Opinion

Corky Evans on Making the Woods Work

Markets are good, logging can be honourable, and the left must lay claim to the language of the right to achieve its goals.

By Don Gayton, 12 May 2005, TheTyee.ca

Evans

Evans: The debate has to evolve

Text size:

Rate this:

Login/Register

Forestry and resource management -- trees and water -- are highly political issues in B.C. But politics is never stagnant. People, ideas, and political landscapes are as changeable and dynamic as a mountain stream. Corky Evans, Slocan Valley resident and former NDP agriculture minister, leadership candidate, and MLA for Nelson-Creston, is running to reclaim his seat from the Liberals in the provincial election. Evans, a former logger, has seen more than his share of forestry disputes in the riding. Those disputes illuminate some fundamental issues that affect our political and social landscape, as he shared with me in this conversation.

Corky, I think it's fair to call you a "Jeffersonian," in that you champion woodlots, small farms, and rural industries. But the bottom line is that corporate concentration in the forestry sector increased under the previous NDP administration - your party's administration - just like it's increasing under the current Liberal government. The woodlot, small business and community forest sector controls just a tiny fraction of the overall timber harvest. Is Thomas Jefferson's ideal of the vibrant "rural smallholder" economy now just a bad joke in B.C.?

Sure, a Jeffersonian is a fair analysis of who I am. Maybe throw in Rousseau, and Thomas Paine, too. But keep in mind that those are just the historical white guys that it's now vogue to forget. The bottom line is, land in the hands of a person rooted on the land, or a community, or even a company, is a thousand times better than land in the hands of footloose capital.

In the West Kootenays, we're very different than the rest of B.C. We have, in the main, avoided the consolidation disease that has destroyed the market for wood and the affinity for the land that has occurred in almost every other Timber Supply Area in the province. In the '90s, we created more and different forms of tenure here than just about anybody else. Actually, I would like to see the forest industry operate like the dairy industry, where it is against the rules for a person who milks cows to also be the person who processes the milk. The vertical integration and monopoly systems -- that have destroyed so much of the creativity and enterprise in the forest industry -- is simply not allowed in B.C.'s agriculture sector.

Am I a dreamer? Maybe. But the Creston, Kaslo, Harrop and Revelstoke community forest tenures are proof that change is possible. So is the expansion of woodlots in the last 10 years.

The logging and watershed struggles in the Slocan Valley and elsewhere have been very intense, to say the least. Do you see that debate changing at all? Has your position changed in your time out of office?

We have had a "struggle" over watersheds and logging, and we are just starting to have a "debate." I am glad that we are evolving to the place that we can, at least most of the time, debate the subject instead of struggling against one another.

I have an obvious bias that needs to be expressed up front. I like logging. More than that, I like people who work on the land or on the water a lot. I like farmers and ranchers and fishers and guides. I am most comfortable with an economy that is land-based. I am uncomfortable when the place we live is a just a backdrop for our lives instead of the source of it.

I think a lot of us flinch when we hear the word "logging."

To me, good logging is like good farming; it is a high class of labour that borders on art. Done badly, it is theft from future generations and a dishonouring of the craft and the land. When people remove the bounty of the earth without ensuring the capacity of the land to produce the next harvest, that isn't logging. That is called mining...

In the 1980s, the NDP held meetings with Nelson and Creston folks that changed public policy everywhere in the province. In Nelson we determined that the first steps to sustainability in forestry were to make a code for forest practices, to make a freedom of information law (so people could find out what was happening around them) and to rehabilitate land that had been degraded by poor forestry practices. In Creston the party decided to try to comply with the United Nations request that 12 percent of land be set aside as wilderness. These ideas went on to become party policy, then platform and then mandate. In the 1990s, all of these things happened.

Once the rules around where we would log and how we would log were established, and the provincial parks system doubled in size, citizens woke up to the fact that whatever wasn't a park would be entrenched in the provincial forest and remain available for logging. People who had not understood that the land around them had always been assigned to logging were surprised and unhappy. People who wanted more than 12 percent of the land base to be consigned to wilderness were also upset. This set the stage for years of rancour and division over the front-country land that people saw as "watersheds."

So do you think the logging and watershed debate is over?

I think we're in a period of transition. Community forests have been shown to work. Woodlots have been shown to work. Industrial logging has evolved away from ground skidding to more skyline systems, smaller blocks, and more detailed planning for the full set of forest resources. Citizens are becoming more interested in "how" something will happen than "if" it will happen.

I hope the debate about how to manage watersheds continues to evolve, and leads us to methods of logging that are more benign. I hope that loggers and conservationists come to understand that doing careful -- and even delicate -- work on the land can lead to both increased employment and increased protection. We all have an interest in excellence. Cheap or careless logging degrades both land and the profession of logging. People who want to do careless work should get out of the business of working on the land.

The Liberal government has set us back a decade by encouraging companies to work to the lowest common denominator. They have manipulated the code, made access to information difficult, laid off the government workers charged with managing the land, and encouraged consolidation in the industry. The only possible way to turn this around is for conservationists and woodworkers alike to aim for a common objective of excellence…

The Green Party and the NDP fight over some of the same voters, and in the Slocan Valley, as in other parts of B.C., that fight has been particularly intense. What are your current thoughts on the Green-NDP conflict?

It is true that the NDP and the Green Party cross-pressure some of the same voters. It is also true that under B.C.'s present system, it is impossible for progressive people to govern, if they split their vote...

I am hoping that voters in B.C. will choose to experiment with the STV option (Single Transferable Vote) on the ballot in May. This change in how votes are counted would allow citizens much more flexibility in how they cast their ballots and would encourage coalitions in the Legislature instead of in the election.

Provincially, I think citizens believe they have four options:

1. Don't vote and therefore not be held personally responsible for the actions of any government.

2. Vote Green and, therefore, articulate a position against many forms of economic growth while assuring they themselves will not be held personally responsible for the actions of any government.

3. Vote Liberal and, essentially, articulate an "economic growth at any cost" option.

4. Vote New Democrat and choose a "conservation and jobs" objective that is difficult to articulate and even more difficult to achieve.

I think that voters here will choose option 4 in this election because they have experienced option 3 and found it too devastating to be allowed to continue unabated. I don't think that option 1 will go away soon. Option 2 would be viable if we change the way we vote. With STV, it would not matter if progressive voters split their vote, we could make a coalition in the Legislature.

Why would the parties be able to form a coalition in the Legislature if they can't do it in an election?

Lots of reasons. In the Legislature, temporary coalitions can develop around single issues, where different parties find a common interest. And you can debate the issue thoughtfully, without all the hype and media attention. To form a coalition in an election, you would have to mesh entire party platforms. That's nearly impossible.

I hear you use the term "social democrat" a lot. What does that mean in the context of today?

The job of social democrats in this century will be to find a way to articulate and deliver a healthy economic standard while ensuring sustainability of the land and air and water and the critters that live here. The enormity of this challenge was not understood when our party developed the Regina Manifesto as the CCF, nor even when the CCF became the NDP. Our antecedents took on the challenges of dealing with depression and capitalism and world war. It is for our generation to take on the challenge of sustainability.

It seems to me that a political party that could combine support for business, progressive social values, cost-effective governance, together with strong support for the environment, could win this province in a landslide. Why do you think no party has adopted that formula?

My guess is that you could find language supporting those objectives in the principles and platforms of all parties. The problem of politics in our time is not articulating a position, but being believed. Cynicism is often confused with intelligence, especially in the media and in academia. Perhaps this is because politicians and parties have failed to deliver on their platform messages. Perhaps it is because television has taught us to market ideas like we market cars and to demean complex messages in favour of facile "images."

There is a more optimistic answer, though, to your question. Perhaps voters are really highly intelligent beings who know, both intellectually and in their hearts, that to aim for all the objectives you describe, at once, is profoundly difficult and most likely to fail. Thus, voters choose to support parties that give voice to a clear bias in favour of one single option or another, so that they know what objective is primary in the mind of that party when hard choices need to be made.

Mike Harcourt was the best premier in recent years at achieving balance in decision making. He was pilloried in the press for weakness and indecision. Only after Mike resigned did the public realize their appreciation of the man and his wisdom and his attempt to find an accord between the needs of business, citizens, and the environment. The lesson, however, that political parties took from Mike Harcourt's fall from grace is that popular culture, and certainly the popular press, do not like compromise and collectivity in decision making. This is hugely unfortunate. Perhaps it will be reversed by Carole James' attempt to rejuvenate the image of a balanced approach to political process.

The NDP has never been seen as the party of "the marketplace," and yet it seems to me that "the market" is essential to the diversified rural economy you propose. Care to comment?

I think that "the left" has abdicated responsibility for understanding markets. Worse, I think we have allowed the language of the marketplace to be stolen by conservative elements in society who hate real markets and, thus, nobody advocates for the healthy exchange of goods and services.

In the last half of the last century we didn't have to worry too much about making jobs. North America experienced growth, especially industrial growth, because of cheap energy supplies, good quality trained labour, and expanding markets. The left began to think that our job was extracting from industry a fair share of the profit earned by employers. It was the employer's job to sell their product. It was our job to see to it that the product was made in a fair manner, wages were negotiated, environmental standards were set and observed and taxes paid. For decades we ignored the language and understanding of "the market."

Then globalism arrived and progressive Canadian workers found themselves wearing running shoes made by child labour. The contradiction was huge but we ignored the implications of this massive shift in wealth because nobody really knew what to do with a world that we could no longer control with democratic principles or laws or regulations.

Citizens accepted the terms of the new world order because "the left" could not argue against it in valid economic terms. We made moral arguments only. I think this situation has to change, now.

My opinion is that it is progressive people who have an interest in the healthy operation of "the marketplace" and it is "the right," or corporate forces, that despise "free enterprise" and the regulatory regimes required to keep them functioning.

To me, it is the corporate world that hates "free enterprise." It is Wal-Mart, not the New Democrats, which threatens the existence of small business. It is Cominco, not New Democrats, which buys up mining claims just to shut them down and control the supply of metals in the world.

I think social democrats should become the advocates for the free market and begin to have a conversation about how to control monopolies. I do not like monopolies in the business of making boards or cars or selling food or goods. We have been afraid of this conversation because we all know that some services, like utilities or health care or car insurance, are better run as state monopolies for the good of society. We are afraid to draw a distinction between those monopolies that we own and need to own for the good of society, and those that oppress us and citizens the world over.

We seem to be veering away from forestry into a discussion of economics.

You can't separate the two. Where I live it used to require 600 workers to produce fewer boards than 200 workers produce now. What will the remaining 400 families do for a living unless we create and nurture and sustain new markets for new products or services in our communities? And how will we do that unless we can say, out loud, that markets are good for making jobs and jobs are good for people? I don't think that corporations have made a single job in the Kootenays in my lifetime. All the new jobs -- the ones that are not created by shutting down somebody else's work -- are made by small business and the non-profit sector and cooperatives...

The NAFTA has failed us. So has the Free Trade Agreement. British Columbians have $4 billion right now trapped at the US border as a duty on wood that rural workers produced, in spite of international agreements that say such activities are illegal. Monopoly capitalism is not engaged in making markets work; it is engaged in perverting markets to make a few people rich while enslaving millions. We on "the left" cannot deal with these issues unless we recapture the language of the marketplace and engage in discussions about how to support economic activity that is healthy for all people.

We are not short of good ideas, we are short of ways to make the good ideas work. And it is social democrats who have an interest in taking up the challenge of unleashing the creativity of the citizenry to create good, sustainable rural work.

Don Gayton lives in Nelson and is the author of three books, Kokanee, Landscapes of the Interior, and The Wheatgrass Mechanism. [Tyee]

31 Comments:

Login or register to post comments

  • Peter Dimitrov

    7 years ago

    Comments on "Corky Evans on Making the Woods Work"

    Corky...is one of the few within the NDP who still believes in 'social democracy" and has some good ideas to boot.....trouble is, Corky, the union boys tied to the major corporations in the woods & pulp sectors, as well as other sectors who are "within the NDP"..have personally told me that they actually prefer 'big corporate capitalism"...to run the show...as from their perspective it means fat paychecks, benefits, and good union dues for the union....which community owned or worker owned woodlots, and co-operatives....will not produce. Essentially, they are on side with the NDP's Dan Miller vision of an 'economy'...a guy recently hired by Gordo & the Fiberals.

    What I am wondering is what sort of 'reform' a Carole James NDP government would bring to the forest sector & its de-regulation -run by the corporate monopoly wolves; what sort of reform will it bring to regulation of the mining, & oil & gas sectors...which basically are again self-regulating. Witness today's Vancouver Sun...it states that BC 's oil & gas sector in NE BC..are 64% out of compliance - 5,734 infractions of the slack Campbell regulations. Wonder where the figures are on the 'forest' sector and the 'booming' mining sector...what will the NDP do about those issues?

    Anyways, I am hoping that the NDP will emancipate itself from delegated policy & leadership Conventions...and move to the One member one vote system...thereby freeing the party ...and hopefully making it more receptive to social democracy and novel ideas such as Corky's and many others. ...

    For those undecided how to vote but concerned about the environment, please consider the 'carte blanche' given to the corporate sector in forestry, mining, oil& gas, fish-farming...and the enormous toll the natural environment will take from another four years of the Fiberals. Don't forget the dismemberment of the boundaries of a park in the Chilcotin...so mining exploration can occur.
    Understand that world wide demand for uranium is soaring, and that recently the BC Chamber of Mines ran a workshop on exploration for uranium - BC has a lot of uranium and if you believe that the Fiberals would put any roadblocks to stopping uranium development in this province you're dreaming.

    If you're concerned about the environment please vote in a practical fashion to kick out Campbell and his corporate neo-liberal crew. Don't split the vote by voting Green ...as it may leave us all the practical result of another four years of the Fiberal wrecking crew? Vote for the only party with the capacity to get rid of them ...and to govern..namely the BC NDP.---flawed as every political party is flawed. Then, should they win, work dam hard to ensure that the NDP, after campaigning from the right of centre...governs left to redress the extreme right wing policies of the Fiberals, and further, that the party will indeed distance itself from Labor and move to a one member one vote system for policy & leadership conventions.

    Anyways a good article and thank you!

  • deeby

    7 years ago

    Hear hear...and add the fact that Carole James will require support in seeking a ban on corporate and union donations to all political parties.

  • allan

    7 years ago

    The one thing I hope Corky and other New Democrats deal iwth immediately should they form government is to retie forest resource extraction to jobs in the community the wood comes from.

    Much of BC's Interior is reeling from the closure of sawmills since the Liberals cut corporate responsibility to communities in May 2003.

    Just ask the people of Barriere who now watch dozens of logging trucks daily hauling away their community wealth, and who no doubt, will send a message to Liberal Kevin Krueger on May 17.

  • anarcho

    7 years ago

    Good to see Corky Evans pushing for community and worker ownership of resources. Its about time, otherwise there won't be any left after the corporations are through ravaging. Hope these ideas spread, though I don't have much faith in them doing so within the NDP. Good luck people!

  • Peter Dimitrov

    7 years ago

    Allan said:

    The one thing I hope Corky and other New Democrats deal iwth immediately should they form government is to retie forest resource extraction to jobs in the community the wood comes from."

    ...I'm onside with that...but more than just 'jobs' ...why not "x" percent of revenues to stay in the region from which the resource is extracted...instead of all going to a provincial treasury...to be 'mushed' about like porridge ....as slush funds by the Premier and his crony Ministers...regardless of party elected. I'm make no apology for stating that I am not fond of the concentration of political/financial power in the hands of corporate or political monopolies. The 'rules' by which we permit ourselves to be governed are way out of whack, the Crown owns too much and has way too much power....hence our low-level democracy, hence our unsustainable corporate economy - facilitated by the Corporate State. Why should it always be...that major multinational corporations get the licences for timber, oil, gas, minerals, fish-farming, P3 contracts, ....why is the State facilitating these kinds of capitalistic firms...and not alternatives? Why is that neither the NDP or the BC fiberals or Greens for that matter, question this entire model of big-time Capitalistic development?

  • crh

    7 years ago

    Good comments above Peter. I have always thought that the sponsorship scandal in Ottawa is because they have to much of our tax dollars. Government is to big and needs to be brought back to the local level. This way, we would have more accountability from our elected representatives. They can't hide as easily from us as well.

  • allan

    7 years ago

    Your absolutely correct Peter. This belief that we need the multinationals to extract our resources and of course, must ensure the multinationals are profitable, is simply upside down economics.

    The province, at least in my mind, is the net sum of its citizens and not a fountain of riches for the benefit of the wealthy only.

    One of the problems however, is getting through the myopic mindset that stifles anything called intestinal fortitude in the hearts of municipal and region governments.

    As long as municipalities elect chamber of commerce types who view towns and cities as places to attract business and growth at any cost there will never be pressure on any provincial government to reform resource revenue sharing.

    In reality, it's the same limited perspective in the towns as we have been getting in provincial government, one that thinks the market place must set the rules.

    I guess it may take someone with the ability and charisma to explain to voters that they and their needs are paramount in a democracy and that business operates at the pleasure of the community or government.

    If you reduce democracy to its fundamentals that is the reality. Unfortunately, there is a constant and ongoing mantra by business, their lackies in government and media and the rich to demand that private profit comes first.

    Even the courts have bought the bullshit, essentially giving corporations the same status as humans under the constitution, yet leaving those wealthy entities unfettered by any checks and balances.

  • meinkorea

    7 years ago

    Peter (whom I have known since we worked together in the late 1970's) is wrong on one point. He suggests that voters cast a "practical" vote on May 17 to "get rid" of the Fiberals.

    Since we are also voting on the STV referendum, some voters are suggesting that it is possible to delay voting Green until next time. Don't split the vote, warns Peter!

    I don't like living in a two-party them-us world. I appreciate diversity and I know our political system would benefit if more opinions could be heard in our legislatures. I also believe in remaining true to one's principles.

    For me, voting "practically" is so yesterday. I've been there and done that. Having worked within the NDP during the '70's and '80's and knowing how hard it is to get that party to be concerned about the environment, I far too often held my nose on voting day and cast my ballot for the NDP.

    Today I vote for the party that most closely espouses the policies that I want to see implemented in government. Whether that party has a chance of "getting rid" of the Fiberals is not my primary concern. Remaining true to my beliefs is far more important. Voting for something is far more satisfying than voting against something; that is one thing I can say I've learned in more than 35 years of exercising my democratic right to vote.

    I cannot forget that the idea of "getting rid" of a party in government is the very concept that gave birth to the Fiberals.

  • Peter Dimitrov

    7 years ago

    Hi Meinkorea....I understand full well and respect your point of view, what I am saying the destruction being foisted upon this province by the Fiberals and their extreme corporate agenda...is enormous...that it is vital that they be defeated at the polls...as another four years will likely result in many more irreversible negative consequences. Some of course, like Meinkorea, find it more satisfying to vote for something rather than against something...but there may be others who perceive the immense danger facing this province with another four years of the Fiberals...and thus will vote for the only other party capable of governing...how good that 'capability' is ...well we shall all see.

    ...on a related matter I venture to guess that STV will be defeated...but that will not end the 'drive' to reform our electoral system. In my view Mixed Member Proportionality is a better way to go...but it is not on the ballot. Too bad that Campbell's terms of reference could not have allowed citizens to vote on whether they preferred FPTP, MMP, STV, or some other voting system.

  • sirjohna

    7 years ago

    i see our chain-smoking minister of health is back and lookin better than ever. what will be his portfolio this time? economic development maybe?

  • sonic931

    7 years ago

    Corky Evans is obviously a brilliant guy.Great article.I believe what is sorely needed in this province is a leader who is a consensus builder.Campbell of course, is the furthest thing away from it.He and his loathsome government thrive on the politics of polarity,because it wins them the needed votes every time.He knows that when he demonizes teachers and nurses and workers and unions,he is guaranteed a solid block of unchanging votes.Here in the last week of the election campaign we are hearing once again about those nasty(teachers)unions.Those would be the same folks he promised before the last election that he wouldn't tear up their contracts.Well we all know how long that lasted.How anyone could vote for such a bald faced liar is beyond me.

  • sirjohna

    7 years ago

    get your facts straight sonic, he didn't tear up their contracts, he legislated them back to work, just like the ndp did several times. the difference was that the libs gave them 7.5% over 3 years, while the idiots gave them 3% over 9. so much for the libs hating teachers. more lies and deceit from the bctf and the ndp.

  • Coyote

    7 years ago

    Remarking on sirjohn before hastily moving on, the lady is not entirely wrong. The NDP has its own history of anti-labour/stike breaking legislation.
    'Fess up wuzz ass social dems. :-) Keep it honest. (Back in the hay day of the IWA, the only government that ever dared ordered them back to work off a strike was... You guessed it. ... the fucking NDP. (They have always really had this ambivalent attitude towards capitalism-, especially throughout The Prosperity Period of capitalism.

    Outside of that, too bad I'm busier than a kitty covering poop. Corky's piece deserve some considered attention, though, as do Davids comments-, with whom I fundamentally agree. (If I wasn't into a little self-medicating with Jamieson's Irish at the moment. :-)

    Hopefully over the weekend, I will be able to return to this piece and do it the justice it deserves-, because I think it's another one of those more important pieces, as addressing the issues of the economy nearly alwasys are. The economy being the issue and area of social life that underpins, makes possible and drives all the others, whether we like to admit it or not.

    So, while I'm mostly just here to read and then let the Mrs. take me out to supper with a bunch of NDPers (no comment), suffice it to say that my initial reaction to Corky's comments, whom I have much respect for, though I am certainly not a "social democrat", and those of David's particularly, is to concede, as a trade unionist, that there is no question Big Labour has done best with and favoured/favours Big Project Corporatism, and has by and large failed workers in Small Enterprise Capitalism. The reasons for this are too complex for me to get into right now, like I say, two whiskeys later.

    But, in my view, while I understand where David is coming from, I disagree that, while Big Scale Capitalism has done much harm to the economy as a whole, under corporate capitalist control, and especially the resource/land base, and there is a need to move away from "sustaining" (God! I hate that word.) reliance on it, I think the reality is that there are areas of the economy where Big Scale will continue to have a relevant place: big energy projects and other infrastructure, such as Hydro, harnessing tidal action and wind energy potential, certain kinds of manufacture and social services delivery, such as transit and, oh, say health care and education etc..

    Which means that ways and means need to be found to democratize, make subject to worker control, along with regional and community participation and control as well, these kinds of projects too-, which Big Labour is well positioned to participate in and take the initiative on, have they the will. (Which I think they can be brought to.)

    In all other areas of the economy, however, though my politics and positions continue to evolve, because we are in that kind of political/historical moment, I think, it is necessary to find other ways than Big Labour Unions, frankly, to organize working people and enhance their place and power within the economy-, such as through cooperatives, the securing of cooperative favouring laws and financing arrangements, including those tax breaks that currently go to Big Private Capital, and other forms of "collective" ownership of strategic and secondary economic assets.

    Laws, on the other hand, that favour "private" forms of enterprise and ownership of "economic assets" (we're not talking home ownershiphere), need to be circumscribed and struck down. The playing field between cooperative endeavour and private needs to be levelled. And the degree to which there is a bias favouring one or the other, it needs to come down on the side of cooperative/collective effort and reward over narrow private interest.

    But where Corky is absolutely right, in my view, is "The Left", we can quibble about "Social Democracy" as an ideology, needs to resecure the language of the economy as its own. Like it or not, for all the misconceptions and distortions that followed him, if old Karl baby was about nothing else, he was about the economy. And the trade union movement after him.

    The reality is, the economy occupies no less an important place in the lives of working people, who depend on it for survival, as it does the capitalis class, who depend on it for survival and profit.

    For which Social Democracy, particularly in the "modern" period, along with Capitalism itself, heaped nothing but contempt on not only Karl, but the rest of The Left outside of its Centre sucking/hugging self.

    Which is okay. We are in a new period, with quite different realities and possiblities.

  • dangrice.com

    7 years ago

    Peter Dimitrov, MMP doesn't get rid of the problem of vote splitting. You would still end up with a local candidate who has different values from you, and although the party one favours may not get elected, there is not guarantee that the party lists will have anyone who cares about your area.

    And cheers to Corky, I think he is one of the few politicos in this province who is liked across the political spectrum. Well, except for the radical environmentalists..and you know who you are...

  • sirjohna

    7 years ago

    coyote; did you just agree with something i said? wonders never cease. next we'll be sipping lattes together.

  • Coyote

    7 years ago

    Quote:
    "coyote; did you just agree with something i said?" asks sirj.

    If I did, I would certainly never admit to it. :-)

  • Coyote

    7 years ago

    Not only that, I voted in the advance poll today. I am almost red face to admit it but, after all my rants against it, which I think are still essentially correct, I up and voted vor STV. The bloody humiliation!!

    I got into the booth, held my nose and cast my ballot for the NDP candidate, and then paused, which was a mistake, over the separate

  • Coyote

    7 years ago

    Oops!

    ...paused over the separate STV ballot, and a troublesome little devil inside me said," I mean, you know it's going to change dick shit, but some folks are living the dream, let 'em have it, let 'em discover it for themselves."

    Then I put my X in favour of STV and plunked it in the box. I still ain't told the old lady. She's going to be aghast after all my raving.

    And it isn't. It isn't going to change jack, but sometimes people just have to experience a thing, so the urge to just stir the pot overwhelmed me.

    I'm soooo ashamed. :-(

  • mikev

    7 years ago

    God I hate people who talk about voting 'strategically'. Is 'practically' what they are calling it now? Is that supposed to be more palatable? I've always voted Green (I'm 29, so not that many times I guess). If anyone in the NDP wants me to vote for them, then convince me that it's a good idea. Don't try to scare me into by saying that if I vote my conscience then someone worse will get in. That's not very convincing. In fact it's quite a bit sickening.

    I'm voting yes for electoral reform. Maybe it dilutes rural representation (I'm in Yale-Lilooet), maybe the process is complicated, but the outcome is just all around better. Getting twice as much of the seats compared to how much actual votes you got is just obscene. Is there anyone out there who can't see that is just plain broken? Anything is a step up.

    If we get BC-STV, I would put the NDP down after the Green candidates. Can't the NDP see that as the way to end vote splitting? Why aren't they encouraging a Yes vote?

  • sirjohna

    7 years ago

    coyote; where shall we lunch. the vancouver club?

  • anarcho

    7 years ago

    Great posting on the economy and Social Democracy Coyote! Can't wait to read more of what you have to say on these subjects...

  • Coyote

    7 years ago

    I think the principal is, Vote Against The Liberals.

    Outside of that, for me, its a matter of voting what makes sence TO YOU. Nobody should feel any great amount of guilt for however they vote. (It's largely a bullshit exercise anyway. One does need to keep that in focus. Even if you don't vote.)

    I must confess, I don't really much care which Party gets in outside of that, in the BC context. I think all of them out there are fucking inadequate to one degree or another, some more than others is all. I voted NDP simply because I think they have the best chance of being the instrument to succeed at punishing the Fiberals by denying them re-election. That's all.

    Outside of that, I think the crisis of current capitalism is going to continue, regardless whether the Fibs get re-elected, the NDP replaces them, or there is a total upset and the Greens get in. So really its just a game of darts this election. Nothing fundamental is going to change.

    And the fact is, I think something "fundamental" about the nature of society has to change, and open up quite new "possibilities". But to get to there, I think folks have to likely exhaust all the possibilities of capitalism first, and discover their inadequacy.

    I mean, who in their right mind really wants to engage in a major class war within society? You'd have to be gonzo. (I don't. I just want to play outside and live out my retirement. Why would I want conflict in my life at this point? Duhh! If I was really smart, I'd just shut the fuck up. )

    Except I think that is precisely what needs to happen, and getting to there, folks are going to try everything first, short of. So my role, from the perverted political wilderness, as I see it, is to just try and facilitate that process, so we get to where I think we are going to be at the end of it amyway.

    Capitalism needs to be history. A new socio-economic dynamic needs to be given the breathe of life and set in motion. (After that, they's on their own.)

    Which is why these kinds of discussion Tyee has helped generate, and this thread is an example of especially, is so useful and necessary. (Why do we think the Brownshirts are so upset here, and so hysterical? Because, instinctively, they know what is coming up out there too, just as surely as I do. Hence the danger of their fascist tendency. Othewise they would be just the joke they seem.)

  • Coyote

    7 years ago

    Quote:
    "coyote; where shall we lunch. the vancouver club?" propositions Ms Sirj.

    I think you are right, Lynn, it is the old Stockholm Syndrome.

    But then being the souless opportunist I am:

    How about we just cut to the chase and fool around, babe? :-) Unless you are one of those women who needs to be wooed first. :-)

  • Coyote

    7 years ago

    Thanks, Anarcho.

    Now the Mrs is calling me to bed. And there is only one thing that God will not forgive: That a woman calls a man to her bed, and he does not go.

    Zorba The Greek?

  • sirjohna

    7 years ago

    coyote; the youth call that 'friendship with benefits', and 'zorba the greek' is my favourite book. we can't miss.

  • sonic931

    7 years ago

    "get your facts straight sonic, he didn't tear up their contracts, he legislated them back to work"

    -and then tore their collective agreements to shreds after specifically swearing up and down to respect them."Bill 28" BTW,introduced the charming concept of "flexibility" amounting to total power for the employer to decide class size,and how many students to jam into said class,among other things.Of course my actual POINT was,Campbell is Captain Polarizer, and recent remarks by his simpering self demonstrate that quite painfully...unless of course you're a rightwing dimwit.

  • Bobb999

    7 years ago

    Corky is old guard trying to retread himself
    to appear relevant instead of obsolete.
    He's trying to steal some Green Party ideas about how logging should be done, to "greenwash" his image. He and other old school NDPers like Adrian Dix, the party would be better off without, that is if it truly wants to become forward looking and moderate as Carole James likes to claim.
    I hope Corky loses to a Green,becomes discouraged, and decides to scurry on back to the USA where he came from. They deserve him there. We deserve better.

  • sirjohna

    7 years ago

    sonic; jamming students into classrooms? remember what i said about getting your facts straight? the average class size in b.c. since the libs took over has decreased. the bctf is telling half-truths at best b/c they're desperate to get their ndp lackeys back into power. remember kit krieger and glen clark? won't be happening for many years to come.

  • sonic931

    7 years ago

    "sonic; jamming students into classrooms?"
    -s.j.I want you to be a good boy and take a time out,because you're becoming over stimulated.OK-now try to concentrate:I simply stated that Bill 28 gives the employer the POWER(flexibility?)over decisions pertaining to class size.However,seeing how eager you are to jump to your own curious conclusions,I'd like to offer up one of my own you may safely jump to:The Campbell Libs will continue to push the boundaries of said "flexibility".
    I can easily envision a future "Tim Horton High" with oh,60 kids per prefab unit.Or lets say 60 "units" per unit.Of course,none of this has anything to do with my original point,which I now have about as much interest in as you apparently do.To your final prediction,(won't be happening for many years to come.)I give Campbell precisely one more term.It took Ontario voters awhile to grasp the reality of privitization and deregulation( Walkerton?)but they finally wised up...sort of.

  • sirjohna

    7 years ago

    sorry to disappoint sonic old boy, but by 2009 the libs will have elected a new, more popular and personable leader. will the electorate be ready to trust the ndp with the all of those olympic dollars?

  • sonic931

    7 years ago

    "the libs will have elected a new, more popular and personable leader."
    i.e.-anyone.

    • No best comments selected by an editor for this story yet. To see all comments, click the All Comments tab, above.
    • The discussion for this story is closed. No more comments can be added.