The greens are the naders of BC and Canada. I don't really agree with the conclusion of this article - ie) the main event of the Surrey by-election was that the Greens (who, let's face it - weren't really contenders in the race in terms of actually winning the seat - coming in with an impressive 8% of the vote) were the big losers. The real story is the slap in the face our wonderful surrey community gave to the Liberal tyrants running this Province into the ground. Even a semi-competent government could have done better for the sustainability of BC's future in terms of the protection of our access to affordable education, medical aide, housing, social support, toxin-free environment, green space, and privacy of personal information from foreign (questionable) intelligence. Surrey's results are reminiscent of COPE's huge municipal victory when the NPA had overstayed their welcome and people realized what is important in a successful community - and it isn't selling your soul to the highest bidder to enslave to "market volatility". The NDP can be held accountable to environmental initiatives equal to or even surpassing the Greens (as was determined by a major environmental organization) - while supporting the growth of community to seal all those weak links that weaken our chains. Kudos to Surrey for delivering the first of many blows to come for the incumbent imbeciles.

No question - the Greens are a total side issue in this by-election and in the general election. The story here is a massive shift in a non-traditionally NDP supporting riding.

Losing bye-elections is pretty standard for parties in government. But losing and getting trounced are two different things.

Is it time for Gord to call it a day? If the election had been within, say ten points, no one would ask the question. But having your head handed to you, dropping 26 points, suggests a change at the helm.

Tyee correspondent Collins and a number of the other caucus members will reassure themselves that by-elections can turn out badly and the government still be re-elected; but they have to wonder if the Prince of anti-charisma is the man for the job.

The major risk for the NDP is that they won the byelection so convincingly that it will start to raise doubts among the Liberals about Campbell's viability in the general election. Without slighting James, Gordo is the NDP's best asset, and they have to hope that he manages to hang in there. I see so many parallels with the mid-80s: a right-wing coalition in power, a ruthless series of budgetary attacks on public services (that hit rural areas especially hard), a real estate bubble in Vancouver while the hinterland was in recession, endless taxpayer-funded advertising for an expensive circus, and a premier with ice-water in his veins. But Howe Street realized that Bill Bennett just wasn't going to cut it, and so we ended up with Bill Vander Zalm. October to May is plenty of time to replace Campbell and for CanWest Global to put a fresh face on the Liberals. Don't forget, Bennett quit in June 86 and the Zalm flattened the NDP only 5 months later.

One of the things I found most shocking about the Surrey by-election was seeing Lorne Mayencourt at Mary Polak's headquarters loudly cheering her on in the early goings of the evening. Huh? Him of all people. It truly shows what a spineless coward and disgusting human being he really is, willing to follow the party line at any cost.

Is it just me or does anyone notice that Mayencourt kind of looks like gollum? Perhaps maybe just an orc or maybe even the hobgoblin from spider man comics. In any case whenever I see his face I am immediately filled with disgust.

Congrats NDP!!!!

And goodbye Rockerbiff.

With respect, Geek..it is only wise to say goodbye to presumptions of any form of "certainty" in politics..hubris (and deafness to constituency real and human needs - one and the same).. is the only political killer - and it will kill off any party quicker than it thinks.

There was a key comment in the article - parties the are left of the party of neocons, of which campbell and Co. is the particular current flavour. The Greens are left of Campbell, certainly, but left wing? - that is a manufacture of media, ignorance, and posters who call themselves pro-labour (as compared to labour tolerant). Just because some Carr disciples like to say "my brothers and sisters"..or "I live in the same Coop as Libby Davies" - doesn't necessarily mean they're "left wing" - and more impotantly - doesn't speak for their executive.

That Carr, shows up at protests or "marches" with labour doesn't mean she's "left wing". Hustling for votes - yes. That has been the only gateway for the Greens - sniping at the NDP and lobbying its constituency base - and trying to appropriate the NDP's genuine accomplishements they'd implented while in office.

Carr spoke volume about herself, and her Green executives agenda in her insular response to the Citizens assembly STV recommendation. Greens want guaranteed representation for themselves - their party. Carr wants to appeal to Campbell (?!) to make changes on the referendum question. Beyond creepdom.

The work for the upcoming is to listen to the constituecies clearly. Secondly, the NDP must not say stupid things like "Party X or Y" come back into "the fold" - that plays into the public mis-perception that the Greens are a left variant of the NDP and incorrectly plays to young voters who do not really understand the differnces in social, labour, and educational values the separate the NDP and Greens profoundly. That difference must be made clear to voters by the NDP. Canwest wont do that for them. As a footnote, and speaking of hubris, wasn't that little racist comment by the Liberals about the "ethnic card" a crass item. It seems that they had a bigot for their candidate never crossed their mind.

Ah, what a treat to see the smirk erased from the backstabbing thug, gordon scambull, who masquerades as the head of an accountable government. Gee, gord, you forgot to say that you're "concerned, but not worried," and smirk into the cameras of your friends and owners at canwest global. All of the bribes, the canwest editorials, the lies about the economy -all in vain.

While I agree with mcClintock that the victory does not mean the ndp and its supporters can let up their fight, it is still a significant victory, and as well, illuminates the limits of bribes, and media complicity -indeed, much like the vanvcouver civic election, that threw gordon campbell's farm team, the npa, out of office. In this sense, it was a huge loss for the bc liars, for their strategies are as monolithic and unimaginative as their reactionary ideology..., nor do I believe that they will suceed in turfing gordon campbell -I could be mistaken- campbell is so closely identified with their policies and they have no one with a moderate image to replace him. Getting rid of gordon liar is essentially tantamount to admitting their policies were flawed and unfair. The greatest danger, in my view, is that their bogus claims about fixing the economy will gain creedence -lies the ndp must disprove long before the election.

As to Adriane ("le state, c'est moi...I trust the business community to do the right thing...") Carr -the byelection is both a huge blow to the greens and the verification of a terminally stupid move on her part. The 1000 votes she garnered could have been enough to elect the liberals in a closer election, and it shows irrefuteably the green's only contribution to the political process is as vote splitters. David Shreck's daily column at strategicthought.com also has a good anaysis of the bc byelection.

correction: l'etat, c'est moi....

The times colonist here in victoria didn't have much to say about the ndp win in yesterdays paper, anyone read the sun or province I am curious if they covered it, and if so what they had to say, I won't buy the dam things! Don't support their advertisers either. gordo has certainly been giving them a lot of our money!

It is true the Greens were a big looser, but Adriane Carr also exposed herself as the political gadfly she is and can't be taken seriously. But the biggest loosers were the Liberals; the 25 point drop is a clear indictment of their policies and whatever plans they have for BC. The big winner in this byelection is Carole James. She proved her commitment to grassroots democracy, by letting the local constituency select their candidate. She showed to be a leader that can be trusted to have the best interest of British Columbians at heart, a rarety.

Vick...The article in the Times Colonist was abouyt as good as it gets.The Sun opted to dig up, a lurid lip smacking pig farm front page on Friday and begrudged a small blurb on the editorial page today. I must admit I did enjoy all that can west angst seeping out of the words that weren't there. I think that the only way to get rid of the Greens is to spend the time and money to tell the public how far right this party is.Thanks for the article...hope and encouragement for the ndp couldn't come at a better time.

Obviously there is nothing neo about neocons. My prefered epitaph is Palaeocon, and analysis of their policies 'palaeocontology'.

In response to the by-election result, Richmond MLA Greg Halsey-Brandt says that he doesn't think that the people here (in Richmond) want to go back to spending on special interest groups of the government.

The BC Liberals have been spending huge chunks of money on a special interest group called the richest of BC's rich (with the income tax cut). They have no problem implementing policies from an extremely well-funded interest group called the Frasier Institute, which is a tool of one of the BC Liberals favorite special interest group multi-national corporations.

This special-interest-group garbage is just an excuse to remove funding from almost all government services and pass the money on to corporations and to those who need it least.

Since Raymond Chan won the last election against the Conservative Wong, Halsey-Brandt may be wrong. He may also have picked the right time to not run again. I am really getting very tired of hearing him reciting thoughtless nonsense from the last election.

Goddamn, but doesn't it do the heart good to see Ms. Mary "Million dollars pissed away on a pro-bigot agenda" Polak get smacked down, and to see that the BC electorate isn't getting sucked in by Adrienne Nader? You're next, El Gordo. We're organized and we're pissed. Do never test. P.S: re: "The REAL barking mad fox channel..." Sir or Madam, I would suggest you learn the differences between Pat Buchanan and David Frum before attempting to define "Paleoconservative" on your own. This time around, the Paleos are actually the good guys.

Wrong or right. The new kid on the block is the NDP. All new faces will be running in the next BC election. I doubt whether a major party in BC history will be running with so many new faces. Campbell's liberals have not made an impression on the electorate. They all look tired and faded. They never really became a government of the people, for the people and by the people rather a private social club running the province with its own secret agenda of selling off provincial crown jewels without permission of the provincial family voters. Campbell has used power for power sakes and the Liberal Party has been hijacked for his own private agenda. Liberal fortunes should be aware that the ides of March may not bring them May flowers. Right wing parties always make the mistake of believing their own rhetoric and hence become isolated from the electorate and the bye election is more proof that folly rules in Victoria.

i too was happy at the results of the by-election, one more body as an opposition member to all those who hate anything but the wonderful libs, we need an opposition in this province the old adage fire ready aim holds true with this gang on so many of their dealings and new acts of legislation that have been rammed thro the house, no debate virtualy no questions from a sitting MLA on any bill passed.. a much need voice for the people of this province when i heard G.C. complain about all the big labour money that had been thrown about it was nothing if anything in comparison to the tax dollars thrown in that region to garner votes

From today's Times-Colonist: Carr's future in question after poor Green vote Times Colonist Judith Lavoie Green Party leader Adriane Carr is blaming a negative, polarized campaign for the party's poor showing in the Surrey-Panorama Ridge byelection. But others are speculating that Green popularity has peaked and the party may have lost its chance to be a serious player in next May's provincial election. Carr, who will run in her home riding of Powell River-Sunshine Coast in May, parachuted in to the Surrey byelection, but drew only 8.4 per cent of the vote, or 1,052 ballots. In 2001, the Green candidate in Surrey-Panorama Ridge drew 8.8 per cent -- 1,400 votes.

The sensible thing for the Greens to do would be to stop bitching about Mixed-Member Pro-Rep and concentrate on getting out the Yes vote in next spring's referendum

They will thereby ensure that they win a few seats in 2009; especially with a more effective leader. That Adrianne Carr "Feel good about your vote" rhetoric is clearly not cutting it....

If there is anyone to blame for the "polarized" campaign, it would be Gordo. His pro-corporate, anti- people policies have truly energized the anti-Campbell voters in BC, and they will surprise? us next May by sending the Liberals packing.

Got my Sunday edition of Kamloops This Week in the door this morning. One of its young reporters was assigned to get the views of Kamloops MLA Claude Richmond and Kamloops North Thompson MLA Kevin Krueger on Thursdays NDP bi-election win. The latter suggested the NDP won because it "wasn't running on issues" and had 500 union workers working in the campaign, which I guess, would be a backhanded compliment to the value of union vs. non-union if Krueger was ever known to speak the truth. Richmond the Speaker, who seldom ever speaks publicly on anything unless its an effort to prop himself up, could only cough up the usual "Governing parties rarely win byelections", conveniently forgetting his first foray into provincial politics in 1981 as a Socred when he rode in on the shirt tails of former MLA Rafe Mair. But the real story presented by this three-times-a-week freebie rag was that no one else was asked their opinions. Bias? ignorance? Perhaps, but then maybe the reporter was simply overworked I thought, so I took another glance through the pages and sure enough, the poor guy must have been burning the midnight oil with all his articles on politics. There on page two I found the reason for the abreviated Surrey byelection story. The reporter had spent even more time and space quoting the same two MLAs in an article on the U.S. election. FOR THE RECORD: both Richmond and Krueger were wishy-washy, refusing to say who they would back, but both did take time to trash John Kerry while cautiously avoiding endorsement of Bush. But that was ok, because the reporter, this time, had also found the phone numbers for the chamber of commerce mouthpiece, the local regional district head, a school board trustee and city politician. Nothing from any of the local opposition parties, nothing from anyone with a background in political science (even though we have a university in Kamloops with lots of media mouths who can think beyond the script), nothing from womens' groups, labour, church, used car salesmen or even the dog catcher. Curious about this, I continued looking for stories among the ads and that's when I found yet another story quoting good ol' Claude, sans Krueger this time, on how benevelant his government is. Yes, it was a full-on brass-cheque, as we used to call them. A smiling Claude over a headline telling the world what wonders the Liberals are bringing to rural B.C. Now I could give you a summary of how The Kamloops Daily News handled the same issues, but it too has fallen into such a pathetic state as a news source that most (myself included) don't bother buying or reading it anymore.

Vick, for what it's worth, both vaughn palmer of the sun, and michael smyth of the province wrote columns saying the byelection results spell trouble but not necesarily defeat, for the bc liberals. As these two are really the only generally respected canwest columnists beside stephen hume, this does offer some good news...although both smyth and palmer sometimes shill for the bc liars, and may be all the more dangerous, because they are respected by some of the left as well as the right, still both blamed bc liberal arrogance, policies, and miscalculations for the defeat....the palmer article blamed the liberal's ignoring the ethnic vote in part, interesting, because the bc liars seem to often think they have the ethnic vote nailed down, a circumstance that seems to be changing...

I think Carr did her usual mediocre bit here and it shows. The greens couldn't organise a good piss-up in a brewery.

Michael O'Neill, 10/29/2004 11:06:54 PM -You're right on! In my discussions with Green Party canvassers during the last federal election, I discerned that they are anti-union and fiscally conservative. Their concern for the HEU members, during the strike in the same period, was one of "fire 'em all" and get the scab workers to replace them, at cheaper wages. They relate to GreenPeace, who are also the recipients of corporate support (Imperial Oil, etc.) Regrettably, the NDP have a lot of homework to do to win back working class support, though I blame that chiefly on the leadership of the B.C. Federation of Labour, whose mantra has always been "Vote NDP and they'll look after us"...in spite of all their well-intentioned resolutions, churned out from their yearly conventions. Well, really, we have to keep up the lobbying (which the corporations do very well), to keep the pressure on a labour-supported government. Does Glen Clark's sun deck come anywhere near the give-away of the "fast ferries", that we built and only required technical improvement, albeit expensive...but at least the jobs stayed here.

Aha! So according to Lewis Swift, columnists like Palmer and Swift who criticize the Liberals are "more dangerous" than ones who don't! So they really are between a rock and a hard place, aren't they? Don't criticize the Liberals and you're a corporate, Gordo-loving ass-kisser according to the loony left. Criticize them and you're even "more dangerous''! Thua does the left disappear up its own ass.

Talk about generalizations... what are Surrey Panarama Ridge demographics? The NDP chose a good candidate fit for the riding's demographics...the proof here was seeing Cheema (former soft Liberal supporters) working for Brar and the NDP! Brar was able to bring around the 20% who either vote against rather than for or are undecided and vote for the candidate they think will do what's needed at the time. I think Brar will be a good MLA and representative for this region of Surrey and its residents. Now about the rest of the rumour dribble... As a trade unionist and a green supporter (prov) I've given my full support to HEU workers (standing on the lines with them and not selling them out!) I take offense to the NDP rumour makers about greens being anti-union! I've been told that 60% of BCGEU members voted for Campbell's Liberals last time. I didn't! Fiscally responsible would be a more apt description of green economic policies. The Greens won't be building any rapid rail projects going nowhere or supporting the rich man's country club, called the Olympic Games, for the benefit of short term jobs. We need sustainable jobs that benefit all British Columbians. The federal greens and the provincial greens develop their own policies independent of each other as does the various municipal green organizations. Being a BC Green member doesn't mean I automatically belong to the Federal Greens. We give no group or organization guaranteed access to policy development, unlike the NDP. In fact, it's important to BC Greens that their policies are vetted by independents and/or interested parties in particular areas. Each member has the opportunity to participate in policy development. Policy is not dictated to the masses. There is a voting constituency for the BC Greens. I guess its in the NDP interest to marginalize this minority. Which is a shame actually. For a party that professes to represent the marginalized, the NDP has a funny way of showing it. The Greens didn't call the folks in the Slocan Valley trying to protect their water from logging roads, "Enemies of the Province", it was the NDP. It'll take more than a by-election to get rural and hinterland voters to forget the NDP's record or those who continue to pull the strings on behalf of their organization. Hopefully, voters will not vote against something, hopefully they'll vote for something. Bring on STV! Any reform is better than none...and while we're at it, let's see some financial limitations in place for the next election as well as the end of third party advertising, lets have some good old fashion discussion instead. To Mr. Brar, my sincere congratulations. I know you'll do good work and give careful thought to every decision you make for your constituents.

While I certainly won't dump on Carr in BC, or if I was in the US, Ralph Nader, because I really do think before this period is out, the better solution lies in the direction of a multiplicity of voices within the political system of the future. Though Nader impresses me more than Carr, frankly. (I'd actually vote for him, rather than Dem, in the US context.) Still, the Liberal's have to be punished for what they have done to us and this province, and the vehicle with the greatest chance of doing that for us "right now", is the NDP, in my view. Though, like I say, I deal with one election at a time myself, and if next time it is the NDP that needs to be punished, as well it might, I don't really feel like I owe it anything. I'm not so enamoured with the NDP, indeed quite the contrary, that I'm prepared to give it any kind of carte blanche loyalty. My view is, that the limitations of the NDP are yet to be made clear, and that needs some time yet to run its course. For this next 2005 go-round, however, unless Carole and Company fuck up something real bad between here and there, I'll throw my vote to the NDP. And I view what happened in Surrey-Panorama Ridge as a positive development on the way to that. For those Greens with whom I have some sympathy, besides Carr, with whom I have zero, I suggest you need to revisit your politics and political strategy. Especially you need to revisit this bullshit notion of being above the mud, the blood and the beer of the "partisan" political class fray. You are in need of some major ideological revamping, at the very least.

With all do respect to the Greens - whose support for the environment is commendable and should be supported by all parties - their concept of what would work in government is naive at best and incompetent at worst. They claim to be "pro-business" but support a fully public health care system based on prevention by removing toxins that lead to health problems. Sounds nice - I'm all for preventative health care - but it ain't going to cut it for our aging population and fails to offer any solutions to our present quagmire. Greens also claim that would work towards a free post-secondary system as is present in some European countries. This would be a dream if it was realistic - which it isn't at this point. UBC and SFU cannot and would not at this point after their massive expansions that have them permeating into downtown Vancouver and out into the interior with their new developments and high tech wirings. These new developments have resulted in an increase of over 100% in tuition fees thanks to the Liberals lifting the freeze the NDP had placed for the cost of post-secondary education for BC students. Is it realistic or even possible for the province to support the post-secondary education for the much larger student population going for this far more pricy education? And if we did - what would it do to the quality of education and the balance of funding and access when compared to other Canadian universities? We don't live in a vacuum - and our environment, our access to medicine and education is affected by both national and global policies. The Greens just seem full of hot air building on more Green house gases and have continued to show a lack of real foresight which is why they fail to capture the support of even of our most ardent environmentalists - such as Greenpeace.

Just one more wee word, to my friends in the Green Party.

In my humble view, this country and this province need another "social democratic", or "liberal/quasi-liberal" party, bunched up around the centre, like it does another bodily orifice. (And I won't insult you by suggesting that neither do we need another Neocon or Brownshirt grouping on the far right. I sense no inclination amongst yourselves in that direction anyway.)

What is needed, however, again in my typically humble demeanour, :-) is a "grouping" that is clearer, more imaginative, and with a more socially and economically "transformative" vision of the world, that is not afraid to get down into the mud, the blood and the beer, and, for example, extend a hand of consistent and ongoing solidarity to ordinary working-class and dispossessed folks. And other than as an opportunistically expedient, or looking down the nose gesture, to simply win brownie points. (I shudder at the thought of another political "party", in even the classic "left-wing" sense-, for they typically evolve as elitist as any other, in my experience-, including the NDP, and the older socialist and communist "vanguardist" parties. What is needed is something, organizationally, more integrated, in a grass roots way, into the lives of ordinary people, that seeks to organize and mobilize them around their own and socially progressive objectives, rather than seeks to, as typically happens, to integrate itself into the currently, more "formal" than "real" political power structures of "the system". The object being to "transform" what is, rather than be merely "absorbed" by it.)

Anyway, if and when you ever get to there, and I'm not going to hold my breath, give me a call. We can do lunch. I've even been know to share a whiskey or two, along with a toke on occassion, as part of political dialouge. :-D

I find it amazing that people who belong to the NDP, a party that is supposed to be "progressive" and tolerant of others is so negative and dismissive of other political parties especially the Greens. The generalisations and holier than thou attiitude used by the card carrying NDP'ers here is indicative of the party in general, arogant and over-confident. It was one constituency of 79, the NDP picked the right candidate for the right reasons, nothing to do with the NDP policy on this that or the other. After the editors lack of acceptance of my article on "Why Adriane Carr was running" in the by-election and the title of this article tells me the editors of this site share the lack of political foresight and toleration of other view than their own. But its their gig, they call the shots here, not me. By all means NDP hacks please believe you will win the next election based on this by-election. I for one will be working and running to prevent it, the people of this province will realise that the NDP have and never will change; hopefully before the election. The NDP have as much right to union members votes as any other political party. Regardless of what union leadership instruct us to do the rank and file union membership will vote the way they feel. Your lack of tolerance will not let you believe or accept that any other party can legitimately support the union movement, even better when a local or two endorses a Green Party candidate in 2005. I will be laughing all the way to the election box.

Since when is Pat Buchanan one of the 'good guys'?

That aside, NDP must implement an effective strategy to halt climate change and environmental degradation, not because votes will bleed off to the Greens otherwise and keep far worse environmental criminals in power by default, but because the life of our planet (and default, our own) depends upon it.

BTW I am the photographer of the picture used at the top of this article and I would like the owners of this site to acknowledge this fact.

Mr. Gregson- your statement "the NDP have and never will change" is somewhat contradictory, I think you mean never will change? Actually, I consider the whole process is about constant change. Isn`t that why there is a new leader, new members? Haven`t we all seen the effects of Campbell as premier? I`m sorry, but suspect that the byelection had far more to do with realization that vote-splitting will ensure the Liberals another victory. The NDP is not perfect,never will be, and is only a name, just like Green.

Ian I have a hard time beleiving any local of any Union will be endorsing the Greens. Maybe you know something I do not. Maybe in 2009, maybe in 2013 but no Union local in their right mind will support any party other than the NDP next May in my opinion.

KWL: The VDLC and Vancouver Teachers Federation endorsed Andrea Reimer in the Vancouver municipal election of 2002 C Parkhurst: my apologies "will never change" is what I meant to say.

Which is it guys, are the Greens vote-splitters who are taking votes from the NDP, or are they representing a right-wing agenda, as many here imply? On what does McLintock base this assertion?: “Although Green Party leader Adriane Carr insists that the Greens also take Liberal votes, the vast proportion of likely Green voters come from the left side of the political spectrum.” On nothing, as far as I can see. Did she do an exit poll? How does she really know that much of that 8% didn’t come at the expense of the Liberals? I agree with Ian Gregson that there is an stench of arrogance that runs throughout the BC NDP, best exemplified by shameless party hacks like Tielman and Moe Sihota. The NDP really has only themselves to blame for the existence of the Green Party, when they sided with the clear-cutting vision of BC and the IWA, when in government, for reasons of political expediency and cast so many of the green-thinking supporters of their party adrift. That Carr is not a great politician is obvious, shown by her recent foot-in-the-mouth exclamations against the STV choice of the Citizens Assembly. It was a stupid move for her to run in the by-election. I don’t think that progressive minded people, whether in the NDP or the Greens, really care about all this political jockeying between the power mongers. Hopefully BC citizens will choose Pro-rep in May and finally force these two sides to work together against the real enemy.

Adriane Carr, BC Green Party leader has, in my opinion, sold out her party in this stupid reckless quest to get her own pet system adopted. And, I think greens voted elsewhere accordingly. Fact 1 The referendum in may will offer a choice between retaing the present system (where greens can never win seats) and the stv system (where greens have won and retained seats over the years in ireland). Fact 2 The Citizens assembly are honerable people who didnt bow to political pressure from Miss Carr. All those mmp green presentations. FACT 3 Single transferable vote is not at all adversarial. Most people win seats on the second preferences of other candidates, even those from other partys. Therefore candidates do not generally cast slurrs on other candidates. http://www.greenparty.ie/ has a history section which clearly shows that the greens can prosper under stv. This oppertunity to change the voting system is a once in a lifetime oppertunity! grab it while u can!!

The only difference I see between the liberals and the NDP's is who gets to "clearcut down the trees." The Liberals will contract it out and the NDP will give it to a union job. Either way the ordinary person loses. The NDP hasn't changed. First thing Carole James does is run to her union bosses when she was elected leader. For too long has the regular people of this province suffered while big business and big unions fight. Sure in my opinion Adriane made a mistake but at least it wasnt a fastcat ferry million dollar boondoggle. how about bingo-gate? or the Liberals trashing our social system? Get real people and get out of your left-right/good-bad simplistic view of the world. Vote green.

Please Vote yes in the referendum to change to stv. Stv encourages co operation. Vote splitting doesnt exist there. Read above the nasty comments about different partys. Now, imagine if they had to co operate to exist and to compete. Wouldnt it be a sweeter world? You may say I'm a dreamer but I have lived under stv for 35 years. I know the difference it makes! Vote yes for some harmony in life

Hey Tyee editors; Give rockerbiff his photo credit and let him be on his way. That whine of the unappreciated is a little off key in this swan song for his goddess of green.

I doubt you're bright enough to get it "observer," but I will attempt to explain my post to you. Yes, columnists like palmer (but not myself -I am not a columnist) can be very dangerous, because while they are unbiased, IN COMPARISON, to bottom feeders like john ferry, they are still subject to financial pressure in a very limited job market, especially since the canwest media monopoly has solidified and cohered. They can be therefore pressured to write negative and influential columns, at key moments and junctures, and thereby influence critical outcomes, thereby, making "them all the more dangerous," for their perceived lack of bias by the gullible majority such as yourself. Anyone who wants a closer look at the insider's world inhabited by palmer and smyth should tune in to that talk show on victoria, shaw cable, channel ?, hosted by shaw cable. Palmer and smyth seem to only invite guests like bctv's noxious keith baldrey and others of that ilk, and, in general, radiate a great deal of smugness. Simply because they're the best political columnists canwest has, leaving out such people as the colonist's jack knox and jody patterson, who write more directly on other issues than politics, does not excuse them from critique. It is also noteworthy that until new year, 2004, smyth often slavishly supported gordon campbell, then suddenly began more RELATIVELY fair comment for unknown reasons.

This by-election was won by the best candidate for the riding and that is what local elections are all about. Eventually I hope the best candidate in most ridings will be the Green one.

Adrienne Carr bullied her way into the leadership of the Green Party, she bullied her way into Surrey-Panorama Ridge, and she wants to bully her way into the premiership through her version of PR. Let's call her what she is: a bully. Maybe one day the nice people in the Green Party will wake up and notice it.

It never surprises me that both left and right wing partisans dimiss Greens. I think what Greens in general are trying to do, perhaps more so as a group than a Party, is to move to a politics that is beyond the traditional left vs. right split. Each side always accuses the Greens of lacking integrity becasue they aren't so easily put into either camp. Human society is changing and the politics will change along with it. Being "pro-business" might not be a left wing ideal, but then being "sustainable" hasn't traditionally been so either. Resource sector unions will always be opposed to sustainability, Aboriginal rights, or a litany of other progressive causes if it means lost jobs. The result is a political system that actually supports the larger status quo: industrial-based resource economies, centralized politics. I'm not surprised, but I'm not willing to play the game either. I'm just waiting and working for a time when the fundamentals of everything shift: economy, community, culture, environment, health, business and all the other systems we live with. Perhaps it won't be in my lifetime, but it will happen.

Where the "H" is everyone on the proposed so called new voting system the STV. What's new about it? It looks suspiciously like the voting syetem used in the 1952 BC election. Portional ballot? Where you voted for your candidate once and against him/her three or more times. That voting system was introduced by none other than the old Liberal/Conservative Coalition as a last ditch effort to fool the voters into electing them again. It worked too as it kept out the CCF and gave us Social Credit. Are we seeing the same again from the present coalition? Even though the present government is to arrogant and to petty to recognize Joy and Jenny as the Official Opposition, the NDP win in the Surrey byelection should serve as a reminder that the NDP are not going away, just time for the Corporate Media to crankup the propaganda machine and remind us again of Bingo in 1970 and how good the Greens are today.

Ian Gregson writes: "By all means NDP hacks please believe you will win the next election based on this by-election. I for one will be working and running to prevent it..." Interesting how Ian doesn't say he'll be running to get elected himself, but to help prevent the election of an NDP candidate. I'm sure it was just a "slip of the tongue", but isn't it interesting how Green tongues don't seem to slip and say "we'll be working to stop the Liberals"? gulfislander writes: "Which is it guys, are the Greens vote-splitters who are taking votes from the NDP, or are they representing a right-wing agenda, as many here imply?" It's both. The party (==Adriane Carr) is right wing. Its voters are left wing. (Yes, I know, doesn't make sense. Go figure.) gulfislander continues: "Did she do an exit poll? How does she really know that much of that 8% didn’t come at the expense of the Liberals?" Well, how does Adriane Carr know that the support is drawn equally from right and left? Did _she_ do an exit poll? There are lots of good reasons for feeling that Green supporters are concentrated more heavily on the left. (1) Anecdotally, from meeting and talking to them. (2) Because when the NDP vote goes up, as in this by-election, the Green vote goes down, and vice versa. (3) Because people like Rockerbiff make statements like 'we are going to defeat/supplant/replace the NDP' but never make similar statements targetted at right-wing parties. Rockerbiff also wrote: "The VDLC and Vancouver Teachers Federation endorsed Andrea Reimer in the Vancouver municipal election of 2002." Yes, but that's different because wasn't running _against_ the NDP (or COPE). They endorsed Reimer _and_ all seven COPE candidates. Voters in the election had nine votes.

Ian Gregson writes: "By all means NDP hacks please believe you will win the next election based on this by-election. I for one will be working and running to prevent it..."

Interesting how Ian doesn't say he'll be running to get elected himself, but to help prevent the election of an NDP candidate. I'm sure it was just a "slip of the tongue", but isn't it interesting how Green tongues don't seem to slip and say "we'll be working to stop the Liberals"?

gulfislander writes: "Which is it guys, are the Greens vote-splitters who are taking votes from the NDP, or are they representing a right-wing agenda, as many here imply?" It's both. The party (==Adriane Carr) is right wing. Its voters are left wing. (Yes, I know, doesn't make sense. Go figure.)

gulfislander continues: "Did she do an exit poll? How does she really know that much of that 8% didn’t come at the expense of the Liberals?" Well, how does Adriane Carr know that the support is drawn equally from right and left? Did _she_ do an exit poll?

There are lots of good reasons for feeling that Green supporters are concentrated more heavily on the left. (1) Anecdotally, from meeting and talking to them. (2) Because when the NDP vote goes up, as in this by-election, the Green vote goes down, and vice versa. (3) Because people like Rockerbiff make statements like 'we are going to defeat/supplant/replace the NDP' but never make similar statements targetted at right-wing parties.

Rockerbiff also wrote: "The VDLC and Vancouver Teachers Federation endorsed Andrea Reimer in the Vancouver municipal election of 2002." Yes, but that's different because wasn't running _against_ the NDP (or COPE). They endorsed Reimer _and_ all seven COPE candidates. Voters in the election had nine votes.

Where do the Greens lie politically??? This is very good question. But the question is not an easy one to answer because the terminology of left and right does not usefully mean much any longer. The overlap in politics between the right side of the NDP and the left side of the Liberals is there. IN fact, based on having met many MLAs over the last 10 years that have been in the leg, the majority of them have more in common than what seperates them. The areas of commonality are: Good governance Yes, the execution has problmes. Increasing economic wealth for people in BC Settling Treaties with aboriginal people Sustainable long term forestry Keeping taxes as low as possible and still operate government And ultimately to make BC a better place for them having been MLAs. So where does one put the Greens in this context? This is hard to say because the Greens remain without any realistic platform that can explained to anyone. They could left, right, middle, somewhere on teh left side of Mars - anywhere really. The interesting thing during the Federal election was that the Greens were found to be less pro-environment than the NDP. Greens are the first post-modern political party with no there there. The party is about marketing cute fuziness about a sustainable environment and hoping no one is willing to look at the details. Globally, where Greens manage to become part of government, the politics tend solidify in an relatively authoritarian centrist political party that has a strong anti-union bias.

gordon and the liberals just don't get it,the day after the bi-election they were blaming the indo-canadian community for supporting the ndp.how stupid can the liberals be!since they came into office they have been blaming everyone else for there problems.time to smarten up gordon,your the reason why they did so bad,everyone hates you,except maybe the taxman.

The sum of all these byelection comments seems to be a total inability to recognize and appreciate the idea of a political party that is neither rightwing nor leftwing. For generations the resources and the people of BC have been exploited first by one wing and then by the other, and each time the mantra has been nothing more inspiring or useful than "time for a change"--time for the other side to have a bash before losing the public's support. Maybe the time has come for a REAL change, a change not just to one of the two parties traditionally seeking its turn at the trough. Perhaps, if the shallow and carefully controlled media mouths will co-operate, it's time to spread the truth about the hopes and plans of the Greens. Should they be dismissed as just vote-splitters because they put integrity ahead of political manipulation? As so many Canwest hacks and other open mouths have done, the fashion has been to write off the Greens as one-plank environmentalists, when instead their concern (but only one of many) that BC industry should be conducted in a way that harms the environment as little as possible is necessary and proper in this favored part of the world. The BC Green Party certainly would draw votes from the Liberal camp if this dismissive attitude were to change, for it should be painfully clear to all of us that the greedy agenda of the Campbellites is deeply damaging the natural world that is a vital part of us all. And beyond that, the Green Book outlines a platform that is based neither on socialist policy nor on the blind pursuit of pelf and power.

Ian: municipal and provincial elections are totally different matters. When it comes to first past the post Green vs. NDP vs Liberal, Union locals will always endorse an NDP candidate.

Interesting comments on all sides on this article. It seems to have evolved into the old discussion about what the Greens are all about. My experience is that the Greens receive a big chunk of support not because of any great abilities of leaders or candidates (sorry Ian) or even specific platform items, but because many people what what Greens stand for in principal. A lot of people want less divisive politcs, and many recognize that the 'major' parties are fiddling while the earth burns. This is not meant as a defense of the current state of the BC Green Party. There is a long way to go to articulate a clear vision of what an economy would look like that works in the long term, and how we get there from here. The big advantage the Greens have, however, is that none of the other parties seem to even recognize this issue, but the number of voters that recognize it is steadily increasing. Finally I must note the amusing irony of Julian West writing about how right-wing and anti-ndp the current BC Green Party leadership is. I assume this is the same Julian West who publicly claimed that Adrianne Carr's takeover of the Greens in 2000 was orchestrated by NDP operatives in order to neutralize the threat posed to the NDP by a growing Green Party. I guess things look different from the other side.

You we're right on time Tony Eberts. Julian West bring ups the question about the Green's silence regarding Gordon Campbell and suddenly Tony(the Green)Eberts, knows all to well "the greedy agenda of the Campbellites."***Bernard asks "Where do the Greens lie politically," adding the NDP federally is "greener" than Green, before noting that the Greens really don't have positions on much else. Tony, your response on that one(more Green enviro-rhetoric rather than new specifics on anything else), suggests to me Julian and Berdard are onto something.***Oh and BTW, it would appear Adrianne Carr is certainly experienced enough in politics to have her supporters stay so religiously inside the (party platform) box when speaking or writing publicly on her party. I guess then it's just unfortunate for your "party that is neither rightwing nor leftwing," as you so proudly asserted in your opening above, that Ms. Carr doesn't seem to do the same.

tick, tick, tick...is that Gordon's clock running out?

Either that, N, or something in need of flea powder.

My apologies - I meant to say the Greens will be working hard in their constituencies to prevent a return of both the Liberals and the NDP.

Dear Tyee If you are going to steal a photo from the AdrianeCarr.ca website, you shouldn't display it so prominently on your homepage for all to see. Since the photographer, Ian Gregson, caught your petty larceny, and gave after the fact permission, all I can say is we're flattered that you have visited our website, despite your dishonorable intentions. Maybe your NDP readership should visit and read our platform information. Then they would have genuine information to work with, rather than all the innuendo and falsehoods they prefer to spread. So NDP faithful. Have a peek. Adrianecarr.ca. Green Party. Socially Progressive, Fiscally Conservative. Go figure.

Its such a sad state of affairs in this province that the Green Party is the only moderate party on the ballot. Let that sink in a moment. Our province has become so polarized that the environmental party is the only rational party out there. We prefer to grow small scale local economies rather than focus on big corporations. Don't say that the NDP doesn't support big corporations because you can't have a big union without a big company. Many smaller companies employing more people is not in the best interest of either of the main parties. Small companies don't generate massive profits and don't tend to unionize. The thought of either party in power is frightening. Don't think of the NDP as being your salvation. The people who backed the last 5 NDP premiers are hoping to back lucky #6. There is no reason to expect that the NDP has changed one bit. There is no reason to expect the Liberals to suddenly become honest and caring. They both sound like abusive drunken ex-husbands sobbing at the door for just one more chance. We roll our eyes when a woman gets suckered into opening the door for the abusive ex. Don't get suckered into opening the door for these abusers either.

Dear Web Team: I have a spare picture of Carole James for your GP front page. Could you use it? The face is becoming very familiar......and respected. and to Sue Clark - could not agree more. The polarized nature of politics makes the right wing say that special interest groups are dangerous for BC. I am tempted to agree that right wing special interest groups - the rich and the corporations that the rich control are the people running BC at the moment. That has to be limited....soon. Glen C. is working for the corporate special interest group even though his boss has a certain amount of respect being a local boy with a boat. Time will tell - my projection is similiar to Palmer/Shortie - the NDP will do serious damage but leave Gordo in the driver's seat for 4 more years.

Speaking of Glen Clark. Wasn't he leader of the NDP. Now he's working for whom? Jimmy Pattison? Desanj, ex NDP premier. Now he's working for whom? Paul Martin? Harcourt? Didn't he arrest all the folks at Clayquot? NDP serves who? New NDP? Same as the old NDP. Serving a corporate master.

Its interesting to note that most Tyee readers are either Green's or NDP'ers, I don't see any Liberals out there speaking up.

Hey adriannecarr.ca people wanna pay the tyee back? Just post this on a message board, brings IE and Mozilla to a screeching halt.

HTML> HEAD> MARQUEE> TABLE> MARQUEE HEIGHT=100000000> MARQUEE HEIGHT=100000000> MARQUEE HEIGHT=100000000> MARQUEE HEIGHT=100000000> MARQUEE HEIGHT=100000000> MARQUEE HEIGHT=100000000> MARQUEE HEIGHT=100000000> MARQUEE HEIGHT=100000000> MARQUEE HEIGHT=100000000> MARQUEE HEIGHT=100000000> MARQUEE HEIGHT=100000000> TBODY> Attack of the marquees!

Hey, Mr. "I eat websites for breakfast":

How does it feel to be a complete nerd?

Honestly, IEWFB, it's time to take a long look in the mirror. Get a life.

Also: I've always respected the Greens, but Carr has got to go. She's just way too annoying. Did anybody catch her hand-wringing routine after the Citizen's Assembly for Electoral Reform released their report? Barf.

And furthermore: Gordon Campbell will win again.

Have you noticed that the irish green party (successful under STV) http://www.greenparty.ie/ has the words green party prominently in the name? while the phoney bc version Adrianecarr.ca. has no mention of the green party? By the way, single transferable vote is nothing like the old system used in bc. As far as I am concerned, green partys will never be more than a bit player in any electoral system.But under the stv system, very important bit players. (I voted for Nuala Ahern in 94) You know, a green who actually mattered! Again, I repeat my call to the greens, FIRE Adriane Carr, support the yes vote in the referendum and insure the survival of the green party as a real political entity (With people elected in the ledge). Following A Carr in calling for no change will get you a place in green history As the maddest greens of them all! Lets commit political suicide for our leader! Yes, it will get you to green heaven! One question, will A Carr be sitting on the left or right hand side of David Ikke? Which one gets to play god?

Grant Fraser, I am going to use your logic and argue the Green party supports big polluters because you can't have an organization fighting pollution without big polluters. How about Temperance ladies love the hard stuff cause you can't have sin and damnation without sin and damnation providers.. Oh, here's an even better one 'the poor and oppressed really support Gordon Campbell because without his government they would have no one to feel anger toward.' I realize you are Green and you are anti-union, but please try to think your arguments through a bit before laying it out..Arguing that unions like big business is like saying firefighters love hellfires or cops love crooks.

Doug Warkentin wrote: Finally I must note the amusing irony of Julian West writing about how right-wing and anti-ndp the current BC Green Party leadership is. I assume this is the same Julian West who publicly claimed that Adrianne Carr's takeover of the Greens in 2000 was orchestrated by NDP operatives in order to neutralize the threat posed to the NDP by a growing Green Party.

I have never claimed that Carr's takeover was coordinated by the NDP. I did once tell a reporter that the infighting which Carr was conducting to seize control of the party was destabilizing it, and that the ultimate beneficiary of this might be the NDP. I went so far as to suggest that a _cui_bono_ argument could be made to support the idea that NDP sympathizers might be behind it, but added that I had no concrete information one way or the other.

If Carr had been honest enough to put herself out before the members of her own party and state what she was doing, and why she thought it mattered, then we wouldn't have been in a situation where party officials were left scrambling to explain to the media what was going on. Conspiracy theories abounded, because none of it seemed to make any sense.

It turned out after the fact that the whole thing was motivated by Carr's personal ambition and greed. It seemed like such a petty thing to rip a political party in half over, that nobody could believe that this was the true motivation. But, after the fact, it was clear that that was what had happened, and at that point I said so.

I never once, after the facts were in, tried to turn it into a conspiracy theory. I just called it for what it was, a shoddy little affair.

I'm happy to see that, after Carr's thoroughly self-centred and unprofessional response to the Citizens' Assembly recommendations, others are also coming to the conclusion that Adriane Carr is in politics first, foremost and exclusively, to promote Adriane Carr.

Speaking of shoddy little affairs and self centered responders, Julian West is in a league of his own. A one time "Green" who left the party in a snit because his authoritarian little group of insiders didnt win a leadership race, he proceeded to move chameleon like to the NDP. At the same time he made life hell for the Green party of Canada before they finally turfed him. It was a fitting end for such a misunderstood and tortured soul and we all hope the ndp gains the full measure of his esteemed counsel.

The commentary here seems to be a perfect demonstration of why we all need to vote for Pro-rep next May. We need a system in place that forces people to work together. The NDP can't just wish the Greens away and vice versa.

Under the current dysfunctional system we get party hacks bickering with each other, over their little political fiefdoms. Ironically, most of these Greens and NDPers would probably be closer to each other politically than either would be to a real live Neo-con.

And the neo-cons love nothing better than sitting and watching us bitching at each other and exaggerating each others positions, while they set things up to hand over even more of BC to their corporate pals.

I don't really give a damn whether the NDP or the Green Party exists at all or goes to hell together. I want social justice and a halt to the rape of our environment. I want to attempt to undue the damage that Campbell has done.

Some of the people in these parties need to grow up and to quit playing games while our province is being looted.

Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me.

Don't think I've said that since grade 3, but really Stuart that's about the level of argumentation we are at.

The various Greens calling me names ("chameleon", "tortured", "authoritarian") on here are (1) generally not signing with their full names, and/or (2) getting all their facts wrong. The fac t that "Stuart" calls the takeover in 2000 a "leardship race" is a subtle piece of whitewashing which he is using to sanitize the event for his own conscience and to reassure others. In fact, the takeover was in March (at which point I tore up my membership card) and the leadership race didn't happen until September.

This might sound like nitpicking, but I find it revealing that my attackers can't get even basic facts right. If you participate in a leadership race and lose, you are obliged to turn around and support the leader. (Are you telling me Adriane Carr will do that if she ever loses the leadership of her party?) But that isn't what happened here. Adriane Carr and her crew engineered a takeover and muscled (almost) every single person off the board. People who have been muscled out are in no obligation to support the new "regime".

You can call me a chameleon, but my beliefs and principles haven't changed one jot. It just became crystal clear that the NDP is the only party in this province where one has the luxury of having principles these days. I'm not the only one who has remarked that it is the Green Party itself which has changed its spots.

Nor am I the only one to have remarked that it is, in fact, under Adriane Carr that the party is run by an authoritarian in-group. I hear this all the time from people I've never met, who have never heard of me, and know nothing about the infighting in 1999/2000. My problem with Adriane Carr is not and never has been sour grapes because I happened to be one of the people she had to step on in order to grab power. My criticisms of Carr are rooted in the things she is doing wrong in the here and now.

I'm confident that if I continue to stick to my principles, in spite of all the name-calling from Greens who can't bring themselves to construct actual rebuttals to my accusations, that history will vindicate me on this.

I know this thread is alienating some who see it as partisan bickering between rivals in two different political parties. But I trust and believe that there are others who understand that this kind of political debate matters, and who are searching for the truth.

"I don't really give a damn whether the NDP or the Green Party exists at all or goes to hell together. I want social justice and a halt to the rape of our environment. I want to attempt to undue the damage that Campbell has done." writes gulfislander.

With which I agree entirely with gulfislander.

First, there is no question but that the Green Party has the right to exist and run its own candidates, when and where it please. NDpers can question the wisdom of that if they please, but this tendency to hysterical intolerance of any other "would be" progressive manifestation besides their own, daring so much as to presume to share the public stage with them, is extremely damaging, especially to the NDP itself actually.

NDPers really do need to learn to accept the fact that other ideas about current politics and the future will exist, besides just their own. Nobody has granted, nor has the NDP any particular right of claim to a "monopoly" of the left, the progressive or NGO movements of the people.

When the NDP gets that through its too often thick skull, we may be able to get to a point where collaborative alliances can be built, capable of working cooperatively together in tne ProRep environment of the future, that will begin to drive back the rising extreme right, and make advances on the really big problems facing our society and its people.

It is my own view, that the future will be better served by a multiplicity of views, ideologies and available strategies on the left, than what has become the only sterile electoral careerist "social democratic" one of the NDP by itself. If it can all, however, or major parts of it, including some of the radical fractional elements, be brought together in some kind of, even a loose "co-operative" working arrangement in the beginning, in my view, the better we will be positioned to defeat the neocon right, roll back the negative effects they have had on public policy, and create a secure, non-threatened environment for social progress into the future.

The NDP really does need to begin to get over being so full of itself, however.

That said, just because of where we are at in this province, I continue to intend to vote NDP next election, as purely a strategic voting decision in current circumstances. About which I am not entirely happy.

Along with that, however, I recognize, that the Greens or any other body on the left have as much legitimate right to disagree and advance their own agendas. The NDP is owed nothing. Though we can quarrel about the wisdom of that. :-)

Most of the comments that followed mine appear to confirm my suspician that totally polarized brains are incapable of picturing a political party which is neither left nor right. The message of Allan--difficult as it is to winkle out a cogent point--suggests that by bringing in the environmental aspect of the party I am undermining the rest of the Green platform. Perhaps I'm wrong to assume that anyone discussing the aims and qualities of the party would have at least read its 2001 Green Book. Perhaps there are indeed zipper-minded debaters who use their own ignorance as a major weapon. God knows they have plenty of ammunition if that is the case. Should I have transcribed all 44 pages of the Green Book to show its well balanced approach to good government, stimulating the economy and improving quality of life? Yeah, right. I take issue with the personal attacks by West and others on the character of Adriane Carr, founder of the Green Party of B.C. Such unprincipled action betrays not just a lack of ethics but a kind of desperate bitterness that should have no place in this forum or in this province. You clearly do not know Carr's motivations, and by claiming that you do, you destroy your credibility--if indeed you ever had any.

This whole discussion aptly demonstrates what is wrong with politics in this country (and the one south to us as well). It is no wonder that the largest single group of voters is the non-voter. What I and many are seeking now is someone, or some group, with a vision that is markedly different than what is displayed here. This province is just getting too crowded to adequately contain all these big political egos.

Tony Eberts, I'll unzip just long enough for you to slowly explain to me some of the Green platform. Please give me the party's stand on anti-scab legislation. If you could, please tell me if the Green Party does not bill itself as pro-business? Kindly explain how anyone with enough active brain cells to vote would trust a party that claims to be neither leftwing nor rightwing to know what side of the road, or for that matter, which direction it is going? In short, don't like leftwing or rightwing, then perhaps you might explain: is it progressive, regressive, confused or simply attempting to avoid really spelling out what it stands for and when? Tony, go back to your theories and stay out of the real world where left and right will always bump up against the middle and any idiot dumb enough to claim it as his or her personal domain.

Tony, are you claiming that Ms. Carr founded the party? This admittedly open-source and editable article at Wikipedia claims that it was founded in 1982. This is borne out by my own experience, visiting a small group of activists in Victoria who claimed to represent the Green Pary of BC, and were organizing for the 1983 election. Adrienne Carr's name did not appear in their literature....

I'm with Coyote and GulfIslander on this one. I don't care who allegedly splits votes from whom: diversity is good. And I don't care who screwed whom in the slightly sordid history of the provincial Greens, (which is nothing in comparison to the even more sordid history of the provincial NDP). I voted strategically in '01 (Sorry Ian/Rockerbiff, you just didn't cut it against Joy), and I'll do so again in 05, looking forward to '09 when I can choose from several candidates, possibly Green, NDP or Indy, and rank them according to my preference.

All this finger-pointing btw NDP and Green party insiders is becoming mere noise.

I suggest a new term for the bc greens: "greenwashing," to replace the whitewashing they obviously find old-fashioned. To greenwash something, simply deny your own history, avoid at all costs the facts that your federal wing is led by a former mike harris tory, -you know the tories who sold some of ontario hydro, gutted polution laws and asssaulted the most vulnerable to pay for a taxcut for the wealthy- greenwash the fact that carr is a spoiled yuppie elitist "who trusts business to do the right thing," (just like gordon liar) who thinks she IS the bc party, and most of all refuse to ever comment or change the subject hurriedly whenever rightwing assaults on womwen, youth, the poor, the disabled, and the sick, and the dying and the old is the topic. Just greenwash, by pretending you're above all of that and that vaguely progressive, ill-defined "policy" is a magic wand that you can wave over social problems, causing them to simply disappear. Just greenwash it! And most of all, never stand for anything but the vague and ill defined, and NEVER, EVER, stand to the wealthy, no matter who gets hurt. The greens should have another coup like carr's and turn their party over to true progressives, like phil legood and chris shaw, but that would take guts and integrity. I can tell you one thing for certain: if the greens are so selfish as to be responsible for gordon liar's reelection, it will finish the bc greens forever...

Julian West I did not post the previous comment, someone is having fun at everyone's expense , They are either 1) Moral Cowards, 2) Complete idiots as they are wreaking a truly democratic forum, maybe that's their intention. 3) This idiot has no one else to support his point of view so he starts to make up supporters. What a Joke. Hey folks lets not rip each other apart, And by the Way Barbara McLintock THE GREENS WERE NOT THE BIG LOSERS THE BC LIBERALS WERE. All the money Ads, and visits from the premiere and they lost hands down, This is good news folks for the NDP and Greens, maybe one day we can get together and build a coalition. Don't let idiots wreak The celebration, BC Liberal Fundamentalist Mary Polak LOST, even her mother in law thinks This is good news. IN short no Liberal seat is safe, Good work fellow lefties.

The question that Mr. Eberts raised - which Allan answered with wisdom - is that the Greens fail to define themselves and fail to excel on the very principle on which they claim to sprout (i.e. - the environment). Thus, the greens are positionless, visionless, and "green-less" - in fact, Joan Russow said as much in her own words and clearly addressed the issue: NDP vs Green - who is Greener? (rabble.ca - june 21, 04: http://www.rabble.ca/in_her_own_words.shtml?sh_itm=287599993dd0a959f8 6cd63e95d0e34a&r=1) It is a good read for anyone still disillusioned as to "green" policy. Having said that, I have to accept that having the greens present have inadvertantly made the NDP's environmental policies so much stronger and have focused their committment to sustainability. It would be more of a blow to society if there wasn't a conservative party to also split the Liberal vote - but as we have it - we are split fairly enough - if the Provincial liberals didn't lie about having a conscience, that is. It is tiresome hearing about all those disenfranchised souls who don't have a "representative" in government who reflects their vision of society. Perhaps becoming more proactive instead of reactive on things going on around you would help soothe those sorrows. Get involved and vocalize and mobilize your grand ideas rather than expecting someone to materialize to solve your troubles for you.

Good comment, Stuart. I was drawn into a silly dispute by people who have no understanding of the word "discussion." The main point is that the B.C. Green Party (conceived Feb. 4, 1983, by Adriane Carr, Paul George, Richard Krieger and 14 others) has every right to exist in the gaping space between the socialists and the industrialists. If it draws more votes from the LEFT than from the RIGHT, so be it. In time, the concept of a movement that isn't committed solely to the labor unions or to the exploiters of natural resources may be accepted. Meanwhile, as Stuart says, let's celebrate the happy fact that Gordon Campbell has taken a swift one in the eye. Barbara, I fear, slaved too long for a rightwing paper to be able to pin the "loser" label in the right place.

A discussion? Is that what you call it Tony? "The sum of all these byelections comments seems to be an inability to recognize and appreciate a political party that is neither rightwing nor leftwing,"you open with self-righteous sermonizing. Next posting and the same potential discussion participants are encouraged to accept that their brains are just too rattled to see perfection when presented with the TRUTH. I don't mind the silly name calling Tony, but please don't blame others for your silly incurions into this discussion, debate, debacle, dispute, or maybe you were merely venting the frustrations of another loss. You can call it what you want. I understand the word "discusion" as well as I understand the term "political-fence-sitting". Some call it "neither rightwing nor leftwing", others, like Tony Blair, call it the middle path.(It's got him to Bahgdad and interesting times at home so far.) I call it snake oil Tony. Infact it's a very old bottle of snake oil used for eons by each new batch of political purists bent on squeezing us all into that ever-so-Utopian middle ground they dream of championing. Oh, I see you took a cheap shot at Barbara as well, but I won't bother attempting to "discuss" that charming little bit. I'm sure it was her review of your leader's results that have you still sputtering. But Tony Eberts, you of all people should appreciate how hard it is to give a glowing review.

"...brains are incapable of picturing a political party which is neither left nor right." writes my learned friend, Tony Eberts.

And you are right on this one, Tony. Which, while I think Greens represent an attempt at a "fundamentally" progressive strain in politics, is the basic source of my disagreement with you folks. (And I say that in a friendly, not "attacking" manner and intent.)

This notion that one can stand above the, as I call it, mud, blood and beer fight that inevitably goes on within society between right and left is a myth-, and a failure to understand the underlying significance of "right" and "left" within philosophy and politics. It is an "intellectual illusion" to which the well intended but naive, generally the relatively privileged kids of wealthy lawyers, doctors, academics and bureaucrats, over-educated and sheltered are most prone-, in my experience.

What you fail to see and understand from that social strata's perspective, again, in my experience and observation of it, is that "typically", as a general rule, with those "exceptions" that always exist in phenomena and serve to prove the rule, the divisions between right and left in politics mirror the real social class divisions within society. Such as exist between the ruling class and its strata on the right to centre-right, and those that identify with them and choose to serve them, yes, sometimes even elements of the non-class concious working class and disposessed strata, which can even include such as the Brownshirt fascist element, whom we see here from time to time. More typically, one hopes anyway :-) the "labouring" working class, particularly its class concious element, the main body of the disposessed, along with its intellectual and some other "professional" strata, who don't come to identify with the ruling class, line up in various positions along the centre, centre-left, and radical left spectrum.

And that reality, my friend, I suggest to you, whatever one's best intentions and desire to remain "above it all", crowds out the real possibility of that, at least for very long. For real life always sooner or later reasserts itself over wishful thinking. (I know. :-)

The important thing to keep in mind, of course, is that this is not an entirely static, as in fixed phenomena, but constantly in motion, in a state of flux within society. When the capitalist system is performing well, and willing and able to pass out goodies, and cut deals with the lower working classes and its associated "intellectual/professional strata", more of this latter class will tend to "feel better" about its role in society, and to want to make peace with, please, and draw close to the ruling class at the top of the food chain. At least, that has been the historical record tendency to here.

When that "largesse" of the ruling capitalist class begins to be withdrawn, however, and it is no longer willing to "share" its ownership of the social-economic product with the lower classes, then the class divide begins to become clearer again, and open up into outright conflict and bitter competition for "share", and attention to ones particular class and social interests. Such a period we have been embarked upon, with the class divide growing steadily wider, since the reappearance of so-called neo-liberal economics and neocon/neofascist political ideology within capitalism, starting about in the late 1970s.

When a would-be political movement fails to understand this "class" reality, which grounds realpolitik within capitalist society, and determines one's placement on the political spectrum, as I suggest is the case with at least the predominant element within the Greens, or so it appears, such a movement MAY have a passing appeal, but it will never, or unlikely for long connect with the lives of the mass of people, such as any serious political movement, sooner or later, has to be able to do. Though it would almost certainly fare better in "good" times.

That is the fundamental problem with the Greens. It is also the underlying explanation for, what I suggest, is the decline of the NDP currently underway, because it too has been tending to move away from its class roots for a very long time, substituting the transient illusion of "compromise" careerist politics in its place-, though it MAY/hopefully get a briefly renewed lease on life in this next election. (Strategic voting, and a social situation that weighs heavy the need to choose between lesser evils on people's minds, is a popsicle stick house built on sand, I think. It cannot long stand of its own. People, evidenced even here, are already beginning to look around for more.)

I hope you don't take umbrage to my own personal observations about the Greens, my friend, and the socio-political factors limiting them. They are advanced entirely in the spirit of friendly discourse.

allan, you are missing the point. An NDP government will look at a stand of trees and decide that only union people can cut them down, A Liberal government will decide that only the highest bidder can cut them down. Both governments keep increasing the annual allowable cut. Both governments keep increasing the number of raw logs being exported. Thats how they are more alike than different. The NDP will look after the interests of the biggest forestry companies because those companies are unionized. A community forestry project may employ more people locally and be better for the local economy but if they don't unionize the NDP won't care. There is nothing wrong with a union. It is a good self defence mechanism against bad management. Whether or not to form a union is up to the workers in that company. The problem that I have with the NDP is that they interfere with the process and find ways to actively promote unions and unionized companies. If Skeena Celulose were non-union the NDP would not have kept bailing it out. The Liberals are just as bad in the other direction, actively finding ways to bust unions. The government should not be involved except to define a set of labor laws that is fair to both sides, not obviously slanted one way or the other.

By the same logic you're following, Grant - the Greens will let anyone willing to pay the "green tax" to cut down the same tree. To quote directly from a former Greener (Joan Russow) who is disillusioned with the stance the Green Party is taking on both the social and environmental progress of our society: "Along with the WTO and so-called “free trade,” ISO 14000 is a centre-piece of the corporate agenda. It is the corporate scheme of voluntary compliance. In ISO 14000, polluters set their own environmental management objective, and the means to attain it — with no external evaluation. For example, one company claimed that it was reducing greenhouse gases by moving more towards civil nuclear energy. It is quite possible that Green Party candidates or the public may not realize the implications of what the party is supporting through its endorsement of ISO 14000. In the 2004 NDP election platform, the NDP makes a commitment to reverse years of government procrastination arising from collusion with corporations and their agenda of voluntary compliance. The NDP platform calls for “overhauling the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to reverse the current focus on voluntary action, and replace it with mandatory pollution prevention measures for corporations and institutions” and enforce the polluter-pay principle." -'nough said

Creepdom, indeed. I can't think of a better motivator for working to elect greens, and to work alongside Adriane in her constituency, as I do, than scanning the sanctimonious NDP piffle that passes for discourse here. It is said the NDP eat their dead and most of you people have demonstrated that ability to an exxceptional degree. Actually, I work for the Greens because their platform - which I have helped to draft - embodies moderate, progressive policies that embrace both the left and right spectrum of political interest. Yes, that includes people who are engaged in enterprise and business, comme moi, who work to start businesses and hire people ... and many who also work for progressive social change. I doubt most of you (any of you?) have actually grokked the GP platform, so, my brothers and sisters, I invite you to disengage from your pissing contest, read the platform, and contribute something useful, besides acrimony, to our important political debates.

"Along with the WTO and so-called “free trade,” ISO 14000 is a centre-piece of the corporate agenda." quotes Shirin, of Joan Russow.

A very good piece, Shirin, with a very telling point. "Some call it "neither rightwing nor leftwing", others, like Tony Blair, call it the middle path.(It's got him to Bahgdad and interesting times at home so far.) I call it snake oil Tony." said Allan.

Over which I am still chuckling Allan.

If our Green friends are going to give it, with which I have no problem, they must also be able to stand and take it. There is acrimony from some on both sides, no doubt, but such as Allan, Shirin, Deeby and Gulfislander, amongst others, I think, are serving up reasoned fare they must be able to likewise respond to civilly.

Separating the wheat from the chaff, I think there has been many a useful and worthwhile point made here, and I am actually enjoying most of the discussion.

Grant Fraser: When you say "whether or not to form a union is up to the workers in that company" and that "the NDP interfere with that process by promoting unions" and that "the government should just define a set of labor laws that is fair to both sides" - That is the greenest, most naive, head in the clouds, yuppie claptrap I have ever heard. First of all, there already are labor laws, but they are often abused and government's are notorious for looking the other way. You should take note of Allan's reply to your quite astounding belief "that unions love big business so they can have big unions!" Who knew?! That must explain Wal-mart and why it is such a massive recruitment center for unions...worldwide! And for the rest of those poor workers still without a union? Tell them about your green philosophy that "if you want a union you can have one"... that you'll go with them to the boss's office...where he'll receive you with a tender smile... and some green tea and cookies ...delivered by Glinda the Good Witch of the North...and that after the princely boss (mixing fairy tales, now) finds the perfect fit for his glass slipper... you'll not only have a new shop steward but... like green magic! You'll have a union! No problem. No fuss. Whatsoever.

"That is the greenest, most naive, head in the clouds, yuppie claptrap I have ever heard." wrote Lynn.

Whooosh. Hard to believe anyone not actually one of the Brownshirs who show up here, seriously said that. And which is not to say that unions can't and don't come in for their share of legitimate criticism here.

That line of Grant's, however and unfortunately, was the most complete demonstration to date, of how divorced from the lives of ordinary working people "many", and I concede "not all", of these Green ones are. Shake your head Grant. You did about the biggest disservice to your Green cause here, that could possibly have been done.

That demonstrated more dramatically and accurately than any words, that again, "many" of you carrying the Green banner are far and away removed from being "above" it all, like airy fairies, unsoiled by the real "class" world. You personally don't have a hope in Hell in this venue. Besides, you will feel much more at home in some other Chamber of Commerce inspired discussion site, no doubt.

If you want a voice in the ledge, election after this one (mr and miss green) please vote yes in the referendum. Pro rep will NOT be on the agenda. Please read up on what your choice will be at the web site below. http://www.citizensassembly.bc.ca/public

Well, goodnight. Big stubborn sore losers more likely. Anyway, do 2 good things in your life. Remove Carr and campaign for a yes vote in the referendum. Whether you are Green, BClib or Ndp, it will make for politics where you enhance the similaritys rather than exagerate the differences between your partys.

ROTFL - Me? A yuppie? I support a family of 5 on $12/hr and I drive a beaten up old Yugo. Most of my clothes are second hand. I live in a small town where many of us are underemployed. I'm not even old enough to be a yuppie. And no, I don't shop at walmart. When I lived in Vancouver there was all this free on the job training in aluminium welding to people who were building the fast cats. The hitch was that in order to qualify you had to have been a member of some specific unions before the announcement was made. How was that fair and impartial? If this was really about class warfare then perhaps the NDP could have said the training was limited to low income people. My issue isn't with the unions. My issue is with the way the NDP gives preferential treatment to them. My issue is with the way the Liberals gave golden parachutes to hospital board executives saying that they can't just break a contract then tearing up the HEU contract right after that. Why is it so hard to imagine being fair? Just because it hasn't been done doesn't mean it can't be. I have the right to demand integrity. I've seen what the NDP has done and I've seen what the Liberals have done and I don't think either is fit to govern.

BTW - I am trying to organise a Yes campaign locally. We have gone so far as to invite the NDP and Liberals to pass the word on to their members.

Grant -- where are you located? I'd like to make contact with as many "yes" campaigners as possible.

Grant- You make some good points in this comment. And I apologize for the yuppie remark...too many lost hopes in US election results leading to too much impatience on my part. However, for the record, unions contribute less than 5% of the funding to the NDP, the rest comes from individuals, so despite the usual tossed - about propaganda, the strength of the NDP is really based in individuals. The unions gave a lot of their votes, an overwhelmingly number of them, to the BCliberals last time - so I guess the term "preferential treatment" has a wide interpretation.

I'm not a union member but I believe in them. The NDP, the Greens, the unions, none are perfect, but your previous comment reflects that you do not understand, yet, the guts and courage, indeed the complexity, it takes to start a union and to stand by one, often against enormous odds and poisonous arrows shot from the corporate world. That's why unions often protect themselves - why some jobs are union jobs and hard won ones, battles fought that you may not even be aware of. Parties like the NDP, to their credit, have a long history of supporting workers' rights, and the union card is often used for or against them depending on "who wants to support" or "who wants to slander". Let's hope the future will hold more innovative means to get us all through this impasse.( Reading the article on Avi Lewis and Naomi Klein in the Tyee is a good start.)

Lynn, you should be careful when you speak of propaganda. You should get your facts staight first. Individual donations to the NDP are 85% and labor is 10%. And what is not counted is the work donated by organized labor. Offices, phone banks and callers, canvassers. Organized labor is the backbone of the NDP, without which it would be a less effective force. Labor puts the troops on the ground, just like it did in Surrey for the byelection. Your comments about Unions shows your naievete. Stick by them despite their duplicity? No more than one should stand by a flawed business. Grant is right. Unions are simply another business partner happy to build another mall, big box store, highway to hell, or business tower. It is simply a fight over who gets the spoils of this capitalist feeding frenzy. ps see bcfacts.org for less biased info than you have supplied.

Any discussion dominated by people whose minds are incapable of original thought is both useless and annoying. This is what will condemn us to endlessly continue the left, right, left, right march, in a small circle, of our "leadership"--which will never try to see beyond the next election. By the way, Coyote, are you related to the late W.A.C. Bennett? That "my friend" bit was one of his favorites and always reflected the sincerity of his message. Always sure of his intellectual superiority, he never hesitated to be patronizing to the lesser folk who strayed from the well-beaten path of political conformity.

Grant Fraser. I appreciate your idealism. It is certainly needed at a time like this when it seems the only thing that counts is the size of the warchest. But you appear have fallen into the rhetoric trap that snares so many who use poorly thought out examples to argue your case. Yes the NDP government did bail out Skeena. Given that there were thousands of jobs across the north and many communities dependant on Skeena's continue operation for taxes etc., what would the Green Party have done? Abandon the region and give residents a one-way bus ticket to a nice litle green community near Victoria? And yes, BC should have fair labour laws. But guess what Grant, your party's Green book really doesn't speak to that issue, which is quite surprising given that this province has been locked in a battle over the rights of workers since before confederation. Tell me Grant; why is it that a group of workers who decide by majority to get together and bargain collectively, must jump through Labour Relations Board hoops, fend of unfair interference of employers and then hold a vote in hostile territory just to prove they meant what they did when they signed union membership cards? Go ahead an dream of your Utopia. I encourage this especially if you are raising a family and want to see a better day. But put down the Green book and pick up a history text or two on BC and you might soon appreciate why many union people, among others, support a party that might be seen by some as having warts. That's known as life. All political parties have warts, just like all humans have shortcomings, which I hope isn't news to you.***Now to Mr. Greenjeans, who has proven that sanctimonious piffle isn't just an NDP phenomena, perhaps you could rise above your sense of self-righteousness and explain what is wrong with union members deciding to help a political party that best represents them? Mr Greenjeans, please identify who in the labour movement has endorsed your party's platform policies as moderate and progressive? I am not a member of any political party, but if I were searching for such a home, your sales pitch, even without your poorly disguised dislike for anything union, has convinced me to stick to the ones in the pink underwear.***Robert East, you are the classic example of a Green. You and your colleagues swear by all that is pristine that you are a balanced party and then you come out with an insulting and, quite frankly, a really dumb accusation that unions are really capitalist bedfellows. Yes it would be nice to have a good discussion about BC politics, but it would seem you Greenies think BC history goes back only to Adrianne Carr's first political misstep.

Robert East: I'll stick by my facts. Despite your nonsensical rhetoric, union contributions represent less than 5% of the funding to the NDP. But let's, for argument's sake, give you the extra 5% so that unions are 10% as you suggest of the contributions to the NDP. Wow! You call that a backbone of the NDP, a 10% contribution?! Hardly! That also means 90% of the contributions came almost entirely from individual supporters. Quite democratic I'd say. Thank you for helping me prove my point.

The BCliberals raised 300 times as much from businesses as the NDP. So that may explain why unions were well organized in Surrey - they have seen the enemy and it is Gordo, whose cabinet troops turned up in full regalia along with their Commander, and whose funding is supplied by the greatest unions of all: banks, corporations, chambers of commerce, and networks of wealthy and wealthier friends. Now that's a real capitalist feeding frenzy.

The Greens, of course, have no capitalists in their party, right? ( Forget their t-shirt that says "we trust business to do the right thing." ) Only pure thoughts and Easter Bunnies. Keep believing in the Adrienne party, Mr. East, may your feet never touch the ground.

Quote directly from the 2001 Green book - Supporting Workers rights to an index linked minimum wage, full wage for mandatory training period, enact workplace democracy legislation, enact whistle blower legislation, extend the Labour Code to part time, contract and casual workers. The Green Party of BC does not accept donations from unions or corporations. I can't recall which union it was but it was offereing to pay the wages of its members whilst working on the NDP by election campaign. Debra MacPherson [BCNU] is speaking at the upcoming Green Party AGM in Victoria.

Thank you rockerbiff. I would certainly be interested in having your party's proposals on expanding workplace democracy legislation more clearly explained. I would also like to know if that means the Greens would amend the Labour Code to ensure when a majority of workers sign union membership cards that their decisions are accepted (subject to verification) as their clear and honest intentions without the charade of a run-off vote on worker loyalties in the hostile atmosphere of their employers place of business. (In other words a return to the workplace democracy that was in place before Gordon Campbell interferred in the code on behalf of employers. You say Debra McPherson will be speaking at you AGM. Is she speaking as a Green supporter, a union leader or as an individual and are you mentioning her because the BC Nurses Union has officially endorsed the Greens? I'm curious.

It's interesting to note that the the new drafted version of the NDP's Environment Policy reads like the Greens...but can the NDP deliver...they've concentrated the ownership of BC's resources in too few foreign companies, they've brought the worst of the worst multinational corporate marketers to town with their Olympic fetish (destroying mountain slopes), they signed an MOU (Joy and Glen) with a rail transit corporations that has not been in the best financial or environmental interest of BC. Just about all of the BC Liberals economic development plan was initiated by the NDP (Glen and Joy) - Olympics, ski resorts (on native land and pristine remote mountainous areas) and rail projects that don't serve the masses or the best interest of the environment. Maybe their adoption of the Green's environment policy will make them look good but the proof is in the pudding.

Allan - new policies are on the way, my educated guess is on expanded versions of the ones I quoted. The GPBC policies were written prior to gutting of the Labour Code by Campbell, Presumably this is were the GPBC would base future policies on. No idea on the background of why Ms MacPherson is speaking at the Green Party AGM. However, that being said in 2001 I attended the BC Fed Political Action Day and was amazed to see a rep from BCNU stand up and demand some recognition of other political entities other than the NDP, specifically the Greens [in name]. She got a standing ovation from some - brought a tear to my eye :-) However, her suggestion was promptly ignored by grand poo-bah Sinclair as they once again entered into the boudoir with Joy and Jenny.

In my experience, the green party is only supported by the elite and idealist. After all, some policies come about only if you can afford them. Idealists, well, they don't have much to worry about but themselves. I just can't find myslef supporting them. Our local Fed Green candidate has said that he just can't help but use pesticides, sometimes it's necessary. This when municipalites all over Canada are banning them. You can always justify anything. Our society is built on the middle class. The rich really don't contribute all that much. I personally, live next to multi-millionares, and they are as cheap as they come. Ask any small business owner. The ones who don't pay are the rich. They are also the Green party members. Without a solid foundation, your house will fall down. We need to support the working class family and all they do to keep BC healthy. Ignore them, and it all falls down. This is not achieved by $6.00 an hour. Hating unions is the same as not wanting your neighbor to keep a roof over his families head. This is the role they play. Sure they can get 'political', but what is the alternative?. If it weren't for them, Grant you would not be making $12.00 an hour. You would be paid far less. You can't trust business to pay a decent wage out of the 'goodness of their little hearts'. How many corporations do you know that are politically correct and care about their employees? Employess are a not an asset to most companies, only another cost to their bottom line. We need to care about our Mother Earth, our neighbours and our future. What else is there?

The NDP’s decline in political influence has been paralleled by that of the trade unions. Like the NDP, the unions have moved sharply to the right, collaborating hand-in-glove with big business in the imposition of mass layoffs, wage cuts and speed-up. As a result they too have experienced a dramatic decline in working class participation and support, although this has been somewhat masked due to automatic dues check-off (the Rand Formula.) In the early 1990s, under conditions of the worst slump in Canada since the Great Depression, working people brought the NDP to power in Ontario, British Columbia and Saskatchewan; thus representing more than half the country’s entire population. The hopes that the NDP would protect them from the slump were quickly dashed. The NDP governments imposed massive public and social spending cuts, wage cuts and wage austerity, and parroted the rhetoric of the right on everything from welfare reform to law and order. The Ontario and British Columbia NDP governments paved the road to power for governments of unabashed reaction committed to destroying what remains of the welfare state. Despite all the talk about progressive NDP policies, their action speaks much louder than words. You can't fight the right by becoming them. Ask the US Democrats and the current BC NDP.

------Stop the progress Vote N.D.P.--------