obviously the ndp can't go as green as they want b/c they're joined at the hip with several unions that depend on the economic development of the resource industries. that's a tough balancing act. catering to a myriad of special interest groups is not an easy task. at times their clashing mandates are bound to bite you in the arse.

"... that's a tough balancing act. catering to a myriad of special interest groups is not an easy task."

OKay, ... but tell me, sirjohna, do you really think the Liberals don't face the same division of opinion?

you're absolutely right budd. all political parties must be good jugglers. that's why politics is such a difficult proposition, but the federal liberals and the provincial ndp are in a league of their own. five knives at a time you might say.

Very well, sirjohna, what about Mr Harper's Conservatives? Will they have to face this dilemna, say on issues of climate change?

I agree completely with the Referendum Factor. I think a great opportunity to reduce disproportionate representation and improve democracy are being lost. There is nowhere near enough media coverage on the referendum. And there is barely any commentary from any of the political leaders.

Voters need to be educated about the choice that they have. I am not a big fan of preaching to people, but trying to inform people I know about the BC-STV referendum is something I feel quite passionate about.

perhaps it will take another election with same outcome for Green voters to realize that the Greens aren't going anywhere. Just as Conservatives infiltrated the Liberal party (and took over), the Greens could consider doing the same by joining the Liberals or the NDP, thereby getting their message across.

that's always possible budd. the libs and the ndp just worked one out. wilfrid laurier was a master of compromise, but not always to his advantage. sometimes both sides love you and sometimes both sides hate you. as far as the federal scene goes, the liberals may get bit in the arse by their ethnic vote that has kept them in power for so long b/c they generally do not favour same-sex marriage. it's always a difficult juggle. as much as we all love to dis' politicians, they can have it.

Budd, your perspective on Foy's anger at Clark ("more like basic BC political sociology. . "),
is the best read lately on the ever-shifting sands between social activists on the left and what is described as the progressives or red tories on the right.

For every cause that can unite them (clean, safe drinking water), another (tax reductions for industry) will tear them apart.

Foy's dislike for Clark and "industrial unions", as he describes resource-based unions, does suggest a certain amount of irrational hatred better directed at the real culprits rather than hourly paid workers.

One shouldn't forget that Clark managed to dedicate quite a bit of B.C. as protected parks before he was finished.

Foy may not appreciate that, but I and many others certainly did.

In the past four years much of that protection has been ripped clean off that parkland.

I'm disappointed Foy, who should understand long term strategy and display at least some vestage of reality, is out there helping get the Liberals elected again by splitting the anti-Liberal vote.

I can only hope the real progressives on the Green side are more intent in stopping Liberal destruction than registering a meaningless protest vote.

Allan, I certainly do think that environmentalists in BC have had a lean four years. What is worse, so has Mother Nature herself! The notion of self-regulating resource industries is actually kind of funny, provided you don't think there's any real damage being done.

One of the strangest bits of BC politics and it's extreme tendency not for division, but for strange bedfellows, had to do with FRBC. When the Liberals came to power and liquidated the agency, old rivals Joe Foy and Dave Haggard (yes, Dave Haggard the Liberal Star Candidate, along with Ujjal Dosanjh and Shirley Chan) were both quoted in the newspapers basically saying, "Hey, ... fine by me, good bye and good riddance". I think that episode more than any other convinced me that we have players in this province who richly deserve each other. The only loser is the general public and the public interest.

Budd, I'm going to predict that Ujjal Dosanjh will finish his political career serving as an unelected conservative senator.

Budd, Allan: Thank You for rising to the point about Glen Clark, who I rather like.

Remember Glen's show-down with the U.S. over salmon fisheries? And the Nanoose debacle?

As for Unions, what's with Joe Foy? I surely wouldn't want to live in a country without them looking after working conditions, fair contracts, on-the-job injuries.

I hope Glen writes his own book someday. Meantime, I think Ujjal is the boy to watch. Ujjal failed to provide Glen with some critical information around the time of the Back Porch Shoot-Out ... can't remember what the info was ... but when an Attorney-General withholds data from the Premier ... then jumps into the Premier's chair ... and then pretty much throws the next election to the Fiberals ... well, I can see his payoff looming as he eventually becomes an unelected conservative senator, as allan says ... and I think Glen definitely has a book that needs writing.

A Glen Clark Fan Club? Even now when he works for the biggest union buster B.C.'s ever seen? What a bunch of lapdogs.

Of course this is a fundamental problem for the NDP. Much as they may not like the tag, they're a "labour" party with ties to big unions, &c. Most unions couldn't care a fig for the environment; just make sure there's a job for every member, even if it does mean cutting down the last tree in BC! The Greens have the right idea, but unfortunately they're a one-issue party, in the middle of a two-way fight. Votes for them end up giving the riding to the Liberals, at least until we get our STV! Meanwhile we're going to have to go with the watered-down environmentalism of the NDP if we don't want to prostrate ourselves at the altar of big business.

Gord Craig

I would like to see Glen Clark write a book and hear his side of the story as well but I bet his contract with Pattison prohibits it. I have always felt "the taking in" of Glen Clark was a clever way to control the outcome and future repercussions reverberating outwards from his political assassination. In other words... to silence.

Gordon Craig, above, says big unions don't care a fig about the environment. Well please allow me to differ with you sir.

Big unions and members care very much about electing their party. They realize for both the health of their family and getting the NDP elected, everyone must think carefully and tread lightly in the arena of environment.

I respect your right of opinion and offer the following so you can avoid being 'Wormed'.

New Worm warning. Name = ‘Sober’

Language = English or German

HEADER = You have won World Cup Tickets= German

Header = Password information update = English

’’ = Air Message = English

Attached file is a zip file - Do not open.

Frequency = 1 out of 22 emails in Europe

Damage severity = 3 out of 5

Hope you spot ’Sober’ before it spots you.

Expert site = RickBroadhead.com

73s TonyGuitar at BendGovt.blog.ca

Jobs are important to union members. But common sense tells you that mining promoters, with pockets full of shareholder money, will charge the land far more recklessly than union workers ever will.

Whether a government or a political party has among its backer either workers and unions or shareholders and businesses, it will still come up against trade offs as between industry and the environment, and they will never be easy.

For the most part, the biggest such trade off in BC has nothing to do with industry, it has to do with urbanization, not just its quantity but its quality. In that conundrum you no longer have convenient villians to point at, Big Labour and Big Business. Instead, it's the residents, current and prospective, and the multitude of trade and service shops and public institutions that will service them, and the need for roads and urban transit that will connect them, all trying to find land to build on without pricing the entire urban system beyond reach.

Kurt, you put me in a difficult position with your statement about ol' Jimmy the billionaire.

It would be easy to simply agree with you, but quite frankly, I think you are way off the mark.

There is no doubt Pattison's percieved management style, right back to the days of the Monday morning sales meetings he used to hold, where, according to legend the least successful sales person of the previous week got to walk the plank.

I don't know if that's true, but it's stuck to Pattison as have some other legends, one being that he hates unions and is always in the trenches fighting them.

I believe reality is somewhat different. While he may not appreciate having to deal with unions or live within their contractual impositions if you will, when I look at Pattison's major employee base, groceries, communications and advertizing, I see an awful lot of union jobs that provide fairly good wages, benefits etc.

I realize Pattison sees things from a right-wing perspective which I certainly don't agree with. He is said to be quite tight with the powerful right-wing neo-cons south of the border and I don't doubt that one bit. It is truly worrisome.

But my sense of Pattison is that he is astute enough to know you don't move ahead when you are constantly trying to undercut your own employees who have, as is their right yet, opted to have unions represent them.

In summary, there are a lot of names you can paste on him, but the one you picked, I believe, is currently held by Gordon Campbell the man who lied in 2001 when he promised not to tear up union contracts in a bid to kill unions in BC.

BC Mary, I too would like to see Clark's perspective in a book. The right wing has been so successful at villifying him simply because he outstumped them in the 1996 election and then went on to put progressive legislation forward.

We had almost two years of disorted headlines in the Vancouver Sun and BCTV over allegations of wrong-doing by Clark.

Truth did prevail however and the courts vindicated Clark, but the skullduggery between the Liberals, factions of the media and even the police had already worked.

In hindsight most of us now realize many of the allegations against Clark and his government were basically outright lies that a first year journalism would question.

The real shame goes to the media that failed miserably. That's about the time I realized that investigative journalism was all but dead in BC's so called mainstream media.

I would also like the truth to come out on another matter related to Glen Clark's Premiership. The Pacificats project. Gordon Campbell promised a full investigation but once he got into office, he reneged on that promise. I suspect that's because he knew damn well that if all the evidence came out, Clark's role would start to look considerably better, and that other players would end up being blamed for not only the cost overuns but the basic decision to go with fast ferries in a location where, as the Auditor General pointed out, their extra speed did not provide a material advantage given the overall length of the route.

Judi Tyjabi's book "The Political Assassination of Glen Clark" asks some really good questions about the Clark case but just like the The Tyee's "Liberalized" the mainstream media tried to largely ignore it - and never even attempted to investigate even one of the many interesting details that still remain unanswered.

I know old Glen is making big bucks now thanks to Jimmy "Small man syndrome gone wild" Pattison, but I didn't realize he could now afford to hire platoons of message posters to find web discussion boards to compose rosy revised histories of his legacy. I hope this isn't an advance guard to clear the way for his return to politics!
The reason Joe Foy and just about anyone else with an environmental conscience has little good to say about Clark, is that he left just about everyone in that camp feeling not only dissatisfied but BETRAYED. As the Tyee article alludes to, he declared Greenpeace to be "enemies of B.C." (rather than international heroes, as many felt).Worse, he proceeded to act as if he meant it. He rolled back
the advances made in stewardship and forest practises Harcourt had bravely put in place.
One example: Andrew Petter had set aside certain ecologically sensitive forest areas as "special management zones", to be given special consideration for possible low impact selective logging, and possibly no logging at all.
Under Clark and his logging co. friends these areas became "Log First" (and ask questions later) zones, to be liquidated as fast as possible.
I can thank Glen for turning me into an exclusively Green Party voter. I vowed I'd never let the NDP or any other mainstream party beholdin' to monied interests, ever fool me again! Since Clark, I have voted Green in every provincial, federal and local election to date, and so far, I see no reason to do otherwise.
The fact that the NDP remains hostile to the Greens instead of trying to find some middle ground of cooperation (something Carr has been open to), leaves me suspicious of James' NDP's supposed new commitment to environmental issues. Voting Green sends the NDP an important message, and, as I say, I won't let them fool me again.

Bobb 999, you sound far too emotional about something and far to green to the ways of the world to be taken serously.

As one of those rosy revisers of Glen Clark's history, I find your comments about him both mean and narrow but expected from one who latches onto the current politically current boogeymen to kick the stuffings out in a display of publicly selfrighteous temper tantrum.

Do us a favour and open a few of your own closets to some public view for a while pal.

The same year that Clark got his 6-figure salary from JP corp., several hundred $40,000 or less Overwaitea warehouse workers got their pink slips. They weren't allowed to apply at the new non-union plant (at half the rate); those who tried were escorted off the site by burly security guards. Apologists can blame Weston, Campbell's gov't., etc. but the fact remains that JP corp. cut them loose; it was their decision. Although, knowing that some of the 20-year-plus employees were church-going Christians like JP, one is tempted to question, "What would Jesus do?"

Irrespective of whether one approves or disapproves of Clark, Pattison, Campbell, universal health care etc. I find it hard to understand how anyone can claim that Clark - a former union organizer - has demonstrated consistency, while Ujjal Dosanjh is branded a hypocrite for changing parties even though he continues to push for a socialistic health care system.

Don't try to explain. I won't understand.

sorry folks, but I think you've wandered wayyy off the track here. For me - and I live on the Sunshine Coast and I am working on Adriane Carr's campaign - I have been attracted to the Greens for many years (I last voted ndp for Harcourt in '91) largely because of the innovative vision the party consistently puts forwrad. Smart Growth, Preventative medicine, tax-shifting, renewable energy among others. I haven't heard that coming from the ndippers in any sincere way, not in the last 3 elections. I know where their bread is buttered and why they need to appear attractive to environmentally-inclined voters - because they want their vote. I like the vision thing, it galvanizes me to sweat for the party and the leader. Earth Day in Roberts Creek was a perfect example - Adriane spoke passionately and very knowledgeably for 15 minutes on environmental topics and issues of sustainability. Interrupted several times for applause. An hour later Carole james pulls by in her campaign bus. 20 strangers suddenly appear - I recognize almost all of them as local union rank and file or local CPE brass (none of whom have ever materialized on significant local enviro-advocacy issues, like protecting our watershed); Carole takes the stage -- clap, clap, clap go the stoolies; Carole speaks for a minute and a half, telling people how nice it is to be on the sunshine coast and confirming to us how important it is to remember the earth on earth day. Clap-clap-clap. End of speech. Carole and entourage return to bus, leaving the 50-60-odd folks remaining in the audience staring at each other, incredulous at what we just experienced. In the audience were some of the most ardent and informed environmental advocates I know and they had come expressly to hear both leaders. Need I say more.

bc4me: You fail to mention that Carr is running against Nicholas Simons (NDP) in the Powell River - Sunshine Coast riding. I have seen them debate at candidates meetings in the past and Simons is very impressive. Carr has made some statements in the past that need further expansion but when I, along with others on this site have asked the Greens to explain them they refuse to do so. You are beyond reproach it seems. So here's your chance: What does Carr mean when she says "We trust business to do the right thing."

I sense an NDP attack gerbil! sorry, I don't have the foggiest idea what you are talking about. I spend a lot of time around Adriane and I've never heard go around mumbling "we trust business to do the right thing!" so please provide some context. And as for debating, Nicholas has honed his fiery rhetoric, but he seems unable to speak directly to a single, pertinent local issue. Adriane speaks specifically to protecting our watershed, advancing a legitimate community forest plan, protecting property rights from hostile mining development (one company just staked the entire Sechelt Peninsula, as reported on her website). Yes it's a two-horse race between Adriane and Nicholas, and I guess we'll just have to see how it turns out in the wash. Oh, and the Greens have organized a public info meeting for Monday evening at Coopers Green park, Halfmoon Bay (about 200 metres from Chateau Gordo) to discuss the mining issue. Should be interesting.

No attack gerbil, just a simple question. Adrienne Carr made that statement in the 2001 Leaders Debate. As the leader of an environmentally-based party that's quite a statement with significant ramifications - what did she mean?

When she used the phrase (if she did),I would guess she was likely summing up the LIBERALS' approach to holding big business to account.That approach is to leave forest companies , for example,to self-police, to abide "voluntarily" with environmental guidelines, etc. She was probably quoting Campbell, if you'd been paying attention to the context. "We trust business to do the right thing" sounds like a Gordo excuse for why the forest practises code isn't being properly
enforced by provincial investigators.
Why you're making an issue out of something you obviously have an unclear understanding of is beyond me.If you don't know what preceded and followed the statement in the debate,you don't have a context upon which to gripe about it. If you've paid any attention at all to the Greens platform,you should know that they have always said we CANNOT trust business to (voluntarily) do the right thing. The forest practises code is a good example. Carr has repeatedly said the forest companies are not abiding by it and we need better enforcement because forest companies cannot be trusted to do the right thing! Or maybe you miss heard the statement you quote, and neglected to catch the word "not" between the words "can" and "trust".
I must say you've picked the flimsiest of red herrings to make a issue of!

...typo...sorry...it's late...Re. previous post:
My 2nd last sentence should have read "...neglected to catch the word 'don't', between the words 'we' and 'trust' ".
Att. B.C.ers: Send the Fiberals and the NDP an important message by voting GREEN.

Here's another example of how "green' the NDP is:
Jagrup Brar running in the Panorama Ridge by- election started the campaign non-committal on twinning the Port Mann but by the end was solidly behind it if, in his words, "...there was a solid plan and funding..." Yup, there's all those good, high paying union construction jobs, how can an NDPer resist?

Dear Bobb999, About that "important message" we're supposed to send?

Did the Greens accept any campaign donations from Liberals this time? Last time, you know there was talk about that.

And the fact that by splittting the anti-Liberal vote, the Greens defeated NDP candidates in more than a few ridings, and ensured the election of Liberals there. In some circumstances, a vote for the Greens effectively equalled two votes for the Liberals.

I point out that if there had been even a few more opposition members, the Liberal's undemocratic refusal to fund an official opposition would have been impossible, and the Government could have been held to account much more powerfully than the two valiant members standing alone were able to do.

Much more important than who gets elected this time is defeating those people who lie so easily and treat our money as their own.

I suspect it's no coincidence that the trials of the two Ministers personal staff for financial crimes is not until AFTER this election. Or that the evidence is hidden until then.

Please, don't sit on petty partisan fences. Help us to defeat these Liberals.

Dear Bobb999. Please ignore Bailey's request! It is just so much piffle that the Greens are 'splitting' your vote or anybody else's. The Greens are a distinct and viable political option in this province, something the NDP just cannot fathom. In time they will get used to it.

And, FYI, the Green party energy policy was just ranked first by the BC Sustainable Energy Association (bcsea.org), which did a comparative analysis of party policies. The NDP was ranked third after BC Democratic Reform and, to little, surprise, the Gliberals ranked last.

Actually that answer by Carr was her response to a question about minimum wage. I like a number of your policies but your approach seems often like a political party beyond question and beyond reproach. I see enough of that in BC already.

I'm with bc4me.
We need the Green party to help remind the NDP (and Fiberals)that many BCers take environmental issues seriously.
If the NDP is really planning to make the environment a cornerstone of their platform, then why haven't they embraced the Greens? They've had every opportunity to cooperate. Carr has been open to such cooperation.
She used to make direct overtures to the NDP but was repeatedly rebuffed. Picture what could have been,in this election: A coalition NDP-Green slate running, with a platform hammered out jointly between the two parties.
I would love to have seen this. The fact that
the NDP is still hostile to the Greens leads
one to suspect that their commitment to their deluded anti-Green labour union friends is much stronger than their environmental commitment.
Therefore,I refuse to vote NDP. If they lose to Gordo, they only have themselves to blame. As I say , they should be cooperating with, instead of denigrating, the Greens.
I like what Joe Foy said.He implies that If the NDP loses to Gordo again, the next 4 years may see such a transformation of the NDP. Next time around we could see an NDP-Green coalition strong enough to defeat the Liberals, giving BC a new improved way of governing.
If that doesn't happen, but the STV referendum (by some miracle) passes, then we could see Green MLAs. Potentially, they could have a lot of clout, possibly holding the balance of power in a minority gov't.
As for that debate statement attributed to Carr,it's very clear (from hundreds of statements) where the Greens stand
on holding big (especially resource) companies
to account, so the issue of one debate statement seems irrelevant, a red herring.
Vote GREEN!

Bobb999: When you take that stance that what the leader of a political party says during a leadership debate is a red herring, that you will not be accountable or even admit that what was said even a few years ago was a mistake is revealing in itself. To expect other parties to be acoountable for what they do or what their leaders said as far back as twenty years ago, which the Greens often cite as examples, is truly hypocritical on your part, not to mention just a tad self-righteous.

lynn has a good point to make about posturing. The NDP has been dragged down again and again by narrow focus groups who, while they have valid arguments to make on their topics, never had enough flexibility to understand that the whole society has to function, and solutions must take that into account.

It's never enough just to shout stop, unless you have some sense of who is going to suffer from it, and are willing to consider compromises that won't require huge groups to just bite the big one.

They've finally come to see that to govern, you must serve everybody, and that means going slower than you might want to. But they have taken big steps in the direction of creating a path to the future that has the potential to take everybody with them. Not just leaving behind whoever didn't agree.

Take the issue of fish farms. If you make some effort to help make crown lands ashore available for lease so pens can be built without bankrupting a whole industry, then set standards for effluent treatment, help create markets for the by-products, then require the farms to move ashore in an orderly way, say over the space of a couple of years, you have a solution that will work for all the people involved.

On the other hand, if you just call them names and drive them out of business you lose all the support and co-operation those people might have brought.

Or the NDPs willingness to acknowledge the contribution of business to the society. If you can't see the need for that, the enormous place that activity fills for all of us, you just aren't paying attention. I know it's annoying when you see business pulling all the rotten tricks they have lately, but you still need them, and they must be included.

It's the difference between a party with the depth to govern and one that just keeps making their few good proposals over and over without a thought to the consequences for others who differ. Or the need for all different kinds of people to make a Province.

kurt, please if you are going to make outrageous statments, that Gordon Campbell would be embarrassed to spout, do it elsewhere.

Just when did Jimmy P summarily fire all those Overwaitea workers?

Did those unionized workers not appeal the firings through the grievance process to their union?

Did the United Food And Commercial Workers union do absolutely nothing to help those workers.?

Why didn't any of them use the right to bump into lower jobs to maintain their employment?

Please, you make serious allegations above, but have given only several unlikely circumstances to explain what happened.

BTW, just what was it you think Glen Clark was supposed to do to stop JP from firing private sector workers?

Hey, don't run away now kurt, elaborate a little.

now this is a debate i can enjoy. lefty ideologues slugging it out. problem is: neither side can fight their way out of a wet paper bag.

There is this weird analysis out there that Green voters only come from the left of the spectrum.

In 1991 the NDP got 46.9% in Nelson-Creston and the Green Party 2.6%.

In 1996 the NDP got 44.9% and the Green 11.2%.

There is no reason to believe that all the extra votes came from the NDP and the above is proof of it.

Between 1991 and 1996 the NDP vote dropped by 2%, while the Green vote went up by 8.6%.

In fact the combined vote for the Socreds and Liberals in 1991 dropped from 50.5% to 43.8% as the combined vote for the Liberals, Reform and Family Coalition Party in 1996.

The centre and centre-right parties lost support.

Right now the combined support for the Green Party and NDP is 50%, but some people are just incapable of seeing that the Green Party draws support from people who are "progressive" but not socialists - like Liberals, red tories and even some social conservatives who have concerns about the environment.

Quoted, Says Berman: “What we decided to do was to lay out environmental priorities that had achievable solutions at hand Â*honestly, that leaders couldn’t weasel out of by saying ‘This is pie-in-the-sky environmental thinking, this is going to cost too much, this isn’t possible.”

Implicit in Tzeporah Berman's quote is the assumption that others are less realistic and that they are actually making unnecessary impossible pie-in-the-sky environmental demands. Regarding her support for smarter "closed containment" salmon farming, Ms. Berman ought to know that her faith that wild salmon can be protected by gradual implementation of technological solutions against the plague of fish lice coming from open water net pens is utter pie-in-the-sky greenwash.

Her view is antithetical to any concept of precaution and defends those who do know better but would rather profit from placing wild salmon and the terrestrial and marine wild salmon ecology at dire risk of irreversible damage. Salmon farming is unsustainable --period. It requires enormous wasteful inputs of energy, fuels, antibiotics, surfactants, chemicals, pesticides and huge volumes of feed pellets processed from farm animals and wild fish stocks plundered from critical marine ecologies located all over the planet. Salmon farming briefly becomes really profitable only after the wild salmon ecology and economy is exterminated.

Hermetically or chemically isolating these farms will not sequester the plume of chemical and biological polutants. It will vastly increase the devastation of remote marine systems necessary to scale-up to profitable economic competition with sustainable wild salmon ecologies and economies. Ms. Berman may be practical enough to get paid for greenwash or realistic enough to get elected to green-up some future NDP slate, but she is no longer advocating for environmentalism with her expressions of faith based technological solutions.

As the song goes, She is selling pie-in-the-sky by and by. If Ms. Berman wanted to be effective as an environmentalist, she'd be saying NO to fish farms and she'd still be saying NO even to fish farms wearing condoms. When an idea is wrong and it violates something precious ---what's wrong with just saying NO?

No Salmon farms & No industrial logging of coastal old growth & No oil exploration in Hecate Straits. There's an environmental platform for BC that's realistic, economically sustainable, publically supportable and politically do-able. What utterly greenish hogwash Berman and these BCGEU funded bozos are labelling as "Priorities for Environmental Leadership". Seems that they have been podded and replaced with a cadre of environmental management clones. Where is the outrage that such blithering crap can be passed-off as environmentalism? Please read the revolting half-witted faint-hearted greenish wishlist on their eponymous environmentalleadership website. http://www.environmentalleadership.org/ Ask yourself, "is this leadership? is it environmental? is it going to inspire anyone to vote?"

We have some really serious threats to ourselves and our environment on the horizon and we are going to need way better celebrity environmentalists than these forlorn losers.

Michael Major\

STV by itself will not cause the change that most people believe it will do. Having said this, I will vote positively for STV on May 17th.

If we do not have electoral finance reform coupled with STV we will still find many good candidates with little money and access to media unable to get themselves elected.

Perhaps the Greens, more than any other party, should be championing this aspect of electoral reform during this election and pointing out the contributions made by influence peddlars and monied or vested interests in obtaining public dollars for particular projects.

It would fit in good with the Greens opposition to the RAV line (big business benefits) and the Olympics (again, big business benefits).

When quoting % of people polled who will vote for particular parties its important to note that these %'s are from "decided" voters and does not include the undecided. So perhaps future election articles should state that the number of decided voters for a particular party are....

I no longer (for the last five years) provide information to pollsters who call. Every poll result should include the number of people called and the number of people who refused to provide information or comments to pollsters questions.

As polls have taken the place of discourse, perhaps I should reconsider my stand on not answering pollsters questions and provide false ones that result in the poll company's results being inaccurate and discredited. Kind of pollster jamming...maybe the only way we get politicians and their handlers to come out from behind the bushes is to force them to not rely on polls.

After all, all the exit polls in Ohio showed Kerry the winner in 2004. So what happened?

Response by Mike Major, Victoria:

Quoted, Says Berman: “What we decided to do was to lay out environmental priorities that had achievable solutions at hand Â*honestly, that leaders couldn’t weasel out of by saying ‘This is pie-in-the-sky environmental thinking, this is going to cost too much, this isn’t possible.”

Implicit in Tzeporah Berman's quote is the assumption that others are less realistic and that they are actually making unnecessary impossible pie-in-the-sky environmental demands. Regarding her support for smarter "closed containment" salmon farming, Ms. Berman ought to know that her faith that wild salmon can be protected by gradual implementation of technological solutions against the plague of fish lice coming from open water net pens is utter pie-in-the-sky greenwash.

Her view is antithetical to any concept of precaution and defends those who do know better but would rather profit from placing wild salmon and the terrestrial and marine wild salmon ecology at dire risk of irreversible damage. Salmon farming is unsustainable --period. It requires enormous wasteful inputs of energy, fuels, antibiotics, surfactants, chemicals, pesticides and huge volumes of feed pellets processed from farm animals and wild fish stocks plundered from critical marine ecologies located all over the planet. Salmon farming briefly becomes really profitable only after the wild salmon ecology and economy is exterminated.

Hermetically or chemically isolating these farms will not sequester the plume of chemical and biological polutants. It will vastly increase the devastation of remote marine systems necessary to scale-up to profitable economic competition with sustainable wild salmon ecologies and economies. Ms. Berman may be practical enough to get paid for greenwash or realistic enough to get elected to green-up some future NDP slate, but she is no longer advocating for environmentalism with her expressions of faith based technological solutions.

As the song goes, She is selling pie-in-the-sky by and by. If Ms. Berman wanted to be effective as an environmentalist, she'd be saying NO to fish farms and she'd still be saying NO even to fish farms wearing condoms. When an idea is wrong and it violates something precious ---what's wrong with just saying NO?

No Salmon farms & No industrial logging of coastal old growth & No oil exploration in Hecate Straits. There's an environmental platform for BC that's realistic, economically sustainable, publically supportable and politically do-able. What utterly greenish hogwash Berman and these BCGEU funded bozos are labelling as "Priorities for Environmental Leadership". Seems that they have been podded and replaced with a cadre of environmental management clones. Where is the outrage that such blithering crap can be passed-off as environmentalism? Please read the revolting half-witted faint-hearted greenish wishlist on their eponymous environmentalleadership website. http://www.environmentalleadership.org/ Ask yourself, "is this leadership? is it environmental? is it going to inspire anyone to vote?"

We have some really serious threats to ourselves and our environment on the horizon and we are going to need way better celebrity environmentalists than these forlorn losers.

Michael Major\

Encouraging news:
Norman Ruff, UVIC political scientist, said tonight on the radio, he believes Adriane Carr has a pretty good chance of winning her Sunshine Coast seat,she's raised her profile so much there!
I doubted any Green could win this time, under 1st past the post. If the BC legislature needs anybody, it needs a Green MLA.

Allan: JP didn't fire them, he opened a new plant and closed the old one a few kms down the road; thus the former employees were redundant. The old warehouse now serves Future Shop.

And Glen Clark remains a hypocrite.

kurt, but what does that have to do with Glen Clark other than the fact he is an employee of JP, just like thousands of other people in BC?

Should they all simply quit working for Pattison or is it just Clark who ought to wear the hair shirt on this one and suffer for others?

Sorry kurt, but that's beginning to sound like a Jesus story. What do you have in mind, a stoning or a crucifixion?

Okay, before all my fellow lefties jump all over me let me make this clear: I do not approve of the Green party, I approve of unions (not all union workers are loggers, you know), and the N.D.P. is not left-wing enough for me. That said, Glen Clark's wrong-doings may pale in comparison to Campbell's, but I dislike Clark and I don't understand why so many of you are defending him. Yes, I know he has been unfairly maligned in some areas, but he's still just a jerk in a suit looking out for number 1. When the N.D.P. abandoned so many of its traditional principles it was people like Clark who helped that happen.

I thought Clark's comment about Green Peace members being "enemies of B.C." rivaled, in its stupidity, Vanderzalm's demand that striking ferry workers be charged with sedition.

Were any of you who commend Clark's "progressive" legislation on Welfare when B.C. Benefits was introduced? I was. Overturning decades of relatively progressive welfare legislation, this act penalized those of us who were trying hardest to get off Welfare by taking away the flat rate earnings exemption and making it impossible for us to benefit from the part-time jobs that were all we'd been able to get. Clark's government instituted a child benefit, and made it look like the children of the Welfare poor got it too, but proceeded to reduce the amount of the parents' support allowance by exactly the amount of the child benefit cheque the family would receive. While
hurting families on welfare, he talked constantly of the virtues of "working families", as if the unemployed were not parents too!

And, I'm sure that Clark gets a much higher wage than an average Pattison employee. Is he a union member, or is he management? It was certainly my impression that he got a cushy management position, probably as a reward for the work he did to increase the number of desparate unemployed who could be used as scabs some day!

As to the Greens and how they are "dividing" the vote, I agree that the N.D.P. has only itself to blame and I think that the Green influence on N.D.P. policy re the environment has been a healthy one.

As far as I'm concerned, though, all three parties are right of centre. There is no left wing party in this province. (And Adriane Carr has SAID the Greens are left of centre. At least she's more honest than the N.D.P.)

So, people, by all means vote N.D.P. to get the Liberals out, but do you HAVE to go on about what a great guy Clark was? That is like a spit in the face to people who suffered from his policies and felt betrayed by the party that had promised for decades to help the poor and then, when they got in, threw us to the wolves, saying, in effect, "Thanks for the votes, suckers!"

I'm sorry, I meant to say that Adriane had said the Greens were RIGHT of centre, not left. She said this to the Powell River Peak, evidently. Reference to the comment appeared in my local paper and, though the Greens attacked other aspect s of the letter, no one has ever denied that Adriane said this.

If Glen Clark is so great then how come a group of poor people demonstrated outside his house when he was premier?

You know, for some of you, when poor people are treated badly under the Liberals you grab onto that to prove how vicious Campbell and his party are. But when it happened under the N.D.P. we were just an embarrassment to folks like you.

For a while there I felt as if I was talking to equals on this site. But, I forgot. I've been on Welfare. The Welfare poor have no allies if the N.D.P. is in power. We then become non-persons undeserving of basic justice, the underclass who can be sacrificed to the bullies in order to keep the rest of you feeling safe. And, even though we might, as I have, get off Welfare, some of us are never going to feel accepted as part of the human race again!

Where are my allies here? Lynn? B.C. Mary? Bailey? Lynn, on that other string you were praising the idea of co-operative ventures for workers. Do you really think your boy, Clark, Jimmy P.'s little buddy, would join us on that one?

Anyway, I guess you are all like the people I tried to talk to when the N.D.P. was selling us out. It's just so important to you that your team wins that you won't criticize what they do to us more expendable humans. I've had ten years of rage over this. Conversations I've had here were helping me heal. But now, the supposed like-minded folks I thought I'd found turn out to be a bunch of Glen Clark ass-kissers. I give up, then, on feeling solidarity with anyone!

Yes, I'm taking this personally. I took it personally when Glen Clark played games with the lives of me, my son, my friends and the people I did Welfare advocacy for. I take it personally when you people praise him.

Who are you, Pastor Neimoller? "First they came for the poor, but I was not on Welfare so I did nothing." And, yes, they started coming for the poor under Premier Glen Clark!

I recall a Labour Day picnic during the late 90's where a friend and I came with a sign saying something about the N.D.P. screwing the poor, and "Union Workers, You're Next!" Now that the N.D.P. is doing their suck-up to business act I realize our sign was more true than I'd dreamed.

I recall a demo I was in outside the N.D.P. leadership convention. A woman had brought her little girl, no doubt to give the child a nice, polite, middle class liberal political experience. As she was leaving there were all these ANGRY poor people surrounding the building! Oh, goodness me! What COULD they be so pissed off about? She hurried her child past us, protectively shielding the kid as she looked directly at me. "Some of us got kids too, you know," I said. But it was that LOOK, as if I were a Palestinian terrorist. Me, a middle-aged mother of two. As if I would hurt her child! That was when I realized how sub-human they thought we were. And why? Because we were legitimately angry at what the namby-pamby, sell-out, nicey-nicey N.D.P. had done to us after promising they would be on our
side!

Do you really expect me to work with people who don't care what happens to me or my children? Do you really think that, no matter who wins this election, it won't soon be happening to your and yours? If the N.D.P. get in you'll just all act like whatever they do has to be all right, the way you acted last time.

I've decided (after a stupid comment by our N.D.P. candidate) that, for the first time in my life, I can't bring myself to vote. None of them is worthy of my vote because none of them acknowledge my humanity.

I know, since you will all be extremely uncomfortable with my presence by now, I will try to absent myself from this string for the time being.

Dear anne. Please don't go. We've had lots of great conversations, and my comfort level is just fine. If you feel you need an ally, I volunteer.

The Green party has always been right wing conservatives. Did you think they were socialists? They've never made much of a secret of it.

In Europe, where they have some experience of Greens, they've usually found them surprisingly regressive. Plus, when they get their way with the environmental issues so dear to their hearts, they seem usually to cause great hardship among the working classes and the poor, who bear the brunt and pay the price.

Thank you Bailey. I was a Green member many, many years ago and I can tell you they weren't all conservatives at that time. There were many socialist types trying to push the Greens in a more left wing direction. There was even a name for them: Red Greeens! (This was before the advent of that silly T.V. series with the character of the same name.) I suppose all those more left wing types have left the party, as I did, by now. And I am well aware of the sell-out in Germany, because it was hot news when I was still a party member, and a lot of Greens here didn't like what happened.

I do, however, think it is a mistake the N.D.P. are making to revive the old conflict between jobs and the environment. I am in Nicholas Simons' riding and I'm not nearly as impressed with him as Lynn appears to be. It was his stupid comment that made me decide not to vote and, I see by the most recent paper, he's making more stupid comments! Eg. "It's all very well to talk about banning raw log exports and fish farms but in doing so we put thousands of people out of work." He sounds just like Glen Clark! So, under the N.D.P. the fish farms and raw log exports will continue? Wonderful. And what happens to the jobs when there are no more trees? Hello? What about jobs from value-added? And the N.D.P. has the audacity to accuse the Greens of dividing the left wing vote. No wonder some people vote Green! Also, a lot of Green supporters just don't know how conservative their party is. They truly don't. Some of them are friends of mine. And they don't listen to me, because I am one of those people Fii mentioned on the other string, who just don't get listened to because we're not considered important or capable of having anything to offer.

Anne, one of the problems here is many times we do not return to articles or lose track of them as they are archived. I just returned to this one on a fluke and discovered you are very upset. I echo what Bailey says, I don't think you should leave.

We all differ, and I think Bailey will agree with me here, that the Tyee is a great place to exchange ideas...sometimes in reading other comments it's like coming home, you find people who are thinking the same things when you thought no one else was... but to be honest you learn the most when those differences show up. So many times I've learned from others, where I'm wrong, where an idea could be refined or changed my view because of what someone has written, or changed my view when I see what I have written!... and I realize, no that's not it...I basically find the engagement and the camaraderie here great.

As far as the NDP go, Anne, this is the last kick of the can for me, they have to come through ... I'm not voting Green, not yet anyway... I agree with Bailey's assessment of them as right wing conservatives though I know many people believe they are left wing. As for Simons, well... I hadn't read that. I like him very much personally and hae found him extremely well-versed in the debates but I don't agree with what he said in your comment above so I'll take a second look...the NDP try to be all things to all people which is a Big mistake. If I were you I'd write
Simons a letter, tell him you're disappointed. He seems very approachable to me.

And Anne you have much to offer...I've enjoyed reading many of your comments.

We have problems. Big ones.

As long as we keep our sentences short enough, it's easy to say things that are 'true'.

The difficulty arises when we take our correct assessments of what the problems are, and try to devise solutions that are also that simple.

It can't be done. We are too complex. Our problems may be simple, but every solution has to be crafted to contain some amelioration for those whose lives it will disrupt. Otherwise, they will fight you, and they'll be right.

Save the forests by ruining every family in BC that lives by forestry, and they'll chase you in pickups waving chainsaws. Or the oceans by throwing native workers out of the first job they've been able to corral for years, and you won't get much support from them either.

But that isn't the only way to solve our problems. Moving fish farms on land will need more workers, not less. Why not concentrate on that? Logging selectively is also more labour intensive. Put what American Logging Companies think aside, that's good for society. For our families and communities.

I mean, green solutions don't necessarily have to hurt somebody. If we're creative and generous enough, they can enhance our prosperity rather than shrinking it. We just have to be clever enough to see it.

Much agree Bailey, lots of complexity to wrestle with. In fairness to Simons, he believes in salmon farming on land, as opposed to on sea. I would like to see them disappear and have jobs created out of stewardship of our oceans and our wild fishery instead.

Selective logging, though, has real advantages... I think there is a local fellow who logged with his horse until quite recently. But the American logging companies are everywhere now... buzzing around our town like bees...well... maybe West Nile carrying mosquitoes is more apt...

Lynn, the comment by Nicholas Simons was in The Local, the little ad paper on the lower Sunshine Coast where I live, which sometimes prints short news items as well. (I'm blowing my cover here, if there are any posters from the lower Sunshine Coast they'll be guessing who I am.)

I am unimpressed by Simons, starting with his federal campaign, because he was on about how the N.D.P. have done no wrong. I think he is ignorant of what they have done--but why is a man who is so ignorant running for them? To me he is just like Bill Forst, before him, whom, I think, the N.D.P ran because he would just obediently parrot the party line. Before he was even the candidate Forst wrote a welfare-bashing letter to the local paper about how we Welfare recipients were all in "cycles of dependency", a phrase lifted straight from right-wing U.S. Republicans (I think it was originally Newt Gringrich who used the term). I phoned Forst at the time and we had a fairly civilized conversation about it, but he was absymally ignorant. (And he is a nice enough man, a teacher and school counsellor who was supportive when my son was getting into trouble. But "nice" doesn't cut it. What the N.D.P. needs is left-wing fire-brands who will stick up for the disenfranchized; and, no, Bailey, I don't think sticking up for the poor is "left-wing extremism" that will lead to "Stalinism") I then wrote a letter to the paper asking Forst to give me the names of the businesses where these full-time, living wage, labour standards-respecting jobs were just standing empty waiting for those of us in "cycles of dependency" to step into, and I would provide people ready to take those jobs. Dead silence, of course. (See what really bugs me here is that even the N.D.P. was trying to make us into a scapegoat class.)

Another thing that bugs me: how come the criticisms of the Clark government are all focussed on his short-comings regarding the environment and not on how his government treated the poor? I'm sure I'm not the only person still angry about all that.

And Lynn, about what I said on that earlier string about efforts being subverted when members of groups go along with corrupt leadership. As far as I'm concerned, Glen Clark was part of the corrupt N.D.P. leadership you all went along with!

And, by the way, I HAVE tried to talk to Nicholas Simons. During the federal campaign I phoned his office. The woman who answered the phone was someone I had "issues" with but she promised to get Nicholas to call me. He never did, probably because she never passed on the message because she thought I'd yell at him (I have been known to yell at N.D.P apologists in the past, but I only lose it if they say something that insults my intelligence).

Then, I tried to write to him using this Tyee site. But when I tried to send my letter the site informed me it would go to all the party leaders, not to Simons. There were no instructions on how to make the letter go to an individual candidate, though their names were listed, so I gave up. My energy is limited and I know I'll just get politician-speak back from any candidate anyway.

But I am curious as to whether any of you have sent a letter using this site to any individual candidate who was not a party leader. If so, how is it done?

I'm not an apologist for Glen Clark. Still, he did stand up to the US on the salmon fisheries and the nuclear sub base in Nanoose...both were gutsy moves for which he deserves credit. Glen Clark is also interesting because of the very carefully orchestrated and intentional political assassination waged against him. I give him credit, and his family for surviving that. I just won't completely discount him or anyone else because they make mistakes. I'm far from perfect myself, I don't expect it of others.

Where I think you make your most valid point is that the NDP have strayed far too far from their socialist beliefs and that too many people were hurt because of this as your examples show ... I will carry what you said with me and remember and I'll try to change in the future what little power I have by reminding others of what you said. As you say, if the poor can't count on the party that purports to defend them, who can they count on?

This you should also make clear to the party itself. You are a good writer, write James and Simons, tell them your story. Tell them why you are not voting for them and tell them you are watching if they will betray these principles again. Send a copy to your local paper.

I just think we are dealing with politics here, an imperfect system, an imperfect world, tainted by power and corruption. As you said in your comment on preventing greed in co-operatives, it's hard to find a way around it. All we've got against a big system is our small selves... move whatever you can. None of us can do everything. All wrongs will never be completely righted. Not here. Not now. We make choices...sometimes imperfect ones, because it's the best choice at the time and we live with them. Until the next choice is made.

The only consolation I can think of is that they say most evolutionary jumps, as happens in nature itself, happen because of flaws, accidents, imperfections. So imperfections are in some sense a welcome part of the flow. You do your best... as one person acting on their own... and keep on keeping on...I have no other answer.

Anne, I couldn't possibly agree more with you on your take on Clark and the NDP. I guess we can only relate subjectively to others' behaviour, so my response to Clark's working for Pattison is that he should have told Jimmy to take his job and shove it--as a matter of principle. And you're right on about Clark and the NDP abandoning and belittling the poor. Guess what, though, I'm voting for them on the hopes that they may return to health in the future. My priority is the number of homeless people huddling in the dark in damp forests around here.

Thank you Truman.

Lynn, I do write. I have written. Not to James and Simons because I got exhausted trying to appeal to Glen Clark and Joyless McPhailure when they were in office. Sometimes they didn't even reply. At least the Socreds used to always reply, in however innocuous a manner. But I continue to write to the paper (which is why I say I've blown my cover by admitting I live on the lower Sunshine Coast) slamming all three parties. It is amusing, because I've been accused of being a member of the Greens, and a "foot soldier of the N.D.P." when I am admantly neither! And you are right, Lynn, Clark did stand up to the U.S. on those two issues you mentioned. I remember that now, and I remember being surprised and pleased about it at the time.

If the N.D.P. gets in I probably will write to them if I think they aren't sticking to their socialist principles, but I sure don't feel encouraged by the reception my letters got last time they were in.

I also feel appalled by how the Clark defenders on this string actually let themselves get sucked into defending Pattison (not you and Bailey, Lynn, but some of the others). Pattison is a billionaire and Clark is a toady.
That, to me, says it all.

My decision not to vote this time is purely emotional, irrational and subjective. I am not recommending it to anyone else because I believe that when the disaffected stop voting the Right gets in. I just can't stomach it this time round, that's all.