I still can't get over what went wrong in Burnaby. Has a generation of social democracy at every level of government made them take New Democrats for granted? Did a few too many stay home?

As for the greens, my guess is as good as yours, you say. Polling, door knocking and phone bank experience makes me believe the following: About half the green vote or about four to five per cent overall, is solid (would not move to another party). The other half of the green vote lists their second choice as NDP, Liberal or other in that order, at about a 5-4-1 ratio. What do you think, Andrea?

Bittersweet, the NDP comes back from 3 to 33 and the absentee ballot for Tim Stevenson will probably deliver the NDP with another seat. The sad part is that they were only a handful of seats away from taking this thing. I wonder how the Greens who hate Gordo feel today, they seen their popular vote decline and their party become meaningless except to help Liberals to get elected in many close ridings. Vancouver-Burrard for example where the winner will be decided by a handful of votes where the Green picked up over 3000 votes. Even Gordo would have lost his seat if the Greens would just admit their a lost cause and go away, so we get another 4 yrs of dictatorship by a party who lost the popular vote. The NDP candidate in Mission- Maple ridge is legally blind and has a seeing eye dog, remarkable person and she lost by less than 400 votes but the greens got to run a candidate and take 1600 votes away. Very sad, I feel the 4 factors they kept the NDP from power were.

1) The corrupt media, God the last few days seen Canwest and even the CBC cheerleading overtime, "So to get the economy back on track allot of sacrifices had to be made and this has upset some folks" Sound familiar, the Liberal sound bite played over and over again on the mainstream, in other words, yea its been tough but come on it was all necessary to be successful, I can never figure out the logic of the neo con's, so what a few die and starve , their pain and our gain. On election day, all day long the CBC kept talking about the NDP getting their vote out in large numbers, kind of like a Liberal rally to get support out.

2) The greens, when the NDP was at its worst in 2001 they could not win a seat, they are not a viable party but still split the vote, SO WHY IS THE MEDIA GIVING THEM SO MUCH ATTENTION, they have never won a seat in the history of their party. Why are they on TV, Radio etc, we are following them like their opposition. The Saturday Sun before the election quoted more greens than the NDP, I feel the no unelected party should get as much attention.

3) The NDP should have pushed a little harder in the last few days up North, mention the BC Rail deal more and talk about corruption.

4) Negative weak minded lefties who start to believe what they hear in the press and polls etc, Even well known people like Moe Sahota and Bill Tileman said that they feel the NDP couldn't win, with little representation or positive media for the NDP it takes a toll when even left wing media starts to act defeated. THIS WAS OURS TO WIN, sorry my blood is still a little hot,

As a result of this elections will the Greens be a part of the television debates next time around? I thought I heard Baldrey say they would stick to a 10% or better rule. Can anyone verify this for me?

I am wondering if the NDP and Greens will consider merging together to be the Green New Democratic Party (GNDP). That might just be the way to beat the Liberals next time.

verso, since when do television reporters, regardless of their inner head size, determine what policy will be four years from now?

Some people just can't avoid being sucked in by their own importance.

Ironically, the excellent performance by the NDP in this election may work against them.

Unless Campbell changes his ways it is very likely he will be nudged out in around three years leaving room for Carol Taylor to become liberal leader. It might be very difficult for the NDP to win against her.

On the other hand, not forming government this time may be the best thing that could happen for the long term good of the party and the province. A slim majority would make it extremely difficult for the NDP to govern in such a way as to increase their popularity and just end up paving the way for another huge defeat in four years. Certainly the right wing press in this Province would give an NDP government no honeymoon period.

Democracy is best served when there are two parties ready and able to govern, which means two centrest parties. Maybe, if Campbell learns from his mistakes and tames his arrogance (not likely I admit) we will end up with that kind of choice next time. We can hope, anyway.

Norman Spector: Many thanks for the correction. The sentence should read: "Glen Clark led the NDP to a majority government in 1996 even though his party took fewer votes than Campbell's Liberals."

A majority governmnent with fewer seats? Now, that would take some fudging.

"verso, since when do television reporters, regardless of their inner head size, determine what policy will be four years from now?"

Allan, If I understand correctly, Baldrey (and whoever else was involved) and the networks came up with a "standard" that decided what the makeup of the last TV debate was, as well as future ones. The reason (as I understand it) was to keep things consistent from election to election.

I've heard a party would need 10% of votes, from the election previous, to participate. If true, this would qualify only the Libs and NDP next time around.

I'm not here to defend it, I'm just asking if someone can verify this for me.

re: the Greens

"SO WHY IS THE MEDIA GIVING THEM SO MUCH ATTENTION, they have never won a seat in the history of their party. Why are they on TV, Radio etc, we are following them like their opposition. The Saturday Sun before the election quoted more greens than the NDP, I feel the no unelected party should get as much attention."

Because most smart people realize, and the average person is starting to figure out that there's "no jobs on a dead planet."

There's no "Gay Party" yet those issues are part of public discourse. Should we ignore them?

Clearly, when a party campaigns on a platform with a specific overriding principle as its main plank and they get a considerable number of votes, that issue is important. Further, when that party consistently forces the other parties to acknowledge and take action on those issues, it's importance to the debate over governance is NOT indicated by the number of seats they hold.

Great article. Where was this before the election to counterbalance Richard Warnica's piece of tabloid trash?

As far as why are the Greens getting attention? Well. it could be the vote splitting corporate conspiracy theory, or it could be that they garnered 12% of the vote. That is a lot. And with STV on the ballott, it was an illustration of bc bi-polar politics. I can't believe i just defended the media!

The Green Party would never merge with the NDP. First off, our economic policies are conservative. Second, we don't take Union donations. Third, we are for decentralization of government and local control. Fourth, well, there is no fourth, but i didn't want to leave it at 3.

Instead of STV and other complicated stuff how about runoff elections? Elections would be held in 2 steps; normal election day and, in ridings where no candidate won 50% +1, a runoff between the top two candidates 2 weeks later. This would stop greens from electing lie-berals.
It would also ensure people do not vote for someone strategically to avoid electing another candidate (federally this would help the NDP since the old vote NDP and you elect a tory line won't work).

The way I read this election...there were not just six ridings as Tom & Tom suggest ...but 14 ridings that the NDP could have won but for the lack of some sort of electoral accord with the Greens and subequent voting splitting. The losers are the environment, the wild salmon, the grizzly bears, our provincial parks - all set for more onslaught by Capital unleashed by de-regulation, privatization...and no Ministry of Environment. We may even see uranium exploration again in this province, and perhaps, depending how desperate the federal Liberals are --a loosening of the impediments to offshore oil & gas exploration. The losers in the this election is not just STV & the Greens, but the social fabric of this province already shedded to hell by the Fiberals. Hey, they have a majority, they have already stated, and confirmed by their allies the BC Business Council, that the message they have received is 'basically business as ususal'. Yes, 33 Ne w Democrats is going to turn up the temperature in the Legislature..but it won't be enough to stop their majority rule. Like Stuart I'm pretty pissed with the result, Campbell could have been forced out in his own riding if just in that one riding the Greens & NDP had an electoral vote...but nada. Jut like in the Vancouver civic election where COPE did not run a full slate of candidates thereby giving the NPA opportunity to win two seats...something like that, could it not have been arranged here???

I'm not sure who is to blame for this lack of an electoral accord but I do have a few questions which deserve answering by someone, namely:

1) Did Carole James & Adriane Carr ever meet in person to discuss the possibility of some sort of electoral accord, if so, when, how often did they meet, once, twice, if not..why not?

2) What was the position of the Provincial Councils of both the NDP & Green to meeting and discussing the matter of an electoral accord.

3) Did any of the unions, including the BC Fed, BCTF, HEU, ever sit down and meet with the NDP to discuss this matter of an electoral accord-what was the response?

4) What was the position of the Executive Council of the NDP & Greens on an electoral accord?

In my estimation, and knowing that others may disagree with me, I just don't see any third party being elected to the Legislature under the First Past the Post voting system...a third party will always split the vote either on the Left or Right...so what is the point. Sure, one can bring up the Gordon Wilson anomaly, created by the TV debate and Wilsons sparky comments...but to rely on that happening again is very chancy!

...STV is dead in the water...it was defeated. Now the NDP is saying oh, maybe we should vote again in the fall on this. ...this sounds like the Quebec referendum, or the RAV vote, if you lose once, why we can just keep voting again until the powers that be get the results they like...that is no way to run a democracy. I think we need pro-rep badly in this province...but according to knowstv.ca --it has many problems, sure it works in Malta and Ireland with some difficulties, but perhaps MMP may be better for us. Had there been MMP, the Liberal would have got 36 seats, NDP 33, Greens 9, and others 3 seats...and the Liberals would have been out-voted in the house. After all the Fiberals only got about 41% of the popular vote...with only about 51% of the people voting.

....another four years of Campbell's face and Liberal neo-conservative legislative crap to privilege and benefit Big Business ...all to the detriment of the environment,labor, human rights, seniors, students, the disabled community.

Good piece and good points, Stump. The world isn't as simple as NDPers might wish it was. (Though I am no more impressed with the Greens than the NDP, and think they are really more alike than differ.) Still, the NDP has no particular right of claim to all who are to the left of them-, nor to the right, such as the Greens, in my opinion. :-)

The NDP has been just a wee bit too full of itself, for a long time.

I mean, there are even those of us out here in the Wilderness, who have been waiting a long time for a separate anti-capitalist alternative to the NDP, to their left as well. Which is basically why I support prop-rep as a matter of fact, hoping it would encourage the anti-capitalist left out of the NDP, and shatter even the right alliance around the Neoconazi Libs.

I don't think that is going to happen anytime soon though, let me conclude. There needs to be more social and economic deterioration within the system go on yet-, commensurate with the evolution of a change in the political loyalties and thinking of a "significant" number of folks. Which is, at least, the direction of movement.

The Greens, however, no doubt have their "independant" role to play in that process-, as do the Neoconazis (to shamelessly plagiarize from Anarcho.)

The only problem I see with all this is that its after the fact. We didn't know Campbell could be beaten in his own riding if the NDP-er had dropped out before the election. We didn't even know the NDP would come within a few thousand votes of winning.

Sorry Coyote, I was referring to Peter's post.

It is futile to flail away against other parties that enter the political fray and pick up votes from the main parties. They do so in most if not all cases because one or the other of the main parties has set the stage long before by squeezing out internal opposition.
In short, the main parties can only blame themselves for fragmentation on either the left or the right.

The Greens, however, present an interesting case. They are a blend of right, left and otherwise stay-at-home voters. In the long run their mission will likely be satisfied when their message suffuses all parties because the public will come to see the need for it and demand it. Unless there's an environmental collapse, the Greens for the most part seem destined to remain an extraparliamentary force, but one that commands respect. Somewhat like Greepeace and other groups.

It's very hard for a movement to transform itself into a political party. Sometimes it fails miserably, even if a toehold is established and a government or two captured: witness the farmers' movements and agrarian reformers of long ago. Sometimes it succeeds after decades of struggle and futher refining (or diluting) of the message: witness socialism.

Third parties, so-called, are a barometer for representative democracy and serve a very useful role. We should applaud them.

...when I say 'electoral accord'...I mean an accord that would have benefited both the NDP & Greens electorally, would have meant coming together on some platform points where they agree, like No to oil & gas exploration, no to uranium mining, no to dismantling park boundaries, no more fish farm expansion & perhaps a move to closed pen technology or moving on -land, no to union & business contributions to political parties, yes to a fully restored Ministry of the Environment, yes, to Women Centres, yes...to many things that we might find in common...NOT just the differences between the parties.

...and perhaps such an accord might have resulted in at the very least Adriane Carr being elected, perhaps others I don't know, and perhaps we would not be facing four more years of extreme governance from the very pro-big-time Business party......but nada...

Coyote, all I know is that because of the Greens, and in particular Adrienne Carr's consternation over being denied a cabinet seat, we now have to suffer another four years under the Liberal regime.

I don't dispute that govenment might have been within reach for the NDP if the Greens did not exist, or if an alliance had been formed. But it presumes a lot of things. And it's a presumption that's not supported by the evidence. If half the Green voters shifted to the NDP and a quarter to the Liberals, that nets a 2.25 percent bump for the NDP, which is not enough to close the gap. Sure the NDP could win with a lightly lower total percentage of votes than the Liberals, because of voter distribution, but I think it would still be out of reach.

What this calculation doesn't consider, though, is whether a Green-NDP alliance would drive some centrist NDP supporters, and folks voting for a strong Opposition, back into the Liberal camp. I think it would. I think most people who imagine a Green-NDP alliance would have delivered the left to government haven't really thought this through. I also think, as I've observed elsewhere on the Tyee, that the Greens drew a lot of traditionally Liberal protest votes in this election, just as they drew traditionally NDP protest votes four years ago. I've seen much anecdotal evidence of this. Many members of my family are congenital, politically active Liberals. Most voted Green. If the committed can be converted, I bet a lot of soft Liberals who couldn't bring themselves to vote for Godless socialists switched as well.

This argument may not stand up. But please, folks, dry your tears, let go of the endless "what if's" and wishful thinking, and look at this issue thoughtfully.

There are several other ridings, including five in Prince George and Kamloops that could be added to the list to yield a clear majority. One would then be talking about a few thousand more votes to do the same hypothetical exercise, but still well under 1% of the popular vote. The point is that the NDP could have won.

I think if the NDP had a TV commercial, and a couple of radio spots, that took dead aim at the Liberals claims of economic championship, and strongly implied that the claim is a lie, that the additional votes would probably have materialized. Why that wasn't done, I don't know, but there are two possibilities.

First, the NDP organization didn't believe that you can challenge people's pre-conceived notions so don't waste time and money trying. If so, and if this is what Tieleman and Sihota are claiming (Stuart's post), then I couldn't disagree more strongly. The battle for public opinion necessarily involves both positive and negative elements. Devaluing an opponent's principal argument is always a sound move. You might not succeed in turning the situation around to the point where people now believe YOU are the better economic manager, but you don't have to. You just have to dilute and degrade the number of people who think, with any particular conviction, that the other guy is doing any great good for the economy, and give some of your people some good sound bites that basically make a liar out of the opponent every time the claim is repeated, and you're gaining ground by denying it to your opponent.

But if the NDP is committed to the old Yvonne Cocke school of campaigning (emphasize strength, not weakness) this tactic will always be left untouched. Too bad really, because it not only loses particular elections, it also sets up a series of never ending self-fullfilling prophesies, in which a party never talks about a certain issue, so they aren't seen by the public as having anything to offer there, so there's no point in saying anything, and then the election is decided on that issue, and then the organizational geniuses can say "I told you so". Terrific! Next.

The other, somewhat darker possibility is that the NDP figured a win was possible if the Liberal economic claims were challenged, but decided they simply didn't want to get into power with 41 or 42 or 43 seats, and a minority of the popular vote (ie 1996 all over again), only to see interest rates go up, housing starts go down, and the NDP get blamed for the downturn.

While I am at it, I was glad to see Stuart identifying the CBC as a Liberal broadcaster, both federally and provincially. I think it's long past due that people got the blinkers and rose coloured lens off where our "public broadcaster" is concerned.

According to Angus Reid only 46% of Greens support the NDP as a 2nd choice. And about half of them did in fact vote NDP on election day.

The NDP clearly has to try and attract those who would lean to the party. Some real opposition to the Liberal environmental excesses and perhaps adoption of some key green planks would do it.

Budd, I liked Charles' ad on another thread, a pic of a hospital cleaner mopping floors with the caption "big labour".

...I don't think it is the Greens fault, or the people that voted Green, it is the Leadership/ Executive/Provincial Council's/ party brass within both parties ...that ought to have taken the initiative. They both knew that there were common points of agreement in both platfotms, that vote splitting was foreseeable, and as the election loomed..as the polls forecast a tight race...more serious effort should have been put into this idea of an electoral accord.

I disagree Frank ...that such an eventuality of 'vote splitting' denying many winning seats to the NDP...was not foreseeable...the risk was foreseeable...and that risk could have been managed downward to the benefit of all, Greens, NDP, citizens, the environment, the social fabric...but it didn't happen..and surely we need to understand why..to evolve our political understanding of 'internal party politics'...so that is why questions need to be asked...it can't be undone...but we can learn perhaps.

Oh I agree we all knew on here that some vote splitting would happen. I just don't think many of us thought that it would come down to such a close finish and those votes would deny the NDP a majority.

Because the other side of the argument is that we can't look like we're not serious. We have to look strong and run candidates everywhere and basically campaign hard for the NDP, not a coalition. We did have only 3 seats, so it was important to rebuild as the first priority rather than chase what seemed like a remote possibility of actually winning.

Just testing the post function.

No, but we knew the greens would get a fraction of the left vote because most people don't know they are actually right wing.

The greens do not merit by their performance, the amount of coverage they get. They get it for one reason and that is so they will take votes from the NDP.

And, yes verso, they will get the coverage next election for the same reason. Another excuse will be found, unless the NDP are so far ahead than the Liberals that there isn't any point.

The more I see the Greens in action, the more I find them to be not unlike the BC LIberals with the exception that they are not quite as provincial. A little more urbane and that's all. Most voters think they're on the side of the left.

A lot of innocent children, seniors and the very most fragile in our society will bear the results of this election. More cuts to the Ministry of Chidren and Family services were already planned in spite of an increase in child killings and abuse coverage of which have been reduced in media to one small paragraph.

As far as Carole Taylor goes, she is a star only among Liberals and their attempt to 'brand' her that. Not among the public. There is an old saying, water seeks its own level. I'm not impressed.

These people really believe the electorate to be less than something they have their housekeeper scrape from the bottom of their shoes. Otherwise, why else tell such insultingly, apparent and stupid lies? Why else treat the electorate with contemp? What bothers me personally, is that as a group, they are a terribly poor representaton of the talent and creativity this province possesses. That they appear to be either so opportunistic, or so intellectually wanting that they don't even understand the most basics of governing.
In a fair playing field, as they are wont to talk about, they'd be unable to compete.

There. That's what I really think. Pretty discouraged about the lot.

"They are a blend of right, left and otherwise stay-at-home voters."

I don't understand how a party made up of left-right members can govern. Granted it isn't something we'll need to worry about anytime soon, but I can't help but think a party with that broad a coalition would just implode. If the left-right members are centrists it could work, but beyond that I don't see it. It may sound nice on paper but in reality...???

There does seem to be several different types of Green voters. We all are aware there's about 10+ different types of NDP-er in our coalition and that we don't always agree. I don't believe the Greens are monolithic either.

As for Carole Taylor, I've never been impressed with her politics and I'd be quite happy to see her as the future of the Libs. Provincial politics is not a city council as many have discovered.

verso, I would be inclined to think the same way about the "new look" NDP.

Okay, I must respond to Stump. I never claimed the Green party did not have real issues or that they were a bad party, I think any party should be able to run and run to win. I am sure that allot of minor party's which is what the Green party is. (a non player or minor Party) have important issues to it's members. But I don't like one minor party getting special treatment like it is an elected or sitting party. We cannot give equal air time to every 3rd party just because their so nice and the media feels they may be an alternative. How about DR BC, the CBC had security remove them as they begged to be on the TV debate, please explain to me why the Greens deserved to be on TV more, I'm sure the TV debate would have equaled more DR BC support at the polls. I have heard Mr Marino speak and he sounds great. So why do you think the media played this like a 3 party horse race, I know the Greens liked the attention but honestly do you think the media did it for the Greens.

Sorry to be hard on the Greens but this election was bloody important for the left.

Well, Frank, I agree that such an ad as you describe does tend to put things into a more realistic perspective.

I hope that new MLA Harry Bains, who beat star candidate Daniel Igali, will spend part of the next four years good-naturedly reminding Mike Palmer and Vaughn Smyth that they dismissed him as a labour hack, and asking them to tell him and hist constituents whether or not they think he has any business being in the Legislature.

Anyway the silver lining is the Bassi , Virk , trial , does anyone remember that, the trail put of until after the election. How about Doug Walls, remember him, anyway nice to see Jim back, okay the voting circus is over.

Democracy is not just a counting up of votes.
But it is a counting up of actions.

Howard Zinn.

Budd, like you I'm very disappointed with NDP MLA's like Adrien Dix not defending the NDP's economic record. That issue should not be ignored. I singled out Dix because he was one guy I thought that wouldn't let that slide.

The economy is a central issue to most of the province. yet many NDP-ers just want to ignore it.

The sad thing is this won't catch up with Campbell until after the Olympic chits are in and we get to tally this whole Golden decade. We'll see all his p3's that the public doesn't even know about. We'll see all his deceptions and lies. But, by then he'll be old and we wont be wont to persecute him. But, there always is the unknown factor, such as RCMP investigations. Or, the political tide making a massive change for honest gov't and the people thinking they are riding free will have to pay the piper. (Gomery etc could be the start of this actually)

Wouldn't it be nice if the New Conservatives, in their lust for power, spearheaded the movement that actually cleaned up the system that they want to exploit. lol

Stranger things have happened.

To attract the Green voters, it will be necessary to make it attractive in some way to vote NDP. I don`t believe that is impossible.

"verso, I would be inclined to think the same way about the "new look" NDP."

I'd disagree JIm, and I think you know why. I'm sure there will be some policy debate within the NDP, it's no different than the Liberals will experience between their right wing and moderates. Both of these parties have a common outlook.

Not sure if you're just baiting here, JIm, maybe you could explain why you think that.

"Both of these parties have a common outlook."

That didn't come out right, within their respective philosophies, of course.

I think Gordon will now have to face two oppositions, the NDP in the house and in his own party. Despite benefiting from a global economy, total control of the media, being in power and facing a new and unknown opposition leader, they nearly lost. The Liberals owe more to the Greens than to Gordon. His own party will see him as a liability (well they already do) and he will likely have to step down. I suspect that Christy Clark is also preparing to run for the Liberal leadership

The have been, what 4 NDP governments in BC? If only one of them had had the sense to change the voting system to a proportional one (or even STV) BC would now be governed by an NDP-Green coalition.
I believe the Fliberals deliberately set the STV vote at 60% because they knew it wouldn't make it. A majority vote is good enouigh for them to fire 7000 health care workers or force the corporatization scam through, but not good enough to impose a democratic voting system...

The NDP won 3 elections, had 5 premiers?

Right, McPhail said on Voice of BC that Andrew Petter pushed it within the Clark cabinet but didn't get anywhere. Said everyone is busy and its hard to find time to look at something you don't see as of vital importance at the time.

I think you're right anarcho. I used to think they wanted it, but I can't see the inner workings of their gov't wanting to relinquish an ounce of power quite yet. However, it has to be a higher bar than 50 +1 and in fact 60 was on the lower end in precendent. We won't see it happen, we might see more tea parties for the assembly.

BC STV is very dangerous, it's only used in Malta and Ireland, it may work in these 2 tiny island countries but will not work in BC. First it will ensure the rural areas have huge regions and less representation and 2nd how will anyone be accountable in multiple member ridings. This was not the first choice of the citizens assemble, maybe they used STV, sexual transmitted vote to pick this option. The assemble had no mandate to go with BC STV, it is not proportional representation, come on folks , the media is pushing it and Gordo is going to debate it in the ledge, this should tell you something. More power to high concentrated liberal urban ridings and less to rural more left leaning ridings. Don't let you desire for change be exploited.

Are we going to have another RAV, just keep having debate and votes until Gordo gets his way.

Stuart, Ireland and BC aren't that different in population. As for representation, just increase the number of seats and make every riding the same.

How is anyone accountable now? There are ridings that have never changed their political allegiance (I'm looking at the Fraser Valley). What accountability exists there? None whatsoever.

The assembly had a clear mandate to find a system. They were not ordered to adopt MMP.

I am not baiting at all. That's what I see in the NDP. The NDP is constantly bragging about how they will represent everyone. Well if they are representing everyone you are bound to have some major internal conflicts.

I think there are a few major groups within the NDP that are going to go through power struggles coming up. That would lead to the conflict you mention could happen within the Green. All i'm saying that could very well happen within the NDP. No new news here I just figured your post could be easly transfered to represent the NDP as well.

If it doesn't you could say that the NDP is still the same ole NDP with nothing but extreme left wingers.

Whatever you say about the 60% bar the fact is the Liberals had the balls to create a citizens assembly to come up with STV. That is something no other party in power has ever been willing to do. No even your glorious "peoples" party the NDP.

Even your enemies can have good idea's!

I think the forum on electoral change was a good idea (even if done for the wrong reasons) and also the fixed date for elections. Doesn’t mean I like Gordon.

I think the Green party should just wait until the energy foundation of the "global economy", namely oil and natural gas dwindles, prices rise and our "modern" way of life collapses.

Of course Canada and BC may not be sustainable without cheap oil & gas so the Greens may end up governing city states or tribal groupings.

During the election night coverage did anyone notice Baldrey speaking of a Liberal candidate as "a nice guy" yet did not have such kind words for any other parties' candidates?

If there was ever a party that is a mix of left and right, granted with the left ever becoming more the rump, it is the NDP. You don't seem to understand the internal dynamic of your own party very well.

There are a number of left-wing factions within the NDP that have been hoping to "revolutionize" it, ohhhh, for at least as long as I've been around. It was even the rage at one time on the left-left, especially amongst the Trots, as the road to radical social change, which I pooh-poohed at the time, and feel I've been proven correct on.

Fundamentally, until there is a major sea change in society at least, Social Democracy has adopted as its role, keeping capitalism workable and, at least, tolerable to the working class. It attempts to be the "Peacemaker Party". As such, it is the epitomy of the attempt to give capitalism a "human face".

At which it has actually been some successful, if one ignores all the exceptional issues and sights, such as the growth of poverty and homelessness, growing anti-labour state and corporate policy, numerous womens issues, ongoing environmental degradation, betrayal of the country to the US, and essential and human services declines etc. But for awhile, when capitalism was still flush with cash in the postwar, and in a mood to compromise with ordinary folks because of its fear of communism, the NDP/CCF was actually useful to a degree, to capitalism and "official" Labour. (Now, even Big Labour is having the dry hind tit yanked from its suckling mouth.)

All which is all rapidly changing now, of course, and has been a downhill skid since Solidarity in the 80s. Which has the NDP focussing more on its "business friendly" face, than its "working class" friendly one. (Though in true Liberal style, over the transition period at least, mustn't alienate those working class/ Big Labour donations, front or back door.)

Capitalism is changing, and not for the better. The NDP is also changing, similarly.

I think that the NDP should just adopt the Green's platform with regards to the environment and eliminate the need for a Green Party.

If a contractor secured 77 of 79 bids and then 2 yrs later in the same marketplace only
Secured 45 bids out of 79 he would either be running scared or wonder what the competition is
Doing, Liberals still in business but have lost almost 50% of their market. Even with the massive ad budget both public and corporate kept them barley alive. So Gordo better behave, most shoppers are finding a better deal now, political capital is over. Hey how about Val Ruddick almost losing to an independent. How about her and the NDP running a recall campaign in Delta south. Once the recall vote goes threw let the independent run alone. Something to think about. 4-5 successful recall campaigns can change the hands of power. How about Gordo
S riding, he lost the popular vote, I'm for it.

Are those provincial NDP'ers who want the BC Greens to fold their tent (on the specious belief that all Greens will then vote NDP) also willing to fold their federal NDP party so that we don't have vote splitting that hurts the federal Liberals? Nope? I didn't think so.

Not a bad idea.

freebear , this is so funny, maybe with tribal groupings the leader of the Greens can finallay win her seat. She can drive around in a little smart car with her followers behind.

One more NDP added. Stevenson actually did win Burrard.

The 60% threshold is probably more of a response to the constitutional amendment nature of the initiative rather than an artificially high number.

I see what you getting at JIm. Your criticism about slogans vs reality is not an invalid one, imo, but should go both ways. Both parties have their moderates and their old guards. The Liberals also ran on a moderate platform (trying to be all things to all voters, except maybe labour) and will have their own internal debates to go through when the reality of governing sinks in.

That said, my initial point (I wasn't clear, but I think you know what I was getting at) was that a party in BC with such a polarized membership (right and left) would have a harder time pulling it off than a party whose members runs from left to center or right to center (god, these terms).

"You don't seem to understand the internal dynamic of your own party very well."

Coyote, maybe I don't. I've always considered the NDP to be made up of people from the far left to center or center-left. I don't think of people right of center belonging to the party. I'm willing to concede I'm wrong on that, wouldn't be the first time.

By the way Coyote, the NDP's philosophy/cause speaks to me and that's why my sympathies lie with them -- I'm no insider. I'm glad I have the opportunity to learn more about the party (and BC politics in general) here.

I don't want the Greens to fold their tent. I want the media to treat them with the coverage level they actually deserve and I want the Greens to stop pretending they're 'left' to get more votes. In an ideal world...

I have so many friends who vote Green because they really think they're socially progressive. I've done that too, but not the last two elections. When Harris got elected federally, I started checking into them.

For the record: A helpful correspondent points out the NDP lost East Kootenay by just 70 votes. A tip o' the hat to another eagle-eyed Tyee reader.

Dang. That should be 678 votes. Good thing I'm not a returning officer.

Dang, Dude? I guess you are an American. :)

Well, you could be a returning officer in Vancouver Burrard.

Okay, I'm just kidding Vancouver Burrard.

I seem to recall that the Greens posited the idea of a coalition but the NDP insisted on running a full slate. This was, of course, a few years ago. So instead we got DR, Left Turn, and the Broad Coalition. I stand to be corrected.

That icon was supposed to be a smile.

I disagree with the premise that it is so hard to call Adriane Carr and the Greens spoilers. One only has to look at the 1996 election, where the Green party did present itself as an alternative for people who may not have otherwise voted. Overall in 1996, the Greens received about 2% or the vote -- which is exactly what they received in a lot of the swing ridings that year. But let's even double that to 4%... If the Green vote was 4% in 2005 in the following EIGHT(!) constituencies, with the rest of their votes going to the NDP, the NDP would've won:

all 3 Burnaby consituencies that you mention
Maple Ridge-Mission
East Kootenay
Comox Valley
Saanich North & the Islands
North Vancouver-Lonsdale

A five-seat NDP majority. Is it possible that in the last couple of elections the Greens have simply found even MORE people who usually wouldn't have voted? Not really -- the turnout this year was 55% and in '96 it was 59%. I understand that the Ipsos-Reid poll that suggests 20% of Greens would vote Liberal as a second choice would throw off my assumption that the Greens are largely cutting into the NDP vote (though the 45% NDP second-choice is very significant - I think you're mistaken to discount it), but I also suspect that almost all of this 20% is concentrated in the safest of Liberal Vancouver ridings where the Greens polled over 10% (Quilchena, Point Grey, Seymour, Capilano, Garibaldi [where they got 26!]). I understand that for 1-4% of the population the Green Party is the only option, but I hope that the rest who went Green on Tuesday take a good look at the BC Opposition the next four years and find that their views of BC can fit in with the Carole James NDP. Many of the new candidates are strong on the environment, and they very well may prove themselves as a party that is both fit to govern and is worthy of your vote. Understandably, the Dosanjh/wake-of-Clark ticket was not. But Carole James now has a great chance to prove that she would govern BC in a different way that they did.

Yikes! What a bad typo at the end: should be a different way "THAN" they did.

Te Aro Arahina posted:
"I think that the NDP should just adopt the Green's platform with regards to the environment and eliminate the need for a Green Party."

Add the Greens decentralist and proportional ballot concepts to that and you are absolutely right. The Greens exist precisely because of NDP failings and if NDPers want to eliminate the Greens they should eliminate the reason for their existence. Otherwise, quit yer bitchin

If the NDP had the slightest credible, progressive vision for the environment, they could have easily attracted the Green vote and won the election. Every Green-thinking person in BC recognizes the terrible destructiveness of the Campbell regime, but we also clearly and painfully recall virtually the same visionless attitude of previous NDP regimes. It is incomprehensible that Carole James could have caved to her more troglodytic advisors, and chose to relegate environment to a wishy-washy after-thought on page 46 of the NDP platform document. Had the NDP put forward a REAL environmental platform, they would have cleanly and properly attracted BC's horrified Green voters and would have won the election. Many Green voters in BC are clearly dissatisfied with the Green Party's own dumbed-down environmental platform, but even so, it was far better than what the NDP put forward. I will not lower my environmental standards to vote for something as clearly inadequate and pathetic as the NDP. The NDP chose to run this election by sending the clear signal to BC's environmental voters that we were irrelevant and they weren't interested in our votes. The NDP didn't do anything to deserve the Green vote, so they should quit whining about not getting it.

Cheers, Ingmar

"The Greens exist precisely because of NDP failings and if NDPers want to eliminate the Greens they should eliminate the reason for their existence"

Truer words were never said here.

Hogwash. The Greens exist because there's an international Green movement that tries to blow their horn as being different from every other option. Except the don't bother putting in the time and effort to explain precisely how they're different on every other policy issue than environmental issues.

I can't count the number of times I heard Carr try to shoehorn the concept of "sustainability" into every question she was asked about any subject whatsoever.

It became quite clear that there wasn't a lot else of substance to the platform other than misapplied uses of "sustainable" and "hey, at least we're not those guys."

If even the Green party had a "dumbed down" environmental platform, Ingmar, I'm very interested in finding out what your "progressive vision for the environment" is. If it involves taking away jobs from the many British Columbians who work in the resource industries, I doubt it's something that a consensus-builder like Carole James would be very interested in. But if not, I'm sure she would be very interested in finding out what it is, too. I'm guessing former Green platforms are more in line with what you're talking about?

I wasn't whining in my previous post. As I said, I think many voters were totally justified in going Green in a big way in '01 because the NDP thoroughly deserved that kind of message. And I think they got the message, by electing Carole James leader. Their '05 election platform could've been better on a NUMBER of issues (though especially the environment, admittedly), but I still think their credibility to govern again -- in the minds of the 3-5% of BC voters who decided the NDP platform and a new leader wasn't good enough to switch their vote back from Green -- should now be determined by their performance in Opposition.

As an elected director on the BC Green Party provincial council for two years during the reign of Gordo, it was amazing to me how tenaciously the Adriane Carr secretive power-clique clung to maintaining the party policy of accepting corporate donations.

In spite of receiving such measly fare from that direction, the Carrites just refused to be the first to declare the ethical thing. Eventually the Chretien Libs usurped that great political opportunity, and in spite of that, today the BC Green Party, contrary to what its platform says it will do AFTER it gets elected, the party continues to accept corporate donations. The ridiculous corporate donations discussion consumed hours of virtually every council meeting I attended.

But the final last straw for me was when they rescinded their 'no old-growth logging' policy. Any credible Green Party, and for that matter, any credible political party, on a planet with less than 20% of its primeval forest cover remaining, and with what remains being liquidated at the fastest rate ever, must have this policy. Look, -when does one stop being a raver on that, -when there's only 15% remaining?? 10%?? Does it become rational when there's 5%??

The greens are in no position to govern just yet, but at least they are talking about real change. It is obvious to a kindergarden student that if we continue to do the things we do as we do them today, our planet is dead. The NDP do not acknowledge that.

Maybe I will get censored again.

If the NDP wanted the Green vote, they easily could have gotten it. For the NDP, this election was about rebuilding. They did that. You guys won. Rejoice.

Democracy is not just voting every four years, it is about engaging yourself every dayin the process. YOu are voting with your dollars right now, as you read this. Thank you Mr. Beers, you have outdone yourself.

This election was a victory for the left. If you can't see that, then you maybe you aren't getting enough fresh air or something.

"Why does the Green party get media attention?" Because they get ten percent of the votee. One in ten of your neighbours vote Green. That is ten times more than other party.

Ingkhai, while you aren't lower your standards for the environment to vote for the NDP, the BC lIberals are destroying it.

If you don't follow current events, I can see why you don't understand, because your leader looked right into the camera and claimed there is no difference between the two parties. That is an incredible lie and the respect I had for her because of her skill during the debate went out the window. She showed herself willing to lie about really important matters. Just like Campbell.

I suggest you take a really good look at Neo-Conservative policy on the environment. Clearly, you haven't. Or, if you have, care more about old grudges, or ambition, than the environment.

The greens have a right to their party and their belief systems whatever they they are. But, it can't be denied that without an extreme right wing that bolsters their success in order to harm the NDP, they would fall by the way side in the same manner other of parties.

ingkhai,
It is my understanding that both Greenpeace and the Sierra Club endorsed the NDP's environmental platform over the Greens during this Provincial campaign. What say you?

The Greens get 10 of the vote because they get the media coverage,

The Greens recinded the old growth policy?

Okay.

ingkhai: I really liked that you stood by your principles throughout Ingmar. Sometimes I have problems with the Green party's "Green chic" approach so it is interesting to read of "the Carr secretive power-clique" concerning corporate donations but not surprising.

But you seem very genuine to me, like an old Douglas Fir standing tall without compromise. Even when you were being tackled for heckling!...if I have the right Ingmar.

Sometimes compromise is a good thing but environmentally I think we've exceeded the limit.

I should add, Ingmar, that the "heckling" was the Campbell Liberals interpretation of what happened. I think you were just there to ask a question. That's an act of revolution these days....

My education tells me that there is unprecedented global ecological catastrophe. Enormous action is required now. Looking south, Bush will destroy the cancerous, teetering economy of the world's largest debtor nation fastest, which is what is required. In the same way, Campbell, as hideous as an oil-slick or a nuclear power-plant meltdown, is the cataclysmic catalyst we need in BC. Regretably this is what it takes to motivate the somnolent to get off their butts and take action. The Carole James vision just puts everyone back to sleep again, thinking how 'nice' everything is.

As for BC Greenpeace and BC Sierra Club, talk about milque-toast, collaborative-compromise mediocrity! When Adriane Carr looked into the camera at the end of the debate and bleated for the 'Great Bear Rainforest' she was talking about the biggest collaborative scam in BC history. Here's a description of the situation:

Big Industry & Big Enviro Embedded in BC

Ingmar Lee

Special to the Victoria Times Colonist

April 14, 2005

Last week, The Land Conservancy and the Capital Regional District announced that the much-beloved Sooke Potholes had been protected forever in a 156 hectare park. Meanwhile, on that very day, directly across the Sooke River, TimberWest fallers were mowing down 40 hectares of spectacular ancient Douglas fir forest, all the way down to 10 metres away from the most fabulous stretch of Potholes.

Two weeks ago, the Campbell government and American logging giant, Weyerhaeuser announced that 140 hectares was being added to Cathedral Grove park. Not mentioned: most of the acquisition is a logged-out stumpfield, basically a tax-burden wasteland for Weyerhaeuser, now unloaded onto BC tax-payers.

What's wrong with this picture? Southeastern Vancouver Island's ancient fir forest has been 95% exterminated in 150 years of logging. The second pass is even more voracious, with Weyerhaeuser and TimberWest logging 30 year-old trees to supply their scandalous 1,000,000 cubic-metre raw-log exports annually. Deer populations are down 80% in the last decade, salmon runs are at a trickle and Canada's most endangered specie, the Vancouver Island marmot is virtually extinct, while wolves, cougar and Golden eagles take the blame. Does anyone care about Vancouver Island's forests?

Well, not our biggest professional environmental institutions, namely Greenpeace, the BC Sierra Club, Forest Ethics and the Rainforest Action Network, known collectively as the Rainforest Solutions Project (RSP). Vancouver Island was abandoned for a behind-closed-doors deal with the logging industry over the 'Great Bear Rainforest' (GBR). In spite of an independent scientific panel conclusion that 40 - 60% of the largest remaining tract of temperate rainforest must be protected, RSP has settled for just 21% of the GBR. RSP members won't criticize Weyerhaeuser, Interfor, Canfor, Norske Skog and Western anywhere else in the province in exchange for the deal. Which explains what is happening to our island.

The logging industry has done their homework and has been reading from Burson-Marstellar-type PR manuals about "How to Co-opt your Pesky Local Enviro-org" and they are following the advice to the letter. The results are astounding. Last year at Weyerhaeuser's AGM, CEO Steve Rogel flashed up the RSP member logos on his power-point, describing them as "Weyerhaeuser's BC Partners." Last week, RSP members stooped to accept a "ForestLeadership Award" at a gala Toronto event key-noted by the notorious logging and fish-farm apologist, Patrick Moore himself. This week, the Conservation Voters of BC, which is advised by senior members of the same groups, endorsed SRM Minister George Abbott, apparently for his services on the GBR file. Anyone watching BC's enviro-scene knows that Abbott is as green as an oil slick.

Compromise-collaborationist environmentalism is taking British Columbia by storm. Big Industry and Big Enviro are firmly embedded. BC's professional enviro's stand by on the sidelines and watch while volunteer grass-roots citizens take action and do the dirty work. Charitable status, agreements with funders and backroom arrangements with industry preclude involvement by BC's environmental institutions in any direct action or civil disobedience. Now they await the final fate of their GBR deal.

Campbell's environmental record is in the toilet, but shovelling money just isn't greening up what's in there. People know that the global ecological catastrophe is driven by his style of government. He badly needs a green announcement. Will Gordon Campbell buy into the Great Bear Rainforest compromise as yet another pathetic pre-election goody? Will he be endorsed by the Conservation Voters of BC?

Meanwhile, demoralized, horrified and heartbroken BC nature lovers look north with admiration to Haida Gwaii, where Guujaw and the Haida Nation, with widespread community support are demonstrating exactly what it takes to expunge our province of the Weyerhaeusers and TimberWests of the world, and their government lackeys. Three cheers to the Haida! Would that we had that kind of leadership.

Ingmar Lee is a Student of Asian and Environmental Studies at UVic. He has planted trees in BC's coastal clearcuts for 21 years.

Backup referrences:

RAN statement on GBR:

http://www.buygoodwood.com/greatbear.html.

RSP GBR website:

http://www.savethegreatbear.org/

Conservation Voters of BC website:

http://www.conservationvoters.ca/31.3

ForestLeadership Awards:

http://www.forestleadership.com/article.php3?id_article=89

Adriane Carr a liar? Could this be?
How about when she said at least two times, once in a Sunshine Coast newspaper and once on CBC radio, that she finished second in her constituency in 2001 when she in fact finished third (she even gave an exact percentage, 31, which would've put her in second IF IT WAS ACTUALLY TRUE -- she got 27, and was an incredibly close third, but still third).

How about every time she attacked the Liberals for accepting corporate donations and the NDP for accepting union donations, fully implying that the Green party didn't?

And this isn't a lie, but is awfully slippery: how about her lines promoting STV, on how "95%" of Green candidates supported it (I take it there must have been some official survey of 79 candidates, all of whom had fully made up their minds?), while never coming out in support of it herself? She would always start out her answer by taking the fifth, presuming out loud that the Citizen's Assembly didn't want the Green Party to take a stand on it, but would finish by saying 95% of her candidates were in favour. Never actually saying if she was in favour herself! (which was the question, by the way) So I take it this means she was one of the 4/79 (the remaining 5%) that weren't in favour? Or maybe one of the four who hadn't made up their minds? What kind of leader is she when 95% of her candidates declare their support for something but she waffles on it?

Lots of interesting comments here.

Firat of all, I think the NDP should be glad they didn't win, as their slate of candidates have pretty limited government experience. They are better off doing some time in opposition.

Second, while the Greens may or may not have cost the NDP a win, the NDP clearly cost BC a better voting system by their lack of support for STV (and active opposition by some). With a more proportional system the 'vote splitting' arguement would be meaningless, which is probably what many in the NDP are afraid of. After their campaign theme of 'We are not Gordon Campbell', a better voting system would take away the only reason for many voters to support them.

Finally, there is a lot to be said for the idea that the Libs and NDP have a great deal in common. Both are looking for short term power, and both base everything on continuing short-term exploitation of a resource-based economy. While it doesn't always come across in media sound bites, the Greens are talking about something fundamentally different.

Besides, the reason why the NDP pays attention to its environmental platform now is becuase people vote for the Green Party

Regards

Doug

Dang, an excellent bit of writing you've done this thread brother/sister. (Though, I think, I hear a male/brothers voice. Been wrong on that before too though. :-)

Outstanding points you make, from start to finish here. Indeed, I would say, of all the Green voices I've heard on this site, yours is the most complete in its analysis, and with the greatest and most progressive depth. I like folks who call a spade a spade.

Which being a renegade and free of certainly current party structures helps achieve, doesn't it?

There's something about the elitist/vanguardist nature of all political parties, at least those known to me.

I hope you continue to hang around this site, and speak more often.

"So why do you think the media played this like a 3 party horse race, I know the Greens liked the attention but honestly do you think the media did it for the Greens."

Honestly? Probably because three players makes for a good story as much as anything else.

I think the media helped the Greens a ton in this election. Maybe that kind of media bias for a change is better than the neo-con power of the press that everyone's pissed about?

Ingkhai and anarcho and others make good points. The NDP has dropped the ball on the environment. We're certainly not the Campbell Liberals but we do have a lot of skeletons in our closet.

Now we may think the Greens should vote for us because we're the lesser of two evils but that is the same thing federal liberals have been telling me forever.

And certainly there are problems within the Green party itself as rightly pointed out by many above. Even some hypocrisy. Yet the Green party attracts people who are more worried about the environment than many of us are. And if the NDP platform seems to them to care about 50 other things before the environment then I can understand why they'd want to go their own way. Maybe the Green Party isn't an ideal platform, for example I doubt many who vote Green, especially youth, would be happy with some of the right-wing elements that seem to have infiltrated the party, but the fact is at least its their own vehicle for the most part.

The NDP is a big tent party and can't make every issue the "be all and end all" but our acceptance of fish farms and generally putting economic growth ahead of the environment here and there is sure to piss some people off.

I thought Carole James had moved in a positive direction on environmental issues, I was very pleased to see the party position on fish farms change for example. And certainly I would like children's and women's issues as well as other pressing social concerns to be our first priority but a few more moves on the environment wouldn't hurt us. The Greens want action more than the odd moral victory I'm sure so if James continues on her present course maybe next election the NDP can pick up more Green votes, at least those that already lean left.

I think this whole discussion makes one thing clear- WE MUST DITCH FIRST PAST THE POST! I am neither liberal or NDP. If there were no third candidate I would have to hold my nose when voting.
I have lived in the Netherlands from 1969 to 1982 and in that time never saw a majority in either the Netherlands or their neighbour Germany. Both countries had very stable governments which were coalitions. This provided a politic that would sway a little from left to right not that insane zig-zagging we do here in Canada. Labour is stable as is the business climate.
Four years ago the present provintial regime stated that "The province of British Columbia is open for business".
If I were in the business of business I would probably say "Great! But for how long?" Majority governments have a habit of being elected not because of the salesmanship of the party during the election campaign but because of the voters revulsion and rejection of the previous government.
Once elected the new government turns every thing over, trashes any vestiges of the previous government and basically tries to reinvent the wheel. A second term as a majority government is a good bet but a third is iffy because the failings, courruption and greed start rearing their ugly heads. The populus turns against the government with revulsion and subsequently rejects the government and the cycle is complete.
This is really an expensive and counter productive way of running things.
We really need some form of proportional representation. STV looks not to bad to me.

Ingkhai,

My apologies for misunderstand where you were coming from. I am reminded of the adage when you point your finger at another, four point back at yourself.

You put your actions behind your words and I appreciate that. I also agree with your later post. And, understand the environment is in crises. It really hurts.

I still think one action on behalf of the environment is to support the NDP. They are the only power structure that is open to doing something to protect it.

I've heard the the argument that social services should be eliminated (Mexicans stopped from working in the US etc) so that the people rise up and finally end the system that oppresses them. But, I can't help thinking of the children with nothing to eat.

Thank-you redrivergirl, frank, coyote, lynn et al for your kind words! Much appreciated!

Having been raised as an NDPer (my Dad ran in 2 federal elections) I feel very close to the values of the party, but travels around the world (8 times), lifelong silviculture work in the BC forests (21 years) and studying environment at UVic have clarified the seriousness of our peril. Environment cannot be an afterthought.

Within ten years, we will explain to our children that there USED to be tigers, chimpanzees and gorillas in the world. Already, we have lost 90% of the worlds big fishes and 80% of the primeval forests. Here in BC, the Mountain Pine Beetle, the manifestation of climate change which is decimating the forests on a scale only matched by industrial logging is sending the loudest of warning signals. The environmental catastrophe is such that all other political machinations are simply rearranging deck-chairs on a Titanic heading full-steam to the ice-berg.

The values of the Green Party are neither left-wing or right-wing. Any attempt by the NDP to simply glue on the Green Party's main platform would fail, because of the NDP's internal contradictions.

People should also remember that the 3rd party, regardless of stripe, often gets around 10% of the vote in BC politics. No insult intended to the Green Party, but the 3rd party is often the convenient parking lot for many "none-of-the-above" voters who wouldn't touch either the Liberals or the NDP with a 10-foot pole.

Same was true of the Liberal vote during the NDP-Socred days.

This duet brought to you by The Two CEES.

See the picture?

Such a cozy couple. Really a green Green or, eecch, a Liberal mole?

"The values of the Green Party are neither left-wing or right-wing."

Okay, please explain this to me. Just because you say an idea, a value, or a policy does not come from a left or right wing ideology does not make it so. Can you give me an example of what you mean by this?

The Greens say they are above the Left-Right thing, but they've yet to demonstrate to me how. What I see is a party that picks and chooses it's platform from both the left and right, and then tries to claim them as their own.

Despite the NDP's great advance during this election, I think it would be useful to have a thread given specifically to the strategy used during the the last month and preceding period.

So much was given to health matters that other issues received scant mention. Even on health, with its sinkhole of an ever-open maw, what was done to expose the role the drug industry plays in escalating our health costs?

Here, here, Frank. And thanks so much for your information and links, Ingmar.
I forget who exactly said it, but someone pointed out that the NDP's election campaign was all about rebuilding the party and a strong opposition in Victoria, and they unquestionably succeeded in that so deserve to be congratulated. Skeptikool, to analyze "the strategy used during the last month and preceding period" might be interesting to academics, but to the rest of us what really matters is how they will now conduct themselves in Opposition.

Carole James is going to have to be a lot more inclusive and open to new ideas than NDP leaders of the past. It is encouraging that she says Harcourt "came closest" to representing the leadership style she aspires to. Harcourt was inclusive, and open to new ideas, but some of his power-hungry cabinet members took advantage of this system and eventually stuck the knife in. They didn't have the confidence in him that they should have (perhaps he failed to earn it), and hung him out to dry.

However, whereas the 1991 seat-gain was a slam-dunk due to the Socreds' unpopularity, I expect that this time everyone in the NDP caucus realizes their leader personally deserves a lot of credit and respect for the election. Contrary to what the mainstream media is already trying to convey (see yesterday's Globe and Mail article especially), this caucus has every reason to be united and confident and ready to work together -- unlike the Harcourt regime where from day one some cabinet ministers were striking out independently to pursue their own career interests, or (as a direct result of this) the Clark regime where very few people outside of a tight inner circle were given an opportunity to have an impact. This is a model Mr. Campbell has embraced, too.

James has indicated she has a different vision, and now deserves to be given the opportunity to prove it. The election platform was scant, but it worked; it's preposterous to presume that the Opposition will be scant. If items like the role of the drug industry and a more substantive NDP approach to the environment don't come up from the Opposition during this term, then this province is in a lot of trouble (a third BC Liberal government!?). Carole James says she wants to listen to British Columbians so let's take her up on it, especially you Green voters who have found the NDP to be unimaginative and narrow-sighted. If she doesn't listen, it will once again be impossible to argue with voters like Ingmar for not giving the NDP their confidence.

betanko,

Academic talkfest and no action? I don't want that either.

One example of greatly neglected issue: Gambling

Legal casinos, against much opposition, got their feet in B.C.'s door with a $5 maximum bet. Today that bet is $2,500 - determined by the turn of one card. At a Richmond casino I saw a baccarat player lose $10,000 in six hands. With the multiple hands frequently played those hands could have cost the player
$22,500 per hand.($135,000)

More than individuals have gambling addiction problems. Some jurisdictions have become so dependent on gambling revenue that any carnie operation found to be cheating its patrons would likely be considered to be protecting the public purse. If that cheating happens, of course, it's a very safe bet that skimming is being added to the hidden social costs of gambling.

The mainstream media that rarely gives us other than puff pieces on the industry seems owned by it. Blow the whistle? Good luck!

Many in drug enforcement have been corrupted. There is little reason to believe those monitoring gambling in B.C. are less vulnerable.

The issue is important enough to deserve its own Tyee thread.

On election strategy, I was happy with much of the NDP campaign except for the lack of aggressiveness shown by non-James NDP-ers.

So I guess I was happy with Carol's leadership but I thought the party as a whole have to defend the issues better. We should know we can't rely on the media to defend us but when they're interviewing prospective NDP MLA's those people can't let digs against our economic record go by unchallenged. That is the only chance we're going to get to defend that record in public and it shouldn't be wasted.

I also would have liked a more agressive stance taken on social issues like child protection, gambling, women's shelters and social assistance.

Again, nothing against Carol, she's the face of the party, she shouldn't also have to do all its thinking and defending.

Dang. That felt good. Dang dang! Sorry ... a little post-electoral exuberance here.

The B.C. election turned out just fine. There's going to be fall-out ahead, resulting from The Campbell Group's 4 years. The strong Opposition of New Democrats will hold them to account. I'm going to enjoy that.

Also, the Basi, Virk, Basi etc. trials will begin and I think Gordon Campbell should be in the cat-bird seat when those chickens come home to roost.

Dang. Make that: if the Basi, Virk, Basi etc. trials ever do begin.

Re Bob Rogers

posted: 14 Hours Ago

I think this whole discussion makes one thing clear- WE MUST DITCH FIRST PAST THE POST! I am neither liberal or NDP. If there were no third candidate I would have to hold my nose when voting.
I have lived in the Netherlands from 1969 to 1982 and in that time never saw a majority in either the Netherlands or their neighbour Germany. Both countries had very stable governments which were coalitions.

1. That would be nice if it was the rule. Unfortunately there are other jurisdictions with proportional representation (Israel: some 23 parties in the last parliament, if my memory serves, all power in the hands of the party members who chose the list, no one can form a government without power being in the hands of the religious minority, several M.Ks under indictment for buying votes. Italy: Don't remember how many governments there have been since W.W. II, but it is impressive. Australia: don't ask.)

2. Nobody seems to want to remember that the N.Y stock market and Nasdaq both crashed in 2000, and that more people consider themselves better off now than four years ago, thanks to a torrent of liquidity being pumped into the US economy (low interest rates) that spilled over into Canada, and which has created a housing bubble (read lumber exports) that is now beginning to deflate.

It is by and large the rule that repeated interest rate hikes bring on a recession. Baltic freight rates have just broken decisively downwards (a sign of approaching recession; happened in 2000 as well) and China is experiencing a slowdown. Add hedge fund difficulties (GM and Ford bond downgrades), bond difficulties (rising interest rates, which means that bond prices fall, meaning pension fund heartaches, not to mention mortgage backed securities which are going to get hammered ), inflation difficulties, and more, and I can promise that
in 2009 there isn't going to be any talk about the Golden decade, unless it is to remark on the increase in price of gold and silver bullion.

Of course Campbell will 1) blame the NDP 2) protest that it isn't his fault and 3) lie but it won't cut the mustard. The really interesting question is "Will he fall on his sword, or is he so surrounded by yes-men that he honestly doesn't know what is going on outside the bubble (as with George Bush) and be poleaxed instead.

Other than that, George Abbott isn't Green or not Green, he is an opportunist, past president of the student council, personable, and in my opinion totally lacking in any sense of honour or integrity. In short, a politician. A long time NDP supporter (as is his family) George is in it for the job, and received the public support of the current Conservative nominee for the next federal election as well as that of the failed candidate for conservative nominee. (Yes, there was a conservative candidate in the provincial election in his riding; got 2200 votes) I don't believe that none of you have ever met such an animal.

Exceptionally good point, Frank, especially in regard to the NDP economic record. That was the main target of the BC Liberals... and their biggest and most repetitious lie.

For the NDP, it was the elephant in the room and somehow over these past four years they have not found a way to convey the defense of it in a way the public could easily latch onto. (Learning to defend themselves unabashedly is a congenital problem for the NDP, it seems.) So gordo ran with it... with all that "we can't go back, we must go forward," rah-rah routine.

But I've seen you defend it succinctly and clearly many times here, Frank. They should have just had you write a small brochure or have just cloned you to go around the province on their behalf...all with your permission, of course...in the service of your country... your province, so to speak...what's a little cloning around anyway...I know, I know... very bad pun...will not give up day job to write comedy routines...

"

Good word, eh?

My old man, a bit of a religious nutcase, but prone to violent episodes, though not actually a "bad Man", had a full repertoire of such words, to avoid taking the Lord, Our God's name in vain.

Holy smoke! Jumpin' Jehosaphat! Gawl Darn! Dag nab it! Fiddle sticks! Goodness gracious! Holy Dinah!

I was always amused by this effort to get around from more heartfelt and profound profanity-, as much with its ineffectiveness. For I could always tell when he was really mad, for the real words would slip out, like Fuck, Cunt and Cocksucker. After which the guilt, of course.

Still, they are fun words-, the degree to which one still actually has some control over the emotion outburst that drives them-, like, "Dang!"

Ah, drats!

I'm over the period of meetings for awhile now, thank goodness. It's always nice to get one's life back-, even if it's just for awhile. Though I admit, I'm too much a social animal, when I would really like to be a lone wolf.

(But now, I'm in the final planning and prep stages for my June ride-, assuming the Weather Gods will be with me. Which currently, they are not. And the old lady's worryin' that the bears are gonna make a meal outta me. Which is life too, right? :-)

I must 'fess, that I am pleased with the recent election outcome overall. It says folks aren't complete gitz. Which ain't to say we're where we should really want or need to be either.

Ehhhh, it's Friday evening coming on. The Mrs. and I are going to have to go out to supper. There's a restaurant in town that always has at least one really good curry dish, and I'm a serious lover of good, at least, East Indian inspired cuisine. (The guy that cooks here is, I mean, really too good to be found in small town. Seriously.)

And Scotch. I'm thinking, " Scotch." Single malt.

Mmmm. Curry. Thanks for the support you gave here before the election Coyote. The curry sounds nice.

We had Egad! and little fishes? something like that. Fiddle sticks.
and darn. And, then as older teens, if we swore, my mother would indignantly claim she'd never heard such words in her life! (until her children destroyed her innocence by spouted them) lol

It's so funny watching my two California surfer boy nephews. (7 + 9)

The nine year old occassionally will say when frustrated, Dang! and then look around a smile. It's really cute.

I think my habits are 'rats' and 'shoot'.

Hmmmm, well generally, I'll call a spade, a spade. But when I believe I should temper my tongue my favorite is rats, bats and cats together like that as a tribute to my Supreme Witch heiritage....

redrivergirl: "Bloody hell" was my Dad's favourite, well "bloody" in front of anything. My Mom who is one of the real sweeties of the world, a pretty naive free spirit, when she was really mad, which wasn't often, she would say she was "really piffed off". To this day she thinks "piffed" is correct usage and terribly naughty. I'm a little more colourful, unfortunately.

Coyote: In bear season when we hike around here we wear those little bear bells on our belt loops or backpack...so that we tinkle when we walk... but in a nice way...take care... :-)

Coyote,

Gosh! Was I being sacreligious?

Perhaps I should have suggested that media star
Chuck Cadman had gained such name recognition that he could run against Jiminny Cricket and leave Jiminny in the dust.

Omigod, lynn. The bear dinner-bells. It's just so Pavlov's dog. ;-D

Come to think of it, Te Aro Arahina, the guy selling the bells looked kind of cuddly and furry, and even winked at me...growling something like, "see you later goldilocks" as I left...I thought he was just flirting.... :-)

Around here,which is serious bear country, where they are used to the ways of human critters, whenever these bears hear those tinkly bells coming down the trail, they say, "Goodie. Here comes lunch."
:-)

Though actually, I do, on the front of my bike I have one of those little tinkly bells. I've had lots of bear encounters actually, but thus far, nothing that turned nasty. (I've even come upon sows and cubs, which are reputed to be the most risky encounters, even at really close range, and couple of them I can recall were actually quite pleasant experiences, I like to think even for them as well as myself.)

But bears, and probably most critters, are like people, is my observation and suspicion. There's all types-, the good, the bad, and the ugly.

For which reason, I try to be cautious and give them all their space.

And it was a great supper. Good chow.

Someone above mentioned the NDP ignoring the economy. Unfortunately for all of us - there is so much BS given out by the government that most of us are confused. When I reflect back on four years ago - there were less people living on the streets and far less drug related street crime.

Now who's fault is that.

Another note while I have your attention. The Green Party must now realize that the best way to get green policies is to elect an NDP government. The next time I see a Green spokesman I will say they are just a spoiler party sucking off votes to elect right wing governments. I don't believe I am far from the truth...or my truth.

The Greens can justify their actions whatever way they want - fact is, the only way the Liberals could win was with Greens help. No other way. This was known before the election and the Greens knew they were being used, all the media exposure given them, the leaders debate inclusion - they knew it was for one purpose only: to elect Liberals. And it shows in the results: around l5 ridings saw Liberals elected with Greens support.

Sometimes it takes guts to do what is right even is it hurts personally. Back in the Barrett NDP government days, the IWA saw the forest industry try to force a strike in the industry to bring chaos to the province and help defeat the NDP. They swallowed their pride and settle for (peanuts - I can't remember the figures) because the enemy wanted them to go on strike and in the end it would have been contrary to their interests. But that took guts, leadership, forward looking memberships. Not to be seen amongst the Greens.

I spoke yesterday of issues neglected or getting sparse mention as a reult of health issues dominating the NDP campaigning. Gambling was referred to as one.

I think the boat was missed in not referring to the failed Fastcat program.(no pun)

Perhaps I missed it.

Was it a new-found magnanimity that caused there to be little or no reference to the failed Fastcat program in the recent Liberal campaigning, or could it be avoidance of embarrassment following the (to me) stench-ridden deal that saw pennies on the dollar returned to taxpayers on the sale of the vessels?

Problems were exaggerated. The Fastcats could and should have remained in service - even at reduced loads and speeds. I don't doubt the vessels would have been acceptable to many thousands who have suffered delayed and cancelled sailings - and still are waitng through one or more sailings.

Interminably, a compliant, mainstrem media had great fun milking complaints about these ferries. A radio caller, to be parrotted, felt aluminum was a bad choice because it was combustible. A woman leaving baby change items on the cardeck became a media event.

We may never know the whole truth but it's my belief that the Fast Ferry program was sabotaged and that political motivation was behind it.

I found this really valuable ariticle about neo-conservatism and one way to combat it. Here is an excerpt. I'm going to go back now and get the URL. It's not a long article, but it says it all.

I found this part interesting because of my distinct sense that neo-conservatism, in the destructive and powerful sense that we now know it has reached its zenith. I have long thought that without the element of ambush, they haven't any power and I believe that is why the conservatives in Ottawa find they are unable to break through. Paul Martin is where most Canadians want him, in a minority gov't influenced by the NDP. The public is quite happy with the way it is now because the Liberals will be forced to make changes making corruption more difficult. This in an unintended consequence of the Conservatives and show how good can come from - well - you know.

"It goes without saying that on rare occasions, civilized people are indeed forced to "cross the line" and resort to savagery. But an ideology that requires that the line be crossed on a daily basis is merely a set of excuses for indulging in the values on the right-hand column. "

Hmm. I thought I was putting this on the Cadman thread and in response to our friendly poster from last night.

Here's the url anyway.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/04/06/10_line.html

Skeptikool, the only discussion I saw during the election on the fastcats was right here in various Tyee comment threads.

Please don't ask me which ones. My sense of that issue is the liberals used it as a sort of Show Trial, in which the three boats were kept afloat front and centre as a media issue until the Libs could, as usual, sell them for far less than even a scrap metal guy would pay.

I suppose for the Liberals it was an attempt to prove how wasteful their development was.

Many of us now see it set the pattern of Liberals wealth creation.

They sell things for pennies on the dollar, (BC Rail, our confidential health information, our raw logs), and the buyers get wealthy.

Allan,

Re; The ferries

You are correct. They were kept in excellent view at the Deas Dock. I'm sure the thousands who, like me drove south through the tunnel daily, felt various degrees of anger at every sighting.

Does anyone have information on their ultimate use?

redrivergirl,

Checked it out. A shocking story of torture by sub-human animals.

And still in an illegal war in which thousands have died, the message will persist that it was about democracy - not oil.

Will the real butchers please stand up.

i see some of you are still stuck on the green vote-splitting excuse for losing this election.
here's your lesson on that kids: those who voted green were obviously not interested in voting for the negative destructive pessimistic party, but were either sincere green supporters or those trying to send a message to the gov't by casting a protest vote in order to elect a stronger opposition. in short, quit making excuses for not winning, you were very lucky to get as many seats as you did, and you will not get a majority for a long time. also, quit crowing the number you do have b/c all the libs need is one more seat. remember glennie? 39 to 36 was enough to wreak havoc for five long years.
p.s. may i please thank the bctf just one more time for firming up the soft liberal vote? considering so many were playing the very dangerous protest vote for an opposition game, i'm tremendously grateful for all your help.

The thing is Sir John, you don't have polling results to back up what you're saying.

Apparently, according to the poll I cited above, a large number of Greens voted NDP and an equally large number considered it.

And its not making excuses. Those of us interested in politics are free to discuss what-ifs till the cows come home. Much better than only being interested in the politics of the province for one month every 4 years isn't it?

The greens are international. They will not fold before the NDP does. They got the luck of the draw in a few countrys and have been in government in them and did ok.
(you got about 30% of them cos you are bigger and had a chance of winning).
Take away those greens and you dont look so great.
If you wanted the green vote in the election, all you had to do was support STV and you would have gotten 80% of them.
All that stopped you was your leadership. James voted no to electoral reform. Had she said so during the election, the 30% of greens that you got would have vanished. Lies by ommision are a way to prove your leadership?
Someone here should accept that anybody on 41% of the vote does not deserve a majority.
The left right flip flop could have been over.
The NDP in DUH mode is not an animal that inspires confidence.
So what if mmp gives the leadership more power? The bc libs will morf into a centerist party and you will never see the premeirship again.
Perhaps James sees that she can never change in responce to what the public wants and that is why she she voted to keep first past the post. How very undemocratic and self serving of her.

Where's the evidence that supporting STV would have garnered 80% of the Green vote? Its a big what-if and ignores the fact that a lot of NDP-ers are against STV.

I don't believe all the party's lack of support for STV had any meaningful effect on the election.

The Greens have turned into a Libertarian, right wing party who is, at least at first blush, interested in the environment. The Greens are not who they used to be. Their international sites are quite open about it.

If one's mail was stolen or tampered with and the perpetrator was found and reported, that person would probably be charged with committing a criminal act.

It would be good to know that emails, or Web mail, was similarly protected, but the law appears to be turning a blind eye to such criminal intrusion in my opinion - perhaps finding the activity too useful a tool for its own purposes.

Those that use Web message boards and forums have certain freedoms. If one is neither libelous, obscene, or inciting to hate or voilent revolution, one is free to be wrong, tasteless, politically incorrect and/or strongly opinionated.

There is a problem though. There are many lobbies, groups, institutions, and individuals to offend - to name a few: Industries include: Auto , Armaments, Agriculture, Pharmaceutical, Gambling, and Property management. Add to those the Gun lobby, political, legal and religious institutions and the media.

Though your message is quite within the law, it can bring you denial of service and other harassment. This may happen with the compliance of your service provider or and others.

I mention this here only because, since posting an opinion on gambling in this thread, I have received considerable harassment.

What sort of harassment? From who?

Frank,

If I knew the person/s responsible I'd have no hesitation in calling the police.

The harrassment included boot-up problems, computer lock-up, lost messages, calls to reconnect immediately after logging on and improper shutdowns etc.

Stuart says:
1) The corrupt media, God the last few days seen Canwest and even the CBC cheerleading overtime, ...

Yes, I've watched and listened with dismay how the media, who used to just issue a single editorial about where they stood, now whole-heartedly skewing their stories, headlines and coverage overall to favour their chosen party.

CanWest is an obvious one, and the CBC has become that way in the last couple of years of careful listening (including a complaint to the CRTC about CBC Vancouver having faked a news item to make George Bush look like he answered a reporter's question in a strong, positive fashion when he'd actually done just the opposite -- the CBC acknowledged they'd done that, and apologized (but not on air of course). This, by the way, was under Carole Taylor's leadership as head of the CBC.

Anyway, the last bastion of good mainstream journalism fell with the BC election, the Globe and Mail. They started a new BC Edition just about the time the writ was dropped. I didn't put two and two together until I started reading the incredibly biased coverage (puff, adoring pieces about Liberal candidate, and what little NDP coverage they offered was always tinged with negativity).

Anyone read Gary Mason's article profiling Carole Taylor (complete with a huge photo)? It read like the words of a 13 year old boy talking about some movie star. I was actually embarrassed for him reading it. Mason, by the way, is the head of the Globe's BC section.

Then the day after the election, Mason finally published a few negative comments about the Liberals (the day after, mind you), like how the media was criticized for linking the NDP with labour, but not linking the Liberals to business -- but Mason said nobody in BC seemed to mind the Liberals links to business. Also, in the day-after edition, they published some comments from former premier Bill VanderZalm who said he had never seen anything like it (the media bias in favour of the Liberals). However, the call-out quote (sub-head) only said "never seen anything like it" conveying to the reader who didn't carefully read all the way to the end of the article that he wasn't referring to Campbell winning back-to-back re-elections.

Not to mention the Globe publishing a large front page photo of Daniel Igali with some Indo-Canadian guys the weekend before the election.

No, it wasn't really the Greens that spoiled the NDPs chances, it was the wholesale shift in media ethics and practices that constantly spun the issues in favour of the Liberals. No mention of the criminal charges against top Legislative aids, no in-depth coverage of the "sale" of BC Rail to an American company, no mainstream analysis of the economy and what role the Liberals had or didn't have in the current situation. No, they just kept repeating the mantras "it's so quiet, there are no issues" and "nobody understands STV" ad naseum until the busy, harried general public just believed those things as the gospel truth. The gospel according to the media, the hand-maidens of the corporate elite who now run things on this planet, with some help from the governments whose job it is to extract taxes to continue to keep the wealthy in the style to which they've become accustomed.

Now, stay tuned for the continued takeover of Canada by the Americans. The latest piece I read in the Vancouver Sun's business section was an article on how the "independent" joint US-Canada-Mexico panel suggests we allow job seekers to forgo visas between the countries. Yup, we'll all soon be carrying (north) American identity cards. Won't be long before our kids will by dying in the next invasion of some distant little country that gets in the way of the U.S.

Sigh, and it's my birthday today. Buck up. The only bright light is that hilarious caper on The Hill. Poor, poor back-stabbed Peter. Oh, that hurt, barely audible voice he puts on! What a crock! By the way, do you think taxpayers paid for him to fly home to the Maritimes to do a media interview in Daddy's potato patch, then fly back to Ottawa for the vote? I bet we did. Was that parlimentary business he was on?.

Oh my how Peter McKay can speak so movingly about betrayal. Yah, well how about that oath he took when he became leader of the Progressive Conservatives, and the contract he signed with David Orchard, without whom Peter McKay would not have won the leadership? I guess Peter McKay has the right to betray his political colleages, and even disregard a contract he signed, but it's just not right for someone to betray him, eh?

So, moan on Peter McKay. You look like a proper fool, and you had it coming, big time! I'm no apologist for the federal Liberals (I will judge them when we have a more complete picture, and one in which the evidence has been analyzed by knowledgeable people, not just broadcast by the unprofessional Canadian media). In the meantime, the Conservatives are so frightening in how carefully they're trying to hide who they are and what they really want to do to Canada, that anybody who can put the blocks (Bloc?) to them, is a pal of mine! Along with the NDP, who helped stave off Stephen Harper's hoards.

There, now I feel better.

Sunny Samson

An excellent piece of analysis regarding old and new developments in the rightward bias shift in the media-, including, and I am actually quite heartbroken about it, for I have been a stalwart for it through many years of listening when it was the only media I could reach across the radio airwaves, in extremely isolated rural circumstances-, the CBC. It too has now finally compromised itself into a propaganda instrument of the corporate sellout of the nation.

Anyway, a very good piece of writing and analysis, which we really need, to help us all understand the full dimensions of what is evolving here.

Coyote,
Also a long-time supporter of CBC radio (watch little TV).
I was like a fish out of water when the National News message boards were dropped just prior to the last federal election. Technical difficulties was, and still is, the excuse being given. I think that was/is less than honest. Many posters were beating up on the Liberals, and the CBC brass, ever conscious of its funding, I believe was spooked into applying a seemingly-permanent gag.

I used to post there as: skeptikool.

Further:

See what I mean? A sell-out!

copy:

To our CBC.ca Message Board users,

As you know, CBC.ca’s message boards experienced a technology failure earlier this year. While the technology failure cannot be resolved, it has, however, given us the opportunity to explore options for other ways to interact with our audience that meet both industry best practice and, most importantly, the needs of our online audience.

CBC.ca is working on the development of a replacement model for the message boards in the form of a modified ‘letters to the editor’ approach.

Very, very interesting Skeptikool. No doubt "funding" paranoia is behind bringing the CBC on board the national corporatist agenda. The corruption is slip sliding into every facet of national life, even its publicly funded ones.

Thank you as well for this bit of information. In part, it is simply reassuring to realize that it is not only I who see what is evolving here.

It is interesting how us "oldies", who were raised around radio rather than TV, have generally continued our preference for it. My wife prefers TV, but I have maintained my preference for radio, with its evocation of memories of listening, out in the middle of the cold, dark nowhere, to everything from symphony concerts, to Don Messers Jubilee, to The Green Hornet. I even listened to the frontline radio broadcasts of the fall of Dienbienphu, when the French were overwhelmed by the Vietnamese, before the US moved in to replace them and continue that imperial war. (A few years later, I would have the strange experience of being there myself, in Vietnam, while serving in the Canadian military, just as the US was ramping up its involvement.)

Indeed, my idea of an evening is still, if I'm not tapping away on my pc, to sit and listen to the (extremely sexy) sultry voice of Danielle Charbaneau feed my fondness for classical style European "art" music on CBC Radio 2, or the eclectic fare of Brian Geoff (?)

About the extent of my TV is, the BBC news on CBC at 1500 each day, an absolute must. Though I do also like some of the nature shows, and British mystery and drama. And what's his name? Evan Sullivan? With that attractive and capable woman who co-anchors with him? On Sunday Report or Magazine, I think the show is called.

Ohhh, and I do watch a fair amount of the cooking channel, always having been a bit of a cooking buff myself. (When the old man was working on certain shifts, and not home to cook for us, we kids had to fend for ourselves or starve. Which turned out to actually be a good experience, especially for me, the oldest. The old man himnself could cook up a mean bangers and mash, with cooked canned tomatoes, which I thought was the food of the Gods for years. :-D

Enough waxing nostalgic, eh? :-)

Coyote,

Under attack!

I replied but was unable to post and lost what i wrote in the process.

Am being ground down but will try again by using WordPad and pasting from there.

Fascism lives.

yes, fascism lives skeptikool. power your way through the desperate attempts of your oppressors as they try to silence you by infecting your computer with a deadly virus. and then please don't forget to take your meds anymore.

Dr. sirjohna,

Thank you for the analysis. Not even a discussion on billing. How unvenal of you.

All news should be believed.
No wars are contrived.
Iraq. It was about democracy not oil.
An editor would never spike a letter because of its political views.
The email affords one total privacy.
Smear campaigns never happen. (see Edison v. Tesla)
The law operates equally for all.
The auto industry really does want to phase out the internal combustion engine.

If expressing a doubt about any of the previous brands me paranoid, so be it.

I see that another poster, coyote, noted something "weird" this morning in attempting to post. I DID manage to post on the new Home page. It dissappeared and then came back minus my post.

The following paranoid ramblings approximate that post:

Coyote,

Let's try this hit-and-run from Word Pad.

As we talk about radio, thousands of BBC workers are on strike in a dispute involving the loss of thousands of jobs. What's the betting the government's assault may have something to do with the release of a damning "secret" memo that leaves little doubt that a complicit Bush and Blair and certain of their administrators contrived an illegal war against Iraq in which many thousands have been slaughtered. (Today's Vancouver Sun. Article by Dan Gardner, Ottawa Citizen}

I'm not holding my breath but perhaps we'll see Bush, Blair and a few other of the compliant warmongers in jail beside Sadam Hussein.

Will all the butchers please stand up?

skeptikool; iraq, bush, blair, editors and the auto industry are important things. you are not. believe me pal, no one cares a rat's tail about your posts, and if you are delusional enough to believe you are being sabotaged you need to get back on your meds.

As the article suggests, many of the Greens wouldn't have voted at all had the party not existed and so they didn't cost the NDP the election. They will continue to exist as long as they give voice to the viewpoint of enough people who wouldn't otherwise find representation, and therefore to moan about them costing the NDP the election is pointless. If the NDP shifts their platform to try to attract Green voters, they will lose even more support from the right wing of the party ("compassionate capitalists") and union voters who believe the economy and jobs will be threatened. While the mainstream media does appear to have a decidedly Fraser Institute slant, it's hard to honestly argue that environmental issues don't have profile -- in alternate sources and in the mainstream (Rafe Mair, quite rightly, railed against fish farms for years on CKNW). Half the stores in Vancouver have an outdoor / environmental / organic theme. This would lead me to believe that there's a receptive audience for green issues but that Green leaders haven't done a good enough job of advocating an environmentally sustainable economy.

Something as simple as the soaring price of gasoline in the next four years, will serve to send more support into the Green camp. The electorate does not want complex issues, and the elctorate in BC, concentrated in the lower mainland, is insulated from such things as Pine Beetle infestation, and Sea Lice. But $2/litre gas? Now that will engage urban emotions.

Pierre Trudeau won against Joe Clark on the gasoline price issue. Then, it was on the "excessive" cost of gasoline, and government "gouging". Now it will be based on the availability of same, and the need for alternate energy sources. This is right up the Green's 'alley', and the other parties would be seen as climbing on board after the fact, especially the Libs.

sirjohna,

you wrote:

"skeptikool; iraq, bush, blair, editors and the auto industry are important things."

So? Write something "important" about them!

While the majority, regardless of opinions, attempt to advance the dialogue, your priority seems to be insulting other posters.

Excuse me, BrianWhite, but exactly who is being self-serving here? Carole James voted against STV, and so did I. But that doesn't imply voting for FPTP. I would be in favour of a fair and straight forward system of proportional representation, but not the multi-stage schemery of STV whose rules are far more complicated than either chess or contract bridge. I wonder what the Hell BC's Citizen's Committee types would have come up with if we had asked them to also review the jury system?

I believe we could compromise between our present system and PR quite easily. BC could adopt the 36 federal ridings as provincial seats to be chosen by the current method. Then the results of these elections, converted to provincial popular vote, could be used to award 50 proportional seats.

That way voters would still get a paper ballot and make one simple choice, and there would be no need for voting machines or complex, space-age algorithms. There would still be a tendency, in the 36 district seats, for the largest party to take a majority of those seats, thus tending to give them a small majority overall.

But the 50 proportional seats would guarantee that even small parties, with 5% of the vote, would be getting their leader and one or two other key people into the legilature, and the overall government majority would be much less than with all MLAs being chosen by FPTP in single member districts. Roughly speaking, the 2001 Liberal landslide would have consisted of 35 district Liberals and 28 proportional MLAs for a total of 63 out of 86, or 73% of all seats, instead of the 97% of all seats (77 out of 79) that they got four years ago.

Last week's election would have given the Liberals about 45 MLAs (est. 21 districts plus 24 PR), the NDP 37 MLAs (est 15 districts plus 21 PR) and the Greens 5 (all PR). So the overall Liberal majority would be just three and the Greens would indeed be a factor, as would other small parties if they got over some minimum threshold.

The only reason the BC fiberals got back in, think about this, have the media (Canwest) ever before had as much coverage about the Greens?
The only reasone was to split or take votes from the NDP as Canwest owns The Province, Vancouver Sun, Global TV, CTV, etc Campbell=Canwest=Big business=Big Bucks
Federal Fiberals = same
Federal Consevitives = next USA 51st State & 60-80 thousand new Canadian body bags from Iraq check it out, SAD STATE! Oh Canada's last breath thoese people who are going Conservitive you will see but to late......