Hypothetical calculations around how an election would have proceeded had one of the parties been absent are always a mugs game. That doesn't stop people from playing it, including me.

My own inclination is to think that polls soliciting the second choice of declared Green supporters are just as speculative as these post election exercises. The Green voter know, at the time polled, that they want to vote Green. They tell the pollster this. The pollster then asks a clearly hypothetical question: What they would do (if anything) if there were no Green candidate or party?

The wording here could be critical. There is a huge difference in the overall political landscape between a scenario where there is an active Green party but no candidate in your riding, and the total absence of a Green party anywhere.

In my mind the presence of a Green party with some province-wide publicity is the key to the equation. Polling questions which ask for a second preference probably understate the degree to which these people, and others, would have voted NDP if there were no Green party altogether on the provincial scene. By their very presence Greens say that someone thinks the NDP is too much under the control of Jack Munro and people like him. They provide cachet and civility to an anti-union smear that then clearly attachs to the NDP.

This is serious damage below the waterline for the NDP and it's hard to underestimate how deadly it is. In my opinion these polls greatly underestimate the damage from the alternate situation in which there is no Green Party whatever.

There is a long history of the "third party" in BC politics winning a share of the vote along the lines the Green Party dis. Some of it is simply a protest vote against all parties, but it can also be a positive vote by people who are unafraid to stand for something. It's simply pointless to try to add one party's vote to another, to arrive at a result that will never happen.

Clearly Green Party supporters in this election were prepared to "waste their vote", even if it meant the big, bad Liberals might benefit from it. That's because voting positively *for* something is a lot more satisfying than voting negatively against something. That's why it'll always be folly to try to blame Greens for voting that way. If the NDP wants Green supporters to vote their way, then they should *clearly* spell out the policies that will do that. That's something Carole James never had the courage to do, because she feared losing the up-country loggers vote.

Well Martin, I think it's a bit much to criticize Carole James as lacking courage. How much courage does it take for Adrian Carr to do her show, knowing that she will be granted favourable media coverage by Tony Parsons and the rest of the media establishment?

I note that you have not spelled out any particular policy where the NDP was supposedly caving into the demands of "up country loggers". Is that because this is just an anti-labour thing on your part?

"The *combined Green-NDP vote* would have given the *NDP* twelve additional seats..."
(emphasis mine)

Need I say more?

What I would suggest is that some polls be run to see what NDP supporters would do if there were no NDP candidate running, or no NDP party at all. What a scenario that would be! Imagine the 'progressives' of BC cleansed of thier union stains, proudly running under the Green banner... we would rule this province for a thousand years!

[awakes in a cold sweat... vows not to drink coffee before bed anymore]

But seriously, if the NDP is willing to refuse all union and corperate donations, leave all international socialist orgainzations that they are members of, get seriously behind the 32 hour work week and radically change its taxation policy then we may be getting *close* to a deal.

The fact is that about 10% of British Columbians rejected both the Chamber of Commerce and the BC Federation of Labours vision for the province. I personally reject both quite easily.

They both shut down schools and hospitals. They both treat the poor, disaffected and ill with outright contempt. They both support clearly unsustainable forestry and energy policys. They both reject the rights of First Nations, especially the ones enshrined in Canadian law and legal history. The both support a policy of prohibition of Marijuana and waste millions of dollars incarcerating and procecuting its users and manufacturers. The list does not stop there, it just keeps going.

The Green Party is not just a one issue party about sustainable forestry. There are a host of other social issues where the NDP and Liberal policys actually more similar than one would think, and were the Greens offer a sensable alternative. At some point the 'sour apples' in the NDP camp, the ones who refer to Green voters and candidates as spoilers, are going to have to accept that just because we hang out at the same coffe shops does not mean that our 'progressive' votes belong to them.

To put this into some context, the Green's Andrea Welling won 12% of the popular vote in 2001 with a very strong and credible campaign, coming second to Lib Rich Coleman, who had almost 70%. The NDP candidate was unknown, barely campaigned and thanks to the visceral hatred of the Glen Clark years, got less than 10%.

In 2005, voter turnout was roughly the same, only Welling was a reluctant candidate and the NDP had a good quality candidate who played up his environmental ideals (Shane Dyson), and there was anger over the Gordon Campbell years. This time, the Greens declined slightly to about 10%, Coleman slipped to just under 60% and the NDP rose to 30%.

In other words, the NDP took quite a few votes from the Liberals and other parties (Reform? weird), and perhaps a handful from the Greens.

I am wondering if Deja can tell me what this long list of interenational socialist organizations is that the NDP belongs to. As far as I know, they belong to one (1), the Socialist International.

What international organizations does the Canadian Green Party belong to? Or is it just borrowing a name used by some European parties and then proceeding entirely by its own lights.

Perhaps with that in hand Deja can tell me about these school and hospital closures under the NDP, and about their unsustainable forestry practices. I guess Deja, like the WWWC's Joe Foy, didn't care for FRBC because they viewed it not as an forestry conservation bureau but as a patronage payoff to the IWA. Which goes to show how serious the Greens are about actually conserving forestry resources relative to their determination to reduce the influence of organized labour.

As pointed out (correctly, imho), the election results demonstrate a return to traditional levels of support for the right and the left. Ah, but the Greens, like the BC Reform, the PDA, even the Progressive Conservatives, and the last gasp Socreds throw a monkey wrench in the works. No one really knows how or even if those voters would cast their ballots.
Rather than waste time figuring it out, the wisest choice for Greens and NDPers alike is to work together. Is that possible, given the past animosity? If Carole James can get the NDP this far back from oblivion, the answer is yes. Oh, and some other things:
Yes because it is entirely possible to appeal to many (not all) Green voters without becoming a full fledged Greenie. Yes, if Greens and NDPers run strategically (which means Greens will have to accept not fielding 79 candidates). Yes if Carole James keeps her new flock of MLAs on the moderate path, and removes organizaed labour's structurally (by virtue of its voting bloc) mandated link to the NDP (there's no need to stop being a freind to labour, any more than the Liberals will stop being friends of big business).

::mutter mutter...system lost my original comment and those, as we know, are always the most fluid, the most brilliant...alas, below is my attempt to recapture the essential points::

What I can't figure out is why NDP supporters feel Greens should vote NDP, rather than the other way around? Why are NDP supporters not, in the same fashion, urged to go Green?

Before this election, seven people happened to share with me how they would be voting. Three planned to vote Green; three wanted to vote Green but felt they had to vote NDP to keep the Liberals out; only one was voting NDP because he (presumably) believes in that party.

So, what we need to find out is not who each Green voter's second choice is, but who each NDP voter's first choice is. If enough NDP voters actually have Green as their first choice, we can clear the matter up once and for all.

As for an alliance...Months ago, the NDP asked me what I felt their party's priority should be in this election. I said, "Avoid vote splitting." I saw no effort to this end. In fact, James worked hard to limit Carr's participation in the televised debate. A show of support for democracy on James' part? The contrary, in fact. I do support a partnership, but one has not yet been sought.

I stand equally against the BC Liberals and the BC NDP. I wholly support the Green Party's platform in regards to welfare, health care, the environment, etc. I voted Green because the GP stands for what I believe in, what I want to see. Is my vote wasted? When I vote Green I increase the GP's chances of being permitted a seat in the next election's debates. I also set an example of voting for what I actually believe in and for voting out of hope, rather than out of fear, thereby encouraging others to do likewise. My goal is to see the GP have several seats by the time my baby is eight years old. My vote works toward that.

The Greens would be fine if the STV went through otherwise they are a pain in the ass. Adrian carr is completely lame hoever.

Hi Rex;
Happy to see you writing for my favourite online paper. quite different from the north news!! On election night our first reaction re the results were that the green votes would have changed the results for the NDP and Carole James would have been Premier. Our second reaction was -- Who is funding the Green Party?? No one has even mentioned that once to my recolection. It wouldn't surprise me in the least to find that some Liberal money found its way into their coffers -- or is that just election paranoia. Marna

I fear that this is the start of a flame war, and I am always cautious about responding to aggressive commentary, but I will try and respond to these questions.

"I am wondering if Deja can tell me what this long list of interenational socialist organizations is that the NDP belongs to. As far as I know, they belong to one (1), the Socialist International."

Well, this seems to be a question concerning a poor chioce of words rather than anything else. I never meant to imply that there was a list, simply that they leave all of them, even if that is just one.

"Perhaps with that in hand Deja can tell me about these school and hospital closures under the NDP"

I'd be gald to. Strikes, work to rule, etc. While it is true that these are temporary closures that are relativly minor compared to the Liberals full closures, they serve to underline the disregard that both the unions and the business community have in this province for the interests of the average British Columbian.

"and about their unsustainable forestry practices."

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=kamloops&ll=49.787292,-120.153351&spn=0.638580,1.013489&t=k&hl=en

Just a quick look around Kamloops revealed this example of 'sustainable cutting', the cut blocks up North are of course much larger. It is simply impossible for any party that is financially beholden to either Unions or Corporate donations to manage this issue responsably.

I hate to break it to you but without vote splitting the NDP would have never formed a government in BC's history. Sometimes you have to take the bad with the good.

Plus the only scenario where the NDP would have won is using NDP propaganda numbers. I see some big leaps of faith in here. Sorry people but it just wasn't meant to be.

The NDP shut down Shaughnessy hospital.

One thing to keep in mind while sifting through these numbers is that the secondary tendencies of Green voters are based on pre-election polls, where the Greens were scoring around 12 percent. On election day they drew a little more than 9 percent.

I think many Green-NDP voters went with the NDP in this election, leaving the actual Green much closer to being a wash between those who would otherwise vote Liberal, those who would otherwise vote NDP and those who would otherwise vote for another protest candidate or no candidate at all. I think lot of disaffected Liberals, who may even have polled as Liberals, voted Green in disgust at a party that doesn't represent traditional Liberal values.

One person above observed above that Reform voters turning Green is weird. In B.C. politics, that's not weird. In the past, many people voted Reform federally and NDP provincially. This is a function of the strong insider/outsider dynamic of B.C. politics. It's why the Liberals are inherently weaker in their appeal than the old Socreds. While both parties had allegiance to business, the Socreds were a bit of an anomoly. They didn't appear to belong so strongly to the political and business elite.

This, I think, is the central challenge for the NDP, whether it involves attracting Greenish voters or Reformers. How can the party present itself as less beholden to its own "elite" and more in touch with folks who see themselves as ordinary citizens rather than soldiers in a class struggle, or an ideological war?

If the NDP can succeed in that effort, which is partly a matter of its own outlook and partly a matter of how it's portrayed, the party would win not only a good number of Green voters but a small but potentially more significant number of Liberal voters as well.

[B]Smokey asks the right question. Who funded the Green campaign? Fact is, the Liberals knew they had only one hope of winning: Keep the Greens in the race. Engaging Liberal supporters in the media-press and television- they kept Adrien Carr in the debate and the Greens in the race. There is simply no question about that. And to what end? Certainly not to be the benefit of the old, the sick, the young and poor of this province.

I would like to ask one question of the Greens: who would you rather be sitting across the table from, when negotiating some cause close to your heart? Would it really make no difference whether it was a Liberal or an NDP government? I think it would. Unions, nor Jack Munro, have ever controlled the NDP. And they never wanted to. They simply know that an NDP government is better to negotiate with than the other kind. What more could you ask for?

I voted Green in a Vancouver riding, and the NDP was definitely not my second choice. I'm fiscally kinda conservative, but socially progressive, and the Greens, warts and all, came the closest to what I could vote for.

If other parties don't want to lose votes to the greens, then they should adopt the best policies the Green party has to offer -- that's why I voted Green (I sure didn't expect them to win!).

In my political fantasy, the best Green policies would eventually be co-opted by the mainstream parties as a matter of common sense, rendering the Green party irrelevant. Then we'd get to argue how best to achieve green objectives, rather than whether we should really consider them at all.

"I would like to ask one question of the Greens: who would you rather be sitting across the table from, when negotiating some cause close to your heart?" [Vera K.]

In my work as advocate (case and systemic) for the poor I have, over the last nine years, negotiated with both and I say, "Neither."

Neither party is willing to be negotiated with on more than a few points affecting the most vulnerable. The poor did poorly under the NDP, and some of the poor did even worse under the BC Liberals. Neither scenario is acceptable. ("Would you like to be punched in the head or the groin?")

Poverty is close to my heart. Believe me, it was after much examination that I decided to opt out of the cycle of abuse and shoot for long term gain and real solutions.

Greens by any other name would still smell. CanWest was suspiciously chummy with them during the 2005 Election.

There truly is an awful lot of union bashing going on here, which I suspect is the real issue keeping some Greens away from the NDP.

And to the conspiracy theorist above who claims the NDP is catering to the unionized loggers up north, let me fill you in on a little secret. Actually it may have just been a secret to you.

There are few if any unionized loggers in the north.

And as far as Jack Munro being part of the decision-making process within the NDP, I think you've been hanging out in the same coffee shops as those marywanna party members.

If you knew anything about labour history in BC and epecially the real, non-bullshit history, you would know that Jack Munro hasn't been a favorite with most people on the left of Gordon Campbell for the past two decades.

You see, it was cap-in-hand Jack who showed up at Bill Bennett's front step in Kelowna one dark night back in about 1984.

Munro, who unconditionally surrendered on behalf of tens of thousands of workers without even a heads up to those workers who were out on the street, prepared to take on the first major right-wing flurry in BC.

Those days of protest were having a serious impact on the then Social Credit government, which realized it was into a fight it could lose.

That's right, had Munro stayed the course we in BC might today not be watching as yet another generation of radical right wing politicians continue dismantling the province the workers built.

And I ain't forgot yet neither, brother. I was stacking hay and working cattle at the the time, but I was sure as hell cheering on the General Strike and closely trying to read the effect it was having on agricultural folks.

Jack Munro. I better not start. And Kube! Pathetic fuck.

I think that the Green impact was slightly underestimated by some of your experts, nevertheless the point is well taken. However, the New Democrats don't have to do a deal with anyone. Barring some unforeseen seat alteration owing to absentee ballots, or recounts, the real story here is Premier Campbell. Former Social Credit Cabinet Minister's post election comments relating to the relatively poor BC Liberal showing, are a stark reminder how truly disappointed the BC Liberal party is. Indeed, everyone in the established media was shocked, with pundits now praying that the NDP loses a couple more during recount to save what little face and credibility they have left.

As the pollster who brought him to 'political life', I really think what may be interesting is Dennis Perry's plans for the future. There are in my opinion a great deal of moderate conservatives out there in B.C. who love green stuff. It might be an odd marriage but love of the environment is pulling an awful lot of different people together, and when the Wall Street, Bay Street, Howe Street types start coming together with a predisposition for honest policy with respect to the environment you could have the making of something very exciting, and without question BC is the place this will happen.

Although hardly sufficient evidence of my point, the Point Grey example, and Dennis Perry's case in West Vancouver-Garibaldi I think, makes this possibility pretty exciting.

And it's certainly that Green attitude to the working class in general, and the trade union movement in particular, that keeps me from voting Greens.

A cynical take on the debate so far:

A: NDPers think that the Greens must be a Liberal conspiracy

B: Greens are concerned that the NDP is controlled by a union elite

Chance of reconcilliation = 0%

My opinion:

A: As if...
B: Follow the money...

Allan, darn nice to see your comment. And Coyote's.

Me 3, I'll never forget -- or forgive -- Jack Munroe for that unbelievable moment when he appeared on Son-of-Bennett's patio to say it was all over, go back to your homes. Quietly.

I've never belonged to a Union but there was such a building sense of solidarity across the province in that time -- and Jack Munroe threw it away.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I see the Greens in the same light as Jack Munroe -- nothing to the Greens except the Hot Button "name" suggesting environment but imo fake, fake, fake. Coulda been Motherhood.

I didn't read all the comments so bear with me if this was already discussed. I don't see the NDP joining the Greens because we believe in Decentralization and localization, and we don't take donations from corporations or Unions ($200 is our max. i believe).

We are also in favour of cutting taxes, albeit for 'green' companies.

Other initiatives, such as a proposed open market on logs, and a end to the stumpage tax in favour of a per log tax. We would stop the export of raw logs, and other resources for that matter.

NDP is also the part that arrested protesters at Clayoquat. they are also the party that started the process of privatisation, and considering James's pro P3 attitutde towards the Nanaimo project, they haven't purged this element form the party. NDP also ordered the biggest paramilitary operation on Canadian soil at Gustafsen Lake. I don't think this is in fitting with Green Principles.

BC Mary, there certainly is a lot in a name, including the Hot Button you noted.

In the case of the Greens, at least from what I've seen, this BC/Canadian model is a shallow one sharing only the five letters with the real Greens of Europe.

If they were corporate entities, I'm quite sure Green Europe would have long ago had a lawyer send the usual warning letter about identity theft and the embarrassment and other damages it has suffered at the hands of these conservatives in green clothing.

As for 'I'm alright' Jack, one needs only reflect on that deed to see the damage it inflicted longterm on BC's labour movement.

Coyote, as angry as I can get sometimes about that era, I really can't blame Art Kube. Yes, he made a mess of it during his short term heading the Fed. and his tears, as honest and heartfelt as I think they were, did little to shore up morale.

Yet Kube went on to get involved in BC's seniors movement and remains loyal to the workers and retirees in BC.

He is not afraid to speak out when he can, and I can state with confidence that Kube's efforts with seniors to help keep Walmart out of Surrey helped win the day against a hostile Surrey council intent on ramming that big box menace through.

He may have retired, but he isn't a quitter.
As far as I know Munroe ended up smoking cigars with forestry's corporate sector bigwigs.

But then (please correct me if I error here), Jack came out of the side of the IWA labour movement that had been in bed with the McArthyists and other American politicians and spooks who smashed the hold progressives had on the IWA.

I'm sure there are a few of the old IWA members still living who might remind us of those events.

The only positive in that battle is the right wingers weren't as bloody brutal as their contemporaries were when they got around to the Seafarer union in the east.

Ok, sorry for really getting of topic here.

The Green Party DOES continue to accept corporate donations, in spite of what their platform says they will do AFTER they get elected. The Green Party has also rescinded its 'No Old-Growth Logging" policy, and on these two points, I left the party.

Nevertheless, the Green Party still offers the only credible baby-steps to begin to address the very real global ecological catastrophe. I expected to see a credible, progressive recogonition of basic ecological principles in the NDP platform, but it was pathetic beyond belief, relegated to page 46, -basically, a visionless afterthought.

This sent a clear signal to BC's environmentalist community, -that the NDP thought our vote was totally irrelevant, and that they would simply ignore that constituency, and limit their ambitions to being Gordo's opposition. This is what the 2005 NDP strategy was all along, and only in retrospect, did it dawn on them, that had they developed a credible, progressive environmental platform, Gordo would be OUT ON HIS ASS!

BC's Big Labour leaders utterly disgusted me when the brave Nurses took the province to the virtual brink of a General Strike, and then all the Big Labour leaders caved and quiselled in to Gordo at the eleventh hour. A sustained General Strike would have shut the Drunken Criminal out of a second term. Clear as a bell to the majority of plebes in BC toiling without the largesse of the union job, -those with the big-buck union paycheck were just adequately fat and comfortable living with Gordo. The couldn't quite get off their ass to do what it would have taken to get rid of him.

The NDP can only blame itself for its mediocre election achievement. It got exactly what it was going for. And in the next election, without a credible environmental platform, the enviro's will spoil it for you again. Personally, when we have to fight the destruction of the planet, bashing the voracious Gordo menace will get more support over the long term, than bashing the mediocre, middle of the road, milque-toast approach to destroying nature envisioned by Carole James.

ingkhai, you raise a quite interesting point above about labour.

Would you be so kind as to put more of a face or some form to this thing you call "Big Labour"

Is that the big labour that Gordon Campbell lied to voters about when he stated the teachers were about to shut the province down only days before the May 17 vote?

Would this be the big unions that had their health care industry contracts ripped up? Again more victims of another Campbell lie.

Frankly, I am tired of people like you who come out and join the Gordon Campbells and other liars in this province about who is holding who to ransom in British Columbia.

The only "big" union I know in BC that gets its way is the BC Medical Association. Talk about your fat cats.

And yes, you're right again. They are all too well fed to get off their interview coaches and protest with we small ones.

Or perhaps you are talking about that other Big Labour group that runs under banners like the Vancouver Board of Trade and various other sweet sounding titles of cooperative action? Yes, I agree, they acted pretty mean during the last NDP term in office when they took part in a capital strike against the people of British Columbia.

They killed off jobs, they forced small towns to close and they took the food off the plates of workers and their families in union and non-unionized households alike.

I'm certain those are the big guys you were referring to, weren't you ingkhai?

Uh, no. I think that he was referring to the BC Federation of Labour, wasn't that clear?

The reason of "fiscal conservatism" is the paradoxial explanation that always confuses me as why some people vote Green instead of NDP. This is perhaps one of the greatest examples of symbolic politics, since I have no idea what exactly Green voters are implying by this. The Green platform was anything but fiscally conservatie, yet everyone claimed it as so. It actually proposed plenty of tax increases which flies in the face of what a fiscal conservative is, along with plenty of increased spending.

While the NDP proposed no new taxes and moderate new spending. It makes me wonder if Green voters know even what their voting for, since it does not appear to be fiscal conservative in the strict definition of the term.

Along with many commentors i'll offer that this is a game with these numbers. I knew several steadfast people who would not vote NDP at all. Which saddened me, since I lived in Burquitlam and watched Bart Healey, a great outside the elite kinda guy loose by 400 votes. While the Greens recieved 1500 with Carli Travers who did very little during the campaign.

Bar none, the Greens should rethink this candidate in every riding business.

An interesting article but it is only a guess at what might have happened. I believe that if the press in this province was objective and told the truth about the NDP government in the 1990's and the BC Liberals in their reign, the NDP would have won the election. Secondly, when the BC Liberals lose the next election they will want a party that is untested, one that never held power and iswithout a bad reputation like the Socreds had. when the Socreds needed a base for power they went after the BC Liberals and with the help of Canwest Global crucified Gorden Wilson. This let Gordon Campbell take over the party. The Greens better watch out because they (the Neocons) will need a new vechicle to push forward their agenda. It doesn't matter if the name make sense, they just need something they can drive. There is a third point, that is that Carol James is trying to be a leader that meets the needs of all. This may be an impossible task, but she is the only leader who says she will consult with all parties concerned to try to reach consensus. None, esp. G. Campbell is willing to do this. She is the leader for all of us.

I must come to the defence of Jack Munro. If you used your brains you would know Munro could not have called off the general strike by himself, no matter what he did. When you have a committee sitting, planning, deciding, have you ever seen a situation where one member of that committee decided to do something and did it with no-one speaking out, questioning that decision? THINK! Nobody could do that. What happened was that the committee decided, after hearing reports from various representatives,that they could not pull off a general strike. They had to back out, and they had to find a way to do it. Going around the table they looked for one person who could make this announcement public. It couldn't be a government union spokesperson; it couldn't be a weak leader whose membership wouldn't back him/her up; and it finally fell to Jack Munro. BUT HE WAS SENT ON BEHALF OF THE COMMITTEE! If you think about it you would know this before being told. The chickenshit here are all those others at that table who slinked home and let Jack take all the blame, and not back him up or defend him.

Jack Munro has been the best union leader this province has seen, and the best NDP supporter. And if some of you loud mouths would take the time you could learn some real labour history. So much of what you are spouting is garbage.

I just came back from a long stay in India. There office workers and professionals are still working 9 to 9, six days a week. 'Techies' were working 7 am to midnight. We would be doing this too if it was not for unions. Remember that next time you are frothing at the mouth. Do you really think our industry or governments have very kindly handed us these better conditions and wages out of the goodness of their hearts? Where is you knowledge of history? There were union workers and organizers who gave up their lives for these conditions and all you can do is bad mouth them? Get some facts!

Thank you, Vera,

The people, ununited, will always be defeated.

And labour, no matter how badly organized, will always be more democratic than those who use their media power to create the widespread use of the term "big labour."

There is wishing, there is hoping, and there is reality. One can't simply wish a political party out of existence (like the Liberals tried after 2001), and simply split the political spoils as in a game of Risk.

Last election, the 'surge' in Green vote (to a whopping 13%)was largely fuelled by an NDP protest vote. It could be reasonably argued that the significantly reduced Green vote in 2005 (9%) was buttressed by a conservative media monopoly who read their internal polls and realized that, by shamelessly boosting the Greens, they could help keep the NDP out of government.

But the truth is, as always, slightly more complex. The detailed polling data I've seen shows that Green voters are twice as likely to vote NDP as Liberals, as their second choice.

However, it is not safe to assume that Greens' second choice would uniformly return if the party ceased to exist. The Green vote is still largely a protest vote - place to park your vote when responsible citizens aren't comfortable with the other main choices. Media saturation coverage of the Greens only provides a convenient place to park these votes.

The same can be said of the NDP portion of the Green vote. If the last four years of the Campbell Liberals weren't enough to make you vote for the only party that could defeat this political hemorhoid, it is likely there are other reasons at play for voting Green.

Not that the NDP platform did much to light a fire under progressive Green voters, you understand. The platform, and the campaign, could not be all things to all people. It was not possible to put forward an unabashedly progressive agenda, and withstand the withering attack on the NDP's political centre that the Liberals and their allies in the media would have waged... relentlessly.

The New Democrats correctly realized that the party's best chance for success lay in denying the conservative elite (read oligarchy) the opportunity to trot out all the old political chestnuts that have successfully polarized this province for generations.

By not endorsing the Campbell agenda, and by pledging not to undo some major components of their platform in the first term, the NDP successfully innoculated itself against the worst aspects of red-baiting that has characterized the political landscape of this province as far as memory serves.

My view is that the NDP - and by proxy the progressive movement in this province - achieved much more than could realistically be hoped for, just four years after such a humiliating defeat. Only a major political gaffe by the Campbell crew - a la Randy White - could have realistically tilted the election in the party's favour this time out. But next time... !

Mark my words. Campbell with not lead the (neo)Liberals into the next election. This time was for ego, because they realized if they dumped him so late in the term, they would have appeared weak. This is why they recruited people like Carol Taylor and Wally Oppal - to give the party an opportunity to choose a (seemingly) moderate leader after Campbell announces his retirement, about two years into his second mandate.

I just think the party is too mean-spirited and disconnected from reality to make that obvious choice. Talk to me in 2007, and I tell you whether I'm right or not.

Standing arm in arm in the same light.

Maybe the problem with Jack was, that he was such a good NDPer. Like I keep saying, part of the problem with the labour movement, which I
support, in terms of its rank and file, is that it has too often been shut down when it needed to stand up, by a much NDP dominated leadership, such as Jack Munro, for fear the working class might conclude that it could better solve its own problems, and come to not see politics and the NDP as "the solution".

Which is the real core of the problem, as I see it and have observed it from the time of Solidarity and the Kerkhoff dispute. (Remeber that one, which in its own way was the signal of the coming decline of the trade union movement as well?) The working class in particular, and the "organized" trade union movement arm of it, have both come to rely too much on other "outside" elements in politics, with political careers and their own special agenda axe interests to grind, instead of relying on themselves, their own manpower and material resources, and their own actions. This reliance on political "party" interests, of any and all stripes, to carry us, and be our "vanguard" has only served since the late 70s, one should be able to see now, to disarm us, use us as bargaining chips for others gain and games, and facilitate our betrayal-, currently underway, still.

Whether Jack Munro was sent on behalf of a Committee or took it on himself, or at the behest of sideline political masters, is really quite irrelevant, and a transparent attempt to drag an apologist's red herrings across our path. He did it, and they, one and all share responsibility for the betrayal, that is the point.

And now apparent it should be to one and all,certainly by now, as it was then, even to me, that it was an act of betrayal that not only did serious, serious damage to the trade union movement itself, and damaged the public attitude towards "Labour" down even to the present, destroying the trust in which it was held, but now we also have to rebuild and still yet, fight another fucking day, in less favourable circumstances and times.

In all of which, the Greens matter a twaddle, though at least they don't have THAT blame to carry around until the day they die, like Jack et al do.

After all these years, it still has the capacity to infuriate. Like Allan intimated, it's the underlying reason, really, why we are all in the goddamn pickle we are today, with this fascist crew in Victoria.

They're ALL, NDP and Green, in the service of their own interests. The working class needs to look after its own arse too, and stop being so friggin' naive as to think we can rely on others, especially politicians. They can be relied on only for so long as we have them immediately in front of us, and we are ourselves, as a class, in a position to be able to squash them like bugs.

What was not faced up to in 1983, was that we could have paid the price then, or it would have to be paid later, at some time, anyway. And the price it is going to extract from us, ain't getting any less with time.

How did a discussion thread about the Green Party and NDP become a referendum on the political career of Jack Munroe?! I suffered through the 80's Solidarity movement as a student activist, and felt as betrayed as anyone else by the machinations of Jack and crew... but this is 2005, folks! If we're still fighting 20 year old battles, the Campbell Liberals aren't our main problem, you hear what I'm saying?!!

Yes, Coyote, we pay for knuckling under 20 years ago. And we pay.
And we pay.

But we didn't then pay enough attention to the real battleground, the hearts and minds of our friends and relatives and co-workers.

And we got scooped, because the corporate takeover of newsmedia had already been completed, the Fraser and countless other "institutes" established, the development of a conservative attitude solidified, and we had relied on righteousness.

But, Coyote, are you suggesting we can look after our own arses by ignoring the NDP as the only viable vehicle, because they have politicians "in the service of their own interests" among them?

Look at the resumes of our current crop of MLAs: the Liberals who have put their interest ahead of the needs of others, and the NDPers who spent their lives in service of others at the expense of their own interests.

As someone who invested a great deal keeping track of the BC Liberals (over 100 polls), including opening the initial political lid on BC Rail (no journalists attend-there is always one that attends a news conference and the same time there is a two day strike at BC Ferries?)- I can tell you beyond a shadow of a doubt-the mainstream news media is without question the source of the problem. This last election was like it never happened. We have journalists sitting on panels with pollsters, and news agencies with corporate sponsors going along for the ride. Whatever happened with BC Rail-are they sealing that file forever? What is all this Jack Munro and other stuff politics sung to rap music blog. The problem is the pablum. We are being spoon fed drivel and somehow the debate is abstracted into areas that few people know anything about. The issue, rather the problem is the media, even the so-called traditional left media is so mainstream, its pitiful.

The BC Liberals did not think James would be as good as she was, but they should have had an inkling. The press pandered to Adriane Carr the same as they did in 2001, and they shut out DRBC, who with any air time might have achieved 4-5%, but that would have knocked out the BC Liberals, installed the NDP and all the pundits here who said "look at how good our election is, especially when you compare it to federal politics," would be facing the fact that we can't find leaders that anybody likes. Without the media absolutely pandering to Campbell, if he were treated just average, his popularity would have been 22%. There is little chance he will be able to hang on. Most of the larger unions are meeting soon, they have been waiting for their dough for quite a while and Carole James or not, one of them at least is going to snap.

Don't forget W.A.C. Bennett won most of his elections because of working people (8-9%). The Socred economic philisophy was that the people working on the line had to, at the end of the day purchase the products they were working on.

There simply are not enough business owners, managers and family to buy their own products, someone else has to enter the market, and they need disposable income to do that.

I admit to being raised in a Social Credit home, but my neighbours were school teachers etc. Elections when I was young would feature one house with a Social Credit sign and another with an NDP sign and there were houses everywhere with a sign. After the election was over we were all neighbours again because there was an understanding of mutual respect between the small business people like my father, and the Mr. Warren the radiator man up the street, and Mrs. Clark who worked for BC Tel down the other street.

This latest government was no friend of the people, it was a Vancouver manufactured 'show',
all geared for Olympics, and no thought for the people. If the NDP had not been so week, British Columbians would never have tolerated the bullshit that went on in the hospitals.

I think labour has been too timid, but I understand why that was. They need to quit apologizing and say I want a fair deal or go to hell. People need to hear the case for HEU workers, or for teachers. I don't even travel to see my family in Victoria anymore because it isn't the same trip. Its too expensive, and for what, a couple of leasehold improvements. I have been a business person all of my life, and I am not comfortable with the direction the province is taking. It isn't that its corporate, its phoney. This isn't down to earth B.C., and the workers need to remind everyone what it means to be down to earth. A little action might help get all of our spirit back. Somebody give me a brick

I Can't GET No Satisfaction ..from the May 17th election result and another four years of seeing Gordon Campbell's face all over the news, and worse, knowing that for four more years Capital in this province will have virtually a free- hand to continue extracting even more profit by exploiting organized & unorganized workers, by running completely roughshod over the natural environment, by furthering shredding the social fabric. The attacks on all forms of labor will continue, de-regulation affecting the forestry, mining, fisheries, oil& gas, hydro-electricity, farm-fishery, etc. sectors will continue as major corporations extract even more surplus wealth from the natural world without a care in the world about the environmental consequences. I expect to see more public assets sold off to private corporations. I expect to see more promises broken or not kept., I expect to see even more money from the bcpension funds invested in the 'war economy' of US companies ...which is ethically scandalous. The big losers are the non-business elites of this province, and those that have no voice, the wild salmon, the grizzley, the wildlife whose habitat will be affected as the boundaries of other provincial parks get 'de-constructed' so as to further benefit Capital- (as the Fiberals did in the Chilcotin!). What the Green Party Leadership hoped to gain by running non-electable candidates in virtually all 79 ridings is unknown to me?

The risk of vote splitting in key ridings was well known ...and as the polls forecast a very close race in many ridings...an electoral accord would have been worth a try, at least in one riding, Campbell's riding..and quite a few more ridings ...especially where the Greens knew that had not a hope in hell of winning in those ridings...and the only effect running a Green in such a riding would be to increase the probability of the Fiberals electing a candidate and deny an NDP candidate from winning.

.When I say 'electoral accord'...I mean an accord that would have benefited both the NDP & Greens electorally, would have meant coming together on some platform points where they agree, like No to oil & gas exploration, no to uranium mining, no to dismantling park boundaries, no more fish farm expansion & perhaps a move to closed pen technology or moving on -land, no to union & business
contributions to political parties, no- to selling off more public assets, yes to a fully restored Ministry of the Environment, yes, to Women Centres, yes perhaps to MMP, Yes to more long term care beds, to many things that both parties have in common...NOT just the differences that kept the parties apart.

It is certain that the leadership of both the NDP & Greens knew in December/January that it would be a tight race, that the Fiberals were in deep doo-doo land...and if the executive councils & leaders & staff of both the NDP and Greens really had the best interest of the environment & the people of BC in their hearts they could have found a way --through hell or high water, to have locked themselves in a room and come up with an electoral accord to not split the vote so severely. -at the very least they could have devised electoral damage control measures. ( i.e. In Vancouver. when COPE swept into office in Vancouver, they left two seats open so the NPA could also elect some people to council....something like that!)

Such a deal might have been worked out during the spring of 2005. In my opinion it wasn't to be because the political cadre/brass/staff & the political leaders of both the NDP & Greens weren't for it--simple as that. Furthermore, the general membership of both parties had little to no power to push that 'block of power' into a different trategy...because there is little 'space' within each of those respective parties for divergent voices to be heard, considered and acted upon by that dominant 'power block'. Now, doesn't that raise a lot of questions about the still unresolved internal democratic workings of those two political parties, of how disconnected from their base of support?

For the next election, given that a FPTP system is still in place, without an electoral deal between the NDP & Greens --the Liberals could very well win again. It is thus imperative that the members of both parties overcome the 'dominant power blocks' within each party so as to push leadership towards such an electoral accord, and furthermore, that membership push Leadership to actually take on the agenda of neo-liberal Capital for this province...to not buy this 'balanced' muddle of the road B.S. platform.

How, CJ & the NDP could attack Campbell's extreme right wing record yet offer so little to reverse that extremity is way, way beyond credibility. It was a pathetic "small-l" liberal platform
...and if that is where the NDP is going, dropping all reference to social democracy, failing to taking on the excesses & privilege of Capital ---then certainly many who held their noses and voted NDP...will not be doing that again--they may not vote at all ..rather than park their votes with a 'small-l' liberal NDP party controlled by a small power clique based on the coast.

The BC Liberals only got about 46% of the vote, the other 54% of the electorate voted to throw them out....except that 54% vote was split...and that is why we all lost. Splitting the vote in a First Past the Post System ...usually means in this province, that the political party representing Capital will always win. I don't fault those people who voted Green. If there is any 'fault' to be found I say it is in the political leadership and 'power cliques' of both parties who disempowered their respective membership and who would not in any way shape or form seriously listen to, or attempt an electoral accord. I ask these questions: (1)as the polls showed a tight race in late 2004/early 2005 - did Adrienne Carr and Carole James ever sit down together to personally explore this matter of an electoral accord? (2) If so, how often and how long were those meetings, and if they never occured, why not, and whose decision was it to not arrange such a meeting?

If it has not become abundantly clear yet... The Greens will NEVER[I][B] be elected in BC.
The ONLY hope that our province has of seeing any meaningful change is as follows (and I say so because we continually bicker over uncontrollable politicians. You hate mine and I hate yours and together we hate them all)
If a poll were to be done that asked this question..."Did you vote for STV because you thought politicians would be more easily controlled with STV?", I'm certain the answer would be yes by a high margin. Even Mr. Robbins would have to agree if he were to ask such a question. (It would be interesting to see that result.)
In fact, not much would have changed with STV. STV would not do what the bulk of the yes voters hoped it might do. It would not control the people who were elected.
Campbell, the crafty devil he is knew that from the outset or he would never have begun the process.
In the 2001 election, he promised to make MLA's more accountable to their constituents. But, with all of the unpopular things he was doing, the last thing he wanted was a bunch of MLA's that he couldn't control. Thus the CA was born. Saddled with rules that fobade any system that wasn't in the Westminster model, they set about trying to find something for everyone. Those who looked closely at the new system either loved it or hated it. And, the majority who voted for it, didn't have a blessed clue how it worked, but hoped for politician control anyway.
The Greens, God bless them mean well, but they freak the hell out of working people in places outside of the 604. They will never get elected. Can they still make a difference? You betcha!
Can the working guy stop government from blowing all of our tax dollars and screwing us out of all of our heritage that our parents fought so hard for? You betcha!
We need to put the current initiative process to the test.
IF and initiative began that asked four clear, yes no questions that dealt with governance itself, The people could very well be empowered to leash the unruley dogs we call MLA's.
1. Do you support legislation that allows MLA's to be recalled based on 40% of those who actually voted in the previous election?
2. Do you support initiatives that will bind a government to do the wishes of the people?
3. Do you support empowerment of the citizens of BC to have power through initiative over any act or policy enacted by a any BC government?
4. Do you believe that any sale or other similar division of a crown corporation should be ratified by the citizens via referendum prior to completion of the deal?

I believe that if these questions were put to the people, they would be supported by the people of the province.
I believe in the collective wisdom of the people. Politicians think you are stupid and incapable of making an informed decision.
let's fight back friends!

Shall we screw the Liberals?

Curious. How many of us Greens and NDPers in the above threads went door to door during the election?

Great Discussion People,
In my short 11 forestry years I worked both contract and union jobs. On the union side; I've earned over $500 in one day for boating around doing nothing. On the contract side, I've been stuck in a tent in the snow for nearly a month with no pay, one meal a day, and no way out. Leaning too far one way or the other leads to problems. But the biggest tragedy of all is that those experiences led me towards a legal career (sigh).
What can be said (as a leftist, an environmentalist, and a fiscal moderate), is that I think the union movement needs to become more progressive. Now I don't mean selling out. But too much of the union movement in practice is outdated bureaucrotism. Let me be clear. One of the biggest justifications for unions is that professional workers are more efficient. I think that this needs to be reinforced, and some changes will need to be made to make it always true. I think more creativity in managing seniority issues might go a long way. I know it is a touchy subject, but I feel promoting a vibrant and creative unionised workforce will require some creative negotiating. When you enter negotiations with the starting point that "we want to make this the most professional and efficient workforce this industry has ever seen", perhaps we can get the bastards to give a little more than they are willing in current context of premodern trench-unionism.
And if there is any relevant point at all to this post; it is that a more progressive shift in labour might go a long way to convincing fiscal-Greens that the NDP is worth voting for. And who knows, maybe labour will even find new ways to fit-into (and take back) part of the ever-fracturing post-modern economy.

The point that it is structurally necessary to maintain good high paying jobs. Any government that would begin to sell off Assets on the basis that this is 'smaller government' means at least to some extent you have a segment of the population that doesn't get it. I honestly believe that the NDP came close to winning that election. I have spoken to alot of independent business people with some means who were never happy with ripped up contracts. You will see labour straigten a few things out. The public is not going to hold Ms. James accountable for what labour does, only those who support Campbell. With the run-up to the Olympics coming labour owns Campbell. He isn't even thinking about having a majority, he is thinking about the Olympics, and he does not get it done without making Bill Goat Gruff happy. He used the teachers as a bully pulpit to eek out a win, and now they are ashamed embarassed, humiliated, and want revenge. Some say a strong Opposition will make Campbell and Co stronger, dont' bet on it. Four years of total bullydom, he will never adjust to that kind of challenge. I don't think he is good in a brawl,he isn't a populist and a populist has a sense of who is for him and who is against him. Nearly everyone is against Campbell, it is his party that is propping him up, and from what I am told many in his party are sick of him.

As for the taximan-can we get some adjustment to the questions. I am forever trying to get off the support thing. You can have degrees of support which makes the questions more worthwhile, but the mainstream guys use support all of the time because it gets them the answers the want, but in terms of a fair depiction it is useless. Maybe agree disagree with a preamble: 87% of BC voters chose either the BC Liberals or the BC NDP, the two main parties in the race, yet 57% voted for a new electoral system, namely STV. In your opinion do these two results strongly suggest that British Columbians are unhappy with their representation in the legislature?
Ideas??

I agree with Peter Dimitrov's analysis. I'm a strong environmentalist, organic farmer etc. Running Green candidates in many parts of the province was nothing more than hysterical egomania that backfired badly. I'm not certain of the Party's organizational setup, but we also have to remember that federally the Greens have been taken over by the disgruntled ex members of the PC, with a neoliberal agenda shown in the last federal elections. Basically the same as when Campbell was given the BC Liberal Party by big business, after the collapse of the Socreds. Also, in Europe, where the Greens have achieved certain electoral gains, e.g. in Germany, they sold out to the usual neoliberal demands and neoclassical economics, as have the Social Democrats.The coalition government didn't dare to put the EU Constitution to vote, as the French and Dutch have done, knowing that it would be rejected, because it is nothing more than the sellout of democratic decision making powers to corporate profit demands. So, its no wonder people have poor opinion of politicians and consider them, by and large, crooks who live on lies . Greens not excepted.
As far Jack Munro is concerned, he was a one man political disaster area as a union leader, having lost thousands of jobs during his tenure at the IWA, also as the CEO of the fast ferries program etc. etc. The man is a baffoon, incredibly promoted into leading positions by puppet masters, without any logical reason, but thousands of victims paying a high price. Ed Deak, Big Lake.

According to Deja, if the NDP belongs to just one international socialist organization, then that is one international socialist organization too many. And about 50 years ago Joseph McCarthy said that if there is just one communist in the State Dept that is one communist too many. So it's good to see that here in Beautiful BC our political discourse is right up to date with the latest trends.

"I'd be gald to. Strikes, work to rule, etc. While it is true that these are temporary closures .. they serve to underline the disregard that both the unions ... have in this province for the interests of the average British Columbian."

It looks like Deja's anti-union credentials are in good order! He is claiming that if workers exercise their right to withdraw their services they are showing a disregard for the public. Nothing could be further from the truth and everyone know's it. People do not go on strike on a whim, and public sector workers and private sector workers in roles serving the public are painfully aware that any hard bargaining they do risks the wrath of the press and the public.

Played cleverly by people like Deja it gets to be a really sweet Catch 22 situation. Workers in some public services are not allowed to go on strike because they're "essential", so they don't get a pay raise that's competitive with other sectors, with the amusing and fully intended result that after several rounds of this Monty Python treatment, their work is sooo essential they're being paid peanuts.

Funny, eh Deja? Saves on your tax bill alright!!!

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=kamlo...13489&t=k&hl=en

These satellite photos were interesting, I didn't know Google had this stuff. Thanks.

On the topic of forestry practices, I don't claim to be an expert, but when the NDP was in the rules were tightened considerably as regards the size of cuts and setbacks from watercourses, something federal fisheries has the power to impose, but never does. Thanks to anti-union former DFO Min and environmental hero David Anderson for his share of that federal inaction.

Holy Cow, it's like the freakin' Agora around here! What an enlightening thread. I think an obvious strategy for both the NDP and Greens next time around is to ensure the DRBC or Unity Party or its ilk gets plenty of screen time and media, so as to fracture the Libs socially conservative votes among a number of right-wing parties.

Cosmo,your reference to professional workers, in which I suspect you mean unionised worker, is correct.

Those efficiencies have been shown in study after study, but seldom get much play in the business or economic media stories of the day.

Too deep for some editors, I guess.

I think if you talk to any honest human resources practitioner, he or she will agree to the efficiencies created when everyone knows the rules and must play by them or else.

Sure there are immediate efficiencies for an employer when he or she gets to decide what each worker earns regardless of other factors.

I'm sure Monday morning firings of the least productive the week before do motivate as well, but does it generate anything other than fear and is that the way to success?

It's always been my view that a person with a steady job, assured of an income and with the ability to be protected from unfair decisions on the job is more likely to turn up Monday morning than the guy who will be gone in a flash if someone offers him a bit more.

There is this myth that once someone has job protection they become lazy, obnoxious malcontents who ride the gravy train well aware the going's safe and easy.

A very cynical view and no doubt the creation of people with so much money and time on their hands they think everyone must be out to screw them.

Makes you wonder how some people got rich in the first place.

Or maybe it just outlines the true impact of capitalist dogma that permeates our culture, our education systems and the ongoing wars of exploitation.

So it's dog-eat-dog by daylight and recounting the buckets of profit each night.

Aw, what a life.

To my mind "FreeBC"...what you say is right on, namely:

"We need to put the current initiative process to the test."

In this regard, and others, I believe in "praxis". This means the union of 'reflection' with action guided by that reflection. Action without reflection & critical analysis & strategy is mere 'activism', while 'reflection & analysis & talk all the time -without action...is nice, polite, but it amounts to 'passivism'. We must, in the effort to re-assert citizen power & sovereignty over politicans comprehend praxis.

So let me propose, we first do some 'reflection, some analysis'...and then contemplate the options for action flowing from this.

1. Analysis of the legislation respecting Citizen Initiatives in BC

The Legislation should be analyzed to see if it is possible to win any victories under it - or if the legislation is so onerous and confining that it makes it virtually impossible for citizens to exercise their power, or does it lead to the end result of citizens initiatives been trumped by elected politicians, especially the Premier and Cabinet.

Then if it is an all clear - freebc's ideas need to be looked at closely, are those the best questions to ask, are there others perhaps more vital, do we ask them all, do we pick one or two, on what basis do we sort out the possible questions?

Finally, I also agree with freebc's assertion that:

"In fact, not much would have changed with STV. STV would not do what the bulk of the yes voters hoped it might do. It would not control the people who were elected. Campbell, the crafty devil he is knew that from the outset or he would never have begun the process."

Indeed and you can bet 100% that the NDP, BC Liberals, and every other party that I know of wants to keep the 'system' of elitist Executive government intact, where the Premier & a very few within his Cabinet control it all - where the 'whip' their other elected MLA's to vote exactly on party lines to force through legislation they want - the exceptions ar the Paul Nettleton's of the world and the few independents in the House of Commons too. STV would not modify any of that 'institutional structure', neither would it make politicians more accountable. In essence we need to begin a move that brings an end to coastal dominated, elitist representative democracy, we need to change the political architecture of this province...and in my view, to do that by first 'reflection & analysis' ...which will then guide our actions--"praxis" ....not mere activism because we want change, not passivism which arises when we believe that because we have discussed it on the Tyee or with a few friends ...we can put the issue to rest...we need too solidarity with others.

...this time is an axial time in the history of BC & Canada, it is a time when we, the citizens must analysis how it is we have been disempowered by the private and public structures of political power & finance in this country...and best may we commence our journey to greater empowerment & consciousness. The fate of this province, Canada, indeed this world, depends to a considerable extent what we do --and what happens south of the border. Do we 'deeply integrate' with continentalist forces or do we, in solidarity, come together to renew democracy, this province, this country? These are some of the questions to consider, at least from my perspective, perhaps I am wrong, or have incomplete & incorrect views, perhaps this is too idealistic. With struggle, solidarity, critical consciousness linked to action...there is no liberation, no hope for genuine democracy.

With regard to the questions as being "Do you support...", I'm not so fussy as to whether it's a hard yes no answer until it's put to a referendum to the people.
The people of this province are not stupid. While a person may or may not like The Greens, not everything they believe is wrong. But they are without question a single issue party. That scares many people, and as a result makes them un-electable.
The US system has two parties (for the most part). They are not pleasing to the bulk of the people of the US. However, because the elected officials are vulnerable to recall and initiatives, they are quicker to stand with the folks who elected them, and not with their own party on many issues of governance.
It should also be noted that the US system has free votes for every vote. Something we need desparately here.
I feel that the questions for referendum need to be worded in such a way as to make it impossible for slime-buckets like Gordo to wiggle out of following through to the letter. Unconstitutionality is also a poor excuse for leashing politicians, mostly like Campbell, and teaching them to heel. (Somebody whack him with a rolled newspaper.)
Perhaps a poll question such as the one about STV could be followed up with something more graduated so that you can locate the emotion in the responses.
But unless someone can think of some way to refine the four questions to still achieve yes/no answers I wouldn't like to change them. The referendum Questions will be yes or no. We need to leash our politicians. And I believe that there is strong unity amongst the people across all party lines, and that's a general hatred and overall mistrust of politicians.
I think Robbins can clearly demonstrate that in polls.
Correct?

A good discussion overall, for which I regret little time to really delve in here, so content myself with lobbing quick small grenades. Hopefully, this discussion will re-emerge another time in another form.

As for those who fail to see the significance of this brief Jack Munro/General Strike discussion, going back to 1983, suffice it to say, it is merely to make the point that we have been here before. And we are here because, what needed to be achieved then, was not. For reasons of Jack, the Trade Union movement itself, and many others, as some here have helped make clear where I did not.

Outside of all that, I much identify with what Peter has written and made clear here, about the current state of BC politics and economics, above quoted. Also, it is much of the gist of Fait Lux.

But whilst I am pissed at both the Green and NDP for their failures to take the necessary steps to crush the fucking Neocons this election, there is again more than that simply to it. There also occurred, is occurring and may yet for a time into the future, a failure of not only these movements, and the trade union movement, but of just plain, ordinary old folks, working class folks, that allowed this to happen.

Over the Prosperity Period of the postwar,coming out of the wearisome trials of the Great Depression and WW2, working class folks got lulled into an apathy and acceptance of what was. Yes, imbalances occurred between union and non-union, but largely unions had sufficient heft yet, though already becoming corrupted itself, that unions tended to raise all boats, simply to keep them out of workplaces, that became difficult to fight.

Who wants to fight if one doesn't have to, right? Being the opportunist response of the period that reflected itself even in the working class.

But no sooner did the lethargy inducement qualities of that period settle into everywhere, along with many other insidious consequences, including physical, intellectual and moral terpitude, affecting broad spectrums and elements of the labour and other movements of ordinary folks, than the postwar construction of Europe and Japan period suddenly ended, and capitalism began to settle back into its more normal patterns of trade competition and the pursuit of imperialist control of markets and resources. Which, along with resurrecting the old growing war dangers, not only with then "official" Communism, but increasingly, down to the present, amongst rising New Europe, Russia and the US over issues of oil access, trade, debt and currencies etc., China, Israel and Palestine etc. etc.

And the re-emergence of that more normal pattern of capitalist development had some new and distrurbing "natural environment" elements added to it, in the form of collapsing natural systems, along with a sudden impatience on the part of western ruling classes with their own working classses and their demands for health care and steady improvements in wages etc.

Enter the new period of Neocon politics, to return society and these working classes back more to a time when they worked, did as they were told and were grateful for whatever they were given, and left the ruling and management of the economy and state to, yes, you guessed it, the ruling class and their managerial frontmen. (Now including Glen Clark.)

And yes, thus far they have been able to pull this off and begin this backward retrogression of society, through a series of "let the market dictate policy" measures, in part out of their sheer shock and fear value effect these policies have had. More than this however, they have also occurred by coincidence or design, at that moment when the mass of folks were at their maximum levels of cash indebtedness, least inclined to take risks, or, though there was still the "formal" rhetoric, least given to "collective" action and loyalties, having bought holus bolus into capitalist "market" individualism, and the hedonistic pursuit of "stuff".

And in no small measure, Solidarity 1983 was the final measure of that, and while Jack Munro was the formal doer of the dirty deed that made clear the obvious, it was "folks", working class folks who allowed him to do it. They returned "relatively" quietly back to their jobs, where the "austerity" axes began their chopping almost immediately, and continue into this Neoconazi Liberal present, of quarrelling NDPers and Greens.

So Jack was the messenger, for which I still despise him, but the low state of real, defiant, in your fucking face solidarity that actually existed amongst the working class was the message. And the significance of that message was lost on no one, workers themselves, the labour bureaucracy, or the ruling class, or any of the intermediate social strata.

The question is, as I think we are coming to now, are we beyond that subset period described above yet?

I think we are, but not without a new social vision for the working class, that they can relate to, and find in common with other class and social strata, and NOT without a new vision of democracy itself, that in place of the old imbalances and excesses of the Prosperity Period, holds out to working class people a more equitable material security and "community" in their lives, and more complete "participation" in society-, but especially "the economy". They need to see that they will be brought in from the cold, and given new "rights and powers" in the form of an "equal" management and direction role over the economy and its enterprises, instead of being merely its first line casualties and victims, the cogs in the wheels of others.

Most especially, I say, at least thus far, this issue of Green versus NDP is a red herring. Peter is right. A solution to THAT is readily to hand. Of even greater importance, to my mind , the working class itself needs to come to see that they themselves ARE the ultimate solution. That being so regardless of what the politicians and trade union leaders do, but have they the will, the level of organization, the capacity and determination to "engage" if necessary, at whatever level is required to move society forward again-, if in a somewhat more nuanced direction than mere capitalist materiality/consumerism.

I think we should take the disenchanted from the Greens, those that are unhappy with the power clique that presently runs it, (the power clique that hides corporate donations and that expects to be taken seriously when they front candidates that leave for New Zealand before election day (how's that for seriousness?) and that have resumes you would expect from a summer camp counsellor (governance by dilettantes)...

Join the disenchanted Greens with the disenchanted NDP's who expected much more heat during the election in regards to the Fiberals selling out of BC, who wanted to see stronger environmental and workers rights platforms...who realize we are running out of time here before Gordo seals the fate of BC forever both environmentally and politically...join these two forces together and I think you'd have quite a political party that could really go the distance.

not only did I burn my breakfast during the time it took to write my last post, but there are typos all over the place, sigh...I'll be scrubing that pot for a few days!

Please note the last sentence contains a bad typo -it should read:

"Without struggle, solidarity, critical consciousness linked to action...there is no liberation, no hope for genuine democracy."

Peter, I would only suggest that party policies stay out the questions because the leash will designed to fit around the scrawny necks of anyone who dares to seek elected office.
It must be equal treatment for all parties. Harsh on those who would attempt to screw the people over, and still allowing for moderate governance.
We cannot have the extremes that have dominated our politics for too long now.
Currently, initiative legislation as it is in law, is only a strongly worded suggestion. Even if it passes all of the rediculous hurdles to get to the legislature for consideration, the MLA's are able to defeat the initiative or water it down to the point of uselessness.
What I'm suggesting is a comprehensive assault on the way we actually govern in BC.
If you will, it will resemble a prolitariate revolution in BC. By the people and for the people will really mean something here.
THEN and only then, will Green iniatives be able to be seen and voted on by the citizens of the province.
In essence what I'm suggesting means that it won't matter who forms government. We will still call the shots.

...may I propose what we need to discuss, elaborate upon, is a concept called 'participative democracy' - what it is, how it is different than mere representative parliamentary democracy, what rights and duties ought citizens possess within such a model of democracy, how can it be achieved and defended. Along with that we really need to understand how we all have been fundamentally dis-empowered and oppressed by the British model of elitist Executive governance imposed upon this country...which continues to this day to privilege the political and business elites of this country & continent - especially given the 'deep integration' contintentalist tendencies.

I propose the first, fundamental tenet of participative democracy is that:

"Soverign power is inherent only within each citizen of Canada".

...that is soverign power does not reside within the Crown, Ministers of the Crown, Premier's Prime Ministers, the Legislatures, or the Courts, rather sovereign power is vested directly with citizens. Acceptance of this tenet ..is the basis for 'constituent power of the people' to decide the 'rules' by which they want to democratically govern themselves.

Both the NDP and Greens have much to gain by a small degree of cooperation. No grand union is neccesary or advisable

Here's a modest deal that would drastically help both parties:

The Greens agree not to run in 15 swing ridings. This would give the NDP a good chance of forming the next government.

In return, the NDP agree to make electoral reform a majour component of their election platform. The NDP agree that if they form government they will implement some form of proportional representation within the first two years of their mandate.

This would be a win-win situation.

And best of all we would no longer have to see supporters of the BC Liberal do everything they can to increase the popularity of the Green party during the next election.

Hmmmm. Interesting concept. Clearly both parties, in their current format and with their current "centre" interpreted ideologies, are NOT up to the task. I'm going to chew the fat of this idea for awhile. There is definitely something about it I like. (The left of both parties find and make common cause?)

And Peter, your burnt breakfast certainly did not do your little grey cells any harm.

Which it is, in any case, if not formally conceded, and only that folks do NOT understand that or act upon it.

A new Constitutional Assembly and a new Magna Carta process, this latter incorporatable into the former, to limit the power of the Kings of Capital. and redefine the relationship between Capital Property/Management and Labour within the economy. In my view, they are the two sides of the same coin, the redefining of the State, the Nation and the People, and on the flip side, the relationship between Capital and Labour.

You really want to end strikes within the economy, not just talk about it?

Bring the working class in from the cold and make them a real and equal partner within enterprises and the economy, its management and direction, in living reality not just rhetorically, or in an under the table form between Labour Bosses and Capital Bosses. Within a new "democratic" and "participatory" arrangement of ownership and management power that includes, not excludes front line, shop floor level workers.

I can't believe there are so many woolly- headed armchair philosophers with pie-in-the-sky quick solutions. Have any of you gone door to door and talked to voters? Have you any idea the lack of knowledge or information - and they think information is going to be absorbed by osmosis.

I must make one more comment to Coyote who is still angry at Jack Munro and the committee who decided to call off the general strike. Again, think it through: the reports given at that committee meeting revealed that a general strike could be called, but it would not succeed. If those leaders couldn't get their members to vote against Bill Bennett, how were they going to get them to give up a day or more wages by going on strike? And if a general strike is called and fails, then what is the message to the government and the employers of the province?

After 50 years of political activities,in every federal, provincial, municipal, school board elections I have to admit I don't know how to win. And I want to have younger folk take over the fight. But for god's sake, build on the past, the experience, the achievements; don't pull down those that came this far. We gave it our all. It wasn't enough.

And for the Greens I have this message: just remember the United States had a social democratic party years ago. But in that large country, the party split, and then split again, and again until it became useless and redundant. We in Canada held together, we fought each other but held together. We were made up of a loose coallition of interest groups, women, environmental, labour, poverty groups. Even then we seldom won. We negotiated with each other and did the best we could. It wasn't enough. But we still have a progressive party that should be enhanced, changed, used, improved - but STAY TOGETHER. Even without ever forming the federal government we made a major contribution to this country. We have medicare; we have a kinder community. You can thank the CCF/NDP.

Coyote, I am correct in saying that you think the unions, or working people are in trouble, in the sense that they are losing or have lost power, and this brings your discussion to Jack Munro and yesteryear. I was under the (perhaps false) belief that unions pensions and such were very powerful. Forgive me, if I am a little lost, the rabble is a little more 'nashing of teeth' than the polling culture I have been comfortably become accustomed to.

Also, if it is possible to set the questions I will ask them, whoever said yes no is generally correct. Four questions would be marvelous. Is it possible to spawn four referendum like questions from this 'rabble pluralism.'

Increasingly, I think this thread is either a month late or almost four years premature.

The entrails are now easy to read and far too rank to want to pull apart too much, although dissect them we must.

Coyote, your call for a new Magna Carta is an interresting concept, but let's not forget, despite how much praise and thank yous have been heaped upon it's implementation hundreds of years ago, it was a deal between a powerful king and a powerful oligarchy.

I suspect both sides would certainly have agreed, if asked, that the Magna Carta's only real immediate impact on workers was to ensure they would be forced to fight and die for King and country with the blessing of the nobles and other elite who sued for peace using the peasants as pawns.

Workers today are still in need of a good union and a political movement that actually defines and pursues their needs rather than those of their bosses.

Budd Campbell said:

Actually Bud, it seems that you, and most of your comrades on this site, have lost the point of this dicussion. The question was: What would it take to create a reliable alliance between the Green and NDP parties? One of the things that has made many Greens reject the NDP is its close ties to organized labour and international socialism. Greens are not socialists, if you choose to be that is your choice. I have great admiration for many aspects of socialism, but Greens tend to have a much more Libertarian mindset. We are the childeren of Kirpotkin and Bookchin, not Marx and Douglas.

Well, mabye they are. But that is not my personal take on the issue anyways. I thought that we were having a debate about issues, not a personal quarrel.

For those who wish to make modern unions releant to the working poor they may actually choose to listen to this criticism, because it is prevalant and very damaging to both the unions and the NDP. So damaging that even the NDP braintrust is trying to find ways to distance themselves from the unions. Despite the labour movements best efforts to protray themselves as fighting for the common good, without real efforts (32 hour work week, fighting for better labour standards for all workers, fighting to elimenate poverty, general strikes to gain those things)the average non-union worker in this province will continue to view the labour movement as self interested and pretty much irrelavent to thier lives, no matter how many wonderful things they did in the past.

I am honestly surprised and a verocity and anger that the Greens seem to generate. There has been many amazingly contradictary viewpoints about where the Green Party fits on the spectrum. It seems that we are noe-cons who's natural place is with the other socialist progressives!

This is all good news for us. Our persistance has forced the traditional lefies to sit up and pay attention, as well we are finally starting to get the message out that Greens are not just digruntled NDPers, that we are a party with its own distinct vision.

Noam Chomsky's statement for the Broad Coalition' s strategy to end Green-NDP vote-splitting, :

"I would like to join the Broad Coalition in urging British Columbians to reject the BC Liberals on May 17th. It is essential that voters think hard about voting without compromising their values. It is equally important that voters consider voting strategically. So the work of the Broad Coalition, generating grassroots discussion and getting progressive voters to cooperate, is an important initiative."

Noam Chomsky, April 2005

Freebc, you said the GP is a single party issue.

Which issue is that? Is it the guaranteed livable income? The health care through disease prevention? The sex trade exit program? The tenant co-ops? Local government? Or one of the dozens of other points that led me to become a member?

Thank you for educating me that we (GP) have a lot of work to do in letting people know what we stand for. Point well taken.

Which is the point of an entirely new Magna Carta concept, and then talking more rhetorically, and using as an example, than per se, or exactly-, as an agreement context, in this case, between two "separate" , not similar, class forces, as was the original Magna Carta, on redefining the specifics of their relationship within society and the economy. Nor does it necessarily exclude the use of unions or political parties.

More particularly, there are many possible arrangements of course, but I advocate an, if necessary, "compelled" re-arrangement of their relationship, its "democratization", limiting ruling class input and influence and expanding working and broader society powers, management and participation over the economy and enterprises, its goals and outcomes, including decisive "social" control.

My preference, basically, is to grandfather current ruling class powers over a specific period of time, staging the diminishment of their management and control, and a parallel expansion of working class AND community input, management and control, as their expertise and preparedness reach appropriate levels. (In other words, allowing time for that to evolve and mature enroute with making the re-arrangement.)

The role of unions and political parties may over the course of time of its introduction, and as its impacts become clear, may have to evolve and change, assume different form and content-, and maybe over larger time frames, even be absorbed or radically altered. Sometimes, and especially in such a transformative scenario as I advocate and describe, it is not possible to see every nuance or necessity at relatively great distance into the future. (Shit happens, dynamics will become somewhat altered, and the purposes and dynamics of social groupings as trade unions, will doubtless be effected and need to redefine themselves to various degrees. That goes on now even within capitalism. Unions are already dramatically different creatures with a different social or practical role than that perceived from their early founders, who tended to see them more as revolutionary vehicles for change and working class power, not "labour management" institutions for Capital, as I suggest, they have tended to become. (Though it is not that entirely clear cut, for sure, in all instances. There is a fairly complex dynamic in place, driving their relationship with current capitalism.)

I use the magna carta concept merely as an evocation of a past struggle involving class forces, in this historical case within ruling class forces themselves to be sure, to define their own relationship and to limit the power of the king within that. No doubt, what I am talking about here, takes that to another entire level of complexity and risk, involving a subservient class and an entire ruling class.
Which is likely to make my New Magna Carta proposal, a qualitatively different kettle of fish, despite whatever rough and dirty similarities with history. For the differences, as you indicate, ARE important too.

There is no doubt however, in my mind, that labour unions will have an important and defining role to play throughout what I have described, and for as far ahead as I can see. (Assuming there is not a fatal flaw in my thinking here, which is certainly more than a possibility. :-)

Eh! Political parties? I am less certain off.

Though the title of Magna Carta itself is certainly not an imperative, and I am prepared to drop it at the slightest hint of its intellectual indigestability.

FWIW, I am a GP member in a swing riding (Kamloops-North Thompson)and I would support the practice of both Green & NDP not running a candidate in certain ridings.

So far, it seems only the GP, though, has been asked not to run a candidate in key ridings, but a deal would have to be mutual: GP runs a strong candidate in several ridings, and opts out of others; NDP runs a strong candidate in the rest of the ridings and opts out of the others. That's the vote I submitted, pre-election, with the Broad Coalition, too.

So, ya, back to the original question: With so many people with good intentions, how did an accord not happen in this election and, more importantly, how do we make sure it does in the next one?

"Actually Bud, it seems that you, and most of your comrades on this site... "

Me and most of my "comrades", eh? Well, Deja, I guess I deserved that after associating your brand of thinking with that of Joseph McCarthy! Still, you're the one who started this ball rolling by demanding that the NDP Get Out of the SI Now! I don't recall suggesting that the Greens had some kind of duty to BC voters to sever all ties with other sister Green parties in Europe.

"One of the things that has made many Greens reject the NDP is its close ties to organized labour and international socialism. Greens are not socialists, ... Greens tend to have a much more Libertarian mindset. We are the childeren of Kirpotkin and Bookchin, not Marx and Douglas."

Well, no argument that you reject labour. As for Kerpotkin and Bookchin, you'll have to educate me, these are names are news to me. Once again, I don't recall suggesting that the Greens had a duty to BC voters to sever all ties with environmental organizations. I find much of what the WCWC puts out to be silly, but I don't try to portray them as some kind of monstrosity the way you do the BC Federation of Labour.

"... Despite the labour movements best efforts to protray themselves as fighting for the common good, without real efforts (32 hour work week, fighting for better labour standards for all workers, fighting to elimenate poverty, general strikes to gain those things) the average non-union worker in this province will continue to view the labour movement as self interested and pretty much irrelavent to thier lives, no matter how many wonderful things they did in the past."

The only organized pressure group in society that will pursue better labour standards legislation covering both union and non-union workers alike, be it minimum wages, holidays, hours of work, safety regulations, compensation, or any other generally applicable employment standard is unions. If you can think of another organized group that has an interest in improving employment standards legislation, please tell me who they are. There is a major pressure group, mainly business organizations large and small, who are happy to lobby government, and persuade the public through the media, that what is neeeded is more "flexible" employment standards. In this context "flexible" means "lower".

Maybe you can refer me to the passages in the BC or federal Green's platforms that discuss raising employment standards, because I don't think I recall hearing this during the campaign, but I realize that could well be a combination of my ignorance and the media's unwillingness to tackle issues pertaining to daily life.

Enough of this idle and future talk. The crucial task now is to put enough pressure on the government so they'll have to implement pro-rep. (I still save a lot of time by skipping the writers who write so poorly they must use pen-names or just 1st names.)

--Korky Day,

BC Coalition for Persons with Disabilities. Interest in seeing real work options for people with disabilities. (In effect addressing the need of the majority of poor people.)

Workless Party. Reduced work week, plus.

Refugee and immigration groups. Get more specialists (trained overseas) working here. Not require them to go through the $6 "training wage".

Green Party. Improved childcare options for working parents. A minimum wage "based on the full-time wage required to meet the Low Income Cut Off". Extend minimum wage to cover piece work. Require companies to pay all workers for mandatory training. Support job training through tax credits. Reinstate protection (against excess or danger) for working children. Reinstate funding to ESB and extend protection to cover part-time, contractual, and casual workers. Consult with community about shortening the work week to 35 hours. Flexible work conditions (flex days; telecommuting, etc). Change tax exemptions to eliminate discrimination against families in which both parents work part time.

Didn't a huge chunk of blue collar voters in this province switch allegiance to the federal Reform party in former NDP strongholds in the hinterlands and the island during the early '90s because the federal New Democrats were perceived as "too green" and overly concerned with urban issues, as opposed to those of concern to the working stiff in the boonies?

Don't you think that a sizable chunk of labouring BC NDP supporters would switch to the BC Liberals if there was a close alignment of BC NDP ad BC Greens? Isn't that what our former NDP Premier Dan Miller did, in pursuing improvements to northern jobs, by joining Premier Campbell's northern development committee just before the election?

kurt, don't you think a sizable chunk of tie-in should have been worked into your logic?

Dan Miller's decision to sit on a development committee chaired by Campbell has absolutely nothing to do with any efforts by Greens and or NDPers to vote strategically.

This is a great summary of why greens aren't socialists:

Is Left Biocentrism Relevant to Green Parties?

David Orton

The following is taken from notes for the talk that David Orton gave at the Green Party of Canada Convention in Ottawa, on August 6, 2000.

1. A basic idea within the socialist and communist tradition is that society should control the economy, and not the economy control the society, as is the situation under industrial capitalism. If the economy is controlling the society, is it not possible to have an economy which accepts operating within general ecological limits, as each corporation maximizes its own economic interests. It is easier to visualize an economy operating within ecological limits if it is controlled by society. Social control of the economy does not have to be centralized, it could be decentralized in a bioregional economy.
2. Sense of collective responsibility for all members of a society. It is not acceptable that a few live in luxury and others in poverty. This is the social justice contribution of the Left. It means income redistribution nationally and internationally. A radical ecological politics must take account of the interests of the human species for political success.
3. Class awareness, being aware that not all are equal, although all may vote; that the press is free to those who own it in a capitalist democracy. Environmental, economic, and social issues always have a class dimension, if one looks beneath the surface of industrial capitalist society.
4. The Left has a concern for others and accepts the self-sacrifice of the individual interest for the collective well- being of the society. This is in opposition to the cult of individualism/selfishness under capitalism.

Negative Ideas

1. The Left has a human-centered world view, and cannot accept a biocentric/ecocentric outlook, that says animals and plants and the general ecosystem have to be treated on the same moral plane as humans. In any conflict situation, animals and plants and the physical Earth are defeated. Social justice is for humans, and is predominantly at the expense of the ecology.
2. The Left says that capitalism, not industrialism, is the problem. Implicit in this view is that it is the ownership of wealth, which is fundamental. Left biocentrism sees industrial society as the main problem. It can have a capitalist or socialist face. This industrial view also accepts a class analysis.
3. The labour theory of value from Marxism implies that Nature has no value or worth unless humans transform it through their labour. For deep ecology, Nature has value in itself. Greens see Nature, not labour power, as the principal source of human wealth.
4. The assumption that humans can own Nature, and that collective ownership is best. Yet, if Nature is being destroyed, human ownership of Nature is irrelevant, whether individual, communal or state.
5. Hostility to population reduction as a priority for an ecocentric world. For the Left, humans are essentially the only species that have value. The habitat needs of other life forms are not important, particularly when this means impacting on the human species.
6. The assumption from Marxism that freedom comes from the development of the productive forces, that is, the industrial base, which will generate the needed wealth for communist society. Consumerism becomes part of this. Left Biocentrism opposes more economic growth and, following Rudolf Bahro, popularizes that industrialized nations need to reduce their impact upon the Earth to one tenth of what it presently is, for long-term sustainability.
7. The Marxist position that capitalism “fetters” the forces of production is wrong. Capitalism massively expands these forces of production and destroys Nature in the process. There is no conception within Marxism of limits to growth, or the necessity for a contracting economy for an ecologically-sustainable society.
8. The Left has a materialist outlook and a culture which is quite hostile to expressions of spirituality, religion being the opium of the people. Left biocentrism holds that individual and collective spiritual/psychological transformation is important to bring about major social change and to break with industrial society. We need inward spiritual/psychological transformation so that the interests of all species overrides the self-interest of the individual, the family, the community, and the nation. Animism from indigenous societies has much to teach us.
9. The Left promotes the working class as the instrument for social transformation to a more egalitarian society. Left biocentrism, like Bahro, sees the trade unions as united with their employers in defending industrial society and privilege. Environmental and green politics recruits across class, although there is a class component to such politics. It has been my experience, for example in issues such as uranium exploration/mining and open pit coal mining, the killing of seals, pulpmill pollution, the spraying of biocides and destruction of forests, and the Sable gas project, that the unions involved or which stand to economically benefit, have had the same anti-ecological positions as their employers. This is the same in many other industries. Both unions and employers have an economic interest in the continuation of industrial society and speak with similar anti-ecological voices. In the main (of course there are exceptions) trade unions are generally environmental enemies, not allies, of the environmental and green movements.
10. The Left has no alternative economic model to that of the global, market economy. For example, the social democratic Left in Canada (the New Democratic Party) and in other countries, ends up adapting to the capitalist economic growth model, with its endless consumerism and the environmental destruction by trans-national corporations. A bioregional economic model not based on continuous growth, that will respect ecological limits and that serves social justice, could be an alternative model.
11. The Left minimizes individual responsibility for destructive social or ecological actions. For example, the logger is forced to clearcut to feed his family and pay the mortgage. Although the primary locus of blame is the destructiveness of industrial capitalist society, this position is a denial of personal responsibility. Individuals must take responsibility for their actions and be socially accountable. Part of being individually responsible is to practice voluntary simplicity, so as to minimize one’s own impact upon the Earth.

Kurt,

No doubt the working class in general and the Labour Movement have their "green" differences between them, many of which are are rersolving themselves, for example as many loggers I know come to understand the relationship between their own well being and those of good forest pracrtice and maintaing all the values of "the forest and forest supporting lands ". My own son in law. Others remain-, just like there are between conflicting ruling class interests, between different sectoral interesists, in say tourism and guiding, mining, forestry , ranchers and even between environmental interests and groups. All classes and groups have their differences not only between, but within social groups.

Nobody said-, in fact we have been saying the obvious, that the working class are not "Saints". Though some of our number MAY be "Saints", as likely sinners, racists, sexists, husbands, lovers and wives, and even own a few shares, gamble, drink and have an idea or two about the world around us.

And within the House of Labour, there are a lot of conflicting viewpoints on ALL issues, political and ideological perspectives and cultural/moral attitudes, even on Unions 'n stuff. After all, we are the overwhelming majority of people, and we weren't all poured out of the same mold.

So there is this complex reality, and then there is a guy named Kurt, who buys into a ruling class media stereo-type image of who and what the "labour movement", should and should not be its attitude. He's made his class loyalty choice, which could mean any number of things, including he's one of the dumber members of the working class, one of the ruling class, or anyone in between. On the other hand, Engles who collaborated with Marx, was the member of a ruling class family of industrialists. Marx himself came out of a priviledged upper class family. His wife too.

There are always excceptions to every fucking rule.

I would assume that, The Labour Movement is as complex as the people that constitute it, and the complex culture of the working class out of which they arose and in which they remain rooted. They are as fucked up and heroic as all that.

Read something else beside the Sun and Province.

While the points above are extreme and represent the deep ecologist view vs. marxism, it does serve to highlight the more muted differneces between the much more moderate Green and NDP parties.

Hi kurt, you raise a good point about Dan Miller and about the perceptions workers in resource communities have of the NDP:

"Didn't a huge chunk of blue collar voters in this province switch allegiance to the federal Reform party in former NDP strongholds in the hinterlands and the island during the early '90s because the federal New Democrats were perceived as "too green" ... "

"... Isn't that what our former NDP Premier Dan Miller did, in pursuing improvements to northern jobs, by joining Premier Campbell's northern development committee just before the election"

Yes, there was a perception among workers, and business, that the NDP was too pro-environment. And that perception was hardly limited to the national NDP. Quite the contrary, the focus of anger over too much regulation of the forest industry and reductions in AAC were pointed squarely at Mike Harcourt, and later Glen Clark, despite his East Van labour connections. When Dosanjh became Premier and banned Grizzly hunting, ... well, it was pretty much a case of fate already sealed insofar as the pickup vote was concerned.

It's part of the condition of BC life that at the same time as all this was going down, committed environmentalists were furious with the NDP for being too close to the industrial unions, letting the IWA run FRBC, putting anti-Clayoquot protesters in jail, not reducing clearcuts enough, and so on.

Miller, like Dosanjh, is a man who needs to be in politics on a winning team to satisfy certain fundamental ego needs, hence his cosying up to Gordon Campbell. However, he sincerely believes that Rupert needs offshore oil and that BC needs industry and revenue. However, in terms of being an economic growth politician in the NDP, he sort of blemished his record a wee bit with Skeena Cellulose and the rather inadequate cost accounting on the Pacificat Project. So, ... just as well he join the Liberals, where his record is no longer held against him by Mike Palmer and Vaughn Smyth.

BTW, it was actually a commmittee on competitiveness that Miller has joined, along with some fairly substantial people like the Dean of Commerce at UBC, but the committee doesn't seem to have any real budget or authority and it's not clear how it will related to Campbell's Progress Board, which is covering some of the same ground.

Yo Vera. You say the committee decided it couldn't pull off the strike. What the heck are you talking about. The dang strike happened! Yeah. Sorry to tell you this, but it really was a big event.

It was going full swing. Tremendous enthusiasm amongst workers and the public. There was solidarity. The picket lines were holding. Other unions were coming on-side. Then Jack Munroe ...

You're wrong to say that one person couldn't call off a strike. Heck. You saw it happen. But if you mean that only Jack Munroe could have torn the heart out of the labour movement in B.C., well, that seems to be true, all right.

If Jack's mission was simply to call off that strike, did he really have to travel to Bill Bennett's house to do it? Did he really have to humiliate the workers of B.C. that way?

Sorry to get off topic here. Back to the Greenies.

Has anyone considered that, were there no Greens to vote for, many people would simply have stayed home?

I have a question for the panel. These hiring organizations 'labour pimps' I believe they are sometimes referred to, where employers pay $14-$17 per hour to the 'broker' and the worker gets $8-10,why are they becoming increasingly popular? Why is this so beneficial to the employer, is he willing to pay these amounts simply to keep people off the books? Why not just pay the worker $14 direct for as long as you need he or she, or until that worker can fit into the organization, if everything works out?

Also, does the regular worker who is not in a union despise, look up to, or feel any kinship with a union worker (because they are all workers)?

Labour, the left, the working class, is woven out of complexity...as Coyote articulates so well above, and out of the risks of pure circumstance and how circumstance turns up in our individual lives

My parents came to this country having lived a fairly privileged and exotic life and they were not here long before they lost almost every penny they had in one of those strange twists that life sometimes takes that changes your life forever. Like Kiplings line about losing everything and having to "start again at your beginnings/and never breath a word about your loss." They lost it all and at almost thirty-nine years old they had to start their life over again in a new country with three kids by then in tow...and thirty-nine was a lot older then than it is now.

So my Dad rode his Norton motorcycle up the west coast to look for work and a new life and he eventually found it... but for the first time he felt the sting of what it means to be working class in a class society. Our house was full of ambiguities, we had a persian carpet salvaged from their past, but hardly any furniture in the house, only books and music. Which ain't so bad, it turns out. My Mom made living room curtains from the camel woolen felts that had once lined the paper machines in the mill which were also quite unbelievably nice after they were all freshly washed and hung.

And Tommy Douglas soon became a god in our home, and my Dad became the staunchest of union men... a great supporter of the local credit union which operated in the service of the workers, where they saved their money and took out their loans... and even in those hard times, when there was little to put aside, my parents always put some money aside to donate to the CCF-NDP. The strikes lasted long in those days but I remember a lot more camaraderie then, and we knew even as kids that fighting for things had its own kind of intrinsic value.

I have no idea why I wrote this other than I remember the discrepancy all my life, the ease with which those who were just basically fortunate lived, the luck of it all, and the struggle involved if you were not... and the idea as to how deeply unfair the premise that is based on really is.

The question posed by a few contributors as to where the Greens get their greenbacks from hasn't elicited much response (especially from the Greens). I think Ed Deak of Big Lake came close when he said the federal arm of the Greens is now run by former PC's. To that I will add that the federal Greens have in the past been recipients of funding from the Bronfman family and have specified ties as well with the Canadian Jewish Council, the Bnai Brith and Anti-Defamation League. Whether or not these connections still exist is uncertain. Possibly someone in the know from the Greens could confirm or elaborate on this?

Hey Arthur, lighten up before Canada sends you off to accompany Ernst Zundel on his road trip down Auschwitz memory lane... Did you know that along with Baptist preacher Tommy Douglas, the CCF/NDP was co-founded by a highly-regarded Jewish fellow named David Lewis? Let's leave The International Jewish Conspiracy to lesser minds to dwell on.

Lynn[I], I don't know why you wrote that either, but I'm certainly glad you did.

That was beautiful. Personal asides such as your story are among the reasons why I'm here at Tyee.

To be able to dissect articles and issues and then watch the sparks of insight and wisdom flow here is simply amazing.

Lynn, you told us about your dad and his quick read of the new world he had entered. That he jumped right in and joined the cause says a lot about his character.

What a wonderful memory and thank you for taking the time to share it.

Well, I am done watching ths thread. No one from the NDP camp has even begun to put forward any sort of cognacant argument about why the Greens should join, or even cooperate, with the NDP. Unless that was the intent of all that bleary eyed reminicing about Tommy Douglas and Jack Munro.

Most Greens have voted with the NDP for the better part of 20 years. The result has been that we have been played as the 'lesser partener' to the interests of loggers and public sector employees time and time again. Enough is enough, we are leaving you for good.

I believe you've already done that.

There is no reason why someone who believes 100% in the David Orton quote above should ever have voted NDP. Anyone who believes the NDP runs on Marxist ideology and that the Greens are the only force for good in the world shouldn't ever be voting NDP anyway.

--------
“kurt wrote: Hey Arthur, lighten up before Canada sends you off to accompany Ernst Zundel on his road trip down Auschwitz memory lane... Did you know that along with Baptist preacher Tommy Douglas, the CCF/NDP was co-founded by a highly-regarded Jewish fellow named David Lewis? Let's leave The International Jewish Conspiracy to lesser minds to dwell on.”
-------

Hi kurt. Yes, I’m well aware of the fact David Lewis was Jewis. So is my family. So what? That wasn’t my point. Questions have been asked on this thread regarding the financing of the Green party. Contributors have also stated, in many cases emphatically, that the mainstream media here in B.C. has been giving undue, complicit attention and support and cover-up to the Liberals and Carr’s Greens. Most realize that they’re doing this to boost the Greens and divide the vote between them and the NDP to the advantage of the corporate party. This is all fairly obvious to any political observer.

What isn’t as obvious, and remains obscured for the most part, is the question of Can-West and its owner, the Asper family. This newspaper cartel, like the vast majority of media cartel in Canada, the USA and Great Britain, is controlled by Jewish interests. These are simple facts of life yet thanks to the taboo against raising any critical discussion regarding this matter, propagated by the same media sources over decades (and the typical, willing assistance of good folks such as yourself kurt who unwittingly try to deflect the discussion onto Zundel and dismiss my point as something worthy only of “lesser minds”) we never get to the source of why these phenomena are repeatedly occurring.

There are serious, unanswered questions regarding federal Green party members like Richard Warman and Bernie Farber who devote an inordinate amount of energy into suppressing free speech, threatening the openness of the internet and helping to co-opt the executive branch of the federal Greens to the benefit of the Bronfmans. In the case of the fed Greens one of the purposes is precisely the same as here in B.C. i.e. divide the vote away from the federal NDP and Liberals in favour of Harper who the Asper cartel continually promotes in the publications. It’s really not that difficult to understand if one has the courage and the common sense to look at ALL the factors in the equation.

I still challenge any Greens on this thread to offer up a reasonable counter argument.

thanks, allan.

Lynn, I have to second Allan. What a great entry - you should write a book.

Arthur, are you trying to tell me that Rupert Murdoch is Jewish? The Barclay Bros? Richard Desmond? Does Adam Sandler know about this?

Let me re-itertate to the people who say that I threw away my vote because I vote green, and these are mostly NDP supporters. I once was a Liberal Supporter both federally and provincially, last year with the sponsorship scandal I voted Green, and this year, because of all the faults within the provincial Social Credits (oopps, I mean BC Liberals), I voted Green. The Green Party did not cost the NDP the election. If anything it was the tired old doctrines of the two predominant parties that created apathy among voters, close to 45% of the eligible voters did not vote. What does that tell you, close to 1,385,544 votes were not cast.

I'm not saying that this is just a Liberal and NDP problem its an all party problem. Its when you let the doors open to old doctrines where you make mistakes. What interested me in the Greens and continues to do so is that they have brought new ideas on how to run the province, maybe the Liberals and NDP should also look at new ideas to run BC.

Finally we should all be looking at what we can do to stop apathy from happening before placing blame on who cost who the election. Lets open up healthy dialoges between everyone and end the apathetical slide that we are on. Two ways to do it, open up politics to the younger generation, something that was criticized in the article. More power to the greens, as well as the NDP who I believe ran the youngest candidate (correct me if I'm wrong) on Vancouver Island. But we need more of the system opened up to the public. Sorry for the long rant, but I feel strongly about this.

Azure-O,While we may not share political preferences, I do agree entirely with your comments and would second your call for a push to get younger people involved. It's even more important, I think, than the method of voting.

Problems in politics will always be blamed on the parties and rightly so, although the electorate also carries blame.

We are the ones allowing politicians to effectively limit our involvement in politics to a voting procedure taking less than a minute once every four to five years.

And even when we are getting ready to vote we're being slathered in snake oil, burdened down with tales of the promised land and tax cuts that would embarass a millionaire.

Standing back a bit, it makes you wonder if we just aren't all completely mad, lining up and dreaming of having a real impact on the jerk that got elected last time, only to shuffle off complaining already because we know that jerk's getting back in or else an even greater jerk will.

Ok, so maybe the young folk don't want to line up for that ritual.

I too, thank you for your story, Lynn.

I think one of the saddest aspects to Neo-Conservatism in Canada, is that it is not only destructive in the ways which it is in Europe and the rest of the world, but here in Canada, it attacks our very heart. (I guess it does that to other countries in different ways too)

When I was at UofT, a hundred years ago, I took a political science course taught by a Brit. He said the most remarkable thing about Canada was that no matter what income bracket a Canadian came from we all identified ourselves as middle class. This just amazed this prof. I think he was right. I know we had varying degrees of snobbery and racism and the shame of living in country suffering the after effects of colonial occupation, but we as a society were struggling to heal those issues. And, as I see the ground we are losing, I also see that we had been making progress.

For me, besides the actual suffering of people, this is the greatest sadness. That we are being manipulated into a class war because otherwise we might unite against this blight. What it means to be Canadian itself, is being eroded. A lot of wealthy people are against Gordon Campbell. But, there is an effort on the part of the Neo-Cons to separate the wealthier Canadian from the less wealthier Canadian. They exploit this in newer Canadians, some of whom do not appreciate that the postive aspects of Canadian society exist only because of the progressive movement. Without it, we'd be living in a very different society. The society we're headed for if this isn't stopped. Notice this election's talk of the wealthier neighbourhoods voting Liberal and poor voting NDP. It is in this way they seek to divide Canadians and avoid talking about our values and what has been happening.

I'm so glad this scourge has reached critical mass.

As far as the Greens go, I saw a side to them this election and afterwards that I found very unattractive. It looks a lot like Libertarianism and not unlike the BC Liberals in attiudes and tactics. I really don't see that in the NDP. I see a party who stays grassroots, even if that means it has for now become a centrist party. I think they NDP really cares about democracy. I don't see that in either the BC Liberal Neo-Cons, nor the Greens.

Azure_O, the problem is that politics here and in the US has tended to come down to only 2 serious parties fighting over the few percent of swing voters. Everyone else is entrenched so both parties have to fight elections over a narrow band of issues that will appeal to those that could go either way. It is not a good time to start discussing new ideas because you will attract criticism and may alienate the swing voters.

Redrivergirl[/B], yes Canadians see themselves as middle class and I think it's based on the concept that everybody has the same rights and freedoms and a general understrnding there is a need for but one class, citizens.

In actuality, Canada has gone beyond that as visitors and other non-Canadians do enjoy the protection of our Constitution.

I'll stop here and note that the protection of rights based on our Constitution
has not been stellar in the Ahar case, one of numerous incidents still awaiting an understanding.

So the popular idea that we are all Canadians and all deserving of the same rights and privilages is a bit rusty and battered by the winds of opportunity that, unfortunately, influence our actions far too much.

I agree Alan. But, who are we without it? This is the question I wish some uber-Conservatives would take the time to ask themselves.

Oh man, so much to read. My eyes are sore. Anyways, way at the top there was mention of the Greens fiscal policy, then later near the end a comparison to Libertarianism. The latter is quite unfounded, and i wonder if they were confusing Green with the green of the Marijuana Party. Also unfounded are allegation of conspiracy by accepting corporate donations, or as one reader insuated, Zionist donations.

As far as being fiscally conservative, BMZ is right, the Greens are not. But they do resemble it; tax cuts to small businesses for example. But new taxes on junk food, marijuana, gambling, and pollution sugest otherwise.

This is because the Green policy is one of Tax Shifting. For example, the mining industry is subsidised and doesn't pay it fair share of taxes, considering its destructive ecological nature. So they would be taxed. Renewable energy initiatives WOULD be subsidised. Or put crudely, tax the bad, reward the good.

To appease the rural voters, the Greens would omit Provincial Sales Tax on produce, and all goods for that matter, made in BC. They would not tax Organic producers either.

To appease the loggers, the Greens would scrap the stumpage tax, and impose a new tax on each log. This would deter foresters from shipping raw logs out of province, and encourage more processing here in BC.

As far as vote splitting goes: The The Tyee.ca's Tom Hawthorn
and Tom Barrett came up with an interesting synopsis.
One that is actually filled with statistics and absent
of the finger pointing of Terry Glavin. For example:

"The NDP bounced back to just over 41 per cent of the
vote. That's more than Glen Clark got in 1996. More
than Mike Harcourt got back in 1991. You have to go
back to Bob Skelly in 1986 to find a New Democrat who
did better.Which illustrates one of the iron laws of
B.C. politics: the only way the NDP can win is when
the right-wing vote is badly split."

So if the NDP did so well, then how come the Green's
are blamed? Is it because that maybe some previous
liberal supporters became disillusioned with
Campbell's policies but couldn't bear to vote for the
NDP?

"For a start, just as in last year's federal election,
a lot of Green voters probably wouldn't have bothered
to vote if there hadn't been a Green candidate. How
many? Your guess is as good as mine.
Second, when Ipsos-Reid asked Green voters last week
which party was their second choice, fewer than half -
45 per cent - named the NDP. Another 20 per cent said
the Liberals. And another 26 per cent said they'd vote
for some other party.These numbers are rough. The
sampling error for a small sub-sample like Green
voters is around 10 percentage points. But the result
does suggest that the Greens weren't stealing votes
just from the NDP".

The idea of a Green/NDP coalition is about as unholy
an alliance as current Bloc Quebecois/Conservatives
faustian pact.

The Green's have real ideas, and are not only here for
the next election, they're here for the next
generation.

Most of you on this thread will understand this.
In a body, if there is a disease, our doctors usually treat the symptoms, not the root cause.
Our political system is diseased. By merely changing the format of electing crooks theives and general idiots, you treat only some of the symptoms of that disease.
Pro-rep...STV...palace coups, are only a bandaid until the infectious disease figures out how to get around the new system. And NOTHING changes.
Until the people gain control over the politicians, we will never be seen to have treated the root of the disease.
Robbins Sce, the reason so many employers find it appealing to hire these 'sub-contractors' is that firstly they are not responsible for the benefits (wcb, EI, CPP). Such items are costly and time consuming. That's why the worker only gets half of money charged out for that employees work.

stevenson loses! the only problem there is that he is still able to infect and infest the vancouver scene. poor timmy.

Whatever the proper hypothesis may be province-wide, I think it's fair to say that the Green candidate in Vancouver Burrard (whose name I have forgotten, but I know he was endorsed by the Georgia Straight), can reasonably be said to be one of the two or three most important reasons why Liberal Lorne Maynecourt is, at least at this point, on the way back to Victoria.

The next most important factor would be the NDP's opposition to Maynecourt's Safe Streets Act. This act was endorsed by Attorney-General Dept official and former NDP leadership contender Nils Jensen as a tool the police have told him they need to deal with certain people who are making it difficult for businesses to operate. But the NDP decided to claim this act was a virtual return of the old federal vagrancy statute, an attack on the sick and the poor, an opinion in which Rafe Mair seemed to agree with them.

Whatever the laws real merits, or lack thereof, there is little doubt it was popular with many inner city residents who are bothered many times a day by panhandlers who are dirty, unsightly, smelly, and just plain disgusting. Especially when they have taken up residence in the landscaping in front of one's apartment building, are drinking or drugging, and cursing residents entering or leaving their own building. When the NDP then tells people that the problem is that they didn't pay enough taxes to support enough social workers to provide enough programs to help these poor people, ... well, ... politically it doesn't really play too well in either Peoria or the West End, and apparently very poorly indeed in Yaletown.

kurt. Obviously this thread and the space herein doesn't allow for postings that will satisfy the question you posed regarding Rupert Murdock, et al. The info is available and I will do my best to post it on my forum and send the url asap.

As for seanorr's pithy dismissal of the zionist influence in the fed Greens I would appreciate a bit of substance as per Richard Warman and his present status within the party.

well done budd. couldn't have said it better myself. it made absolutely no sense for the ndp to oppose that law, but it typified the ideology of the ndp's far left and the freaks on the vancouver council.

Don't get your shirt-tail in too tight a knot, sirjohn. If you read carefully, you'll see I was discussing the politics of the Safe Streets Act, not its policy or administrative aspects. Perception, not reality.

To summarize, businesses and the police (or at least some police) felt an additional law was needed to deal with a small number of people who were disrupting the conduct of shops and stores in various ways, and maybe there is. Accordingly, this act has actually been used rarely if at all. It will do nothing to clear the streets of hundreds of beggars who are bothering John and Jane Q Yuppie, ... yet John and Jane wrongly perceived Maynecourt's Law/B] to be about getting sickly looking, foul smelling beggars out of their way and out of their face. As time passes, and they are still being panhandled on every street corner by guys who haven't had a bath since the yuppie's Beemer lease was signed, well, ... then they will realize that they have been had, used, setup. In 2009 you can expect an equal and opposite reaction in the neighborhoods Maynecourt prevailed in this time.

Maybe by then [B]Prime Minister Martin will have found either a diplomatic posting or a Senate seat for Lorne, ... whaddya figure, sirjohn?

The Safe Streets Act was brought in by the Harris government in Ontario. It was promtly thrown out for obvious reasons.

It's nothing but neo-con policy. Mayencourt is just 'following orders'.

So, Budd, you think that Safe Streets Act is more effective than the existing laws brought in previously? While I totally agree that harassing the general population is not something that should happen, realistically, hon, do you think that the seriously nasty ones care? Do I think that "more social workers to provide more programs" is the complete answer, no, but I do believe that the reduced funding that the Liberals caused in the detox/rehab and the havoc inflicted on the welfare system by the Liberals (AND the NDP before them) are the main factors for the rapidly increasing numbers of "them" and levels of desperation that these people display. Tell me how much it would be worth to you to give up of your Liberal folly "taxcut", if any, to reduce the amount of beggars, and homeless to pre 2001 levels?

Honestly, Budd that Act was just a publicity stunt to give the non thinking members of our society a warm and cuddily feeling that the Libs were doing something; and has shown how much of an "improvement" in real life terms?

http://www.ontla.on.ca/hansard/house_debates/37_parl/session1/l012b.htm

Yeah, the same Harris gov't that was described in taped discussions between police officers last week as 'a real redneck gov't (we're dealing with here)' Lovely.

Yes, Blonde Pitbull. Nothing but a vicious and amoral publicity stunt.

Okay, Budd, I just read your response to Sirj and I would like to withdraw my comments/ questions from you to Sirj, because you're right about the politics of it and you do seem to understand the smoke and mirrors and futility of Lorne Maynecourts' one legislative claim to fame (other than this he was as effective as the other backbench puppets).

redrivergirl, "redneck" and Maynecourt, or for that fact GC, are not typically what I would connect together it is quite apt. Thank you for helping to expand my thoughts...

i did read carefully budd. your last paragraph is perfect. no need to feel embarrassed that you understand a law that makes perfect sense. glad you support it.

Hi Folks, I'm back. I've decided to stop taking part in these Tyee discussions because they take up too much of my time and I get too emotional, but, before I leave, I feel the need to say something to all of you. I'm sorry if this is off topic for this string.

It seems that my mistake was to name names. It seems to be okay with many of you to criticize the former N.D.P. gov'ts treatment of the poor, but only in a "mistakes were made" sort of way. It was perceived as wrong of me to say who did what to whom, and that it was no mistake but deliberate and malicious scape-goating. Oppression is not an Act of God. It is done TO individuals BY individuals, even if those individuals are acting on behalf of a government. The only way to make it stop is to make the perpetrators responsible. As an individual citizen I tried, at the time, to do that. Unfortunately not enough people were trying with me. I was not "sitting on my hands". Yes, Frank and Lynn, it is up to "us" not to let "them" do these things, but there has to be a lot of "us" fighting back for that to happen.

As far as I'm concerned the N.D.P. and the Liberals have been playing "good cop/bad cop" with the citizens of B.C. and we're all headed to the corporate fascist prison unless many, many people wake up fast.

And, to quote Jim Hightower, "There's nothing in the middle of the road but yellow stripes and dead armadillos" (It's the title of one of his books. You should all read it.)

I'm sorry that so many of you believe that what the media did to Clark is so much worse than what Clark did to the poor.

I'm glad to be leaving the list now that Vera Kristiansen has joined the debate. I've seen her letters to the local press and she'd really make my blood boil. N.D.P.-Right-or- Wrong is HER middle name!

Funny thing, you guys: Sirj, who can find a comment made by me with my actual name in it on a story that had been "dead" for a week and comment in return nary a word in response to my questions and thoughts on this topic....What's the matter Sirj, cat got your tongue? Or did you suddenly stop reading my posts? Maybe you have no response to the fact there was already existing laws? That alot of these people if the services hadn't been slahed wouldn't be on the streets to upset the populace in the first place?

Anne, I'm sorry to read you are packing this popstand in.

You have added a lot to discussions here over the past few years, bringing fresh perspectives on many topics as well as a wisdom many of us won't ever break into.

I too responded to your comments on Clark, but I was by no means attacking you for your concerns of what his government did.

Perhaps it's a trained reflex after almost a decade of Clark bashing by the media, the business community supporting the Liberals and others.

That doesn't mean I believe he didn't make mistakes though.

I respect your right to say what you want, but I also have a right to respond.

I certainly wasn't out to attack you Anne, nor, do I think did most who responded.

You know, had you made that statement to the Vancouver Sun, I'm sure you would have been praised by readers for your forthright expressions and for laying it on the line.

But I also suspect you would have just about choked from the hypocracy displayed by the right-wingers responding as they continue dismantling this province.

Anne we all get emotional from time to time especially when discussing issues that resonate from personal experience.

Frankly, I'd prefer more emotion in these comments once in a while. It tends to get much closer to the truth than does a smug, flippant remark, which we often suffer through here from those lost souls like sirjohna

Anne, hope you reconsider. We all have our different takes on the world, it is rare to agree with any one person on everything but debate itself is still a very valuable thing.

Thanks redrivergirl and patricia... one day I may get around to telling the longer version of my parents story. My Dad did, however, get to eventually meet David Lewis and he even managed to have a small chat with Tommy Douglas in a uniquely distinctive moment that proves gods are indeed human, in my Dad's words "Mr. Douglas was just leaving the latrine as I was about to enter..."

Anne, allan does make a very good point, that what a lot of us respond to is the imbalance of the media towards the NDP... that even though we know they made mistakes, we feel they are unjustly and quite biasedly blamed for everything. Also some of us come from a long history with the NDP so we appreciate the gains made by them in the past, though like you, I feel they have presently conceded way too much ground...and your comments have been extremely valuable in revealing that point and the effect it has on human lives.

I'm sorry if I in anyway upset you, as I say above, I hope you reconsider.

Dear Anne, As an NDPer I agree with you. Can you mention what it was you mentioned you did at the time to build resistance to NDP cuts, and if you vote, for whom? Don't worry, I'm not compiling a big brother report, but just want to learn what creative activity in addition to or beyond electoral work will be necessary long into the future to stop as you say, fascism. Thankyou, if you see this.

re: the Safe Streets Act, Budd said:

"Whatever the laws real merits, or lack thereof, there is little doubt it was popular with many inner city residents...."

Considering Mayencourt's margin of victory was 18 votes, that's a very debatable assertation. I think many people would prefer a solution over an un-enforceable law that can only be used in the most drastic scenarios.

how could i ignore you blonde? you're the best. i'll readily admit that the taxcuts went too deep too fast, but blaming the homelessness in downtown vancouver on taxcuts is just plain silly. we all know that there is an element down there that has chosen that lifestyle, for whatever reasons, and have no intention, at least not at this time, to reintegrate into mainstream society. the problem is that the resources availabe, which are substantial, are wasted on this element, which budd so eloquently described, and the authentic disadvantaged, who truly need the resources, are not able to fully access them. witness the woodwards squatters who were put up in downtown hotels at the city's expense and then trashed the rooms. that element, in my humble opinion, are useless scumbags who don't deserve any handouts at all.

I'm glad I popped onto this thread after Burrard had been decided, as that is indeed my own riding, and I indeed voted for neither Mayencourt nor Stevenson (next federal NDP candidate for Van center), but voted for Green. It was a hard choice, I was only able to make it out to one forum, and neither the Work Less Party, Platinum Party, nor Marijuana party candidates came, so I wasn't prepared to vote for someone I never met, and Janek outshone the odd sex party candidate and DR BC fellow who worked at the Liquor store.

I wasted my vote, but I wasted it for principal, as I voted for the person who I would most have like to represent me. The other option would have been to hold my nose and waste my vote for someone who I didn't really like, to support a party which either I thought made some really bad choices in the last few years as far as outsourcing/wholesaling or for a party who I did not feel was very competent to manage an economy, and who would not have the strength to stand up for reckless work stoppages by public sector unions, and who would likely needlessly re-expand the bureaucracy.

I actually really enjoyed the limbo that my riding went through, which must have been hell for the two candidates, basically because after all the bickering and backstabbing they had been doing for the last three years, they really deserved it.

As for the article itself, I think the fear mongering about voting for a third party is as low as it gets. Every election that Bill T and other try to tell us not to spoil out vote, it just takes from our democracy. We're trying to choose someone who is supposed to represent us, who makes decisions on our behalf, and who should be able to put their own personal biases aside. Do either the Liberals or the NDP do this? Do they spout off anything besides the party line?

I think NDP took back their voters, and the Greens were left with people whose ideals are against the governments we've seen in this province as long as we've been voting, or those like myself who are becoming that way. Polarization sucks, as does the left-right dichotomy. Rather than discussing issues and solving things, political parties seem to rush to put their own mark on the government, and oppositions feed that by being an opposition. I would like a party like the Greens in the legislature, only on the hopes that they were not looking to form government, but rather to add diversity to the fight, and add some more views. I actually am not very much of an environmentalist, but I do realize a sustainable economy, and environment, is something desirable. I think we need some Greens in there, and can't really stand how they have no chance under our electoral system.

Frankly, if the NDP split into a progressive party and a labour party, they would get far more votes than on their own, and I might vote for the former, but as an umbrella I probably won't ever vote for them provincially. (though I did last election federally)

dangrice.com, do you understand how FPTP works?

If the NDP split into a progressice party and a labour party, they might get far more votes than on their own, but they would win far fewer seats, if any, because of FPTP. The BC Liberals would win almost every seat with only 45% of the vote. And even if that happened, people would still think that splitting the vote doesn't hurt the left!

Sirj, did I say there wasn't any homeless pre 2001? I asked how much you'd be willing to give back to bring the numbers back down. No comments on the fact that there were already existing laws? Or on how much or how little actual effect this new law has had? Oh, and I'm sure glad that you're typing that 'cause you'd be biting your tongue pretty bad with that tongue in cheek compliment...but my daddy tried to raise a polite daughter so thank you I am the best....

"witness the woodwards squatters who were put up in downtown hotels at the city's expense and then trashed the rooms. that element, in my humble opinion, are useless scumbags who don't deserve any handouts at all."

That was unfortunate and stupid on their part alright. Just like when a house full of college kids do it and leave their rental in crappy condition at the end of the term.

You opinion isn't humble. It's full of hubris and judgement. Quite probably it colours your interaction with those people. Quite probably they can feel your derision. I doubt if it helps them to pull themselves up by the bootstraps the way you would like. Your entitled to judge systems with a pass or fail, but judging people for whom you have no real knowledge of their background or situation just shows how little of the complexity of the situation you understand.

"You're entitled...."

Here is a reply to BLONDE PITBULL and sirjohna:

There is no doubt that this Act was used politically, but I have a hunch that was true on both sides. I don't know if the BC Civil Liberties Assn has expressed an opinion on this, nor do I know if the Ontario Act was struck down. (I did very much enjoy the parts of Kormos's speech where he talks about nearly running over a stockbroker.) However, it is true (well, it was in Mike Smyth's column) that Nils Jensen said the police had told him they needed some additional legislation to deal with people who were chronically interfering with the operation of some shops and businesses, loitering in them, ruining the ambience perhaps, but generally driving away sales and customers.

Yesterday I stopped at a Starbucks after paying the dentist $500 and needed a little treat. There was one rather sickly looking woman in their so high on drugs she was kind of doing a dance of some sort. Sad or what. You don't need to be an MBA to figure that too many such clients would drive off other business. In this case, she got her coffee and then went outside and sat down and chatted with another customer who took pity on her. No great hassle, but frankly a pretty depresssing sight, and one that calls out for more detox and treatment, ... if people will take it that is.

For some who are more aggressive, less dopey but more disruptive, perhaps the police do need a new law to pick them up for a day or so and then life can go on at the shop or store.

However, that has nothing to do with the street soliciting of Joe Citizen, or squeegying car window at busy intersections.

Maynecourt was playing politics with this Act. I am sorry to say that the NDP's opposition was also a bit of perceptual poltical theatre and it looks like Maynecourt's show won and the NDP is short one seat for miscalculating the political odds.

it was use

Budd said:

"I don't know if the BC Civil Liberties Assn has expressed an opinion on this...."

The first Google result:

Civil Rights Group Speaks Out Against Safe Streets Act:
Calls It Street Sweeping the Poor

The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association is opposing the BC government's introduction of a Safe Streets Act. The BCCLA dismisses claims that the act is a means to protect the public from "aggressive panhandlers" saying that there are ample provisions to deal with intimidating and dangerous behaviour under the Criminal Code.

According to BCCLA President, John Russell: "The aim of the legislation is to sweep the streets of people some are uncomfortable seeing or meeting in public places. But the poor and the homeless have the same rights to occupy public space as anyone. And their asking for help exercises the same right to free association and movement as others who ask passersby for the time or directions."

The BCCLA opposes the legislation because:

The Act would criminalize merely asking for others to support any cause including one's own cause in certain locations;
The Act is bound to be primarily enforced by private security in ways that are unfair, selective and inappropriate;
Enforcement by way of fines/imprisonment is at worst cruel and at best misleading given that the real aim of the law will be to create authority to sweep perceived undesirables off of city streets;
The Act criminalizes behaviour that is the result of poverty, homelessness and mental health issues, rather than addressing the causes of those issues and thus, unfairly targets vulnerable groups.
Russell: "Nobody is worried that errant Brownies selling cookies near bus stops are going to be ticketed under this legislation, although that would count as a violation. It's clear that this legislation will target specific people, not actions, and so will be applied in a discriminatory manner. We look forward to challenging its constitutionality in court.

Budd, grandstanding on BOTH sides? Agreed. Totally. I mean there have pretty well always been homeless and the NDP brought in their own version of this law after they brought in the BC Benefits legislation and the homeless / beggars numbers began to increase. As Stump says most people would (myself included)prefer a solution than the show. That girl described by you is sad and detox/rehab/mental health faciliies should be available...my son appears the same way to people and what I can tell you is that when these people need is access...immediate access...when they have a moment of clarity. I'd like to be able to force therapy on him/them(it kills you to see your loved one like that) but he is a adult and, honestly, I think that they NEED to have to WANT it(detox, rehab,help in general). Even then I think it would be unrealistic to expect it to work the first time for everyone.
What bothers me the most about the these laws in general no matter who evoked them is society is saying in real life terms that it's fine with "us" that "you" are sleeping on the sidewalk, hungry and dirty, but just don't bother "us" and stay downwind will ya.

blonde; it was not tongue-in-cheek, i appreciate your point of view. the previous law was being ignored by the city of vancouver. in fact they were encouraging the park occupations of 3? summers ago b/c they believe it makes gordo look bad. of course mayencourt used this to grandstand to some degree, (i'm not naive) but it was needed and it should be enforced, otherwise vancouver is a disgrace to tourists and locals alike. i've seen several fights down there resulting from aggressive panhandling, and i don't even visit the area often. the situation was out of control. why should residents have to feel unsafe in their community, and why should businesses suffer b/c these assholes think they have a right to harass people?

sirjohna,

Re:homeless is a lifestyle choice

Why aren't any wealthy people, with access to their money, choosing the homeless lifestyle?

rrg; are you trying to tell me that everyone down there has absolutely no other options?

Sirjohna:

"why should residents have to feel unsafe in their community."

Would you extend that courtesy to DTES residents?

Save your condemnation for the drug dealers. That's the real problem.

Sirj, nobody has to work at making GC look bad he does just fine on his own... Tell me how you want it enforced...tickets they don't pay?...jail? the poors'/addicts' health spa...community service? ya,right....and remember you've gotta be able to find them...

you're right blonde. there's no way of enforcing it so let's just let these guys do whatever the hell they want. or even better, let's boot tourists and employed taxpayers out of the central business district.

Sarcasm, the last refuge of those whose theories have proven full of holes.

stump; may i quote you on that one?

Good afternoon, BLONDE PITBULL, and I know you'll agree with me that whatever goes on in politics there is no grandstanding here on The Tyee.

My point was that it looks like the Maynecourt-Liberal calculation of the political theatrics around bothersome pandhandlers was profitable for them, and that the NDP's calculations of what would play with voters cost them a seat, Vancouver Burrard.

I most certainly do not agree that the BC Benefits was meant for political theatrics. It was driven by fiscal and economic considerations of a fairly urgent variety. Whatever else it may be, it was not an exercise in mere cosmetics, these changes were real changes in public policy. All provinces in Canada during the 1990s reassessed welfare support policies, especially after the Federal Govt (Paul Martin) cancelled the old Canada Asst Plan.
StatCan has a free report on this subject that makes for interesting reading.

http://www.statcan.ca/cgi-bin/downpub/listpub.cgi?catno=11F0019MIE2005245

As I so often try to argue here and elsehwere, often with no success, the special, unique experiences of British Columbia are often not so unique after all, but rather a part of a larger Canadian whole. But then the closet separatists on both the left and the right start to loose their tempers bigtime and the dialogue disintegrates. It's not as bad as being on babble, but it's pretty bad sometimes.

Budd, grandstanding on BOTH sides? Agreed. Totally. I mean there have pretty well always been homeless and the NDP brought in their own version of this law after they brought in the BC Benefits legislation and the homeless / beggars numbers began to increase

BC Benefits can't be compared with the neo-con imported policy on welfare, where there is a specific policy put in place to make it impossible for people with challenges to jump though so many hoops that they give up. It can't be compared with delaying benefits by waiting periods and time limits. Nor, can it be compared to the BC Liberal policy that doesn't allow any flexibility to help people even families with very young children and no formula. And, where people on disabilities will suffer the loss of their dignity every few years to prove once again that a permanent disability, is still permanent. I agree it wasn't great, and further penalized poor people, but the two can not be at all compared, as much as the BC Liberals love it when it happens. They just love it because it legitimizes in the eyes of the public their policy. After all, if the NDP did the 'same thing', it can't be that bad.

Sirj, your missing my point in that you can't rule away the problem that causes aggressive behaving panhandlers. The people who are actually that aggressive chances are don't give a damn about the laws whether made by a Liberal or any one else.

Budd, I realize that most provinces have change the welfare system and that is the most likely reason for the escalating amount of homeless....What I want from those who can't stand the street people to be visible / offensive / aggressive, is how much is it worth to you to have the gov't fund their removal and care? That is the only remedy that I can think of and I'm not certain its the best or even a "cure" ....

"stump; may i quote you on that one?"

No.

similar laws have worked in other jurisdictions. in fact vancouver is one of the worst cities in north america re this problem. reduced welfare isn't the problem, the 'welfare culture' is. those morons that thrashed their hotel rooms would fall into that category, and their numbers are growing. it's called enableing, and the far left, including the vancouver council, is guilty as charged on that count.

back up your assertions with facts if you can OK?

You're talking about the corporate welfare culture, aren't you? Surely you don't mean the high-life culture of rotting teeth and $500 a desperate month? No, you must mean the low-life culture of MLA expense accounts, kick back communication contracts and full dental plans. Or,perhaps the Fraser Institute's tax status for working so hard to destroy our country. Maybe, you really mean the fish farm fines returned. There's some welfare culture for you. A lot more comfy and lucrative one, though, don't you think?

Most Canadians are too smart to fall for that Neo-Con welfare BS. Of course, you can't exploit US racism and the racist, sexist concept of 'welfare queen' that your American Neo-con overseers did now can you? Bummer, Dude, Bummer.

Why don't you neo-cons pick on someone your own size for a change.

I want to say Sirjohna, poor bashing is very unattractive. It really is. What does it hurt us to help other people with our taxes. It helps us. Not only for the myriad of social reasons, but when we as a society willingly do so, we affirm to ourselves and each other that we are fortunate, filled with blessings and prosperous enough to give to others.

When we begrudge so very little, it is not only their world that shrinks, not only their dignity that is destroyed, but our own.

When we allow other people children to live dire and empoverished lives our own children's are endangered and impoverished.

We have to stop this right now.

Sirj, talk about statistical manipulation. Most jurisdictions that had such laws "work" have actually only suceeded in pushing the problems elsewhere. The numbers in the whole picture have increased.
The "morons" that you say trashed their rooms were probably in need of services that city couldn't / didn't provide. If the left is guilty of "enabling" the poor, homeless, addicted or mentally ill then so are the right of "enabling" the lying, thieving, corrupt polictians and CEOs'....

oooo sirj isn't going to like this idea but maybe that's a sign it has some worth ...I'll proceed nonetheless....seems to me the creation of housing for the homeless should be more than just housing. It shouldn't just be a place to sleep or of isolation from the community... just a way to momentarily "tidy up" the streets for the neo-con tourist trade. It should provide a much-needed home and nourish some kind of bud of hope for the future for those who reside there.

To cut to the chase, make the lower level of the building into a co-operative market place that would not only be a source of employment for the residents but a creative outlet as well...eg a bakery, crafts, art, woodwork, pottery, music etc. Let them keep what they make co-operatively together and buy into the building, so they have something that they eventually own of their own, some source of pride, and some sort of power over their own lives.

I think the failure of most housing it that it doesn't address the loneliness, the loss of human dignity and the lack of hope felt by so many of the homeless.

Redrivergirl, I just don't know which part of your double hitter, two hours ago, I enjoyed the most.

Well, ok, you tossed in a lot more slugs during the first and I could almost hear sirjohna moaning after the well deserved lecture.

But then you provided him a more positive socials lesson later, which I hope this truent from compassion will adopt as something to follow.

You get two gold stars Redrivergirl

"I think the failure of most housing is that it doesn't address the loneliness, the loss of human dignity and the lack of hope felt by so many of the homeless[I]", concluded Lynn.

So right Lynn. It's called warehousing, where you put the unwanted stuff in storage because it's in the way.

How friggin'sad that community, which ought to generate some sense of togetherness instead still treads along class lines.

red drivel girl; as usual you don't get it. all of those people that you mentioned actually work for a living. remember that? that's what this country was built on. hard work. read your history. the selkirk settlers who came with absolutely nothing, the chinese during the gold rush and the cpr construction, the dryland farmers from central and eastern europe, the italians, greeks, indians etc. most came with nothing and worked their asses off to create a nation that was worth something. now these 'welfare-culture' bums only want to take as much as possible without giving anything back, and blonde, who i thought was much brighter, assumes that they are victims who can't be provided with the services they're owed by the government. these were healthy young men who wanted to sit around and smoke presto logs all day long. what a bloody pathetic joke! you people just don't get it. you are enableing these guys, and ultimately you are doing them a disservice, b/c no one feels good about their lives unless they actually achieve something.

A hundred years ago this land enabled all those motivated by survival or by More.

Now, entrapped by More, folks like SirJ are unable to see the neocon agenda -- to have most of us afraid of bare sustainance so that a few can get way More.

When what all of us need most is to be a contributor in a community.

Sirj, so you're saying that someone who trashed someones place (even a hotel) who took them in doesn't need some kind of help? That I'm some kind of sucker? I agree with you that people need to do to feel a certain amount of success to be happy in life but I have to ask you would you be happy with living my definition of a "good" life? Or would you want the freedom of opportunity to find your own personal definition? Oh, and Sirj there's nothing wrong with smokin' a "presto log"... I'd rather spend my time dealing with(babysitting) potheads than drunks any day....

the best help the 'welfare culture' can get is to lose the enablers. many of them are very capable, but will never be urged to reach their potential. as far as the presto logs go, smoke 'em if ya got 'em blonde. to each his own, but ultimately you'll be more fulfilled if you can manage without the spliffs or the booze.
peter; i can only encourage you to learn your canadian history. it's very rich. only 100 years ago gov't was not involved in social welfare at all. in the 30's it became necessary, in the 40's, 50's and 60's there was a sensible balance. since the 70's and the 'liberalization' of canada it has become increasingly prevalent, and the welfare culture types have been increasingly taking advantage. now everyone's a 'victim' that blames the gov't if things don't go quite the way they wish. there's no sense of personal responsibility with these types, and they're allowed to bitch and whine and ask for more. the selkirk settlers and the chinese miners and the dryland farmers would be disgusted. it's a bloody disgrace. and if you think i'm in the minority with these opinions you need to get away from commercial drive every once in a while.

Sirj, you're right that "self medicating" is not the answer to most of life's trials and tribulations... Listen, I am the first person to say stand on your on two feet; life has kicked me in the ass more times than I care to count and it started early in my childhood but I also can understand that not all are that strong and I can also understand that total dpression can manifest it's self in a variety of forms - anger(justified or not)included. The gov't is an easy faceless entity to hate / blame...Anyways, I really don't think you are going to accept this line of thought and you are right that lots of people think like you; lots of people at one time also thought slavery was okay and/or still think that killing people of different faiths/ethnic background is justifiable.
About enablers, well, when you can find a way to stop people from excusing politicians, CEO's and the rich and selfish from EXCESSIVE profiteering I'll agree that the other half of the coin should stop as well.....But I'm not going to hold my breath and I'd suggest that you don't either....I've gotta go....later all...

Sirj,

You need to do a bit more reading about history as well.

Firstly, there were versions of social workers 100 years ago. They were upper middle class women who organized informal societies.

The Catholic churches ran a version of welfare for 'deserving' poor, usually a woman with 10 children, a drunken, or dead husband and who took in washing all day, A woman who's work would not make her rich, but would send her to an early grave.

My great, great, great, great Grandfather on my Grannie's side was an upper middle class Brit who was just handed thousands of acres of crown land. I am really proud of him. Not because of what he was given by virtue of his birth, but because he was a friend of Robert Owen and came to Canada in an attempt to start a commune consisting of people from Glasgow. He put his money where his mouth was. I'm more proud of the women in his family who had to bear the brunt of living a radically different, pioneer life which they were totally ill equipped to do. On my grandpa's side they were early members of parliment and business men, one of whom started a company you would recognize. They were men who arrived in this country and who had many opportunities based on it's rich resources, an era of expansion and the occupation of a land that at that time, did not belong to them.

On my dad's side they were lace-curtain Irish who arrived later, before the potatoe famine. But, wait! They too, were GIVEN land if they went west, which they did and prospered. His mother's side were very sensible Norwegian pioneers who worked hard and lived personally successful lives. Hard work won't give you that in our age, Srij.

The idea that people are working and poor are therefore more deserving than people who aren't working, is being debunked as wages are being driven down and people are having to work twice as long and hard, for much less. Using your argument they should make more money than the MLA who is selling us out, or the CEO who doesn't work one iota more than the workers and it could be argued works a lot less. Look at the factory worker in China. Do they not work harder than the owner of the clothing line? Why are they being paid so much less than he or she? Could it be they're being exploited in order for someone else to make money from the fruit of their labours?

Where are we headed Sirj?

Sirj, many people are not working today because the age of manufacturing is over. The industrial age also pushed people out of work. In the UK the concept of owning property, pushed people off their own land and made them first serfs and generations later, 'welfare bums' as they are not able to compete in a world that they had no voice in choosing it's design. Poverty drove many of those pioneers here where did the same thing to Native peoples that was done to them. Many Native people are still suffering from the effects of colonization. Many of the people you are saying we are enabling, Sirj, are very ill and are self-medicating. Where are the treatment centres, supported housing and emotional support under the Campbell, Neo-Con government?

With the big scam called 'free trade' we have again, people who can not compete in a newly and arbitrarily structured economy. Right now some people are profiting because of public asset liquidation and a huge money transfer of public assets to private hands. (theft) This won't last forever. In fact it won't last that much longer.

What then Sirj?

Who are you (and others) to say to the rest of us, that this narrow economic view is the only lens we can be assess the world from? Who has more value, a CEO/Owner who dumps toxins in a creek, or a chap with hardly any teeth who helps an elderly person cross the street, (I've seen this many times) or, someone who smiles at sad people as they walk by, but can't work. Who are the Neo-Cons to say this narrow, rigid economic view is it for everyone? Who gets to set our values? Under this Neo-Con, Laissez Faire capitalistic view, the toxin dumper has infinitely more value than even the soft hand of an LPN who wipes a dying persons brow. Talk about skewed values! This narrow view doesn take into consideration the effects of its domination on our society. That is one reason its adherents are such terrible members of government as all Neo-Con governments are proving. When was the 'free-market' declared God?

Sirj, it wasn't all glory days before society became a more just and liberal society. I know there are some problems that a liberal society creates, or at least exacerbates. But, there was real suffering before we awakened to the idea of a better world. And, that was a time when we were much more rural and thus some poverty was mitigated via an agricultural lifestyle. Also, women contributed huge and vast amounts of unpaid slave labour, without which the system would fall. (women still contribute far too much unpaid and unrecognized free labour) I know the Neo-Cons want women to return to our enslavement of yore. But, we're not going to go back to those days, Sirj. We've had our consciousness raised.

Sirj, one really good thing about liberalism is that your rights are protected too. If other people's rights are eroded and taken away, how do you know yours won't be next. As certain groups are using each other for their own gain, one financial, the other societal control, they are risking their own freedoms. The same rules and system that protects the sick alcoholic or drug addict, downtown, is the same system that protects you. If you succeed in destroying the protection of the one, the other will follow.

Good point about enabling, Blonde Pitbull! Let's stop enabling the excessibe profiteers for a start!

I agree, well said about enabling, Blonde Pitbull.

redrivergirl: An excellent piece, especially about "the narrow lens" of the neo-con economic view. Workers are going to have to seize the reins of control and ownership over their own labour, take the initiative...sirj's view of workers is that management owns them...that labour should be oh so grateful and oh so beholden to be owned and exploited. It's time the aperture of the economic lens changed to a wider more equal focus for all.

Also very much enjoyed reading your piece about your ancestors' arrival in Canada...really interesting.

you'd better talk to your family again red drivel. you make it sound like it was easy. at the turn of the century the immigrants were promised the moon and given 160 acres of free land in the middle of nowhere, all a part of clifford sifton's policy of open-door immigration in an attempt to settle the prairies. it was begun by my great great great? grandfather in 1878 and was one component of the national policy. the problem was that the advertising campaign was as propagandized as carole james' election campaign and when the settlers arrived they faced such extremely harsh conditions that many weren't able to cope.
'Sirj, one really good thing about liberalism is that your rights are protected too.' as for the above, substitute 'protected' with 'abused' and you've described to a t the element i'm talking about: the welfare-culture. it exists and is growing at an alarming and unnecessary rate, and the enablers, being the 'far' left are to blame. the most disgraceful aspect is that those that truly are in need i.e. the disabled, now must compete for resources with these lazy scumbags.
i have no use for these assholes, and neither do about 90% of british columbians by my calculations, with the other 10% beingthe far lefties like the idiots on city council and the anarchists, of which there are a couple on this thread.

I agree Sirj, the pioneers suffered great hardships. This land wasn't paved with gold in the same way BC's isn't now, in spite of the promises.

I agree the disabled are having to compete for resources with 'scumbags'. Only I have a different assessment about who those 'scum bags' are.

I'm sorry you feel such a powerless and defensless group of people are abusing your rights, Sirj.

Thanks Lynn. I agree people are going to have to stand up And, it is happening all over the world, slowly, but surely.

I think Canadians hate disagreeing and fighting and it takes a lot to get us to that point. We would rather all be friends.

those 'powerless and defenseless group of people' are laughing at you and their enablers red. and they're not abusing my rights girl, they're abusing the rights of all of us. rights that the pioneers fought so hard to win and which are now bandied about when some lazy dope-smoking anti-establishment type needs something more from society and the gov't, who are ultimately supported by hard working taxpayers like me and the other 90%. why do you think the federal ndp can't get more than 20% of the vote and the bc ndp will never hold power again, despite the fact that canada has been severely liberalized since trudeaumania?

yeah, those pioneers are a rum lot. It take a real commitment and a lot of sacrifice to steal land from its rightful caretakers.

Blah, blah, blah. Spin, spin, spin.

I find it hard to believe you really think the things you're saying Sirj.

It defies logic and ignores what is right in front of you.

But, to each, his own.

You know who else is laughing at us? The policitians who line their own and their friends pockets with our money.

My personal opinion is that the Greens prevented the NDP from just squeaking by to win the election, or to at least make it very close, and I'd rather the NDP was reformed enough to encompass the Green party's platforms, and that the Greens would maybe join the NDP.

stump showing his true and simple colours. try getting educated stumpy, your life will be much richer for it.
in that case red you find it hard to believe what a strong majority of canadians believe, and that's the cold hard reality for you lefties. it helps me to understand your frustrations and the bitterness that shows with many posters. not being able to comprehend such common sense must make life very difficult indeed.

My life is rich enough thanx. I have all I need and a little extra to share.

Need I point out that just because people "believe" something, doesn't make it true. Apparently I must.

This was my first foray into this (blogs? - is that what this is called?) And then ....Can we get back to the original topic?

All of you have concentrated on whether the NDP would get all or most of the Green vote. Surely there is more to it - Adrienne Carr added innuendo to Gordon Campbell's lies, and helped the Liberals considerably that way.

Some of the things Carr said "the NDP fired civil servants also" (Did that mean the Greens would never, ever fire civil servants?) "The NDP closed hospitals and schools." (Again, same questions. The NDP closed one old veterans' hospital and turned it into a Women's Centre.) "The NDP ordered workers back to work also." (Does that mean the Greens would never ever say 'No' to any union demands? And Carr also said the NDP is in the pockets of the unions: (which of these statements does not belong.)

The Liberals made sure there would be no Conservative, Reform or Social Credit candidates running. And the next step was to ensure that the Greens were alive and running. If you have enough money you can win.

The Liberals even had the judiciary helping. I suppose no-one remembers the court case against the NDP (not the gov't) which a couple of ordinary voters (backed financially by a Liberal front organization) saying they voted NDP because they brought in a balanced budget, and it turned out to be a deficit. The budget had been brought down in February, and during the election in May, the Asian economies were collapsing, which affected B.C. considerably.

A budget is guess work at the best of times. Events can change to affect it. The NDP spent nearly $900,000 defending this case, having to prove its budget figures. The judge agreed, saying it was indeed a prudent budget, and in fact could have been more generous. However, he then went on to say that because these were ordinary citizens he would not award costs to the defendant. This was a most unusually, ney, unprecendented, ruling. Costs are awarded in order to stem frivolous cases. The burden of this cost was very heavy for NDP members. But they can keep us broke as well.

So, yes, Anne, I am "NDP right or wrong". When you see the forces lined up against the NDP you have to question whether you should help them.

A Green voter above said it made him feel good to vote Green. Hang on to that good feeling as you watch medicare deteriorate, and other quality of life we have grown used to in B.C.

I always felt some admiration for Green voters, thinking they were motivated by concern for the environment, if nothing else. But this has proven untrue. It really has been fun and games, and "feel good". I guess its the "Me Generation".

But there were Conservatives, smaller conservative leaning parties and a pile DRP candidates on the ballot. So you are flat wrong on this point.

There have also been plenty of innuendos on this thread that somehow the Liberals funded the Green campaign, I guess thats why we couldn't even afford a campaign bus, let alone SIGNS and literature in at least half of the ridings in the province ;\ Puh-lease, the Greens are the only party that has a policy about only accepting donations from private individuals. We have actua Oh, and while I'm on the topic of surrilous and rediculous claims, the Green party is not a front for Zionism. Like every other party in Canada we have members who take positions on both sides of this issue. The claims made above are borderline hate-speech, as they clearly use the race in a disturbing context. "Jews donate and work with the Greens. All Jews are bad, therefore all Greens are bad" How truley disturbing....

I was just doing some research and may have the final word on this issue. Here are the % of the popular vote for the NDP and 'Conservative Base' for every election since 1969. You will notice that the NDP is right back in thier traditional range of support this election, it is the Liberals who dropped far below the traditional Conservative support range. If the Green vote was actually splitting of the left then the left has suddenly had about 10% rise in support from its traditional base. This is highly unlikely. Judging from this, the NDP cannot win in this province without a substantial split in the conservative base, and the closeness of this election would seem to indicate that the Greens may have hurt the Liberals more than the NDP.

The truth is that the Greens have taken thier support from the former 'center' parties, like the PDA. When the Liberals came on scene they were, of course, a party of the center. All the way up to this election they held much of that 'Gordon Wilson' vote. The Greens benifited in 2001 from a sizable influx of NDP leaning voters, that is undeniable. But this election it seems that most or all of that support, plus some, swung back to the NDP, and it was disgruntled 'Wilson' Liberals and other political outsiders who picked up that slack for the Greens and kept them from losing more than just 3% of thier voters.

The Greens have the advantage of being able to pick up votes on both sides of the political spectrum. It is one of the peculiaritys of BC politics since the divisive governments of the 70's and early 80's that the center is percieved as the territory of the political outsider.

the numbers:

L 2005 NDP 41.52 to 45.80 Conservative Base Green 9.18
L 2001 NDP 21.56 to 57.62 Conservative Base Green 12.39
W 1996 NDP 39.45 to 51.30* Conservative Base Green/PDA 6.73
W 1991 NDP 40.71 to 24.05* Conservative Base +Liberal 33.25
L 1986 NDP 42.6 to 50.05 Conservative Base +Liberal 6.74
L 1983 NDP 44.94 to 50.92 Conservative Base +Liberal 2.69
L 1979 NDP 45.99 to 53.29 Conservative Base +Liberal .74
L 1975 NDP 39.16 to 53.01 Conservative Base Liberal 7.24
W 1972 NDP 39.59 to 43.53* Conservative Base Liberal 16.4
L 1969 NDP 33.92 to 46.79 Conservative Base Liberal 19.3

*Conserative vote was substantially split between Socred, Conservative, BC Liberal (post 1991) or Reform BC depending on the year

+ Greens exist but are polling under 1%

From 1996 to 2001 elections the conservative base is running about 7-9% higher than usual because the Socreds are carrying the 'center' into thier camp after highjacking the more marketable Liberal Party after 1991. That support seems to have disappeared this election with many of those voters moving to the Greens, the new 'outsider centralists' in BC politics.

deja makes a good argument, better than my attempts at saying the same thing.

Give me STV or some kind of proportional rep., and we won't have to have this discussion next election!

Deja, a very astute analysis. Since I read it I won't be blaming the Greens for the NDP not winning the election.

and there will be leprechauns, elves and faeries forming the next govenment in 2009

I suppose you also think Ralph Nader had absolutely nothing to do with Bush winning in 2000..remember..Bush didn't have the electronic voting machines in place to steal the election as he did in 2004