak Oil crises which are now currently in the midst of. These old ways of thinking are at odds with the innovation needed to see us through this.
Unfortunately, because they are comfortable positions for the electorate, they remain popular. But at the end of the day, the NDP is just as much a fossil party as the Conservatives are. They are not the answer, and they have demonstrated this to Canadians time and time again.
"Sudbury" Steve May
Re: The NDP
Thanks Steve, I appreciate your post. I was already thinking along the same lines, and I did raise the NDP's position on the carbon tax / cap-and-trade on the rabble forum. I wasn't impressed with the NDP playing political games on that issue during the last election. I suspect they may end up flip-flopping on carbon taxes. Still, it does tend to show they are more concerned with getting elected than having good coherent policies. That's been my view of the NDP for a long time, which is why, but for Bob Rae's Ontario NDP, I have never voted for them. I even consider the NDP's bill C-311 to be motivated more by political gamesmanship than concern for the environment. I have much more confidence and respect for Elizabeth May than I do for the NDP leader.
I agree with you about the downside of the NDP's affiliation with unions, particularly the brown industries. I was wondering what the NDP position was on the auto bailout, thanks for that. Clearly the Greens are on the correct side of that issue. I wasn't aware of the voting powers you mentioned.
‘Solution-Selling’ Green Action
The traditional method of selling a product, service, or getting your message out, is to hammer repeatedly on the same themes and hope they sink-in to the mass consciousness. Its an inside-out approach:
“Here’s what I believe, listen to me - and you will too.” That’s good, in fact its essential. There’s nothing wrong with it to a point.
Solution-selling is the opposite. You don’t ‘tell’, you ask open questions:
. What are you most concerned about?
. What are the top three things you want to see changed?
. What troubles you most, ‘keeps you awake at night’?
. What do you see as the greatest obstacle for your future?
Based on the customer’s/voter’s answers, you look at your overall program for which aspects address these concerns best. You aren’t selling-out or altering your belief-system or program in any way. You are emphasizing the element that most directly impacts their priorities.
If its Health Care, you could discuss the deterioration of people’s health due to pollutants: rapidly increasing rates of cancer, asthma, and damaged immune systems, for example.
If its bankruptcies, job losses, pension losses, you can emphasize that we need escape from the boom-bust cycle that’s inevitable while our economy is based on fossil fuels. And the need to transform our industrial base to a sustainable green economy. And so on.
To effectively connect with the greatest number of voters, messaging has to be adaptable. It needs to resonate with their foremost concerns. To show that although a party has deep convictions, it isn’t dogmatic, and listens to all the people.
Solution-finding.
I understand that the EDA, campaign and candidate need to "sell" solutions.
However, might I respectfully suggest that all members -- including those involved in an EDA or candidate's campaign, when they are acting as members -- should be "solution-finding".
I frequently read in these pages that if only the electorate knew more about "the truth", then everyone would collectively agree with GPC policy. I want to remind everyone that the GPC policy and platform is largely, if not entirely, established by people with a narrower worldview than the rest of the electorate.
It is true that all parties suffer from this myopia. The fact that we claim that our policy adoption process is more open does not translate into a more broadly founded participation. In fact, policy is a self-propagating system. Those who identify the most with the current state of a party's policy are the ones who are most likely to be enthusiastic about participation.
Everyone here should take a good look at our polling numbers. The current state of our platform is sufficiently appealing to about 1 in 10 people. It is clear that support is a function of age, and the function is not changing as time passes; the much touted GPC youth migrate away from the GPC at predictable levels, and that migration is not changing with time.
It is incumbent on us to accept this phenomenon is real and to adjust our policy by listening to what the electorate wants instead of just marketing to them.
policy development and/or communication
You're talking about policy development. I was talking about effective communication of an established platform.
In either case, by asking the same 'open questions' I outlined, and listening, it will become clear if our policies are, or are not, addressing the priority concerns of the electorate. The process is the same, whether you call it, or use it as; solution-selling or solution-finding.
You don't believe the GPC's policies are broad enough to attract more than the youth vote, no matter how they are communicated. I happen to believe they are.
Supporters organically grow policy not vice versa.
I realize we are talking about two different things. But let me start by quoting what you wrote in a comment above:
"The NDP is at the moment stalled and fading. No point in jumping onto a sinking ship. If the Greens can show momentum, perhaps we can attract some of their disenchanted members."
The qualification you make is if "the Greens can show momentum..." This is my greatest concern. I don't know how many people we actually want to appeal to, but the systemic saturation point for Canada is around 40%. We are no where near a target of electability, let alone systemic saturation. European Green parties hover at 10% or less. Given this is a global phenomenon, there is no reason to believe the status quo would create a saturation point any higher than 10% for the GPC.
Whenever anyone addresses this phenomenon they consistently note that the youth represent a high percentage of support. The implication is that as they grow older, they will remain supporters and we will also have new youth support as well, thus we will experience organic growth under the current message. Note that I did not say that we only appeal to youth.
If you one examined charts showing relative distribution of age among Green supporters for each year within the last 20 years, how distinguishable are the charts? This is information the national office already should know. If one cannot readily distinguish between the charts, it means we are not experiencing organic growth in support. Instead we must actively convert each supporter above our saturation point. This is a very expensive way to do things and suffers from lower retention rates than simply crafting a more broadly appealing policy.
Of course, this means we might have to compromise for people who are not even our supporters yet. Are we even willing to do that?