I think you're absolutely correct, Rafe ...

.

So ...

MESSAGE FOR GLEN CLARK:

Please come home. We need you. Lordy, Lordy, how we need you!

Send us a message ... right here on The Tyee.
It's urgent, Glen.

Carole James

Unfortunately I have to agree. It is an urgent matter that we get a strong opposition in BC because, as you point out, issues do abound. I am not as skeptical of the political system as I believe that the adversarial system can work for the benefit of the voters however it will not work if the leader of the opposition refuses to be adversarial and is focussed on issues that, while important, are not resonating with the voters.

Well Rafe...

...you've been wrong before and I surely hope you are in this case. Although I doubt it.

In a perfect world I guess we would have some niceties in government and there wouldn't be a one man (big business) rule.
But do you think that Carol resigning at this stage of the game would really benefit the party. Don't forget the "Green factor". Unless a lot of the disenchanted Liberals out there who are deadset against the NDP jump to the greens instead of the greens taking votes from the NDP then I personally don't think we have a chance.
No, I think the only way for this to turn around is for Carol And the party to get a lot more aggressive. One thing they might do is try and get some of this coverup information out to the public. I realize the MSM isn,t going to help but there are ways.

Why no real leader?

Too true. It makes me wonder if the NDP have not conceeded these last two elections and the coming one by leaving James in place. They knew they could not beat Campbell's P.R. Machine and thus, left her in to be the weak sister, saving their real bullet for an election they think they could win. I think that bullet is Bob Simpson. He has more brains in his little finger than all the Lieberals combined and he can throw a punch when he has to, unlike little Miss Nice, who just wants to get along...

James must go

James is too weak; too unfocused; too goody two-shoes, to ever win my vote.

The NDP must do the deed and terminate her.

Depart I say! She has sat there too long for what good she has done, In the name of god go!

Bob Simpson is our MLA and I

Bob Simpson is our MLA and I know him personally, very well, contributed to his campaign. He would definitely make a good leader.

Both our local NDP MLAs, Bob and Charlie Wyse have been elected by a few votes, both replacing totally useless, seatwarmer nobodies and both have since made great contribution to our Cariboo ridings and BC in general, with their hard work and constant fighting for the public.

My other choice would be Peter Dimitrov, if he could be persuaded to rejoin and run again ????? He would have my vote at any time.

Carole is a highly intelligent and hard working person, but I have to wonder who the backroom policy makers of the NDP are, both at the provincial and federal levels, burying the party and the leaders under side issues, afraid to upset the ruling corporate mafia.

How much decision making powers do political leaders, of any party, really have and how much are they under the control of invisible, backroom advisers.

It is obvious that Campbell is nothing more than a puppet on strings, sold by the best mind benders in the racket. The man's clueless ignorance is astonishing and any opposition leader should be able to run circles around him.

Funny thing is that the federal Liberals and the US Democrats are also suffering exactly from the same ailments, not daring even to realize, let alone talk about the real issues.

My firm belief is that the political backrooms of the whole world have been taken over by the same miseducated economists, brainwashed with the same textbooks, as the same copycat idiocies they push seem to he controlling politicians on all continents.

I read the stories from Europe, Australia and NZ and they're no different than what we have here.

I'm still hoping to see the coming of the Age of Enlightenment, before humanity destroys itself by following criminal, pseudo religious economic theories.

As long as governments permit the stock and money markets to control policies, there's no hope.

On the other hand, the blind following of the harebrained ideas of long dead prophets, like Smith, Ricardo, Marx, et al, are no solutions either. As we have found out by bitter experience, killing more and more millions every year in their name.

Ed Deak.

Sad to say I must agree

There is little or no indication that the NDP is prepared to do the kind of hard slogging work that's needed to challenge the Campbell government. As a matter of fact, even when presented with glorious opportunities to illustrate how financially corrupt and morally bankrupt Campbell is the NDP fails to take advantage of the slow pitches.

Go back and read the debates, especially question period, from the Spring Session.

Instead of dealing with several issues and moving on, time and again, the same question is asked dozens of times by every opposition questioner - always receiving the same answer from the Campbell forces.

One session would have illustrated that Campbell is NOT GOING TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS and continually belaboring that point is a waste to time and effort.

Question period should have been used to illustrate the range of corruption and bad management on a plethora of issues - we already knew Campbell wouldn't be answering so the opposition should have changed tactics and begun to do the detailed research and muck-raking that the press has not done. It is not enough to answer questions – with this government in power, the opposition has to provide credible answers too.

You have to spoon-feed the media these days and the opposition hasn't a clue how to do that. Screaming and yelling won't cut it any more - solid research and careful exposition will.

The press has become lazy in this country.

which side are you on Rafe?

This is getting to be a steady stream coming from Rafe, denouncing the James leadership.

OK, she does handle opposition differently than most, but is that a bad thing?

Only too many voters are fed up with ALL politicians, just maybe a decent politicians could turn the tide?

Imagine if all the people who no longer bother to vote decides that here is a politcitan who cares, and cast their vote next time around?

We have a leader now, for better or worse; making a change now, would show internal problems in the party and weakness overall.

My suspiscionis that Rafe still is a socred and have no use for any NDP platform, so making all these rants about Carole James is his way to help his old Socred mates once again?

The NDP are tired.

I lost faith in the 'honest' NDP when Glen Clark did the Millennium Line flim-flam. In a classic Liberal RAV/Canada con-job, Clark forced the antique SkyTrain Millennium Line upon us instead of a planned for light rail.

The NDP wallowed, adrift with no strong leader at the help and James was just the 'school marm, type of person to make the NDP refugees feel good. The NDP gained seats in the last election, not for James running the show, but the public held Campbell in high odor.

Her time is now done and its time for her to step down and its high time that the NDP grow and smell the coffee. They are the loyal opposition and they must oppose, they do not because James prefers whining a tired drone.

Where are her attack dogs? "Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war!", should be her motto, but its not, I'm tired of the goody two-shoes antics of this nice, but inept leader. A good leader knows when its time to go. Not the NDP, still mired in pretend schoolyard fights.

Want my vote, get rid of James!

What difference would it make?

Think carefully Rafe, you have already said that the system is a part of the problem, so what difference would having the NDP in the majority in the Legislature really make?

In my mind none at all.

The 'democracy deficit' (icky phrase but one that comes to mind) would continue.

Sadly I see few other options at the moment, short of a tax revolt or other 'revolution' only the 'evolution' of the voting public to recognize the need to KO party politics by not voting for any candidate from any 'organized' party. This way, we the people, have a chance to take back our franchise and keep it to ourselves.

Staying the course, will only see big $$$ win, whether stolen from us in taxes or extorted from everyone in fiat currency systems.

The message, not the medium

If the NDP wants to hold the reins of government, I think they need to state their message far more ably than they have ever done. This does not mean finding someone louder, more aggressive, or conventionally attractive than James, but convincing voters that the NDP has the vision and the competence to govern in a way that is more beneficial than that offered by the competition.

This is a tall order.

The NDP is seen as socialist, and "socialist" is seen as a dirty word, synonymous with postwar fears of the creeping internationalist Red Menace.

The NDP, knowing that it is tainted with the s-word, which is practically the c-word, has meekly conceeded that the stereotype is too powerful to overcome, retreating behind bland statements like "we support working families," whose very vagueness does nothing to dispell the notion that the party is a think-tank rather than an effective operator of that highly complex and inherently dangerous mechanism called government.

The very choice of James is symbolic: she has run no businesses. If she has controlled budgets, there's been pretty well no awareness of that. People like experience.

The NDP should not move to the middle, but instead should clearly acknowledge, defend, and operationalize its left beliefs. Don't soft-pedal the leftist concept of, say, negotiating with trade unions. No one believes that the NDP intends to get tough with the BCGEU. The anti-union party is on the other side.

Instead, build a business case for its close relationship to organized labour: explain the benefit to the voter in all aspects - ethical, fiscal, administrative.

Don't let the right wingers define you as a "tax and spend" party. Point out the dollar for dollar advantages of taxation vs. user fees. Explain social programs in terms of investment. Show the research which proves the benefits of your policies.
Show where your rivals have wasted money providing welfare to businesses.

Incidentally, if you can't build a business case for your policies, this is a good way of winnowing out the crap ideas.
The NDP has to be the party of high ideals that are turned into effective, rational, affordable, logical plans. The rival party has already staked out its territory: fag-bashers and fawning yes-men eager to pimp the power of government to a very few rich CEOs.

Define the choice in those terms and the NDP captures everyone who is not a bigot or a fan of corruption.

Anybody But Dix

Rafe--what if Carole James is right (AND SHE IS)about the type of leadership the NDP needs--one which appeals to a broader public, is consensual and green but also able to fight, in other words one which finds the right balance between Harcourt and Clark, but leans a bit more to a Harcourt in terms of both content and style, one that can appeal to a broad majority of British Columbians, rather than a Clark style that centralizes power, subordinates policy to communications and everything to power, and that can only foment and prey upon division?

What if Carole James is right, but simply lacks the peronality and the experience to execute that vision?

In that case, I would simply look to someone else who can exemplify that middle ground better than she can: Andrew Petter, Corky Evans, Mike Farnworth, Gregor Robertson, Bob Simpson, Murray Rankin, ANYBODY BUT DIX.

You seem to think that because Dix's experience and attempting to control informationa nd manipulate the media while in government made him an effective opposition critic, he should be back in government again. you are Wrong. We have been there before and we know where that leads. Adrian Dix is the least changed person in B.C. politics. He hid Easter eggs when in GOvernment, so was good at finding Easter eggs when in opposition. Just the opposite side of the same coin. He has NOT been the most effective critic in the Legislature, but then as you say, who cares about what happens in the Legislature. Dix knows that power lies in getting on television, and he has gone to ridiculous lengths to get on TV whenver he can. If he were the premier, you would see the whole government subordinated to that task, even more than it was during Clark and Campbell.

I also don't think that with the Olympics and the overheated economy that Dave Barrett, Glen Clark or Adrian Dix would be likely to win the next election. If Carole James chooses to lead the party and can at least hold on to the current share of seats, she will continue to deserve our support.

I think htat the reson the media likes Dix so much is because he has so completely bought into the media game, and because the media really doesn't give a hoot about the broader democratic raison d'etre of the NDP.

And one more thing Rafe: I sense a contradiction in your argument. You say that you want a change in the way politics is done, really give power to the legislature, to have greener, consensual more democratic politics, but then you say that in order to fight the dirty fight we need to return to government a la Clark-Dix-Gunton. Think about that for a moment.

Oh, where is a young Tom Berger when we need him?

Bob Simpson could do it

I also know Mr. Simpson personally and I agree with Ed Deak that he would make an excellent NDP leader. I watched him run a meeting of unhappy ranchers who were confronting the West Hawk coal mine developers who wanted to strip mine their farms. Although his sympathies appeared to lay with the ranchers, it didn't show in the meeting, which he ran fairly and impartially. I was impressed. He does his homework and handles his portfolio well. I don't think he'd be afraid to get his knuckles bloody. Mair is right: James is too nice for the job (at least if the NDP want to win a majority).

Anybody but Dix--P.S.

P.S.

And if at times Dix has seemed like a professional surrounded about amateurs, consider WHY there are so many amateurs in the NDP caucus. Because they were all wiped out and had to start from scratch in 2005! And why were the NDP nearly wiped out? Overwhelmingly, because of public revulsion at a style of decision making in which Glen Clark, with the assistance of Tom Gunton and Adrian Dix, had things THEIR WAY AND WE SAW WHERE THAT LED. Crowning DIx as the biggest beneficiary of the disaster that he helped to create would be an irony that should not be lost on anybody!

I'll grant that DIx's obsession with media ("Cabinet Ministers have, your policies ready by 3:30 so we'll be ready for the 6;00 o clock news, Ministerial Assistants, concentrate on your local media in your ridings; Policy Secretariat, subordinate your funtions to "Communications") prepared him well for his role as an Opposition critic. But people like him should be at the far end of the leash, not holding the leash.

What we learned from the Clark-Dix-Gunton years is that a highly disciplined and centralized top-down communications machine merely saps the NDP of its spirit and leads to a moral and political dead-end. Even if you could beat Campbell at his own game, that game would not be worth the candle.

For what its worth

Almost all the NDP are rookies. There was a concerted effort in 2004 to make sure that anybody with experience was ousted. The new NDP had to rise from the ashes or step on the corpses of the veterans from the 90's. Heaven forbid that James be asked to defend any of her predecessors or even retain a sense of the NDP's roots.

Why then would it surprise anyone that the current crop of NDP MLA's lack the instinct for the brand of BC politics that have become the mark of the BC legislature or the British Parliamentary system to go back even farther. Their ineffectiveness has also confirmed every half-baked myth about the NDP of the 90's that was promoted by the liberals and the liberal supported corporate media.

Rafe is dead on. James has to go and then maybe a new leader will emerge. I have not seen anything in the ranks that inspires or will take on Campbell. It needs to be an "in Campbell's face" opposition. A pox on the scheduled sittings which are nothing more than closure by stealth and the niceness which makes everything the liberals do look as moderate and reasonable . BC Mary is right. Right now Glen Clark would make mince meat out out of Campbell and create some passion and give the NDP a fighting chance. Campbell's actions pale anything ever done by Clark. I doubt Clark is interested and the rebuilding will continue until Campbell wins another term.
Too bad for BC.

Brilliant, Rafe!

A brilliant analysis, Rafe, and a mirror of what I have been saying here for the last couple of years. It seems the message is finally getting through to at least some people in the "opposition" camp.

You have hit the nail right on the head, Rafe, and I have been reapeatly saying exactly the same thing for years. The NDP has a habit of preaching to the choir which does not win elections.

Dix would be the only obvious replacement but his tainted past and age work against him. He also doesn't look good on TV, which is this world, is vital.

Good point, Rafe. The NDP has been running on a single issue, Gordon Campbell is the Anti-Christ. That works well with the Faithful but the lack of clear alternative policy hamstrings the NDP.

Will the NDp be able to examine itself and ask "why don't we win elections?"

Ask the Faithful here. I personally doubt is and also think we will see a third Liberal majority.

Too much focus

I want to first admit, I'm not enamoured with CJ. I like pitbull politicians in these circumstances.

That said, I think it is more distracting then productive to focus too much on a single leader. Elections are won riding by riding. It would be far better for the Party to focus on building capacity and interest at the community level.

In this regard, James is a good choice.

munroe

Elections may be won riding by riding but the influence of a leader's image is huge for a candidate. This may be only an NDP phenomenon but it is true. I would submit that this being the case then James is a poor choice because she has no influence outside her riding. After two years as the apprentice there has been no change.

Believe me, I have searched for positive signs.

Excellent Points

Rafe makes excellent points, the same that I have been making for years. It all boils down to whether the NDP can look inward and ask itself this question:

"What have we done, and are doing, that keep us from getting elected?"

"Rafe--what if Carole James is right (AND SHE IS)about the type of leadership the NDP needs"

When I see statements like that above, I doubt the Faithful can ask that question and this another four years of Campbell.

The thing Rafe forgets

Is that in BC the opposition doesn't win elections, the party in power loses them. Rafe even hints at this truth here:

“The sins of the Campbell government will not, on their own, bring them down unless those evils are perceived by a majority of voters as being serious.”

The Campbell government - although they don't realize it yet - are well on their way to turning this administration into one that's even more widely hated than the Socreds were.

The party which really needs a new leader now is the Campbell Party - I will no longer call it 'liberal' because it isn't in any sense of that word - if they don't dump Gordon before 2009 they will be toast.

I'm no Carole James fan, but British Columbians (you too working man, if you ever stop patting yourself on the back because someone in print finally agrees with you) should remember that the same Carole James came within a few thousand votes of unseating Gordon in 2005.

This Campbell Government is well on the way to defeating itself. A new approach by the NDP would be helpful, but right now I'm more than prepared to see these characters rot from within for a few more months.

They do it so well - the spin doctors to the contrary. I was with a large group of young people at the weekend and we were all watching TV when one of those appalling best place in the world ads came on. It was met with the most ribald and derisive laughter. Gordo and the 185 aren't fooling anyone.

And I don't think Gordon will resign because he's far too self-absorbed to understand what's happening. His party caucus, including the cabinet are redundant ciphers - they spend all their time trying to look good in their leader's eyes.

The NDP has a leadership problem - the Campbell Party had a leadership crisis.

The Iron!

I have always see the above point with the greatest irony. It just goes to show if you take your lumps, you'll be handsomely rewarded.

Having previously been in the construction industry, I have met all the premiers from Vander Zalm to Campbell.

Here is a rough review:

The Zalm: If you have a blight on your roses, he's the man. If you want to run a province, a hopeless farce. Accomplished next to nothing.

Harcourt: A very likable man. A very able administrator. An excellent premier in hard times. No charisma, got the shaft for past sins (now forgotten by the Faithful but were REALLY bad). Kept BC alive during the Dark Ages.

Clark: Not likable at all. Schmoozes a crowd like a used car salesman. While talking to you, looks past you to find someone more important to talk to than you. Absolutely LOVED power which led to his downfall. Got a transit line built, which in my opinion is better than no transit line. Forever poisoned the NDP's relationship with any kind of business.

Campbell: Very likable in person. Listens or pretends to. Knows how to work a crowd. Doesn't bother to work crowds that are against him. Knows how to use media. For good or bad, a brilliant politician ie he knows how to win elections. Has built many things including Cambie Bridge and City Square, and his masterpiece, Vancouver Public Library. Doesn't give a damn about anyone who will never vote for him.

Keeping it in Perspective

Right on G West--it all hinges on when the Liberals destroy themselves. Remember when even Dave Barrett couldn't beat Bill Bennett in 1983, even though most of the province had been up in arms about a restraint package that made the recession worse?

I think that the Liberal spin machine has succeeded in identifying itself with the Olympics and the economic boom. That is why noNDP leader --including Barrett, Clark, or James--would be likely to win the next election, UNLESS self-absorbed control freak Campbell gets caught up in covering up aspects up Basi-Virk or something elses and destroys himself. Then Mrs. Clean (nobody doubts that Carole James is a good person) could take advantage.

The way it looks now, the odds are against the NDP in 2009 and somewhat in favour of the NDP in 2013. That will remain true regardless of who the NDP chooses to be its leader. SO don't panic and lurch from Harcourt to Clark-Dix to James back to Clark-Dix again in some vain attempt to beat the odds. Just hold steady, and hope that Campbell defeats himself; and if the NDP loses seats in the next election, get away from the dysfuntional pendulum swing and choose a new leader from the middle ground: Petter, Simpson, Evans, Farnworth, Robertson or Krog.

I've met them too working man

And a few you apparently haven't.

The fact you think Campbell is likable in person says something! In my view - he is the most completely shallow and phony man I have ever had the misfortune of meeting at a social function.

Addressing him with even nominal courtesy was extremely stressful. I can only remember feeling that way about one other politician I've met. Ironically, it was an NDP MLA - someone you may have forgotten - who was once a minister (but never a Premier) in the Harcourt Government.

I could mention his name, but I can't see any reason to do so in this context.

P.S. Workingman

P.S. Working Man--- I very much liked your comments--they show very real perspicacity about the last four men to be elected to form governments in B.C.

My criticism of Rafe and of his endorsement of Dix is based on very similar considerations. I think that Harcourt led one of the very best governments BC has had, while Clark led one of the very worst governments that B.C. has had. Both were badly treated by the media, but Clark, who was waging a war against the media and who arrogantly stumbled into scandals of his own making, kinda asked for it. Harcourt gave us reasonable moderate, able consensual and open government and was hammered for it. All the people in the media who had deplored "polarization" and how "crazy" our politicians had been showed no gratitude to Harcourt whatsoever.

that is why Rafe is wrong--if Carole doesn't restore decency, moderation, consulative and consensual policy making to government, we need to find the next best person who can. and that is NOT Adrian Dix!!!!

"he knows how to win elections."

The way you win elections is you kiss up to the Southern Media. With them on side you can't fail. So much of this in depth analysis is pointless because the NDP will only win when it elects people who are not afraid to be "bloodied a bit in the battle".

You forgot in the descriptions of the various premiers that Clark could not stand B.S. and that made even supporters angry. Campbell on the other hand spreads it liberally.

Harcourt was a decent man, something the political pundits admitted after he fell off his deck even those who had ridiculed him as premier. The problem was that the decency was not recognized by the press gallery folks in time to save him.

During the last election I kept waiting for a real battle to happen. It never did. The NDP ran to be second and it "won".

Any leader, with a "thirst for political blood" can beat Campbell. He can't hide during a campaign like he does now. Now, with all the changes James has allowed to make life easier for Campbell and the government, getting him in the cross hairs is almost impossible. I have said it before, that most people can't name a half-dozen NDP MLA's other than their riding MLA and maybe Dix. There is hardly a provincially recognized successor among the lot.

When you get someone with passion and smarts even the corporate media will have to take notice.

Good Comments

"The way you win elections is you kiss up to the Southern [sic] Media."

Totally true. Picking a fight with the media, like Clark did, is politcal suicide. If a government doesn't feed the media, they will have to dig for dirt for a living. The present government feeds the media so effectively they don't have to do their jobs.

"Any leader, with a "thirst for political blood" can beat Campbell."

Well said and I do not think that Carole James has that thirst. James should have won the last election by default but managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. G West is correct that governments are voted out but the last campaign was pathetic on both sides. The Liberals were convinced they would slide to an easy win and the NDP, too. Both were wrong it turned out.

"Now, with all the changes James has allowed to make life easier for Campbell and the government, getting him in the cross hairs is almost impossible"

This is because the NDP has perpetually convinced themselves that they will win every election in BC and said changes would benefit them when they get elected. Except they don't get elected and can't figure out why.

"When you get someone with passion and smarts even the corporate media will have to take notice."

Excellent observation. Passion and a real platform combined win elections. Show the average voter what you can do better for him/her and he/she will vote for you.

It ain't rocket science.

Yes, but...

I would agree that Carole James isn't getting it done as leader. But I wouldn't be quick to ask for her resignation. If you look that NDP benches it isn't exactly brimming with talent. Some members are known as the stong silent type. These aren't the qualities that they need right now. As for Adrian Dix, he is a great orator, but not yet.
The NDP needs to lose the next election. They still haven't really had a glimpse at the prize. They don't have the taste of blood. The last election was largely a "If you give it your best shot than that is all we can ask." They still don't think they can govern, and neither does the pubic. They need their own "Rat Pack" right now, something that isn't there. Too many MLAs are counting the days till the end of this Legislature.
I'm an NDP supporter, but it still seems to me as though this organisation want to rock the boat.

The NDP

The NDP needs great policies, great strategy and great leaders. Uh-huh

And the Liberals need? Nothing. Most people vote whoever is running against the NDP. So the Libs don't need a leader, anybody they select will be crowned by the Liberal media as the Second Coming. Policies? Not to worry, anything they pull out of their ass will be declared to be brilliant by all the local card-carrying Liberal pundits. Strategy? Just say they're the only hope of beating the NDP and watch everyone nod.

That's why the Socred/Liberals have not had a good leader or a good policy in 60 years and yet they still almost always win.

The only mistake the NDP makes is listening to all the "experts" and blaming themselves for not winning. The problem is the voter. So if the NDP decides it exists to win elections then it should disband and join the Libs en masse. Then we can all be on the winning side and spend our time debating why the Greens can't get elected, as if its their fault and not ours.

What if?

I agree that for us "political junkies", it is a bloodsport, and we prefer a gutsy leader so that our side can win.

However, as I pointed out earlier, the vast majority of potential voters have turned a deaf ear to all this posturing!

I suspect that Carole James has realized that, and aims her efforts towards the people who are looking for a peaceful and fair government.

Campbell has proven that he has but one agenda, and enjoys bullying. Hardly a trait that most Canadians want to see in office!

So, all you political junkies, maybe her attitude takes the fun out of your favorite sport, but please stop to imagine how it would be if a new government tried to govern with fairness in mind?

Yeah, I know that a few enjoy the benefits of Gordo's manipulations, but his friends can be counted easily!

His victims are the vast majority in this province.

And Now The News...

The NDP and whichever leader it chooses are not only up against a corrupt and arrogant government, but also its vicious and indescribably squalid little brother, the corporate print and broadcast media of BC. When you feed people constant demonisation, vile distortion, denigration and outright lies as part of their daily 'news', when their picture of the world is formed in great part by the corporate media, it's no surprise when they buy the Big Lie and vote against the NDP, regardless of its leader or what that leader says and does, and regardless of the accomplishments of previous NDP governments. This is why they'll accept bad government daily from these rotten little right-wing governments that so infest BC politics that they wouldn't tolerate once a year from the NDP. Until BC develops a politically independent press, the NDP's behind then corporate propaganda eight ball, no matter what, and its style of leadership is almost irrelevant outside its core support.

A long walk in the wilderness

If the NDP wants to stage a meaningful and sustainable comeback to power in BC it's supporters must take a long walk in the political wilderness or desert and decide on new policies and a new leader. Carole James is right for the party, but the party is not right for her. Reading some of the posts here, the NDP is still mired in social protest and screw the corporations and to hell with business and the economy kind of mentality. With the economy in full flight, BC people don't want a return to the era of stupid Glen Clark economic policies.

Until the NDP finds a way to move to the centre with more business friendly policies and MLAs who have business credibility, it will have problems winning middle class votes. And most working people call themselves middle class these days. No one wants a return to the Glen Clark days. And stop vilifying 'the rich'. Who exactly is the rich in the mind of the NDP? Because you end up threatening the middle class voters. BC'ers do not want a welfare economy and their support of the Campbell govt show their preference. Although you scream corruption and cronyism, you forget that BC people don't expect their govt to be perfect. They just expect it to not meddle in their lives and turn it upside down.

Which is what the NDP always promises to do with its instinctive, union driven, firebrand protest style complete with leaders (like that buffoon and thug Glen Clark) who are union thugs by training. This ilk is great at political streetfighting but is incapable of governing from the middle.

Ironically, Mair is simply pleading with BC'ers to switch from one perceived autocracy to another when he supports Adrian Dix. Why go from one manipulative govt to a left wing one? Unless that's all you really want to do rather than improve things.

You can scream all you want at these perceived infrastructure projects, but the LIberals will have to lose the next election. The NDP is in no position to win. And the voters are not inclined to try the NDP. If the NDP bring on a loudmouthed trouble maker they will only further estrange themselves from the electorate. On the other hand, it will make many on this board happier only proving that the NDP is fast becoming a full time debating club that has no interest in winning elections.

Business Credibility?

MLA's with business credibility? Maybe that's the problem with the Liberals. Too much "business" credibility and not enough common sense, forward thinking, or compassion. What we need is a balance, and not just "business credibility" that favors Campbell's own "special interest groups". As far as that goes, I personally don't think Campbell could "manage" his way out of a wet paper bag. He's penny wise and pound foolish, with no concern for anything but the immediate future.

As for James, like I said before, "nice guys finish last".

Revisionism

Illuminating. Until the right-wing cavemen are able to utter the word "union" without having a little temper tantrum no one to the left of Ghengis Khan will take anything they say seriously. Vilifying unions and giving handouts to business is pretty much the only policy the cavemen have uttered in the past 60 years. Not that I ever expected more from them.

The NDP will win elections when voters want them to. Nothing the NDP can do will change that simple fact. And they're not the only party that has learned that lesson. The old Liberal and Conservative parties gave up trying to win elections and instead became vehicles for wayward Socreds to put forward a different view from what the Socred party allowed before rejoining the party when opportunity knocked. Just as the Greens and BC Reform and a myriad of other parties have never had any serious expectation of ever forming a government. They know the game, everyone puts forward candidates and policies but the same party always wins, not much different than what went on beyond the old Iron Curtain.

The NDP's existence allows people to believe they don't live in a one party state. At one time BC politics wasn't that
much different from North Korea. One party, one leader and then the son of that leader. No matter how badly the economy functioned (early 1980's for example), no matter how strong the whiff of corruption (pick a term), the BC voters supported them.

The NDP has never received a majority of votes in any election regardless of who they ran or more importantly, who they ran against. Even in their last victory in 1996 they lost the popular vote in spite of the Harcourt government doing a pretty good job and even overseeing an economy that outperformed the previous Socred decade.

Looking at the 1996 election should be required by all pundits before they pontificate on NDP shortcomings. Compare the 1980's under the Socreds to the Harcourt years in the early 90's. Why did the NDP lose the popular vote? All the usual fairy tales about NDP shortcomings that get trotted out on an annual basis fail the reality test. One could also look at the 1986 election where after running the economy into the ground the Socreds were re-elected. That election certainly says more about the right-wing voting public than it says about the NDP or any of the other parties that bother to contest elections.

Again, electoral outcomes have nothing to do with the NDP. BC is simply a right-wing province that wants a one-party state with an opposition they can complain about and blame everything on. They elect NDP governments only as a last resort to force the Socred/Libs to change leaders.

Another assessment

Perhaps all those here who are so convinced the NDP is down for the count ought to look at David Schreck this morning. He provides a more nuanced and accurate assessment of the polls and Rafe's column - not to mention the trend line - here:

http://www.strategicthoughts.com/

And, if you're interested

If you're interested in other reasons - in this case the cuddle-cozy links with Alberta that the Campbell Government - and why it is time to start taking a close look at where solely resource and commodity sales based development may be taking us this interview is worth listening to.

Frank's distinctions about the 'nature' of democracy in BC are, in the event, even more sharply drawn in the situation of the province to the east of us

From yesterday's 'The CURRENT' on CBC Radio - you'll need real audio (or you can download it as a podcast) to listen to the second half of the program you can find here:
http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/2007/200706/20070625.html
It's the piece with Andrew Nikiforik you're looking for.

CBC ain't quite dead yet.
Enjoy

BC's economy is not

BC's economy is not "booming", but is in a deplorable state, because, thanks to our "business friendly" government thatg destroyed the industrial infrastructure, it now relies on the sale of resources, which is the sale of capital.

The sale of capital is not an income, but economic suicide.

Any and all business theories warn against the sale of capital, and especially the sale of goods from the shelves, without the necessary the accounting of depletion and replacement.

Here in the Cariboo, with the dying of the lumber industry, the mining companies are going wild with their wealth creating and prosperity promises, without telling the public that one of the main demands of the now secretly negotiated SPP is the "free movement of labour".

Which means that those mining camps will be filled with Mexican slave labour, "to remain competitive", of course.

Another criminal idiocy perpetrated by these "wealth creators", is the constant demand for more "foreign investment"

Foreign investment is nothing more than the inflation of a country's money supply from abroad. With bank deregulation it has become a crime wave.

Banks now can "create" imaginary capital to take over the resources and properties of others, then, by making it "tax deductible business expenses", force the public the properties were stolen from, to pay the interests and service charges.

The best and biggest racket in human history. Invest nothing, and steal the benefits.

No country that receives foreign investment needs it and Canada never needed a single penny, even under gold standards, because we also have all the gold, now sold off for
imaginary junk money, especially for worthless US dollars.

Ed Deak.

In some folks eyes Gordo can

In some folks eyes Gordo can do no wrong as long as the money keeps pouring in to their pockets. Governments have a far easier time of being liked when the economy is good. If the asian meltdown didn't occur, Glen Clark wouldmstill be premier. But as we sell off large chunks of the province for short term gain let's just think for a moment what we are doing to ourselves. The T/C has a headline this morning. "Island mine set to double coal output". "The open pit mine ir requiring upgrade as China needs more coal." Money to be made so jumpt to it. Never mind that the resulting pollution of massive coal burning in China eventually ends up heading west to us. We are such quick buck artists.To heck with what happens down the road as we run out of many resources. My God, what will Gordos' type of folks sell then?

Good Argument to vote NDP

Rafe's points add up to an overwhelming body of evidence to...vote for Carole James. And indeed, why not? Perhaps this is EXACTLY what BC needs. Aren't we getting a little tired of the "meanest junkyard dogs" running our society? Just a thought...

A Voter who thinks beyond their wallet!

I am interested in politics and how we govern ourselves, but I have no interest in party politics and the in-house rules/crap you would have to slog through to win a nomination.

Does anyone think/realize that it doesn't matter which party 'wins' government, the result will be more or less of the same!

Look at how global warming placating has calmed down in recent weeks. Back to the same old same old!

What is the vision for BC? More of the same I fear!

Unless there's a side to

Unless there's a side to Carole James yet to be disclosed, if she remains leader -- barring a miracle -- Campbell will win a third term in 2009."

Rafe: I am largely in agreement with Frank Lee, Frank and JP that the odds are strongly in The Liberals' favour to win in 2009, but that would be true whether Carole James remains as leader or not. Dave Barrett or Glen Clark would be unlikely to win, as long as the economy is hot and the Olympics are in the air.

SO I would also agree with Frank Lee and JP that this is not the time to remove the leader, and certainly not in favour of a man like Dix. His problem was not that he made "some mistakes", such as a fraudulently backdated memo or assisting Glen Clark in circumventing parliamentary accountability in order to ram the fast Ferries through, or hiring and firing some people that he shouldn't have. All of these things were just symptoms of a far deeper problem that was endemic to Clark-Dix-Gunton 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for 3 years: the downgrading of procedural values ("process is for cheese") and the environment("environmentalists are the enemy") and democratic reform ("proprtional representation is for losers") in favour of an authoritarian disicplined top-down communications machine that was intended to beat the Liberals and the media at their own game. This was great training for a future opposition critic, but it has already been shown to be a disaster in government. Since Dix owes all of his expertise and all of his current success as a media-savvy opposition critic to this experience, he could hardly be expected to be much different in government.

So I say--stay the course, and if the NDP loses the next election (which it probably will anyway), Carole (unlike Glen Clark) will know when it is time to step down.

Freebar.....Unfortunately,

Freebar.....Unfortunately, you're right to a great degree, because all governments, since the beginning of history, have been controlled by predators holding them hostage, with the scriptural blessings of priesthoods.

Today's governments are forced into their irresponsible and self destructive actions by the priesthood of economists, brainwashed with the same textbooks all over the world.

No different when priesthoods cut open the guts of white goats to predict the outcome of conquests, or threw virgins into fire pits to please their imaginary gods, or when continents were raped, enslaved and destroyed by the licence of Papal Bulls.

Today we're living by the orders of the Money God, who hath no physical existence, but liveth in computers, with our tacit approval.

If we're stupid enough to accept his orders to throw our children onto his altar, what right to we have to complain ?

Ed Deak.

James must go.

All a new leader has to do is show some energy and passion for the job. It matters not one wit that the description of what went on in the 90's under Harcourt and Clark is colored by the media's biased reporting. I see some of the same meaningless bafflegab in Mark Crawford's third paragraph above. Do you really think the public would even understand what he was trying to say?

Politics is much simpler. Give the people a vision with some energy and the sign that you have the ability to take on Campbell and the forces who have been victims of the liberals will rally behind the leader and forgive a few transgressions. James has been a colossal failure at capturing the people's imagination. Giving her another 6 years to learn is sheer folly. Learning curves in politics can not take 8 years.

Consider her background. School boards are not the arena for passionate debate, the 30 second sound bite, oratory or partisan politics. She was a neophyte when she started and she has not shown the capacity to learn the ways of the new arena. It is not about being obnoxious, it is about being strong and projecting that strength. I meet so very many people who just do not see her as capable any more.

There has been very little from the NDP to counter the myth about the BC economy and how little Campbell had to do about it. If they (the NDP) were not all so damned civil then their might be some point in listening to them. My grandmother has more passion when it comes to talking about Campbell than James does. It is like they are all so content to have a highly paid job that they don't want to make their work day a little unpleasant by ruffling a few liberal feathers.

Three-peat There, No-peat Here

So in Manitoba the NDP government led by Gary Doerr just won a *third consecutive majority* and a large part of the popular vote following pretty much the same policies that the BC NDP government did for the last two years of its tenure before its Great Extinction event two elections ago. Compare and discuss.

Perhaps a quick read of an an excerpt from David Schreck

"...The NDP was behind the Liberals in every category shown by Ipsos Reid in its April poll: region, gender, age, education, and income. In the June poll, the NDP led the Liberals by 8 points on Vancouver Island, it was ahead of the Liberals by 10 points for those with family incomes under $40,000 and 1 point (a statistical tie) for those with family incomes between $40,000 and $80,000. The Liberal advantage was confined to families with incomes of $80,000 or more, and their overall advantage was gained because their support in those higher income families was more than two and a quarter times higher than the NDP's (61% to 28%) - almost the same as it was in the April poll. It can hurt the Liberals to concentrate their support with overwhelming victories in a few ridings while having close races in many others. It is unlikely that the NDP will break through by significantly reducing the Liberal advantage with upper income families, but a comparison of the polls shows that the majority of British Columbians can change their opinions quickly when confronted with the kind of politics they saw in the spring, with issues such as the MLA pay raise and the Basi-Virk trial.

New Democrats recognize that no one is going to challenge James for her leadership before the May 12, 2009 election. She will lead the party with solid support from her caucus, and if the shift shown in the June Ipsos Reid poll becomes a trend, she will be credible when she talks about what she would do as Premier."

Of course the rich folks don't like Carole or the NDP - the key is just to get the poor and middle income people to bestir themselves a bit. Naturally the folks in the $80G + catogory like the Campbell Government - they own it!

Upstairs/downstairs syndrome

Quite right!
But when the poor folks, say that out loud, they are guilty of talking about class distinction and that is a bad word!

The fact is that now, more than in the last many years, we are moving towards a society where there is a gap between the classes.

Only it is not nice to talk about that!
We are supposed to be happy in our "melting pot society" and just forget that certain people are more equal than others.

The poverty gap used to be

The poverty gap used to be called "the will of the gods", and "divinely ordained privilege of the chosen", now it is called
"the competitive equilibrium of the global marketplace"

The purpose of the theory is to reduce humanity to the level of pigs, with a self appointed ruling class throwing handfuls of feed to them and watch how they fight for survival.

When less than 400 people own and control half of the world's resources it is claimed to be the epitome of democracy.

Ed Deak.

Regardless of who is NDP Leader

Rafe: Glen Clark didn't so much win the 1996 election, as the Liberals lost it. The Right was more divided than the Left and Campbell foolishly made that worse by promising to privatize BC Rail (alienating northern communities and strenghtening Reform). He also ruminated about the possible need to make some cuts to social services. Clark pounced on these errors and had the good fortune of having an NDP electorate spread more evenly than the Liberal electorate and an electoral system that wasted many more Liberal votes than NDP ones.

Plus, Clark had to have the temerity in the Leader's Debate to state emphatically, repeatedly and in the present tense that "the budget is balanced"--a touch disingenuous, as he was clinging to an out of date official revenue forecast instead of more recent and accurate unofficial ones.

The point: conditions had to be right, Clark's skill and ballsiness was not enough to win.

Skywalker: My description of how Clark-Dix-Gunton's testosterone politics and centralized top-down communications machine harmed the quality of public policy and made matters worse politically is not "meaningless" at all. It is history that we are doomed to repeat unless we understand it. You may be right that my analysis should not be part of the NDP's platform in the next election, but that is an entirely different matter.

G West: Your analysis of the polling data is very helpful. However much Campbell's 20% tax cut may have been poor public policy, (blasting a huge hole in the provincial budget and forcing him to make many harmful decisions that he promised he wouldn't make, like a 24% cut to Children and Families and cancellation of the trades and apprenticeship program just when it was needed most, and a big increase in regressive taxes and fees), it worked wonders in solidifying his electoral and financial base. It may have been smart politics, just as President Bush's upper-class tax cut combined with opposition to abortion and same sex marriage solidified and galvanized the Republican base in the United States.

The General Lesson, on both sides of the aisle: smart politics doesn't always yield smart policy; and some of the same qualities that govern smart campaigns can lead to bad government.

Smart politics???

The current state of the 'Republican base' in the United States (28% approval or less) would lead me to believe that the Bush tax cut policy (and the Campbell one) is ultimately doomed.

The dull shine on the economy here obscures, but not completely, a far from congenial outcome for the quality of life and prospects of the majority. In a democracy, the facts of economic life usually take precedence over politics in the end. The trend is clearly moving against Campbell. His apparently congenital incapacity to accept even constructive criticism (remember those two members of his caucus who tried to do so in the first term - not to mention his own Attorney-General at the time) does not bode well for the next almost two years as the effects of the American economic slowdown begin to cut even deeper into the forest-base economy in the interior. The rising Canadian petro dollar will not help.

Have another look at those support figures from the June 22 poll.

The NDP, despite Carole James' and her obvious shortcomings, has the potential for growth - the Campbell forces have blown their powder on the single group of supporters (with incomes over $120G per annum) that they need not have worried about anyway.

I don't know if you heard Marty Zlotnik addressing the UBC Golf Course fiasco this morning in the media. It is very interesting to hear someone like Marty - whom I've known for years - taking up the cudgels to gather signatures urging the government to pay off the Musqueam with a big cheque to save the UBC golf course.

That kind of thing will not go unnoticed at the same time that Campbell stews instead of dealing with the suggestions of the SCC relative to Bill 29. The clear priorities and the pressure of the groups that ‘own’ Gordon Campbell are becoming more and more evident to the rest of the polity – a group which is increasingly feeling left-out of the mix.

The special privileges of 'special' people in that favoured 20% who own this government is not lost on the folks who'll be voting in 2009.

We shall see what happens, but this race is a long way from being over, in my view.