Horgan is the best choice

John Horgan would be a great leader for the NDP and a good premier.

Dix's membership stunt was stupid and sleazy. If he actually wins the race, he'll have won the leadership and then will lose the provincial election.

Dix has almost no appeal to those many voters leaning NDP who are looking for integrity and principles as well as charm and smarts.

Hmmmmm, and that all adds up to John Horgan!

You guys are oblivious

The various camps of NDP leadership trolls planting script on here are hilarious; trying to disguise their motives and real feelings without giving themselves away (and not being too successful I should add).
Gustav: "Clark was judged to be innocent"! Do you really believe that ?... He was found to have had the charges of a "criminal offence" not to be proven in court ... but was later found guilty and to be in a conflict of interest by the commissioner. Of course, I'm sure you're very fair and you'd extend that same benefit-of-the-doubt to all politicians under the same situation, regardless of their political stripe, right ? Some of the very same [SNIDE COMMENT REMOVED. -MODERATOR.] that screamed moral indignation, and demanded Campbell's resignation after his DUI (which he damn well should have done), now feel that a guy that intentionally,knowingly manufactured and planted fraudulent evidence to obstruct an active RCMP CRIMINAL investigation (let's not mince words and try to dismiss it by sugar-coating the act as "back-dating a memo")is suppose to be presented to the people of BC as morally-suitable Premier material. (Oh, but after he was caught and threatened with charges he admitted his mistake ... he must be a saint!!). Is this really the best that we have to offer the people of BC. Do any of you die-hards even recognize the blind tribal hypocrisy on display. At least Gordo had an excuse ....... he was drunk during his indiscretions with the law; Dix was sober, what was his excuse? I've done what Campbell did many times (and I'm ashamed when I look back); but I'd NEVER do what Dix did, under any circumstances, period ... and I'm far, far, far from Premier material. It's sad that so many in our party have two very different sets of standards; one for us, one for them. We should expect more.

As much as I am a more

As much as I am a more moderate NDPer and supported most of the policies put forward by Carole James, the next election is not going to be about "capturing the middle" - the next election is going to be about motivating your based and getting out the vote.

The BC Liberals and the media have succeeded in keeping such things as the Fast Ferry Fiasco in the public eye - despite those issues being over ten years old. At the same time the Liberal government has proven they too are quite adept at fudging the facts. Independant voters will likely stay home in the next election.

With independant voters staying home, whichever party best implements Karl Rove - type politics of motivating your base will likely win. Does Dix resound most with the base? If so, he is the best choice.

Me.

Saints and Sinners

Nicholas,

Your insistence on absolute probity among political leaders sets the bar unreasonably high. Political virgins have always been few and far between. Besides, why not let voters decide who's fit to hold office, based on their assessment of a candidate's overall qualities and record?

You may think Campbell's DUI made him unfit to hold office, but that was not a view shared by his constituents, who failed to recall him, or by BC voters at large, who re-elected the Liberals twice. In any case, I would argue that the enormity of Campbell's political misdeeds far outweighs his personal shortcomings.

The same yardstick should apply to Adrian Dix. Despite having "uttered a false document" in the late 1990s, Dix was handily elected by the people of Vancouver Kingsway and went on to become an outstanding opposition critic. Why should British Columbians be denied the benefit of his contribution as premier? Or are we to apply a secular version of the doctrine of Original Sin?

In the child's corner

There is a recent report siting 7 children have died needlessly under the Liberal government. Who has its own plan for BC kids and it has nothing to do with their health and well being.
The NDP's campagin was bang on when insisting Liberals didn't care for BC kids. The Ministry was totally aware of the dire situation the children where in. And despite knowing of the dangers the Ministry failed these children because they weren't into or upto the job. I feel for these children and the horror they had to endure with the knowledge that things will only get worst.
Its nice to know Dix was on the job. It is to bad those 7 children that died didn't know it though. Hope can make all the difference when it comes to life and death. Just hoping for someone to care enough and spare their life. Not much chance of conditions getting better. Its obvious citizens could care less about how children are treated or if they end up dead. The Liberals got in with the knowledge children weren't fairing well under this government and where in dire straits. Yet nothing has been done.

Nicholas

You've driven drunk but are upset over Dix's memo?

Drunk driving kills people, nobody was going to die no matter how many times Dix changed a memo.

Let's maintain some perspective.

And what was Gordon's excuse Nicholas..

...when he lied about selling BC Rail? What was his excuse when he lied about HST? What were the excuses of the whole batch of liberal candidates? What were their excuses when they took $6 million of taxpayers money to buy the silence of Bazi/Virk? Those are legitimate questions that have never been answered. But because I think they rate higher in significance, I must be a troll.

Furthermore the courts will always do a more thorough job than a Conflict Commissioner. When the courts make a ruling, it is the one that counts. Now let's see the Campbell in court in the same way with an Inquiry into BC Rail and you may have a point to make.

Advertorial indeed

Tyee becoming a soapbox for Tieleman?

I'd rather read news stories than political support blogs thanks.

As a CCFer/NDPer since the

As a CCFer/NDPer since the 50's, I want a leader with innate integrity. The memo backdating, and then the membership scam, demonstrate a character flaw which can't be erased by apologies. Dix will make an excellent Minister in Horgan's cabinet, but couldn't be trusted to run the show.

Dix vs Campbell = NO CONTEST

What Dix did, as a non-elected political staffer, compares in no way with what Campbell has done (as a man elected to manage the province with honesty, probity and equity for all British Columbians) to this place since he became Premier in 2001.

Campbell has ridden the provincial economy to a standstill; squandered public resources on petty squabbles; rewarded his friends and degraded public health, public institutions, and public assets.

He has wasted resources defending illegitimate and ill-advised vendettas against unions, he has starved the public education system and rewarded the private and independent schools ....and he has done all this, and more, without once accepting the responsibility for the mess he has created.

Did you miss his absurd 'resignation' speech?

The suggestion that there is any comparison between the two is absurd....

Gustav/Frank/Skywalker

a) Everyone who's NEVER, ever driven while legally impaired, ever in their life, please put your hands-up.
b) Everyone who's NEVER purposefully obstructed an active RCMP investigation by fraudulently manufacturing evidence and lying to the investigators; then coming clean only after being caught, please put your hands up.

Yes, I thought so.

"a" just makes me stupid; but "b" would make me dishonest. Perspective indeed, Frank.

I understand what you are saying Gustav, but I don't believe that NOT having performed "b" is hardly setting the bar "unreasonably high"(your words) for our Premier. Is criminal-conduct while executing your government duties too high a bar for us, Skywalker? I have no problem with Dix being an MLA at all, but I think it's very, very reasonable for us to expect a higher standard for our elected leader.I was almost ready to give Dix a pass and put it behind me; then the membership fiasco and once again it was amateur-hour on the TV. Can you imagine the posts here if the identical thing had happened at the Liberal headquarters? We'd be screaming bloody murder.

Regardless, can we not see how silly the level of discussion here and elsewhere on the blogs makes us all look? Preaching to the choir; demonizing the liberals; Campbell bashing ..... who isn't even going to be their leader ..... and thus actually using him for our yard-stick ? Is this the best we can do?
I guess you're probably right Gustav; maybe I am just naive to expect a decent, honest politician without MAJOR skeletons to lead our party.

I joined the NDP 44 years ago when I was in high school in Ontario; I think I have a right to expect more, and I just don't see it. I'll probably let my membership lapse this year for the first time and just go fishing.

Nicholas.

I've never done either and I know a lot of people who never drove while totally pissed to the gills. So don't try and make driving while impaired normal behavior because of a memo. a makes you a threat to life and limb. b makes you stupid. b you get over and a only if you don't injure or kill someone. Everything in perspective.

Furthermore

The whole "RCMP" investigation was fraught from the very start - anyone who claims it wasn't is a dishonest interlocutor.

I erred in my earlier very partial list of Campbell's sins and failures - the cloud the man has been on BC politics started LONG BEFORE HE BECAME PREMIER...as anyone with a memory clearly knows.

Skywalker

Oh dear, please try to read my posts a little slower (maybe twice through would help); and then maybe with a little comprehension you won't have to fabricate these straw men (look it up please) in order to put an argument forward. "Normal behavior", "pissed-to-the-gills" ???? Please try to reference what was actually stated.
This is all getting rather tedious and boring. Time to go fishing me thinks.

Nicholas

You were trying to make the point that the transgressions were all of the same significance and you classified one as stupid and the other dishonest. How you could make that assessment is a real stretch of logic. You also wrote an implied that not one of us could claim we had not at least driven while impaired. So either pontificate in clear concise statements clearly or go fishing. It is your call as always.

Nicholas

They can't hear you, no matter how hard you try.

When you head out, expect a few other fishers around.

Nicholas

There you go, you have the support of the pro-Harper crowd. Kudos

A lot of sound and fury

A lot of sound and fury signifying not much folks. The best candidate will win and it sure won't be Horgan , a man with a bad temper,and who says things before he gets his brain in gear. A guy who equated the handing over of ALR land in a treaty deal, and when questioned about it got rather abusive. I sure wish I'd kept those emails. My list of candidates starts with Dix and ends with Horgan followed the the fellow who has never been elected to anything. And yep, I do vote and will vote on the candidate of my choice for leader to replace Ms. Dithers. His name is Adrian Dix

Sorry I dr5opped a line. The

Sorry I dr5opped a line. The ALR land was equated by Horan to being like a long term lease, which is simply silly.( It was also contrary to long established NDP policy, and was the policy of the treaty teams while the NDP was in power, but Ms. Dithers agreed Gordo did the right thing, and Horgen was trying to back her up. Sorry if I confused the other writers here. And yes I've been a party supporter since the late 60's.

mostly an observation

realisticman ~ Nicholas, They can't hear you, no matter how hard you try.

My experience on here will support that claim, as I find comprehensive reading is routinely dismissed.

Nicholas rightly points out Skywalker's 'strawman' argument, and Frank jumps in, to Skywalker's defence, with his own hasty generalization and irrelevant conclusion.

I suspect it is only a matter of time before the board's Minister of Half-Truths enters stage right to clarify matters.

Realisticman

Cheers Realisticman, Yes, sadly I know you're probably correct. I guess I've never adapted to the polarized blood-sport, us-or-them type of politics in this province; particularly, it appears (and I am loath to admit), from my (normally proud) leftist-side of the political spectrum. I just can't adjust to the silly demonizing-dogma that seems to permeate any political discussion in BC. It appears that factual, logical reasoning isn't really an asset here regarding intelligent debate; people just hear what they want to hear, interpret everything in bias, and stick with their chosen tribe regardless of what is presented. For 42 years in Ontario I canvassed and voted NDP federally (and we won the riding every time except once), but I usually voted PC provincially because of our excellent MLA and his successor (as did many of us; so do we lose our social-democratic credentials? .... see exhibit "A" - Frank). Heaven forbid someone in our camp has an open mind or voices a bit of critical self-examination in the process. It's almost like we should all live in an echo-chamber, drink the kool-aid, just so we can safely reinforce our own prejudices every day. Very immature, unproductive, and a sad waste of energy.
Good night on the boat though !

samuidave

Isn't this where you tell everyone not to vote NDP because when they were last in power they didn't change the electoral and parliamentary systems?

Nicholas

"but I usually voted PC provincially because of our excellent MLA and his successor (as did many of us) so do we lose our social-democratic credentials?"

Yes.

You can ask Jack Layton for an official ruling if you like but I'm pretty sure voting Conservative instead of NDP during elections means you're a Conservative like realisticman.

Then again maybe realisticman votes NDP at election time and just claims to be a Conservative the rest of the time?

As for wasting energy, I imagine you waste a lot arguing with yourself when you're driving around drunk.

I'm not suprised my 'Party corrupts democracy ' argument...

is lost on you, Frank, or that most any other argument is likewise missed. [SNIDE COMMENT DIRECTED AT ANOTHER COMMENTER REMOVED. -MODERATOR.]

As with one recent example a few days back where you stated, "in the meantime try and get all those non-voters to vote for your independents", you erroneously conclude that it's the non-voters I am appealing to. Seriously? Non-voters are not the people pro-actively supporting the Party against the collective best interests, Frank.

At that time I also provided you real examples to consider as to why the Party fails the people. I pointed out specifically that the NDP Party has never even tried to advanced democratic safeguards while it has been in power. Again, these facts are irrelevant to you. You reply is a big void: no denial, no explanation, no reasoning why these matters are unimportant.

I then give you political analysis and warnings made by knowledgable men, also pointing out the shortcomiings of Party politics. Again, you claim the arguments irrelevant.

There, your weak, unsound arguments against the substantive issue go like this -- George Washington and Bertrand Russell are old news, "relevant only in their time"; or George Washington's "views aren't taught in any political science class I'm aware of"; or George Washington lost more war battles than he won; or (siding with G West) George Washington was a slave-owner himself, thus he "was as two-faced as they come when it came to slavery", and so "as a thinker and philosopher ... ANYTHING Washington might have written about democracy into a bit of a cocked hat ".

Naturally, on the last point, the half-truth is entered on your behalf as sufficient fact. Neither of you take into consideration the era being the later half of the 18th Century, where the cultural customs throughout the western world were completely comfortable with slave ownership; or that Washington was born on a plantation and, through no fault of his own, reared with the societal norms of his day; or that Washington freed all his slaves in his will some 120 years before the bloodily Civil War was fought over this same humane matter.

Yes, ol' George Washington was a real staunch conservative without a view to the future worthy of contemplation.

(cont)

con't

Most importantly, you never once addressed the substantive issues, what Washington said about the dangers of the Party in a democracy:

Now allow me to warn you further, and more seriously, of the negative effects of party loyalty in general.

Unfortunately, the tendency to align ourselves with a group is natural, powerful and deeply rooted in all of us. It exists in different forms in all governments and is controlled in greater or lesser degrees; when this tendency appears in popular culture though, that is where it is most ugly, and becomes our worst enemy.

Our tendency to align ourselves with a group distracts us from discussing our most important issues. It weakens our ability to effectively govern. It feeds insecurity and suspicion within our nation. It fuels animosity between us. At its lowest point it can even lead to violence, open rebellion and the breakdown of society. It creates an opening for outsiders to influence and corrupt us, which can go so far as to infiltrate our government through deals with political parties. At that point, we’re no longer in control of our lives; rather we’re subjected to the will and policy of others.

Some believe political parties within free societies keep the administration of the government in check and preserve liberty. This is probably true to some extent. And in the case of dictatorships, party loyalists may even indulge in and value their party affiliation. But in governments by the people and for the people, party loyalty should take a back seat to national patriotism. There will never be a shortage of enthusiasm for party loyalty it for wholesome purposes. If anything there is an ever present danger of too much of it. Therefore we should work to discourage party loyalty by default. Our passion for parties will never go away. We must constantly watch it to keep it from growing too strong. Otherwise, instead of helping us in the ways it can, it may destroy us.

Adding insult to your claim of Washington's irrelevance, had you read the article, Frank, you'd have found numerous other warnings he laid out, all profoundly relevant to our times: in brief, respect for Constitutional boundaries and the division of power; public respect for principles and acts of conscience; being monetarily responsible, using money sparingly by developing peace; being good and fair to all nations, avoiding animosity that brings warfare; having a neutral foreign policy and to act in good faith; and open and impartial trade with all nations, offering no preferences nor favours.

One must wonder how ol' George got it so right more than 200 years ago on so many issues -- all contemporary concerns arising from America straying from his words, yet his is irrelevant when he talks about democracy?

(cont)

And still further compounding your inability to address the issue, you make personal attacks against me (eg, "As for making errors in my arguments, point them out otherwise I'll dismiss that charge as yet another display of childishness on your part. Something you lapse into whenever someone challenges you"); or you intentionally and/or repeatedly misstate what I say (eg., your attempt to raise George Washington to messiah status).

Like the first time your internet bravado gave you the gumption to, and I quote, "As for your accusation I'm spinning, show me where" - which I explicitly did -- you now ask me to "point out the errors" of your argument. I trust this partial reply gives some answers to your request. But there is no need to take my word on what you said, Frank, it is all right here:

http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2011/01/18/DontLikeRecall/

In closing, re: staying on topic, Frank, kindly follow the simply understood chain of argument stemming from zalm's statement of voter apathy: (1) functioning democracy; (2) erosion of democracy, in part, by Party politics; (3) individual feeling of disenfranchisement; (4) voter apathy.

samuidave wow that's quit a take down

however I will say the polarization of BC politics pretty much means we get rabid partisans on all sides. Especially here.

It's funny, this echos an a discussion I was having with an old friend online about the value of seeing all sides, being real and knowing both the positive and negative in order to move forward in the best way possible. I include the definitive statement by me below:

"both competition and cooperation.

that is our barrier - I see all, whereas perhaps you may be trying to see the positive in all while not embracing the negative as well which in my opinion is entirely necessary to go forward.

I see it all the time in the lefties I knew/know of whom I am close to them - they bad mouth capitalism sure but the problem comes when they diss marketing - it's a powerful fact and they should learn about sales and marketing in order to connect better with a wider audience, but many of them simply see it as bad and thus do not learn/understand how to use them for their benefit. I am not saying you;re a leftie or labelling you that way just as an example of how it is best to embrace everything to have the most success.

On the other side if big biz would start seeing the connections between all life and inanimate matter on a planetary scale they too would be more successful - perhaps not in short-term $$ but in the long term."

After spending some time in Toronto and Ontario I have to say this polarization in BC is small price to pay for an engaged citizenry. Seriously at least we care. The East, wow "yes master I do that now, you elected person" no matter how negative the consequence to themselves personally.

Dear Frank

I really only have pity for a man that lives in such a black and white world. It must be tough to go through life sticking labels on everything. I do hope that you're young enough that you still have time to grow.

samuidave

You don't see the contradiction in your argument? That we should believe that what Washington said about the democracy of 1775 is relevant today because nothing has changed and yet the fact he was a slave owner is irrelevant because it was a different time?

Here's news for you, if it was irrelevant that he owned a large number of slaves then its irrelevant what he thought of the system back then of Whigs and Tories and a politically active king.

Someone like Carole James wouldn't have even been allowed to be the leader of a political party back in 1775. She wouldn't have even been allowed to vote. To you that's an irrelevant fact, unlike getting political advice from a slave owner.

cont...

You said :
"in brief, respect for Constitutional boundaries and the division of power; public respect for principles and acts of conscience; being monetarily responsible, using money sparingly by developing peace; being good and fair to all nations, avoiding animosity that brings warfare; having a neutral foreign policy and to act in good faith; and open and impartial trade with all nations, offering no preferences nor favours."

This has nothing to do with political parties. Whether the MLAs belonged to parties or not makes no difference. My mayor has no party affiliation yet my municipality is no differently run than Vancouver's where parties exist at the municipal level. My mayor got their by having more money to spend than anyone else which gave him a bigger profile. A pretty big advantage when only 20% show up to vote.

Would the government be different if the right-wing majority weren't called Liberals and the left-wing minority not called the NDP? I fail to see how.

Your list of things you blame on party politics has no basis in fact. The workings of government are no different whether you call people NDPers or Liberals. Either way, a right-wing majority would rule over a left-wing minority.

Should I believe child poverty would be gone if Campbell hadn't campaigned under a party banner? How exactly? Its very easy to compile the list you did but at some point one must make the connection with political parties otherwise why not blame the disappearance of passenger pigeons on party labels too?

You're not appealing to non-voters? If you want to see the current parties out of power then simple math would dictate that you appeal to the people that don't vote, not the people that are committed to those parties. Unless that's not really the goal? Perhaps the goal is simply to stop the Left from voting?

cont...

See, many of us don't believe voting NDP is against "our collective best interest". You do. And you have failed over and over to provide a reason why NDP supporters shouldn't vote NDP. The party allows people to vote for a group of people that by and large have interests in common with their own. Without party labels most people wouldn't know enough about the candidates to make an informed choice. As I said previously, we already have no-party democracy at the level of voting for school boards and mayors and council members in most municipalities in the province.

Wherever there is no parties you see lower voter turnouts. Why is that? I've shown you surveys done in Canada, the USA and California on why people don't vote and they provide what I think is a clue. One of the major reasons given, lack of knowledge about the candidates, is magnified in elections where there are no political parties. When you have no parties its only natural people would feel they know even less about a candidate and certainly not enough to make the effort to go vote for them.

To me that's a pretty good explanation of why the numbers of non-voters increases in elections without party labels.

Moving on, you condemn the NDP for not making the workings of BC politics better. Why blame the NDP for that? Blame the citizens, they're the ones with the power to select a new electoral system and put it into place and they're the ones that overwhelmingly chose the current system.

As for your constant personal attacks, when you lead off every post with a put down of the person you're talking to you shouldn't complain when someone does it back to you.

Nicholas

I pity someone that is so full of contradictions they don't vote for what they say they believe in and don't believe drunk driving is a crime.

By all means practice what you preach the next time you meet the RCMP.

Nicholas

No "black and white" thinking from you eh?

"Some of the very same sheep here that screamed moral indignation, and demanded Campbell's resignation after his DUI (which he damn well should have done), now feel that a guy that intentionally,knowingly manufactured and planted fraudulent evidence to obstruct an active RCMP CRIMINAL investigation (let's not mince words and try to dismiss it by sugar-coating the act as "back-dating a memo")is suppose to be presented to the people of BC as morally-suitable Premier material. (Oh, but after he was caught and threatened with charges he admitted his mistake ... he must be a saint!!). Is this really the best that we have to offer the people of BC. Do any of you die-hards even recognize the blind tribal hypocrisy on display. At least Gordo had an excuse ....... he was drunk during his indiscretions with the law; Dix was sober, what was his excuse? I've done what Campbell did many times (and I'm ashamed when I look back); but I'd NEVER do what Dix did, under any circumstances, period "

You are obviously an impartial saint endowed with the ability to see more clearly than the rest of us.

Frank

"don't believe drunk driving is a crime."

Seriously Frank, now you're just being silly and making a bit of an ass of yourself. When was that ever said or implied in even the remotest of terms. I always impose a degree of honestly on myself (warts and all), and that includes not putting words into other people's mouths when debating an issue. If you have to resort to such tactics then I've given you way too much credit thus far. I'm going to leave you to Samuidave, whom thus far appears to be batting you around like a kitten playing with a ball of yarn.
Cheers and have a great day.

Nicholas

I assume you're acquainted with what you wrote yesterday? If you are then you should assume I'll remember it and you could avoid making an ass of yourself.

The following certainly implies you didn't see drunk driving as being a big deal.

You said :

"a) Everyone who's NEVER, ever driven while legally impaired, ever in their life, please put your hands-up.
b) Everyone who's NEVER purposefully obstructed an active RCMP investigation by fraudulently manufacturing evidence and lying to the investigators; then coming clean only after being caught, please put your hands up.

Yes, I thought so.

"a" just makes me stupid; but "b" would make me dishonest. Perspective indeed, Frank."

I guess the fishing wasn't very good.

Just needed a way to escape from you own words eh?

Frank

If you can somehow extract from that that I believe that drunk driving is not a crime, and that I make a habit of impaired driving, (as you clearly did in your last post), then you have a very vivid imagination. The simple point being made was that they are two very, very different actions .... one a relatively common occurrence in our society (a line that I would certainly contend that the majority of adult BC'ers have crossed SOMETIME in their lives, whether they admit it or not..or even realize it), and the other misdeed cited, not-so-much; but that they demonstrate two very, very, very different character flaws. One crime involves very poor, impaired (no pun) judgement and stupidity (and possibly a disease, if you're so inclined to that way of thinking ... I'm not), the other involves a serious inclination toward dishonestly and lack of ethical standards. I think that was rather clear, but maybe not.
And for the record ...... I had my last drink August 14th, 1978.

Nicholas

I don't believe the conclusion I drew from your post regarding drinking and driving was at all unwarranted. But if you believe I drew the wrong conclusion then that's fine. Just don't imply that there was no way anyone could have drawn such a conclusion because I doubt I was alone.

As for what Dix did, I'm not trying to be cute when I say I don't think its as black and white as you and people like CKNW make it out to be.

Compare what Dix did to what the BC Liberals have done with BC Rail. Basi and Virk carried out illegal acts on orders from above. In return they served no jail time and had their legal bills paid. An unprecedented decision. Evidence was not made public, the people Basi and Virk worked for blocked the investigation at every turn. Campbell wasn't forced to resign. The people giving orders to the convicted weren't charged with anything.

Adrian Dix looks pretty good in comparison.

Frank

You're completely missing my earlier point .... this type of argument is a death sentence. Just from your last post:

-"Compare what Dix did to what the BC Liberals have done".
-"Adrian Dix looks pretty good in comparison".

What praise indeed ! If you have to compare him to the rouges you mention, he's dead before he even starts.
Is that actually the standard you want to set? You're actually invoking the Basi-Virk deal with regards to the moral-compass/water-mark for selecting our next NDP leader? You want us to elect a guy that's not "as bad as the other guys". Dix has self-acquired dirty laundry that he will never be able to shed; at least as far as being a leader. Like I said before, I have no problem with him as an MLA; but his past has made him unsuitable (to both the party AND the electorate) to be the leader or Premier. We obviously disagree on the seriousness of the incident; I think it was extremely serious and displays a woeful lack of ethics. Now I guess I should get ready to read the posts: "But the Liberals did this .. blah..blah...blah ...blah"
I think these posts have come full circle and it's time to respectfully move on and agree to disagree (plus the squash court is calling) ... last word over to you.

Nicholas

People wouldn't support Dix because of the memo. They'd support him because he's extremely intelligent, quick on his feet and most importantly addresses their issues.

Dix, Farnworth, Horgan, Lali and Simons are not interchangeable. Each brings different strengths and weaknesses to the table. Dix for example would appeal to a lot of people that Farnworth wouldn't, and vice versa.

If Dix's only weakness is the memo then I don't believe that should prevent him from running for office. He's got too many strengths that others don't to toss him on the rubbish heap for that.

Vote Larsen First Ballot folks

thanks.

No need to ignore him in above list.

Thanks for actually avoiding the main point Nicholas

Dix, who was a political aide and not an MLA at the time, did something he has now apologized for doing.

I take it you didn't notice (or read) an earlier post where I said this:

(Dix) has a distinct advantage over the others - and, unlike EVERY BC LIBERAL candidate - he has the moral courage to admit when he's made a mistake and to apologize for having made it.

Unlike every compromised Campbell Liberal who has had neither the good sense nor the courage to admit when they've been wrong.

Any government would be better than a Campbell government. Their record would not be so abysmal if they hadn't been so convinced of their own infallibility...

Dix has acknowledged his errors – the Campbellites and all BC Liberals are still trying to avoid responsibility for theirs.

What Dix did, as a non-elected political staffer, compares in no way with what Campbell has done (as a man elected to manage the province with honesty, probity and equity for all British Columbians) to this place since he became Premier in 2001.

Campbell has ridden the provincial economy to a standstill; squandered public resources on petty squabbles; rewarded his friends and degraded public health, public institutions, and public assets.

He has wasted resources defending illegitimate and ill-advised vendettas against unions, he has starved the public education system and rewarded the private and independent schools ....and he has done all this, and more, without once accepting the responsibility for the mess he has created.

Did you miss his absurd 'resignation' speech?

I guess you prefer to simply ignore the fact that Dix's rather foolish action - in defence of a boss who was being wrongly accused and excoriated by a totally biased press - rather palies in comparison with the record of the government Dix hopes to replace as leader of the NDP.

Hi Frank

I know I promised you the last word, and I apologize, BUT this isn't, in any way, a response to your last post at all (which was sincere and well thought-out I will add); so I don't think it really counts (I hope not). Now do you see what I mean by the template, zombie-like mind-set that effects our party, a perfect example on display above ?
As I said(and sadly it takes just 40 minutes for someone to prove me right):
"Now I guess I should get ready to read the posts: "But the Liberals did this .. blah..blah...blah ...blah"
What an unhealthy, unconstructive, and ultimately unsuccessful approach to regain the faith(and votes) of the electorate. Preaching to the choir with silly Palin'esque talking-points will get us nowhere. Although you have to love the line "boss who was being wrongly accused and excoriated by a totally biased press" (that's really quite impressively hardcore-delusional; quite difficult to do).
Cheers Frank ... and this time I really am gone for good. Hope you all miss me.

Dix is Certainly the Left Establishment's Choice

Dix would certainly make a capable leader of the opposition. I think that probably holds for Horgan as well.

I doubt either could or would be elected premier. Farnworth is the only one who strikes me as having the instincts and leadership qualities that will appeal to BC voters.

A lot of people mistrust the NDP due to many of the things which happened during Glen Clark's term.

That said, I certainly agree that Dix must be considered a favorite because he appeals to the diehard lefties and has apparently signed up a huge block of memberships in South Asian and Filipino communities.

I think the most likely lineup for the next election is Clark vs Dix. Falcon vs Dix would be the most "classic BC - battle of hard core right vs left".

I'd be most comfortable with "Abbott vs Farnworth" although I think "Clark vs Farnworth" would be an interesting electoral campaign to watch.

falcon53

You wrote "A lot of people mistrust the NDP due to many of the things which happened during Glen Clark's term." and then completely ignore the fact that Farnworth was a cabinet minister while Dix and Horgan were just staff.

I don't know if Dix is hard core leftie because he has never explained his political position in those terms. The same goes for Horgan. So your claim is typical Victoria Press gallery fluff. Facts please!

Bill Tieleman weighs in

Thanks for the comments - mostly - I'd be happy PWLG to take over the Public Affairs Bureau.

My first task - fire all existing Order In Council staff and re-establish a merit appointment system with unionized staff - as it had been for decades until the BC Liberals took over and made everyone report to Premier Gordon Campbell.

All OIC PAB staff will be welcome to re-apply for their jobs - as they were when the BC Libs terminated them all - but there will be a lot fewer jobs than the bloated PR machine there now!

More seriously, I'm pleased to see that my usual Tyee opponents are unhappy with my choice - it confirms that it's the correct one. But I'll support the winner versus the BC Liberal winner in any case. Shocking I know.

Skywalker - Huh? You mean he's not a Leftie?

Yes, Farnworth served in the Glen Clark era, but I'm pretty certain he is not just another "Clark clone ": like Dix.

The fact that Adrian Dix is a pretty hard core leftist is the whole basis to his campaign. Or am I missing some later conversion to a more moderate position?

Sorry, but I am far from the "Victoria Press Gallery". Is it possible that Skywalker might be Gerry Scott? Who knows?

In any case, you can't get any more Left Wing Establishment than Gerry Scott and Bill Tieleman.

In any case, as a moderate, I am but a voice in the wilderness when it comes to expressing an opinion in the NDP.

falcon53

I don't have a problem with Farnworth either but I don't think there's much doubt his lifestyle choices make him far less electable than Dix. This is a very traditional and conservative province - which showed it wouldn't vote en mass for a woman - why would you expect it to vote en masse for a gay man?

Of course, I think the real mistake some members of the party made was deciding that a new leader was the way to enhance levels of party popularity which were already at historic highs....

In the end, I think Dix is the best guy in the race to try and limit the damage the gang of 13 did. Whoever the party chooses to lead it into the next election is going to have a much harder time winning now than it would have if Carole James hadn't been summarily dumped by a small clique of dissidents - not a single one of which group has mounted a credible candidate for the leader's job.

Dix at least is credible....I don't think, as part of the Carole James team, anyone should assume he's a hard-core anything.

As for Tieleman as a part of the left wing establishment in the party – umm, I don’t think so – the guy was, if not a member of the unofficial wrecking crew of dissidents, certainly a sympathizer and a close adviser of the gang of 13.

"Lifestyle choice"

Really?

VicRC

You're right, that was an awkward way to put it and I used that terminology on purpose because that is exactly the kind of whispering campaign that's currently underway and which will be marshalled against him if he's leading the party into the next election.

I take it you've been following the media and the 'thoughts' of folks like Gary Mason.

Y'see, you and I aren't going to be his opponents, but his opponents will certainly use whatever they can against him in the election. Just as they'll use anything and everything they can against Dix.

In the long run, despite my quarrels with Bill Tieleman from time to time, I'm leaning toward Dix - just like Joy McPhail is.

Cheers.

Dix gets results

C:\Users\Colleen\Desktop\Poverty, fractured system puts B_C_ kids at risk of death, says new report.mht
I remember writing BC Liberals = Death to BC Kids and people were horrified but yet it is true. Lets face it children aren't a priority in this province infact they are often left out of the equation altogether.
If this is the kinda of results Dix gets I'm not sure he is the man for the job.

We need a leader who will make BC children a priority

http://www.vancouversun.com/health/Poverty+fractured+system+puts+kids+risk+death+says+report/4179052/story.html
They are in dire need.

G West

You are making a judgement of the electorate that they didn't vote for James "because she was a woman". How do you know that the reason was because they simply found her to be a poor leader who lacked good communication skills?

You think British Columbians are more prejudiced than British citizens who voted for Margaret Thatcher as Prime Minister?

While I take all polls with a measure of skepticism, the latest Ipsos Reid polls suggest that British Columbians are increasing their support for Farnworth as the best selection for NDP leader. He has a significant lead in popularity with both NDP and Liberal supporters. Support for Adrian Dix seems to be dropping. (I should note that this was a poll of the general electorate and certainly did not pretend to be a poll of support of the NDP membership).

I have little doubt that people like Gary Mason will make an issue of Farnworth's sexuality, but this is what the chattering birds in the media do. If its not his sexuality it would be something else. You think Mason is going to give Dix a free pass to the premiership?

NDP leadership

Have to say I like Dix, Farnworth and Horgan.

They won't all be agreeable to everybody but its hard to say who has the biggest negatives and positives.

In some ways it depends on who the Libs select. If its a mouth that says something stupid every 5 minutes and has the flimsiest memory of reality (Christy Clark) then Dix would be the best at not letting her re-write history and calling her on what she utters. Christy's only positive is her appeal to women.

Farnworth on the other hand would win handily against someone on the far Right like Kevin Falcon. Selecting Dix to go against him would be a mistake.

I still believe Abbott is the only Liberal candidate that will hurt the NDP. And I'm not sure who would be best to go against him.

Either way, I'm glad the Liberals select their leader first and I hope NDPers think strategically, with their brains and not their hearts.

Nix to Dix

Latest Ipsos Reid poll shows what many of us already knew - Dix was already tainted with the phony memo, and the sleazy membership issue has put his reputation for a lack of ethics back in the spotlight. He has dropped way back of Farnworth in public opinion, and many of us in the party see him as offering more of the same from the old power hungry elitist gang.

Farnworth hasn't excited us too much but seems steady, and doesn't have the negatives of Horgan; he was around during the Clark era but was not seen as one of the gang which shafted Harcourt, then ran the NDP into the ground, nor as coming from the backroom power brokers like Dix and Horgan. He also has more potential to unite the party as he was at least civil during the James fiasco and has Norm McDonald's support which will help him win over supporters of the dissidents

Dix is toast with the public now and it doesn't matter what feeble justifications his supporters put out - unlike right wing supporters, NDP members and particularly potential voters are sick of sleaze and dirty tricks and want to see some integrity. Being "not as bad as the Liberals" just doesn't cut it!!

Just asking...

Just a thought - has it occurred to anyone that any of James visible supporters may not have been truly upset to see her go, and may have maintained a facade of loyalty so as not to hurt a potential leadership bid, while privately encouraging the rebellion ?

Tieleman's role in the whole play takes on a new aspect considering how strongly he now supports Adrian Dix - could this have been in the works all along?

Interesting Points Stewart

I have heard there were some of the caucus outside of "the infamous 13 dissidents" who were quite tepid about James. I'm sure that some of them could see the writing was on the wall - but they didn't want to be the ones tainted by being branded as disloyal.

I have yet to make up my mind about Horgan. I don't think he has some of the baggage and negatives of Dix, but he still is a bit of an unknown to me.

A lot of people were making the claim that the revolt against Carole James was driven by the more left wing elements in the party. I doubt it was as simple as that, although I am sure that most of the members who were saying its time for James to go, must have had someone in mind. I wonder who Corky will back? I can't see him jumping onto the Dix bandwagon.

Farnworth

Farnworth is likable for the same reasons Carole James was. Middle-of-the-road, not the kind to talk over people, tries to get along with everyone. Unlike James though he was part of the 1990s NDP government.

Farnworth is fine with me but I don't see how you anti-James people would be happy with him.

After all, replacing James with Farnworth begs the question, what was it all about then?

It was about due process, an

It was about due process, an arrogant elite and a leader who didn't have the democratic instincts to submit herself to the membership after 7 years, 2 election losses and the general impression that she was a drag on the party.

Much of the short term drop in polling numbers was caused by the public abuses and character assassinations by the James gang, which drew attention to the level of power mongering and lack of accountability that the ruling elite, especially those not elected by the party members, thought they owed the party. Not to mention reminding the public that Moe Sihota was still up to his old tricks and apparently running the party.

It was about Moe, and sleazy politics, and a range of issues described very well by Corky Evans since 1996, which have not yet been resolved and will continue to fester until we see some real change, and which may yet destroy the party.

These issues are front and centre in the blogosphere and have been better articulated
by others on the Tyee - that is as good a reason as any for the "revolution", as it has reenergized activists and brought some attention to old concerns.
James had alienated many of us with autocratic pronouncements and "tough luck if you don't like it, but that's the way it is" attitude, well before she turfed Simpson and started to show her/Moe's true colours in an increasingly desperate way.

If Farnworth is a "my way or the highway" type of person he hasn't showed it so far.

I don't see anyone out there, much less running for leader of any party, who has the vision and charisma to wake up a comatose population from the complacent slumber of the comfortable. Farnworth, at least, has a history of getting along and went through the James fiasco without burning bridges or being abusive towards the 13 or 14 MLAs who had the guts to represent their constituencies.
Farnworth, for whatever reason, is increasingly popular with the public, perhaps because he is seen as being less of an ego and more able to work with everyone than any of either party's candidates. Many of us expected a new leader could do better than James and if Farnworth fits the bill all you pragmatists shouldn't complain as you have always said winning an election is the main priority.

Well then

Let's assume everything you say is true. How does replacing CJ with a CJ loyalist and CJ-like person who was a cabinet minister in the Glen Clark government represent change or "renewal" from the CJ past?

The polling results I saw last month showed a Farnworth-led NDP being less popular than a James-led NDP had been. However, perhaps there were polls I didn't hear about...

Anyway, if its Farnworth, I'm happy because it demonstrates Kwan and Lali and Simons et al had a revolution and no one came.

falcon53

Not at all. I'm not making any judgement about how people vote because I think most people vote for the party and not the leader. The party was at 47% under Carole James and it has been nowhere near that since she was attacked by the angry 13.

Perhaps you hadn't noticed.

I think you're right, G West

I think most people vote for the party and not the leader.

...but I base that on my inderstanding that most people vote as their parents did, following a Party banner just like they adopt the same religion.

Of course the problem is that no Party remains static over time, yet voter loyalty tends to. So as we have shifted our political rhetoric further and further right over the last half century, the Party banner becomes more and more symbolic, carrying the goodwill of prior principles long lost in action.

There are a couple of recent articles on this occurrence, one on the Tyee by Rafe Mair on WAC Bennett, and the other
by Rachel Maddow on Dwight D Eisenhower et al.

Latest polls

"However, perhaps there were polls I didn't hear about..."

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Opinion+Polls+predict+Clark+Farnworth/4182708/story.html

Stewart

I read that column already this morning. Mike is doing the best of all the candidates on either side, which is great. As Bill Good's panel said on the radio, he's the most like Carole James. As a moderate, or a pragmatist as you called me, I couldn't be happier that the candidate closest to my view is in the lead.

But that isn't to say I don't like Dix or Horgan, I do. I'm an extremist on the subject of child poverty and Dix is the best choice if I'm picking a leader on that subject. On the subject of IPPs I'm a fan of Horgan's. But overall, I like Mike the most because he has the best chance of winning an election and that trumps everything else. Which as you may recall is the same thing I said about Carole James.

I'll be interested to see Mustel's and Angus Reid's eventual polls on the subject.

25,000 members according to Vaughn

It would seem new members now outnumber old, though Palmer's numbers may not be correct.

If this means there are thousands of active new members it is great for democracy and the NDP; if it is mostly a result of mass sign ups of "Vote and vacate" members as in the Dosanjh fiasco, the party is in serious trouble.

Stewart

Yes, we don't know who the new members are yet but as you said before, you and your family and friends joined so it can't all be mass signups.

It'll be interesting to see how it unfolds and if Mike's standing increases or falls.

mike harcourt, dan miller

Someone writes that Mike Harcourt and Dan Miller don't have an ideological bone in their body just needs to take a refresher course on Ideology 101.

Harcourt just months in his position as Boogie Town's Premier of BC gets on a jet to Davos Switzerland. Miller has been a corporate shill for years now. He took a position on Gordon Campbell's Competition Council.

In this province we no longer get change, we get an exchange from one party to another, an exchange of power.

It was the NDP who brought the self appointed Olympic Family to our shores, fleecing us right down to the penny. Removing hundreds of millions of dollars tax free for BC to have access to their franchise.

It was the NDP who supported big oil and gas companies by subsidizing road building for these companies to access with cheap royalties the peoples resources.

Perhaps Mr Dix can do his damage again

From a report by David Bond (chief economist HSBC Bank) in 2002 entitled 'How BC went from a have to a have-not province
"BY MOST MEASURES BRITISH COLUMBIA'S ECONOMY IS AILING. PROVINCIAL PER capita GDP growth
between 1992 and 2000 was the lowest in Canada. This was also true for the growth in average real disposable income, in the ratio of employment to population, in total exports per capita and in fixed business investment. For the last five years, the population growth rate has been declining, net interprovincial migration has turned negative and the number of head offices based in Vancouver has steadily gone down. And, symbolically worst of all, in 1999 the land of the lotus blossom moved from a "have" to a "have not" province: it started to receive federal equalization payments".

I would suggest that both Mr McMartin and Mr Theilman read how this ugly situation was mostly caused by Mr Dix and his NDP policies.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4014/is_200201/ai_n9028727/?tag=content;col1

To close my end of this off, Frank

samuidave, You don't see the contradiction in your argument? That we should believe that what Washington said about the democracy of 1775 is relevant today because nothing has changed and yet the fact he was a slave owner is irrelevant because it was a different time?

There's no contradiction. You're using Association (as a slave owner) as an argument, Frank. At worst Washington was a hypocrite, but that does not make his reasoning or political analysis any less valid.

Here's news for you, if it was irrelevant that he owned a large number of slaves then its irrelevant what he thought of the system back then of Whigs and Tories and a politically active king.

Here you're advancing the Black and White Fallacy, Frank, a trap you fall into, or tactic you employ?, frequently: 'Either everything Washington said and did was relevant or it wasn't'; That's your argument and it is grade-school thinking, at best.

Let's assume for a moment that George Washington was the cruelest slave owner in the history of the world -- could his remarks about democracy remain solid? Of course. Just consider if he also said, "Women and slaves both have the right to vote". Logically you would need to claim that this information is irrelevant, too. Surely you can see the pickle you are in with your flawed reasoning?

As for your remark, re: respect for Constitutional boundaries and the division of power; public respect for principles and acts of conscience; being monetarily responsible, using money sparingly by developing peace; being good and fair to all nations, avoiding animosity that brings warfare; having a neutral foreign policy and to act in good faith; and open and impartial trade with all nations, offering no preferences nor favours

where you state, "This has nothing to do with political parties", I am left dumbfounded, uncertain as to how to reply to you in a manner that you might comprehend.

I said, and I quote, "Adding insult to your claim of Washington's irrelevance, had you read the article, Frank, you'd have found numerous other warnings he laid out, all profoundly relevant to our times". The article gives the context, Frank; but you would have had to have read the article we are discussing to have known that.

Perhaps these words of wisdom might be of some use to you:

"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." ~ Herbert Spencer

John Corman

You're back again? Last time you were here you ran off with your tail between your legs after being confronted with the facts.

I guess enough time has gone by you figure you can post the same bs again and this time people will buy it?

BC's economy performed better under the NDP than it did under the Liberals. And unlike the Liberals the NDP did it with far less federal money, in the absence of a commodities boom and with asian economies going through a rough crisis.

(Unless you're a Conservative that thinks BC and California have a common border, most people know BC is more exposed to asian economies than the other 9 provinces)

Fact 1 :average economic growth was higher over the term of the NDP than its been under the Liberals.

Fact 2 : The median wage fell about 5% in BC between 2001 and 2005, the only province where the median wage went down except for Quebec which saw a less than 1% decline.

Fact 3 : Overall population growth was higher under the NDP than its been under the Liberals.

Fact 4 : The number of head offices has declined since the NDP left power.

Fact 5 : The Liberals have received federal cash far in excess of anything the NDP received.

Fact 6 : The Liberals have increased the amount of debt and contractural obligations by more than 4 times what the NDP increased it by in the same amount of time.

Fact 7 : Since the NDP left power employment in such key areas as forestry and manufacturing and warehousing has declined to abysmal levels whereas under the Liberals positive job growth occurred in alcohol sales, casino employment and government propaganda. Guess which most people would rather have?

All data available at BC Stats assuming the Liberals haven't shut the place down.

samuidave

"Surely you can see the pickle you are in with your flawed reasoning?"

No, I can't.

""This has nothing to do with political parties", I am left dumbfounded, uncertain as to how to reply to you in a manner that you might comprehend."

Try. After all I respond to you although you keep telling me you don't understand.

As I said, your list has as much to do with political parties as the disappearance of the passenger pigeon.

samuidave

""Adding insult to your claim of Washington's irrelevance, had you read the article, Frank, you'd have found numerous other warnings he laid out, all profoundly relevant to our times""

I guess you'll be telling me to study Nostradamus and his quatrains next?

Some tell me those too are relevant to the current times. In fact I expect someone will suddenly tell me old Nosty predicted the fall of the Tunisian government any day now.