NDP position

It is time the press and politicians did some research to find out what the BC NDP position is on environmental issues.
Go to this site to see their stand.

http://www.buildingsustainablebc.ca/

A Little Knowledge never hurt

A little knowledge never hurt in political discourse. Its injection into the toxically-partisan politics of the BC Ledge will be a welcome whiff of fresh air. Welcome, and good luck Dr. Weaver.

Not even a word from the Greens!

Talk about elections you know one is looming when the Greens get media time. They offer nothing new just a new running mate!Just in time to take votes away from the only party that will defeat the Titanic party(Libs).I always wonder who funds this party? Maybe the liberal party, huh!

Bit of a change for Weaver

Last election Andrew went out of his way to shill for the BC Liberals.

I wonder if he'll disavow the robo-calls he made in Carol James's Victoria constituency urging people to vote for Gordon Campbell and the Liberals.

I think the Greens would do well to avoid any contact with this guy - he, like several other prominent 'environmentalists' is big trouble!

Politics make strange

Politics make strange bedfellows as potential candidates wander between the BC Libs and the Greens. Sterk will get thumped in Beacon Hill

G West - time to put up or give it a rest

I hadn't heard about Weaver ever being a "shill for the Liberals" so thought I would search for it. All I could find was G West's contention that a robocall from someone claiming to be Weaver was made to his home. Then he deleted the message. Convenient, that.

Maybe G West could come up with some actual evidence or at least someone else to corroborate his story. Or was this robocall only made to one number?

Every time I feel tempted to vote NDP, I look at the cheap political games they plan and the way their supporters launch cheap attacks on everyone who disagrees with them. After that, the feeling passes.

ken280

So, why is it that the NDP has to worry about splitting the vote with the Greens? Oh, I remember now. It's because they had their backroom boys work to torpedo proportional representation. The NDP gets what it deserves - too bad for the public, though.

Dr. Weaver....

Welcome and thank you for running. It isn't often that I get a candidate that I can whole-heartedly support.

Perhaps the Green Vote Will Now Come Home?

Andrew Weaver is quite the coup for the BC Greens. Talk about a star candidate! Not even the BC NDP has a candidate running with his renowned credentials.

The BC NDP, for example:

1. Apparently supports the Kinder Morgan dilbut pipeline twinning to the west coast (resulting in the same increase in capacity as the Northern Gateway pipeline as a whole, with the increased tanker traffic). NDP energy critic John Horgan stated:

http://www.watershedsentinel.ca/node/500

The BC Greens oppose the Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion.

2. Supports fraccing in NE BC... which, according to BC NDP's own supporters, results in poisoned ground water supply due to chemicals in the fraccing fluid, major greenhouse gas emissions, opposition by First Nations, etc.

The fracced gas will be turned into lng shipped to China.
OTOH, NDP energy critic John Horgan supports lng fracced gas. Regarding the huge multinational conglomerate Shell Oil's lng terminal for fracced gas on BC's west coast:

Regarding imposing a moratorium on fracced natural gas in BC, NDP Horgan said:

Regarding the fracced gas for lng terminals, whereby other jurisdictions had people lighting their taps on fire as fracced gas had seeped into their groundwater supply, NDP Horgan said:

http://thecanadian.org/hot-links/item/1553-bc-ndp-confirm-support-for-fracking-lng

The BC Greens oppose both fraccing as well as the enormous greenhouse gas emissions resulting from same.

3. Since BC lng terminals will require several new Site C dam equivalents in energy for production of same, they apparently now support BC Hydro's Site C dam as well as further IPP power to support same. Just common sense.

The BC Greens oppose the Site C Dam as environmentally destructive.

So if you are a voter and oppose the Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion, fraccing natural gas, huge increase in GHG emissions, the Site C dam, etc., etc. then it's obvious that the BC Greens fulfil your policy needs. Not so the BC NDP.

As for BC NDP supporters on here, may I remind you what the BC high priest of the BC NDP, Adrian Dix, has previously stated...

http://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/BC-Politics/2011/11/03/VoteSplit/

Ergo, the BC NDP shouldn't concern itself on vote-splitting with the Greens. That would be quite disrespectful of voters. N'est pas?

North of Hope

Hahahaha. You are kidding me right?! The NDP flock never seizes to amaze me.

The 2007 provincial BC NDP party convention unanimously adopted a sustainability report stating that:

“Effective Climate Change Initiatives: apply carbon taxes to motivate the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by ensuring that of fossil fuels reflect the environmental and social costs of their production and use."

Including a carbon tax on gasoline!!!! Yep.

Here's your "BuildingsustainableBC" website webshot at the time confirming same!!

http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/ndp-effective-carbon-tax.jpg

Yet, after the BC Libs introduced the same carbon tax supported by NDP delegates, the NDP backroom boys decided that they could milk more votes from voters by stating that it will increase their gas taxes/costs.

Ya know what the BC NDP then did? They deleted the reference to carbon taxes on the buildingsustainablebc website. How flakey is that? Or fraudulent?

Erratum

Ooops. My bad!

Seizes should read "ceases". C'est la vie.

Well done Greens

Anything that gives disenchanted Libes another outlet for their vote is a-ok with me.

Any chance of Sterk becoming more visible? If so, I could see you guys taking as much as 5% of the Liberal vote away so its all good.

Why Luke won't vote NDP

"the NDP backroom boys decided that they could milk more votes from voters by stating that it will increase their gas taxes/costs."

He likes higher taxes.

Luke

Speaking of flip flops, have you checked out the Jeff Simpson column about you right-wing buggers and your penchant for rewriting history?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/case-of-the-conservatives-carbon-amnesia/article4557581/

Jeffrey makes a very good point about carbon taxes versus cap and trade :

"With a carbon tax, you know what the carbon price will be, as with British Columbia’s carbon tax. You don’t know by how much emissions will be reduced. With cap and trade, governments know the limits of emissions but don’t know what the price will be."

Food for thought indeed considering BC's emissions have increased with the carbon tax.

'Star' candidate!

equals political opportunist in my dictionary!

Careful Frank...

...that could fry Luke's cerebral "hard drive".

Divide and conquer?

Look at the amount of work it took to get May a seat, and she is far more appealing than Weaver. I think Chong keeps her seat thanks to Weaver.

The science is conclusive

I notice "Story" cites three sources while disputing whether the science is settled. One leads to the website of Steve Goddard, who used to be a regular contributor to ex- media weatherman Anthony Watts' climate denial site, until, get this, he was kicked off for being too off-the-wall. He was too looney-tune for even the other deniers, which, professionally speaking, are a pretty looney-tune bunch, rife with conspiracy theories. One of the dumbest of these theories is the notion that 97% of the world's climate scientists, 97% of 20,000 scientists worldwide, are engaging in a gigantic conspiracy to raise taxes or somethings.

Um, why?
And why them?
Have you ever wondered what 97% of the world's soil scientists are conspiring to do? What about 97% of the world's endocrinologists?

Sorry, when the future is at stake, I'd rather take my advice from scientists, not conspiracy theorists or articles published in popular on-line magazines. And every national science academy on the planet backs the climatologists.

Weaver's lack of logic

In a 2011 article, Weaver advised Harper to listen to the advice of Mulroney on environmental issues as Mulroney, apparently the greenest prime minister in Canada based solely on an acid rain treaty with the US...according to.... drum roll, please - the lol 'Corporate Knights'.

Pretty shoddy critical thinking on the part of a 'scientist'. In praising Mulroney he reveals that he simply doesn't perceive the connection between the devastation of the environment and corporatism. Corporatism that has bloomed in Canada due to the monopoly of corporate interests advanced under the BCNI ( now called the Council of Executives) that Mulroney strongly supported, advanced, and participated in.

Also, his praise of Mulroney, reveals how little Weaver understands or conveniently fails to understand about the effects of media monopoly on accurate environmental messaging - how it has been controlled and and spun for corporate benefit....with vital information intentionally withheld to the public.

Mr. Mulroney once again helped the corporate message to trump all:

Through Mulroney's 'deft' hand Canada became virtually alone in the industrialized world in having no legislation to prevent the concentration of newspaper ownership or cross media concentration as The Mulroney government had "The Business Council on National Issues" draft the Competition Act. The BCNI is referred to as the mother of all special interest groups, lobbying for Canadian corporations, including some American trans-nationals.

Once more, Weaver's praise of Mulroney, reveals there are scientists....and there are intelligent scientists.

Where is the critical thought on Weaver's part? All the worse that he is a scientist and is unable to make insightful connections.

He may be a scientist but he is running on empty when it comes to logic, even more so when it comes to wisdom.

time to define the difference

I think it is high time to define the difference between the NDP and the Greens. The polarization over this announcement seems to scream for it.

Are the Greens not just Cons who care about the environment but prefer the tax policies of the Fraser Institute? Why do the Greens hate the NDP? Why are the Greens taking so many votes from the NDP and less from the Libs and Cons?

Let us talk about this medley of voters who make up the GP and define where they actually stand on policy. E. May has done a great job of obscuring this debate and pretending that we can all live under her umbrella. You cannot stand for everything.

If it's politics it isn't science!

"The science is conclusive" Then, FatherTheo it is not science.

Science is a modus operandi, always searching, always coming up with new truths, new ways of looking at old problems.

You have chosen to focus on one errrr, "Looney".

Why don't you take the trouble to open the other links I have provided and listen to the several authentic scientists' considered opinions. Generally their conclusion is, "yes, I believe in Global Warming but not human caused global warming" and there is overwhelming evidence to support that: ice cores, the Mediaeval Warming, the Little Ice Age etc.

But if you wish to throw around pejoratives why not throw them at Al Gore. His "Inconvenient Truth" plagiarizes just about every Hollywood scare movie written.

Ummmmm, you write, " . . . a pretty looney-tune bunch . . ." I prefer not to name call as it shows you are not sure of your argument.

Errrrr, ahem, "97% of the world's climate scientists" Please Father, shall I genuflect?

Clearly the lines are drawn. No one is going to change their point-of-view. I, however, prefer to side with real, open minded scientists.

There never seems so much bullshit posted

As when anybody mentions climate change or "climate variation" as I prefer to call it.
It comes down to believers and non-believers, and like people's belief in JC and the Bible, you either have the faith or you don't.
I have argued on the side of climate change believers for years, and really haven't gained that much of an audience. I just wish the non-believers would show in their daily life that the most important belief you can have is that screwing with nature is going to get you in trouble, so do what you have to do to reduce your eco-footprint and we'll all be happy. As Father Theo suggests, I would sooner take the word of real scientists than that of some of the non-believers

crh - difference between Greens & NDP

I respect the social goals of the NDP and I'm OK with many of the policies. However, I've never been able to cast a ballot for them (much less join them) because of the following reasons:
* they have a substantial following of zealots who react to the tiniest criticism and make the organization seem more like a cult than a political organization. When I see ad hominem attacks on Dr Weaver, I see that they come from the usual suspects.
* they are an old, established party and it frankly shows in the way they conduct politics. Case in point was the way that the leaders and backroom boys undercut PR in spite of the fact that it has been endorsed by the membership
* their commitment to the environment is weak - environmental priorities rank behind their desire to cater to their core constituencies. That's why they're happy to talk abut cap & trade (which only directly affects large businesses) and oppose carbon taxes irrespective of any measures to counteract the regressive tendencies of consumption taxes.

The Greens OTOH, place the environment at the head of the pack when it comes to priorities. It's why they are more likely to attract scientists and other independent thinkers like Dr Weaver. Although, they do attract support from a broader political economic spectrum, I have very little respect for people who characterize them as neo-conservatives with solar panels. Nobody who is intelligent enough to read and understand their platform would call them neoconservatives.

Frankly, I think the biggest issue between the NDP and Greens is this:
The NDP insiders like to think of the world in a unidimensional fashion: left vs right, them vs the neo-cons. That's why they like the current voting system and undermined STV. These upstart Greens come along and wreck this dumb-downed view of the world and wreck it for them. When there's more than one dimension, the voters have to think and that's dangerous.

Neophytes posing as environmentalists

At the core of the inability to establish real change in the world when it comes to the environment and to the economy (which are inextricably linked to each other) is that all political parties are afraid, and often unwilling to vigorously challenge the status quo.

When so-called environmentalists like Weaver sing the praises of Mulroney and when Tzeporah Berman gives her environmental hero, Gordon Campbell an award at Copenhagen...(and retracted it a year later.it when she actually started paying attention) it demonstrates the superficiality of some so-called leaders in the environmental movement. Weaver sees acid rain treaty and ignores all else. Berman sees 'carbon tax' and nods in favour, not seeing the complexity when the prime mover behind carbon tax (and cap and trade) is once again, 'money' - an oh-so-conveniently devised 'solution' in a world where everything has been priced for sale.

To continue to defend the failing status quo of our corrupt political and economic systems - to refuse to challenge the lies it is structured on is just wasting what little time we have left for change - if indeed we have not already run out of time.

crh

I think the difference between the parties is pretty big. As lynn has pointed out the Green leaders tend to support anything that mouths the right words, they're not interested in looking at the fine print.

If someone says "carbon tax" then they're all for it, they don't care about the specifics.

Brian Mulroney can be acclaimed as a great hero because they're ignorant of everyhting else that went on while he was in power.

There's a reason why their polling numbers never show up on election day, and that's because of a small attention span.

Re: ReeferMadness - difference between Greens & NDP

I agree with you almost 100%.

One caveat, though -- the Green Party top brass did their share in undermining the PR referendum, apparently because they wanted a PR system that was a little friendlier to top-down control than the STV would have provided.

So they gave mealy-mouthed luke-warm support, undercutting the STV in an attempt to shift momentum to a party-list system (eg Germany, Scotland), which would allow top brass and apparatchiks more say in who got elected, via their power over the list rankings, and who was near the top, etc. Some of them (eg. Carr) justified this on gender-equality grounds, and a supposed need for "zipper-ed lists" to ensure gender equality -- but in the end it boiled down to not trusting the electorate, even with a proportional vote in place.

This was also distinctly disrespectful of the Citizens' Assembly process, which was about as fair a process as the political process would allow (and evidently much fairer and much independent than the politicians had intended it to be). Of course, the party brass in all parties pretty much took the same dismissive tact towards the Citizens' Assembly (ie. "That's not the answer WE wanted -- they must have been bamboozled or confused by the process")

The net result of this? Remember how very close the vote came out? The Green Party's having taken, for all practical purposes, effectively the position of, "Well. Yes, we need Proportional Representation, but a different Proportional Representation, not this STV one) was likely responsible for the STV vote barely failing to meet the onerous double super-majority requirement placed on the referendum.

Aside from that -- You pretty much nailed it. The NDP talks a good game on environmental issues, but all too often treats them in practice as just another tool in waging partisan warfare. And then they have the nerve to allege that the Greens are just neo-cons with a bit more concern for the environment.

Nailed It!!

ReeferMadness said:

Yep. So many former centre-left insiders within the BC NDP have described the BC NDP as a CHURCH. Knock their church or their high priests and you are in the penalty box. Something akin to how the Jehovah's Witnesses operate. Too bad BC'ers don't understand this.

Bernardo said:

Yep. Again the church flock thingy. After my post one of their flock, poster Frank, will come to their defence again.

Luke

That's because you've been proven to be a liar in all its forms. Be it rewriting history, indulging in drive-by smears or what have you.

And yet you continue to cower when someone calls you on it because as I said on another thread you have a glass jaw, unable to accept criticism.

Frank

Ouch!!!!

I previously mentioned the Jehovah's Witnesses and their similarity with the church-like cult of the BC NDP.

I unfortunately erred in mentioning the Church of Scientology in the same sentence.

Here's your link:

http://www.scientology.org/

BTW, Brad Zubyk was a 20-year veteran of the BC NDP. He left the BC NDP because he publicly stated that they operate like a cult-like church as well. That's nutty? No?

Now Zubyk has gone from the BC NDP to the BC Libs for obvious reasons. haha. Obviously he didn't enjoy the NDP "church"-like atmosphere.

Also, here's an excerpt from Zubyk's sworn BC Supreme Court affidavit of 2008, which states, in part, as follows:
_________________________________________

"During the 2005 election, I was one of the senior people in the communications campaign run by the provincial NDP," Zubyk says in his affidavit. My official title was director of candidate support. This made me one of the core communications operatives in the NDP's campaign war room.

"During that time," continues the voice from the NDP war room, "the NDP ran an election campaign that was closely coordinated with the campaigns of major labour groups in the province".

________________________________________

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=ed19fb4e-c033-4511-b32f-5b9c85f6ed01

As an aside, when and where is the upcoming Zubyk witch burnin'? I'll bring the beer (sorry just Coors Lite). Should be another entertaining YouTube moment.

I'm sure former BC NDP candidate and Wiccan (male witch) high priest Sammy Wagar will light the flame on that one. Groovy.

Luke

The arrogant lying idiocies of you and your party cohorts are why your party is polling at about half the NDP support.

The "NDP church" is kicking the ass of doctrinaire Libs, Cons and Greens and its driving you guys crazy.

So my advice to you is for y'all to form a new party. You can easily agree on an anti-NDP platform so that won't be a problem. But just for headlines you can claim 15 trillion in immediate revenue from private sector LNG-powered windmills. No one expects right-wingers to keep promises anyway, look at NAFTA and the GST.

You could call it the "BC Tea Party" and have a Mitt type take a run as your leader. Or just keep Grampa Munster, he'll do fine.

Bonne chance!

By the way

If you do form a BC Tea Party, try and keep your party's comments about minimum wage earners, single moms, street kids, gays, people on welfare, divorcees and anyone else your parties consider to be undesirables between yourselves until after the next election.

Because I have to tell you its not 1950 anymore.

Then there's that

churchy cultish Fiberal thingy called PAB....Oh, it changed its alias recently didn't it? How BC Liberal of it. Not to mention all those sacred 'chambers' worshipping at the church of commerce - BC Liberal hymn book at hand and donation plate at the ready like a well-worn bible on a hotel bedside table.

The mainstream media, as always, their ever-faithful choir.

lynn.

I think you nailed it.

The Conservatism of New Democrats

I respect decision of Greens not to run candidates in Delata SOuth or Cariboo North.

Let's all support the diversity of views that these two hard-working, progressive independent MLAs bring to the legislature.

SImpson might rob NPD of a seat; and Huntigton might keep one from going LIberal. THat's an even-handed deal that we should all be able to embrace.

AS for the NDP, I echo Cool & Bernardo on how the Citizens Assembly tried to devise a system that wasn't in the clear interest of any of the three parties in contention. All three parties contributed to its demise, in one way or another.

It is no wonder that Bill TIeleman and Dave Schreck fought BC-STV like it was their worst enemy: because it was!

See Mark Crawford's column on the STV: http://markcrawford.blogspot.ca/2011/08/brief-commercial-for-stv-lite-and-for.html

STV

Frank, in fact, the Green Party officially endorsed STV. I heard that Adrianne Carr was unhappy with the citizen's assembly choice but she was no longer leader by the time of the campaign. If the party tried to undermine STV under the leadership of Jane Sterk, please explain how.

WRT the campaign itself, it was an instructive example in how democracy is being undermined by insiders who specialize in manipulation. The no side ran a no-holds-barred campaign that would have made the US Republicans proud. The campaign was entirely negative, playing on voters fears, prejudices, apathy and ignorance. Compared to the no campaign, the yes campaign might have been run by boy scouts. They ran poorly attended information sessions hosted by volunteers. They tried in vain to squeeze information into 30 second ads. They tried letter-writing campaigns and found that the vast majority of the letters were ignored by an unsympathetic media.

When it came to debates, savvy political insiders showed up for the no campaign to argue against an eclectic mix of academia and STV supporters from various backgrounds. The overwhelming majority of academia supported STV but as any Harper-watcher knows, Canadians don't seem to trust professors and scientists.

One of the more bizarre aspects of the campaign was that while the Ontario NDP supported STV, the BC NDP pretended to be neutral while its attack dogs led the dishonest assault.

The end result was really never in doubt. STV died because it wasn't in the best interests of the political parties, their unelected camp followers, the media or various other interest who like the status quo. Public interest be damned.

Reefer

I got the call at my home in Victoria...and I'm hardly the only one who got it.

G West

... and yet I've never heard this reported anywhere else. Or by anyone else.

Reefer

You have a point?

He made the call - I assume he made a bunch of them - to voters on the voters list - not to a reporter. I should have kept the recorded call because I'd have been happy to share it with you.

My point simply is, and Weaver's done a number of things and made a number of points which prove it, that he's not a serious scientist or an academic when he involves himself in politics as a candidate or a shill for one or another party.

If he really wants to be a politician then he should climb down from the Ivory Tower and become a full time politician.

As an academic and a serious scientist he has no business shilling for ANY political party.

That's my view and everything the guy has done in the past tends to support that view.

Cheers dude.