Luke or Brad Zubych whoever you are

http://www.threehundredeight.com/p/british-columbia.html

heh heh!

thanks aspie, I LOVE satire!

OK, we get it.

Figured it out the first two times you posted. Paid by the word?

the word or the post

whichever is cheaper

Do what it takes.

Harper ran adds for 2 years before the last election, his adds where all BS, all lies!

Fact is most people do not read like us who post comments. We know the facts, but the adverage citizen just blindly believes the attack adds.

Right now 30% of kids in the schools are some kind of special needs. I met two people on welfare that voter for Harper, one person voted because he was told to by a chruch group, the other believed Harper saying he was a great manager, funny Crusty is saying the same thing that she is a great manager, which is total BS!!!!!

Dix do not be a Dumbass, Clark is going to kick you in the nuts, kick her back.
Protect yourself and protect us all.
Get polite after you win.

So, so far "aspired" and "Frank Lee"

Let's all keep count together! :)

Once more Frank Lee

If all you got on Dix is that you have a hate on for him and no specific details then compared to Campbell and Christy, he is a saint. Alex Tsakamis has this one right. Oh now it is Dix connected to fast Ferries. My God man, if he was working for the Premier and told BC Ferries to get it one then that was his job. It is to carry out the Premier's wishes. Never mind fast ferries is a wizz in the ocean in comparison to the boondoggles of the liberal bunch.

As has been suggested by a number of others you need to be more specific because it sounds like Dix once won all your marbles in elementary school and you can't get over it.

Just the facts if you have any and we will compare.

Glen Clark?

Frank, you do know Glen Clark has been Jimmy Patterson's ring hand man for years now as Jimmy has doubled his fortune.

I think linking Dix to Glen Clark is not only a fact but an honoured position.

The richest man in BC knows if you want to make money you hire the NDP!!!

Yeah that Glen Clark

the one Jim Pattison hired to do his union busting to make him even richer cause ya know only a few billion isn't really enough.
Very honourable.

Danny and Bob

So Glen Clark should have gone on welfare so to please both sides?

Well Frank

How many have gone on welfare BECAUSE of his anti-union new religion which cost them their jobs.
Besides his wifes a teacher, I don't think they would have needed a food bank

Danny

So just remaining unemployed would have been good enough for you. Fine, whatever.

The article is about Dix.

Glen Clark played at being a leader

We all paid. Yes, he SHOULD have thrown himself on that grenade. Don't take that kind of responsibility on in the first place unless you are willing to take it all the way. It doesn't matter he was set up by crooked cops and crooked government and deep corporate pockets, his personal sacrifice doesn't matter, even his family didn't matter; real leaders lead, regardless of price.

Otherwise you're just another godsdamned politician.

Nope

As the leader of a political party evaluate him based on his record in office. Once he's resigned him and his family are no one else's business.

Its not like he owes us anything.

Frank

"So just remaining unemployed would have been good enough for you."

Apparently it was good enough for the NDP who turned their back on him when he quit yet they managed to find a soft landing spot for Svend Robinson the thief.
Pretty sad when the only place an ex socialist premier can turn to is the federal Liberals, who are Cons in drag, like Dosanjh and Rae, or the private sector like Clark and Miller, or best yet go to Washington to be Harpers shill.
Yes poor unemployed Clark would have had to get by for a while on his wifes 60K a year and who can live on that?

Danny

So you would have been satisfied if a certain private citizen was unemployed. Fine, but who cares? Does anyone care what Stirling Lyon or Mike Harris or whoever, are doing now?

As for Svend, what did the NDP do for him? I don't care about NDP internal party politics so I don't know.

Frank

I don't think Dannyboy and Hakuin know what they are talking about regarding Glen Clark. Alex Tsukamis probably has the best analysis on the shenanigans by the Campbell crowd and the MSM that brought G. Clark down. The push to lay charges came from one RCMP individual when everyone else said there was no evidence. The dragged out process and nightly photos of Clark's kitchen window were enough to make everyone fed up with it all.

Here's a question I always ask somebody who makes these statements about Glen Clark working for Jimmy Pattison. "What left-wing or democratic socialist company did you ever work for?"

Your response is right on. Gordon Campbell has a cushy job from the taxpayer but some are focused on how G. Clark makes a living and perish the thought that his wife should have a career and perish the thought that a non- left capitalist should recognize talent.

You would think that one would recognize that G. Clark sacrificed some 20 years of his life in public service when he could have been making a fortune in a field that recognized he had some talent all that time.

Personally I think it is all about some folks being jealous.

Hakuin

You say "we all paid". What did we all pay when Clark was Premier that we have not paid in spades since?

Dannyboy.

So Jimmy Pattison's operations would be less anti-union with Clark working for him or more anti-union. Every supervisor or foreman working for an anti-union company is therefore anti-union? Why is that? Why isn't a labourer working for an anti-union company also considered anti-union then? Shouldn't they all quit on principle? You see how silly this gets?

You don't care HA HA HA

Tell us another one. Did I not see you here FULLY involved in the Carole James affair? Oh yes. You had some STRONG opinions on the matter for someone who doesn't care.

A position was created for Svend at the BC Fed. I think it's pretty safe to assume the NDP had something to do with that. Can I prove that, no, but then neither can 90% of the commenters here back up a lot of their "colourful" allegations either so I fit right in.

Cheerio, off to see the wizard....

Danny

Yep, I don't care. After he resigned I could care less what happened to Svend or what the NDP did or didn't do for him because it doesn't affect me in any way and its none of my business.

Skywalker

Thanks for the support!

The NDP flubbed their job last time and delivered us back into

the hands of the socredlieberals. I see no evidence of superior character in the field that would make me more confident about this time. We have to use the NDP to destroy the socredlieberals once and for all, there is no escaping that. I wish I could hold out hope for things being better after the socredlieberals are gone for good.

The set-up of Glen Clark

was a way of smearing a really good man (Clark) and paving the way for the now Low Commisioner to Londontown to make a convenient entrance.

Clark was a feisty and strong leader - he certainly stood up to the US over our fisheries and again over their military presence in Nanoose Bay to mention just a few. No doubt Clark was viewed as a threat by those readying themselves to sell out this province and so they 'brought in'....more accurately, 'bought' someone who would quickly and obediently facilitate the shameful garage sale of our province's natural resources and public assets and do it with no qualms and no remorse.

I wish Glen Clark would write a book one day....his side of the story...but it's probably highly unlikely.

Good question you posed there, Skywalker.

Dannyboy

You base it all on the assumption that the NDP has some influence over the BC Fed. That is seriously flawed. Ever wonder why there are no people hired by the Fed, from the ranks of the BC Liberals? It should be very obvious but you still can;t see it. Maybe the wizard will help.

Hakuin

NO they did not. The combined sleaze job of the MSM and the BC Liberals did it. None of the issue of the NDP were as serious as the ones that liberals had in their record by the 2005 election. To the MSM it didn't matter. All they wanted was the NDP out and folks like you bought it! Folks like you flubbed!

And I would say falling to that sleaze job

was a failing. And they are just as likely to do it again, based on their so-far-demonstrated inability to grasp real-politik. I've voted for them since Whacky Bennett was destroying our resource heritage for his friends and family's private benefit. I'm getting sick of their inability to learn which end of the knife is sharp and when to stick it in the foe.

Lynn:

If Clark is a"good man", why do I see him on TV speaking against unions? Couldn't he have just taken the chocolate quietly and not turned-coat so openly and loudly? Is his cognitive dissonance shrieking in his ears ?
Perhaps he's not a bad man, maybe he's just really, really average and weak like most - and should have stayed out of politics.

Hakuin

I haven't seen Clark on tv at all for a long time but I'll take your word for it since you seem like an honest person....and I disagree with him if that is the case....but as Frank said he's a private person now....he's not representing anyone but himself and he has a right to think what he wants.

The thing is, when it was his duty to represent the best interests of the people of BC he did a good job of it. Who he is now or what he represents now is none of my business.

hakuin

It was the voter who fell for the sleaze/con job and then ended up paying and paying and is still paying. Who flubbed? The voter screwed themselves. You obviously bought it as well based on your blaming everyone but the misguided and duped voter. Also can you give an example of what Clarke is suppose to have said against unions and in what context that was? Was it when he was working for BC or when he was working for Jim Pattison? There is a big effing difference.

One more thing.

"maybe he's just really, really average and weak like most - and should have stayed out of politics"

That is plain silly. His political career spanned some 20 years or more and he got re-elected and re-elected. People that worked with him knew how sharp he was in pulling off the election victory in 1996 when all the pundits claimed he was dead in the water. That is what pissed them off. They couldn't bear to have somebody win that they couldn't scare and manipulate. What gives you the right to suggest that he was average? How long was your political career?

Plus....Jimmy Pattison doesn't hire average.

Correction

That should have read "15 years" not "20 years or more".

A big pot calling a small kettle black.

The efforts of the so-called “Concerned Citizens of BC” have so far been amateurish at best. The only ad that I've seen was about the backdated memo that Adrian Dix put in a particular file back when he was Glen Clark's Chief of Staff. Everybody knows about that, Mr. Dix has admitted his mistake and it's pretty much ancient history.

Any dirt CCBC can bring up on the NDP has been known by the public for years and the public has been able to consider all of that in forming their present opinion of Adrian Dix.

In addition, whatever the NDP might have done in the past pales in comparison to such scandals as the huge potential explosion called BC Rail; the Liberals Machiavellian efforts in manipulating the candidate selection process; and such huge financial boondoggles as the convention center, run of river projects and the rebuild of B.C. Place.

And then there is that sly bit of propaganda that the Liberals are good financial managers compared to the NDP. As was pointed out in one of the newspapers a couple of weeks ago, the provincial debt under the Liberals has doubled since they came to power. The Concerned Citizens are a huge pot calling a small kettle black.

Dix a saint compared to the Libs

Re: NDP=No Dix Please
All true and very minor, and compared to the Liberals, a saint!

One question Sky:

Would YOU ever take a job from Pattison?

Frank Lee

Once again the fast ferrys raises its head. They were built in BC with BC labour, tradesmen were trained to perform the work on the FAST CATS. The money paid in wages stayed in BC and stimutated the economy and the Government got income tax. Yes they had their problems.
Now lets talk about the last 3 ferrys that were built in Germany, $500 million went to Germany and stayed there, BC got the three (3) ferrys that had the same problems as the FAST CATS, expensive to operate and made too large a wake when traveling in the harbours. Where are the German built ferrys now, tied up mostly until the more reliable and cheaper ferrys need to be repaired these new ferry are not on regular runs until there is a shortage of our regular, built in BC ferrys need to be overhauled.

Agree with Stewart MacK - NDP can keep it clean but hard

I agree very much with Stewart MacKenzie's comments and experience regarding how constant negative mudslinging (though it can work as a wedge) is the #1 thing leading people away from politics.

My advice last time around was that the untapped potential of the non-voter or turned-off voter(or young voter) was far greater than any benefit to be gained by simply saying "Gordon Campbell doesn't care", no matter what the BC Liberals did.

Indeed, I believe there is no reason the NDP couldn't have won the last election with a more open approach.

I am thus happy to see that Dix is at least trying to take the high road. This won't preclude him from speaking firmly and forthright with respect to the Liberals' record.

I also acknowledge, however, Frank Lee's insightful comment that Adrian Dix is a pretty unsavoury character who may not benefit from personal mudslinging contests.

He was at the heart of the Glen Clark team that acquiesced in Harcourt's ouster and then went on to lead the party to virtual oblivion. Talk about communications! And how much responsibility does that team bear for bringing about a situation where Campbell ended up with virtually absolute power?

To think that Dix and Moe Sihota still control the party today!!

Dix also forged a public document and was at the heart of the Carole James power core during the era when the NDP would censure free-speaking politicians like Corky Evans and Bob Simpson.

As more and more of the Caucus expressed their lack of confidence in Carole, Dix and crew then used their control of the constituencies to say that anyone who is not with us is against us. They donned the scarves, and, when that didn't work, arranged a leadership contest far less open than the Liberals' was. The timelines ensured no fresh faces could enter the race and that vested interests would win. All leading candidates were from the old guard. A few last-minute bags of cash from Surrey and Dix was in.

To be clear, I want the NDP to win this election. I also cautiously support Dix's new approach.

However, the questions we must remember to ask ourselves remain (1) is there any reason to believe Dix's new approach? (2) If the NDP is elected and the more unsavoury aspects emerge again, what can we do to ensure ongoing good government?

I was once counseled by a much older person that you should toss out any government that is in. Don't let anyone consolidate power.

While I don't agree with him 100% on this, there is certainly insight in what he said.

When it comes to Dix and the NDP in power, caring citizens will find themselves in a particularly challenging situation where we'll need to ensure there are checks on further consolidation of power within the dix team. And, as importantly, we'll need to ensure there are credible voices within the BC NDP that can be seen as an alternative going forward. After all, we will no longer be in a position to blame everything on the Liberals.

Amor appears to have the same fist as

frankleeaspired

With friends like Cosmos.....

Campbull ended up with virtual absolute power because Glen Clark was set up and his reputation intentionally smeared.

We need to re-open the BC Rail trial with its shady cast and crew - it is the link in a long chain of events that began with and included the smearing and ouster of first Gordon Wilson, and then Glen Clark.

All part of an intentional plan to privatize by stealth the public resources and assets of this province, and to decimate the human rights....civil and working rights of British Columbians in order to steal those assets and natural resources away from public control and monitoring.

As the judge said in her acquittal of Glen Clark, the ONLY thing he was guilty of was using bad judgement in trying to help a neighbor.

Right on Lynn

It is astounding how many of the quasi NDP swallowed the MSM frequently peddled myth about Glen Clark and then blame the loss of the NDP on Clark and refuse to accept their own culpability. I know people who talk about the MSM as a bunch of lying bastards but still parrot the things they hear. For anyone who voted BC Liberal is 2001 thinking they were going to punish the NDP for the transgression the MSM told them had been committed, I ask: How did that personal stupidity and gullibility work for you in the 12 years that followed?

Now they want the NDP back but are still dissing anyone connected to the NDP of the 90's. They still have not learned their lesson.

My labour union in the 90's was like Amour above- same argument same adherence to the myth spread by the Baldrey's, Palmer's and Smyth's of the media. They hung their heads for a decade after. Now when I run into them and they talk about how they need to get rid of the Liberals, I am happy to remind them who they voted for in 2001. Do I think they have learned a lesson? Not if Amour's comment is anything to go by.

Skywalker

Hear, hear. Exactly.

Below are the exact words of the judge in her ACQUITTAL of Glen Clark:

She said that Clark exercised "poor judgement in hiring Pilarinos to renovate his home."

Well, I've done that...when it comes to home renovations most people have done that. But that molehill of a small backyard deck was made into an intentional mountain under a co-opted media and other 'helping' agencies.

And as you said, Skywalker, too many people bought the fictional version, when the fact is, Glen Clark was clearly a victim of a grand scale smear job.

No wonder he and Gordon Wilson have no interest in returning to politics.

Poor judgment in hiring someone for home renovation is hardly comparable to the lethal action of drunk driving, or the Great BC Train Robbery or the wide spread corruption of the past decade that has implemented the legislated stealing of the last nickel from the public purse in order to fund and implement a scourge of privatization that has sold off our resources, rights, sovereignty and financial security.

This time round however, the ol' trusty Fiberal smear machine is smearing itself.

Skywalker and Lynn

In the 90s and 2000s, I remained an NDP supporter. The suggestion that I parroted the MSM or voted for the Liberals, or helped them into power, is false.

The NDP in the 90s did many things that I agreed with. They did other things that I did not. It serves nobody to deny either fact.

In the end, the fact is that the NDP had sunken to obscenely low numbers by the end of their term. While it is true the MSM played a big role in that (newcomer Michael Smyth's columns were particularly obscene), the salient question for honest and progressive voters is how do you deal with the fact of unpopularity?

I take it that your positions would be to blindly support current leadership no matter what they do. I imagine you both still have your scarves?

By the end of Clark's term, government was in chaos. Cabinet Ministers were resigning or being shuffled at a rate that made it impossible for them to know their portfolios. The billion dollar Forest Renewal Fund (a good idea) was completely spent as a pre-election slush-fund attempt at stimulus. Government was subsidizing failing private polluters to the hundreds of millions. None of this was helping at the polls.

What did I do at the time? Well, I remained an NDP supporter. I challenged all the bullsh*t in the MSM. And I supported Corky Evans.

My point, if you re-read my post, is that, unless you want Dix or some autocrat to be in power until the day they die, there must always be checks and balances within parties as well as outside them. Debate should be fostered.

Corky Evans twice ran against the Clarkites while remaining a loyal New Democrat. I respectfully submit that the NDP would have been re-elected by now with someone like Corky at the helm.

Now tell me, was Corky Evans responsible for getting the BC Liberals elected? If not, why am I?

My post noted how the Dix-James team actually did censure Corky Evans and Bob Simpson (and Michael Sather etc. etc.) for speaking freely on policy issues.

And here Lynn and Skywalker are suggesting that something I said shows I voted for the BC Liberals or somehow helped them into power.

Please help me better understand. Which of my comments in the post above made you somehow believe that I either voted for the BC Liberals, helped them into power, or was a stooge of the MSM?

Once a person's chosen party is in power, how can they effectively respond to scandal, conflict, unpopularity, or leadership issues? After all, as I pointed out, you will not be in a position to blame the government.

My suggestion was to always be on guard against the consolidation of power by anyone, and also to ensure that alternative leaders and ideas are allowed to develop within the party. It's called allowing for open debate.

I began my post by confirming that I support Dix's new approach. The rest of my post, I suppose, was merely meant to reinforce that I also hope he means it.

btw

If you want more dirt on BC Rail (that even Tsakumis hasn't identified as far as I knowl), I would strongly recommend that you look a little deeper into the tax write-off part of the sale.

The corporate audit which followed the deal explicitly confirmed they did not address or audit the tax write-off part of the sale. The auditor noted that he presumed the government had crunched the numbers. The way it was written strongly indicated that they had probably not. It was not covered by the audit.

It was a giveaway that has never been audited and which ensured the buyers of the BC Rail/unclaimed capital loss deductions would essentially be able to operate without paying any taxes for a generation.

I don't want the NDP back

I want the socredlieberals GONE. I'll accept the NDP as a means to an end, but only a fool "sees a change of rulers as a joy". What we need to get to is representative government through a whole slew of independents, none of which will be strong enough to oppress us again.

Keep your eye on the prize.

Amor

Quote: "And here Lynn and Skywalker are suggesting that something I said shows I voted for the BC Liberals or somehow helped them into power.

Please help me better understand. Which of my comments in the post above made you somehow believe that I either voted for the BC Liberals, helped them into power, or was a stooge of the MSM?"

I don't know who you voted for, Amor, and never suggested I did, but if you want to understand why I reacted to your comment the way I did, it's all about subtext, damning with faint praise, that kind of thing. The words that a writer chooses to use are loaded with revealing baggage, maybe there is a clue there.

Other than that I can't help you as to why Skywalker, Hakuin, and I came to similar conclusions...

quite so Lynn

(that's why people who read my posts never agree to meet me)

it's not a but, it's a feature

"By the end of Clark's term, government was in chaos."

You can replace Clark with:

Campbell
Clark (Christy)
Vanderzalm
Johnston (Rita)
and that's just the past few decades in one province. It's hardly a singular experience for that particular NDP gov't.

oops

"It's not a bug...."

Amour

In your posts you were disparaging Glen Clark in the same way the MSM did. You also inferred that it was all warranted. As such your opinion was not much different than a whole lot of folks who left the NDP at the time and I spoke to a lot of them on the plant floor. They simply believed what the MSM told them. Maybe you didn't intend to but you sounded like that.

It has always been my opinion that the MSM hated Clark because they despise anyone who has a few more brain cells than they. If you don't treat them with deference they turn on you. I think Clark held the whole pack of hyenas in contempt. They (the media) could not tolerate that and when he won in 1996 against their predictions they, in concert with the BC Liberals, deliberately set out to "get" him.
The media hates nothing more than being scorned or proven wrong.

Corky ran against the Clarkites yes, but he was not anti-Clark and I never heard him blame Glen for the NDP loss like others I have heard. Corky winning in 2001 as leader is wishful thinking. Even he lost his seat. Once his supporters realized their error, he was reelected on the strength of his personality - even though the NDP "power brokers" would have preferred he not come back.

What is now different is that the people listening to the MSM are fewer all the time. We did not have as many folks blogging or tuning in to the independent media sites. Where all the myths of the past can be challenged. The very fact that we traded the government of the 90's for the crooks and liars (BC Rail, HST, etc) of the last 12 years should make one pause before making comments about how bad Glen Clark was.

Amour..

..you might read this part of your post again.

"He was at the heart of the Glen Clark team that acquiesced in Harcourt's ouster and then went on to lead the party to virtual oblivion. Talk about communications! And how much responsibility does that team bear for bringing about a situation where Campbell ended up with virtually absolute power?

To think that Dix and Moe Sihota still control the party today!!"

You don't have to answer of course, Sky

But I am still curious about my question.

Hakuin

Speaking only for myself, if I needed a job and Pattison offered me one, I'd take it. Feeding my kids outweighs politics in my house as I'm sure it does in most people's.

That said, if there was a democratic-socialist company out there that offered me even less than Pattison, but enough to feed and shelter the family, I'd take it instead.

I traded my job for a union security clause

when I once organized. My family suffered. A few years later that enterprise was dead anyway from absolutely bone-headed "management". I'd do it again. And I never once ran for public office or presented myself as a "leader".

You want to crow on top of the dung hill, fine. But you WILL be held to a higher standard. Don't ever try to tell me Clark didn't enjoy his moment of power when he had it. Captains go down with the ship or they are not captains, just politicians. And politicians do NOT deserve respect, they are amply paid with the power I already mentioned.

Hakuin

Every politician is a "politician". You don't have to respect them, they are well paid. But it matters which ones are in power.

And once out of power they don't owe you a thing.

If any one of them resigns, wins the Lotto Max and spends the rest of their lives on a beach in Tahiti, that's their business.

Hakuin

And I just don't see the point of making my family suffer unnecessarily.

I never met a politician who wanted ...

...anything other than a report of the truth on issues, actions and assessments of the same. Things are possible in that kind of a situation.

Some of them actually make sacrifices in order to achieve something in the political arena and "crowing from the dung heap" is not the aspired goal.

As for the question, I don't recall being asked one. If it is the one Frank answered then yes I would as well, but I would make every effort to find something else where is was working for myself.

By your logic

Drunko should get a walk for all his in-office crimes. I don't believe that.

As to "unnecessary" suffering; maybe we don't have to go all Masada about it, but failure to suffer a little today can lead to worse later. And your last statement above about what politicians want is so contradictory to easily observed reality I question if you are actually seeing them.

Our social reality may have us all neck deep in political shit chanting "don't make a wave", but what minimal self respect we keep ought to preclude insisting it's delicious when the inevitable happens.

on positive and negative thinking

The dark side of positive thinking has relevance to political campaigns.

Hakuin, you'll love this...a short comment by me!

Check this out.

http://cinematreasures.org/theaters/canada/british-columbia/vancouver?page=1

Hakuin

Critcise Campbell for his record on poverty, his giveaways to corporations, his bankrupting the province but things like marital infidelity, that's between him and his wife.

He should be held accountable for what he did in office, but not outside of it.

correction

Must be in lala land...

here's the correct site to check out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5um8QWWRvo

Frank

" things like marital infidelity, that's between him and his wife."

Normally I couldn't agree with you more, but considering how Campbell's minions sabotaged Gordon Wilson,s leadership over his "affair" with Judy Tyabji - which turned into a marriage that has lasted until now - I think Campbell's marital conduct is open to comment!

I predicted on election night 1991 that Campbell would be BC Liberal leader by the next election; he had the support of the old boys network and the formerly Socred political fixers and I didn't believe those power mongers would allow a loner like wilson to captain their new "Flagship of convenience". Wilson's Liberal Party made a more attractive choice than the rusting hulk of Social Credit, and my bet was it would be hijacked in short order by the "Greed Coalition".

I wonder which ship the rats will be boarding after the oncoming debacle!

Speaking for myself

It was not the MSM that soured me on the NDP after 1996, it was the arrogance of the NDP "power brokers", and the lack of respect shown "grassroots" members by party and government brass. I was no casual supporter, but one who participated at conventions and on the Environment Committee, which required lots of time and travel and little reward other than the chance to contribute in a constructive way. After 1996, those kinds of contributions were not valued the way they had been by Mike Harcourt and other key cabinet members and MLAs, and it was no longer worth my time and the cost to my family to be as involved.
Corky Evans called it straight when it came to those issues and had the support of a good chunk of the membership. There were also those who agreed with Corky on the issues but did what the power brokers told them and voted for Clark. I also knew MLAs who supported Glen (and Dosanjh in 2000) over Corky because they wanted to be on the winning side, and observed some sickening displays of bullying of young party members who refused to commit to Clark as they wanted to hear what all candidates had to offer before making a decision. My daughter actually had to sit away from our constituency delegation at the '96 convention because some of them made her so uncomfortable, preferring to hang out with IWA types who also supported Clark but had enough respect to let her make her own decision without coercion.

Blaming a 2-77 loss on brainwashing by the MSM is an insult to the many thinking party members and supporters who had their own good reasons for being disenchanted!

The best thing that came out of all this was the demonstration that NDPers were NOT prepared to blindly follow but had the integrity to stand up for the values that made them party supporters in the first place.

And FYI, my family and I never ever voted for the Greed Coalition, nor did we refrain from voting; we simply didn't bust our butts to elect the NDP in 2001, the way we had the previous four elections.

Having said all that, I believe Dix has performed very well as leader and that he got the message loud and clear in 2010 and early 2011, that party membership expects to be respected and listened to rather than patronized by backroom operators who think they know better than we do on critical issues. Dix has taken stands where Carole James would no;, seemingly he has the confidence and common sense to actually respect party processes and their products (eg Sustainable BC) rather than treat them as optional. As a result we will are working hard to elect our NDP cndidate Duncan Barnett, a tougher job what with Bob Simpson running as well!

I must say too theat despite our qualms about Carole James as leader after two election defeats, we are quite impressed with her recently - like Roberto Luongo, having the pressure off of her seems to have allowed her to perform up to her abilities!

Stewart

I think you are totally confused. Read this again please. "I also knew MLAs who supported Glen (and Dosanjh in 2000) over Corky because they wanted to be on the winning side, and observed some sickening displays of bullying of young party members who refused to commit to Clark ...." Glen was not a leadership candidate in 2000. He had already declared that he was not running in the next election. Your beef is with Dosanjh and that is a completely different issue. The MSM may not have soured you but the very fact that your experience in 2000, as you describe, even occurred had to do with the MSM.

Like the desperation you see with the liberals today and the MSM constantly being critical, it was the same for the NDP then. Strategy, policy is all decided based on how the MSM will portray the issue and the power brokers of one party are no different than the power brokers of another. It takes a lot of hubris to think that if the party had listened to me, you or Corky, the results would have been different. Sorry but I don't buy it. The dice had been thrown by the public who bought a load of MSM bulls@#t by then and it was game over.

Furthermore Stewart..

.. if "The best thing that came out of all this was the demonstration that NDPers were NOT prepared to blindly follow but had the integrity to stand up for the values that made them party supporters in the first place." then they did the equivalent of pointing a gun at their heads and yelling, "Stop or I shoot". I really don't consider that reaction very bright at all. To me that is an excuse made by party members who bought the myth and now try to justify their actions. Trading 12 years of Campbell to send a message is just effing stupid to the core.

Slight correction on perceived confusion

"I also knew MLAs who supported Glen (and Dosanjh in 2000)

Perhaps I should have said "Glen in 1996 and Dosanjh in 2000", I thought the parentheses made it clear what I meant.

It is insulting to thinking party members to keep repeating the false premise that we "bought the myth" rather than making our own minds up based on the information we had at the time. For me, that included many personal experiences, including being patronized along with other environment committee members by Moe Sihota, on the one occasion he deigned to attend one of our meetings - unlike John Cashore, Dan Miller, Mike Harcourt and others who attende regularly and showed some respect for the experience and knowledge brought together from around BC.
I certainly had no need to look to the MSM for an opinion, nor was I alone among activists in my disenchantment.

Making the opportunistic and self serving Dosanjh leader ensured we were going to go down in 2001; Corky may not have won but he would have done a heck of a lot better than 2-77.

All the help in the world wouldn't have saved that sinking ship; and by 2005 many of us were back at work for a promising new leader in Carole James, but were burdened by a lack lustre central campaign as well as the usual MSM bias.

Fact is, the MSM have always done their best to defeat the NDP, and we just have to get beyond whining and do what it takes to overcome the advantage that gives the Greed Coalition. In 2009 we again had a poor quality central campaign run by backroom power brokers who wouldn't listen to anyone but their cronies, and lost what should have been a winnable election.

"the power brokers of one party are no different than the power brokers of another"

Sadly, this is all too often true. The problem is, NDP members, especially those coming from social activist backgrounds, are NOT the same as those of parties based strictly on "what's in it for me" and will become disenchanted if they believe all politicians are cut from the same cloth.
That is the reality faced by NDP politicians - they cannot ignore the values and issues of their membership without losing a lot of support both from activists and at the ballot box; many voters are simply not voting because they believe it makes no difference anyway!

That is why the party's stands on Enbridge and Prosperity Mine, for example, are courageous but also very sensible, as they demonstrate the difference between us and the Greed Parties (here I am including the Federal Tories and most federal Liberals as well).

Taking these stands will anger the big money players, but will get us a lot of support from those with principles and some concern for generations beyond our own!

excellent that, plwg

I've forwarded it to a few friends :)

Frank:
was he married? I hadn't noticed since I was so busy watching him destroy our province and lives. Why do you bring it up?

Stewart

As you may conclude, I have no patience with folks trying to rationalize their political positions in 2001 by claiming that the fault rested entirely with the government. That may make a few feel superior but it ignores the culpability of a lot of folks who just swallowed MSM bull. Denying it just means it can happen again.

Voters of the left are often fickle. It is not the same for the right that know what side of the bread is buttered. Some on the left still think politics is some pure activity and nothing less than perfection is acceptable. The membership often does not care, doesn't know what the limits are and they certainly have no patience. Harcourt was vilified because he moved too slow on some pet policy the unions wanted. They didn't give a crap for the financial constraints, Asian flue or years of Socred neglect. They wanted it yesterday. I'm not letting anyone off the hook for giving us 12 years of BC Lieberals and putting us all in the mess we are in. The NDP in the 90's was cut no slack and I won't cut any of for the newly arrived, lefties of convenience now either.

you are beginning to sound, Sky,

like a True Believer.

Agree 100%

"Harcourt was vilified because he moved too slow on some pet policy the unions wanted. They didn't give a crap for the financial constraints, Asian flue or years of Socred neglect. They wanted it yesterday."

While labour may share some blame for Harcourt's downfall, the Green wing of the party was equally guilty of wanting everything yesterday and for the most part with far less service to the party than labour provided over the years.

Those who worked for years to get both these groups working constructively together to produce common policies, eg the 1992 Forest Policy unanimously passed at convention, saw much of what had been accomplished, torn down.
Both sides share responsibility for sabotaging the NDP government as neither understood they couldn't hope to form government without the other.

Then it became a case of who had the most political muscle in the NDP, and we know it wasn't the Greens.

No coalition can function if the bigger parties try to bully the rest - self immolating or not, groups or interests which feel they are unrepresented or disrespected will either leave or at best cease to work hard enough to succeed.

Coalitions work when even the more powerful partners realize they must work with the rest and achieve common goals, not just expect everyone else to soldier along faithfully pushing the biggest group's agenda!

Politics ain't religion, we don't agree to accept the decrees of leadership as if they were the appointed representatives of God - especially not in the NDP. You pick the party you believe best represents your values, and from my perspective also a party which has some chance of forming a government. This may lead to contradictions as the second condition doesn't totally harmonize with the first. Once you have chosen,you work to represent your values within the party while working for electoral success for the party candidates.

Stewart

Actually the Greens in the party were similar to labour. If there was not a green initiative passed every month they gave the NDP more grief than the enemy outside. It was not a case of the majority bullying another faction. The minority could not be persuaded to compromise much to the delight of Campbell and his thugs.

BTW, Hakuin I consider myself a democratic socialist and probably further left than the current crop of newly minted NDP. I am not a member of any party just can't tolerate people trying to rewrite history to suit their past positions. Politicians don't, shouldn't expect anything from the MSM other than honest, truthful reporting. If we had had that in the 90's things would have turned out differently. If we had that today, Christy would quit while she was behind and we would not be spending millions on ads trying to make her look like a leader. As it is she still thinks her friends in the MSM can save political hynie.

Hakuin and Stewart

Hakuin, I know you didn't bring it up, I just posted it as an example of the separation between a politician's public and private life.

Stewart, that's true. What he did to Gordon Wilson does pretty much make his own fair game.

specious then

Clark working for Satan is not comparable to Drunko fooling around. Not even close. One affects us all, the other, no one of consequence

sky

abandon "left and right". See what is.

Hakuin

So you did miss the point after all. How are they different? Both had nothing to do with their public lives.

"One affects us all"

Which one? And how?

You are right Frank

It was wrong to expect anything from any of them, they are all vermin.

So let's get on with tossing out the present vermin and installing new vermin. We can clean house again later, hopefully before everything is totally gnawed and spoiled.

7 generations

Something I learned long ago, from First Nations people, is the concept that we are responsible for the land we occupy (as opposed to owning it) and that our duty is to ensure whatever we do considers the impacts for seven generations ahead.

Seven generations may sound like a long time but I believe the number relates to how many generations we may touch or see in our own lifetimes.

Counting great grandparents, grandparents, parents, myself, my children and grandchildren, I have spent at least a bit of time with six generations. At 61 years as of yesterday, and with grandchildren 11 and 12 years old, I have a pretty good shot at reaching seven while eight will be a stretch - I'd have to live close to 90 years.

So, seven generations seems to me a number we can relate to personally without having to look too far into the future.

We live in an age where many don't think past the next year, never mind two or three generations ahead, especially those who are taking the most for themselves, and doing their best to get even more if possible.

I have heard many people say they couldn't care less about what happens after they are gone - including some First Nations people who no longer respect their own traditions.

Relating this all to politics, I chose the NDP as the most realistic and potentially positive alternative - which does not mean I believe the NDP is anywhere near where it should be, just that it is the nearest alternative we have in BC.

The Greens may have some good ideals but fewer good ideas, as the party is all too urban and middle class to contemplate the kinds of social changes we will need to make - or have made for us by changing climate and other challenges.

By forming a separate party, rather than working within the bigger tent with labour and social activists, the Greens have helped keep the Greed Coalition in power. They may have lofty ideals but in real terms they have been in the way of true progress. If the last 30 years are any indication, by the time the public are ready to actually elect a Green government there will be little left to protect for that 7th generation!

The NDP may not be much closer in philosophy to where it needs to be, but does have the opportunity to form a government and has been much more openly concerned about the environment recently, taking some stands on issues where they would have sat on the fence in the past.

mortals make plans

the gods laugh

Whatever King Log or Stork we choose, physical absolutes are what are going to determine our fates. Better we study science than politics.

Left or right.

In the absence of any simple way to describe where one might be on the political spectrum, extreme left being communist and extreme right being fascist, I have no problem using the terms. I don't consider being a "floater" says anything other than "you are where the mood took you today."

?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nzudto-FA5Y

Stewart

Up above you mentioned the green side of the NDP and the labour side. Just wanted to add that some of us are neither, we support the NDP because of human rights and social issues. Issues like anti-poverty and healthcare etc are the biggest issues for us and why we support the NDP. Although I also support many green and labour issues.

The NDP is a big tent party and there's lots of groups under its umbrella.

Better we study science than politics.

Better be digging manure for the garden than politics!
On the other hand, doing the first gives one useful experience when involved with the second.

Sky: Ed Deak keeps reminding us that extreme left and right are like opposite ends of a circle.

Bang on, Stewart MacKenzie

"The Greens may have some good ideals but fewer good ideas, as the party is all too urban and middle class to contemplate the kinds of social changes we will need to make - or have made for us by changing climate and other challenges."

I've been irritated with the Greens for a long time, but focussed too much on their bizarre and contradictory policies. This sets me much more at ease with their whims, suspecting, at some point, the big tent will come to include them if we can all just manage to squeeze our egos in the door.