Another Viewpoint...

The provincial NDP currently standing at 34% represents their rock bottom support, the same level of support that they garnered in 1969 and elections before that.
(with 2001 a blip on the radar screen)

http://www.elections.bc.ca/elections/electoral_history/29ge1969-1.html

http://www.elections.bc.ca/elections/electoral_history/28ge1966-1.html

That was also during an era when the centrist "real" Liberal party averaged around 20%.

When the provincial NDP became more "centrist" or Liberal "lite" during the late 1970's and thereafter (Dave Barrett wearing blue pinstripe suits and publicly stating that he was a fiscal conservative), the NDP achieved popularity levels 10% higher due to getting that middle of the road vote.

The old adage one wins elections by capturing the centre of the political spectrum rings true. With the NDP currently at its base 34% support, to move further to the left would only marginalize that voting base further.

As an example, the federal NDP in BC achieved only 27% and 29% respectively in the last two federal elections and typically they achieve a result around 10% less than their provincial counterparts.

That's due to the fact that the federal NDP is left of the provincial NDP and around 1/4 to 1/3 of provincial NDP voters vote Liberal federally. Witness former NDP premier Ujjal Dosanjh federal Liberal jump, or former premier Dan Miller's endorsement of Liberal Dave Haggard in the last federal election. I suspect Harcourt is also from the same federal Liberal mold.

As for the Green Party, yes they do take from all parties esp. the federal Liberals in Quadra, for example. But provincially that's a different story. Some pundits suggest that the Greens take 2 votes from the provincial NDP for every Liberal vote.

Mustel's political surveys from last year also tell a similar story:

May, 2007:

Lib - 51%, NDP - 36, Green - 11%

Aug., 2007

Lib - 50%, NDP - 32%, Green - 16%

Nov., 2007

Lib - 50%, NDP - 36%, Green - 10%

http://www.mustelgroup.com/pdf/20071126.pdf

Clearly that dip 4% in NDP support and subsequent rebound was directly attributable to the Green vote.

Even pollster Ipsos-Reid's Kyle Braid confirms the Green vote impact upon the NDP.

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=df950113-f511-4d81-80c3-ec4daafab4e0

As for Clark's election victory in 1996, that was right out of Vander Zalm's notebook: new leader for a low in the polls governing political party, populist message, media focusing on Clark/Vander Zalm with their momentum akin to a runaway train during the election, oppposition party caught off guard, after election win leaders embroiled in controversies, parties approval ratings plummet in polls, and... voila Socreds destroyed in 1991 and NDP almost destroyed in 2001.

As for James meeting with the business community, so did Barrett and Harcourt, Barrett almost (should have) won in 1983 and Harcourt did so in 1991.

The problem at headquarters

I groan every time I hear Jack Layton say Harper is "wrong" about X, Y or Z, implying that he knows better, but rarely bothering to explain why, as if we're too stupid to understand.

The problem at headquarters is that highly paid party functionaries are not part of the working class. So the best they can do is develop paternalistic - not progressive - policies.

Similar situation with many union officials: out of touch with The People who eke out meagre livings far, far below. Let alone unorganized workers.

I wonder if this is why traditional left values like solidarity and militancy have become less important than jurisdiction and seniority, or why one-day symbolic protests busing members to the legislature is somehow a substitute for sustained "action".

Oh, for the days when leaders like Jean-Claude Parrot were prepared to serve jail time on behalf of their members ;-)

Luke

You still haven't dealt with the fact that these polls are dishonest, poorly planned and executed and more concerned with politics than science - suggesting anything that Ipsos Reid does has any credibility because of their 'strategic alliance' with Canwest (especially given Canwest's politics) is bizarre.

No polling firm worth its salt should be anything BUT completely independent.

Like Canwest, they’re just in the business of selling soap.

But, in any case, pee wee is going to get his majority – the collapse of the Liberal vote in Quadra is just another bellwether of that eventuality – exactly as I predicted was likely to happen: a). the day after the Conservatives formed a minority government, and b) the day that Mark Marissen and his band of merry idiots succeeded in brokering the liberal convention for Stephane Dion.

Sadly, pee wee, given the inevitable recession/depression that’s coming, will ride the country till it’s lame – in pretty much the same way Bennett did in the 30s. The largest category of workers in Canada these days is 'retail clerk'...we're in for a very bad time and mindless playing of video games while communing with your friends on facebook isn't going to put increasingly expensive food on the table...

The question now is, who will pick up any pieces that happen to be left over five or six years from now.

I don’t think it will be Elizabeth May.

As for the B.C. situation, the provincial NDP, mirabile dictu, are a lot healthier than I thought they were.

Campbell's days are numbered.

"I'd rather waffle to the left than waffle to the right."

Thank you for articulating what I've been feeling since Glen Clark started his drift to the centre right. Will someone (who has the contacts) please forward this article to Carole James.

Tyee fan mentions that

Tyee fan mentions that someone should forward this article to Carole James. I'm pretty sure she has read it by now although I doubt she got a copy from the author,and doubt much will change. Gordon gets visions, what does she get?

She talked about moving right just like Bill said. She sure as heck did. I don't see any of the folks jumping on her bandwagon, but see long term NDP leaving. The idea that the left has nowhere to go if they don't vote NDP is simply nonsense.

They have a number of options one being simply don't vote next time around.

She has gone a long with a number of Gordo's ideas. Bill has mentioned some of them. Even when they pound the socred/ liberals in the house Gordo is smart enough to wait till the house receses and then they do what the oposition has pounded them to do. The opposition gets no credit. She looks weak.

I could spend a lot of space arguing her falling in bed with the Liberals on ALR land. One of the longest inbeded NDP policy brought in by Little Fat Dave. She is trying to satisfy the band and ended up making some port developer happy. Few of the bands ever vote NDP, and lots don't vote at all.
To then cut a member , have a couple not vote, then stand up and say Gordon better not do it again.Those three MLA's migh sort of fade away when the pension kicks in. The redistribution ended up just about where Gordon wanted it. Lots of talk by the opposition who voted on mass for it anyway then got the hell out of the house for a few weeks.

There are some sharp folks on the opposition bench who work hard in their critic role. One has to wonder how much better they could perform if not held back by someone who wants so hard to satisfy the money folks.
Bill was quite correct about the Communist folk. My God they must have a meeting a day. I used to enjoy the Labour Council meetings when guys like Zander,Hewison, Homer Stevens,and others got up to speak.

Oh well, no leader lasts for ever so maybe it's time to hunker down and wait it out, that is if we can afford to last with so many services gone.
I feel for those on the real bottom of the money ladder as I see increased costs for just about anything.
Where are the Rhino party when we need them.
D.Love

One thing...

The Communist Party may not be an electoral success, but they used to have more than their fair share of the influence in this Province, and in the country. As well as the IWW and the OBU, as well as the Socialist Party. Many of the policies the socialists and communists used to advocate back in the day, become political norms a few years later.

That having been said, the NDP needs to shift to the left like we need air to breath. This is a party on the decline in every sense of the word, and it's simply because they are trying to be, as someone said, all things to all people. Liberal-Lite, no sugar, lactose free, summer delight.

It doesn't work, it's that simple. Backbones win elections. Carole James is an absolute joke as a leader. And if she stays on, sooner or later, NDP voters are going to be dreaming about the days when they were only 10-15% behind in the polls.

To DPL

I do see a problem. Since Carole started calling the shots, or should that be NDP hierarchy who come from the BCGEU calling the shots. There has not been anyone who really stands out as a successor in the Caucus ranks. Perhaps that is because they have all been muzzled or at least scared into never stepping out of line. I wouldn't mind seeing the occasional spark in the house when Wally stonewalls and some of the others rant. Oh no we can't have any of that it seems. Carole might try saying something in a way that is worth repeating. Surely they have staff that do such things. Could it be that all originality has been stifled? Maybe one of them should get thrown out of the house on some matter of principle to raise a profile. Heaven knows nothing else seems to work and just using up space in the legislature is not doing it.

I have voted NDP for a long time but I can't bring myself to vote for the local small "L" liberal dressed up as a New Democrat and the liberal candidate is useless. The Greens run someone completely green and inexperienced and they arrive from the outside just before an election and then leave when its over. They are a wasted vote here.

Today I could not tell you three things the NDP stands for. What a choice.

green slave planet

As the Liberals have been trying to own the green label, it has become clear that people who identify themselves as green (eg, organic consumers and suppliers) mostly don't care if their organic lettuce is picked by exploited labour. They don't care if "guest workers" are being exploited.

They want a greener planet but they also don't care if exploited labour delivers it used to do so - a green slave planet.

I'd get people at the NDP headquarters working in the fields this summer alongside blue berry pickers on an organic farm who aren't even protected by labour laws and get paid 16 cents per pound.

By being embraced by the liberals the green movement has dug its own grave - into that of a green slave planet.

Polls

Gwest, the author of this piece seems to think that the polls are accurate. Just because the party you want to win is not on top, it doesn't mean the poll is invalid.

As for the author's belief that the Greens are taking support from the BC Liberals, well, they are at 46%. Seems to me the Greens are more taking the fringe vote that BC has always had.

What Tieleman misses here is that if the NDP wants to actually govern, it has to expand its platform to appeal to a wider section of the electorate. All the good inentions in the world don't mean a hill of beans of you can't gain power and keep it.

Green Support

If one looks at the table on the Ispos poll, one can see that in 2005 election the Liberals polled 46%, the NDP 42% Green 9% and other 3%.

In March 2008, the Liberals are still at 46%, the NDP at 35%, the Greens at 16% and others at 4%.

The NDP has lost 8 points, the Greens have gained 7 points, the others one point. The Liberals have stayed the same.

To say that the Greens are not taking support from the NDP is a case of wishful thinking in my opinion since the data shows otherwise.

What do they think?

Let's assume Bill is right, that people vote their pocket books. So, what does the lower 50% or 60% of the income distribution think about:
--welfare?
--higher minimum wages?
--carbon taxes (if offset by reductions in taxes paid by THEM, not corporate fat cats)?
--assistance for persons with special needs, (children, and young adults, and older addicts to drugs, alcohol, etc.)?
--more social housing?
--reducing urban sprawl by cutting down suburban development (and the highway investments to support it)?

I would not be surprised to hear that "lower income" earner attitudes on many of these items were rather "right wing." (A complementary question would be which media they use most.)

The Carole and NDP have a hard row to hoe.

Populism... Too Far Left/Right...

Bill Tieleman:

I wanna expand a bit on that proposition from my previous post.

Dave Barrett was well known to be a populist but he headed in the opposite direction... to the right... for long-term NDP political gain... achieving the NDP's all-time high popular vote of 46% in 1979 and its second all-time high of 45% in 1983.

http://www.elections.bc.ca/elections/electoral_history/32ge1979-1.html

http://www.elections.bc.ca/elections/electoral_history/33ge1983-1.html

Thereafter, the NDP popular vote has gone downhill, albeit marginally... ~ 5% (which is that critical middle of the road vote).

The only other provincial populists were WAC Bennett, from the marginal right (remember he nationalized BC Electric), and Vander Zalm, who was tooooo far right.

Clark was the only other so-called populist in recent political history, albeit further on the left as Tielman suggests.

But, most importantly, both Vander Zalm's and Clark's populist appeal was very short-term and detrimental to each party's long-term viability.

That is, within ~six months of the populist appeal of Vander Zalm and Clark subsequent to their respective elections, both caused their respective parties to experience political disaster in the ensuing elections for going too far, either right or left, on the political spectrum.

Skywalker "Today, I could

Skywalker "Today, I could not tell you three things the NDP stand for. What a choice."
Can you tell me three things the Prov. Liberals stand for?I think it is fairly easy to see where they are coming from, based on their actions.
•make the rich richer, and ignore the poor.
•incrementally privitize public institutions(B.C. Rail; B.C. Hydro, B.C. Ferries.
•remove regulations that protect the "common good."
•BIG government
•use deception, in conjunction with the main stream media, to implement the first three points.
Choice next time around? Oh, yes!

Here is my Take on Things

The evidence currently shows that the BC Liberals have managed to represent the interests of their base of support - that being the business community -many of whom either belong to, or support the policies emanating from the Chamber of Commerce to the Fraser Institute to the Vancouver Board of Trade. Furthermore, the economy is "temporarily" doing well in B.C, the Olympics, Federal transfer payments, lots of public and private sector construction, the housing sector is still holding modestly firm, excellent commodity prices for oil & gas. The polling numbers show considerable support for the BC Liberals.

I don't see any single party upstaging the BC Liberals in May 2009, neither the NDP nor the Greens, nor any of the others in the 'pack' - just not going to happen. Currently there is too much division along party lines - too much self-interest by the NDP, Greens and other parties, everyone trying to protect their turf and advance the party's self-interest. Coupled to this is the high percent of absenteeism in provincial elections- while I have no evidence to supprort this- I hypothesize mostly poorer folks and also new canadians -who are still not well engaged with the political process.

The solution that Bill suggest is, in my view partly right: move to the left, connect with your base, draw a sharp line in the sand -as Glen Clark did- and take up populist positions that advance the interests of your base. Problem- as Bill correctly points out: "Try talking to the NDP provincially or federally about such a strategy -and it is a no go. May I suggest it is a no go provincially, because CJ's style, and those of the Party workers which domintates is to cozy and not intellectually resourceful or creative enough. Aside from opposing, which except for a few MLA's who are doing a good job, just what are they proposing????

If it was up to me, and it isn't, I would take Bill's advice, also an electoral accord with the Greens for some ridings would be on the table if certain conditions could be met to establish a win-win for both Greens & NDP- but neither the Green or NDP have shown any inclination to move in that direction...and party members don't support it. But I just cannot see the BC NDP really waffle left--not with the likes of CJ, the party whip, and the current party brass. As for populists with the creative resourcefulness to lead, and draw a sharp line in the sand..I don't see such a person in the NDP caucus. .who do you suggest Bill, or anyone???

I have great respect for Bill Tieleman

But I think he's wrong about the Ipsos-Reid poll. Have a look at the demographics of the sample and you'll see what I mean. I posted detailed analysis of what's wrong with it and why on the Rafe Mair thread earlier this week. I’m not going to repeat it here.

So let's get that out of the way at the start.

Notwithstanding the complacent and compliant relationship between pollsters and the press - which isn't, after all, the subject of this article - I agree that there's much wrong with the NDP under its current leadership.

I tend to be much more likely to agree with Bill on several of the points he's itemized but that doesn't mean that the Opposition ought to be accepting the Ipsos-Reid/Canwest interpretation of present state of affairs either...which is what I was trying to say above.

I think the next election is very winnable for the NDP – assuming they pull up their pants, look to the past for an inspiration and recognize the coming economic crisis is going to make Gordon Campbell into a pariah around here.

A year ago, when I was at my local city government headquarters applying for the one of the several permits necessary to do business in this municipality I had to wait in line…not so these days.

And, furthermore, when I was in there the other day, the guys in the office with me (on the public’s side of the counter) weren’t there to get permission to start new jobs – they were notifying the authorities that they were booking off jobs because they were no longer being paid.

Things are changing. Just watch – the people who build the city feel it before the rest of you.

And the other polls?

There is really one one poll that counts but all the other polls I have seen on British Columbia have the Libreals with a strong lead over the NDP. They are set to form the next government unless something really drastic happens.

One can wish as hard as one wants and not believe the polls but this will not change anything. Excuses do not win elections. Policy does.

Hoping to stay on the

Hoping to stay on the subject at hand. But of some folks see a downturn lets not dismiss that. The government has been throwing money around with limited managment skills if the convention center is a example. Heck even the beloved soon to be ex Finance Minister has hinted about a rough patch ahead. Hey maybe that's why she is pulling out?

It's good news that folks are getting involved in this discussion. A lot of people on the left are simply too busy trying to pay the rent and feed the kids. A lot more on the left don't have computers , take little interest on what is happening around them.
I used to end up in Stats Canada in my old job of hauling stuff for the Post Office. I asked a supervisor there how their surveys work and how do they collect their data? Seems they use the phone a lot.

Since I worked the Downtown East side I asked just how did they get to phone people in the poorest postal code area in the country. A large number of folks didn't have phones. He wasn't too pleased. Seems they sort of guestimated a lot. In all my life I've had one poll person phone me. Wanted to know if I was going to vote for some Conservative.

We always have a phone and a fixed address so are easy to find. Nobody did except the conservative. Results after an election are the ones that work, not always the ones before. They will give some sort of a trend, but it's the backroom boys an girls who get to interpret that information.

I figure your background in communications and as ex backroom guy is valuable for us and might motivate some of us to get organized enough to talk to people about what the see in government.And the opposition for that matter. The old Anarchist expression Talk minus action is Zero . works .

simple math

The problem seems to be one of simple math. The left vote is split with two parties while the right is not. Perhaps a strategy for the fed up voters would be to start another right wing party and split the Liberal vote.

ndp needs to replace the amoeba

Carole James and the NDP are mired in the benthic ooze of Victoria's upper harbour. The NDP keeps moving to the right so as not to offend and by doing so offends its natural constituents. It is a party that, like the well known BC Ferry, has no one at the helm. Why vote for a party when you can get the same thing from the party with a convicted felon as a leader--better to stand for something than for nothing. The sooner the NDP dumps James the better.

NO MORE POLLS DRIVING PLATFORMS, PLEASE.

These days I blow hot and cold in my opinion of the NDP, but then along comes Frank with another one of his excellent posts re NDP policy, and I'm enthused again.

But then my enthusiasm again chills with the realisation that people like Frank are not in the NDP driver's seats. Rather, there are those who would support even Bush's policies if they thought it would win them an election.

And so too, I think, with Tieleman's thesis, even though his credentials can hardly be slighted. So I take considerable offense - just as an ordinary voter, nothing else - re his suggestion that the NDP should adjust its policies so as to be more in tune with the polls. Isn't that exactly what they have been doing, and losing because of it?

ARRRGH !!! We've had enough already with political parties adjusting political platforms - even DURING an election - to suit the vagaries of the polls. And I'm sure the public has long ago tired of seeing such insincere promises completely forgotten following the election.

The NDP has to find and go back to its roots. As Frank has pointed out, The NDP is a SOCIALIST Party, and especially today, SOCIALIST policies such as the Social Safety Net, publicly owned utilities and resources, are all under attack by a clearly Fascistic gov't. And if we are to believe the polls :- ), the people of BC have long supported such NDP policies, as have even WAC Bennet's platform-stealing Socreds.

So right now Campbell's got his ass hanging 'way out on a limb, and if Carole & Co can't help him saw it off behind him - given the tools at hand - it isn't EVER going to happen.

Tieleman put his finger on

Tieleman put his finger on it!

Like it or not, we are divided along economic lines.
Certainly many of us are better off than previous generations of workers! But during the last few decades we are sliding backwards again!

Simple rights and privileges that was won at great cost are slowly, but surely, being eroded all in the name of efficiency!
Like the efficiency of transporting containers for thousands of miles importing goods that used to be made right here!
Or the efficiency of replacing workers with non-union workers so the managers can get a raise!

We are facing a new reality in the sense that we no longer have a local definable firm or powerbroker to blame, but a network of international crooks!

We now have a media that constantly tells us that we must sacrifice because it is a tough world:
Like tough, when banks make record profits in spite of stupid investment portfolios?
Tough, like when the average citizens are driven out of their housing by skyrocketing prices caused by “investors” who buy houses just for the fun of it?

It is a new reality: Moving to the right, trying to cozy up to the shrinking middle class does not make sense; instead the middle class should eventually wake up and realize that their nice chamber of commerce has sold them a song and a dance about “free trade”!
Let them come begging to the NDP for representation once they understand that they too are victims!

Carole James need to work for the people who are getting the short end of the stick! The middle class need to learn their own lessons.

The idea of being “nice” would be appropriate if the NDP was regular majority party, it would indeed be a nice gesture, however wasted on a group who have made their fortune by preying on the poor.

We have many really poor people who are being ripped off nowadays, and maybe they will learn that there is no such thing as a wasted ballot?
Maybe they are the voters that Carole should concentrate on?

At one time Emery Barnes a NDP MLA spent time amongst the down-and-out folks, I think he earned a lot of respect as well as gaining a real perspective of the problems facing those who barely are able to fend for themselves.

This is hardball politics and we need leaders who trust their supporters rather than the governing party to do the right thing!
James does not trust her own supporters to select the best candidate regardless of gender, yet she trusts the reforma-liberals to make nice if only she asks them to!

We need a leader who knows that the fight is never won!

From Grumpy in Grumpyland

Carole James and the NDP are as thick as a short plank. Campbell is vulernable, but for the NDP to win, they need to dump James and the NDP myth.

Grumpy is in California and he sniffs an air of change in American politics and the establishment is scared and badly scared. Obama is new and from the outside and the American voter wants change and wants it badly and they see Obama as the vehicle for change.

If the NDP really wants to win in BC and in Canada as a whole, don't look inward in BC and Ontario; look at the USA presidential election. Change is coming there no mater what and the old guard are kicking and fighting all the way.

sorry no speller here and my time is running out to proofread.

No more polling driven leadership or policies

What kind of leadership depends on polls to drive policy on issues? I say, and certainly feel to disagree with me if you wish, - a timid, unconfident leadership with a significantly restrictive creative capactity to boldly meet the challenges that British Columbia is facing.

The people of this province deserve better then this type of leadership. They most certainly deserve better then having the BC Liberals: sell -off the province to the private sector - which thereby allows the private sector to expand is rights, its property, its collection of rents from natural resources, and consequently deprive the public coffers of the necessary monies to properly fund social programs such as public housing, public health care, public education, public transit - while at the same time attacking the human rights of workers, women, students, etc...and the democratic rights of municipalities and regions who ought to play a much more equal democratic role in the governance of this province. Whatever the polls say, the split between the Green Party and the NDP, and progressives who belong to neither party - but who divide their vote between these two, or abstain from voting...will 100% insure the re-election of the BC Liberals on May 12, 2009. If that happens...well I don't want to articulate the scenario...but I recommend that you get the DVD called "Social Genocide" ..produced in Argentina - which spells out in graphic detail the destruction that neo-liberalism and corruption from within destroyed the nation of Argentina- which only now, due to the subsidized assistance it is getting from Venezuela is managing to recover.

It is time for bold, creative leadership that aligns with, and taps into the immense resourcefulness of the BC population and their yearnings, nay longings to get rid of this arrogant, undemocratic government -which serves primarily the corporate interest and not the public interest. That the NDP Provincial Council or the caucus, or the party brass and members can't see the writing on the wall and take courageous moves to free themselves of their stagnant leadership is extremely troubling. We don't need niceness here..we need the resignation of CJ or her dismissal by the Provincial Council and another Leadership Convention asap. Their apology to the people of BC that is expected after the next election is lost - is simply not accepted especially when it is reasonably foreseeable that the party's goose, and more importantly 'the broader public interest goose' is cooked if they do not act with great vigor commencing now, not tomorrow, not 90 or 60 days before the next BC election. That is my take on things, and as I say, whether you agree or disagree with that view is immaterial to me--straight out that is how I see it.

It's about substance and integrity

From the first time I ever voted in a provincial or federal election, my ballot always went to the NDP candidate. When I look at the NDP today I have no difficulty remembering why in 2001 I voted for my incumbent MLA and Leader of the Opposition, Gordon Campbell. What has happened in Victoria since explains why I no longer vote at all.

The answer doesn't lie in studying polling results or in “positioning”. It lies in convincing the voting public who are abandoning the electoral process that it is worth voting. Show us some real integrity, not just public relations hype.

I am sure I am not the only person who could give any party leader willing to listen some specific advice about issues and how to take a stand on them, but they do not wish to hear from us. Well, they've got what they want. They especially don't hear from me at election time.

Pandering to a crooked MSM

Bill Tieleman makes a great general point the NDP needs to kick some ass quite frankly.

I was never quite so impressed with Provincial politics as when J.Kwan and J.McPhail stood up to the contempt arrogance and bullying of Campbell Inc. on their own. Their heroics were largely unreported however.

The stance taken by our left now is not much different than those of the left-ish leaning elephant in the room to the south. Largely mute on issues that once upon a time would have had progressives or anyone with a heart lighting their hair on fire, and now, sitting on their hands wary of the corporati media spin and denunciation that will inevitably follow.

How do you beat that?

There are a few things that

There are a few things that the NDP has got to do and one of them is to do their job as the opposition. Bang on the table, scream from the rafters, gnash their teeth about the liberals incompetance. Hammer it home time and time again. Maybe if they holler loud and long enough then maybe the mass-media will start to do what they're suppose to do. It's the ol' squeeky wheel syndrome and it works. Another thing for the NDP has got and try and do is drop this 'left and right' BS. How about the issue being pragmatic or progressive? For example, it's impractical to have homeless people and it's not a 'left or right' issue, period. To start the NDP have got to have a new beginning which means to get rid of Ms. James and her complacent handlers.

The future of the left in Canada

Thirty years ago the NDP did play a constructive role in Canadian politics. They use to be the party with good research and good ideas. Regrettably they have become too much of an old school socialist party that has not learnt the lessons of the last 30 years. Their attitudes have tended to be insular, narrow minded and parochial a la Afghanistan for example.
The Labour party in the UK changed and this is why they have held power for so long, so too have the SDP in Germany, and the Labour parties in New Zealand and Australia. Using these other countries as mentors the NDP in Canada should move to the "right" on economic issues, fostering economic growth, entrepreneurship and a meritocracy, while at the same time trying to redistribute wealth to the truly disadvantaged and down trodden (who by the way, may not be union members). There are many solid economic issues that are not be addressed by the Tories or the Liberals. For example corporate malfeasance legislation in Canada is way behind international best practices and this fosters corporate cronyism rather than legitimate capitalism. Example two: large chunks of the Canadian economy are far too heavily protected by government fiat e.g. banking, telecoms and insurance. Deregulations combined with a tougher regulatory environment will foster jobs and increase the flow of risk capital to entrepreneurs.
This essentially was how Tony Blair and Gordon Brown triumphed in Great Britain and it has been emulated by the new Labour government in Australia. This is the key to going forward for the NDP in Canada. We need a good solid well run centre left party to keep the other two parties on their toes and to foster intelligent political debate

Carole James/NDP by Bill tieleman

First of all, the poll 'headline' outcome is disingenuous. According to people in the know, the newspapers-are in financial trouble.

With losers go surrogates.

There are outcomes for both party and leader. The information supplied on this count would within the margin of error suggest a tie. The assumptions based on the table of income provided by Ipsos would either reinforce this or alternatively give the NDP a lead.

To an attentive reporter it would be well known that this happens every year at this time as Campbell goes to his affirmation.

The raison detre for the debate (if you are having a sensible debate) is essentially worthless.

Here is what is most important. The liklihood of the BC NDP as Opposition (and not in a minority government) receiving less than it did in the general election in 2005 is on balance much much smaller than the liklihood of the 'BC Liberal government with the same leader' receiving an equal to or a greater percentage of popular vote.

The green argument for greater outcomes has been advanced for so many years now, I am surprised it is still used. The liklihood of the Green Party receiving more than it did in 2005 is very unlikely- if the litmus test is 'balance of probability'.

Further, there is a fixed election date so no advantage government---announcements/element of surprise etc.

So the baseline of any poll conducted about BC politics and specifically one including leader and party popularity would base the NDP on what they received last time---what the Greens received last time. Thereafter the focus of the argument has to be what the BC Liberals have done or not done on various issues particular to the province, that would suggest they can three-peat--something that is on its face unlikely.

Further, the BC Liberals have succeeded (barely) on the basis of new people coming into the housing market and increases in equity over this period. (Have and have not argument per the individual)

However-the increase in housing prices which benefits some--may now hurt some of these buyers as housing sales continue to flatten. This problem may be exacerbated by the squeeze on credit for mortgages coming from lending institutions. Fewer buyers on the bottom end of price range.

Required income for mortgage now in the 80-95 K region-while average family income is mid 60's. On election day in 2009 in BC there will be fewer 'winner's on the home buying front, and less people involved in the HAVE conversation.

The left will inevitably begin to move to Carole James---and she can move to meet it later-closer to the election.

The primary factor all things being equal as the Ipsos poll actually suggests is the unliklihood one government winning three elections.

The best test of the poll numbers as they are 'portrayed' is to ask a BC Liberal how much they would like to bet these are the final numbers on election day. There will be few to zero takers.

Bill Tieleman weighs in - and a small correction

Thanks to everyone - pro and con - for their posts on my article - good debate!

I want to start by making a small correction - It has been pointed out to me after writing this that the NDP voted AGAINST the pension and pay legislation introduced last year by the BC Liberals, not for it as I wrote.

But then the NDP MLAs accepted the pensions. Three NDP MLAs skipped the vote altogether.

I believe my point remains the same - NDP MLAs are taking the pensions.

Next - on polling. I have been a strong critic of problems with pollsters and the media not telling people clearly that many polls include regional sample sizes that are statistically suspect at best - if not downright too small to be taken seriously. Except that they are published without that information.

See my 24 hours column on polling problems.

On the Greens taking votes from the NDP - yes, of course they are. My point is that if the NDP wants to limit that vote leakage it has to contrast itself as a party standing up for working people while also being concerned about the environment with a party that is simply not left wing and is quite comfortable with positions that NDP voters would not be.

But I also point out that the Greens tend to take votes from the NDP where there is no chance of an NDP win - in BC Liberal ridings - as seen in the last two elections. That doesn't mean that in a close vote - like Gordon Campbell's in Point Grey in 2005 - the Green vote doesn't help elect a BC Liberal - it does. But it means that a stronger emphasis on issues of importance to lower and middle income voters will reduce vote loss for the NDP.

Another posting rightly points out that Dave Barrett moved to the middle and increased the NDP vote - setting two record percentages for the party in 1979 and 1983.

But each time Barrett lost. So did Bob Skelly and Carole James with a couple of the next highest percentages.

However, Barrett in 1972, Harcourt in 1991 and Clark in 1996 all won power with record LOW percentages [excluding the early CCF years and the 2001 debacle].

One can argue that all these results are an unusual electoral anomaly but I suggest that is far too many to be coincidental. I believe that there is some connection between a strong left-leaning NDP and a split right-wing vote.

I also want to make clear that others' comments notwithstanding, this is a debate about political direction, not personality. While I disagree with the direction Carole James has chosen, I know that she is a dedicated and hard working person who believes the route she has chosen - not alone either - is the path to power.

Lastly on Marc Emery, sorry, I don't believe the definition of "progressive" means supporting marijuana seed dealers who mail millions of dollars worth of product into the United States. And it's not relevant to this discussion anyway.

Going Left ... A Case Study

And regarding the German national SPD:

That's the lowest since Berlin-based Forsa began polling for the 1987 national election.

Beck is making things worse with his move to the left.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601100&sid=ab_knEb3Mrdc&refer=germany

corporatism's weakness

I'm quite perplexed by this "right vs.left" idea that seems to catch so much of people's attention in this debate about parties and their supporters.

I would note that Communism is a version of Capitalism. Both have a strong socialist included group, and both react similarly to it. Both are subject to the unbalanced influence of the power of large owners, whether private or government.

I suggest that the tendency of disaffected party members to join the Greens regardless of which party disaffected them has a different meaning, though.

I think the reason so many hop that way is because of the corporatist influence in all the parties that have a chance of election. That's what disillusions people. Left leaning Humanists who have supported the NDP in order to create a civilized society, in which all are welcome to participate and share, go when they see their ex-party of choice go all corporate, and right leaning Conservatives go when they see their own ex-party sell off governmental controls that protect the markets from predation.

They all, whatever their stripe, have the same problem. Corporations are a kind of Communist Capitalism. Or vice versa. They have the problems of both. Communism fell because the people making policy were risking somebody else's money without consequences to themselves. This is true of corporations now as well.

Capitalism fared better, but not much in that it required huge outside regulation to prevent it falling into plain piracy. Now that corporations have taken so much influence in national politics, they have managed to get those controls removed.

So now the corporate pirates who have resulted are influencing all sides to the point where the people of principle who espoused both side are driven off, and have noplace to go but Green.

I predict the Greens will soon, if they're not already, be taking big secret corporate donations. And the disaffected from both ends of the spectrum will be searching for a more drastic solution.

Carole James/NDP by Bill tieleman

Respectfully Bill, how can you write a piece predicated substantially on the results of a poll-which includes a question of leader support-which is a personality question-which ultimately impacts the overall outcome presented by the pollster Ipsos but insist it is about political direction?

The direction implied significantly from the polling questions is toward an assessment of either the party(s) involved or the two primary party leaders, namely Gordon Campbell and Carole James-both of whom would rank as personalities within the context of the poll. We would obviously agree that leaders impact on voters.

It is difficult to have a serious discussion based largely on poll results from a mainstream pollster with a mainstream newspaper in an on-line newspaper (the Tyee) which bases part of its popularity on a readership that does not believe the mainstream is fair balanced or non-partisan.

The elephant in the room that no-one speaks of is the faulty premise-which is the manner the outcomes were presented-given the underlying information-and the effort made by the author (BT) to not properly deal with this-before advancing his core case which is that CJ should go left.

Once the poll is properly evaluated to what the people have really said, which is, basically these two parties are tied or essentially tied. After moving the excuse for distraction, the discussion can now be what should either party do to break the deadlock.

We continue to conduct our mainstream news and polling news like a poor third world country-respectfully, why the Tyee is content to keep one foot in this area and the other in the world of independents or ideologues in my opinion does little to advance the discussion, as it comes off as a type of apology.

Too many mainstream polls are imo derivatives of statistical rationalization. Senior Ipsos should try phoning a few people himself to get the sense of what I mean-paying callers $8.50 per hour will not EVER produce a pop that you can rely on, sample size etc notwithstanding.

The "For Sale" Sign is Up on the Front Lawn of This Country

First, if anything in this country is to be saved at all, Carole and Jack need to articulate in a clear and concise way that our province and our country are being sold down the road.

Then they must say how.

And then they must say by whom.

It's a simple truth that the Opposition seems incapable of expressing.....

That we as a country are in deep trouble.

It needs to be said out loud...in simple, clear, language.

The Big Invisible War going on right here, and right now, must be taken on and publically acknowledged if we are to have even a chance at winning any of the smaller battles being waged, let alone the minor skirmishes often used to intentionally distract and blind-side the Opposition.

The incoherent mumbling has to stop....

....as well as the spineless reticence in addressing the relentless attacks currently taking place against our sovereignty.

Instead, we get more of the same:

To Macccarthy

About creating a party right of the Liberals, that would indeed be the smartest move! I did not think one could be so much further to the right, but I am sure some people would vote for them (ie: France and LePen)! I bet an even better strategy would be to have this party focus its platform on health care, as older people tend sometimes to be much further to the right.

Isn't the problem also that the baby boomers have a little bit more money now that they have paid the mortgage and they would like to protect their investment? And maybe those are the ones voting for the green party and the Liberals!

As far as the NDP moving to the left, well, sure they should demand better a minimum wage rate, but this might just be a major issue here in Vancouver as prices have hit the roof of any building. Problem is thaqt many are employed, with not much in their pocket. BUt, Gordo is going to repeat this.

At the end, I think it is style over substance thogh. Carole needs to be a bit more charismatic. It does not help when she is not being interviewed by the corporate right wing media though!

Polls

The poll that matters is the next election and once again the NDP and its supporters will find themselves on the outside looking in, simply because the majority of voters have no interest in the “one for all, all for one” mentality driven by their attempts to make us all equal…except those that are more equal than others, of course.

I'm with Lynn and Peter

Bill makes some good points. I can't agree with all of them, such as comparing the provincial and federal brands of all parties as the same... clearly they are not from where I'm sitting. My own opinion of it is that Quadra was barely won by the Libs because they chose a former provincial minister who was responsible for 24% cuts in the department of the environment while she was there. The federal Lieral brand was impaired by the provincial one. Truth be told, all Joan is known for is being a good "yes" woman and not much more. Imagination is something that doesn't come to mind when I think of the Liberal candidate that won in Quadra.

And some polls/pollsters are biased. Anyone who's tracked the Strategic Councils unabashed Conservative majority numbers that are 5 to 10 % higher for Conservatives than all other pollsters on a consistent basis since Allen Gregg began, would dig into realizing that these are highly questionable "tracking" polls that simply call the same people they did last time. The ugliest bias/incompetance seen is with Ontario's numbers, but all this is for another thread.

Yes, media censors stories that should be told. MRSA is likely the most buried story there is. Cancer rates going through the roof particularly with digestive system cancers and its hushed. Diabete's is now approaching 7% of all Canadians. Folks, its an epidemic. When did you last hear about it?

Resources are peaking and resource wars are more frequent. Why, Canadians are in one now, but we never get to hear the real reason why. Arms, drugs and oil profiteers turn peace into war on the drop of a dime and yet, the media says little to nothing in these regards. Media has said even less about the deregulation that has paved the way for all of these failings to our environment, personal health, safety, liberty and future all roled into one on every front from sovereignty to foreign M & A's to lower corporate taxation, to provincial environmental damage ranging widely from overcutting our forests to the possible extinction of wild pacific salmon on just one Premier's watch, Gordon Campbell. Is it because media is corporate? Bingo. And the largest shareholders have their fingers in many pies.

Cont.

And yes, media uses biased polls. This is a given in politics as surely as Harper has aligned himself with CanWest and CTV.

And yes, the stalwart general policies of deregulation are failing. We have 8000 Canadians dying from bacteria that is antibiotic resistant annually and a further estimated 250,000 Canadians being infected by an antibiotic resistant bacteria every single year. Why? No regulating antibiotic use both with food manufacturers and HMOs. The effect if it continues? Try a world without the ability to use antibiotics effectively. Try a return to plagues. A woman who goes to the hospital to deliver a baby dying of MRSA 72 hours later is becoming a familiar story. The same goes with the food manufacturers that are killing us with processed foods. Literally. Problem is, its not making the news.

All polls aside, the NDP should be leading in the polls but aren't and it IS their leadership. The Libs have scandal at their door with Railgate, they've sold off half of this provinces crowns for self gain and weakened whats left, they've gutted spending in trades and deregulated with the same policy as Harper. I believe its best called "corporate self regulation." You know, we can just trust them to do whats right (wink, wink).

How can any opposition leader ignore such obvious pandering to the rich when the end result over the long run is corps emploding on their own greed? Campbells government reeks of privatization and deregulation, both of which gave birth to the subprime financial mess we see now in the U.S. along with all of our other health, education and environmental issues, but a recession is worth noting as a major example of deregulation and its coming to Canada. Why is Carol James invisible in these respects? Simple. A highly educated guess tells me she doesn't know the solutions to the problems.

Its called regulations, folks. Without them, corps implode on their own Greed. Ask Bear Sterns. And if NDP stategists had any sense, they'd be telling Canadians what we need in terms of regulations in all sectors of the economy, education and environment. Tell you what, its not a consumption tax on gas sluffed off as a carbon tax while peanuts are actually earmarked for spending on the environment from the revenue. All revenue aside, the spending says this tax is dirty, not green. What says the NDP? Not a peep, certainly from Carol. Why? She's reactionary and sadly, as Bill states, its all she wants to be. She doesn't know whats best and thats a sad, sad thing for this province. All Campbell knows is what British Columbians should not do.

Yes, but....

Unfortunately, the NDP is too much in the hip pockets of big metal bashing unions who see anything as "environmental" as a threat top their jobs when in fact, doing nothing is an even bigger threat.

I don't exactly see membership in the CAW or IWA on the rise.

The Brotherhood of Man

For united we stand
Divided we fall
And if our backs should ever be against the wall
We'll be together, together, you and I

The objective of governments in power is to keep us divided, so to minimize effective opposition -- and they are doing a great job of it!

Bill Tieleman on polling issue

GWest wrote above:

"Respectfully Bill, how can you write a piece predicated substantially on the results of a poll-which includes a question of leader support-which is a personality question-which ultimately impacts the overall outcome presented by the pollster Ipsos but insist it is about political direction?"

And GWest continues:

"Once the poll is properly evaluated to what the people have really said, which is, basically these two parties are tied or essentially tied. After moving the excuse for distraction, the discussion can now be what should either party do to break the deadlock."

I can't agree with this analysis.

My problems with polling revolve around sample size and disclosure. There are also questions about how much they reflect the actual demographics of BC or Canada - whether they are sampling accurately different social and ethnic groupings - i.e. young people who only have cell phones or Indo-Canadian adults with English as a second language.

However, all that said, most pollsters are pretty accurate when the sample size is big enough. Ipsos has been very consistent with its 800 sample size for BC political polling.

As to leadership questions somehow tainting the poll, leadership and party support are closely linked and could never be decoupled. And the BC NDP and the BC Liberals are most definitely not "tied or essentially tied"!

With the current 12% gap the BC NDP would lose up to half of its MLAs in the next election. In fact, the Ipsos breakdown on polling shows that in the Lower Mainland, the gap is even larger at 15%, with the Liberals at 50% and the NDP at just 35%.

The NDP needs its slight Vancouver Island advantage to pull the overall numbers up.

Way down here at the bottom....

How ironic that way down here at the bottom of all the initial comments we have "The Brotherhood of Man" where RickW sums it all up quite succinctly.

Isn't that what the NDP have done by not being able to sway from their middle-of-the-road positions on everything.

And "biscotti" I assure you, you are not alone, it's a group moan. It has become so predictable the House should be nicknamed "The Never Ending Story".

Responses from Jack are almost scripted it seems, if Harper is saying white, for Jack it's black, if Harper is saying black, it's white for Jack.

But back to Brotherhood and Bill's article,when it comes down to being predictable, when it comes down to no effective opposition that can actually do something about the state of affairs, then you have to ask yourself "where is it broken and how do we fix it".

For every problem, there's a solution. For every question there is a correct answer.

huh?

I don't get it:

1) If the Greens are sucking the middle, why would the NDP go to the left? Nobody else is taking away votes on the left - those folks are already in the tent. Moving left would just open up space for the Greens and the Libs.

2) History in BC is overwhelming: split the right and the left wins. Split the left and the right wins. That's the single largest determining factor, period. If the NDP want to win, they need to form an alliance with the Greens or wait for another significant right wing party to pop up. If Bill T really wants the NDP to win he should flip flop on STV since that would almost guarantee a new right wing party overnight.

3) Re. the carbon tax: folks just don't get it. Climate change is a growing crisis, not just another political issue. It will drive everything in politics over the coming decades. BC's carbon tax is a mild starting point to an escalating program of de-carbonizing our economy. Fight it and you are political road-kill.

The left afraid of being left

Too true-
the catastrophic failure of the NDP to form government has not come about from their failure to sign on business. they have not managed to get the working people on side.
The party brass speak with the Union leaders but the Union leaders have failed to deliver the Union vote. Even in the NDP party there is a great belief that " the Green Party" steals NDP votes.
Factually, the only NDPers who vote Green are those disillusioned by the non- issues which seem to be the NDP stock in trade.
I have been told many times that the NDP dare not raise progressive social issues because "the right wing will accuse us of fiscal incompetence."
This in a province where the Socred/Liberal coalition has blown millions on Olympics, convention centers,and give aways to IPPs, forest companies and fish farmers.
It's time the "left" started accusing the right of fiscal incompetence.
The electorate will re-elect the NDP when the NDP has enough guts to stand up for what is right and not spend all its time ducking the blows.
I'm afraid that means "after James" in BC. despite the most dishonest and incompetent government that BC business has ever bought.
Layton's opportunity at a Federal level is still available, but, only if he comes out with hard hitting policies to spend money to correct the social injustice that pervades Canadian society.
Democratic Socialism will be mired in the gumbo so long as they fear to step out and speak out boldly to address social ills and mounting inequity and preserve a Canadian integrity.
Watch South America They are making the changes, throwing out US businesses and the US hasn't invaded them---- yet.
Watch Australia. Giving Aboriginal people justice is not an economic issue.
We are missing the opportunity to pursue a just society and oppose Harper's idea of becoming the 51st-63rd states; mostly because the left is afraid to be left.
Holding onto hope with fingernails.

I'm with Woody

Someone on the left needs to stand up for something.

MJP - I don't think you could every get the non-democratic party sanctum sanctorum to ever move far enough to the right to form an alliance with the Greens. That would put them about the center (where the Liberals would be if there was a Liberal party in BC) .
What we need is STV. With "Greens" in the house we will see how socially responsive they really are. :-Q)

Attn: Bill Tieleman

I didn't actually make the statements you've attributed to me; they were written by someone who signs him or herself GPR.

This isn't to say I don't have some questions about the accuracy and bias of this particular Ipsos-Reid poll - about which I've written elsewhere.

Bill Tielman

Great article. I've been saying the same thing about the Greens for years. Forget about them, they're not interested in labour, the poor, health care or anything else the NDP believes in. They might as well call themselves Liberals, their policies aren't much different.

As for James, she has obviously never followed BC politics and seems to believe the path to political power is to occupy the same political space as the Socreds and go after their voters while hoping some of those that voted NDP in the past still show up. My daughter has better political sense but oh well, there's not much we can do about her or those that think moving to the Right is the best way to get Lefty policies enacted.

21st century calling City Person

Strange, I thought it was business that complained to Mr Campbell about his new found love for the environment and what it would cost them if he actually did anything. That's why progress won't be made on the environment under Campbell, the guys that pay the Liberal bills say its too costly.

Which means what? I hate to have to bring up facts that have been around for a couple of decades but much of the memberships of those unions don't even vote NDP and haven't for a very long time. Its the Liberals and Conservatives they support.

Bill Supports Privitization of Trans Canada

"The BC NDP have also come out against twinning the Port Mann Bridge despite the fact that it regularly becomes an airborne parking lot for those who use it, including constituents of their Surrey MLAs."

So, does this mean the Bill T. supports the privatization of the Trans Canada Highway from Vancouver to Langley, as the Liberals plan to do as part of their Gateway Program? Does anyone think that people in Surrey want to pay tolls to a private corporation while higher-income people drive on other bridges toll-free?

So is supporting P3 toll roads and ignoring transit fare increases the way to get votes from low-income voters? And how would sitting on the fence on freeway expansion get those green votes? Bill?

OPPOSING TWINNING OF PORT MANN

The BC NDP have also come out against twinning the Port Mann Bridge despite the fact that it regularly becomes an airborne parking lot for those who use it, including constituents of their Surrey MLAs.

It's good to see Bill Tieleman identifying the PMH1 issue as a class issue. I for one am convinced that Carole James's "dumb and dumber" outburst concerning this project is alone sufficient to cost the NDP the next provincial election, whether it really represents her position on the matter or not. I have been told by a senior NDP official that the party does not in fact oppose this project in principal, simply that transit measures were needed as well, a sensible enough proposition.

But the interpretation from both sides of the political spectrum will be that the NDP is still anti-highways and anti-growth, and any attempt to firmly put that to rest will result in a vehement denunciation from the Eric Dohertys and David Fields and David Suzukis and other "greens" who have been operating as agents of the Liberal Party from the get go, conning the NDP into an actual or apparent anti-PMH1 posture, and standing ready to condemn the party and tell NDP voters to vote Green if there's any backsliding.

My memory

I absolutely recall old Mr Till on CKNW (before the election) agreeing with a caller that the reason the economy was doing well was because everyone knew the NDP was on its way out. In other words, even though the NDP was still in power at the time, the Liberals were already being given credit for the turnaround before we had even had the election. The blatant bias was enough for me to ignore Mr Till in future.

The numbers below come from the BC Stats web site and they appear to be quoting StatsCan. In my opinion the numbers clearly show the economy was starting to do well under the NDP in 1999 and 2000, dipped a bit under the Libs and then began to take off again.

The first number is GDP at Market Prices and the 2nd number is Final Domestic Demand.

1998 1.3 -0.1
1999 3.2 2.2
2000 4.6 3.2
2001 0.6 3.5
2002 3.6 2.5
2003 2.3 3.6
2004 3.7 5.0
2005 4.5 5.1
2006 3.3 6.2

My two cents worth....

Bill Tieleman's simplistic evaluation based on income doesn’t tell the real voting story of the average and well educated working person today, who is just as likely to be self employed or a small business owner, and for whom union issues are the farthest from his or her mind. Most in the Chamber of Commerces don’t see the union linked NDP as an alternative, and I speak from first-hand knowledge as I'm a long standing Chamber member myself. However, the average Chamber member is also distrustful of Gordon Campbell and his inner circle of right wing ideologues, not to mention harbouring a strong dislike for his being an outright dictator within his own party. Many of the business folk are looking for a third alternative that just doesn't exist in B.C.

The BC NDP has yet to learn how to cross the great divide between its union organizers and the rest of the working class people, in particular the self-employed and the small business owners - not to mention the many union workers who are not in the NDP camp. In order to do so it must move forward, not backwards, and modernize itself as a real alternative to the right wing elements currently running the government in BC. This means not attacking Carol James, nor her MLAs, but the party brass and underlying hierarchy itself. They are a big part of the problem and, as I've told them face to face on several occasions, still too mired in old think. Ask them how many business people are on the BC NDP Council? Or on the Executive? Or about the state of their so-called small business committee? I know the answer, and it's not a pleasant one to contemplate.

The BC NDP has also missed the environmental boat, much to my own personal disgust. It has also failed miserably of late on ALR issues. Bill Tieleman alluded to the NDP returning to populist causes, and these are big ones. But too many of the party brass have historically put union concerns over environmental concerns, and too many just don't get the seriousness of the predicament we are in, or understand the technology that is available to solve environmental problems. Even long proven and straight forward technology such as hybrid-electric vehicles just does not get the level of understanding from those within the party who are supposed to push the government to provide those solutions. Does the BC NDP's environmental critic drive a hybrid? No he doesn't, but even Gordon Campbell does because even he gets it.

The BC NDP needs to re-invent itself as lean, green, and shift to a modern socially democratic EU model. And it needs to welcome aboard the rest of the working class, as Carol James, to her credit, is trying to do.

Carole James/NDP by Bill tieleman

Thanks Bill-I am unsure whether you used GWest instead of me for posture or by accident-but in any event-it is my theory from your analysis of this poll-and some analysis of the BC Rail trial you are covering-that it is more your intent to maintain the status quo (in the event your party the NDP wins), and purport to be a type of protestor against the machine simultaneously. In my opinion there is nothing new provided by either the piece or by your comments thereafter, and I am concerned your analysis of comments about the polls never deals directly with the issue(s) raised but instead simply denounces it, and you reassert your original piece. Re-read what you have written-it is circular reasoning. I think perhaps the difficulty you have with this-is that if the NDP is behind and you give advice and they come up to where I submit 'the poll?' actually suggests they are now, than your advice will be hailed as tremendous and the NDP will love you more than ever. If it is a tie right now, than the NDP needs the endorsement of a true conservative, not an NDP person in part pretending to act conservative, rendering your own position in the mix much less valuable.

The mainstream 'ship' news in this province is losing steam day by day--those more interested in sober reflection of what is likely more the reality, and who are of the opinion that the mainstream's assertions of reality are likely bias to the money that binds them-will be far more likely to disregard the poll and the news group which supports it-while others who buy into the mainstream and polling companies which support it will be more likely to accept your analysis.

One need not poll this to accept the liklihood on balance, that is is true.

Bill Tieleman - error in my posting & more

First, I apologize to G West for mistakenly attributing remarks from GPR to him - sorry, I lost my reference point in going back through the long thread here to respond.

Second, good to see my friend Dale Jackaman commenting here. Dale has flown the NDP flag in Richmond despite daunting odds.

But I disagree with most of his conclusions except that my analysis is simplistic.

However, speaking as a self-employed small business owner, I don't regard myself or my fellow businessmen and women as "working class".

And notwithstanding that some business owners no doubt vote NDP, most do not and will not no matter what policies Carole James and the BC NDP espouse.

There is a party for business people - it's called the BC Liberals and if you look at their 700 page Elections BC list of donors from 2005 you will see every imaginable type of small business giving their dollars to Gordon Campbell.

So they should - it's in their class interest to see business tax cuts, large and small, deregulation, more opportunities for the private sector at the expense of the public sector and a more business-friendly government.

What surprises me is that small business owners have more understanding of class consciousness than a social democratic party does!

Dale Jackaman

Dale, your evaluation of the NDP was no less simplistic than your judgement of Mr Tieleman's article.

The strength of the NDP is not unions. Whether you're looking at financing or votes, unions is not the strength of the NDP to the extent that business is the strength of the Liberals. The NDP gets its support from individuals, not unions. The old days are gone and union people are as or even more likely to support the Liberals than they are the NDP. A diversity of opinion that your Chamber of Commerce colleagues can only dream about as they dutifully line up to support the Liberals with money and their vote time after time, however reluctantly you believe.

If your Chamber of Commerce colleagues can't vote NDP because of links to unions I think you need to look in the mirror and ask yourselves why that is that a link with a union such as the nurses or the teachers is such a turn-off but links to business including shady Howe Street types is not.

No it doesn't, its your perception that needs to be checked. I haven't been in a union since I was 19 and have been in business for myself since I was 27 and I support the NDP. What great divide is there? That the nurses and the NDP both support free universal health care? That the teachers and the NDP both support free universal education?

To turn it around I don't see people complaining when the Chamber or other business groups tell the Liberals what to do. In fact, people and media would dump on the Libs if they don't do what business wants.

History is full of third parties, if the Chamber wanted one to succeed they should have supported them when in the past. What was wrong with the PDA? Or the Liberals before the Socreds took over? Or the Greens now? God knows no one could ever accuse the Greens of being left-wing or having union ties, so why doesn't the Chamber support them?

If the Chamber doesn't like their choices they should remember that they live in a democracy and are free to support third parties or even create one themselves instead of whining that the NDP needs to move to the Right so that they will have an alternative to Campbell when he doesn't do what they want.

cont...

In the EU left-wing parties tend to have their own newspapers and closer ties with unions than the NDP does here but we'll skip that for now.

We have given James and your idea above a try and it failed. All that's happened is the new NDP has turned off its left-wing supporters and hasn't gained any traction in the hallowed halls of the Chamber of Commerce. In spite of Carol aiming her speeches at the business community and ignoring the Left all she's got to show for it after years of effort is a drop in the polls. Not that I care, she has until the next election doing it her (and your) way. Once that fails and the NDP loses seats it'll be nice to see the NDP move back to the Left under a new leader and start regaining its strength.

BILL, ... PLEASE. MUST WE PLAY GAMES?

"There is a party for business people - it's called the BC Liberals and if you look at their 700 page Elections BC list of donors from 2005 you will see every imaginable type of small business giving their dollars to Gordon Campbell."

Bill, you know very well that at the Federal level Canada now has the best election and political financing system in the Western world, one where both corporate and union donations are out of the picture, only individuals may contribute, and their contributions are limited to $2,200 per party per year. You're not prepared to advocate such a system for BC. Why not?

It is because you don't want the NDP doing without union contributions and loaned personnel during elections? Carole James has said she would move BC's political financing legislation in the same direction as the federal legislation. Is that the real reason you want her out as leader?

Secondly, if you really must regurgitate Svend Robinson's holy wailing against the perils of the "mushy middle", and denounce any attempt to have a dialogue with business on the grounds that most business people won't actually break down and vote/contribute to the party, I have to ask if you're being serious. Are you being serious? Do you really think Carole James is making a mistake by speaking to Chambers of Commerce? Yes or no?

I think Premier Glen Clark was trying to open a dialogue with business, for whom he now works. Sadly, he was hobbled by circumstances and by the party's inability to change, which can be put more bluntly as its inability to grow up. You can see that inability in the continuning influence in the NDP of failed advisers who burned Harcourt's career to the waterline on the patronage issue, and are now still around advising the NDP opposition on politically serious subjects like redistribution.

The James factor

Saying the NDP should become a party of the Right that appeals to business is airy-fairy nonsense.

What would be the actual point of having two parties with the same policies trading power back and forth depending on who has the most charismatic leader?

I bet that scenario would really motivate people to vote, besides the poor Chamber of Commerce of course.

Frank...

Frank:

Between 1952 and 1969, when the CCF/NDP was a left-wing party, they captured the following popular vote:

1952: 34.3%
1953: 29.5%
1956: 28.3%
1960: 32.7%
1963: 27.8%
1966: 33.6%
1969: 33.9%

The NDP already has a monopoly on BC's left-wing vote.

For the NDP to move further to the left would see some of their vote on their right flank drift over to the Liberals/Greens.

The NDP's current standing of 34% in the Ipsos poll will just shrink further.

Like Saskatchewan and Manitoba where the orange Liberals (NDP) and their centre-right counterparts trade power back and forth?

You do know that Jack Layton's federal strategy is to place the federal Liberals onto its deathbed... and then usurp the red-Liberal wing into the NDP in order to turn the federal NDP into an orange Liberal Party within a two-party system?

Luke

No they don't. As in the 2001 election left-wing voters simply don't show up.

How much is the key? I'm willing to bet looking at the polling numbers you yourself posted that they haven't grown on their right flank, in spite of concentrating there, and therefore have little if anything to lose. Do you think your numbers are wrong? Otherwise how do you explain 34% and still say they've grown on the Right? Your numbers don't match what you're claiming.

Historically, the NDP in Sask is as left-wing, if not moreso, when it comes to actual policy than the NDP here is.

I believe you misunderstand the strategy.

The federal NDP would like to follow the path of Britain. The idea being kill the centrist party and make people choose between Left and Right. As in Sask, as in BC.

It doesn't mean Layton himself will change his ideology which is what I think you're saying. It means remove people's choice to vote for a "mushy middle".

Understand?

More Luke

1952: 34.3%
1953: 29.5%
1956: 28.3%
1960: 32.7%
1963: 27.8%
1966: 33.6%
1969: 33.9%

Barrett wasn't left-wing? 1972 didn't see the election of a left-wing party??

Anyway, according to your own numbers the NDP did as well when they were a left-wing party as they do now when they've moved to the middle.

So explain to me what they have gained?

And...

Ask yourselves why Campbell doesn't move his party to the Left. Why he doesn't embrace free universal health care and education? Why he doesn't give workers the same hearing he gives business? Why he doesn't abandon P3's and 999 year leases and so on?

The answer is because if he moved to the Left in order to wipe out the NDP all he'd do is see the rise of a new right-wing party.

For some reason it makes perfect sense as to why Campbell doesn't move Left but you guys have trouble understanding why the NDP shouldn't move Right.

One should never take their base for granted. Its why Democrats hate Ralph Nader.

PMH1 ESSENTIAL TO CANADA'S ECONOMIC FUTURE?

Absolute hyperbole, Budd. Your basis is continuously discredited by people with international planning expertise -- Anthony Downs, Michael Meyer, Anthony Perl... Realistic alternatives to Gateway are consistently presented but ignored by Kevin Falcon and his carbon corporate base of real estate developers, road builders, truckers, and car dealers.

You rely on a study done for a group representing the airport, the port, truckers, and wharf operators who want to fashion a "business case" (aka rationale) to expand their operations (also profits) -- a backwards, self-serving approach that externalizes costs to health and natural capital which delivers a skewed result.

I don't think comments by David Gillen, a voting member of the Gateway Council, somehow provides an objective validation of the MCTS.

My "side' starts with the context of global warming, peak oil, and other rapidly depleting resources and then tries to see how we can come up with alternative means to efficiently move goods and people in a sustainable manner. We look to other jurisdictions to see what actually works. One obvious example is that increasing roadway is not the only way to increase capacity.

What the Gateway Council is pushing amounts to building Long Beach, CA here. No thanks!