Campbell's Hypocrisy Habit
Libs' top cop has license yanked, stays in race. Too typical.
Speed demon John van Dongen cracking down on speeders a year ago.
With apologies to Walt Disney: "Who's afraid of the big bad NDP?"
During their decade in office (from 1991 to 2001) I was their constant critic. As I was of Rita Johnston, Bill Vander Zalm and Bill Bennett (after 1981 when I left his government). As a media commentator, holding the government's feet to the fire was my job. No one in the mainstream media does that any more and it's left to this paper and others like it to pick up the slack. Having said that, however, this column was partly inspired by Vaughn Palmer's April 21 column in the Vancouver Sun.
Let me first deal with what I consider the worst and most frequently committed of all political sins -- hypocrisy.
Time to park van Dongen
Solicitor-General John van Dongen has his license suspended. This is the same van Dongen who was fired out of cabinet for warning fish farmers when the inspectors were coming. He pays no forfeit and stays in cabinet even after waiting for a week to tell the premier that he, the top cop in the province, has a massive load of trouble with the cops.
Yet 22-year-old Ray Lam, running for the NDP, has a picture on Facebook of himself clutching at the comely breast of a comely female, which had the Liberals baying for blood, which they got. But who hasn't got, in their mind's eye, that picture of an obviously pissed Gordon Campbell showing him in the Honolulu clink! A picture that was displayed right around the country bringing shame to us all?
I offer no criticism of the behaviour of any of them on the basis of "there but the grace of God, etc.," but surely if Lam had to lose his nomination, van Dongen must be fired and Gordon Campbell ought to have resigned thus saving us all a lot of grief. I guess when the stakes are high and you're the boss, hypocrisy is a legitimate tool.
Gagging on the double standard
On the hypocrisy front, wasn't it Campbell who was both loud and pious in opposition when the NDP brought in a gag law, and then brought one in himself?
The main thrust of the Liberals is that the NDP were, eight years ago, fiscally irresponsible. Here's what my colleague Will McMartin had to say here in The Tyee on Feb. 4 of this year: "To the surprise of nearly every British Columbian, the provincial deficit was eliminated [by the NDP].... Thanks to a sharp spike in revenues (primarily from personal income taxes and energy exports), B.C. recorded a tiny surfeit in 1999/2000, and then a gargantuan $1.4 billion surplus in 2000/01."
From the fiscal and hypocritical point of view, it's interesting to note that Gordon Campbell and his then finance critic, in opposition, wailed like banshees at the last NDP budget for taking too much out of BC Hydro profits, profits which, thanks to Campbell's evil "rivers policy," will never be available to governments again.
(Campbell's rivers policy requires BC Hydro to purchase all new power from private rivers and it now has over $30 BILLION owing and it will be lucky to recover half of that on the market. Annual dividends, in the hundreds of millions of dollars, which the government has become used to, will obviously no longer be available.)
BS about BC Rail
I've written here about the appalling environmental record of the Campbell government and will no doubt return to it but for now let's talk about the honesty of this government.
You will remember that in the 1996 campaign, Campbell said he would sell BC Rail and when the avalanche of criticism came, especially from the North, he did a 180 and vowed he would never ever sell it. Indeed, his earlier statement is seen by many as the reason Campbell lost.
On May 13, 2003, British Columbia Premier Campbell announced that the government would sell the operations of the railway (including all of the assets other than the rail right-of-way). While he had specifically promised not to sell the railway, he maintained that he was keeping this promise by retaining ownership of the right-of-way and only leasing the land to the operator. On Nov. 25, 2003, it was announced that the government would accept the CN bid of $1 billion.
Many questions arose. What's the difference between leasing for 990 years and a sale? To put this time in perspective, 990 years ago Ethelred the Unready was King of England! How could a government use a railway for implementing development when they no longer had a railway? Was this sale based upon ideology not rational and careful thinking?
This transaction stinks to high heaven. Other bidders for BC Rail have claimed that they were jiggered out of the process. A criminal case arising out of the sale has exposed many documents which, despite having much of the content blacked out, raise a crescendo of questions that both the attorney general and the premier refuse to answer on the utterly specious ground that the matter is before the courts.
Boondoggles pile up
On the question of fiscal responsibility, Campbell is quick to point to the "fast ferries" scandal, yet is not held accountable for the more than $200 million overrun on the Vancouver Convention Centre. When you add up the convention centre boondoggle, the failed public/private (P3) deal on the Port Mann Bridge, and throw in Olympic overruns, it makes the previous NDP government look like a fiscal paragon by comparison.
(Liberal apologists point out that with the convention we have a usable finished product while that wasn't so with the fast ferries. One might ask, however, given that the fast ferries were an NDP albatross, did the Liberal government try hard, or at all, to get a decent price for them?)
I have never voted NDP and my support of them in this election is because of Campbell's disastrous energy policy. But looking at the other issues fairly, even without environmental issues, how could I bring myself to vote Liberal?
Related Tyee stories:
- Public Safety Minister loses driver's licence over speeding tickets
- Libs' Fibs on Crime Voting
Claims that New Dems opposed police spending are false. - Pricey Olympics a Wedge Issue
While Campbell touts spin-offs, timber towns feel deprived.
![[Tyee]](http://thetyee.cachefly.net/ui/img/ico_fishie.png){kind=small}
Grumpy
26-04-2009
Gordon Campbell..................
............is a world class confidence trickster, who bamboozled the media and most of the population.
He managed to sell a railway to a Liberal bagman.
He reneged on contracts to hospital workers, yet gave himself, MLA's and political cronies handsome wages.
He cut taxes to the rich and burdened the poor with user fees.
He creates a gas tax, calls it a 'Carbon Tax' and gets the support of the so-called 'Green' lobby.
He says his government is the 'greenest' in Canada, but he is embarking on massive new highways for the lower mainland.
He is setting the stage for the privatization of BC Hydro, yet says he will not sell.
And it goes on and on and on.
The Nigerian bank scam letter is child's play when compared to Campbell's great BC swindle.
seth
26-04-2009
dams
One of our neocon paid commentators has been making the statement that
"....many IPPs also have lakes for winter storage..."
Given that it will be virtually impossible to sell or use the Pirate power when it shows up in the early summer, I'm thinking that the Campbell/Harper Neocon cabal is secretly allowing the Pirate to run lake levels up and down as defacto dams.
seth
26-04-2009
Rafe is an optimist
"... $30 BILLION owing and it will be lucky to recover half of that on the market.."
With new technology breakthroughs appearing all the time it appears that half would be optimistic. While Gordo's average Pirate purchase cost is 12 cents a kwh, current spot price is 2 cents, new solar PV announcements are projecting near term 1 cent, ten year down the road pulse fusion is .5 cents, and mass produced new gen nuclear is 2 cents. Remember Pirate power appears in early summer when the western power grid is already awash with spring hydro runoffs. Almost the entire 30 to 40 billion to date, and 40 billion the reelected Gordo will sign us up for could be lost
Gary
27-04-2009
Campbell deliberately sabotaged the sale.
"One might ask, however, given that the fast ferries were an NDP albatross, did the Liberal government try hard, or at all, to get a decent price for them?"
They not only didn't try to dell them they deliberately ignored a very comprehensive report on how to modify them for coastal service. A modification that would have been far less expensive than purchasing the German Ferries, and would have kept quite a few people working at our now non-existent docks pumping a few million back into the economy.
Stump
27-04-2009
trying the alternatives
I'm just glad Van Dongen has made a commitment to travel by public transit or self-propulsion for the duration of his suspension, rather than taking the easy way out and just hiring a driver for which the taxpayers will end up having to pay.
I mean, the transit system is what he's going to use, right? Yeah, right.
Morty
27-04-2009
Missing word?
In the second-last paragraph, I think you meant to ask why the Liberals did _not_ try hard, or at all, to get a decent price for the fast ferries. Otherwise, you're asking the same questions I've been asking myself.
wstander
27-04-2009
Convention centre not a white elephant?
Liberal apologists point out that with the convention we have a usable finished product while that wasn't so with the fast ferries
I think it is simplistic to argue, at this stage, that the convention centre will be a "usable finished product". There is no more guarantee that will be true than there was that the ferries would not be a success when they came out of dry dock and went into service.
Following is an excerpt from a USA today story, and a link to another USA Today story.
The World Congress Center, long among the nation's top handful of convention centers, is best known for hosting mega-conventions that draw 10,000, 15,000 or 20,000 people to Atlanta. But the GWCC, as it's known, has fallen on hard times. "If four little old ladies wanted to rent a room to play poker next month, we'd rent them a room," says Dan Graveline, executive director of the state authority that runs the congress center.
A report Monday from the Brookings Institution indicates that the facility's story is one of unmet high expectations, lofty projections that never materialized and bad timing. It's a story repeated in cities around the country as they pursue "an arms race" for such projects, the report says.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/2009-04-12-canceled-conventions-virtual-meetings_N.htm
Yammer
27-04-2009
The perils of demanding consistency
Van Dongen's EDITED driving makes him an unattractive human being and a menace on the roads, but does it affect his ability to decide policy?
If his decisions at work are bad, he's doing a bad job. If they are good, then he is doing a good job.
Talking about personal qualities is generally irrelevant. Rafe is right or wrong about fish, based on the reasonableness of his arguments, not because he was a Socred cabinet minister or has a wicked beard.
In turfing Ray Lam for his harmless, funny, private photograph, the NDP were, as usual, gutless and wrong in trying to appease phantom hordes of outraged middle-classers who weren't going to vote for them anyway.
North of Hope
27-04-2009
Campbell's sentence
Let's not forget that the Fast Ferries were sold on the day Campbell's sentence came down. A good time to have a distraction from Campbell's poor performance. The corporate media lapped it up and when they referred to his drunk driving, they said that it's time to move on.
dirtmeister
27-04-2009
Lead Footed Moe
The last lead footed minister was NDP's Moe Sihota. I do nor recall how it played out as Moe resign many times. Can I be enlightened on Mair's and his new friends (NDPers) response to Moe need for speed?
wstander
27-04-2009
Hey Yammer
You write that:
In turfing Ray Lam for his harmless, funny, private photograph, the NDP were, as usual, gutless and wrong in trying to appease phantom hordes of outraged middle-classers who weren't going to vote for them anyway.
Can we now assume that van Dongen who announced his resignation from cabinet this morning, and the BC Libs, are "gutless and wrong in trying to appease phantom hordes of outraged middleclassers"?
Stump
27-04-2009
Why, yes, yes it does.
"Van Dongen's EDITED driving makes him an unattractive human being and a menace on the roads, but does it affect his ability to decide policy?"
If the minister can't live by his own rules, he has no authority to make or promote those rules.
wstander
27-04-2009
Convention centre part two
The Sun web site is reporting:
A six-inch pipe burst at Vancouver's new convention centre on Monday, causing water to pour from the second floor into a first-floor ballroom and forcing 1,000 delegates of a Public Service Alliance convention out onto the street.
More to come...
How long has the Centre been open to the public?
alive
27-04-2009
let's go please!
Seeing that ministers in charge of traffic tend to drive too fast, maybe someone should draw the conclusion that our speed-limits are set to appease that same middle-class crowd?
The crowd who has not understood the technical development in vehicles over the last decade?
Instead of building more roads, let people begin to use all the horsepower they pay for!
Sure they gulp more gas, but they pollute less when driving, than when idling along (waiting for Grandpa to decide which lane he would like to travel in.)
Stump
27-04-2009
The above post is so full of
The above post is so full of fail and stupidity that the poster deserves to be run over by Van Dongen going 40 kmh above the speed limit as a fitting punishment for his callous disregard toward all the people who have lost loved ones to reckless drivers.
alive
27-04-2009
stumped?
hey, I know this article is all about a trusted minister breaking his own laws, OK?
Sorry if I inject a side-issue, but do not reject it out of hand.
The simple fact is that we still obey laws that made sense in 1950!
It is not speed that kills, just as it is not the guns you should blame for shootings.
A mandatory driving course would be a good start to avoid accidents at any speed.
Also, if automakers would quite designing vehicles as if they were entertainment structures, that would be a bonus.
A car is meant for driving, but we get lulled into thinking that it is ok to get distracted by all the new gimmicks they offer for our "pleasure".
I am sure that most people do push the speedlimit, and perhaps have noticed that they need to pay attention when doing so?
We all need to pay attention when driving, but if everything is in slow-motion we do loose concentration.
My point is that anything that makes traffic move is a good thing, because it stops us from taking driving as an easy task.
brg61
27-04-2009
B.C. Hydro
The disregard for BC Hydro is stunning. The legacy of W.A.C. Bennett that was indispensable in building this province and has shielded us from volitile global energy markets is usurped by greedy speculators with no obligation to the people of B.C.
I am worried about the consequences of this "rivers policy" on economic and environmental grounds. Where is the outrage and where is the proper debate this issue compels us to have?
Skywalker
27-04-2009
It is not speed that kills?
Are you for real? Stump was right. Most accidents are caused by speed not being adjusted to the conditions. I've been on the highway between Chilliwack and Vancouver on a wet day. If the general traffic is going 10 k above the limit there are clowns doing 140 k. Insane, all it takes is a minor error and someone is dead. People who think they are such safe drivers at these speeds are delusional.
Stump
27-04-2009
@alive
"Sorry if I inject a side-issue, but do not reject it out of hand."
I don't reject it out of hand. I reject it based upon my knowledge of the way fatalities climb with higher speeds.
I also question your assumption that higher speed means less pollution. Modern cars burn very little fuel when they idle.
If you really want to end road congestion, try putting more than one person in a car. Roads running at 25% capacity (or less) is just dumb.
Stump
27-04-2009
Uh what?
"We all need to pay attention when driving, but if everything is in slow-motion we do loose concentration."
Your solution is to give idiots who are too stupid to pay attention when they drive more leeway to travel too fast on the basis that they will pay more attention? That's some strange logic there.