Green Party

[VD.]

Hello everyone, I'm pretty new to the whole political scene, not having taken a great amount of interest in it before I turned 18. I am interested in voting for the Green Party of Canada, and would like to see if I have an accurate view of what this party is about. So to do this I will just state what I think the Green Party is about and if you guys think I'm wrong or have incomplete information, please fill in the blanks for me. Also after my brief definition I would like to ask all of you a couple of questions which I'm not sure about. Thank you!

So here goes:

The Green Party is a political party concerned with applying holistic, environmentally sound strategies of conducting business, industry and politics. It seeks to develop sustainable ways of living in a world with diminishing resources, and to produce long-term 'whole systems' plans. One of the reason the party exists because on the larger scale, the results of individual efforts such as household recycling, while positive, does not make enough of a difference. There must be firm laws which do not give leeway to large corporations who's practices are environmentally damaging. I do believe that this party offers more long term solutions to immediate problems, and think that an ecological way of thinking is what should be best.

Questions:

Unlike North Americans, European nations have been embracing green parties as serious political forces for a few decades. For example, one of the world’s most politically successful green party is that of Germany, which actually became part of the national coalition government until October 2005. Why do you think Canadians are so hesitant about supporting a green party?

Quebec voters are complex if not contradictory. Their political choices tend towards the center-left political spectrum: they want generous governments that support various social programs. Yet, the NDP, whose political platform is very pro-social, has never made serious political inroads in Quebec. For example, the NDP, similar to the Green Party, calls for sweeping environmental protection. The NDP has been around since 1961; the Green Party, since the 1980s. How do you feel the Green Party will be able to avoid the wall that the NDP always faces in this province?

According to your platform, the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions is a key environmental objective. The Green Party asks, for example, a reduction by 6 % of greenhouse gas emissions below that was decided in 1990. It goes without saying that companies and not individuals will have to play a major part in attaining this objective. Yet, in this era of globalization and market laissez-faire, most governments are reluctant about imposing the popular will on corporations. Companies easily move to countries such as Mexico and India where environmental policies are a lot more flexible. Can a Canadian political party really shape the actions of international entities that operate beyond borders?

Thank you everyone for taking the time to read and respond to this.

Edited May 12, 2008 by VD.

[August1991]

The Green Party is a political party concerned with applying holistic, environmentally sound strategies of conducting business, industry and politics. It seeks to develop sustainable ways of living in a world with diminishing resources.

Diminishing resources? Huh? Are we running out of water? Clouds? Hot air?

The party is present because on the larger scale, the results of individual efforts such as household recycling, while positive, does not make enough of a difference. There must be firm laws which does not give leeway to large corporations who's practices are environmentally damaging.

I agree that voluntary recycling programmes are a waste of time, I'm intrigued that you prefer a Soviet, military, command-and-control solution. In getting people to do things they don't want to do, the Soviet Union was a disaster.

Unlike North Americans, European nations have been embracing green parties as serious political forces for a few decades. For example, one of the world’s most politically successful green party is that of Germany, which actually became part of the national coalition government until October 2005. Why do you think Canadians are so hesitant about supporting a green party?

Uh, because Canadians are not yet disabused of life and politics such as some German voters are?

BTW, telling Canadian voters that they are not as sophisticated as European voters will get you a few votes in downtown Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto and that's about all.

Quebec voters are complex if not contradictory. Their political choices tend towards the center-left political spectrum: they want generous governments that support various social programs. Yet, the NDP, whose political platform is very pro-social, has never made serious political inroads in Quebec. For example, the NDP, similar to the Green Party, calls for sweeping environmental protection. The NDP has been around since 1961; the Green Party, since the 1980s. How do you feel the Green Party will be able to avoid the wall that the NDP always faces in this province?

Are you that naive/ignorant about Canada, presumably your own country? Two solitudes, indeed.

It goes without saying that companies and not individuals will have to play a major part in attaining this objective.

Companies? How can a corporation pay taxes? Can I tax your house or your car but not tax you?

If you mean that rich people (who presumably own corporations) will pay the tax then say so. But you just sound silly when you state that "companies... will have to play a major part". That's what's called a euphemism and it undermines your credibility.

[VD.]

I'm sorry for coming off as very naive/ignorant, which may very well be true, but could you please explain in further detail as to what I missed or got wrong? I kind of started this topic in order to better inform myself about current politics and to see what others thought, "Are you that naive/ignorant about Canada, presumably your own country? Two solitudes, indeed." doesn't really help me understand anything better.

Anyways, I'm sorry for not wording the company part well. I didn't really mean taxes so much as I meant responsible waste disposal and such.

Thanks for responding anyways though, I appreciate the input.

Edited May 12, 2008 by VD.

[Keepitsimple]

So called "Green" parties will quickly become passe. If you equate the Greens with the environment, then lets put all the hand-wringing aside and deal with the facts. Although this is a simplistic view, there are two major categories for protecting our environment. The one that gets the most attention is Greenhouse Gases. Let's put that aside for now. Everything else, from pesticides to smog to Acid raid to CHC's can be and for the most part, has been and will continue to be regulated in Canada. Even the Harper government has some strict regulations on chemicals that cause smog. We combatted Acid Rain effectively. Re-cycling is getting pretty darn good. Now - back to GHG emissions. Really, what this is all about is coal and oil. Let's deal with North America and not bring China into the mix for now. You are right - there is only a finite amout of Oil and Coal. North America already acknowledges that coal is dirty but Canada is phasing out coal and the US has installed scrubbers on most coal fired plants. The free market is starting to have a large effect of oil - the price is going high enough that people are changing their habits - smaller cars, public transit, hybrid vehicles. Even if Al Gore is full of BS, North America has reached a tipping point where we have become aware that we must be good environmental stewards - without becoming paranoid that the world as we know it will end. If you really would like to know what the future holds, read up on Fusion Power....in simple terms, it's the next generation of Nuclear energy - without the radioactive dangers. 50 years from now, Fission will start to be introduced to the world - an almost limitless supply of clean energy. Until that time, the increasing price of diminishing resources will be forcing us to adapt to alternate, cleaner energy - with or without the existance of Green Parties.

So.....before you vote Green - look at what other policies they bring to the table. Vote for them because they bring a balanced view of government that you can support - not just because they "care" about the environment.

Link to Fusion Power: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_reactor

Edited May 12, 2008 by Keepitsimple

[White Doors]

So called "Green" parties will quickly become passe. If you equate the Greens with the environment, then lets put all the hand-wringing aside and deal with the facts. Although this is a simplistic view, there are two major categories for protecting our environment. The one that gets the most attention is Greenhouse Gases. Let's put that aside for now. Everything else, from pesticides to smog to Acid raid to CHC's can be and for the most part, has been and will continue to be regulated in Canada. Even the Harper government has some strict regulations on chemicals that cause smog. We combatted Acid Rain effectively. Re-cycling is getting pretty darn good. Now - back to GHG emissions. Really, what this is all about is coal and oil. Let's deal with North America and not bring China into the mix for now. You are right - there is only a finite amout of Oil and Coal. North America already acknowledges that coal is dirty but Canada is phasing out coal and the US has installed scrubbers on most coal fired plants. The free market is starting to have a large effect of oil - the price is going high enough that people are changing their habits - smaller cars, public transit, hybrid vehicles. Even if Al Gore is full of BS, North America has reached a tipping point where we have become aware that we must be good environmental stewards - without becoming paranoid that the world as we know it will end. If you really would like to know what the future holds, read up on Nuclear Fission....in simple terms, it's the next generation of Nuclear energy - without the radioactive dangers. 50 years from now, Fission will start to be introduced to the world - an almost limitless supply of clean energy. Until that time, the increasing price of diminishing resources will be forcing us to adapt to alternate, cleaner energy - with or without the existance of Green Parties.

So.....before you vote Green - look at what other policies they bring to the table. Vote for them because they bring a balanced view of government that you can support - not just because they "care" about the environment.

Why would nuclear fission be free of radioactive dangers?

[Keepitsimple]

Why would nuclear fission be free of radioactive dangers?

My fault - I meant to say Fusion Power and I've changed my posting and added a Link accordingly. If you are interested, follow the link and towards then end, you'll find a section on waste management. There is still some radioactivity but as you'll see, it has a very short lifespan.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_reactor

[madmax]

"Two solitudes, indeed."

Anyways, I'm sorry for not wording the company part well. I didn't really mean taxes so much as I meant responsible waste disposal.

Sounds to me like you have already made up your mind.

1) Do you have an ipod?

2) Do you have a computer?

3) Do you have a Cell Phone?

4) Are the clothes you wear purchased here, or off shore?

5) Have you ever grown up in farming communities where you grow your own?

6) Where do you live, what kind of home, how big? Are the Lights off, are their streetlights?

7) Do you not use ANY carbon emission vehicles. Do you drive, get rides from your parents or friends, or ride a bus?

8) Do you use hydro electric power? How is it generated?

9) Do you know anything of workplace health and safety?

10) Do you know of any the environmental standards that Manufacturers must abide in Canada?

11) What are those standards comparatively, to all the Consumer Goods you purchase.

12) You are a consumer, and your life is based upon consumption, if not, shut off your computer, give it away. One of the most unrecyclable, poorly disposable pieces of equipment people could buy.

13) Environmental movement has had huge periods of strength throughout history, long before the arise of a political party...

14) Does the world you describe you wish to have look like North Korea? Little Hydro electric power, but they are nuclear, little carbon emmissions, and a country that looks completely dark, in Satelite photos.

15) Do you scare people with "the sky is falling" analogies, and fingerpointing for every, flood, tornado, snowslide, rainstorm, extended period of snow, extended period of summer, that this current issue is the result of Global Warming, the effects of which will not be felt for a century.. but fear is a great marketing tool.

16) Do you believe that a TAX shift, that is Revenue Neutral is actually going to solve anything?

17) Shouldn't the environmental movement, be where the action is? CHINA where rapid growth, consumption of raw resources, has put that country into a zone of industrialization not seen since 1800s Europe and 10,000 times the Size.

18) That third world countries are allowed GROWTH in Carbon Emissions.... and you likely support such a model and Market Capitalism.

19) Two Solitudes......Wow a whole different kettle of fish.....

Gotcha

Welcome to the forum

Those 18 points just ignore, you already have the answers to them before you posted.

But if you follow some of those posters who know Quebec and are from Quebec, I find, you will be taken off guard by the angle the comments come from. It should keep you off balance enough discovering what those differences are.

But that

[Argus]

Unlike North Americans, European nations have been embracing green parties as serious political forces for a few decades. For example, one of the world’s most politically successful green party is that of Germany, which actually became part of the national coalition government until October 2005. Why do you think Canadians are so hesitant about supporting a green party?

Because the Green party is not seen as a serious alternative to the present parties. Focusing on environmental issues is all very well and good but environmental issues are not the primary motivation behind voting patterns. At least, not for most people. People care about leadership, care of the economy, social policy, etc. etc. ahead of environmental policy, and the Greens fail on all those issues. Fail miserably, in fact.

[madmax]

People care about leadership, care of the economy, social policy, etc. etc. ahead of environmental policy, and the Greens fail on all those issues. Fail miserably, in fact.

I knew you could post without an insult. It's been awhile. And a reasonable view of Political concerns to boot.

Edited May 12, 2008 by madmax

[VD.]

Thanks for all the responses so far. I'm pretty new to the whole thing myself so I'll be sure to read up and inform myself on the things brought up in the thread .

[eyeball]

Why do you think Canadians are so hesitant about supporting a green party?

Many Canadians appear to vote against rather than for a political party. Due to our first-past-the-post electoral system Canadians who might otherwise vote Green could be deterred from doing so because they fear they will split the vote and wind up being governed by a party they are against.

[White Doors]

My fault - I meant to say Fusion Power and I've changed my posting and added a Link accordingly. If you are interested, follow the link and towards then end, you'll find a section on waste management. There is still some radioactivity but as you'll see, it has a very short lifespan.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_reactor

thanks

[madmax]

Many Canadians appear to vote against rather than for a political party. Due to our first-past-the-post electoral system Canadians who might otherwise vote Green could be deterred from doing so because they fear they will split the vote and wind up being governed by a party they are against.

That observation was not Proven in the Ontario Provincial Election. People voted FOR the Liberals because they WANTED the Liberals, and John Tory was not articulating himself well.

People had the choice, to vote for Proportional Representation, and turnout was ABYSMAL. Possibly the lowest turnout.

People don't get off their butts to go an vote, just to vote against something. They are voting for something. Each Party that receives votes receives them because people voted for them.

Clearly not enough people cared or wanted Proportional Representation in ONtario. It was a NON factor.

Much to the dismay of the 3rd party.

[myata]

Sorry, what wasn't proven? What the current system favours the two largest parties (compare popular vote of parties like NDP, Green, to their seat representations in the Parliament)? What voters don't vote strategically, because representative of their preferred party has no chance of making it past one of the dominant behemoths?

If the people supported this system, it only means that the duopoly is here to stay for a long time to come. A minority in this situation is the best one can hope for.

Another question is whether consumer democracy in principle is capable of dealing with these issues. Representative democracy here North America, counts about 200 years, falling in the period of relative calm and prosperity. There's no way to tell how it'll hold if the food supply becomes short and jobs were lost in massive numbers. As somebody pointed out, the distance from civilization to chaos equals to three missed meals.

Yet a consumer democracy, almost by definition, is incapable of enacting serious bold changes over a short time period. This is because it's always safer for an elected politician to do nothing, or very little. Less risk, less chance to screw up, better opportunity to get reelected. And it's not necessarily a bad thing; in a situation of calm predictabe operation of a society a small benefit of a complacent government by far outweighs a risk of a proactive incompetent. But will it work in case of a real, serious challenge which requires a real action with measurable result within short timeframe? I guess we'll have one chance to find out. We only have one planet, and have nowhere else to migrate to, unlike those ancient Inca civilizations that went in the continuous up-down cycles using up their resources and then reappearing somewhere else several generations down the line.

[Wild Bill]

We only have one planet, and have nowhere else to migrate to, unlike those ancient Inca civilizations that went in the continuous up-down cycles using up their resources and then reappearing somewhere else several generations down the line.

Sez who? We are on the verge of finally getting off this ball of rock and expanding into space. There we find virtually infinite resources and room.

It's taking longer than it should because after all, it's government doing it! Still, with the help of companies like Virgin Airways it will eventually happen.

We've had technology for at least 25 years to go out and snare just one middlin' sized asteroid of nickel-iron ore. We bring it back to a near Earth orbit, use solar power to smelt it cheaply and from that one piece of rock we could sell the entire world's demand for steel for one year, at a discount! Zero pollution by smelting in space inside of on the ground. We could then use the land for growing food.

Or we could grow food in space! It's all been worked out for years. We have the potential to banish hunger for everyone, if we'd simply get off our collective asses. Instead of turning that steel mill land over to farming we could make it into a park.

Why aren't we already there? First off, it will only come when private enterprise gets more involved. Governments always take forever and cost the most money. Polls have consistently shown that companies are loath to put up the huge initial investment on space development, for fear of the risks. This despite the HUGE payback! Polling shows that while no company cares to be first they also don't care to be THIRD! So they're all waiting for someone else to start things off.

Virgin is about to offer trips into near Earth orbit in the next year or so. The heirs to the Hilton fortune have been slowly working on a hotel space station, where they could offer a zero g honeymoon.

Virgin is apparently talking $100,000 per ticket. That sounds like a lot but just yesterday I was watching a documentary on the history of flight that showed how in the early 30's when passenger flight was just starting it cost 50 lbs for a hop from London to Paris. At the time that was half the average annual income! Yet there was no shortage of those who could afford tickets!

There's still hope, if we'd just stop staring at our feet and thinking we can see the entire universe without looking up!

[WIP]

So called "Green" parties will quickly become passe. If you equate the Greens with the environment, then lets put all the hand-wringing aside and deal with the facts. Although this is a simplistic view, there are two major categories for protecting our environment. The one that gets the most attention is Greenhouse Gases. Let's put that aside for now. Everything else, from pesticides to smog to Acid raid to CHC's can be and for the most part, has been and will continue to be regulated in Canada. Even the Harper government has some strict regulations on chemicals that cause smog. We combatted Acid Rain effectively. Re-cycling is getting pretty darn good. Now - back to GHG emissions. Really, what this is all about is coal and oil. Let's deal with North America and not bring China into the mix for now. You are right - there is only a finite amout of Oil and Coal. North America already acknowledges that coal is dirty but Canada is phasing out coal and the US has installed scrubbers on most coal fired plants. The free market is starting to have a large effect of oil - the price is going high enough that people are changing their habits - smaller cars, public transit, hybrid vehicles. Even if Al Gore is full of BS, North America has reached a tipping point where we have become aware that we must be good environmental stewards - without becoming paranoid that the world as we know it will end. If you really would like to know what the future holds, read up on Fusion Power....in simple terms, it's the next generation of Nuclear energy - without the radioactive dangers. 50 years from now, Fission will start to be introduced to the world - an almost limitless supply of clean energy. Until that time, the increasing price of diminishing resources will be forcing us to adapt to alternate, cleaner energy - with or without the existance of Green Parties.

So.....before you vote Green - look at what other policies they bring to the table. Vote for them because they bring a balanced view of government that you can support - not just because they "care" about the environment.

Link to Fusion Power: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_reactor

I think you've just shot down your own argument! Do any of the three major parties in Canada consider the environment more than a side issue that takes a back seat to their bread-and-butter constituencies? Of course not! They go as green as they can before every election to buy the extra votes they need.

The Green Party could serve as the incubator to develop environmental policies and sure enough, if they are popular with focus groups, they'll find their way to the Liberals or the Conservatives. But the N.D.P. has become such a calcified fossil that it's possible the Green Party could take their spot as the Party for the Left.

Right now, it's hard to gauge the Green Party's support because many people like myself voted Green in the last Ontario election because I'm fed up with the Conservatives and I could not give McGuinty's government a vote of confidence.

[madmax]

They go as green as they can before every election to buy the extra votes they need.

I was at a Church Event in Hamilton. The GP rep from a nearby riding was there advocating Clean Coal. Another was supporting Nuclear.....nice buttons though.

[WIP]

That observation was not Proven in the Ontario Provincial Election. People voted FOR the Liberals because they WANTED the Liberals, and John Tory was not articulating himself well.

People had the choice, to vote for Proportional Representation, and turnout was ABYSMAL. Possibly the lowest turnout.

People don't get off their butts to go an vote, just to vote against something. They are voting for something. Each Party that receives votes receives them because people voted for them.

Clearly not enough people cared or wanted Proportional Representation in ONtario. It was a NON factor.

Much to the dismay of the 3rd party.

The major parties are going to do everything in their power to kneecap any proportional representation system. The last Ontario Election was a case in point. About half the electorate hadn't even heard of the MMA proposal, and those that did, had little or no understanding of the issues at stake. Elections Canada was supposed to inform the public; I think I received one flyer in the mail about it, but anyone who wanted to know what it was about had to go online to find out more.

The common objections raised were the cost of having 30 extra MPP's. Most people I talked to weren't even aware that the old parliament before Harris cut the number to match the federal ridings, had more (133) than we would have had under the proportional system. There was also a bogus concern about the new Reps not being answerable to constituents. Does anybody have an MP or MPP that takes their constituents side over the Prime Minister or Premier? I've never seen one during my lifetime! They don't call his enforcer the Party 'Whip' for nothing!

[madmax]

The major parties are going to do everything in their power to kneecap any proportional representation system.

Conservatives were clearly against it. But there was nothing to kneecap. It just couldn't get UP to be kneecapped.

The last Ontario Election was a case in point. About half the electorate hadn't even heard of the MMA proposal, and those that did, had little or no understanding of the issues at stake. Elections Canada was supposed to inform the public; I think I received one flyer in the mail about it, but anyone who wanted to know what it was about had to go online to find out more.

I think you must have been the only one to be so short changed of literature. Their was tonnes printed up, and tonnes delivered. There were meetings held throughout the election in different churches and community centres.

The common objections raised were the cost of having 30 extra MPP's. Most people I talked to weren't even aware that the old parliament before Harris cut the number to match the federal ridings, had more (133) than we would have had under the proportional system.

If you have to explain this, you are already losing. Nor would PR have given better representation to the ridings which were swallowed up. And people talked about this too.

There was also a bogus concern about the new Reps not being answerable to constituents. Does anybody have an MP or MPP that takes their constituents side over the Prime Minister or Premier? I've never seen one during my lifetime! They don't call his enforcer the Party 'Whip' for nothing!

You are very dismissive of the voting publics concern. These are not BOGUS concerns. These are concerns. Sorry if you do not like them. Perhaps you should run in an election yourself, and hear what the majority of people are concerned about. It wasn't PR.

Do you not realize, it went over like a lead Balloon. In one forum on PR, I recall that it became very apparent that the GP candidate came across that PR self serving endeavour that would help the GP not the riding. People heard this, . Some people still wanted it, some still didn't and the Majority..... Didn't care one bit.

You could shout at the top of your lungs for PR, but Ontarians just weren't ready. The NDP and GP leaders were in the area promoting it and still NOTHING!

Many were disappointed, but the lesson learned, is that PR is not going engage people to vote. And the weaker parties are looking for a freebie, gimmie a seat, handout.

Even the communist party one a seat in Ontario ONCE, maybe twice... The CCF and Reform cut their teeth in Ontario coming from the West. It wasn't easy, but they broke through.

[myata]

Sez who? We are on the verge of finally getting off this ball of rock and expanding into space. There we find virtually infinite resources and room.

Obviously, fantasy sometimes helps to escape reality, at least for awhile, until it bites. The reason why it won't happen, any time soon though, is the same consumer democracy. Till the sky starts falling (literally), good luck trying to sell investment in space exploration to the (majority of) your fellow countrymen, over tax cuts or e.g healthcare. E.g the UK is already cutting their space and science budgets, which were never adequate for the kind of programs you're dreaming about, in the first place. Who could be the next? Maybe someone with the greatest deficit in the history of humankind, and impoding borrowing capacity? And after that who's left? Canada? EU? China and India, which still have to feed millions, if not billions of the hungry?

Yet, the clock is ticking. The oceans are being depleted, food supply growing short, and yet there's little hope this humankind will show much aptitude for coordinated, meaningful action on the global scale, anytime in the foreseeable future.

[Wild Bill]

Obviously, fantasy sometimes helps to escape reality, at least for awhile, until it bites. The reason why it won't happen, any time soon though, is the same consumer democracy. Till the sky starts falling (literally), good luck trying to sell investment in space exploration to the (majority of) your fellow countrymen, over tax cuts or e.g healthcare. E.g the UK is already cutting their space and science budgets, which were never adequate for the kind of programs you're dreaming about, in the first place. Who could be the next? Maybe someone with the greatest deficit in the history of humankind, and impoding borrowing capacity? And after that who's left? Canada? EU? China and India, which still have to feed millions, if not billions of the hungry?

Yet, the clock is ticking. The oceans are being depleted, food supply growing short, and yet there's little hope this humankind will show much aptitude for coordinated, meaningful action on the global scale, anytime in the foreseeable future.

Your answer implies that the only route to space is through having the government do it! I agree, that would take forever, if it happened at all. That's not what I'm talking about. Private industry will get us there for a very simple reason - money! There are huge profits being made right now from the satellite industry, with TV, weather and photography to name only a few areas of action.

Most people not being technical they have little or no idea of how much profit potential is involved. Little things we take for granted can be made better and cheaper in a space environment. Ball bearings, for instance. In zero g they can be cheaply made far more perfectly than is possible on earth. What could this mean to the gasoline efficiency of your car if they were used in your transmission?

Medical drugs, crystals for computer chips, the list is endless. This is NOT fantasy! This is starting to happen RIGHT NOW!

Forgive me, but I suspect that your background may not equip you to understand the difference between space industry and the BattleStar Galactica show on television...even the old one from the 70's. That's no shame. Most folks can't either.

That's why most folks didn't buy stock in Intel, or MicroSoft, or Research in Motion.

[myata]

Obviously, your background doesn't even give you an opportunity to get a clue what you're talking about. Those commercial flights you're praising would take millionaire passengers for a few minutes into a subspace zone, not even one full orbital revolution. BTW any clue how much carbon these mass entertainment space flights would throw into the atmosphere? Far from the hope for survival, this idea is more reminiscent of a feast in the time of plague.

After decades, we're still talking about constructing one (1) permanent settlement outside of this planet's surface. Or sending one manned expedition to the next planet. The challenges are enormous (adequate food and energy supplies, surviving cosmic radiation, not to mention the cost) and you can be 100% sure no private company will invest a dime of their own money into these area of research as they aren't guaranteed to return with quick buck. Unless a miracle happens, in two generations's time, when the clock strikes down on climate change, ocean biosphere, global food supplies, and carbon energy, we'll be nowhere near the level of technology necessary for long term survival in space.

[WIP]

You are very dismissive of the voting publics concern. These are not BOGUS concerns. These are concerns. Sorry if you do not like them. Perhaps you should run in an election yourself, and hear what the majority of people are concerned about. It wasn't PR.

Of course they're not bogus concerns to the Liberals and Conservatives(and in a few areas NDP) who will fight anything that threatens their ability to act as the political gatekeepers and use the system for their own advantage. But for everyone outside of party politics, the claim that members of Parliament at large will be any less accountable than constituency reps is a red herring. How many politicians put the interests of their constituents ahead of orders from the party leader? None who are looking to advance their political careers.

Do you not realize, it went over like a lead Balloon. In one forum on PR, I recall that it became very apparent that the GP candidate came across that PR self serving endeavour that would help the GP not the riding. People heard this, . Some people still wanted it, some still didn't and the Majority..... Didn't care one bit.

You could shout at the top of your lungs for PR, but Ontarians just weren't ready. The NDP and GP leaders were in the area promoting it and still NOTHING!

Many were disappointed, but the lesson learned, is that PR is not going engage people to vote. And the weaker parties are looking for a freebie, gimmie a seat, handout.

Even the communist party one a seat in Ontario ONCE, maybe twice... The CCF and Reform cut their teeth in Ontario coming from the West. It wasn't easy, but they broke through.

Elections Canada has made the process of running for office more complicated and more expensive over the years, and the cost of campaigning keeps increasing, so eventually we will end up with a two party duopoly that they have in the U.S.. Now tell me again how that serves democracy!

[Wild Bill]

Obviously, your background doesn't even give you an opportunity to get a clue what you're talking about. Those commercial flights you're praising would take millionaire passengers for a few minutes into a subspace zone, not even one full orbital revolution. BTW any clue how much carbon these mass entertainment space flights would throw into the atmosphere? Far from the hope for survival, this idea is more reminiscent of a feast in the time of plague.

After decades, we're still talking about constructing one (1) permanent settlement outside of this planet's surface. Or sending one manned expedition to the next planet. The challenges are enormous (adequate food and energy supplies, surviving cosmic radiation, not to mention the cost) and you can be 100% sure no private company will invest a dime of their own money into these area of research as they aren't guaranteed to return with quick buck. Unless a miracle happens, in two generations's time, when the clock strikes down on climate change, ocean biosphere, global food supplies, and carbon energy, we'll be nowhere near the level of technology necessary for long term survival in space.

Well, the Americans have committed to a manned moon base within 20 years. Richard Branson is obviously no slouch of a business man! He backed SpaceshipOne to win the Ansari X-prize and the ship is booked solid with those millionaire passengers you mentioned. He clearly intends to make a profit!

If America loses its drive, the Chinese may do it. Whatever, it will be human beings from whatever country hasn't grown too old in its thinking.

You might be happier about the carbon from space flights if you considered it an investment. How much CO2 would be saved if we did all smelting in earth orbit? For the few flights necessary to set up asteroid mining surely it would be worth it to eliminate steel factories and the like here on the ground.

It's going to happen no matter how some feel about it. A few decades too late for old guys like myself but my children might have a chance to get off this ball of rock. Once Man is self-sustaining in space who cares what happens to the Luddites left behind. While they get lessons from Mother Nature as to what actually works and what doesn't, humanity will survive and prosper.

Whatever. Time will tell who's right and who's wrong.

Edited May 14, 2008 by Wild Bill

[madmax]

Of course they're not bogus concerns to the Liberals and Conservatives(and in a few areas NDP) who will fight anything that threatens their ability to act as the political gatekeepers and use the system for their own advantage.

The events that I attended engaged the General Voting Public who were interested in the referendum. Many enthusiastic to change...., so I have to say that you are personally bitter by the results. I am dissapointed.

But when it appears at the other events the GP want a system that Benefits THEM not the Public, then you have a Political TURKEY on your hands. "We Need to change it so we can get in" ...... "its Not Fair".....

The system is different, has plusses and minusses and I would have been happy to see it pass. But it didn't, it was and the Liberals didn't even have to put it on the ballot, but they did. You can't blame the public for not wanting to endorse a system for the benefit of the 3rd, 4th and 5th tier, when they are comfortable with the one they have. And those that didn't vote, shows that they weren't intrigued by it either.

How many politicians put the interests of their constituents ahead of orders from the party leader? None who are looking to advance their political careers.

Why would anyone want to vote for someone who is campaigning on the basis of "they don't, we won't either" but we have less votes and we want in.. because reading your comments is how you portray it to me.

Elections Canada has made the process of running for office more complicated and more expensive over the years, and the cost of campaigning keeps increasing, so eventually we will end up with a two party duopoly that they have in the U.S.. Now tell me again how that serves democracy!

Perhaps this will help you with your costs. This was an idea from the National Party, that was somewhat modified, but put into practice by the Chretian Liberals.

An important platform in the National Party's campaign was the idea that electoral campaigns should be funded by individual Canadians each contributing a small amount each year, thus taking away what the National Party considered was the undue influence of large, multinational corporations funding political campaigns.

The National Party wasn't around for a full election cycle. But it's policy had an impact in Political Democracy. A similar change has been adopted in various provinces as well. This changes politics more then any other factor suggested by PR.

People can argue the merits of it and such. I am merely suggesting that it puts VALUE to each vote. And you seem to be looking for some cash and some sympathy.