For once I find myself in agreement with Mike Goeghegan's erstwhile associate, Bernard Von Shulmann, in that not all Green voters are left-wing. Some are definitely conservative, some in the best sense, some rather less so. In any case, trying to pressure voters into reducing their choices is a fool's game, except for parties that have the universal backing of big business and the commercial mass media. Only parties that have a full media backup can make it a full-court press that the voter cannot escape, and yet cannot directly attribute to any particular "special interest group", ... unless of course, they are willing to announce their acceptance of some left-wing conspiracy theories about the media.

I think merging the Greens and the NDP would actually push voters back to the Liberals. Many people will be voting Green due to the fact that they do not want to vote Liberal or NDP. In the end the only people to benefit out of this alliance would be the Green party since it is there only hope of getting a seat. The Green vote is a protest vote against the previous NDP and Liberal governments.

AH! the mix ,that's the nom de politic,I suggest.
Stay with the same name inheriting all the fobiles of the ...?
The public has been bombarded that the NDP is an adversary ,not a friendly group,by the negative cant of the Campbellites,pity.

I do see the relevance of a combined progressive voice seekinf common ground and agreeing to a few key elements. Many voters would see this as a way to keep the parties honest, just as federally the NDP does have a significant voice when it comes to pushing for our progressive issues. The most immediate common ground is MVP voting system and a commitment to hold a referendum on the implementation of a more progressive electoral system. The environment is another key commanality because despite our economic viewpoints many British Columbians do recognize that the environment is no longer a fringe isssue.The environment must begin to be given top priority in all decisions because it has such a direct impact on every aspect of our lives.The NDP would have a much easier time working with Greens than we would working with the pro-life corporate Social Conservatives taking over the Liberal party. Considering the Liberals abysmal environmental record starting with the ignorant dismantling of the Ministry of Environment most Greens do recognize that bC cannot afford another Campbell mandate. The NDP has an obligation to show the Greens that we will truly work towards an electoral system that will create the ability for this very necessary party to finally get a seat at the table and begin to give all British Columbians true choices come elections. We truly do have a window of oppurtunity,please let us not squander it do to our ego's,BC needs our help.

It's a wee bit late in the game for a tiny gender-specific group to begin trying to repaint the parade float.

From my understanding every NDP constituency has already nominated their candidates. I would assume the Greens are well along in the process as well.

For some last minute Lizzies to come along and imply they will try to hijack the process if either party doesn't conceed to their wishes is a bit much.

It sounds like sour grapes by various groups who failed to get their favourite politicals nominated and so now they are going to throw wrenches into party gears by announcing who they think is best suited to represent both parties.

I'm sure Gordon Campbell will be pleased.

Budd Campbell, I realize you think the only pressure on news media is from its advertisers who demand this and that and get it.

I agree advertizers certainly do that, but it isn't the only factor that motivates publishers, editors and, sadly, reporters.

Don't like the term conspiracy then how about mutual hatred for a political party that doesn't bend over for the corporate or private sector.

To suggest that Can/west, David Black's chain of tri-weeklies and weekies and the remnants of Conrad Blacks former Hollinger empire still lingering in BC are not anti New Democrat is silly in the extreme and sounds like the start of a campaign of shrill denial.

Bud, the Sun, Province, Global TV, the Time Colonists and all those small Black papers are consistantly anti-NDP.

Not a conspiracy.? Working independently to keep the Liberals in power? I can buy that.

Please, if you know of some, could you name me any newspapers that provide a balance in their political news coverage, editorial positions, stance of the majority of their columnists in BC?

Most of them are still trotting out the old fudgit-budget bullshit five years after the Supreme Court threw that stuff in the garbage.

Glen Clark made the front page of every newspaper in BC when police and BCTV raided his home.

Each of them then went on for months about a scandal that, again, the courts finally got to look at before tossing it in the trash can as well, but then perhaps you were reading BC newspapers and simply missed the story of his aquittal.

I wonder what method of capital punishment would have been editorialized about in BC's media had Clark simply hopped a plane to Hawaii and got stinking drunk before lurching down an urban highway in a two-tonne SUV.

Few of the so-called balanced, and objective news outlets, have yet to acknowledge the NDP's last two budgets were balanced and carried surplusses. Why>

There is only one party that has, as you say "full media backup" and it's name is Liberal.

An interpretive note to allan

Its imperative that as many GREENS who feel that they can, VOTE NDP this time. Our number one priority is too get rid of this shameless bunch of corporate henchmen/traitors before they destroy everything. Today they announced there will be no full debate on their budget and they will disolve the legislature on Thursday. WHAT A DISGRACE!!!!!!!! This province has turned into little more than a banana republic.
Rome was not built in a day so GREENS must approach this upcoming election in a pragmatic fashion.
If the NDP dont live up to their environmental promises we will pressure them in every way possible.
OTHERWISE WE CANNOT RISK ANOTHER TERM OF CROOKS LIKE CAMPBELL AND HIS SELF-SERVING NEO-CON CRONIES. VOTE NDP VOTE NDP VOTE NDP VOTE NDP

oh boy, i can't wait! the socialist hordes and the greenies hand in hand. what to do about forestry and mining, which are predominantly well-paying union jobs? this should be fun. maybe we'll get solar-powered fast ferries and the elimination of all traffic in the city of vancouver!

It's nice for the NDP and Greens to promise to hold a referendum on a progressive electoral system, but we're already having that. Under STV, this whole Broad Coalition business is moot, because it puts an end to vote splitting. But, if you wish to continue to allow Gordon Campbell and his successors to hold the whole province, including more moderate right-wing voters, hostage while progressives continue to split their vote, by all means vote against it.

I don't agree with Mr. Schulmann when he says
"At most about 10 seats would have been taken from the Liberals, making the split 67 to 12. "The opposition might have been a little bit better," he says. "It wouldn't have made any difference to how we're governed right now.""

The Parliamentary system is governance by theatre. The more actors you have in the legislature, the better your theatre, the more influence you have. Twelve MLAs can hold off the government a lot longer than two. The Liberals wouldn't have done as much as they did, if there were a bigger Opposition. Also the Opposition would have had some significant resources. Yes, a lot of Liberal legislation would have been passed... but not as much as we got.

To form a government, you've gotta be unified. To oppose a government, ditto.

I don't agree with Mr. Schulmann when he says
"At most about 10 seats would have been taken from the Liberals, making the split 67 to 12. "The opposition might have been a little bit better," he says. "It wouldn't have made any difference to how we're governed right now.""

The Parliamentary system is governance by theatre. The more actors you have in the legislature, the better your theatre, the more influence you have. Twelve MLAs can hold off the government a lot longer than two. The Liberals wouldn't have done as much as they did, if there were a bigger Opposition. Also the Opposition would have had some significant resources. Yes, a lot of Liberal legislation would have been passed... but not as much as we got.

To form a government, you've gotta be unified. To oppose a government, ditto.

Bold begone

It is unfortunate that Andrew McLeod didn't check in with Broad Coalition spokesperson Susan Clarke over the last 4 weeks since the interview. Things are changing rapidly as the election nears. The Broad Coalition has changed its focus. When it became clear that both NDP and Greens were firmly set on running a full slate of candidates, the Broad Coalition changed tack and embarked on a different approach:
1. Polling key constituencies where vote splitting could get a Liberal in
2. Designating those constituencies for vote-pairing and strategic voting (see www.broadcoalition.net).
Something needs to be done to prevent another Liberal majority government after May. Considering all this government has done in its first term to wreak havoc on our civil society, can you imagine what they would do if they were elected again?! More tax cuts, more privatization, more poverty, more deregulation etc. etc.! The Broad Coalition is working for a positive alternative. Does anyone have a better idea?

I did check in with Susan Clarke last week. She did say the coalition was moving into strategic voting and endorsing candidates. That's mentioned in the piece, though admittedly it is not the focus.

 

The goal is to knock Gordon Campbell's government down and take back the province of British Columbia.

If the NDP and the Greenies can negotiate a co-operative election plan to do that, wow, what a wonderful day it will be on May 18.

Perhaps I'm naive, but I don't think either party has to give up any of their principles in order to work together for the benefit of the people.

Back in June of 2002 I apprached Ms MacPhail in a public forum, with Ms Carr and Mr Chudnovsky present, with this exact same idea, to strategically place candidates in order to defeat the Liberals.
Ms MacPhail poo-poo'd the idea as decieving the voters, Mr Chudnovsky didn't raise himself to support it and Ms Carr said she was open to ideas.
As long as the NDP come to the Greens with membership forms in hand and call it "co-operation" there will never be any co-operation of any kind.
In our current voting system the only way to cooperate to assimilate, as the Liberals did with the remnants of the Socreds. As the NDP sink, which I beleive inevitably they will, the remnants of the NDP will be assimilated in to the Greens.
Timeline approx 10-15 years or sooner.

However, if we change the way we vote on May 17th, amicable cooperation will arrive sooner rather forcibly later....

"solar-powered fast ferries and the elimination of all traffic in the city of vancouver!"

Cool. How long till we have those and who do I have to vote for?

why would anyone in their right mind want the ndp under carole james and jim sinclair back in power? do you people realize that the 1990's were the first time in the history of this wonderful province that there was a negative net migration? the ndp are best suited to opposition, both provincially and federally. their ideas are naive, simplistic and unrealistic. historically, however, they have done a good job of holding the governing party's feet to the fire. best case scenario in may would see them winning 25 - 30 seats and providing a second voice in the house. forget the greens, adrianne carr has no idea what the word 'economy' means, and absolutely no understanding of its' impact on the health of the province.

Some folks have a knee-jerk reaction to socialism. Why? It works in Scandanavia. Why can't it work here. Capitalism is a serious problem for long-term sustainability, and if that isn't evident, then please remove you blinders. The health of the province is not measured in solely in economic terms. Naivity is obviously alive and well, and certainly not the exclusive domain of the left-minded citizen.

Why is more people moving here always a good thing? I'd rather our provincial growth figures went up because we were more productive, not because we have more people.

It might also be nice for people who can't afford a home to see house prices become a little more affordable.

And if some of those currently buying a house here are soon-to-be-seniors or have reached the magic age already aren't they more of a burden than a benefit?

As for the Green party, I like the idea of the Greens but only STV may save them from eventual extinction like so many parties before them.

In fact, I think there should be more parties. That way all of us lefties wouldn't have to try to get along with each other as we're crammed under the NDP umbrella :) Well I'm off to a meeting of the Judaen People's Front.

ian gregson, the Liberals didn't do anything with the remnants of the Socreds. It was the other way around.

A whole bunch of lifelong (former) Socreds crawled out from under the party's tattered and soiled reputation and happened upon a healthy little Liberal party with a relatively clean image, but not very secure leadership.

Ryan Fugger, quit acting like a Pro-STV Referendum zealot and find another showcase to spread your SPAM in. Write a letter to the Vancouver Sun or something, but don't afflict us with more inane comments about the restorative powers of STV. I'll bet some of your fellow STVers are already out chasing ambulances, knowing there's a captive audience.
I can just hear the conversation now, "You wouldn't have all those major injuries if we had STV in place, blah, blah . . ."

As everyone knows, griper is wrong when he states that "the 1990's were the first time in the history of this wonderful province that there was a negative net migration". There was net migration to other provinces during the early 1980s, the era of the Bill Bennett Restraint Recession as well as in the late 1990s and early 2000s. The difference was that in the latter period, international immigration remained fairly strong, with more than 30,000 immigrants coming to BC each year. And you know something? I don't think any of this is news to griper, either!

frank; it is almost impossible for an economy to grow without immigration. period. and as for being more productive without growth, that will never happen if the big labour unions rule again.

mrmr; a healthy province is only possible with a good economy. period. with a good economy comes more jobs. jobs are everything. study the examples of germany and japan before unemployment reared its ugly head. even clinton, who stood for nothing, had it right on that count.

The party that takes on the growing crime and addiction issue will get the support of many citizens of BC. Fear and security is becoming a major problem. The opening up of liquor regs., closing penal institutions and courthouses plus reducing police budgets, certainly has not been a benefit to the average citizen.

griper, agreed. However, that doesn't make "growth" some great thing. Adding more people to a limited living space will eventually be a problem and thus "growth" will eventually be the problem, not the solution. So that's why I don't care about growth figures based on population, its not a positive.

Anyway, what exactly about the examples of Germany and Japan? I know them pretty well.

Griper, the posters on this site hate the thought of a strong economy and people actually working for themselves. Their only wish is to have a shrinking economy so everybody can rely on the government for every need. Why work hard and make sacrifices in your life when you can live off government handouts? It’s much easier that way. Low unemployment is regarded as inhumane. Most people in these boards feel a growing public sector facilitates real economic growth. When all it really does is create dependance on government handouts.

"It is almost impossible for an economy to grow without immigration," griper tells us.

Gee, but doesn't that then mean that griper's real wealth producers, those "free-enterprize" heros who employ the alchemists and wizzards of the world, but hate paying a dime in taxes, are on an even playing field, no more productive than all those lazy public sector workers and managers who at least try to ensure everyone gets a minimal share of the wealth from this country's resource?

One question griper: How do you factor sustainable practices under your theory or are you arguing that those with wealth just pig out until we're all dead?

Way to misrepresent the posters on this board JIm. can you point to one person here who said they wish to see a shrinking economy? Is this the best you can do JIm?

a thriving economy does not necessarily mean unsustainability, which is what the ndp could never fathom. as a result they shut down mining and crippled forestry with their ridiculous regulations. now the private sector unionists face a dilemna; to vote for a party that will shut them down again, or to vote for the capitalist-pig liberals who have implemented policies that have put them back to work. that's why jim sinclair has absolutely no chance of winning the next election, those guys will vote with their wallets. they're working now and there's food on the table. they're able to put their kids in skating and guitar lessons and maybe buy a new vehicle etc. they're also paying taxes, which are going back into gov't programs.

allan; your naivete is shocking. the 'free-enterprise heros' pay more taxes, employ more people, and stimulate more small 'mom and pop' businesses than any government ever will. this really isn't that complicated guys. you need to stop believing the rhetoric and travel around this wonderful province to see what's really going on. commercial drive gives you a very limited perspective.
jim; kudos to you for hitting the nail on the head!

It goes without question for those who haven't been totally co-opted by the cultural imperative to accquire, acquire and acquire even more, that in a finite valley in a finite province in a finite world, that things cannot go on as they have done.

The Greens, bless their naive and idealistic hearts, is the only party to have seriously addressed our devastating rush to oblivion. Liberals don't give a damn--their having too much fun getting stinking rich, the NDP can't--for fear of offending the big unions who have a vested interest in big business, so that leaves the Greens.

In my opinion it's a no-brainer, left or right, the thinking person has to support Green. It's too bad that so few people take the time to really think.

So the problem is with the voters rather than the party? It's just the stupid masses who aren't enlightened enough to get the Greens? I understand the point your making pfrovtar, but I wouldn't be so quick to condemn the masses. To tell you the truth, I haven't voted green in the past because I never been able to figure out their platform (beyond the environmental)

I realize that the Greens don't get the same press as the other two big parties, but last election I heard Adrian Carr speak on more than one occasion, on more than one talk show and I was never able to understand what their platform was, or how it would be implemeted. All I heard was vague answers about how we can do better. It was like she was afraid to put it out there lest she scare off any of the NDP voters who were parking their vote with them. I'm sure the Greens have a vision, maybe this go around there'll do a better job of informing us, the stupid voters, about it.

Sorry, should read "implemented" above

"that's why jim sinclair has absolutely no chance of winning the next election"

Am I missing something? I didn't know Mr. Sinclair was a candidate in this election.

Griper,I understand that more taxes are paid by rank and file workers who don't have perky write offs, tax deductable southern holidays and a whole shitload of other (oh, let's not call them subsidies), writeoffs and incentives from our government.

I'd urge you to get your nose out of those dated Ayn Rand fantacies and pay attention to the real world.

Hey, griper, Budd Campbell says above that you mis-spoke yourself when you said "the 1990's were the first time in the history of BC that there was a negative net migration". He mentions 3 other time periods recently when this occurred. But you haven't responded to his posting. Would you please do so, or risk being seen as not too credible in future? Thanks, old chum!

stump; if you think jim sinclair doesn't run the ndp then you need to do more research.
allan; who provides the employment for the 'rank and file' workers? and without incentives from the gov't there would be no industry. even buzz hargrove understands that.
james; budd is simply wrong. check the numbers over the 10 year period. the ndp put this wonderful province in a hole that we will be spending at least 2 more years trying to dig ourselves out of.

That may be Griper, but I don't hear you saying that B.C.'s biggest development companies are running for the Liberals. Are you putting out facts, opinion, or spin?

stump; why look at companies and corporations as bogeymen? that's exactly the kind of rhetoric i'm talking about. they employ and provide. and from there comes everything else.

I am very tired of hearing how the NDP is in the pocket of big unions. BIG UNIONS! What a joke! You mean democratic groups of working people trying to protect themselves from a viscious attack by the right wing, don't you? And you all know very well that the initial statement is a complete lie.

If you haven't taken you head out of your rich, fat ass for awhile you will be surprised by the actual details of said "control" over the NDP. The percentange of the NDP's income that is provided by organized working people is 10% or less and the BC LIBERALS get approximately 90% of their income from a few corporations. All the rest of the NDP's income is from individuals, you know, the middle class, which we won't have anymore if the right-wing gets its way.

There are soooo many parrots of the CANWEST LIE MACHINE, you would think the whole thing was reversed. It is the NDP who are working for the environment, hospitals, etc and it is the LIBERALS that are working to remove all the hard won rights of workers and protections for the elderly and the sick.

Its not just social policies that the NDP support either. Take a look at ICBC, for instance. Concieved and created by the BCNDP and years later still stands like a monument to sanity and fair treatment for all. It is also doing extremely well financially, which allows it to keep rates low for......big unions? No, the rates are kept affordable for you and me and our parents and children. Ask people in other provinces and the united states what they think of ICBC. You will find them stunned at the suggestion we dismantle it, and I guarantee that if the LIBERALS are re-elected in BC it will be dismantled.

Why don't we bring up the fast ferries again? I mean, after all, it was a great target for the CANWEST liars. It was an attempt to build an industry for BC that would provide needed ferries and jobs and income for the government to provide other services for the taxpayers (and btw, I don't really believe that the wake of a couple of ferries was going to wash away the shoreline of islands that sit on the Pacific Ocean!!). Its just another example of how the CANWEST liars distort the truth and then repeat lies over and over until they are given credibility by Joe public remembering "oh yeah, I've heard that from a lot of people".

What have the LIBERALS done to make us feel that they are so much more competent? Hmmm, lets see, they just sold BCRAIL for pennies by comparison to the income the rail line is making for its new owners. That alone loses BC approximately 600million a year in income (check the latest prices for transporting coal and check the new owners vastly increased dividends, which they state are directly related to BCRAIL).

This is getting too long :), but you get the idea. Its the NDP who has a better financial track record in serving the people of BC. The only voice that says thats not true is the voice of.....BIG CORPORATIONS! Oh, I guess we are back to the beginning of this little tirade again...

Sorry, griper, but your bias is showing.

You want us to believe the NDP are charlatans, and corporations are benevolent institutions dedicated to providing opportunities for all, but if anything, the facts suggest the opposite.

griper, who provides the production for the employer that allows him or her to profit as well as to enjoy the perks of life and government largesse that workers miss out on?

Your apparent weak understanding of realities beyond the chamber of commerce-style rhetoric is spilling through in all your posts on this issue.

BTW, Commercial Drive is a nice place to visit with small businesses providing great dining and affordable entertainment options for many.

But then, they don't get the same nice subsidies that, say, fish farm operators get from our Liberal government.

I'll hazard to guess the views from the fish pens are just rosy so there is no reason for a province-wide tour to see how profits are generated through political connections.

That is already blatently obvious.

griper, who provides the production for the employer that allows him or her to profit as well as to enjoy the perks of life and government largesse that workers miss out on?

Your apparent weak understanding of realities beyond the chamber of commerce-style rhetoric is spilling through in all your posts on this issue.

BTW, Commercial Drive is a nice place to visit with small businesses providing great dining and affordable entertainment options for many.

But then, they don't get the same nice subsidies that, say, fish farm operators get from our Liberal government.

I'll hazard to guess the views from the fish pens are just rosy so there is no reason for a province-wide tour to see how profits are generated through political connections.

That is already blatently obvious.

Not only do they employ- they influence the BC Liberal party via their donations. What we do need in this province is legislation to ban donations from corporations and unions. People are the ones that vote, so only individuals should have the right to donate. As far as BC being in a hole, the last 3+ years have dug us further . Griper, you may be ok with crap like Accenture running BC Hydro ( donor to Liberals), Sodexho, Aramark, Compass, running the show in hospitals, BC Rail sold to American owned company,(CN-donor to BC Liberals),(deal exempt from Freedom of information),BC Ferries exempt from freedom of information, ec,etc,etc, but their are more than a few of us that aren`t ok with this kind of secrecy,and favoritism to donors. I could care less if it is the NDP, Greens, "Liberals", or the ABC party doing it- its not ok, and if our friend Campbell gets another shot at governing it will be too late. To sum up, and keep within the subject of this post, if we collectively want to keep Campbell out of office, it will be necessary to stick together and vote for one party. Divided we fall.

The nasty infighting that the Greens have engaged in over the STV system - evidence of much of it, unfortunately, pops up here any time a story even mentions STV - makes it impossible for anyone to take any talk of "cooperation" seriously. Why would they be able to meaningfully cooperate with other parties when they can't even cooperate internally?

Media the issue? You bet. Allan, the advertisers to not give a GD crap about the slant of the media. The only issue is circulation. I.E., market share. And with the evident concentration of media ownership, that is noe competition, the outcome is predictable.

I voted Green in the last election, and I shall do so in the next one. If the Greens don't run a candidate in my constituency, I shall undertake to draft a "New Green" candidate. The NDP sells out to big labour, and the Liberals sell out to big business. I may as well stick with my principles and sleep better a night, rather than hypocritically vote "strategically" for whichever candidate I despise least.

Edward. Could you please support your statement of 'NDP sells out to big labour'. I hear this all the time, and wonder what exactly you feel the sell out was.

Under the Libs, we pay more taxes than ever. Our income has stagnated, and there is never enough money for extras. User fees, doubling of MSP premiums along with numerous other higher prices, people simply need to make more money to get by. This is why unions go for raises in salary. Why is this considered evil? Really, if government kept our taxes at a reasonable level and stopped nickel and diming us to death (which is a favorite Liberal tactic), then perhaps that might reduce the pressure for high wage increases. Today we are all just trying to keep things the same and not feel as though we are losing ground.

Don't worry Edward we will be there for ya :-)

Okay, since I got punted the first time, I'll try again. Andrew why are you quoting a liberal hack (Shulmann, who worked as a liberal campaign manager) as though he were a political analyst. There are many people who have far more education and experience that can be drawn on for information, rather than a man just looking to advertise his Liberal-friendly p.r. firm. I'm not sure why the Tyee would buy a story that uses such questionable sources, and I'm quite disappointed.

According to BC Stats: http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/data/pop/popstart.htm

BC net migration for the years the NDP was in power (1991-2001:

International|Interprovincial|Total
1991/92 27,512 38,004 65,516
1992/93 33,966 40,099 74,065
1993/94 43,769 37,871 81,640*
1994/95 38,609 29,291 67,900
1995/96 40,571 22,025 62,596
1996/97 45,802 9,880 57,942
1997/98 27,982 -10,029 19,898
1998/99 27,055 -14,484 14,075
1999/00 27,670 -14,610 15,521
2000/01 34,184 - 8,286 28,441
* government data different on two different reports

As you can see, people who say that migration was negative during the NDP are either lying or just plain ignorant. The facts state the opposite. In fact, inder the NDP in the early to mid 90s, BC saw the biggest population growth in sheer numbers in its history. Anyone who is conscious and aware who lived in BC during this time knows that we experience a boom in the early 90s in the economy and population.

It was only in the late 90s that the interprovincial migration turned negative and the international migration slowed down. This was due in large part to international economic factors, the Asian flu to be precise, which BC's economy depends heavily on. The rest of Canada was in recession in the early 90s save Alberta, but the late 90s boom in the US economy turned things around there. As a result, people flooded to BC in the early 90s, and went back to the ROC in the late 90s.

Since the Asian economy is back roaring again thanks in large part to China, BC's export based economy is doing better economically in the past few years and migration numbers show this as well. It's not because of the Libs or NDP necessarily that we prosper or stagnate, although their policies do have an effect.

But if you compare how things were going in the 90s to the 2000s, there's no way you can say the NDP ruined the province and the Libs are saving it. It's just ridiculous. The economy is doing better now despite the attempts of the Libs to ruin it by privatising everything and allow all our mills to close and ship raw logs down to the states. Despite the economic and population pick up, the standard of living for4 working people has clearly declined in BC in the past 4 years, while the rich have benefitted greatly. That's what it amounts to.

Good post on those numbers Art Vandelay, far too often people spout off about statistics and numbers without the URL's to back it up.

As for you Griper.....lets talk about political philosophy for a sec, forget about all of your crappy examples. Which system is better? On the one hand we have socialism, which in perfection would eliminate poverty, provide free universal health care and education, and ensure that everyone was part a highly productive society working towards the betterment of all. Capatalism on the other hand is a very selfish system, hmmm maybe why its so popular in North America, in perfection it would reward the greedy few and punish those who are average, we would pay for all services and there would be a very skimpy social safety net.

Forget all of your bullshit and past examples that are never backed up with any statistics or real numbers, with URL's I might add. Because it makes sense even a simpleton would be able to see which system is better.

Damn spelling mistakes, capitalism!

socialism doesn't work geek, because there's no such thing as perfection. again, it's a naive concept. study history once in a while. as for socialism in this province. what a bloody joke that is! just who are your socialists geek? glen clark, joy macphail, moe sihota? by the way, my wife says hi.

Hey griper, I found something I can agree on with you....had to search a bit b ut you are right, there is no such thing as perfection. Until the greedy join ranks with the caregivers there will always be a left and a right. Perhaps the only political perfection there could be is the struggle itself out of which we arrive at a middle road despite ourselves. For myself a society based on profit to fund care for its citizens is infinitely superior to one that marginalizes most of its population for the benefit of a few. I'll vote NDP...

What? Greens? NDP?

What ur yoo takin' about? The Liberals and the economy are going great guns!

The Greens and the NDP? C'mon! The Liberals and the economy are going great guns!

Again Griper, your using crappy examples and rhetoric at an attempt to make a point. People always say socialism doesn't work just look at its history. The decline and fall of socialist states, I believe you're referring to Russia, was caused by many factors and cannot be blamed on socialism or in this case communism. How about the United States, the bastion of capitalism, which bankrupted itself with record setting military spending during the cold war. Oh yes just wait the U.S crash is coming and many economists would agree, they have record debt as a country and personal and its not even a concern. Why? Because its too late and everyone with even a small sense of economics see's this. So maybe we'll be able to continue this talk in say 10 or 15 years when the US and Canadian economy's have crashed and Cuba is still trucking along with more wealth than us.

I will post once again one of my favourite quotes
"history will absolve me" Fidel Castro

the hypocrisy of the left is unequalled. you claim to respect rights and freedoms and in the same breath revere fidel castro. pathetic.

"socialism doesn't work geek, because there's no such thing as perfection."

In it's place you suggest the warm blanket of capitalism perhaps, with its less than enviable track record on compassion? You do remember compassion?

Capitalism isn't working. Communism failed for the same reasons capitalism does. Old fashioned greed. Seems a mixed system (what I consider socialism) might have some use in curbing the excesses of the two extremes.

That's what I think, but I'm more interested in knowing what your solution is Griper.

the solution is too simple for you stumpy. zero unemployment.

How are you going to make that happen?

strong economic policy, a sustainability policy, reduced taxes for all, especially low income earners, incentives for the anti-work culture (been to denman st. lately?) to contribute, and lots more. difficult but possible. achievement, production and contribution make people feel fulfilled. whining about the gov't and waiting for more handouts does not. there's more, of course, but time restricts. have a nice sunday.

The hypocracy of the right is unequalled. You claim to respect rights and freedoms and in the same breath revere george w bush. Dangerous!

who said anything about george w.? the so-called 'right' in canada is probably as closely linked to the democrats as the republicans. why do the so-called 'progressives' insist on using these ridiculous cliches? woodstock is old news guys. get into the 21st century.

griper, I agree it was a "ridiculous cliche". I pretty much borrowed the whole damn thing from your cliched post above.

I mentioned George W. and if your think right-wing Canadians are closer to American politicans than us lefties, that's just honkey-dory with me. In fact, I'd certainly agree.

Woodstock, who said anything about Woodstock? Throw away your love beads and roach clip and start paying attention griper.

how can one person miss the point so often allan?
i hope you're under twenty.

Actually Griper it is you who misses the point, and I hope that your a grumpy old man or woman because I don't think you understand my generation. Things are changing and people are realizing that "contributing" to an economy which exploits poor nations and destroy's the environment is about as depressing as it gets. What are your thoughts on Fair Trade, surely this isn't sustainable in a low tax competitive economy which you seem to love.

I support higher taxes and better services, free health care and education. I dare any political party to have the nerve and ambition to stand for those things and then I might actually get excited about voting.

sounds nice geek, and that's sincere, but higher taxes and free everything doesn't work. you're giving the average joe too much credit. he needs personal incentives to work hard and produce. socialsism fails for two basic reasons; the achievers feel bitter about supporting everyone else, and the lesser-lites are allowed to become complacent. too much mediocrity in your society. i'm not preaching, just observing. it's healthy to be idealistic when you're young, but eventually you must recognize reality and work within that framework, in which case you do your best to contribute to society in any way you can. volunteer in your community, get involved in politics, etc.

Oh Griper I recognize reality all to well and that's the problem. We are destroying ourselves in a race to the bottom, "He who dies with the most toys wins" mentality. We have the world's superpower (the US) with their crash-course-with-a-brick-wall-economy, the environment is approaching catastrophic failure, and there are marginalized people all over the world and this is mainly due to greed.

Why do people talk down to those who are idealistic, why should I settle for mediocrity (something you have argued against)? I'll never understand why I should accept a bullshit existing framework, its broken but its okay because that's the way it is. I'll always be idealistic with the knowledge that things don't have to be the way they are.

And another thing...if socialism breeds complacency and bitterness than capitalism breeds nothing more than greed and self-rightousness and I'll say that for two reasons:

1. Robson Street - I mean c'mon now
2. The SUV - I need it in case it snows and I deserve it because I work hard, screw the environment.

griper, I certainly am not missing the point. I see it clearly. It's sitting on, no it is your head.

You are a pathetic, small pointy-minded (as in neither very creative nor even funny) who, whether you realize it or not, carries that dunce cap on your peak permanently.

But right now, I'm not certain if you are simply stupid or if you are mad because you have finally clued in people are laughing at what you write.

You're about the 400th fool to come onto the Tyee telling readers why you just know capitalist greed is best. And you can't even deliver an original argument. We've heard all you wisdom before.

Look, I realize this is may sound like tough love, but I think you ought to know Jean Binnete has shown more smarts than you and at least has a sense of humour.

In fact you are dumber than all these other tittering nervous Liberal Nellies who now regularly show up under the right wing of Norman Spector like so many little ducks keepin' close to mother.

oh well done allan. i hope i recover from this sound tongue-lashing. i'm sure it will affect my life. actually i'm quite creative and very funny. i'm also arrogant, very intelligent and don't suffer fools gladly. at least you've proven that you really are under twenty. wasn't it churchill? 'if you're not a liberal when you're twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative when you're fourty you have no brains.' fight the power man!

oh well done allan. i hope i recover from that sound tongue-lashing. i'm sure it will affect my life tremendously. actually i'm quite creative and very funny. i'm also extremely intelligent and arrogant, therefore i don't suffer fools gladly. at least you've proven that you really are under twenty, in some ways at least. wasn't it churchill who said; 'if you're not a liberal when you're twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative when you're fourty you have no brain.' it may have been someone else, but i'm sure you'll correct me if i'm wrong. i'm counting on it.

griper, I don't live my life according to tired cliches and I find people who have to use to them to try to make points anything but creative, funny or very intelligent.

We already had you pegged for arrogant and now we know why you would be, given your lack of the brights. It's because you are a fool.

But we have learned to humour your type until you get bored and return to your comic book.

oh allan you've outdone yourself this time. give me a call when you're fourty, or conservative, whichever comes first. in the meantime enjoy the landslide victory on may 17th.
at least you'll get four, or more likely eight, more years of whining to the gov't about all your mundane little problems. or maybe the prospect of eight more years of rule by the neo-con boogeymen will be enough to prompt you to move to somewhere more suitable, like holland or france. bonne chance mon ami.

And you're also a pimp who's sold out your own students, graper...do you EVER have the guts, even once to tell parents concerned about the damage the bc liars have done to public education that you support these filthy little backstabbers? No, huh...??

you're finally right about something hombre. i would never tell parents that the libs have damaged education, because i prefer to tell the truth, and the education system in this province is in great shape. have a nice day pal.

Why do you guys have to resort to slagging one and another when your "ideas" - ideology(?) aren't accepted by others? I specifically refer to allan & griper. It's boring and pointless, and is exemplary of the lack of imagination and tolerance that are so pervasive in this sad, cold society.

Further your spelling either reflects the uncaring venom with which you sling insults at each other, or it reflects your lack of attention to what you do period. Either way, it ruins any credibility in anything you say. I personally learned that four times ten equals forty - not "fourty".

I have to agree- give it a rest.