So please, someone explain what is going on here.

The Liberals have admitted using old protection-style methods, once preferred by street mobsters, to wring money out of towns, Indian Bands non-profit agencies etc.

They say it was a mistake. Please someone explain how a government economic development session can morph into a Liberal fundraiser under the watchful eye of bean counters like the former finance minister Gary Collins who fled in a turbo-prop before the stinky stuff hit the propellers.

Why didn't Mikey Campbell explain to his bro the dangers of such economic opportunism?

But now they are calling on the election watchdogs to conduct a complete review of election donations.

Does this mean these same Liberals didn't understand that when they slashed Elections BC's budget such a task would be painful if no impossible?

So I'm left to think that the Liberals are either really much dumber than most thought or they fully understand its all about rhetoric and will say anything to cling to power when caught with their fingers in the cookie jar.

It is a familiar theme with these BC Liberals, cut the budget of the watchdogs so they are unable to do their job while promoting themselves as the most transparent government ever. Seeing no evil doesn’t meant mean there is no evil to be seen.

The liberals have prescribed to the concept that perceptions are more important than truth, and they are in no rush to correct anybody. This may backfire as the misinformed tend to tie the BC Liberals with the scandal plagued federal Liberals. Certainly the BC liberals would be a lot more scandal hued if the media were not party affiliates.

There should be a strong non-partisan and independent committee that exposes media bias and reigns in the offenders. Having a well funded elections monitor means nothing if the media will bury the results behind car crashes.

As for the Tyee, where people have complained that the bias leans far too much in the NDP's favour, I say this is required to balance out the Liberal bias in the mainstream media.

The media should be a pillar of democracy, not a propaganda machine, which it has become under consolidated ownership.

Invitation only democracy? Stick it to all the corruptible parties by voting yes for STV.

"The responsibility falls on the parties to make sure their donations are in accordance with the law."

Sounds similar to the condo builders to police themselves. We all are too familiar how that turned out.

I don't trust any organization, political or otherwise, to police itself.

Definitely a Yes to STV for me :)

Where can I sign up to help investigate these shysters for free?

Perhaps Gordo could let us also pay our income taxes voluntarily. We could police ourselves...

The donations were a mistake? I suppose that makes sense when you consider that Gordon Campbell's drunk driving was also described as a mistake!

I am voting yes to STV, though I recognize that it has its flaws.

If enough of us vote yes there will be an opportunity to fix any flaws of a proportional representational electoral system.

Or perhaps do away with poliotical parties all together and just have independents run for office-once elected thay will have to figure out how to rule by consensus-as the northwest territories governmnet does.

Knowing how spiteful some of the commentary is on this site I apologize for my poor typing skills.

It is the thought that counts!

Jean Binette writes: Finally, not a mention of "fiberal" (sic).

Gordon Campbell's drunk driving was a "mistake" and the Liberal's have never admitted anything Allan.

Freebear, you typing is certainly as good as mine and at least a few others who frequent this site.

I share your appreciation for a good consensus based form of decision making as well.

I try to pay attention to things that happen in Nunavut, Canada's third Territory and another consensus-based government sans the party structure that can get in the way of logic at the best of times.

Unfortunately, I think, our world is becoming a little too complicated in most areas to afford the time and insightful debate that is required to reach consensus.

I am not saying our current adversarially political divides offer any less potential peril.

They're only saving grace is the ability to force a decision within a timeframe.

Efficient, but lacking any stamp of acceptence by those who will be impacted by the decisions.

Jean Binette writes: Allan, you should try to pay attention to what is happening here in British Columbia, or at least in Canada.

(It must have taken you hours to write the last post) and I'm sure a consensus ruling would call it a complete waste of time.

regards
your friend Binny.

Actually Binny, it took about 10 minutes and that included cleaning up most of my typos.

I can be a bit faster 'cause I don't have to run back to the party guys to learn what to say Binny. It must be a real pain for you.

But hey, so far you're right. Your the only person to respond so I guess it's consensus.

Sorta like how the Liberals hold public information or consultation meetings.

They can always be assured not to get divided opinion if they take the first one that comes along.

Sorry if I confused you about political process in other parts of Canada.

Jean Binette writes: I'm just sorry I confused you.

No wonder gordo was so eager to blame it elections bc. What a joke!!!

Howdy! wingnut

Quite frankly, I do agree with the need for a better checks an balances overview of governance.

What I disagree with is the methods that have been used by both the NDP and the BCLibs. The various Offices, Commissions etc. that are reporting to the Legislature are just that with very little power to do anything but report. The question is what happens to the report?

There are nuermous issues that have been identified in the past; some accepted most not?

What we need is some mechnism that requires full review and action of those reports. Do we need some entity, other than the elected to do this; maybe. Can we expand the functions of the Lieutant Governor?

Clearly a better system is required.

sdgreen, That's a good answer to allan's concerns.

There's two things about checks and balances that make them work.

First, they're systemic. They have to be automatic, kick in under their own structural authority whenever certain general things occur. Like the charter provides protection to whole classes of rights, which can be defended by anyone in an independent court. Or like Auditors, who are required to hold to an outside standard no matter what they're auditing at any given time.

Second, they're independent. Safe from interference by any of the parties. For example, when the Liberals didn't wish to be observed in their actions, they screwed up the Auditor General's office so bad they then were safe from that check.

The auditors and inspectors we had were pretty good. No party was corrupt enough to attack them until now. They should be restored, but also made safe from this kind of attack in future.

We could plug them into the same kind of independence as judges have. Remove their budgets or pay mechanisms from the control of the politicians. And make them unfireable by politicians too.

Just like judges can only be fired by other judges in open hearing, so should the checks and balances we need to protect Democracy be changeable only with great difficulty, and only in public forums like courts or referenda.