Wow

Christy Clarke is really pretty. My votes gonna have to be for the libs this term. Sorry guys.

jcaputa

Cheaper to have your eyes checked.

Pretty awful.

Something about the eye of the beholder.

I think Gordo had better hair.

pretty interesting baggage/jcaputa

"Pretty" ? Maybe you're right jcaputa. But More to the Point; I believe she is pretty loaded down with baggage. There are so many questions about the apparent involvement with the liberal gov't that has angered the public over their selling of B.C. Rail.So too, the 2 public servants; Basi, Virk that apparently were required to expedite the process.So too, whose court case has been paid for by the B.C. taxpayers when the accused took a bargain to plead guilty? So too, there is no availability to have access to documents in a trial that was for all intents and purposes, closed to public observation and certainly scrutiny!So too, now the accused lips are sealed??? and we pay for all this smoke and mirrors game.
I find the information that alex tsakumis is revealing on his blog today is pretty interesting.

She may be attractive on the outside,

but inside, where it counts, she's really, really ugly.....

Ha ha

[SEXIST COMMENT REMOVED. -MODERATOR.]

Skywalker

[UNVERIFIABLE INFORMATION REMOVED. -MODERATOR.]

By the way cool hand,

Glen Robbins probably wrote what a lot of people would like to. It doesn't prove your point.

Lipstick on Christy Clark

That was funny :)

Lawrence and Skywalker, nice to see you both support the NDP now. Too bad you didn't when they had a chance.

As for Robbins Research, if he's right and Angus Reid and Mustel are wrong the apocalypse is probably upon us. But cling to it if you want to.

Skywalker

That would be because it was members that were the problem. It was members that wanted to get rid of the leader regardless of the party's standing in the polls.

And the lead wasn't tenuous, it was 21%, the Liberals have only made 10% of that back in the last month with Campbell's resignation.

As for wanting a left-wing version of Christy Clark, no thanks. I already bet Luke that her fast start won't save her and she won't be leader of the Liberals, let alone of the province.

The NDP shouldn't be trying to sell fire and brimstone, it should be trying to sell compassion and doing the right thing for people and the environment. Getting a leader that will pound on the table and talk over the opposition and yell at centrists about BC Rail and child poverty is not going to work.

@Frank

Amen.

And even if I dislike Mustel polls on principle the fact that female voters now appear to be abandoning the NDP for the Liberals is simply further evidence of the thesis some of us have been supporting since the NDP started wearing a hair shirt and thrashing its own back with a lash.

Frank what you suggest...

...is exactly what was tried the last two elections and it bombed even with Campbell working to make it work. As for GWest's contention, it is not observed anywhere and furthermore frankly if these women are so superficial as to want an incompetent person of the same as a leader just because she is the same gender then we were screwed with that kind of logic anyway. It would just have manifest itself on the next campaign trail. Sorry I will disagree. But I will agree that arguing with you guys is pointless.

Robbins?

AH HAHAHAHAHAHA....
Sorry, sorry, lost it for a second there....

Submitting a Robbins poll is the left wing version of me submitting a Tea Party poll. I'd be laughed out of the room wouldn't I. And for good reason.
Didn't he have the BC Con party projected to make major gains to make a substantial impact on the right wing vote last election?
But don't disagree with him or he'll challenge you to a fight! Isn't that what you would normally decribe as a "thug" Skywalker?

On another note I gotta say, after observing the carnage, name calling and hostility going on here night after night.....NDP supporteres should be glad right now the MSM "ignores" you as you like portray. How would you like this dirty laundry splashed across the front page of the Sun every day.

Happy, the jokes on you.

The MSM is far too busy propping up the latest liberal power seeker. If they focus on the NDP in any fashion they might discover how little they are believed.

As for polls, there is far to much attention paid to any polls and our friend Cool Hand makes use of every poll that suits his purpose so I thought he might consider all the others. Polls are manipulated as they all ask questions to suit the outcome. I've been polled and you can always tell which question they really are focusing on and it is always a loaded one.

They are all a joke intended to influence a particular agenda.

Your Old Liberal Order In The NDP...

"Until that happens we'll always be governed by people like Campbell and Bennett who draw people like Kevin Falcon to them like flies so as to keep the Left out of power." Frank.

Which actually might as well be... with you guys the only option. Which lots of moderate folks are starting to recognize as well... unless we think the non-voting majority and others are all raving Marxist lunatics. Which I, a quirky sort of Marxist, sure as Hell wouldn't even presume.

Which "services" such as the medical system, daycare etc., you guys have near as much been a part of facilitating the destruction of, with your typical silences, sitting on your hands and empty pablum reassurances. 'Cause your Great and Glorious Party, sans any fire and brimstone or declared commitments, scarcely ever actually get into what passes for "power". Or at least what passes for "power" with you folks anymore.

Your kind of NDP may sneak into power one more time by default Frank, but really, everyone is onto you and doesn't really expect much. The minority who actually still believe in this electoral system just don't know what else to do.

Which is really okay by me, that the NDP is so gutless in the face of the extreme Right. Just as, on about the same level, it is that the Right are on this insane course of dismantling the old Social Democratic State of capitalism.

It's all working in fact, to hasten the coming new change dynamic, evident here in many of your own NDP members even. They know what I am talking about too. And it is really this new dynamic need, underneath the surface layers, what undid your precious Carole, and is working to marginalize your Liberal 5th column influence in the NDP. And even you, I suspect, in moments of rare honesty with yourself, know this latter is true, as much as I do. Your Old Order is rapidly fading Frank. You Liberals all in the NDP had your heyday. But it's just about over methinks... one way or another.

coyote

There is no such thing as "on to me" or "sneaking in".

We've been upfront.

As for this "new dynamic", there is also no such thing. It doesn't exist outside of your wishful thinking.

Deal with reality and accept the world as it is.

There's enough to do without bringing the political equivalent of orcs and dragons to the conversation.

The BCNDP

The BCNDP Party comes across as the Ship of Theseus whenever its members talk about its CCF roots.

Seriously, Frank, "When we design our platform..."?

Good one. :)

samuidave

I don't get the connection with the ship of Theseus.

"When we design our platform to appeal to the angry we lose those that just want to see a more caring and sharing society that otherwise looks pretty much like the society we have now."

Let's see how far angry takes us because I notice it hasn't taken non-voters very far.

I was adressing the heart of the matter;...

after steadily shifting right politically, the BCNDP is a social democratic party aligned with its CCF roots in name alone.

Oh I agree Skywalker

Polls are just "polls" and can vary to suit an agenda. I'm sure you recall prior to the last election we were assured daily here by a commenter who had access to some sort of "internal polls" that the NDP were headed for certain victory, in the face of what a reputable firm like Angus was predicting.
But my point was if I qouted a Fraser poll say, where the pollster threatened to punch people out you'd be all over that as indicative as right wing thuggery and par for the course for the ilk.
But here you say Robbins is just writing "what a lot of people would like to"
I had no idea this was such a tough crowd.
Kind of vulgar in my books, but who am I to say. I'm sure someone else will TELL me.
Again...:>

samuidave

Besides the fact that Tommy Douglas and JS Woodsworth were attacked by the uber Left back then too, the fact is every party must deal with the world as it is.

You're fond of quotes so here's one, "The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there".

the classic dilemma, huh Frank

"the fact is every party must deal with the world as it is."

Yes, we'd hate for the Party to work toward a world as it ought to be. Status Quo, not vision, is the name of the power game aka politics.

Now, I am not familiar with your quote, but I am familiar with living in foreign countries with foreign cultures and foreign languages. I've lived under martial law, through civil uprisings and coups, and under military and strong monarchial rule.

What I've learned is that the outward Means may change, but the End is all the same: what you people want is only our concern to the extent that it serves our purpose, which is always one of your service to us at our unequitable benefit.

What is the uber-left, Frank? Are the commies coming?

For you, Frank

in reply to your quote: "The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there".

The post-revolutionary man, enfranchised and emancipated, has not turned out to be the New Man. He is the old Adam.

Working within the

Working within the parameters of what people want is simply being pragmatic. What would be the point of a political vehicle demanding radical change when the population doesn't want it? It may serve your own ego but it would certainly not be of any interest or good to society.

"What I've learned is that the outward Means may change, but the End is all the same: what you people want is only our concern to the extent that it serves our purpose, which is always one of your service to us at our unequitable benefit."

So you want people to live with no rules because such rules serve only people like me (whatever that means)?

Should everyone in BC be allowed to do what they want? With 4 million people here how long do you think it would take for every bear, deer, river and tree to be wiped out? If everyone could simply rape the environment to serve their own economic well-being what would be the point in allowing anything to exist since if you left behind something for the common good someone else would simply take it?

"What is the uber-left, Frank?"

That would be the people on the Left who criticized Tommy Douglas and JS Woodsworth as being nothing more than soft Liberals who supported the status quo. Everything has a context based on time and place.

crankypants

Was the NDP platform too vague in 2009 or was it not vague enough?

Carole's stance against the carbon tax was, in my opinion, the right one yet there's no doubt it cost her votes and possibly the election because of the attacks on her from the environmental movement.

No doubt the party agreed since after the election the NDP reversed its position on the tax.

It would be great if being more specific led to more votes but the example of the carbomn tax would say otherwise.

As the Liberals demonstrated in that same election, lying and telling the people what they want to hear trumps anything else.

Pragmatism and Narrow Opportunism...

"Let's see how far angry takes us because I notice it hasn't taken non-voters very far." Frank.

Nor has empty Liberal sentimentality really taken the NDP very far Frank. You folks, with a "win" here and there that has not significantly resulted in much that is going to endure within capitalism, like the medical system, are in these times now, even more of a fringe Party than you were. And that's with being "pragmatic: giving folks what you "think" they want. Though really, especially in these times, you are seeking to give the ruling class what you think it wants. And still, the masses most, but also the ruling class abandon you in droves.

The problem with you folks is, you tend to think you are "part of the parameters" in which the system operates, but really, you are but its south facing rump, following the head of the donkey north into the wilderness.

Everyone knows, except "the pragmatic faithful" in the NDP, and even there, there are signs of restiveness, that if you are looking for "leadership" out of the present, the NDP is precisely NOT the place where you are going to find it.

It used to be that the capitalist democracy chicken would stand on one leg for awhile, until it wearied of that, when it would stand on the other one for awhile. (One leg being Liberal, the other Conservative.)

Well, in this nuclear and pollution age of higher levels of radiation and toxicity presumably, the chicken has grown some additional legs... most of which it scarcely uses, because they are not fully developed. That or some of these legs grow out of the original two legs. Example, the NDP is really just an incomplete leg, deformed and twisted into too many "pragmatic" shapes, as an outgrowth "siamese twin" leg of the Liberal Party. (The Greens, being really, really "pragmatic", have connecting tissue tentacles into all the other legs.)

The NDP, at least at the "official" level, where like all the Parties it is also joined at the umbilical to capitalism, often confuses "pragmatism" with "narrow opportunism", which they tend to see as one and the same. Which really says it all about them.

And re the Old Left's criticism of Douglas and Woodward. While in many regards they were to be admired in their rime, the Social Democratic State of Capitalism now past, that Left's criticism of them has turned out to be proved right in many regards. The CCF did, in fact, morph into the NDP, which in our time has become like a moth, drawn hypnotically ever closer to the light of the Liberal Party... which it thinks is its Sun. And indeed, may have been all along.

(Though Layton, of late, under the influence of reading Tyee perhaps :-), has been displaying some very modest levels of promise. Certainly he bears watching closely.)

coyote

Actually, "empty Liberal sentimentality" has taken us pretty far. In BC we've seen 3 election wins and the rest of the time since 1952 being primary opposition party.

Things like medicare have helped millions of Canadians every year for decades. As have labour regulations, environmental regulations and so on.

Even when not in power NDP ideas have been put into place both federally and provincially in order to stave off actual NDP government.

Right now two NDP governments exist at the provincial level in Canada and we're the primary opposition in two more. Not too bad.

Non-voter governments don't exist. Neither do non-voter opposition parties. Non-voters can't take responsibility for improving the life of any Canadian.

Which only makes sense since there are so many out there that don't want to listen to what most people want.

happy

I don't think Robbins is a left winger. I'd say his roots are old Reform-a-Tory.

You can check it out.

Mind you, the public face of Angus Reid is a guy called Mario Canseco...he ain't exactly a professional statistician either.

In fact, he has a journalism degree from UBC and a BA from a Mexican university...I'm not sure (especially on the evidence of a recent session I heard with him on CKNW) that I'd be all that ready to accept 'his' conclusions as gospel about what's up in BC politics.

That said, I can't disagree with your conclusion that at least 'some' Tyee commentators don't appear to be willing to accept the evidence (from the polls alone) that the likelihood of an NDP victory in the next election has gone down since the assassination of the current leader.

Rather than falling all over themselves to voice their support for a new 'leader' the gang of 13 and their acolytes are still more anxious to dump on anyone (FRIEND or foe) who disagrees with their orthodoxy.

The Bankruptcy of Liberal Sentimentality I...

"Actually, "empty Liberal sentimentality" has taken us pretty far. In BC we've seen 3 election wins and the rest of the time since 1952 being primary opposition party." Frank.

It is really just briefly to the Social Democratic State of Capitalism and back again to more traditional laissez faire capitalism, that "liberal sentimentality" has taken us... With little enduring, it increasingly seems. It is all coming unstable and weakened this House built on the shifting sands of capitalism and Liberal sentimentality.

Besides, it was really only under the far greater motivating threat of the revolutionary Left that had been, even before the last Great Depression, but which really exploded along with Unionization in the 30s, that the "spectre of Communism" sweeping capitalism that enabled the NDP medicare scheme to get some credibility. There was a general "fear of revolution" in the postwar of the fight to defeat fascism, throughout the capitalist world. And it was this in fact was the driving force that encouraged capitalist appeasement of the working class in the period. It was a bid to isolate the "real" Left threat to capitalism, which it did do successfully, with CCF assistance, which created the "incentive" for the Liberal Party in fact, to introduce most of the elements of the old Social Democratic State. (And ehhh, even be NDP claims of originality true, everybody steals everybodies' ideas as suits them and the time.)

Indeed, the Old Left outside the CCF, though including them too, were much of the most committed grass roots workers of the Medicare support movement; Communists, Socialist and Anarchists etc. Again, the CCF, as would the Liberals later, merely "formalized" the result in Saskatchewan, as was "pragmatic" for it at the time, reflecting even ruling class fears. The actual "movement" that pressured it into existence however, was always much bigger than the CCF. In which no small role was played by the trade unions of the day, which leadership was much Left other than just CCF. (Unlike today, when it is pretty much just "Liberal sentiment" NDP, to its great harm and failure.)

And I suspect you are of an age you know all this as well as I do. The real power of the NDP "in the day" of its greatest relevance and achievement, was as much a "consequence" of a Serious Left breathing down its neck, combined with the fear of communist revolution as near hysterically pervaded the ruling class of the time.

continued next post...

The Bankruptcy of Liberal Sentimentality II...

from previous post...

Additionally, of course, the reconstruction of Europe which followed the war unleashed an unparallelled wave of prosperity throughout all North American capitalism... Which only began to all become undone with a resurgent Europe in the late 1970s. Since which, along with the collapse of the influence of the Serious Left and the threat of revolution, the Social Democratic State of Capitalism in which that past period resulted, is all becoming undone. And without it, despite the lingering "rump"presence of the NDP, much diminished in any semblance of radicalism itself, and now near thoroughly Liberal, the ruling class has lost all its fear and is become more contemptuous of the working class and the NDP than ever. We are already back to the past, before even a more radical, though still much "liberal" CCF/NDP.

This is the capitalism, basically, with some lingering elements of the old Social Democratic State, that began the 20th Century. Fat lot of enduring good indeed that "Liberal sentimentality" has done us. It was all a chimera, that was here briefly and is now gone.

What is really needed again, is the fear of bejezzus being put into the ruling class. Only this time following it through, as non-violently as possible, of course, to the social and economic revolution/transformation as was then and is still really needed. Liberal sentimentality has, in fact, proved itself bankrupt in the end.

coyote

I agree that the existence of what you call the "serious Left" was a big motivator in getting things done back then.

But why was that the case? After all, the "serious Left" were no threat politically to anybody. Their level of support was miniscule. So how did the "serious Left" and the "pragmatic Left" (the CCF) change the status quo?

My own view is that we lived in a very right-wing society and were still emerging from a very class-based system. Women were only then getting the vote and let's remember that not all males had been eligible to vote in western countries. For a long time it was only adult males of property.

Great changes were taking place in other spheres, capitalism was still relatively new and not ingrained in the psyche like it is now and yet our political system was barely out of the feudal age.

The working class was finally becoming a major force as people left the farming life and moved into the growing cities and as they acquired skills their economic clout increased. At the same time so did their political clout. They suddenly had the ability to vote for real change.

And with things like wireless radio, daily newspapers and cars distance was becoming less onerous and you had the creation of mass culture.

Given the history those people had grown up in, it was no surprise ideas from the Left would find fertile ground. But we didn't become the Soviet Union of Canada, nor did the majority embrace Marxism. Except for a minority during a few years when the Depression was at its height people preferred making the society they knew better rather than replacing it altogether.

Good ideas from the Left were adopted and right-wing parties moved Left. Not as Left as some would have liked but they did accept things like pensions and unemployment insurance and welfare and later on even medicare. They were afraid of the radical Left and that probably made the pragmatic Left more acceptable, no question in my mind and the radical Left should view that as a success, not a failure as you portray it.

coyote part 2

One difference is obvious though, back then the radical Left were as active politically as the pragmatic Left. Now they turn their backs on politics and wait for the world to collapse and then come begging to them.

Since the late 70's the Right has moved further to the Right and has been trying to undo all that was done. It has taken over most of the media and has moved the political conversation to the Right. Everything remotely smelling of "community" is under attack on a daily basis.

Most people don't want to give up all that society once offered but slowly but surely they're literally brainwashed to accept what once was unacceptable.

Its not all doom and gloom. There are still some positives. The environmental movement has been very successful at selling its message. That success has not been to the level we'd like as habitat is still being wiped out but at least acid rain isn't worse, the ozone layer is no longer front page news and so on.

Dropping out and living in the 1930's and throwing dirt at the pragmatic Left may seem like a great strategy to the radical Left but I don't see how any success will ever flow from it.

The only way to keep what we have and perhaps even make gains is through political power and that means compromise with anyone willing to work with us. Anyone who wants their society to include "community" values is a possible ally. Its not becoming right-wing as you so often tell me, its simply building a bigger tent and a stronger political voice.

Staying small and pure and fractured is a recipe for disaster.

Small and Pure I...

"Great changes were taking place in other spheres, capitalism was still relatively new and not ingrained in the psyche like it is now and yet our political system was barely out of the feudal age."

A number of good and relevant points made by yourself. I will acknowledge that.

Though actually by the Depression-Postwar II time of which we speak, though still predominantly rural and being rapidly urbanized in this country, capitalism was already by then the product of a long history. (Of which we were a colonized product.) Which started with the English Civil War of 1642-49, and the defeat of the old aristocracy by the rising merchant class forces of Cromwell. Though which I concede really didn't get going and root itself until the driving of the peasants from the land and the Industrial Revolution beginning in the 18th Century. Still, we are already talking over 200 years from the Industrial Revolution time to the immediate postwar II.

And while many of your points about the actual size of the "serious left" are about correct, for its time it was probably about as numerous as the CCF of the same time. Certainly not significantly smaller, with more influence than its size would suggest, if not as well funded even as the CCF. All Parties have actually always been "small and pure", according to their own "pragmatic" lights. Still are. Relative to the population. (Which is the breeding ground for their "elitist" illusions and self-engrandizing "vanguard" notions.)

And while some on today's Left may advocate going back and living in the 1930a, I don't know, I certainly do not. In fact, I advocate finally eschewing the "small and pure" that is "all parties", and that the focus instead that is given to these elite creating institutions, be turned instead to organizing and mobilizing the entire working class population to act in their own interests, and that of their communities. Or at least a "critical mass" of it. To which "small and pure" parties are, as I keep saying, a distraction from this critical task that is the prerequisite to transforming society, and a constant source of betrayal, corruption and tyranny.

So while the entire Left of the immediate postwar time was an important development, and had many achievements to its credit, including the CCF which later became the NDP, all of them contained the seeds of their own destruction, just as the NDP currently does... in precisely the "small and pure", which while you claim to reject it, you are actively engaged in and a major uncompromising ideologue for here.

continued next post...

Small and Pure II...

from previous post...

Whereas on the contrary, it is I who advocate the building of a "mass" working class movement, exercsing its own "power", as opposed to always surrendering it to such as yourself and the NDP, Liberals, Greens and Conservatives etc. So actually, you are standing on your head again, looking at reality, the world and people around you. It is an Alice In Wonderland world of your own upside down creation.

And while I may possibly justly be accused of many things, being a purist is not one of them, and most here will recognize that... I think. But pragmatism is one thing, opportunism quite a self-serving other... which usually involves as you ever seek to do here, stand everything upside down, left to right, the impure becoming suddenly pure, and where the Liberal sentimentalist right becomes part of the Left.

I suggest you have a serious flaw in your vision and your analysis, Frank. You really do need to work on it.

Regards my friend. I have a "horsie folk" or Cowboy Xmas Party to attend this evening.... for which I have to cook and contribute a large quantity of mashed potatoes and gravy. (About 35 people.) which will occupy me after this.

coyote

I'm not looking for anyone to "surrender to me". Instead I was happy that provincially the NDP were getting 47% support.

You and the dissidents criticized that because it meant compromise with people not as left-wing as yourself and you and they felt that the party no longer represented you as much as you thought it should.

So how are you supporting the creation of a mass movement? You don't vote and don't support working with others if they don't share the same ideology.

"which usually involves as you ever seek to do here, stand everything upside down, left to right, the impure becoming suddenly pure, and where the Liberal sentimentalist right becomes part of the Left."

This is exactly what I mean. You're the one that doesn't want what you call "Liberal sentiment" being part of the NDP. You don't actually want a big tent or the "mass movement" you say you want.

I do. And with CJ as leader we were closer to that goal and gaining the power that is required to make a difference in people's lives. To give them a respite from the constant attacks on their society by the Right and to reverse some of the trends they've been subjected to.

I think that's a worthy goal and you said it isn't because we didn't convince 47% of the population to become left-wing, we instead made compromises so as to convince 47% of the population that we were the best option and could work together with them.

If you want to continue to call people like me sell-outs and Liberals and all that, that's fine. I have an infinite amount of patience, understanding and respect for men and women like you. But you should at least try and understand my point of view better than your posts demonstrate.

Frank, i take it you never had a chance to read the link

as it offered up a few answers to your subsequent posts.

There is argument to be made that the BCNDP compromise party, to gain marketshare, is very similar to the O(sh)ama Democrats. Here are a few words from the Doug Henwood site:

BHO: Community Organizer

[T]o the organizer, compromise is a key and beautiful word. It is always present in the pragmatics of operation. It is making the deal, getting that vital breather, usually the victory. If you start with nothing, demand 100 per cent, then compromise for 30 per cent, you’re 30 per cent ahead….

Delusions on the Left

For God’s sake, the right thinks cap and trade, the most conservative approach to the carbon crisis you could imagine, is a socialist plot to expropriate property, just like Obama’s scheme to subsidize the health insurance industry (aka “reform”) is socialized medicine.

Obama will keep ceding ground to them, because he wants to run a capital-friendly regime, but it will never be enough. At what point will people stop blaming things like the failure of white green organizations to fight a racist attack and start admitting to Obama’s loyalty to the deep structure of American capitalism?

samuidave

There are a couple of key differences. Obama is in power right now. He didn't need to compromise in order to get elected because he was very vague. Everyone could support him because he never ruled anything out.

As for Obama's policies, would you have preferred 4 more years of Bush? How can anyone say he's not an improvement? I'll take middle-of-the-road over Reaganomics anytime.

As for compromise, if my side gets 30% and those we compromise with get 30% why not be happy with that? The alternative is at best 0% and probably a negative number.

Attacking compromise makes sense when your side is so strong you can take power without compromise. Otherwise I don't see how someone without any political power and who refuses to compromise ever gains anything.

I do not oppose compromise except...

when it is done simply to stop the discourse or at the expense of principles. But I do think this is the common ground with O'sh'ama and James.

I projected Carole James coming to power and being of the same compromise mindset. Simply put, the NDP is now seen in many eyes as an unprincipled party if measured against a classic social-democratic model. It is not entirely James' doing, of course; but if she claims or is given credit for building the Party up from two seats, she can likewise take credit for there remaing a cleavage in principled views.

As far as O'sh'ama versus Bush Jr, there is no difference except BHO has built on top of, and expanded upon, Jr's legacy. America is worse off now than when he took power despite the fact BHO had the world on his side and could have made a landmark difference. He didn't. He compromised, at best. Or perhaps, and even worse, he acted deceptively.

There is one other alternative, however, and that is that the force of the unseen government, the government inside the government, has now completely overtaken power and the US democracy is 100% BS.

This is what power does if left unchecked. It never cedes a thing unless coerced or forced.

I seriously question your suggestion that O'sh'ama was better than having four more years of Bush Jr, for it seems illustrative of your ideological liberal dogma.

BHO, the Constitutional Professor who knows better, should have immediately made the last regime accountable to the US Constitution and International law. That was and is the principled duty of the incoming President upon being sworn into office. He didn't. He compromised. And America and the world is worst off because of it. This is exactly what we get from political forces that are not held to a principled and ethical standard.

And I am no apologist for the criminal Dubya, or any of the other criminal Presidents in my lifetime that preceded him. It is hard to imagine a more incompetent buffoon in the Presidential office as representative of the people but, credit where credit is due, Jr did set the bar lower than imaginable. (I suspect Palin will lower it even further soon enough.)

That said, unless an increase in wartime spending to move beyond all prior administrations in total; and an increase in the gap between the rich and poor; and a sweetheart deal for the pharmaceuticals commercialized as healthcare; and a further avoidance in becoming ecologically accountable; and an increase in the Federal government in size; and discarding the Constitution while fundamental freedoms are stomped into the ground is your idea of 'better', Frank, I think we will have to disagree. O'sh'ama is more of the same, at best.

O'sh'ama?

Isn't that a racist slur?

Seems to me people are entitled to be referred to by their proper names.

Especially on websites where the vast majority of us hide our identities behind aliases.

samuidave

"I projected Carole James coming to power and being of the same compromise mindset"

So did I, which I saw as a good thing. I don't think you should compromise simply to get power and then follow your own ideology.

"Simply put, the NDP is now seen in many eyes as an unprincipled party if measured against a classic social-democratic model"

I see no reason to support the principle of losing. In politics there is absolutely nothing positive about it. Again, to use your example, its 30% or nothing.

"As far as O'sh'ama versus Bush Jr, there is no difference ..."

Oh c'mon. What new countries has Obama invaded? What new tax breaks has Obama given out on top of what Bush provided? Is America better off without his new health plan?

To say Obama and Bush are the same is way over the top. But you're right, if you think they're the same then why would you vote for either. Vote for someone on the far Left instead and live under Bush.

GWest, are you off your rocker?

G West ~ O'sh'ama?
Isn't that a racist slur?

NO, it isn't. Why would you even suggest such a thing? You are stooping to a new low.

To clarify for the slow learner, my argument is Obama has been a sham; thus it is a play on words. It matters nothing that this is an anonymous board.

Definition of SHAM
1: a trick that deludes : hoax
2: cheap falseness : hypocrisy
3: an ornamental covering for a pillow
4: an imitation or counterfeit purporting to be genuine
5: a person who shams

And Frank, I advise you to go get yourself up to speed on what Obama has and has not done. Ever hear of Pakistan? My gosh, do you seriously believe America and Americans are in a better position today than two years ago? Obviously it is not all the President's fault, but you'd have to be blind or disinterested to not know he has been piling on top of the Bush Jr legacy.

specifically, Frank

~ What new countries has Obama invaded?

Pakistan

~ What new tax breaks has Obama given out on top of what Bush provided? Big Win for America's Super Rich LINK

~ Is America better off without his new health plan?

Do we live in a vacuum? If you are given $100 then prices climb $200, are you better off?

Majority Of Americans Say They’re Worse Off Since Pres. Obama Took Office [Poll]

Washington — Americans believe President Obama has delivered on his message of change. Unfortunately, the change is for the worse, according to a new poll.

More than 50% asked say they are worse off today than they were two years ago when the country’s economic meltdown was in full swing. Just 35% say they are better off in the poll conducted by Bloomberg.

Also, 66% said the country was headed in the wrong direction.

[Because I know polls are to your liking]

Look, I have no more against BHO than I did Bush Jr, but no less at this juncture. If we the people are ever going to effect change, we will force the hand of the state. We can do it peacefully through the voting system, or not. But more blindness to the political sham, more acceptance of this propagandized worldview tilted against us, isn't going to do it. This much is Guaranteed.

samuidave

You're repeating what you hear on Fox News if you think Obama caused the USA's economic problems. That's like blaming FDR for causing the Great Depression.

In regards to your first link, it doesn't work. But no, Obama has not invaded Pakistan. We'd know it if the US had taken over Islamabad and arrested the Pakistan leadership.

As for the second link, I'll quote from the transcript : "provides a two-year, across-the-board extension of Bush-era tax cuts, a 2 percent rollback of Social Security payroll taxes, extends unemployment insurance for 13 months, and brings back the estate tax at 35 percent for 2 years on estates of more than $5 million"

Where's the new tax break for wealthy Americans? There isn't one. Sounds like Obama even introduced a new tax on them.

Frank, let's be clear...

I don't listen to or watch Fox news. Ever.

2nd point: the US is in Pakistan, even if it isn't on Fox, CNN, etc.

http://kennysideshow.blogspot.com/2009/09/us-invasionoccupation-of-pakistan-has.html

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174977

http://www.lewrockwell.com/engelhardt/engelhardt355.html

Third, did you listen to the commentary about who is benefiting from the entire matter? Like I said, the President is not entirely to blame, and I'll add only a fool would suggest he is. But he is continuing the ruinous policies, and he is piling on militarily, against the Constitution, etc.

What more can I say? The evidence for BHO bringing change we can believe in is the biggest fraud of his reign.

samuidave

Obama himself is on record as not wanting to extend the Bush tax cuts. But he had no choice as he wanted to provide benefits to the unemployed (and it looks like he got an estate tax to boot). He didn't make the cuts permanent. Sure he could have walked away from the table, let the tax cuts die and let the unemployed take care of themselves. That was an option and no doubt many would say it would be worth it. But don't demonize the guy for doing what he thought was best given a bad economy.

As for Pakistan that's not an invasion. Geez, if McCain and Palin had won the election we probably would have seen a real war with North Korea (or South Korea if it was up to Palin) or Iran.

"What more can I say? The evidence for BHO bringing change we can believe in is the biggest fraud of his reign."

Not really. We all hoped for more but he didn't promise us socialism or anything. Didn't even promise a Swedish-style system. He was as purposefully vague as many on the Right said he was.

But is the majority of America clamouring for a more left-wing government? If they are I haven't seen it. The tea party people seem to want a more right-wing government.

If the Left was stronger and the American system wasn't so difficult to get legislation passed and the economy hadn't gone over a cliff during Bush's last year maybe Obama would have done more. I don't know.

Nobody can tell me a Republican president wouldn't have been any worse than Obama. He would have. There would have been massive spending cuts, bigger tax cuts, a real war, a worse depression.

I know no one likes hearing the lesser of two evils thing but its often the case politically. We don't always vote for what we want, we vote against what we don't want. And that's a legitimate and realistic response.

I guess so

Very interesting questions to be answered before anyone will look at the liberals.

basimemo@hotmail.ca

Toward a New Kind United Front...

"You don't vote and don't support working with others if they don't share the same ideology."

Well, I won't even respond to this, because it is so patently NOT true. I work with people of different ideologies all the time, depending upon the specifics of the project. A "Liberal/NDP political party" I will not support however, anymore than I would a Conservative Party... though on specific, mutually shared interest projects we might indeed find ourselves co-operating... say in a trade union as one example.

On the other hand, I would be more "inclined" to support the NDP, at least insofar as "tactically" voting for it, did it not, while having Liberal Sentimentalists in its ranks, which I have no problem with in the main, have them in such control of the ideology and programmatic direction of the Party. (Actually, under this Liberal Sentimentalist leadership as current controls it, the NDP has no programme that I can discern, other than "sneaking into power" without one.

As for how "I" see the building of the "mass movement" to transform society, it presumes quite a different leadership of the organized working class, the trade union movement, the building of grass roots systems of support for the lower levels and poor of the working class, as facilitate their organization and exercise of power, direct working and co-operation links with environmental, womens, students, anti-war, intellectuals, organizations of the poor and other groups. And out of that the creation of a kind of, what used to be called "in the day" united front of common action, assistance and support. Leading to wherever those involved want it to lead, by way of transforming the economy, the environment, democracy, the national interests of the country and for non-interference or imperialist adventures in other countries. (Leaving them to resolve their own internal affairs, as we expect to do.)

Which is it in a nutshell, Frank. I'll leave you to the work of your "small and pure" Liberal Sentimentalist (NDP) Party, on matters which you share in common with all the other "small and pure" Parties to capitalism.

@Samiudave

I think it's a racist slur.

I assume you're not black. Coming from a white man such a characterization of the first black US president, in my opinion, is a fundamentally flawed way of making your case.

It weakens, if not destroys, any credibility your words might have.

You can disagree with his policies and the way he's tried to implement them in a fractious and divisive political structure but making light of his name is on a par with Tea Party antics.

In my view.

Notice how I managed to put that thought into words without any ad hominem references to you?

coyote

Your description of a mass movement is no different than political parties. They are already democratic organizations.

"My mass movement" had 47% support until it was split.

If you want a mass movement to appear out of the ether without even elected leaders and which will somehow remain united and transform society in spite of having little in common and not engaging in politics, well good luck.

Hypocritical

"Well, I won't even respond to this, because it is so patently NOT true."

So unsubstantiated attacks on everybody else is fine, just not on you.

compromise -?

You pointed out your belief of what 'compromise' spells out, samuidave, and I just want to say I see things a litle differently. Human beings have always had to cooperate and coexist, and, outside of political rhetoric, they generally do. To me, it matters not a whit what we call the system of organizing society, so long as it represents a truly democratic view. In a conversation with Carole James many years ago, she expressed her dislike of the stupid and nasty polarization of BC politics, and I agreed. I actually think this represents an intelligent viewpoint, for we have seen what happens in BC over and over again - the party who gets the most money wins most of the time, and the other parties are voted in only when everyone is fed up. Meanwhile, fewer and fewer people join political parties, and fewer even trouble to vote. It is patently obvious that the only way to accomplish anything is to take the best ideas and try them, regardless of ideological stamp, and if they do not work within a reasonable time period, to try something else. I simply do not believe that it is so difficult for people to agree on the most pressing problems to be resolved at this particular place and time - this may not be true for politicos, but people in their communities want the same general things.

There are many homeless on the streets of my little town, and after years of discussion and stop-gap measures by charitable organizations, city council has agreed that is is time to DO someting. I am not sure that what they have decided upon is the best solution, but it does provide accomodation and care for some. Is it compromise? Actually, I think it is democracy, and if a majority of people participated, it could be speeded up considerably.

You and I and Frank and Jerry and G West, for example ( not to mention the governing party), all have to work together to create a society. To simply insist that each of our views is the best solution is a recipe for more of the same...in the same way that the coup was carried out against Carole James, by people saying, well, this is the best thing for the party.

This idea has been articulated by Peter Senge, among others, and it is far from being the weak-kneed 'compromise' you envision. I see it as the most powerful tool that could be envisioned, for it takes into account the strength of the 'many', and not simply the 'powerful'. Senge calls this dialogue...others have called it deep conversation...and it involves listening as well as speaking - what a refreshing change from sound bite politics and 'follow me, for I know best'...

There is a time for co-operation, and a time for action!

Someone seem to forget that Obama had a majority in both houses!

If voters lost confidence in him, perhaps it is because he hesitated to implement his stated ideas?

Compromises are for when you only have a minority and need support to pass any bills.

Comparing James to Obama is not exactly fair as she never were in a position to do anything, however judging from her apathetic opposition one can only assume that she would have "consulted" instead of acting.

alive

There is nothing wrong with not wanting to ram your ideology down the throats of others when you have the opportunity.

Even when you have control of the power of government it is not a weakness to compromise with those out of power, even if they would ram their ideology down our throats if given the chance.

As VivianLeaDoubt says, we should work together with anyone and everyone willing to do the same regardless of ideology.

Majority + 1 is not a recipe for justice or long-term stability.

A United Front of "The Peoples" Own Organizations I....

Frank,

You so frequently put words never said in people's mouths, it is pointless to try and respond to them all. Most here know it anyway. It needs no saying.

As for my "non-political party" United Front, you may well see what you are doing as within that context. No doubt you would like it to be seen as, all under the control/influence of the NDP. (How does it feel.) On the other hand, I see a non-politically aligned trade union movement, inclusive of ALL the various views of society and the economy within the class. Similarly for the other organizations of the entire class: the poor, women, environment, intelligentsia etc.

Collectively, these memberships and organizations, acting free of external "partisan" political party influence controlling any aspects of the United Front. It rather arriving at its own decisions and acting together along the entire front independently. (Which certainly does not mean that people with existing "political views" would not be an acceptable part of the Front. The working class is, in fact, made up of many, what might be described as having "political views."

On the other hand, the NDP is incapable of constituting a United Front, in the true context of which I speak of it here, because of its own separate "political careerist ambitions" for which it seeks to use and co-opt everyone else. It is the same with ALL other "Parties" per se, be they Left or Right. I advocate organization and joint action of the entire class and ngo groups with which it shares a "non-Party partisan" interest, as opposed to surrendering control of that to ANY political party.

Not that there might not emerge over time PERHAPS some elements of similarity, in that I would advocate this true United Front, evolving to a place as a kind of Parliament of The People, pursuing the objective of a "democratic" working class power over a truly "democratized" economy, shared with others such as particular social ngo participants.

Yourself, for example, regardless of immediately above, have many times made clear you see nothing beyond the capitalist present. Which you have reiterated again, and again. Staying forever "within the parameters of what is."

And while I don't particularly disagree with many elements of Vivianleadoubts viewpoint, myself, as a working class person, I don't think "co-operating" such as must and does always go on at many levels of society and the economy, and will doubtless continue to go on, desirably includes a forever unchanged present power arrangement over society and the economy. There must always be a doorway to "outside the box", in my view. I will not allow myself, as a "free person", to be so constrained forever in the present, and I advocate the same to my fellow working people.

continued next post...

A United Front of The Peoples Own Organizations II

From previous post...

This is the point where she and me part company, and she, an apparent NDPer or sympathizer, at least with "the woman" Carole, is fundamentally joined with Frank.

The NDP has its own separate status quo, present serving political interest. That interest is not mine. And while it is up to the working class as a whole to make clear their own attitude, I suggest that this NDP interest is not in the interest of the working class, the social class to which I belong. And who knows what it will take and when, for this to occur. Though I suggest there are political and economic events in motion that MAY make this sooner rather than later... is even already happening, here on Tyee for example.

I advocate a working class interest and action "coming together" as a "critical whole", in the interests of itself, separate and apart any and all status quo political party interests. And the evidence is, I suspect, if one could know for certain the class composition of the "nonvoting public", and even many as may well vote still, that there is no small number of my class fellows (male and female) as possibly tend to agree with me on this one score, of the hostility of ALL parties to our interest. And which is, I suggest, a major factor for why the working class as a whole, including the trade union rank and file, has consistently refused to vote for the NDP despite the urgings of a "Liberal" Trade Union leadership. They instinctively know it, as I do.

The rest MAY yet follow. Certainly they agree in action, or voting with their feet by staying away from the polls, whether or not they have formulated it into words yet.

GWest, your opinion is meritless

and I can unequivocally state you are the most intellectually dishonest person I have read on the board.

The problem you bear is that even when you are given information and an explanation on a matter, you will choose to ignore it if it does not suit your erroneous point of view. To make matters worse, you often revel in this ongoing ignorance and wear it proudly as a badge of honour, as above.

No coup - Bloody or otherwise.

Quote: "in the same way that the coup was carried out against Carole James, by people saying, well, this is the best thing for the party."

VivianLea, it was no bloody coup.

James initiated it herself by outing the MLA's that had come to her in private.

Carol James also apparently thought that 'the best thing for the party' was to intentionally expose all those who supported 'her' by having them wear childish yellow scarves. 'Her' colours alone - not those of the NDP party.

So if there was a coup, it was led by Ms. James herself.

No one told her to leave or asked her to resign, they asked her to have a leadership convention. If she had such strong support, she had nothing to worry about.

That was the democratic solution - and Ms. James pouted...and walked.

If there was a coup in BC, it happened in the BC Liberal party. Bloodless and not for public view.

Whereas Carol James chose to expose the party's wounds to the public.

Which in itself says something about her judgment.

Frank ~ I know no one likes

Frank ~ I know no one likes hearing the lesser of two evils thing but its often the case politically. We don't always vote for what we want, we vote against what we don't want. And that's a legitimate and realistic response.

Frank, do you not think our politics needs to be moved toward what it ought to do rather than merely operating with what is? I appreciate that there is lesser of two evils, but isn't it time to start making government good rather than evil? I know I am tired of the acceptance of our Faustian bargain vis-a-vis the government -- our own cognitive creation which we have decided not to keep in check!

As for your assertion that the USA has not invaded Pakistan, try convincing the people of Pakistan of the credulous belief:

http://mwcnews.net/focus/editorial/4511-pakistan-independence-day.html

http://www.worldbulletin.net/news_detail.php?id=63653

I suspect if drones were dropping bombs on Canada, killing dozens, and thousands of US military-backed soldiers were in Canada, you'd be thinking we were being invaded.

VivianLea Doubt ~ compromise -? ...You pointed out your belief of what 'compromise' spells out, samuidave, and I just want to say I see things a litle differently.

Are you referring to my belief about compromise as this -- "I do not oppose compromise except when it is done simply to stop the discourse or at the expense of principles."

If so, how so are you in disagreement? Perhaps point out to me this "weak-kneed compromise I envision" which you purport.

Because when I read you saying "I simply do not believe that it is so difficult for people to agree on the most pressing problems to be resolved at this particular place and time", I am philosophically onside and in agreement.

"Let any human being have enough information and exert enough thought upon any question, and the result be that he will arrive at a certain definite conclusion, which is the same that any other mind will reach under sufficiently favourable circumstances."

The Public Philosophy LINK

As for your conversation Carole James many years ago where 'she expressed her dislike of the stupid and nasty polarization of BC politics' to which you agreed thinking it represented an intelligent viewpoint, how did you foresee her operating around this hurdle?

coyote

I doubt you even convinced yourself. What you say you want walks like a political party, talks like a political party, acts like a political party.

You just don't want to call it a political party.

samuidave

"Frank, do you not think our politics needs to be moved toward what it ought to do rather than merely operating with what is?"

Yes, we've been over this. Its my opinion that the only way out of the current box is electoral reform because otherwise the Right and Left have the same problem, stand together or hang separately.

"As for your assertion that the USA has not invaded Pakistan, try convincing the people of Pakistan of the credulous belief:"

Pakistan attacks its own people more often than not. Until I hear the leaders of Pakistan declare they're at war because the US invaded them I'm not going to be convinced.

a coup by any other name...

samuidave, I did indeed foresee that Carole Jmes would come to something like this, because, in my view, she was elected as someone who would not 'rock the boat'. Lynn, I know you don't like to hear that this was a coup, but I stand by my view that it was. Despite never having been a James supporter. James chose to out the people that came to her in private? Well, how courageous. It is time that these back door politics came to an end, and I stand by my opinion that the people - read people, not 'NDP members' or NDP MLAs' are in agreement. It is these ridiculous inner battles that the public so loathes, and is so tired of.
Jerry, make no mistake, I advocate the complete abolishment of current power structures. That includes anyone who says 'my way is the best'. Although I am intrigued by the views of anarchists, I fail to be convinced by that philosophy, so what I do advocate is that we change the playing field, which is, let's face it, a long and arduous process. But I take heart in what I see all around me: people disregarding ideological viewpoints to make change, here and now. For me, 'here and now' is the operative phrase. There are so many of us that cannot wait.

OH, THAT'S REALLY FUNNY

My opinion is lacking in merit!

And, simply because I don't agree with the 'evidence' you trot out to support what I take to be an irresponsible and frankly dangerous position I'm somehow intellectually 'dishonest'?

I find your information trite and selective and your arguments unconvincing and lacking in rigor - and because I have the balls to call you on it I'm intellectually dishonest.

As for reveling - you're the one who posts voluminous and largely redundant comments about the same thing - I wish it were POSSIBLE to 'ignore' you.

I have news for you my friend, your 'theories' and 'explanations' are
opinions too.

Whether or not they're ‘meritless’ is redundant - they are simply opinions and you're entitled to them - whatever anyone, including me, thinks of them.

Defending them, however, is going to necessitate a little more thought and a lot thicker skin.

Senge

Anybody who reads, and better yet, understands Peter Senge is a serious leg up on anyone else in this discussion. There is no better practical theorist, one who takes all the high-falutin' words that sociologists and psychologists and business majors and economists put out, and designs real-world, physical examples of them to show what parts of the theories are right or wrong.

And then he shows how the world really works. In The Fifth Discipline, he indicated how cooperation between unwitting or opposed parties could often produce results far greater than the sum total of the parts.

Of course, he also outlined "shifting the burden" strategies to illustrate how we so often sabotage ourselves. As we've just done this month....

Oh yeah, THAT'll work...

"I see a non-politically aligned trade union movement, inclusive of ALL the various views of society and the economy within the class."

There is no such thing.I defy you, Jerry, to show me a real-world example.

I can show you one the opposite. When the Millennium line was rolling down the pike and our neighbourhood stood squarely in the way, we enlisted the help of the trade union movement to help fight it.

Except.... government trade unions were against it because it skewed government spending priorities to infrastructure for the benefit of the development industry (as noted not by the unions themeselves but by the developers and planners, and by George Puil himself.

But the construction industry unions fought us tooth and nail, and won, big-time. Doubtless we could say it was because they contributed more money and resources to Glen Clark's campaign, and there are probably other reasons too, but the fact of the matter is, there probably isn't a single issue in society that the union movement wouldn't be irrevocably divided over.

We lost to the development industry and its handmaid unions because the construction unions wanted the work that would flow from the project. The government unions rightly felt that spending on development projects for industry would cut budgets and positions for social enterprises like health, welfare and medical care.

And it was all sold to people as "giving them transit choices and getting them out of their cars"...the biggest canards to come along until the RAV line.

Looking for your rebuttal

GWest, you are ridiculous...

and behaving like a fool. You are entitled to your opinion, and no one is denying you the right to that. But when there is nothing supporting it, then that opinion is meritless; 'It is just another asshole'

And, simply because I don't agree with the 'evidence' you trot out to support what I take to be an irresponsible and frankly dangerous position I'm somehow intellectually 'dishonest'?

You don't have to agree with the evidence, GWest; you can believe whatever you desire. But when the belief is absurd, as your suggestion is about my character, you will be seen as a fool with just cause by any thinking person.

And no, you are intellectually dishonest because you frequently quote inaccurately and out of context, effectively lying by ommission; you offer opinion with lttle to no evidence supporting the argument; you routinely neglect addressing the issue directly, prefering to find a red herring or belittle the speaker; you use ad hominem attacks, most frequently when you get upset; and you are a hypocrite. THESE are the reasons you are intellectually dishonest.

I find your information trite and selective and your arguments unconvincing and lacking in rigor - and because I have the balls to call you on it I'm intellectually dishonest.

You think calling me such things as 'boy' or suggesting I am a 'racist' is calling me on anything? This is just another example of the ongoing problem you cannot ever seem to grasp, GWest: even if I was a racist and even if I made a racial slur (both which I categorically deny), it does nothing to detract from the substance of the argument that Obama has been a sham.

It is dispicable, at least from my way of engaging in discourse, to repeatedly slur another person's character in a highly offensive manner without offering evidence more believable than the evidence offered in defence of the remark.

Or is this more of your intellectual honesty shining through, where the play on words between Obama's name and his sham conduct as President does not allow you to make the very simple connection, O-sham-a?

As for reveling - you're the one who posts voluminous and largely redundant comments about the same thing - I wish it were POSSIBLE to 'ignore' you.

You can ignore me. Simply stop posting replies to my comments.

I have news for you my friend, your 'theories' and 'explanations' are opinions too.

First, you are not my friend, not even colloquially.

Second, my posts are my opinions, but at least there is some substantive merit, thought, contemplation and time put into them. And if you could offer some evidence or craft an argument to make me rethink them, I would.

About not taking a stand

Frank:
Did you notice that both Gordo and Harpo rammed their ideology down our troaths as soon as they got power?

You can bet that their followers applauded!

The damage done will never be repaired, even if by some miracle the NDP comes to power in either house.

Compromise is for the weak, and does not sit well with a campaign where the leader states lofty goals.

The reason that so many people hated James was her hesitating to take a stand and waffling on it later.

Much as Trudeau was arrogant, people respected him for saying his piece and sticking to it! ---that is what politics is all about, what you preach belongs in a sunday school.

alive

If that were all true then why are you posting here instead of organizing an armed force?

After all, you will NEVER see your party in power in your lifetime without compromise unless you resort to armed force.

Its impossible given the numbers of people that agree versus the numbers of people that don't agree with you.

Rather than waiting for the rest of the province to become socialists over BC Rail or something why not grasp the fact that you need to build an alliance with groups that have other reasons besides socialism to oppose the current government?

Or is that you're worried you'll be outnumbered in your own party? Kind of like being an advocate for immigration until you're a minority?

is it revolution or deceit, you prescribe Frank?

Is it" "the end justifies the means?"

Say and do whatever it takes to get elected, and then hope to sneak in a few goodies by means of watering down your goals?
Sorry that is Gordo's method and it has proved unpopular!

I agree that since the electorate is basically stupid, "my party" may not get a majority, but assembling an army to oust the present corrupt government is a new, different twist coming from you!

Basically I agree that a revolution is brewing, initiated by people who actually care about the future of this province, this country and this globe.

Either way is not exactly Kosher, and for the time being let us work on making our system work.

One idea would be that if democracy has to work, then it is not about lowering the voting age, but about requiring voters to take a course and pass it, before being allowed to vote!

It is a privilege to drive a car, but you need to familiarize yourself with the concept and prove that you understand what you are doing. ------------- However any idiot can vote!

alive

"Sorry that is Gordo's method and it has proved unpopular!"

Not at all, its been proved as the only way to win an election provincially or federally.

People like what you refer to as "watered-down". Sounds much better to them than radical change.

@Samuidave?

Then YOU didn't post this comment?

GWest, your opinion is meritless
and I can unequivocally state you are the most intellectually dishonest person I have read on the board.

If you can't figure out why I might be pissed off with that then there is a real problem with what you write and, apparently, believe.

Furthermore, I never said you were a 'racist' I said I thought you had made a 'racist' remark.

As to whether or not I think there is any substantive merit to what you think, pardon me if I don't accept your judgment on that point either.

You may think you can treat people with contempt and it doesn't affect how they will view you and your ideas but that's not the real world in my view.

I've said quite clearly and definitively why I don't accept that a campaign to promote dozens of 'independents' in parliament is a sensible and responsible way to advocate for and create positive and progressive change in a largely urban and highly specialized culture.

What might work in a small rural community isn't going to have much traction in the modern world.

I think you're making dangerous suggestions which work against the collective need for real change in 21st century Canada.

I'll continue to point that out, civilly and, I hope, coherently, whenever it seems appropriate.

Cheers.

over and out!

Sorry Frank, I forgot that you are not looking for solutions!
Just more of the same that the voters are so fed up with that they no longer care which party is in since they all are full of deceit.

If you cared about things, you would have commented on how we could educate voters, as I suggested.

But watching your posts it becomes obvious that you love to see your own posts at every opportunity, sorry not my game!

alive

Always a good laugh when someone not interested in getting elected claims others have no solutions.

Here's a solution for you, think about what it would take to actually get some people to agree with you.

The right of dissent

Quote:" James chose to out the people that came to her in private? Well, how courageous."

VivianLea, you often, and rightfully so, chide others here over 'leader' politics, but you should be consistent. Now you are saying you consider it is courageous when 'the leader' refuses 'to listen' and outs her own MLA's in a revengeful way that attempts to expose them by branding them as unfaithful to the...ahem...cough ...cough...'leader'. And yet it is the dissent, that you find, in your words, 'vulgar and distasteful'. Curious.

So which is it? Is the leader so sacred that dissent becomes vulgar and distasteful, something deserving of duct tape?

So, how then, doe one express dissent, when the leader does not want to hear it?

Quote: "It is time that these back door politics came to an end, and I stand by my opinion that the people - read people, not 'NDP members' or NDP MLAs' are in agreement."

Well, strangely enough, 'the people' include the above. Where exactly is this aggregate mass of people all apparently in accord you speak of?

Quote: "It is these ridiculous inner battles that the public so loathes, and is so tired of."

Sounds good..... but then if you don't like back door politics and inner battles you will have to explain why you found those who dared to speak up after being unceremoniously outed by their leader, as 'vulgar and distasteful'. Inner battles, even within ourselves, ;-) are hardly 'ridiculous' but often much needed - unless you believe there should be no dissent/democracy within the party structure...and only 'the leader' carries weight...

The public is tired of the battle?

More like the public is asking:

"Where is the battle?"

The political lamescape most of us see before us is mired in co-option, and the conciliatory, reticent politics of: "There, there, boys and girls, behave yourself. We will say something meaningful... eventually. Just waiting for the latest poll to tell us what our next thought and next step will be."

Politics, whether of the party or independent kind, will always be an inner/outer struggle, (in more ways than one) because of the very human, human beings that partake in the process.

Discord, dissent, chaos even, is part of that struggle. For good or for bad. But necessary....and unavoidable...if you are honest.

Perhaps, there are just different psychologies at work here.

For those who think my intention here is to defend party politics, it is not. Nor would I defend an independent system. I don't believe in any political nirvana - unless we evolve further as a species...and evolve out of politics.

Dissent is worth defending.

We have nothing without that right.

a lovely post, Lynn...

I make no comment about the 'yellow scarves'incident, because I have heard at least 5 conflicting reports of what happened, from people who were there, aside from all the pundits who put forward their opinions. I called James courageous because she knew what would happen when she went public would not be to her benefit, and did it anyway. It is no secret in the NDP that this has happened to leader after leader (as well as leadership hopefuls) going back long before I was born.

No, the leader is not sacred and I am not inconsistent...a friend of mine used a phrase in a academic paper about revolution that was to the effect that it is ridiculous for those who 'have' to pretend to lead a revolution. I agree. It is obscene to allow MLAs, the caucus members, to have more weight in deciding if a leader should stay or go than the provincial council of the NDP (which theoretically, if not in fact, represents the membership). It is obscene that these well-fed and well-housed and well-paid people should pretend to that noblest of ideas, dissent, simply because they have a view of what direction the party should go in and want their own way. But mostly, and with cold anger, I call it obscene that they play out their charade in the face of rising homelessness, food bank use, unemployment and on and on ad infinitem...as if their concerns might actually trump those.

I chide nobody, Lynn, I offer up my opinion, wich is strong and direct and as forward as I am.

A few points, GWest...

~ Then YOU didn't post this comment?

GWest, your opinion is meritless
and I can unequivocally state you are the most intellectually dishonest person I have read on the board.

If you can't figure out why I might be pissed off with that then there is a real problem with what you write and, apparently, believe.

I completely understand why you might be pissed off. What I have said points out some obvious shortcomings in your discourse and it forces you to have some introspection that you generally prefer to avoid. But the truth of the post remains intact.

~ Furthermore, I never said you were a 'racist' I said I thought you had made a 'racist' remark.

Well, GWest, wouldn't I have to be??

rac·ism (rszm)
n.
1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

If one makes a racist remark -- as you erroneously suggest I did -- are you suggesting he or she is not discriminating or being prejudiced based on race?

If you thought I made such a remark, perhaps you will explain how you reached such a conclusion within the context of the post I made, and how you continue to hold such a ridiculous belief even after having it explained to you.

And there is no contempt on my side, GWest, though you may feel that way. I try to be frank, direct, and buttress my position with facts or sound reasoning.

~ I've said quite clearly and definitively why I don't accept that a campaign to promote dozens of 'independents' in parliament is a sensible and responsible way to advocate for and create positive and progressive change in a largely urban and highly specialized culture.

I must have missed 'why', GWest, other than mere allegation. Further, I advocate the House being filled with Independents, not a dozen backbenchers or swing voters. Evidently you see little wrong with the political paradigm, as support to continue on 'as is' affirms this position. Or do you have something else in mind?

@Samuidave...hardly!

I obviously disagree.

I spelled out the why - because it won't work in a highly urbanized and heterogeneous mass culture like ours. Your formula has never worked in such a society and I my opinion never will AND, I made those reasons WHY very evident in comments I posted here at the Tyee. More than once.

Don't ask me though, ask Ed Deak the next time you see him commenting here and he'll confirm it. Or ask Frank.

There are lots of things wrong with the current political paradigm - but throwing the whole operation into a cocked hat with a herd of independent and self-absorbed cats isn't going to fix it.

I have lots of things in mind - for one to change from FPTP elections to something like mixed member proportional - the kind of thing the more social democratic countries like those of Northern Europe use.

On the racist remark issue: No. I disagree. There is a big difference - I would never call you a racist on the basis of that particular post - it was still, in my view, an improper thing to say.

This is a public forum, remember?

Lots of people say things which are racist and sexist without them being either of those things.

I happen to think Obama deserves a hell of a lot better than the treatment he gets from his critics, he has, in fact, succeeded in several areas where previous presidents have left a record of abysmal failure ever since FDR.

Perhaps you desire the official version of events, Frank

"Pakistan attacks its own people more often than not. Until I hear the leaders of Pakistan declare they're at war because the US invaded them I'm not going to be convinced."

Unfortunately, all governments lie and spin.

Take, for instance, the recent Wikileaks report that the Arab world is united in fear of the Iranians going nuclear. What is omitted is that the results are the opinions of the local despots and monarchists. But when the people are polled, 80% fear Israel and 77% the USA as the nuclear threat, with only 10% thinking Iran the problem.

I am pretty sure the people of Pakistan can tell the difference between the Blackwater and western forces and the agent provocateurs et al hired by the domestic government.

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/11/30/noam_chomsky_wikileaks_cables_reveal_profound

And now allegations of America's not-so-secret fight/invasion in Yemen, with Yemen taking the credit. Sound familiar?

http://therealnews.com/t2/component/seyret/?task=videodirectlink&id=8629