The NDP has a problem......................

[Newfie Canadian]

I don't know what the NDP's problem is.

Truthfully, I pay more attention to the provincial NDP than the federal NDP.

Our NDP has 2 seats in the House of Assembly. I don't know why. They have good ideas, they have some sound policies (like public auto insurance and merging Newfoundland Hydro and Newfoundland Power) and they aren't full of themselves.

But they will never IMO, form the provincial government.

I think here, and it may translate into federal politics, there is a perception that they aren't a real party. You just can't picture them in government for some reason. Another problem is the fear that a vote for them may let someone else in power that you don't want.

I know it isn't logical, but what about politics is?

[caesar]

That is not the case here in BC. They have been in power and hopefully, will be again come May next year. I do like many of their ideas but many we really just cannot afford. However, since we have a right wing government now that seems intent on selling off all our assets to foreign powers and neglect Health Care, education and children's ministries in favour of fancy transit system to the airport while our buses are falling apart. The one I rode home in today kept scrapping the street because it had too full of a load of people. The NDP seem to be a little more humane and honest but have troubles controlling spending. However, the "Liberals" here spend for the rich and cut programs for the rest of us.

[Stoker]

transit system to the airport while our buses are falling apart. The one I rode home in today kept scrapping the street because it had too full of a load of people.

Bus Fleet Replacement

[Guest eureka]

A century ago, similar statements were made of the British Labour Party. Then, Lloyd George and Asquith destroyed the Liberal Party with their arrogant, self interesated internal power struggle - just as Martin and Chretien almost did recently here.

I can easily see how an NDP party could come to power in Canada, and Newfoundland provincially. The social pressures are building and they may grow under the right wing pressures on the rest of societ. I can envision a similar "fate" for the US, too. The current parties retain their hold only because of the continued economic growth.

That growth is in question now.

[Cartman]

Can we stop the discussion about an inability or an unwillingness to provide a specific source? Eureka's reference WAS held by many in the environmental movement but especially those who have now given up (for obvious reasons). It is hard to identify a source because, as stated, most of these scientists have given up. If you are actually interested though, they are called "limits to growth" theorists.

http://dieoff.org/page25.htm

Most of the environmentalists like Suzuki are considered very moderate in believing that anything can be done to save the earth. Many legit scientists believe that the drastic changes required are simply not achievable given the current economic climate.

I am no environmentalist, but this is common knowledge and I suspect that Eureka has not provided a source for this reason.

[Cartman]

we have a right wing government now that seems intent on selling off all our assets to foreign powers and neglect Health Care, education and children's ministries

The BC Libs are the most arrogant prov. gov't in the country. Anyone disagree? Their only strong card is that the NDP was in power and they can blame them for everthing that has gone wrong.

[Guest eureka]

Thanks, Cartman. I do get tired of these demands for sources any time something is posted that is either common knowledge or something that one may have read or heard without making a written record of where.

[Stoker]

Well I'll provide a source that says that we have nothing to worry about:

My source

Now back on topic.........

[caesar]

Material presented on this home page constitutes opinion of the author.

YOUR SOURCE

Well I'll provide a source that says that we have nothing to worry about:

Everyone has an opinion; why not err on the side of caution and quit polluting our planet unnecessarily. eh

[Stoker]

So those that believe in Global warming are not sharing their opinion?

[Guest eureka]

Out of date as always, Stoker! That is seven years old and there is almost no scientist now who does not believe it is happening and happening more rapidly than was thought those seven years ago.

There has always been only a handful of skeptics but they made a lot of noise since they were funded and supported by powerful business lobbies. Even Bush commissioned a study by the National Association of Scientists in the US expecting that he would get a report favourable to his pals.

Instead he got a confirmation that the world was in trouble. But Bush and Co. don't care very much what could happen to their grandchildren. They care only about the acquisition of wealth today.

[Stoker]

Is this more up to date?

[Stoker]

What about this?

[Guest eureka]

Before you get into the pseudo science of the skeptics, I suggest you start with this for beginners.

http://whrc.org/resources/online_publications/

warming_earth/index.htm

There is lots more. You will notice the absence of peer reviewing of the "works" of the deniers. You may like to also research the backing for their imaginative denials,

[Stoker]

The page cannot be displayed

Very convincing

Skeptics? Peers? Are you suggesting that there is a consensus among scientists that global warming is a threat?

I'd very much like you to prove that...

With that said, whether or not global warming is a myth or a truth, I'd still like to see your source that states the world economy will collapse in the next several decades due to climate change.

[caesar]

Here is a well know source for you stoker

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/conte...96001_mz001.htm

[Stoker]

And how was their Consensus measured? Did businessweek commission a poll amongest the worlds scientific community?

Also, define "growing".

And has it been proven that mankind is the cause of climate change? Did we not have droughts before? What about the ice age?

[caesar]

Stoker; can you not realize that whatever else happens; man does contribute to polluting our planet and that is better to err on the side of caution then to go in denial so that we can carry on with our rape and plunder of the planet to satisfy our selfish interests. I may drive an SUV but I don't drive it often. I use transit for work and use my vehicle for grocery shopping. Last month I used less than 16 dollars of gas.

[Stoker]

man does contribute to polluting our planet and that is better to err on the side of caution then to go in denial so that we can carry on with our rape and plunder of the planet to satisfy our selfish interests.

Error on the side of caution? Why thats what I'm doing.........I'd rather not risk our economy for a problem (climate change) that may or may not pose a threat to us.

I may drive an SUV but I don't drive it often. I use transit for work and use my vehicle for grocery shopping. Last month I used less than 16 dollars of gas.

So you just use your SUV for grocery shopping

Why don't you error on the side of caution and go grocery shopping via the bus?

[Guest eureka]

It displays on mine. There are hundreds of others that you can reference yourself. There are none by the naysayers that are scientifically valid: that is, that have been peer reviewed. All those who oppose the truth of Global Warming are beholden to economic interests, except for a few contrarians and some seeking publicity.

I have followed this issue for a few years in discussions with real scientists. I am not one myself so I simply read and judge.

There is not the slightest doubt of the fact of climate change or of the prime causes now. There is no doubt that calamity is looming. There is no scientific body that disagrees. There is no nation that does not support Kyoto and, at the same time, says it may not be enough. There is only this US administration that reneged on its committment at Rio to accede to the world's agreements when they should be reached as they were at Kyoto.

I am opposed to the death penalty except for those who would deny climate change. They are dooming untold millions to a dangerous world - including their own children and grandchildren. The danger is a thousand times greater than is the risks of Iraq and terrorism.

[Cartman]

Soooo.....as this thread is about the NDP, does anyone think the recent win by the BC NDP is an indication that they are on the rebound?

[Remus]

I am opposed to the death penalty except for those who would deny climate change.

Why is it that those on the left always claim to be tolerant of others, but when somebody disagrees or offers another opinion contrary to their own

well I geuss it is death to the infidels.

[August1991]

Soooo.....as this thread is about the NDP, does anyone think the recent win by the BC NDP is an indication that they are on the rebound?

Hey, they increased their seat total in BC by 50%.

[Guest eureka]

I would agree that the NDP needs to rebrand itself. Perhaps it would be useful to introduce the Fabian Society into Canada and to have the intellectual input into "Left Wing" politics again.

Socialism in Canada got away from the gradualism of Fabianism and began to shift its beliefs into the political game of appealing to whatever might win votes.

The return to integrity might be productive. At this time, I do not foresee a rebirth of Social Democratic principles as long as the NDP is a party like the others in so many of its planks. Tony Blair is a good example to look to in the gradualist approach.

This, for me, is a change, too. I had once thought that the NDP was too "Fabian."

[Cartman]

Why do you think that the NDP has been seduced by an "anything to win approach" Eureka? I kinda thought that while other labour parties had given into neo-lib policies (New Zealand, Australia, Britain), and been relatively successful, the NDP held rather firm. Are you referring to their balanced budget platform?