Campbell: "But it is disingenuous for Ms. James to intimate that her withdrawal of support is somehow the result of a revelation that the public would have 'serious concerns' about 'the process we took to arrive at the decision to increase MLA salaries...."

So, Campbell knew that pretty much every adult in BC would be outraged by this action and decided to do it anyways? Everybody makes a poor decision now and then, but it takes real character to stand up and admit it. That Carol James can do that and Gordon Campbell cannot says a lot.

Carole James was and is a wet noodle. It was only BC's hate of Gordo, that got the NDP as many seats as they did.

Here's the first rule of Canadian politics - in opposition, you oppose! Time for a new leader I think.

If the NDP want to aspire to government> dunp James, and quickly!

It seemed to me that Joy McPhail had more influence as the opposition when it was just her and Ms. Kwan in the legislature. Ms. James has much more power behind her, but not nearly so much clout. Maybe Grumpy is right; maybe it is time to consider new leadership in this party. Bad move, Carol.

One bright glimmer in this awful week, is the fact that New Democrats province-wide rose as one to denounce their Opposition. No evasion. No whitewash. Truth was outed (and soon Ms James too, I hope). It shows that historic roots mean something.

But there's a lot of work to be done. As Dave Schreck advises: Contact your M.L.A. Demand the repeal of Bill 17.

Last night, one of the stations reported that Campbell and James had a conversation just before the vote. Apparently, James told Campbell some of her MLA's were having second thoughts about the raise (or the way it was being done). What happened next is unclear. Campbell says he offered James a chance to back out, James is denying that Campbell made such an offer.

All members voted to accept the raise so that conversation matters little now, but one of them has the gall to lie about it and I'd like to know which one it is.

The saddest part was the missed opportunity. I repeat: Carol James was sucker-punched. I hope she can retrieve a little something from the mess.

About as good a summation of the last election as I've read anywhere, Grump.

And it really is too bad, because I do understand the desire of progressive and radical women, and more than a few of us similarly politically positioned men, to see a women leader of "the left", so called. But it's wrong, wrong, wrong to write blank cheques for anyone, male or female, or return to the old democratic-centralism notion of, "My leader right or wrong." practice of obedience politics .

And Carole has been coming off too wishy washy and Tony Blairish, for me anyway, right from the git go. She's practically on her knees begging the Big Boys to let her into The Club. (I almost said Coalition, doubtless subconciously thinking of the coalition between Tony Blair and George Bush in Iraq. Hmmm. The Carole James and Gordon Campbell Coalition in the legislature? Has a certain ring of authenticity to it, doesn't it?)

Too many of these kind of gals still think it's all about power dressing., unfortunately.

The NDP needs to do itself a favour and dump Carol now, before she does even more damage, and find a candidate, preferably a woman with more huzpah.

And that is not because I think that what goes on at this level of the class power process is really all that critical anyway. It's not really. It just makes it easier or more difficult, relatively. Much more important is what is going on in the minds of ordinary folks, and grass roots progressives and radicals-, and whay they are doing and not doing.

Which, come to think of it, just might be better served in the end by the NDP hanging with Carole. :-)

Ms. James is living in a dream world of her own.

"Doing things differently"? She has no idea what leading really is all about. The NDP is completely out to lunch if they think they can do anything in concert with the current BC Liberals.

The current government in BC will use every and any ruthless tactic to 'govern'. Thus the opposition must use every and any ruthless tactic to 'oppose'.

Ms. James is a wet noodle (correct GRUMPY!), the NDP, as a party, must dump their connection with the labor unions but this will not happen under Ms. James. Therefore; BC must get ready for another 4 years of BC Liberal rule. As I do not see the NDP getting into government with a soggy mass leader and a milquetoast program of reform.

Corky! where are you now?!?

Campbell didn't have to offer James a chance to back out. He can't "force" any NDPer to vote yes.

I think this was discussed with everyone and the NDP agreed. My guess is that big labour agreed too because as soon as it happened, Jim Sinclair pointed out that if the MLAs can get a 15% raise, then the public sector expects generous raises as well. So, this 15% raise set a precedent.

But I think James is trying to stab Campbell in the back by backing out. She had to agree to it beforehand or else the Liberals wouldn't have tabled the bill in the first place. Now, she can publicly backout and make Campbell look greedy.

This is fine and all. And, it's sort of working. However, I think Campbell can screw her by amending the bill so that MLAs can "opt out" of the raise and pension. Then she and the rest of the NDP will have to put their money where their mouth is.

How about giving our minds a shift, and see the clever way Gordco was maneuvered into also admiting to making a mistake on the salary and pension increases. Now the Lieberals almost have to backtrack and hold to the salary status-quo the rest of BCers are stuck with.
It's easy for the opposition to admit making a mistake but almost fatal for Gordo to admit the same. Maybe us taxpayers are going to save some money as a result of Ms Taylor's "mistake."

What is it about women that they tend to be able to change their mind without concequences ?
This turn around by the NDP leader is about as flaky as it gets.
Everyone knew the shite would hit the fan with the announcment of a raise for our Provincial politicions. ( The raise is okay as far as I am concerned ).
And for Carol James to wake up in the morning with cold feet is an indication of her weakness.
Campbell, at least, has the strength to weather the storm.
What a great leader we have in this Province.
And one with a clear criminal record, as well.

"Campbell, at least, has the strength to weather the storm."

We'll see about that. I have a feeling you'll be eating those words.

"And one with a clear criminal record, as well."

You're right about this, he clearly is a criminal.

"What is it about women that they tend to be able to change their mind without concequences ?"

I don't know Ron, as far as I can tell, there have been consequences to James changing her mind. The liberals don't seem to like it one bit.

TFM, Swervin' Erwin. My laugh for the morning.

Nothing I could add would make your comment here any more laughable. TFM. It's a stand alone, Erwin classic. :-D

Weak leadership and stupidity rein, my first impression when I met Carole was that she was a weak leader.

I was at an campaign fundraiser in Port Moody when she rolled up 20 min late in her campaign bus and then did a 5 min speech that did nothing but bash Gordo, I waited for almost half an hour and spend money so I could hear a 5 min crap speech, she didn't even let her candidates speak, they just waived and smiled.

When I approached her she had didn't have 5 min for me, she blew me off and hid in the corner with party insiders and was very unapproachable, then she left quickly. I stuck by the party but feel this tops of her
weak leadership skills, the Liberals were being pounded everyday by the media

over their sloppy dealings with the children's ministry due to cutbacks, the NDP had them by the bal**'s and let them go. Now everyone will only remember the dirty dealings and pay raisers,

Good to see you back Coyote , and yes I am ashamed to admit it but Ron is so twisted he does make me laugh sometimes. Sorry to recede the offer is to little to late, all everyone can see is Carole and Gordo breaking bread and negotiating their raises.

carole james = weak, weak, weak. during the last campaign the media and carole were in honeymoon mode and there was no record to criticize. this sets a very dangerous precedent.
if i'm gordo i'm licking my chops in anticipation of the next four years and the 2009 campaign.

I don't think Gordo will survive till 2009.He's bound to have a drink by then.

I found the whole episiode hilarious, how Holier than Thou Carole has her snout in the trough as much as anybody else in politcs. Seeing Jenny making excuses was also a hoot.

What happened here is plain the see: Carole's Bosses, Jim Sinclair and Jenny Sims, got on the phone and reminded her who is really in charge of the NDP.

You wait four long bloody years as facists drunk on power, tear away unimpeded, gutting social programs, breaking otherwise binding agreements and tossing children and elders to the cruelty of the capitalistic winds.

You accept that the party you voted for is down and wounded with two members and publicly kicked about and abused, knowing that eventually life will change.

The dream is that a revised NDP would re-arise, strong and determined, that the Liberals, so awash in patrionage, mean-spiritedness and scandel, including still unexplained criminal investigations and charges, would wither.

The reality proves less than satisfactory, but with more than 30 MLAs now beavering away, the hopes are the NDP under Carole James can at least provide a bit of pay back.

Few of us expect the NDP to quickly smash the smug attitude Liberal MLA's have etched into their every word.

No, about all we expect is a new day where the NDP emboldened by its new army of political fighters will take on the excesses of recent Liberal years.

Hopefully, we naively dream, Carole James and her band of MLAs can stop the bleeding.

How friggin' sad we now learn that salaries and pensions remain the prime goal of our "heros".

How friggin' sad that Carole James obviously hasn't the smarts (or is it desire) to take on the representatives of the extreme right in BC.

How friggin' sad that 30 some NDP MLAs who promised to rid this province of the pigs who are destroying it have opted instead, and behind closed doors to boot, to hop into bed with the porkers and earn a friggin' pay raise.

Sorry Carole James, but your sudden realization that you look like an easy trick and your excuse that you weren't aware of how the public would see this is pathetic.

Politics is all about perception and if after about 20 years a politician hasn't mastered that fact, it ought to be a pretty big sign of trouble.

The long and short of it is you made a deal with the devil, but unlike a smart politician, who might have at least kept the process public, you opted to have your little tryst with the bedroom doors locked.

What makes it even worse is that apparently ever last one of your MLAs agreed willingly to be gagged.

Now I am beginning to understand why so many people in eastern blok countries are pining so much for the era when politicians didn't have to make deals enemies.

How friggin' sad. Should be a real moral booster for the federal NDPers in BC as we head into a federal election. I think I'll head south for a holiday and avoid the mess.

I was always told never to judge a book by it's cover, but in this case, my initial opinion of Carole James ( 'not too bright') was confirmed.

Still, I recall when my late father, enraged by the Socreds, ran as a PC to take votes away. At the policy convention, with the PCs running 3rd in the polls, he suggested that they come out in favour of a 20% pay cut for MLAs. who were rather overpaid then, as now. As he afterwards remarked, it was as though I'd just pee'd on the flag...

Needless to say, the PCs in the subsequent election elected zero members, but there was no way they were going to renounce that money during the campaign. They could already taste it...

Gordon Campbell:

"The spirit of this has always been unanimity, "and I find it a little bit disingenuous that Carole James is now saying she is surprised by this. We talked about this beforehand, as late as (Thursday) afternoon at 1:45. I said to her, 'if you're not comfortable doing this we can put it out to a commission if that would be better, but everybody's got to be unanimous."
______________________________________________
Friday, November 18 @ 8:40PM CKNW Audio Vault (cknw.com)
Michael Smyth's Nightline BC radio show.
(8:30PM guest Mike Farnsworth, NDP Opposition House Leader)

Michael Smyth:

"Did Carole James have a discussion with Gordon Campbell about this yesterday right before the bill went into the house?"

Mike Farnsworth:

"My understanding is that she did."

Michael Smyth:

"To your knowledge Mike, did Gordon Campbell in that conversation, offer to put the thing out to a commission and she said no, let's go ahead and go for it?"

Mike Farnsworth:

"That would have been between the two of them."
______________________________________________
Carole James, shaking hands with striking teachers who were expected to swallow a zero wage increase, while meeting in secret since the summer with the Liberals over a 15 per cent raise after only six months on the job? How sadistic is that?

Carole James says that she wants to distance her party from the trade union movement. She accomplished that in only two hours last Thursday. Congratulations, Carole. She had an opportunity to show some real leadership and oppose this, but she blew it.

"We knew, I think, all along it would not be popular," said Campbell.

"The NDP felt it was the right thing to do. So did our caucus."

The NDP MLA's all knew how unpopular this would be, and agreed to go for it anyway. But at the first sign of trouble, Carole James who was in Winnipeg at the time, didn't even think to phone up her caucus to discuss the problem.

Her first thought was to phone Gordon Campbell and then announce it publicly, making all of her other MLA's look stupid. That is NOT leadership. If it was the right thing to do on Thursday, then why not on Friday. It looks like her cosy relationship with Gordon Campbell is over.

Her lying about not getting an offer from Gordon Campbell to put it out to a commission is disgusting. She is starting to make Gordon Campbell look good, and I will NEVER forgive her for that.

Thanks, Stuart. While I have to make myself stay away a bit more, because I get too into it and do too much sitting, and have to make myself get out and back into being more physically active. Too fond of my own and the old lady's cooking. Plus, this time of year, as winter comes on, I have some artsy fartsy projects that I do, as gifts for friends and family over the Winter Solstice festivities.

I can never stay away too long though, 'cause ehhh, the revolution still needs to happen. (And no Wingers, I'm not necessarily talking put 'em against the wall and shoot 'em up, and man the barricades, but more the social revolution, like The System talks about technological revolutions etc. Though ehhh, phuck with us too much.... :-)

Now, I'm away again for awhile.

Good comments, Bulltoss.

The Federal NDP are a sellout as well. When will this party pack it up and go away. They will never get more than 20% of support nationally, why do people bother with these old school comrads anymore. Why not just vote Green and get it over with.

Bulltoss,

Since this info has come out, James has claimed she was not offered to "put it out to a commission" by Campbell during the phone call before the vote. At least that's what was reported this morning.

Campbell says he did, James said he didn't... forgive me if I'm unwilling to take either of them at their word.

I'm not trying to defend James here, I said already the conversation means nothing -- all MLA's voted in favour.

Allan: I agree with every word you say.

Carole James has double-crossed the party. She forgot (or never knew) that the party's strength comes from its roots. That socialists do their best to serve the common good.

Ms James must step aside, FAST. Who to replace her? Who can whip the 31 other bonehead MLAs into remembering who elected them, and why?

Flip-flopping on your word when the going gets tough shows a lack of resolve and seriously questions her leadership abilities. If politicians flip-flopped on every issue in which there is a "public backlash" nothing would ever get done. Some segment of the population is always upset with every government decision.

Listening to Liberal and NDP MLA’s right after the bill was introduced they all understood that there would be a backlash they would have to deal with. Both sides were on the same page. Both sides vote unanimously in favour of the bill. Both sides were prepared to stand together to weather that storm. Then all of a sudden Carole pulls the rug from under both her own MLA’s and the Liberals MLA’s feet

You can argue for and against the merits of the pay raise until your blue in the face, but Carole basically went back on her word after the agreement was signed and delivered. How could the Liberals trust the NDP in any other bi-partisan agreements when the NDP squirms out of any agreement at the first sign of conflict.

What she has done is exactly what you despise about Gordon Campbell. She lied. So much for trust and honesty.

...and while they're at it (repealing Bill 17), perhaps they (Government & Opposition)could throw Bill 12 into the hopper as well! After all, they have the power to reject BAD laws!

The Greens are not an option for me. They are far too conservative except for environmental issues.

I agree Carol James should step down.

Who are the likely NDP MLA's to be considered?
Corky Evans seems to be known by everyone. Would he be a good choice? He is certainly personable.

Who else....from amongst the new Members?
There are probably four or five Members with the necessary skills. Perhaps one of these has the potential to knock our socks off.

Remember that not all the NDP Members supported this wage increase. All of us know that MLAs are required to vote the same as their Party. A huge price is paid by an individual who choses to break this unwritten requirement.

A 15% pay raise for a salary that hasn't been raised in four years is not a pig-out. MLAs need to start writing these bills the same way unions build contracts: a series of annual increases, rather than a single injection.

Carole James is incompetent. It's that simple. She's demonstrated her leadership abilities with this back pedal. MLAs voting for their own pay raises is a long standing tradition and you can always anticipate the backlash. James it being at best disingenuous, and at worst hypocritical.

What's up with Carol? Good question.

But that aside, what about our local MLA's? Can't they think for themselves? What kind of arm twisting did it take for them to go along with this deal? Obviously, not much.

Reminds me of "if all your friends jump off a bridge, it doesn't mean you have to, too."

Don't they all have some explaining to do?

I don't buy the idea that it sets a precedent. (Now you have to give everyone 15%) Nobody believes that the Liberals are trying to be logical, at this point in time. It's dictatorship for the wealthy. It's an argument that the public may be sympathetic to, more than likely it will just make them nervous.

Wow! Our MLAs unanimously voted themselves a hefty pay increase that will raise their salaries between 15% and 30%. This occurs, interestingly, in the third year of the ‘zero, zero, zero’ mandate that they inflicted on every other public service worker. The rationale that motivated members of both political parties to vote for this increase was the idea that they should ‘tie’ their salaries to another group doing comparable work. If MPs get more money, then MLAs should get the same. Now the NDP has 'second thoughts'...

It’s not that I begrudge salary increases to our MLAs. Rather, the problem is that they chose the wrong group for their salary comparison. When you watch the antics of our current legislature, you quickly realize that the work done there is not about delivering good government. The fighting, mud-slinging, jockeying for position, passing the buck and squeeze plays are more akin to that icon of the Canadian entertainment sports industry - hockey.

My modest proposal is that MLA salaries should therefore be tied to professional hockey players’ remuneration. One of two things will likely happen. Either the provincial government’s productivity will skyrocket to pay for their hefty salaries or there will be enormous public pressure to lower hockey salaries. Which is more likely?

Hey, that means the rest of us lowly wage earners could afford to go to a hockey game again!

man is this ever good fun. watching the lefties beat each other up on a monday afternoon is better than apple pie and ice cream.

The backpedalling by Carole James is amazing.

All I can suggest is that people remember this next time it comes to vote in 2009.

I'm glad to see the Green Party come out and demand a recind on the legislation.

http://www.cbc.ca/bc/story/bc_payraises20051121.html

THIS IS WHY WE NEED A THIRD PARTY !!!

WOW!
Were these secret talks about wage increases taking place during the Teachers' dispute?

The larger critical commentary should be that we live in the lesser of evils framework. We are damned if we vote eitherway. I have a theory.

We, British Columbians, have extreme short term memories. We vote according to what happening on the immediate days before elections and forget how all the parties in past power (dictatorship) have screwed the people. That goes for all parties past and present.

Our giant hate-on for Gordo and his so called Liberal Party did only give more fuel for the NDP, but then they forgot that it was the people who gave them a few more seats this time around and are going down the same road their previous party did before them. Greed above all.

Where were they thought the teacher's labour dispute? What about helping or showing support for other's in labour?

The latest pay increase is further example that we no longer live in a democratic leadership but one that masks itself as such but rules the province as their own.

It's a shame.

So here in British Columbia, Canada, we have a "Supreme Court" that ruled it was illegal to read the Harry Potter book, when it got released early by mistake:

Fourteen fans bought Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince from The Real Canadian Superstore in Coquitlam on the west coast of Canada before managers realised their mistake. But readers will be unable to share their knowledge after Raincoast Books, the book's Canadian publisher, was granted a "John Doe" injunction prohibiting the buyers from even reading their copies before the publication date.

The supreme court of British Columbia issued a court order preventing anyone from "displaying, reading, offering for sale, selling or exhibiting in public" their books.

- http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1691805,00.html

Then this same organization proclaimed a teachers' strike illegal. When the teachers ignored their proclamation, it fined them $500,000.

- http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/10/21/teachers-strike051021.html

Now, our MLA's are voting themselves a 15% wage increase - incidentally, what the teachers wanted, over three years, along with manageable classroom sizes - with the exception that their raise will be instituted almost immediately, and they're probably already making way more than a teacher for a lot less work:

Starting April 1st, MLAs will earn nearly $87,000. They are currently paid $75,400 annually.

Meanwhile, cabinet ministers and NDP Leader Carole James will make $131,000. James was previously paid $114,400.

B.C. Premier Gordon Campbell's base salary will go up to $146,320 a year from $119,500.

- B.C. politicians under fire for pay hikes

So, we have an Office of Supreme Proclamations that has nothing better to do than pass absurd laws against teenagers who unknowingly buy a Harry Potter book early, and harass teachers. I mean, if the Harry Potter early release were such a big deal, why didn't they punish the Superstore? Do the judges who work at the Office lunch with Superstore CEO's or something? And if teaching is an essential service, what about governing and keeping promises made to millions of people?

Why is it illegal to strike against a rule passed by a government who is giving themselves the same 15% raise they refuse others? If the Office of Supreme Proclamations wants the citizens to respect it, it should try to remember that laws are made to make a civilization run smoothly. Turning teenagers into criminals for unknowingly buying a book is hardly the way to inspire respect; laughter maybe, but respect?

I vote that the 15% raise the MLA's are hoping to give themselves go to the teachers. And that the Office of Supreme Proclamations be fined $500,000 for endangering the authority of our legal system. The fine can go to public education.

http://frogstylebiscuit.com/index.php?articles_function=show_detail&name=articles&id=147

Elliot, this is a policy debate, but then capitalist pigs like you prefer ice cream and pie to an open and honest partisan discussion of your party.

You can't have this debate. Just more evidence that your party is bordering on a particular philosophy born in pre world war two Europe.

Thats the diference between thoughtful and caring people and your mob.

Elliot says

"man is this ever good fun. watching the lefties beat each other up on a Monday afternoon is better than apple pie and ice cream."

You will notice 2 things Elliot , first no one here is critizing Gordo about the pay raise, everyone expects him to act in this way, we are critical of our leadership which blew it on this one. So we have come to expect nothing
less of Gordo and his ilk,

2nd) you will notice the so called lefties are able to be critical of their leaders and have open and honest debate, unlike the right were they all share the same brain. Like when Gordo was busted with DWI all the red necks stood up to defend him. Yep this discussion shows that the left is more concerned with making things better than protecting its party
image. In fact I'm glad this happened now , we can focus on getting a new leader in place.

...and while they're at it (repealing Bill 17), perhaps they (Government & Opposition)could throw Bill 12 into the hopper as well! After all, they have the power to reject BAD laws!

Wait a second ,ice creme and apple pie. Sounds a big red white and blue to me. I can smell an American

As if we don't know the answer to that! lol

The Libs must be laughing out the side of their mouths as their 'spinning' a side story (the ndp's part in this and the MLA's not being consulted re the change of mind etc) and making it about the NDP instead of them.

Yes, both parties have a part in this. Why is it that the party, who not only vote themselves this, but also are actively working to take away worker rights and lower their wages is not taking a bigger hit? Why is it that the party who is listening to the public and responsive to the public's opinion, after making a poor choice, unlike the little emperors in gov't now, who we know hide from their constituents in these situations and when they deliberately rewrite labour laws, sell our assets which are not theirs etc get a free pass in this? Yes, we don't expect more from them. Still...

It is the liberals who would deny fair wages, benefits and good working conditions for others while voting themselves a 'sweetheart deal', who are the real worms here.

That's the bigger story. People who make other people's lives worse, exploit them, lie and steal their assets, give themselves a bigger piece of the public purse. People who advocate the elimination and the theft of other people's security and pension plans, who stand by while Telus etal attack British Columbian citizens, ensure their own gold plated pension.

How much did they cut from single parent's welfare checks? Which means less good food for a child? And, how many resourses did they take away from schools and hospitals? Bah.

Too bad that, in today's world, a desire to be courteous and to cooperate in developing solutions to major issues is castigated as weakness.

Point #1: Whatever else may be wrong with our politicians, their salaries cannot be construed as a "trough". IF the job is being done well, and IF the job is done with integrity, then the salaries are about one quarter of where they should be.

Point #2: It is, in the main, the SYSTEM which let the people down last week - that, and an unbelievable level of political stupidity.

Point #3: What the system should require is what is now - belatedly - being proposed, voz. that the matter be put out to a commission of qualified individuals for a report and recommendations as to what is an appropriate level of remuneration and benefits. Assuming that the recommendations would include a salary and benefits increase, then that increase should be applied at the beginning of the NEXT term. Individuals should NEVER be placed in a position of conflict and asked to vote on their own salary package.

Point #4: It sure wouldn't hurt to consider such an expert commission - with members to be appointed by unanimous approval of the house, just like the Auditor-General. The commission would be tasked to review the salary/benefit package of ALL public sector workers on an annual basis. The recommendations of that commission should be binding upon government. No strikes, no political rhetoric, no inconvenience to the public and yet an affordable standard of living for all public employees. If, then, the employees do not care for the terms of employment they have a choice - accept them, make their case to the next review, or quit.

Point #5: The last problem with the status quo is that, although there were significant problems with the NDP reign, we now have an ideological government, which has done its level best to poke a stick in the eye of almost every level of society - with the exception of those individuals and corporations who put them in power. It is THAT which led to the events of last week. It is THAT which warehoused the uninvestigated files of 713 children who died while in government care. And, if I am right, left unattended it is THAT which will lead to its defeat at the next election.

So, please - don't decry courteous debate or those who advocate it. Put the blame where it belongs - on the shoulders of those who, in their arrogance, believe that election to a majority in the Legislature (or the House) is, indeed, a free pass to the bank.

you guys don't have a chance in hades of finding a new leader that can hold this bunch together. you'd better go with what you've got and get back on the bandwagon.

I too am very upset at the pay raises they voted themselves. They just got 10% pay raise when sworn into office after election. They now think they worth 25% +. The plus is when you add in the benefits they want to give themselves as well.
I am not at all surprised at the Liberals for this but the NDP totally shocked me. Shame on you Carole I thought better of you. I thought finally we could get past the scandals of the past haunting the NDP.
I am a HEU member who still well remembers her 15% roll back and no raise this year. Further to that I am a LPN who has to upgrade each year and take on more and more job responsibilities for less pay. I also well remember management getting raises just days after we lost wages.
Well the spring is coming and Gordon not worried about example he sets because he has majority government and will just legislate all our contracts and legislate us back to work. Lets hope this time the community stands strong and has general strike. Though I am no longer sure what alternative we have to the Liberals.

Redrivergirl I think the Liberals not taking a bigger hit in all this because no one expected any better of them.
I am not against anyone getting a raise we all know how the cost of living have risen. The point is 9 months ago they got 10% raise. Also the point is they told all public unions to take 0-0 or in my case a cut back of 15%. Now if we have to learn to live on less to help the provincial economy then the politicians should too.

I was really upset when I heard the news about the salary increases. I spent the weekend remembering all the suffering placed on the public in the last 4+ years. Peoples jobs lost, salary decreases for hospital employees (irony of it being 15%), teachers losing their struggle to have decent education for our children and our futures. Not to mention all the social services cuts. All these battles (and many more) lost under the guise of "protecting the economy". I even wrote a letter (and then deleted it) advising the NDP Party that I was withdrawing as a member.... any politician that couldnt realize just how offended the public would be with this revelation was not a politician I wanted representing me!!!!

AND then it dawned on me....maybe....just maybe these politicians did this act KNOWING how we would react...maybe they did this to prove how EASY it is to do with the present system... MAYBE in a few weeks we will start hearing about STV again with our leaders telling us that a situation like this could not occur if STV was in place.

Maybe JUST maybe our politicians (right and left) have duped us all in a way we never even thought of!

When you have a government in power that betrays and impoverishes its citizens through an agenda based on privatization, sells off their resources and assets... and the right to self-determination that goes along with ownership of those assets...

hides vital information from the public, disempowers all routes to access that information such as FOI, the Omsbudsman and the Auditor-General...brings in legislation in the form of Bill 12 and Bill 13 that strips fundamental human rights... and then makes criminals of those who stand up in defence of those human rights...

when you have a government with so little regard for democracy....then the only kind of opposition that is acceptable is one that opposes, loudly and clearly.... no surrender, no wimpy white flag... not for a moment.

We don't need an Opposition that joins in the complicity of this government's actions by joining in committees with them, by collaberating with them on pay raises behind closed doors.... by agreeing with the present government's proposal that a more civil approach would be more benefical in the legislature... (because a more civil approach clearly benefits a BC Liberal government that is now on the defensive over past actions).

To be worthy of the name the Opposition must not collaberate, co-operate or join hands with this government in any form as this government has become the enemy of the people of this province...and of the social system so many of us treasure.

The Opposition must respond in kind...with force...as one does to an enemy.

I wrote in my letter to the NDP a few days ago: "This is a province fighting for its life. We deserve an Opposition and a leader that is willing to go the distance in this regard. Nothing less is acceptable."

God help progressive people if that obscene choice of the radical right, STV gets in!!!!!

You are so right, Lynn. Perhaps this will be a relatively inexpensive lesson for the opposition.

poor ron erwin can't see the trees for the pollops! To the rest of you right wingnuts here is my opinion, your chosen leader gets drunk and drives, spends the night in jail puts hundreds if not thousands of people on the street to give his rich friends a nice big tax break and ships thousands of jobs off to germany to save a few bucks, sells our railroad inspite of giving his word that he would not, tried to sell a major highway and still you support him so it is no suprise to me that you support his 22% raise while most British Columbians are barely making ends meet!

This man was in charge when 712 childrens deaths got swept under the carpet and still you support him, how many more poor or seniors have died without the publics knowledge as a direct result of the drunks hack and slash policies? This is ok with you people?

At least the lefties would be asking for their leaders head which says a lot to me, like they don't just vote with their pocketbook, they are not brain dead and actually care about someone besides themselves!

You right wingers seem to be obsesseed with your bank account, don't care about anything else or who gets hurt or suffers so you can put a few more bucks in the bank, morally bankrupt bunch of cowards in my opinion!

Nanny, until now I too would have thought Corky Evans would be an excellent choice.

Unfortunately, that was based on my misunderstanding that he stood above this type of crap.

That politicians stand to suffer seriously from voting against such a deal, frankly, isn't my concern, nor would I think it the concern of a real politician.

The public elect people to take political stands and, if the stench is as bad as the reality then I expect that politician to honour his commitment and take a stand.

They are elected to serve their constituents even when party unity is called for and anyone in the NDP caucus that doesn't understand getting into bed with the Liberals for a pay raise is beyond the pale has obviously become much too liberal to continue.

Corky Evans has certainly been eliminated from my future leadership list as have all his colleagues.

The only word to describe this mess is betrayal.

But lest the hand full of right-wingers who are bringing themselves to some form of weird extacy over this mess with their inane glee, just remember most of the wrath here at Tyee is from the leftand aimed at the left.
In other forums and media it is simply another dirty rotten deal worked out by the same power drunk partier we know as Gordon Campbell.

The typical Liberal member is so pathetic they would elect cheats, crooks lairs and feel not a lick of shame when they act as they do.

But then if you criticize this government and you are looking for handouts, pork, etc., you are in trouble. Liberals know that.

Good news boys,the arsholes got the message
and the raise is repealed and will not be
re visited,and as one of the leftys you yap about I am glad of my e-mails to James.
Ed

"Good news boys,the arsholes got the message and the raise is repealed and will not be re visited"

If true, I'd just like to bring attention to this nugget from Ron Erwin:

"Campbell, at least, has the strength to weather the storm."

So if Campbell doesn't even have that what does he have?

what a bloody joke. a civilized legislature benefitted the ndp much more than the liberals, but carole james just declared total war with her chicken-shit flip-flop. good luck guys, you're going to need it. looks like this weekend's convention just got much more interesting. think glennie will attend?

Ursus, " in charge when 712 childrens deaths got swept under the carpet "
Actually not all of these deaths occured when the Lib's were in power, just some of them.
And I heard they were delicious, when Gordo finished cooking them he shared the entrails with George Bush. They are both now plotting how to get some more dead kids for their pantry.
These guys are so evil aren't they ? I am sure no working man would do such a thing.

Brian Glennie has been retired for more than two decades. After Hilliard Graves the best hip checker in league history.

No, I don't think he'll be attending. But will you?

Sweet, if was the NDP supporters that got the raise repealed, remember that Elliott, the NDP
supporters and Caroles Flip Flop just saved you some tax dollars. You can say thank you,
by the way , negotiating and being civilized with dogs only helps you to catch flees, how
did being more moderate and trying to please everyone while abandoning his supporters
help Jim Green . Medication time Ron ( ignore those voices in your head)

BC Provincial Legislature
Monday, November 21, 2005

Mike de Jong

In light of the leader of the opposition's sudden change of position, on Friday on behalf of her caucus, clearly the conditions of bi-partisan support for bill 17 no longer exist, and it therefore can not, and will not take effect.

Further Mr. speaker, the unreliability of the opposition leader's position's on this matter, in the government's view, precludes any possibility of it being dealt with further in a truly non-partisan manner, and accordingly, all members of the chamber should know that the government intends to take no further steps to examine either the salary, pensions, or constituancy office support issues, and passage of this Bill 17 will end this discussion and we will move on to other issues.

Ron, I don't think the issue is when the kids died, but that the Liberals warehoused the files because it was financially expedient.

I find it amusing that anyone would defend the Liberals on this one, especially when the Premier admits they f*** up. Talk about loyalty.

An interesting, even fun read at times. Lots of thoughtful and principled observations, pay attention Wingnuts, coming out of the left above. With outstanding honestty from many familiar voices here, even one or two with whom I am known to disagree from time to time. :-)

Whilst yourselves fall all over each other and your own feet with apologetics for your "Great Leader", to quote Swervin' Erwin in a post above.

Great Leader!

Now where have I heard that kind of language before, to describe dictatorial potentates. Hmmm. Nazi Germany and North Korea come immediately to mind.

Great Leader! Indeed.

That you had an infintismal fraction of the honesty and principledness coming out of the left above here, including many NDP members themselves. All of us who were here during the HEU strike and the Teacher's strike remember the uncompromising and contempt filled positions you took towards these citizens in those days, arseholes. But quite a different tune you sing when it comes to "the wages" auf Der Fuhrer, Great Leader Gordo, nicht wahr?

It's not the left voices above who are pathetic here.

We'll deal with our own. This society would be a better place if you dealt more openly and honestly with the failings of your own.

At best you are laughable, at worst, reactionary and pathetic apologists, who are really quite dangerous in the slimy way of the right.

It's taking awhile, but we'll sight in your distance. All in good time my little Braunshirts. All in good time. What goes around, comes around.

man is this ever good fun. watching the lefties beat each other up on a monday afternoon is better than apple pie and ice cream.

And they wonder why they do not win elections.

these guys are a joke. no backbone, no principles, no integrity. the ndp may never govern again in this province. they're also crapping their drawers about the swing back to the right in saturday's civic elections. hey pete, thanks for the suggestion. maybe i will attend. can't think of a more entertaining time than seeing a bunch of lost constipated lefties trying to figure out what to be angry and negative about next.

What a mockery of parliamentary process!

First a racetrack attack getting three readings of bill 17, including one vote taken with ONE MINUTE of debate.

Second, a wet-noodle opposition, with no backbone to OPPOSE when the correct time to oppose was before them. Nope they just lined up to vote yes.

Third, a nutty flip-flop by the opposition, done AFTER the correct time to oppose. With a milque-toast leader giving a suitably soggy statement. MAKE THAT STATEMENT IN THE HOUSE of the PEOPLE, NOT IN THE MEDIA!

Fourth, now the governing party is flipping!

This is why the proper debate, time to think and garner response is needed = the first mistake was the worst, but all these others are compounding the error and so we 'air our dirty laundry in public' yet again. It is no wonder so many have little faith in government, they cannot take, nor stand on a decision.

I leave a razberry to all of them in that monkeyhouse we call the BC Legislature.

I hate to say "I told you so"....but Carole James proved to all that she doesn't deserve to be in the legislative assembly, let alone leader of the NDP. She has absolutely no understanding of her role as leader of the opposition--she's there to oppose, not play at being vice-premier. If she wants to care and share let her go find some touchy-feelie group in Fairfield. And as for the bozos lovingly referred to as the NDP caucus--just where the hell were their heads at? The black spot to the whole lot of them.

Hey Elliot

Progressive mayors unseated right wingers in Surrey, Maple Ridge, North Van, Coquitlam, and progressives held on to power in Burnaby , Delta, New West and Port Moody,

And in Vancouver Sam and the NPA won by a seat, one seat win over a divided left and a very fishy independent named James Green who should be investigated so don't get to pompous.(will be interesting reviewing his financing in March)

What the hell are you all upset about, the fact the NDP admitted a mistake , or are you upset the NDP are not as shameless as the scumbag Gordo who is ready willing and able to accept the raise for such a job well done.

Me thinks now Carol shoved it right up Gords hoop, We should send Gord some Preparation "H" he's been had big time, don't you folks doubt it for a sec.

interesting how many of the commenters appear to be quite upset that the raise and pension plan didn't get passed, as if it affected them personally?

Hey ronny come out for some air again did you, try paying a little more attention to the written word in your quest to make a loser look like a winner!

You gotta figure this screw up of James had to hurt the left in the civic elections, I would go so far as to say it was quite a deliberate act by the drunk but doubt he is smart enough to pull something like this off, it could back fire on the right wing nuts if they have to much power, they will piss a lot people off with their greed.

People are already complaining about the developers and their political puppets in all levels of government, give it a few more years who will be able to buy a house in paradise if you can still call it that after it has been paved!

Hey pender paul why are you so pissed at James and not el gordo? I am pissed at both of them but you must realize that James is at least reacting to the public trying to make things right again and el gordo doesn't give a shit what people think as his ego is to big, kinda like his thirst eh.

He actually thinks he deserves more when he really isn't worth what a garbage man earns in my opinion and I consider the garbage man to be much more useful to society, at least he takes away our trash and all el gordo ever does is give us a lot of crap and take care of his rich pals at our expense!

There was one MLA, who didn't vote to repeal: Lorne Mayencourt.

He happens to be my MLA. I did send him an email complaining about the process that was used for the raise. He (or his office) did get back to me, about 10 minutes after the vote. In his reply he went on at length about why he felt they were worthy of the raise -- all the ignoring why I wrote to him in the first place -- about the process...

Good going bulltoss.And Allan Schreck, you are so right. What about the single parents, hospital workers and teachers (slice them up the back while shaking hands with them), They should also try walking in the shoes of senior citizens trying to live on a fixed income of C.P.P.and O.A.P.( with no chance of acquiring rifs etc... no fault of their own ( those sweet things were not even around at that time)
And Carole James has not just shot herself in the foot , she also shot herself in the mouth.
Get rin of James and I may even go back to NDP

I am writing about the payraise that the MLA's gave themselves. I am particularly outraged due to the situation that I am in financially. I used to be a healthcare worker, but along with @ 6,999 others, was laid off as soon as the Liberals took office. I used to work in the Housekeeping Dept at UBC Hospital (10 years) and prior to that worked at the old Shaughnessy Hospital (4 years). I worked in healthcare for fourteen years, five of which I was a Union Shop Steward (with HEU) and an Occupational Health and Safety rep. I'd finally worked my way up to a full time postion, with which I was very happy. I worked hard and got to know the inner workings of the hospital system and everyone who worked in the area I was assigned to. I was upset when I got laid off during the Shaughnessy Hospital closure and even more dismayed to be laid off, yet again, when Housekeeping, Food Services and Security staff got hit during the beginning of the Liberal's reign of terror.

Since being laid off, almost two years ago exactly, I returned to school, but am having difficulty finding full time work that pays enough to cover my bills and groceries. I now work two part time jobs, sometimes working up to ten days in a row! One job is a day shift the other is mostly an afternoon start time. There are times when I finish one job and six hours later need to be at the other..... It's hectic, draining and physically exhausting. I never know if I'll have a "normal" week, be working ten days straight or have absoultly no work for up to three weeks.

Being such a strong union member (I fully support the work that unions do and wish that either of my employers were union situations, but they aren't) I have stood in the stuggle with Telus, CBC, teachers and the like, as they stood by the Hospital Employees Union members during their initital struggle with the Libs.

So now that I have to work my butt off, and am making much less money than I ever did, and constantly must stuggle to keep ahead of bills, I can see where the money that I would have earned went to... to the MLA's grand robbery scheme, and isn't it ironic that this occurs almost two years to the week that I was laid off. I guess they've saved enough money that they can pat themselves on the back for a "job welldone".

I grew up in a family that supported the Liberal party back east, but since this reign of terror can only say that I am so embarrassed by this group of inconsiderate money grubbers, who've earned money off the backs of women, the poor, the homeless, the addicted, seniors, children, and every hard working person who is just trying to keep ahead of loosing everything they have.

Mellow out folks, Carols only doing back to Gord what he's been doing to us.

Three NDP governments in a row proved to an awful lot of British Columbians that the NDP leadership, rank and apparatchiks were out of touch with public expectations.

The first Campbell government was elected by a landslide reaction against the NDP it was not a endorsement of Campbell or the liberal's neo-con goals.

The failure of the NDP to gain a majority in the last election resulted from 2 things:

The first was the mainstream media's need and controlled support only for the existence of an apparent parliamentary opposition by which to legitimize Campbell's neo-con policies (thereby relieving the media from having to perform the opposition function);

The second was the popular conviction in traditional NDP supporters that the NDP party had not yet honestly and publically examined or addressed why the Harcourt, Clark and Dosanjh NDP governments had abandoned any recognizable NDP principles and social, economic and environmental objectives.

Over the three governments the NDP had moved to the centre to occupy a lot of old socred / liberal fiscal responsibility policy territory and this allowed the liberals to quickly move the centre to the right.

The fiasco of Jame's supporting the liberals on a financial pay package indicates that the NDP has high confidence in the liberal government. That is what the outrage is about. Clearly the NDP has still not learned that the public wants an NDP government that acts like an NDP government.

Where are the principles and where is the opposition?

I watched the legislature this afternoon and found it, for some reason, amazingly funny. The soup du jour was still lemming soup, tepid at best. It was definitely no boiling cauldron, not hot at all, stirred as it was once again, from both the right and from the left. Nope, it remained lemming soup... just minus the cream this time but served with a small plate of humble pie.

All the lemmings agreed once again this time round, except for one - Monsieur Mayencourt....who defended "the keeping of the cream" with utmost serious intent. I would say earnest intent but that is going too far... I don't think "earnest" and "Mayencourt" are allowed together in the same sentence... still, his plea bordered on the sacred.

Poor Monsieur Mayencourt, never has a man fought so hard for the cream... and lost. Tres Tragique!

The BC Provincial Legislature channel (Shaw 91 in the lower mainland), has given me some really good laughs this afternoon.

On Friday, Carole James called on the raises to be essentially held up and not implemented pending a review by a public committee.

Bill 19 was brought in today to repeal Bill 17, and it looks like the Liberals have decided to punish Carole James by refusing a review of everything, including salary, pensions, or constituancy office support money, saying that the government was going to move on to other issues and they won't bring it up again.

Now MLA's on both sides of the house are angry at her.

The body language coming from the people sitting on each side of Carole James was amazing.

Harry Lali refused to support Bill 19 and stayed out of the house.

The only person to officially oppose Bill 19 was Lorne Mayencourt, and he really seemed to be losing it on TV. What a performance.

He wanted his money, and said that he had respect for everyone in the house except one person, and started yelling and pointing his finger at Carole James.

"She betrayed her caucus. She betrayed all of us."

The speaker of the house had to cool him off a couple of times. Great television.

It's important to remember that a system like STV may alter the elements but not the end game.

STV can give seats to extremists -- on both the left and right wings. STV proponents also advocate that this could mean 'third' parties may hold a balance of power.

Shreck seems correct when he warns against "bigshot-itis". But who can guarantee me that new kingmakers won't suffer any worse?

My oh my did Carole James's inexperience show up or what? She should be aware of how Gordon can play everuthing to his advantage. He has great spin doctors. Look at how he used the teachers to win election. Made it sound like he could prevent a strike.
Well now we all upset about pay raises. We no longer talking about all those child deaths that got warehoused. Now NDP supporters are upset at NDP for backing the bill and Liberals are upset at NDP for the about face.
Way to go Carole. I really do hope it was the learning experience you say it was.
Gordon may be as close to a dictator as is allowed in the free world but that does not make him stupid. He is one smart man that will play and use anyone.

Louise wrote:
"What's up with Carol? Good question.

But that aside, what about our local MLA's? Can't they think for themselves?"

Why do so many assume the "leader" can, does, or SHOULD take all decisions in an implied splendid isolation?

Presumably Carole's consultative style resulted in much more opportunity for substantive caucus input than would have been imagined by any leader (at least since Harcourt).

Don't demonise Carole,
Don't demonise the members.
Just remind all of them we expect them to act like adults with fully formed minds and values, not happy children on the school bus driven by the "leader."

And let's hope that Carole also develops a little more "moxie" in conducting the inevitable last-minute corridor conversations which ARE the leader's responsibility.

murdock

MURDOCK, for once, we agree.

DJ Lam. Under STV, we may very well have King makers, but what we also have is a system which gives voters the right to punish individual MLAs, even if they mintain support for a party. However, under pro rep systems such as STV, king makers aren't as essential, because there is not the same urgency to go to the polls as under a single member plurality. Remember, with STV, if a party ran 4 or 5 candidates in a district, voters could choose to upport only a couple of them, and the threat of top down party dominance is not as evident. Also, the sticks and carrots of our current party system means that MLAs are reluctant to speak out against a party, as pulling the party name of a candidate nearly always ends in their defeat.

Also with three of four parties in the legislature, you can get grand coalitions such as having the NDP and the Liberals work together, while having the fringe parties and independents playing the role of public opposition. Few major parties will give to much voice to extremists, as it would kill it in the polls if they introduced legislation that pandered to the extremists.

However, when we have a top down system like we have now, and we have weak leaders, we risk loosing all voices. And when we have strong leaders, all we have are parties plotting to topple each other.

We're damned if we do and we're damned if we don't, as long as the rules favour those that will and won't.

Lord Mayencourt MLA and Liebral StreetCleaner From Hansard

Poor Lorne just ca't seem to drag his face from the trough.Dances all night for a measly 11 bucks a week.

Until Carole James and the whole NDP caucus resigns, I have left the party. I thought I was going to be loyal through thick and thin, and I have been, but I feel personally very betrayed by the process and the vote and the greed. Feeling a little used right now by my MLA too, who I helped to get elected. Thats it for me. I sincerely hope that this upcoming weekend convention calls for, and accepts, James' resignation. the timing is bad, bad, bad so shame on them all. what were they thinking?

From what I understand (possibly fairly limited amount, I'll admit), the MLA pensions are inadequate.

What interests me is the different perception Liberal and NDP supporters have as to what is a reasonable degree of remuneration for a job that is (intended to be) very responsible, responsive, strenuous, high-stress (similar but not identical to strenuous), requiring a variety of knowledge and skills, etc., etc. Liberal supporters, especially the wealthier, would contend that an MLA's salary is currently inadequate, especially compared with what he or she might earn in the private sector. In other words, such workers deserve to paid more. NDP supporters would contend that reasonable remuneration equals that of the lowest paid NDP voter's, or perhaps a shy sliver above that. This, naturally, is for the same job.

Liberal supporters are used to, shall we say, a hog's-eye view of the work world. NDP supporters have assimilated the world view that they, themselves, aren't worth much, and neither are their representatives.

It's not the system, it's the candidates we elect. But I still prefer STV as a method to take power away from parties.

hey birch you are kidding right, what has pissed off NDP supporters and everyone else is the fact that this neocon drunk has been hacking and slashing at everyones wages that he possibly can, then turns around and votes himself a big fat raise and the NDP went along with it instead of saying they will support a raise when the rest of the people in this province get one.

I do believe people expect the liberals like the socreds to be greedy pigs wallowing in the pork barrel, cutting peoples wages and stabbing them in the back so they can grab the money and run off into the sunset with their gold plated pensions, well not this time thanks to the NDP!

if the drunk supports stv then there has to be reason for it, while he is not that bright he knows what is good for him and if stv was bad for him he would not support it, it really is that simple folks.

I am opposed to stv and anyone who supports it.

I am very against STV too, ursus. It is so flawed, does nothing to change things for the better, is very inaccessible to the public and would make fraud almost impossible to detect.

I am sorry that this gov't and those of the same ilk have caused so much personal suffering for you and others, Marnee. I know you are reallly suffering, not only from the financial hit, but from the betrayal. One thing that has galled me about the BC Liberals and those who are supporting them has been that they are betraying their fellow citizens is such an ugly, sociopathic way. I really find them contemptible.

I think we might end up in an actual depression before long if the neo-con policies don't change very quickly. The tide is slowly changing, but it make take too long to avoid this. It is not just that they receieve golden pensions during these very sad times that they are doing so much to ensure. I don't care so much about their salary. The pension and security while robbing others of their own is what really dispicable.

Who are you kidding Ursus ?

the optics were definitely bad but the pay raise is long overdue. even the ndp knows that. if you don't pay your people competitively you get the kind of garbage we had in the 90's and they screw the province up to the point where we become a have-not for the first time ever.
do you lefties realize that the principle of centennial high school makes more money than the premier of our province, as do all of the senior administrators in the school districts? or that the top suit at the gvrd makes around $240k/year. do you clowns who are always chirping about gordo being in it for the money realize how much this guy could have made in the private sector over the last 20 years. collins just left for $350k/year. gordo could fetch that easily. you guys need to start understanding reality.

Birch is right. MLA salaries and pensions are inadequate. I'm willing to pay a decent amount to MLAs to get good MLAs.

The problem however is that the people deciding the worth of MLAs are the MLAs themselves. Anytime a group has the power to decide how much they're worth, they come out on the high side. We know that.

The group that's worse, far worse than MLAs, are corporate executives. Their salaries are determined by corporate boards of directors who are - hey - guess - corporate executives. They don't just give themselves a few thousand bucks extra, but hundreds of thousands. However, we can't get back at corporate executives. We can attack the pols.

Not to put too fine a point on it, union members who find themselves in the fortunate place of being able to dictate their own salaries by, say, shutting down a port or refusing to fly airliner or refusing to play baseball or hockey, get scads of money. But there is a check on how much they can get - there is back to work legislation, for example.

What MLAs need is some objective standard, set by some person (miracle worker Vince Ready, where are you) or some body whose decision is respected.

The bill was based on a standard of sorts - 60 per cent of Ottawa MPs - but by what standard do MPs pay themselves. And why 60%.

And, if they are below standard, they should be required to wait and slowly catch up to it... 5 or 6% a year, no 30% hikes at once. That's just to much too quickly. No one else can catch up that fast. (Did teachers get 35%? No way.)

Once paid fairly, MLAs should have their their pay incrased by the standard of living or the increase in the gross provincial product, or something like that, every year, so they don't fall way behind.

It is important to pay MLAs a decent salary... for one thing, who else has to put up with all the miserable comments entered in response to Dave's story? I don't think you could pay me enough to take all the crap that is regularly handed out to politicians these days!

13 hrs ago marneelarson shared her story,

Thanks for that , I would share that story to as many media outlets and people as you can as it comes from the heart and needs to be heard. Go to the provincial NDP website, they have a list of media links and you can also set up
your own webpage. Anyway, I hope you hand in there and channel share your story to as many people as possible. I am sorry Jim Sinclair and others backed out and didn't go for the general strike we needed.

What a allot of right wingnuts like Elliott and birch don't comprehend is the suffering and hardship this government has dished out in order to get the so called house in order, this salary increase represents a slap in the face to all those who still suffer from Gordo's rule.

Yea good argument Elliott, well gee some fat CEO's make much more on the backs of their workers , how about Darren Entwhisle at Telus who makes 300 K, so in your mind the MLA's can never make to much, as long as they
can secure more, why not. Salary is based on performance, Gordo lost 30 seats last election and the popular vote and picked up a DWI charge, anyone in the private sector would be updating his resume. Sorry but the majority of
BC is not willing to give these thugs a raise, only you see this kind of behavior deserving of a reward, your a very special man. If I was a LIberal I could pee on your lawn and still get your praise, that kind of blind support is
typical of any conservative.

say it the way I see it switek, don't pay much attention to the rhetoric as my experience has shown me most politicians are liars, for example your pal says he will not sell B.C. Rail when the first time around he was all for it then promising he wouldn't to get elected then turning around and selling it (to one of his old school buddies?).

Don't hear any of you right wingnuts ranting about the lies and flip flops, you guys still trust this person how do you really know what he has done behind closed doors and what is with this blind faith?

At least the lefties call their leaders on their sh!t, you guys just blindly follow along, like our MLAs! ronnie does remind me of de yonk!

OK, let's agree that most British Columbians thought the proposed pay increase unseemly. However, let's ask ourselves if, through all this public indignation, the public sector unions have not been dealt a tactical blow.

Surely the PS unions must have been positively salivating at the propect of holding the MLA's 15% pay increase out as a reasonable wage target.

As a PS union leader, I would have been thinking in terms of a 30-35% opening gambit with a view to settling in the 15% range.

For the Liberals, rescinding this pay increase will prove to a very shrewd move indeed. (Could it be that the NDP played right into their hands?)

hey grub nice try lol! The liberals and NDP just showed everyone that they too are greedy and think they deserve more then the average person when really the garbage man is a more uselful member of society and a hell of a lot more honest honourable and trustworthy in my opinion! So why should we respect them or pay them any more then they are already getting, they don't deserve it! NONE OF THEM!

Ever ask yourself why 8 billion dollars went into offshore bank accounts last year alone, ever look at the lobbyist, what they used to be and who they now work for, what they do for a living?

David Shreck states:

David is wrong! The aversarial system does not protect the public. The adversarial system simply promotes adversarial behaviors. I know of few places in life where adversarial approaches ever solved problems.

Am I missing something here? Don't we elect MLAs to solve problems?!

David falsely sets up "collusion" as the result of abandoning an adversarial approach. Perhaps. Sometimes.

But, more often, abandoning the adversarial approach means collaboration, cooperation, or compromise. In other words, it means actually solving society's problems. I thought that's what we wanted.

David, not every problem can (or should, for that matter) be framed in an adversarial manner. Not every problem represents a clash of value systems.

At the risk of picking at scabs almost healed; why do you think Gordon Wilson (before we knew him for the egotists he is) was so successful at establishing the "real" Liberal Party of BC? Answer: because people don't see life as adverarial or a clash of left versus right values.

ursus:

I agree with you. But that doesn't, in my opinion, negate my comment about the rescinding of the 15% being a tactical blow to PS unions. I fear it will be.

I agree with Grub. There has to be another reason for this bill going through so quick and the even quicker reversal of it. Since when does the oppositions' objection to a bill and public outcry to back it up change what Campbell and puppets do with their majority of votes?

it gave gordo and company an opportunity to stab James in the back and with the help of their media darlings they were very succesful, I think they all got greedy realized how pissed the public are and backed off, then blamed the NDP when they were all at the trough. The only good thing I can say about James is once she realized the error of her ways she at least try to make amends.

The media have to look the parents of the 712 children in the face and explain why their plight was less important then an opportunity to gain a few political points for the right wingnuts whose cutbacks may have been responsible for some of the deaths.

Anyone who has had any doubts about the media bias and their ajenda in the past has to be concerned, the families of these children deserve better then what this government and their talking media heads have given them.

That the liberals would play games like this to avoid being held accountable speaks volumes about their character in my opinion!

To the point of tedium, they all bust a gut to get elected and are fully aware of what the job pays and the benefits and perks.

I tire of this "catch-up" argument using the remuneration of CEOs and sports figures as a target to aim for. I believe that the majority would agree that, in many cases, that remuneration is obscenely excessive and anti-social.

If Gordo can fetch more in the private sector, then please, encourage him to do so. MLA'S salary automatically rises with the cost of living. No review necessary. Expenses are paid for. Lorne Mayancourt is just a whiner. This guy doesn't care to work for his constituents, only himself. He makes me sick.

I'm glad that Carol put an end to this huge salary increase. It is totally unreasonable considering the events of the last four and a half years. Why is everyone complaining, when a politician actually listened to the people? Hardly something you would see Gordo do.

Please, the guy was a teacher. Also, it is what they made BEFORE taking office that is to be compared. Not afterwards when they are receiving a pay off. (which is some places is illegal and should be here) Do you think a CEO who steals the companies assets, lies to his employer and cooks the books does well? Or, do he end up in jail?

Have you ever been to meetings where the same people seem to get up and speak on every topic, never contributing anything new? You know they dont listen to anyone else - they just need to hear the sound of their own voices, to be noticed and to feel important.

Today was my first exposure to Tyee and if nothing else, Ive learned where many of the same type of people go to 'hear the sound of their own voices' - the same people saying the same things using the same cliched verbiage suchas 'neocon', 'trough', 'lefties' and worst of all 'Gordo' etc., instead of a single really well thought out comment. Quite frankly, its tedious. Many of you out there need to get some new material, read some things other than newspapers, listen to more than the TV news, develop some ideas based on sound research and at the very least learn some decent English skills.

This is not to say that there were not some interesting and informative comments - only that there were way too many from apparent 'regulars' who need to 'get a life' as the current vernacular goes.

Oh my god, our leader is not perfect! She made a mistake. What a tragedy! Fire her!
Do any of you who are calling for her to resign hold yourselves up to such high standards? If so, i would suggest you were all failures a long time ago.
Carole has done a marvellous job in the legislature. The ndp have done a great job of exposing the liberals pollicies on the deaths of children-without degrading personal attacks and partisan comments.
One mistake and you want her head? As Mike Harcourt said, the Left always go after their own. How bloody immature!
Congratulatiolns to Carole for having the guts to admit that she made a mistake - I admire that in a person. Wouldn't it be grand if Bush or Cheney would admit their mistake and stop killing innocent people - no, they will stick by their guns to protect their egos.

hey interested what did you just contribute, most of us are here because we are pissed off at politicians and we are given the freedom to vent without being censored by the editors, I do not care about the persons ability to blather on eloquently with proper english, who gives a dam.

Maybe they didn't have the opportunity to finish high school but that does not take away their right to voice their opinion, or maybe they don't have the time or interest to check their spelling.

This is not about professional students who were given the opporrtunity to spend years in University at the taxpayers expense it is about all Britich Columbians having the right to express their views with being critisized by some spelling freak!

It's interesting that your supposed first comment on the boards is critical and offers nothing of substance while accusing others of offering nothing of substance and attributing a motive,

to our comments. It's okay though, it's easy to recognize the sophmoric prose and lack of thought behind it, from your postings about the teachers.

Interested, I'd recommend Hansard if you are disappointed with our proletarian verb-age.

I do hope nothing like a missed comma or a typo clung to you when you had finished offering us your critique.

But perhaps you might just put your thoughts in a letter to the editor and spare all of us your wisdom, which, I would suggest is a bit misplaced given the focus of this issue.

It's OK, we all know your such a superior writer and thinker, so I would suggest you find a vehicle were you will be more appreciated.

Dear Interested

Thanks for your wonderful contribution today, you have really added to the conversation and enlightened us with your wisdom and observations of other peoples behavior, thanks for pointing out to us the lack of new material or ideas while offering none of your own. Communications 101, you do not make a good impression my insulting your audience. As an official award for your keen observations
you win the Tyee Turd of the day award. Congrats and don't come back until you have something to add, other than you pompous ramblings. Lets try stirring a little grey matter ,

"neocon, trough, lefties, Gordo"
"neocon, trough, lefties, Gordo"
"neocon, trough, lefties, Gordo"
"neocon, trough, lefties, Gordo"
"neocon, trough, lefties, Gordo"
"neocon, trough, lefties, Gordo"
"neocon, trough, lefties, Gordo"
"neocon, trough, lefties, Gordo"
"neocon, trough, lefties, Gordo"
"neocon, trough, lefties, Gordo"
"neocon, trough, lefties, Gordo"
"neocon, trough, lefties, Gordo"
"neocon, trough, lefties, Gordo"
"neocon, trough, lefties, Gordo"
"neocon, trough, lefties, Gordo"
"neocon, trough, lefties, Gordo"

Wahoo!...that was fun. :-)

Sorry, Constable Interested, but you could always issue me a ticket for excessive "cliqued verbiage" if it would make you feel better.

Pay them the average wage of their employable constituants. The premier should get the average of all BC residents. Perhaps that would give them incentive to produce.

Good for the NDP and Libs, make it up as they go along. People don't like wage increases, oops, we'll retract them, they don't want us to sell the Coq, oops we won't. We won't rip up contracts, and then we will, yay.

I love reading you Elliot, you tie yourself in knots with your inability to say anything bad about a right-wing politician. I'd like to hear you after a drunk Gordo drove over your kids.

And I'm sure all the proponents of first-past-the-post-lets-not-change-the-system are happy with the way government has been run the past 4 years and look forward to the next 4 secure in the knowledge that first-past-the-post is the greatest system in the world according to the Brits and Yanks.

Frank:

Hear! Hear!

repeat...if el gordo likes stv there must be something in there the rest of us won't like! If it is good for him and the fraser institute types ya better read the fine print! Unless you agree with their neocon crap.

You know I am a proponent of STV but I do not believe it will fix the type of money grab that the policians tried. And fair dues to Carole James, she got seduced by the money, but who wouldn't? Life is short!
But she did some soul searching and got through it. Well done!
And lets stop talking about 15%. Lets talk about hard cash. How much per year were they going to award themselves?
How much extra would the lowest of the low mla's have got per year?
Ursus thinks Gordo likes STV.
But in a democracy, 50% + 1 vote is a majority in a referendum.
And gordo said that if first past the post got 40% +1, it wins. 60 devided by 40 is 1.5 Correct? This means that he is giving first past the post advocates 1.5 votes each. Correct? But in a democracy, each vote has equal value. Correct?
Now, (when he could just introduce STV tommorrow if he wanted), Why would he go to the trouble of holding a referendum? changing the referendum law from 50% to 60%? and now, holding yet another referendum?
Could it be that he wants the public to think that they are choosing when actually there is not a snowballs chance in hell of any other electoral system getting over 60%?
New Zealand chose mmp with 54% majority. Over 60% simply does not happen in electoral reform referendums. There is only one tipping point in a democratic referendum. 50% You want to beat Campbell? Try being true to democratic ideals.

commentor: ursus
posted: 51 Minutes Ago
repeat...if el gordo likes stv there must be something in there the rest of us won't like! If it is good for him and the fraser institute types ya better read the fine print! Unless you agree with their neocon crap.

yes I want to see gordo beaten, actually I would prefer to see him ride out on a nice big scandel with his name a household dirty word, just don't like stv.

My last post on STV, god help us if this passes, don't be exploited for your need for change, any change is not better than no change, This STV would ensure less democracy and right wing governments for the next
100 yrs, let me explain the downfalls.

The STV = Sexually transmitted vote

The gov set up a handpicked assemble of citizens to choose a new system, the public was asked to make submissions as to a preferred system and why they would like that etc, the citizens assemble was then to
decide the best system. If you check the submissions, STV was way down on the list, it did not even make the first 4 preferred choices of voting systems. So ask yourself why did the assemble choose one of the least popular confusing systems against the wishes of the public, Kind of makes you wonder why these hand picked members are and why they choose what they did. I will tell you why, their is no such things as a political mistake. Their are good reasons they come up with STV.

1) STV is not population based but geographical based, in short the rural areas and north would be decimated and lose
representation, you would have monster ridings of 1000's of KM each. Their is already much more power in the Urban areas and this would just put the nail into rural BC and the North, with only one MLA in the North why should any
gov give 2 sh**'s about them.
STV can only work in tiny countries like Malta and Ireland, not in giant low density areas like BC>

2) The system is confusing and easier to corrupt,
3) Usually more right wing support comes from the Urban areas hence the can maintain power while ignoring rural BC, the perfect storm.
Don't be duped folks, the STV system is the most confusing, unpopular and most easily corruptible system around hence the reason it was chosen.
Democracy belongs to us and should happen everyday , simply changing systems will not fix the problems we face.

Sorry , STV is population based but not geographical based, creating huge ridings in Northern BC

supporters might want to take a look at who was behind this movement as well, wasn't gordon wilson involved, if so do you really think he would go for a system that did not favour the right wing?

Come on folks read the fine print for yourselves, pay no attention to supporters like dangrice or at the least question his motives. Google the whole process and see who came out against it, typical of the right wing they dumped a whole bunch of taxpayers money!

Shamelessly promoting this system before the vote and still they didn't get a very high percentage, I think gordo set the numbers so high because he figured it would be easy to sneak by a gullible public, hell they voted him in didn't they!

How much of our taxpayer money did they give to thier friends in the media and ad business to get themselves re-elected? The right wingnuts around here accuse James of a double standard, shocking eh well you should take a look at yours if you want to see the author of double standards and back stabbing to mention a few of his better traits!

I share your view of STV, Stuart.

Whilst I do, as reflective of one of those political tendencies largely shut out of the media and current politics, favour the evolution of a democratic system of "true" proportional representation in the State, which opens up new opportunities for a wider range of viewpoints in the political processes and rep systems, this is not it. It is more an attempt on the part of the status quo to reconfigure and put a new face on the way it controls current political outcomes.

One can't fool all of the people all of the time, so one has to keep coming up with new ways to do it differently.

My own view is that it is really economic power that controls political outcomes, because at the end of the formal political process, it remains always the same economic power/ruling class interests ensconced there that gets the last word, through their control of the media message and the purse strings of the nation. All politicians, regardless of parties, in the end, bend the submissive knee in their direction. They have no choice. It is realpolitic. If they want to get anything real done at all, however minor.

In my view, the democratization of economic power needs to become the focus over mere formal political power. Which doesn't mean that the forces favouring social change should just ignore it, but merely see that the problem of meaningful change has two main aspects or sides to it, of which control of the economy is the far greater and more critical power in the end. (And the one over which, because that is true, and they know it, they will fight even harder.)

So citizen and working class forces need to come to understand that a popular political power without a popular/democratized system of control and direction over the economy is largely, if not entirely, pointless. It's why nothing significant ever seems to change in terms of class alignments and influence, working class interests are always shut out unless they are able to do serious enough economic damage (strikes etc.), and all politicians wind up being and behaving essentially the same.

ursus, Gordo also sez he's all 4 literacy but dat doesn't mean I'm going to stop believing in education. Why not say instead that Norman Spector is against it therefore it must be good?

Stuart, you're fear-mongering. We already have extremely large, geographically, ridings in the north.

In the fraser valley something like a third of the citizenry has been voting NDP for 5 decades and never won a seat, under STV they would have.

As for the system being open to corruption, you failed to say why.

Your third point is in error. Right-wing support is not concentrated in urban areas. Even when the NDP was wiped out it was in 2 urban ridings they maintained a presence.

ursus, I'd be more interested in looking at the motives of those, like yourself, who don't want a voting system where the outcomes are closer to the vote count.

Why is it I get the feeling that if a company run by Conrad Black and David Radler invented a machine that would clean up all the pollution in the world in 10 minutes we'd refuse to buy it because we don't like Black.

The big picture is first-past-the-post distorts democracy. It forces us all into a 2 party adversarial system where you vote against what you don't want. 45% of the population does not love Gordon Campbell despite what Can-West says. 42% of the population does not love Carol James.

But we hold out noses and make a choice between those two because every other choice is a wasted vote.

STV won't cure the common cold but it will give us a chance at having a more representational legislature. And THAT is why guys like Spector are against it. He thinks everyone outside of the Con-Lib axis is an extremist and shouldn't have a voice.

And that is why Campbell put the theshold at 60% even though separation from the country requires only 50%+1.

tell this to the people living in the North.

I think STV is largely valueless as a serious democratization measure, Steve, but I am not so upset about it that I didn't actually vote for it at the least election. And I did so for only one reason: what is clearly doesn't work as a means for securing "popular" control over society and its various underpinnings, including as I say, the economy, and this charade has gone on about long enough.

It's like the NDP doesn't work either, certainly not any longer, as a serious vehicle for significant and meaningful social change, having largely been assimilated into "the system". But folks have a practice of following the line of least resistance in the hope it will work, and I don't particularly diasgree with that. So I sometimes work for the NDP outcome, just so we can check it out and discover its limitations, and folks discover for themselves that it doesn't work-, at least not in isolation from the working class being in motion and fighting to broaden its, and the communities democratic control grip on the economy.

I have the same essential attitude towards STV. If folks want to try some other line of least resistance, let's check it out and eliminate that too. Go for it. Sometimes it's a process that has got to be gone through, in a kind of process of elimination, in the hope that folks will finally face up to what has to be done-, which is the problem of capitalism, and ruling class control over the economy, of which Big Media and its message is a part, AND the State.

I think STV is a bunch of hype, but I do favour a process of experimentation over staying with what is, which ain't going nowhere either, if nothing else, just in order to BEGIN a process of moving on. And we do need to move on.

The vote in the north was as pro-STV as anywhere else.

Coyoye, that's kind of the nub of the matter isn't it? If STV is being sold as the cure-all for every problem our society faces then its obviously not going to measure up. In my opinion, STV won't fix anything except the 2 party lock on political power and the resulting dictatorial rule by whichever of those 2 parties gets 2 or 3 % higher than the other.

It won't fix the economy or health care, or aboriginal problems or the environment or even economic disparities. Its just an idea to fix one single political problem and the only alternative to that fix in the referendum was staying with the status quo. To me, STV is better than FPTP so the choice was simple and obvious.

Because, he still has to hold his head up in the rest of Canada and in the international business press! I know our province has become more like a banana republic, but still it wouldn't do to show that to others somewhat less provincial. To consider changing something as important as our parlimentary system on less than what it was shows a lack of understanding of Canadian history and Empire Loyalism etc.

Frank, STV will not only not fix the problems you mentioned, it will NOT fix the REAL problem we have been having and that is the corruption of our system via lobbying and buying off politicians. What it will do is make it impossible to hold your MLA accountable. They won't even have to face their constituents in their own community, for instance. Also, for those Greens who assume they will get a seat... Firstly, people who protest vote with green will be possibly less likely to do so if that means an actual seat and thus don't count on the same amount of votes and also, STV leaves our system so very vulnerable to fraud that unless you are the one doing the defrauding how can you be sure they'll deign to give you a seat! How could we ever know if the computer was tampered with? Right now, it is simple. We vote for an MLA, a hand count is simple and done in a matter of hours if necessary. It is accessible to the public and has integrity. IF we are going to change our system, we can not change it to a system that does NOTHING to fix the problem and everything to introduce a myriad of other ones.

It's a scam of the worst kind. But, a very poplular one among its proponents such as Preston Manning.

I am just amazed how this STV virus has been allowed to once again infest an entirely unrelated issue here on Tyee.

For the proponents, may I suggest you take out an ad and for those who oppose the concept, quit playing into the formers' hands.

RRG, if you want to fix the lobbying and corruption as it exists now then when do you plan on doing it? Will Campbell fix the system? Did Clark? Both were elected under FPTP, both had/have absolute majorities and are free to fix the system anytime they want.

On accountability, not to be flippant but you know the problem of "safe seats" as well as I do. There is no chance of any member of the legislature from the fraser valley being held accountable for the past 5 decades because the right could run a chinook salmon and win by a landslide. Under STV, Fraser Valley politicos will actually be much more accountable because they will be able to lose. Under FPTP, most people don't even know who their local MLA is, they simply vote for the party leader. You know that, I know you do.

I don't know what you mean by fraud? How is STV more open to fraud than FPTP? Both have paper trails, you don't need to computerize the system under STV. Sure, we use computers now and will under STV to give us an immediate count but the official count will be done by hand and is no more open to fraud than FPTP.

allan, **** off. I didn't raise the issue.

This is completely untrue, Frank. BC Elections confirmed on CKNW that indeed a computer would be needed. And, of course, that is just common sense. Even if there was a paper trail, exit polls would no longer give an indication about the vote transfer and there is NO reasonable way to dectect fraud under this system. A hand count would be a nightmare and rely on the integrity of the system. In the US a big problem is the recount and computer codes. The computer recounting itself. Either way, we'd be trading a simple, accessible sytem that fixes nothing that is wrong with our system, so MAYBE a green can get elected and the radical neo-cons can confuse issues and cheat? No thanks.

Anyway, we'll never agree about STV. So, I'll leave it at that.

A democratic voting system that is not accessible to the public is no system at all.

trading...for one that...

Steve!?

Well, I meant Frank, who already figured it out.

Where did Steve come from.

And I understand the hostility towards STV of those committed to current political parties, especially one of those two who dominate formal politics and power. Were I so, I might feel the same.

And even if you didn't raise the issue, Frank, you/we got a friggin' right to take the conversation wherever we want, regardless of the control freaks.

It's just that I'm not. It is in my interest, and I think the great majority of citizens, to try and begin a process of prying the status quo system open. STV isn't the end in itself, but the start of a search for an off ramp from the status quo. That's all.

RRG, are you saying that before computers were invented nobody used proportional voting systems? That's not true. Computers just make it easier.

The US does not have STV or MMP and your example simply demonstrates my point that FPTP is not any better than STV or MMp at avoiding problems.

Frank:

...Its just an idea to fix one single political problem and the only alternative to that fix in the referendum was staying with the status quo. To me, STV is better than FPTP so the choice was simple and obvious.

Frank, you have summed up my position completely. I'm not convinced that STV is the "best" system. In fact, I'd much prefer a German-style MMPR system. But, as you say, given a choice between STV and a system that gives us, as you say, dictatorial rule, the choice seems obvious...

Coyote:

The status quo, as Coyote points out, needs to be "opened". To date, whether provincially or federally, it has given us far too many "flawed" parliaments. Flawed insofar as they have not been representative of the true feelings/wishes/values of the populace.

Surely at some threshold -- let's say 5% of the popular vote -- smaller parties and their supporters ought to have a seat at the table. At 5%, these parties have, IMHO, moved from "fringe" to legitimate.

Poco's New Trend Optical Poll finds something 'fishy' in the City of Port Moody

Nov 23, 2005

Question #1
In terms of business development licenses provided by the City of Port Moody, who in your opinion should get ‘preferred treatment’ in a situation involving two competing interests, all things being relatively equal. Company “A” a long time business in Port Moody, or Company B a long business in Vancouver?

Company “A” The Port Moody business 76 %
Company “B” The Vancouver business 03 %
It’s up to the City of Port Moody 21 %

Question #2
The Flying Fish restaurant has been a Port Moody fixture for many years. The Boathouse restaurant has been in Vancouver for many years. The Flying Fish restaurant has been vying for the license to development another restaurant at Rocky Point Park in Port Moody BC for some time now. The Boathouse restaurant group has been a more recent bidder for that opportunity. Recently the City of Port Moody has indicated that the Flying Fish is no longer in the running. What in terms of your perception is the most likely reason for this turn of events?
The Flying Fish probably has deficiencies in its proposal 11 %
The Boathouse restaurants probably has a better proposal 21 %
There is probably something going on here that we aren’t being told- 44 %
Can’t Explain 24 %

Commentary
In a bidding situation involving a local company and a regional company, people in Port Moody choose the local company ‘hands down’. Virtually all of the respondents, who choose the local company in Question #1, also choose “c” or “d” in Question #2. An overwhelming majority of Port Moody residents at least in terms of the questions provided in this poll, find the situation involving the Flying Fish restaurant, the Boathouse Group, and Port Moody City Hall, a little fishy to say the least.

It would appear that Vancouver was reluctant to accept Port Moody's political business and Christy Clark, but Port Moody is willing to abandon its local business for a little Vancouver action.

Speaking of Christy Clark, after her stunning loss to new Vancouver Mayor Sam Sullivan, it is just a little ironic that she never closed the deal on that Vancouver house she was allegedly buying. Does this mean she will be moving back to Port Moody?

Could be, apparently with all the cost overruns associated with the new recreation center and Murray Clark overpass, and the loss of important tax revenues from the departure of the local winery, it appears that perhaps the new councillors have inherited a city awash in red ink. Why is it exactly, that former councillors Cynthia Van Ginkel and Gerry Knuttal abandoned Joe Trasolini’s ‘ship of state’.

Speaking of ugly, why didn’t Port Moody city hall follow the recommendations they had provided for The Port Moody Flying Fish allowing them to proceed when they had no intention of providing them with a fair opportunity to build the restaurant at Rocky Point Park?

With city manager Royer suggesting that he would provide the financials of the Flying Fish restaurant proposal (their alleged weak link) to the newspaper, than why not provide the Boathouse financials as well Gaetan? You opened the door my friend, and from what the street is telling me, the Flying Fish financials are moons and stars above the Boathouse’s. Let’s find out; let us see all of the information!

With RAV cost overruns set to cost local taxpayers an arm and a leg, and with a press that is unwilling to print any of this, will the taxpayers in Port Moody now be confronted with a multi-million dollar lawsuit? It’s just speculation, but in a town that has witnessed the shooting death of a police Chief, the Flying Fish debacle has all the earmarks of big time trouble.

Frank, I will as soon as you stop mouthing **** pal!

I didn't imply you raised any issue.

If it's a bit of a sensitive issue for you, well TFB.

The long and short of it is a couple of pro-computer democracy whizz-bangs are still trying to sell that hybred bastard system that was rejected.

Please, if you want to get into a real improved election system, put rules in place to limit contributions, outlaw third party games and clearly identify who is contributing to campaigns and enact criminal legislation (with manditory jail time ), for people who attempt to break the rules.

That way the claim that it is our democratic right to elect our leaders may actually have a shred of truth to it.

Seems to me when you cheat the democratic process you are hurting the big picture and so you ought to be punished big time.

STV may be a bean-counter's delight, but offers nothing in real change from the gerrymandable mess we have today thanks to the ability of economic elites to buy what they want.

STV will create nothing but add more confusion and delay any real change.

allan, STV does not fix any of the problems you mention. But even if you were to somehow get the the leading FPTP party to fix those problems you outline you would still have an electoral system that produces distorted outcomes.

I will drive to friggin Kamloops and buy you a dinner at the best restaurant in town if the party that wins a FPTP election EVER, in my lifetime, fixes the system that got it elected.

Fix the electoral system and you might have a chance of fixing the corruption within it, but otherwise it will never happen.

Look, let me go over this one more time. STV= Sexually transmitted vote. is the worst system around, hardly anyone wanted it and it was not the citizens preferred choice, it didn't even make a close 2nd or 3rd choice. The citizens assemble acted in malice in choosing this system, It could never work in a large geographical area like BC, the fact that a few misinformed people voted for it in the North means squat,

It was a very unpopular choice that got propped up and jammed down our thoughts in a
irresponsible way, it makes voting more inequitable, confusing and ensures right wing power for as far as the eye can see.

You want to brag about Malta or Ireland go ahead, I see the citizens assemble , a bunch of white men in suits. Very scary bunch, STV is a unpopular voting system that is exploiting our need for change , don't get sucked in.

Why have did they want public submissions if they didn't give 2 shi*'s about the results.

Stuart,

1. the fact is a majority, not a misguided few, of citizens in the north voted for it.

2. Number of submissions does not a "citizenry" make. Most people never made any submissions obviously. It was selected by the assembly over FPTP and others including MMP after much discussion. I don't see any evidence of malice except that BC's right-wing gadabout, Gordon Gibson, was involved. But if you're going to wait for the day when nobody on the right is involved you'll be tanning on a warm beach on Ellesemere Island before anything gets done.

3. For an unpopular choice it still managed almost 60% of the vote count. Not bad.

4. It wasn't jammed down anyone's throat, there was little or no advertising of it.

5. It does not ensure right-wing power at all.

STV simply attacks the problems of "wasted votes" and "safe seats" which are what is wrong with our current electoral system. In my view it also attacks the problem of party discipline, which MMP does not, but I understand thats debatable.

It does not fix government, it only fixes the process of electing that government but I see the fixing of the process as being a necessary first step. Because unless the process is fixed there will be no way FPTP government will fix itself.

Okay Frank back at You. It so so funny the STV folks just will not die no matter how flawed the thinking is

Lets address your points one more time.

You said
"1. the fact is a majority, not a misguided few, of citizens in the north voted for it."

Regardless of the #'s of support anywhere most folks had only one choice vote for STV or don't vote for it, the fact that folks in the North are clueless to the impact it will have no them via less representation does not mean its going to be good for them. I am not insulting the people in the North, I was at an STV debate where people asked questions, we could not get straight answers even from the pro STV guy, it was very convoluted and confusing for most.

"2. Number of submissions does not a "citizenry" make"

Wow so in your logic 12 or so hand picked members of the assemble are more representative than the 100's of citizens from all over the province, this group decided that the public input was not that important when determining the best system, why the pony show, I made a submission and don't like this group deciding what's best for the majority while ignoring the only measure of the majority that had via submissions. That was their only measure from the public and they ignored it, very arrogant and corrupt.

"4. It wasn't jammed down anyone's throat, there was little or no advertising of it."

Really , I didn't ask for this process , who did, it's Gordo's pet project, One option was put on the ballot and no one really understood the ramifications of it. COME ON be honest, we just had a few 1000 people in Van
that could not even mark the right Jim or James on the ballot, how many actually understand STV , we were only given one choice yes or not to STV, very flawed system.

5. It does not ensure right-wing power at all.

Really, funny because their was no other good reason for the this selection, very fishy to me. Who will benefit most from more urban MLA's

3." For an unpopular choice it still managed almost 60% of the vote count. Not bad."

It was the only choice, if we guessed it would have gotten 50%, any new system put on the ballot would have gotten similar or more support, the question is not what % it got but why the unpopular system was chosen
over much better ones. Maybe the assembly used STV to pick STV,

Frank, how does a system more open to fraud, fix 'the process of electing [thatt] gov't'?

Also, I read on babble that apparently, the scrutineers had left the riding offices before the referendum ballots were counted and there wasn't any oversight on those ballots. So, I'm not even sure if there were as many as claimed.

Anyway, no point in arguing. We'd better pace ourselves considering how far in advance it is. And, hopefully mpp will be on the ballot when the time comes as well. My guess is that there will be a lot of pressure for it to be included and probably will end up being so.

Have a nice night everyone.

...the pacing comment is only half serious. :-)

COURTESY OF GEORGE DUBYA:

A slogan for Gordon Campbell and Paul Martin --

"Well, I think if you say you're going to do something and don't do it, that's trustworthiness." CNN interview

Of course, in the Premier's case, the reverse is also trustworthiness. That's how come he can not sell BC Rail, not tear up legal contracts and not build 5,000 long-term care beds.

RRG, why do you like MMP? Its proportional so I don't see how your vote count issues are dealt with. Also, parties decide who gets elected, not voters.

Would you vote for MMP over FPTP?

Stuart,

1. The North was as informed as everyone else, ie, not very. Campbell didn't want STV which is why he didn't put any money into explaining it. All parties talk about doing politics differently in opposition but put on dog and pony shows when they're in power. He's obviously just been hoping the steam for a new electoral system will burn out.

2. Number of submissions does not a "citizenry" make"

"Wow so in your logic 12 or so hand picked members of the assemble are more representative than the 100's of citizens from all over the province."

Actually yes. People who make submissions usually are pushing a point of view, not listening to others. I have no problems with the manner in which the assembly was selected, do you? Counting submissions is like counting callers on CKNW or thinking their online polls are scientific.

4. It wasn't jammed down anyone's throat, there was little or no advertising of it."

"Really , I didn't ask for this process , who did"

I did for one. I've been harping on it since I was old enough to vote. This country needs a better electoral system. Obviously a lot of people agree and we're willing to vote for STV if it means the end of FPTP.

"it's Gordo's pet project, One option was put on the ballot and no one really understood the ramifications of it. how many actually understand STV , we were only given one choice yes or not to STV, very flawed system."

Yes, but how do you square the circle you just drew. If it was Campbell's pet project why didn't he advertise it, put together a campaign for it? Because he didn't want it to pass.

"Really, funny because their was no other good reason for the this selection, very fishy to me. Who will benefit most from more urban MLA's"

The number of MLA's doesn't change. And you should look at the history of voting patterns in BC. The NDP has a long history in parts of Vancouver, New West, Burnaby, Surrey, Coquitlam, Nanaimo, Victoria etc. We have never elected many people in the Peace River, the Okanagan or the Chilcotin.

"but why the unpopular system was chosen
over much better ones"

like what? and if they were more popular then why didn't they get the votes in the assembly? That's like saying how did Campbell win when the NDP were more popular.

Actually, Frank, I'm not sure. It would depend on whether the system from truly safe from fraud. It would have to be an accessible voting system that didn't result in even further political disengagement and one where exit polls would still give a picture of how the electorate voted. It would depend on whether it actually translated into more democracy, not less. I am not interested in having a transferable vote, and I want complete control over at least my own vote, although I'm obviously not opposed to run offs. And, for me to change as well, it would have to include those reforms that actually ail our system, such as campaign finance reform, restrictions on lobbying etc otherwise there would be little point (wouldn't change the power structure in a meaningful way and would be not much more than an unnecessary financial expense to the taxpayer etc.

...wouldn't change the power structure in a meaningful way and would be not much more than an unnecessary financial expense to the taxpayer etc. while removing the safety checks in our system and opening our system to fraud.

commentor: redrivergirl
posted: 9 Hours Ago
A democratic voting system that is not accessible to the public is no system at all.
They did have STV in the USA for a while (in city elections) but white people got very scared when black people and communists got elected so they got rid of stv. (their slogan to get rid of STV was something like"do you want a negro mayor?"
(this is a true story and you can find it at http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/articles/Brief%20History%20of%20PR.htm
Did you Know that? So, you see, it was right wingers (alligned to ignorant people afraid of something new who stopped it there). One city still has STV in the USA
Skip forward about 50 years, and you see the same coalition working its magic in BC.
Some idiots keep making the point that Gordon Campbell's liberals want STV. Are you stark raving stupid? What politician gives supporters of first past the post 1.5 votes each as opposed to supporters of stv getting 1 vote each to help STV win!
Now if the politician wasnt a total mad hatter wouldnt he have it the other way round?
Some people keep saying Gibson set up 60% thresholds to help STV pass!
Are you totally daft? Did you not go to school and do 1+1=2? Paranoia is no substitute for basic math.
Did you know that the irish republic has stv for all elections since the early 1920's? It should be pretty clear then that You do not need computers to do STV either.
I am not going to claim that STV is perfect, but I am claiming that it is better than first past the post.
And Carole James goes higher in my estimation for turning down the bribe.
OK?

Redrivergirl, You can still sign your X and your vote will not transfer. And in your manefesto, you sure dont ask for much! You just want to change everything. But people are scared of revolution and will only accept a little change at a time.
In first past the post 35% to 60% of votes elect people (depending on the luck of the day) In BC stv you would get about 80% (every time) of votes directly electing candidates. Thats at worst 50% more bang for the vote. The only way for your manefesto to ever happen is either for you to be benevolent dictator of bc or if you and like minded people vote in people committed to your ideals. I suggest that BC STV is more likely to help you than first past the post.
Brian
"I am not interested in having a transferable vote, and I want complete control over at least my own vote, although I'm obviously not opposed to run offs. And, for me to change as well, it would have to include those reforms that actually ail our system, such as campaign finance reform, restrictions on lobbying etc otherwise there would be little point (wouldn't change the power structure in a meaningful way and would be not much more than an unnecessary financial expense to the taxpayer etc".

Frank my friend, and I hope we are, I dream of the day we can break bread and laugh at such antics.

But 'til then I'll argue that putting limits on the financial side of the game will solve far more problems than leaving it to the diplomacy of politics to evolve.

We just saw the diplomacy of politicians and we are ranting away about it as we write, or is that rant?

Forget the dream of independant politicians championing anything. We'll end up with even more corruption and enough chaos to hide the worst abuses ever.

Oh Brianwhite, I simply overlooked your arrogant response to redrivergirl.

How gracious of you even though I am amazed you throw out the Irish Republic's voting system as the standard for the world.

Hey, I'm not knocking Ireland, some of my ancestors lived their 'til the 12th century, but being just old enough to be paranoid)(as you noted), I wonder why using Irish political practices as a model for the 21st century is the only choice.

Feel free to expound, but, please, save the sanctimony for the impressionable.

And, your claim would be false.

Brian White says

"But people are scared of revolution and will only accept a little change at a time."

Funniest thing said today so far, really Brian don't even try that . A revolution comes when 1000's of people get together and stand up and take to the streets, you want a revolution you can start by getting people of their collective asses and get involved. If you don't like something get a bunch of people together and put pressure on your MP or take over a party. It takes just a little Effort and commitment on your part, having this academic exercise is laughable, you had 1000's who could not even place their mark beside the right James Green, calling people names and being a bully is not making you more right , it just makes you less likable and cuts to the issue at hand and the attitude of the citizens assemble.

Yea we know that STV was not a popular choice but we know what's best, the public submissions are the only measure they had of the public will and they ignored it because they knew what's best, they packaged it up like
some democratic process and sold it to the public. How would you feel at a public meeting if the motion that got passed was the least supported and the panel simply said well you folks in this room are not really representative of the public at large, it was a pony show at best. If the the citizens assemble considers the process they undertook as democratic were all in trouble.

Ask yourself a few things about STV
1) Will the election results be clear and easy to decode or will the results be more corruptible
2) Was the process fair, why did we go with the least popular choice, does that seem democratic
3) How many MLA's under STV will Northern BC have, how will this affect these people and their rights.
4) How will having several MLA's in a riding make them more accountable.
5) How will a more confusing system serve us ,
6) Do we want a assemble of people we don't really know deciding what's best for us, it seems they have no
regard for public input.
7) Why can't the public vote on other systems like MMP,

"In first past the post 35% to 60% of votes elect people (depending on the luck of the day)"

When are we going to take some personal responsibility for this, quit blaming the voting system for what your unwilling to do, that is get off your ass and organize and get busy, turn on the TV and get busy, I am sorry but I do not consider election results luck, you discredit those who are working hard to make democratic change, If you want more people to vote make the issues relevant to peoples lives, changing the way we vote is not going to address the underlying issues with voter turnout. For example the municipal vote was 50% in 2002 and this year it dropped by 18% to 32% , mainly because the so called progressive party split and became watered down.

Anyway I went over this before and it waste to much time from important issues, no body cares about STV,
you want change , lets start today but stop insulting us with talk of Revolution when it comes
to Sexually Transmitted Vote.

back from a couple of days away on business. i see allan's blather still isn't making any sense. didn't steely dan name an album after him?

Hey Elliott , conversation skills 101, have something to say, make a point. You post are becoming like graffiti on a bathroom wall. Now I know who does that, old and angry are no way to go threw life. Now explain to
us how not investigating over 700 kids deaths benefits a society, explain how Gordo getting a raise is more important than bringing back the child advocate. Try and be critical , their is no left or right only right and wrong.

Stuart,

"1) Will the election results be clear and easy to decode or will the results be more corruptible"

I think they'll be confusing the first time around but people will get used to it pretty fast once its explained on tv with pretty graphics and a smiley Tony Parsons.

"2) Was the process fair, why did we go with the least popular choice, does that seem democratic"

Number of submissions is a terrible way to interpret the public will. Its wide open to abuse. Again, I compare it to counting callers on CKNW.

Simple polling or a referendum is a far better guage.

Look, a citizen's assembly is not bound to accept whatever the majority of submitters want. Who would need an assembly, we could just hire an 18 year old to count submissions.

"3) How many MLA's under STV will Northern BC have, how will this affect these people and their rights."

They will have the same number of MLAs as they do now.

"4) How will having several MLA's in a riding make them more accountable."

Because lets say you take part of the fraser valley and merge it into one riding of 5. Right now you have 5 liberals, each of whom runs in a safe seat. All they have to do is get the nomination and they'll win as long as their heart keeps tickin and they don't have to be accountable to anyone.

But under STV those 5 liberals will not only be running against other parties but against each other. So the NDP will end up getting 2 of those 5 seats up for grabs and the current 5 liberals will see 2 of their people unelected. This means that people of the same party will have to differentiate themselves to get elected. It won't be good enough to be a nominated liberal in the fraser valley. Now you'll have to beat at least 2 other liberals.

Even worse if the Greens get enough to elect 1 member.

And finally, it means the fraser valley NDPers will have representation which they haven't had since the party was founded.

"5) How will a more confusing system serve us"

By producing a more democratic result.

"6) Do we want a assemble of people we don't really know deciding what's best for us, it seems they have no regard for public input."

We decide in a referendum. The assembly only recommends. As for not knowing them we don't know the people in gov't personally either but we let them make our laws.

"7) Why can't the public vote on other systems like MMP,"

It would be better if they could, I don't see any reason for not having a multiple choice ballot.

Perhaps not. But, if they want any credibility they do so. If they are to be called a citizen's assembly.

Also, you can't compare them with the people we elect who go through at least some scrutiny and a democratic process to select them. Sorry.

RRG, basing the recommendation solely on the number of submissions means anyone with an agenda can flood the assembly with submissions, and obviously means there is no reason to have an assembly.

As for the assembly itself, perhaps comparing it to jury selection would be a better analogy.

allan, I think we are too.

I'm not against putting financial limits on parties and yes I admit to being an idealist and wanting more independent politicians.

I just think that until the vice grip of majority government is broken there will never be any change. Especially with a court system thats happy to overturn laws against mass 3rd party advertising.

"RAG, basing the recommendation solely on the number of submissions means anyone with an agenda can flood the assembly with submissions, and obviously means there is no reason to have an assembly."

Funny how you worry about an agenda dealing with submissions but don't even consider an agenda of those on the assemble who choose an unpopular system. Talk about spin, stop you are beginning to discredit yourself.

A citizens assemble is supposed to listen to citizens , not ignore their views and act as a dictatorship. Ask anyone who the names of 1 or 2 members of the assemble were, 98% of the public has no ideas of the backgrounds or motives of each member. Why on God's green earth would we let this bunch hold such power over our process.

"it may be confusing the first time around but people will get used to it"

Sorry not good enough, it will be confusing every time around, we vote only once every 4-5 yrs, I don't like the idea of people getting used to something after the fact.

Is the job of the assemble to value public opinion or discredit it, Like elitist societies just ignore the suffering of the people because they know what's best. Don't let public input get in the way of a good idea. Very ironic that a so called
assemble of democratic reform does not respect the democratic will of the people. Kind of like the Wal Mart new application in Van, we will have the pony show, public input etc but already know its approved.

Enough said. Good night

Stuart, the members of the assembly were not chosen based on their politics.

The assembly did listen to citizens, they don't have to do what the majority of the submitters ask for.

Obviously you weren't around for the free trade debate where submissions came in from every business group in the country. I sat in attendance listening to one after the other talk about the merits of free trade. The Council of Canadians and the unions were heavily outnumbered. We got free trade, I assume you think that was a good thing based on the numbers of submissions they generated. Obviously Mulroney just did what the people wanted based on the submission count.

You can continue to live in your FPTP nirvana where nothing ever changes and politics will continue to be done as it has been since the 19th century. You've been sooo successful so far I can only imagine the brave new world that awaits us a few decades from now as we live in an era of liberal rule that could last as long as WAC Bennett's. I'm sure the benefactors of FPTP have lots of pro-democracy legislation about to come down the pipe any day now.

Oh and thanks for all the attitude displayed towards me in your posts for doing nothing more than defending STV. Clearly the ability to have a respectful disagreement is not in your resume.

I'll remember that

Bla , Bla, Bla, STV will not save you, hard work and working with grass roots movements will, but it takes that dirty word, WORK

Talking about free trade and STV is like apples and oranges but nice try. Trade was a national issue and the focus of deabe to narrow.

Submissions are from Citizens, thats the only measure they had.

Who know what background they came from but your theory of of eveyone having an agenda could also relate to the panel.

You can rant about the evils of the current system but have not made a case for STV, replacing bad for worse is not a good argument. Cheers have a good weekend.

How about educating the public on all systems and then having a vote.

Please list all your accomplishments fixing democracy in BC Stuart. All your "grassroots" and "hard work" has accomplished what exactly?

Writing letters has done what? Protesting has done what?

Lots of people have spoken out against the existence of the Senate, big deal, its still there and will be after I'm long gone.

Clearly the assembly should have been instructed beforehand they're only there to rubber stamp whatever it is the 6th caller/submission demands.

When you have the chance to change the system you should do it. That's why all the letter writing and protests occur. To get the chance to change something. But when people who want change then divide themselves and one part decides the status quo isn't so bad after all it undercuts the rest of us who realize Rome didn't fall in a day and that incremental change is better than no change.

Well, guys, no answer to my little questions to your conscience.
You didnt disagree that they rigged things to prevent stv. No arguement about my math.
Giving you no people effectively 1.5 votes each didnt seem to bother you.
You didnt argue when it was noted that they removed stv in cities across the USA in large part to prevent blacks from being elected.
I was at 2 CA meetings where they took input from the public.
I was especially pleased at the second meeting up in Duncan when, after my presentation, an old man on the CA asked"I am worried that it will not protect minoritys".
I am a minority back there, I am a protestant from the south. And in what was the most homegonous white catholic country in europe, we had jews, muslims and protestants in parliament.
The Form letter "I am a member of the green party of canada and I want mmp (the new Zealand model) was heard at both.
I have spoken to about 5 CA members.
They are real people, who took a year of their time to do something good for BC.
So, all in all, you seem to be argueing for arguements sake.
You disrespect the rights of other people, minoritys (who get treated better with stv), the extra 25% or more of voters who would have representives in parliament, The 58% majority that voted to impliment this thing and The CA who worked hard to bring in a good electoral system in BC.
In a Democracy, in a referendum, 50% +1 is a majority.
Do not pretend to have democratic principles if you do not agree with the above. It derives from 1 person 1 vote
"Lets reform finances first". What a lot of horse poop! Who reforms the finances? O yeah the politicians.
So, reform the electoral system FIRST then you can elect the politicians you really want and THEY will reform the finances. The guys you have now are not going to do it, because it will hurt them and will end their monopoly status.
They are fighting tooth and nail against STV just like you.
So what is your excuse? I dont like STV cos I cannot do math?
P A T H E T I C

They have updated the wikipedia single transferable vote page
It is a good read

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Transferable_Vote

Your writing shows you to be so very typical of Green Party membership and typical of those who promote STV.

I have been in too many merry-go-round debates with those who promote STV to enter into another at this time.

For the record, I will say that I agree with none of your assertions, nor characterizations of our motives.

Good night.

And, Frank, please don't pretend the assembly process wasn't flawed. Fairvote Ontario warned against the BC process because of undue influence by the organizers and professional presenters aka proponents of STV. The behaviour of the BC proponents went a long way to get people against STV even before its flaws were so apparent.

I am done with this argument until it is closer to the referendum.

Wikipedia's piece is nothing but propaganda. And, as if there would only be five selections on the ballot.

You can fool some of the people some of the time.

This little bio for an article he wrote for the globe says it all, Frank.

STV the darling of the Canadian radical right.

he is as right wing as you can get in this country, do the stv supporters really think he is concerned about democracy? These fraser institute people are ego maniac control freaks working for multi nationals and banks. they are a lobby group masquerading as a non-profit organization getting tax free status like the sally ann.

Do your homework people on who these people are and who they represent, not the interests of working people and those like my wife who toil in a small business, they are out for the big guys at our expense with the support of harpie gordo and martin!

Take a look at who is writing the editorials at the vancouver sun did not one or more come from the fraser institute and do you really think they are going to give you an unbiased view, yeh right!

Take a good hard look at who is financing this so called think tank.

ursus and RRG, I've already acknowledged that Gordon Gibson is a far rightie. Not like I haven't been around long enough to know that. My point is that if you wait for the day in this province when righties, and centrists who vote right, aren't in the majority you'll be waiting till hell freezes over.

As for STV being the darling of the right, that doesn't make sense, if it was in place right now there wouldn't be a liberal majority government. Why would they design a system meant to take away their near-constant majorities? And if they really wanted STV anyway, why wouldn't they promote it?

The fact is guys, take off your blinders, FPTP is the system that would be the darling of the right. The only way the current system could be better for the right-wing is if the province was one big riding and we elected a dictator by direct vote. Then the right would always win and there would be no opposition. FPTP in a province divided up into ridings accomplishes the same thing in the end while still giving the other side a few voices but not enough to actually win.

The status quo is what the right wants.

fptp is not a good system but when I see right wingers like gibson and gordo supporting stv I want nothing to do with it! PERIOD! What is good for them is not usually good for the average person in this Province! Also, take a look at some of the people who are opposed to stv! Don't tell me to take off blinders pal if anyone should it is you!

Majorities have frequently been wrong before. One need only consider the governments we elect. The fact is that in the recent Provincial election, a considerable majority, including I, voted for electoral reform.

Were it not for infractions of B.C.'s election rules the result would have been reversed in favor of the STV. CBC Radio 1 news reported, during voting hours, that STV ballots were being left unmarked.

I was furious and swept out the house intending to enter the CBC studio and attempt a citizen's arrest. I might have changed B.C.'s history if some lowlife hadn't (I discovered too late) stolen my bicycle saddle.

So you guys like FPTP, you like constant right-wing majorities and you won't accept any movement towards electoral reform unless its exactly what you want. So you will wait for a day when the right-wingers have all moved to Alberta and the left can have a big meeting to decide on how the democratic system will work and right-wingers will be excluded.

Is that pretty much it in a nutshell?

"also, take a look at some of the people who are opposed to stv"

like Thielman, Shreck and Spector?

The thing is ursus I don't let opinion-leaders make my decisions for me. I don't pick a policy because someone I dislike doesn't like it or because a favourite columnist does. If I did I would simply call up Maude Barlow or Mel Hurtig, two people whose opinions I have a lot of time for, and ask them what I should think.

So that after these pro-corporation laws have been enacted there never is enough of a majority with enough power to reverse those decisions. There will always be a seat at the table for those interests with STV which is why they do not want FPTP. The PNAC documents write about what to do when the public is naturally against these 'reforms' and wants to change them. Don't be fooled.

I wonder if it's a coincidence that New Zealand had their electoral reform as a finishing touch to their rape and plunder?

They wouldn't support it because it is easier to get others to and avoid the lightening rod directed back towards them. AKA 'health authorities' 'school boards' making the cuts etc.

RRG, that's exactly why guys like Shreck oppose it. Because it means the NDP will never have a majority either. They can put up with 3 terms of Liberal majority as long as they get a majority at the end of it.

I understand that argument but I don't buy into it. As Coyote and I have argued in the past, one NDP majority does not make up for 3 Liberal ones because the NDP aren't that radical and they don't undo much of Liberal policy. Not to mention you still have to live through the 12 years of the Libs. If we stay with FPTP the eventual NDP majority will not undo any of Campbell's policies.

I don't work for a political party so there's no big patronage job for me when my guys get elected therefore its just not worth it to me to see an NDP majority once every blue moon.

On the New Zealand example, if the Kiwis had had their anti-majority political system in place beforehand they never would have had to undergo the crap Douglas foisted on them.

If the NDP really were the type of party that made real changes when they were in power I'd stick with FPTP and bide my time till they were in power. But they aren't, so the best I can hope for is the end to majority rule dictating policies like the selling of BC Rail.

I realize that means there will never be a left-wing majority but the end to right-wing majorities would be worth it in my opinion.

I'll do my own thinking too.

One of the points being here that we are not always going to agree. The right sure as hell doesn't, and neither will we. The left would be a pretty sterile place were it otherwise, as much as it is nice and useful to come to tactical and strategic agreements with those you have fundamental philosophical agreement with. Even, maybe even especially, families have their issues as well. Even the old lady and I have been know to quarrel. :-)

And this issue of STV, I think, is going to be one of those. But I agree with Frank above essentially.

And like Frank, I'm certainly not convinced that in and of itself, STV or NOT STV is going to revolutionize or otherwise dramatically change status quo capitalism. For that the working class and community interests are going to have to secure democratic control of the economic base of society. But where I join with Frank is, in the intellectual/philosophical conviction that the status quo two party "Centre to Centre Right" domination of the electoral process needs to be attacked, made subject to forces and processes of change, hopefully at some point opening it up to more voices and influences than currently control it. It has become a reactionary and going nowhere, two defanged dogs chasing each others tail dynamic.

And I don't much care whose motives are what that agree with that assessment. Intended or unintended chaos in and of itself can sometimes be useful to the processes of motivating the forces of social change.

STV or FPTP, to me, is not the issue really, but trying to kick start a new dynamic that may come out of the STV option is. For what currently is in tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum democracy is a stuck needle on an old 78 recording. It needs a jolt.

Yeah, I have no illusions about what class forces were/are behind the Citizens' Assembly process or STV, trying to head off a truly proportional representation political system, which is my preference on this political front, or even what their objective is, as I've said above already, But regardless of what their intentions or interests are, I have my own, and they just may be putting their foot into it, and a process initiated over which the outcome longer term may be more unpredictable and uncontrollable than what they might think, want or like. It's as true for them as it is for us, that many a road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

I've got no real stake in the status quo electoral system, so why should I really give a shit what happens to it. I don't consider a choice between Liberal Neocon and Blairite NDP anything really worth getting my shitt in a knot over, or excited about. That's just another being caught between the Devil and the deep blue sea choice for me anyway. Clearly the NDP isn't going anywhere but further and further to the right.

I agree with Frank. Time for a stir of the pot.

And I'll admit, I've done a 1/2 flip flop on this STV issue. :-) A man can change his mind if he wants to as well.

I am not a green party member.
One of my assertions was one person one vote.
I am glad you disagree with that because I dont have to do any characterization of you. You have done it yourself.
The world is divided neatly into anti democratic and pro democratic people.
Pro democratic people accept one person one vote as a basis point for justice in the world.
(It is too late to enter into the
debate. You are in it).
Perhaps you might like to tell us why your vote for first past the post is worth 1.5 times Franks vote for stv? Is it because you are better than him? Is it because gordon campbell likes you better? Is it because your conservative views are based on tradition while his are based on experience of tradition?
Is it because you dont want black mla's?
I like specifics! I hate stuff like "You are wrong because I say so".
Give me the details.

commentor: redrivergirl
posted: 16 Hours Ago
Your writing shows you to be so very typical of Green Party membership and typical of those who promote STV.

I have been in too many merry-go-round debates with those who promote STV to enter into another at this time.

For the record, I will say that I agree with none of your assertions, nor characterizations of our motives.

Good night.

Coyote
One thing STV will do is increase the numbers of people voting.
Example, republic of ireland, same size as bc (population wise) but way way way more people vote. And Ireland has a much younger population than BC and the first thing you learn about young people is that they dont vote.
So, if people in the community take an active interest in politics, isnt it a step forward? Isnt it a step closer to your workers revolution? Without lots of people being shot too.
+ STV is to last for about 3 elections and then there is to be another CA. (Thats in the CA recommendations. And 58% of the people voted for those recommendations). The referendum question was "as recommended by the CA")
And the CA was militant by the way.
At the meeting in duncan, one of them stood up before the public and said that the government might try to suppress or shelve their report.
And if they did, the CA was going to independently publish its report regardless.
He was very clear on that!
That was a lot of work that they did and they were not having the BC libs waste their time by shelving the report.
This was before they had chosen a system.
Of course, the BC libs had a back up plan. Be as vague as possible and dont fund the info stage. And fear of the new, combined with the 60% scam will do the rest. (As far as I can see, what they recommended for bc is conciderably better than what they have in the republic of ireland).
More 5 seaters and 6 seaters means more points of view represented in parliament. You cannot get democratic control if your point of view is not heard. What goes on in parliament is always reported. If you have a march with police intervention in a poor part of vancouver, it is so easy to slant the report to say riot!
Nobody will be any the wiser.
Not so easy if an elected parlementarian is speaking in the house about said "riot" or if an elected parlementarian is in the "riot" as it happens.
Sure STV is not perfect. In my presentation, I asked for none of the below as a choice on the ballot papers. (So that anarchists could vote and negative votes could be registered). But they didnt buy it.
Shame! but STV as they recommended is still way better than first past the post. It is like buying a new car. STV has much better vote conversion to seats. More of the votes get used too, not spluttered out in the exaust unused. Far more efficient engine.
Brian
"And like Frank, I'm certainly not convinced that in and of itself, STV or NOT STV is going to revolutionize or otherwise dramatically change status quo capitalism. For that the working class and community interests are going to have to secure democratic control of the economic base of society"

I would really like to know why some people are so adament to push through one specific process for electoral change.

Yes, I know an "assembly" of citizens opted for one specific model, but the truth is it failed to meet the test and so hasn't been enacted.

Why can't this process be opened up again?
Bring back some of the other options considered by the assembly and offer some choice, maybe even offer multiple choice with a first choice down to say third or fourth choice.

That way the math/computer heads who insist things must be complicated will at least get a little pleasure out of it.

It will also give a better understanding of what is preferred, which is a hell of a lot better than 'take this or you get this'.

I realize everyone wants results instantly and so why bother with say 10 choices when only one will speed things up.

But we heard the need for haste during the last vote. It failed and the sky did not fall anywhere, at least in my neighbourhood.

As ursus noted above, the people behind the curtain appeared to drive that effort more than the assembly members.

Want another referendum. Go ahead, but open it to real choice and then it might begin to look like real change.

commentor: allan
posted: 5 Hours Ago
"Yes, I know an "assembly" of citizens opted for one specific model, but the truth is it failed to meet the test and so hasn't been enacted".
Allan, you are not into democracy, are you? 58% voted for STV and 42% voted for first past the post.
Ask anybody with half a brain which side really won and the answer will surprise you. Who would have thought 58% is a whole lot bigger than 42%!
Yes, Allan, everybody except a few holdovers from idiot central knows that 58% wins.
This reminds me of the fable of the emperor walking about in the nip and people not noticing!
Personally, I think you show as much contempt for democracy as Campbell does. It is people like you that enable him to hang on to power.

I do understand where Allan's latest position and those of a number of others are coming from on this. Don't even entirely disagree. For long term, I think the fatal flaw within STV, in that it is NOT an actual proportional representation system, is going to catch up with it-, especially IF I'm right, that we are moving into a time where "the system" as a whole is going to be severely tested.

But that said, I also still think it is necessary to get beyond the failures of the current FPTP electoral system, and to give folks an opportunity to test STV out, and make their own discoveries. Hopefully, and I appreciate it is only "hopefully", the act of change and its aftermath will stimulate a more critical and fluid atmosphere that will open up and whet the appetite of folks for other, more cutting to the bone changes in the politics of the status quo .

In my modest studies of history and the movements of people, change, even seemingly minor changes sometimes, can initiate and develop a life of their own, which lead to more profound outcomes than those who originally initiated it had intended. I would hope that STV will be such a catalyst. (About which there is no way to certainly predict that I know of.)

For me, I will 'fess, its mostly just a matter that the prevailing social and economic dynamic seems stuck on retrogressive and anti-progressive movement and development. And ALL the contending major players within FPTP are proving themselves increasingly reactionary; more and more lining themselves up with ruling class diktats and interests. New and unexpected, side-tracking and arresting elements need to be brought into play, that will encourage and stimulate progressive and radical counter-movement against this status quo.

Actually allan I wouldn't have a problem with a multiple-choice referendum where various forms of PR were on the ballot. Its electoral reform I want and although I like STV I'd be happy with others.

The system of 2 parties controlling the debate and the right-wing party usually in control of a majority gov't has to be broken. And as Coyote alluded to above something like STV could put more strain on the system than the powers at be think. Sort of like the Tsar deciding to allow a parliament with no power. Yet just opening the door a little allowed new voices to be heard and the door was pushed open further.

I think any form of PR will allow new voices to be heard and will break the right-wing lock on majority gov't and from that will flow consequences that are good for real democracy. I could be wrong but what is there to lose by trying?

Excellent analogy, Frank. And even within the context of the Anglo experience, the British nobility were compelled by the events and threats of the English Civil War and its aftermath, even though the monarchy was re-established, it had to allow eventually for the guarantees of a parliament which included a House of Commons, as still, controlled by such as lawyers and the merchant/business class to be sure, but which over time and many movements of working class and other popular movements gave us the degree of democracy we currently have. Certainly, at least much an improvement over the old "absolutist" Monarchist system. An outcome which I am sure they, the English aristocracy had absolutely no intention of.

FPTP has become an impediment to significant social change, indeed, a bulwark against it.

I think stv is better for the voters than mmp and I dont have a problem with a specific mmp system being on the ballot paper.But would the 60% threshold be revoked? In my eyes, the threshold is a dispicable piece of work.

My big problem with mmp is that mmp includes first past the post.
All the local ridings will still be represented by a little king who will be pist at the people who didnt vote for him. (Imagine being in Lorne's riding and not voting for him). He might try to get you back by hurting you. Even with 2 member stv, there would be competition and at least 66% of locals will be directly represented by somebody. There would be up to a third unrepresented in each riding with 2 member stv. It should be possible to tack on mmp to stv to represent those people. BUT those representives will be picked totally by the party leadership and that is a problem AND this would be detrimental to independents because they will not be so likely to get no.1 votes.
(Independents are useful because they keep politicians semi-honest and true to what they say).
How many independents win in germany in mmp? None ever? In ireland, it depends on voter satifaction with partys. In germany, is it always coalition government? WHY?
It is because a voter has 2 votes.
It makes more sense to vote for an individual of one party and a party that will very likely go into coalition with that individual's party! Hence always coalition government.But wait! If that voter was given a truth drug, and voted what they really wanted, they might just vote that individual AND his or her party. I have a problem with a system that promotes dishonest choices. If you can figure out a mmp version that fixes that, then, mmp improves considerably.
But STV does not have this inherent coalition thingy within. It might be coalition but it does not HAVE to be. So a voter can put down his or her real preferences without fear of diminishing their voting power.

Some off us are so blinded by our support of something they basically ignore the facts of this entire process, Brian White's insults and aggressive behavior and Franks undying support off STV say something about their self interest and is by another word suspect. What Brian forgets to remember when ranting about the will of the majority is one 1) The assemble had no respect for the only measure they had of the majority, submissions, the question should be why did they choose one of the least popular choices, why the pony show regarding public input, why not call it the hand picked right wingers assemble that will pick STV.

And of course we make up our own minds but taking advise from progressive people or like minded folks is a good idea, who else should we trust the Fraser institute or CanWest media.

And Brian White, you seem like a Gordo supporter, when the rules get in the way , change the rules. A threshold was set and not met. Game over. This whole process was smoke and mirrors to jam threw a right wing agenda

And even if we choose to vote on a very confusing unpopular choice the % of the vote does not really mean much, a guess would turn out 50% support, I bet if we did the proper thing and sent out detailed break downs of how each system works and then give people a choice between say 5 systems MMP would win hands down. You STV guys are like the RAV supporters, its STV or nothing, its STV or no change.

And Frank stop trying to pass this thing off as the only means for change, it that how pathetic we have become as a progressive movement,

I would like to point out that every benefit you enjoy has been born out of grassroots movements and struggle, I am sorry I do not feel as powerless as you, keep waiting for your pennies from heaven.
Accomplishments
1) Keeping Canada out of Iraq,
2) Keeping Canada out of missile defense
3) Keeping BC Liquor stores public
4) Keeping the Coqulhala from private interest.
5) Making the Liberals back of on patronage salary increases
6) Taming the Liberals on welfare reforms.

This are many active fights going on and if you hope for change to come from on high to fix things for you than god help us. We need media reform, citizens action groups and we need to take over parties. What we don't need is ideologies telling everyone all we need is a new confusing voting system.

I'll wait for the spin

Thank you Frank.

Now, if we can just convince the Irish delegates that we are capable of juggling more than one proposal at a time.

I do realize there is some fear among the BrianWhites of the world that voters may actually decide themselves rather than merely following the directed democracy model his fellow STV-or-busters dreamed of imposing.

There are few if any here advocating staying with FPTP as the final answer despite the fear mongering of the STVers.

So Brian, I promise from now on not to be anti-STV. Instead, and I hope you will join us, I am now a changed man who wants nothing less than choice.

Are you with us Brian?

Stuart, you're young and naive with no sense of history.

You still think making a big noise in the street swings governments to do what you want. As Mulroney said on Newman's tapes, he faced more demonstrations than all the previous prime ministers put together and he never changed his mind on anything. Couldn't give a rat's ass what his opponents thought.

Left-wingers protestng right-wing legislation is as normal as the sun rising. And vice versa.

The only time governments listen is when its their own supporters who get up in arms. Like the US christian right when Bush's supreme court choice was a woman with no experience.

Your list of grassroot's successes is a laugh but if you think those decisions were all caused by lefties acting up then good for you. Whatever lets you sleep at night.

You may continue to live in the make-believe world you've created for yourself where the political and electoral system are just fine and making a stink will cure all the evils of the world but some of the rest of us would like to see the system itself changed instead of relying on a protest on Cambie street or writing letters to the CRTC.

Brian, yep, some of your reasons match mine for why I decided to back STV even though I had never heard of it before the assembly came out with it.

But even a change to a party-list PR would be a small improvement (less "wasted vote" problem) and would at least get people used to the idea that the current system wasn't handed down to us by a supreme being and that we can change it.

Hey Frank , what ever happened to Brian Mulroney and his party. I wonder how many right wingers will be elected using his name as a reference, the governments of the
day have to obey the public or face their greatest fear, losing power. If the people lead the leaders will follow, okay Frank if its not people and grassroots please name one example of when good things came from the ruling political class without struggle, do you think you enjoy your benefits you have today
because one day the elite wanted to be nice to you. The problem is the left and the union leadership does not have the stomach to fight, kind of like you. Feeling powerless and grasping desperately at finding the magic easy fix.

An organized public is the only way to confront organized power. What in your opinion is the reason we did not jump in the Iraq bandwagon.

I am for choice , put out 4 or 5 voting different voting systems and lets have an education campaign and vote on one, better than only having one choice, STV or nothing.

"The only time governments listen is when its their own supporters who get up in arms. Like the US christian right when Bush's supreme court choice was a woman with no experience."

To set the record straight, she had lots of experience but was not a fundamentalist against abortion like the core radical right wingers. , buts thanks Frank for showing your true colours.

Mulroney? 2 straight majority governments that we're still reeling from to this day Stuart. He doesn't have to be re-elected, he passed everything he wanted to. He had 9 more years of majority power than any federal NDP government.

Don't mix up the fight with the goal. The goal is not to oppose a right-wing government and save a toll-highway from being privatized. Its not to save a liquor store or embarrass politicians over a pay-raise. Those things are tactics. The goal is to prevent the right-wing government from running roughshod over workers and the poor in the first place. Too often the protest itself is considered a great thing because it "raised public awareness". What a crock. No education occurs during a protest and even policies like free trade are immune to all the protesting and letter-writing in the world.

This means the fight has to be the means, not the end. People stood up and fought for the right to vote, the right to a 5 day week and a right to an 8 hour day. They won. Nobody cares anymore about those fights or about the fights we lost. Only the end result counts. People fought for lots of other things too but most of the time they didn't win anything and we don't remember them. And times have changed, pretty hard to find major media who will back strikers. Instead we get polling and talking heads who will say they agree with the striker's goals but not their methods. We all want good healthcare and good schools they will claim as they work on the swing voters, people who will nod their heads in agreement and will pretty quickly agree that fines and jail terms are the only answer for people who want something better. That's what our politics has sunk to. Every demand for better child care is met with the "tut tuts" of those worried about how foreign currency manipulators will react.

So you think you'll organize the population? How? That the rallying cry for a brave new world will be you stopped a pay raise? Don't kid yourself, the right-wing will happily forego political pay-raises for a generation if it means keeping power. Mulroney was and Campbell will be taken care of by the private sector after stepping down. Its left-wing politicians who need those pay-raises the most because they don't get to sit on a board of directors after they resign.

Because of people like Mulroney and others of his ilk we are now in a time where corporations run rampant over workers, where all successful Cdn companies are bought up, where all the profit of our labour is sucked out of this nation, where all the victories of the past are being undone, where the environment is an external cost and where strikers are criminals.

Yet I'm to feel good that seniors eventually got their bus passes back?

I would have felt better if 2 weeks of a teacher's strike and public goodwill hadn't been flushed down the toilet with no improvement to education.

No amount of protesting or letter writing are going to fix what ails us. Only control over legislation will. There is no point in being ideologically pure if it means you leave the field to your most extreme opponent.

That means that if the NDP wants to put on a new face in order to get elected it should. Because in the current political environment only an idiot would choose the greater of two evils out of spite. Under FPTP there is no valid voting strategy except the lesser of those evils. Anyone who says different is deluded and has been watching too much of the People's History. Sure it would be great if the NDP could move to the left and actually gain votes, but it can't. Above you said we need to take over political parties. Yet, if a 21st century "waffle" took over the provincial NDP it would do nothing more than anoint Campbell as dictator-for-life. The right would love nothing better than to run against a more left-wing NDP. FPTP means 2 parties fighting over the same few voters in the middle. This appeals to the Spector's of the world who like that marginalization of everyone outside narrow band. But we do need more voices in the legislature. People who change the channel at the sight of a protestor shouting at a camera are more likely to listen to an elected member talk about what's wrong with a piece of legislation. Even better if its a member of the same party who is trying to differentiate himself from those he has to run against.

So if the powerful are killing us and the system is geared against us what are the alternatives? None really, except to grab every chance of changing that system that is weighted against us. You don't vote against systemic change, especially as there hasn't been any other opportunity. Because real system-level change is the only chance we have. An NDP provincial government in 2009 will try so hard to be "moderate" they won't undo anything, they're not going to change the system, the best we can hope for is a more human face on policies meant to enrich the rich and beat up on the poor. But I'll hold my nose and vote for them because the only alternative under FPTP is Campbell.

I will also vote for electoral reform. Because reducing the power of right-wing governments to eternal minorities will do more for the people of BC than a million protests or letter-writing campaigns. A legislature where there is more than 2 parties speaking, where no party controls a majority is the best we can hope for. Because only through reasoned debate in the public forum discussing the real issues will sway people, albeit slowly, to the left. Even that is somewhat wishful thinking considering the right-wing domination of the media but at least its something that has a chance of making a real change in people's lives instead of protesting for the sake of protesting.

So in 2009 don't, out of spite, refuse to vote for change because its not the one you wanted. Doing so makes you an ally of the status-quo, of majority right-wing government.

As for your direct questions, you think not going to Iraq was the result of protests? You think a Mulroney or a Harper would have said no to Iraq because of protests? Do you think Chretien would have if more allies, like France, Germany and Belgium, had lined up against the war? Or if Chretien and Bush had been buddy-buddy?

If Jean and George were pals and France, Germany and Belgium had supported the war and Chretien felt like spending money on the military we would have signed on, protests all day and night or no protests.

Your last line makes no sense, you hit send too fast. Fact is, she did not have the experience to be a supreme court judge. And I fail to see how your answer is a reply to my statement that all a politico has to do is not tick off his own supporters.

Obviously the line "Do you think Chretien would have if more allies, like France, Germany and Belgium, had lined up against the war"

should have read

Do you think Chretien would have if more allies, like France, Germany and Belgium, had lined up FOR the war

Pretty weird bunch, allan, rrg and Stuart. I asked a lot of questions of you guys.
Not a single specific answer to my questions above.
Just the odd unsupported quips of ¨you are wrong¨ , and BOO! Gordon Gibson!!
I am supposedly a green party member AND a gordon supporter!
If I am a gordie supporter, why would I write letters critical of him in the victoria papers? (Unrelated to stv too). Thats a matter of public record.
(In the absence of arguements, how about a Little Smear Campaign?)
Look up swiftboating and see what you are doing and who else does it.
And you link bogeymen to stv all the time. People like David Sazuki were advisors to the yes to stv campaign.
And someone agreed that the people up north did vote for stv (but implicit in the post was that they are too thick to be taken seriously). Look up swiftboating again.
And people have the smokescreen of good intentions. ¨But really we gotta reform party finance, the media, and my nails need a clipping and bla de bla de bla¨.
So, go do it, fix all these things and stop making it a condition of change.
And people keep ignoring the fact that changing the way we vote has been done before in bc at least twice. It is NOT changing the parlimentary system.
And at some point, people like allan, rrg and Stuart will have to come clean. Do you support one person one vote or do you support a 60% threshold in a referendum? Because these are mutually exclusive conditions. (You cannot support both at the same time).
And by all means, argue your supermajority case on wikipedia under the heading ¨referendum¨ in front of the world.
No need to keep saying that ¨the conditions were not met¨. The ¨conditions¨ were a denial of one person one vote. The conditions were therefore invalid in a democracy.
Brian