Left Coast Rant

Adrian Dix is a pleasant suprise

2012-01-06T13:07:00.000-08:00

He wasn't my first choice, but Adrian has won me over. I think that at the time, I was hoping for a Mike Farnworth victory for the NDP leadership when Carole James was ousted as leader. I was fearful that Dix would be smeared for his links to the 90's NDP government when he served as a high ranking official close to Premier Glen Clark.
Times have changed a lot, and that man that was so hated in BC (Glen Clark) is now the right hand man to Jimmy Pattison's multi-billion dollar empire. Pound for pound, Glen Clark is a more successful businessman than Gordon Campbell. Former Premier Campbell was a failure at private business and has earned most of his living as a taxpayer supported politician: as Vancouver Mayor, BC Opposition leader, Premier, now a diplomat for Canada in London, England.
Adrian Dix as a leader has shown the discipline of a Premier in waiting. He has his caucus whipped into line, acts respectfully towards the government and party they oppose, and as far as tactic goes - is frustrating the BC Liberals into desperation.
All the BC Liberals have left as a weapon is to smear Adrian Dix with images and content from the 1990's NDP government...but the BC Liberal's their own problem - they have a legacy of corruption and incompetence too. Attacking the NDP for what it did almost 20 years ago stinks of desperation. The more distant the past is, the more information comes out that exonerates the former regime than condemns it. Its now provable that the BC NDP government of the 1990's had a better economic performance in terms of job growth, investments in education and healthcare than the Liberals over their term so far. That information wasn't available a while ago, but it exists now and takes a lot of wind out of the sails of the BC Liberal attack machine.
As far left as the Liberals would like to claim that Dix is, he is refreshingly and surprisingly moderate in his approach and policy as revealed so far. The BC Liberals are running out of ammo...soon, they won't have a gun left.

Cummins, BC Conservatives wrong on gas tax opposition

2011-10-07T13:12:00.000-07:00

#bcpoli #bcndp #bcliberals #christyclark #adriandix

Upstart leader of the BC Conservatives, John Cummins is completely misguided on his and his party's opposition to the 2 cent per litre gas. I understand that he is looking for a cheap wedge issue to score him some desperate media attention, but traffic gridlock from the excess of car traffic on the roads and freeways is no laughing matter.

By positioning his party against the fuel levy, John Cummins and his BC Conservatives are also against public transit. The levy is exclusively to fund transit in the lower mainland. Without this levy, the service will either get a massive cut to its service levels, or massive spike in its already overpriced fare regime.

What irony too. It was conservatives in the old Social Credit party that championed the original SkyTrain line, and paradoxically, the NDP was opposed to it...but I'm sure that was related to the fact that the construction of the elevated subway was in NDP held ridings in the early 80's.

So, conservatives were the champion of rapid transit when it wasn't popular, now oppose it when its needed the most. I believe this has nothing to do with rapid transit, but a diabolical hatred towards taxes - of any kind. I'm afraid, Mr. Cummins, that ship already sailed. Voters, by their actions, have said to politicians that taxes are acceptable - if they're spent the right way. A gas tax, maybe - but it better get the Evergreen Line built.

In 2009, the NDP railed against the carbon tax (as horribly flawed as it is) and found themselves snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. It obviously was more than just the carbon tax, it was Carole James too. She offered little outside of negative attacks and didn't offer progressive alternatives that would be supported by a plurality of voters.

If John Cummins believes that voters will rally to his party out of protest against a levy of two pennies per litre, he might be in for a sorry shock at the polls. His party's relative spike in the polls has more to do with a non-NDP protest against the BC Liberals, and less to do with the policies of his party itself.

An interesting dynamic is unfolding in BC. Its as if the whole electorate is shifting left. The latest Ipsos-Reid poll shows that parties of the left would score 51% of the vote (NDP and Green). The phenomenon of vote splitting on the right to allow the NDP to win isn't at play. The progressive vote is the majority in BC. This posturing of the BC Conservatives might accelerate this situation. If Green voters thought that John Cummins had any real chance of influencing policy in BC as MLA's in the legislature, you could see the Green vote collapse in favour of the NDP.

Topp is the wrong choice for NDP leader

2011-09-15T20:01:00.000-07:00

Almost as soon as Brian Topp announced his candidacy for leader of the federal NDP, he stepped into the Conservative trap regarding electoral re-distribution.
Conservatives have been long advocates of an equal distribution of seats based on one formula. While there's nothing with that idea in principle, the Conservative governments plan to add federal seats to Ontario, BC, and Alberta's electoral roll will always trigger the ire of Quebec nationalists. It was first the BQ that barked opposition to this plan as it waters down Quebec's influence in Ottawa...or so they feel. As soon as Brian Topp declares his candidacy, he too is spouting off against this plan to correct a horrible electoral unfairness that affects BC the most.
So, Brian Topp starts off sounding like a Quebec separatist...I can almost see the negative smear ads against Mr. Topp as leader; calling him the orange version of the BQ and polarizing the west against the NDP.
Brian Topp stepped into this trap with both feet and has no one to blame but himself.
No mention was made by Mr. Topp about the unfair Senate appointments done without scrutiny. Conservatives cannot be taken seriously about electoral reform until they too start talking about some form of proportionality as far as electoral representation goes.
Conservatives have made a career out of campaigning on whatever Canadians like to hear, then doing what they always intended. This is why a party of supposed fiscal conservatism has the largest deficits in recorded history for Canada...this is how this same fiscally responsible party can pretend to be such, then expand the national debt to levels never seen before. They even campaigned to cut the GST, then were enthusiastic supporters of HST expansion deals in Ontario and BC.
Topp ignored what really matters and shoved his foot in his mouth by tap dancing on a spring loaded trap set for them by the Conservatives. Instead of simply opposing adding seats to the nations largest provinces, Topp should have argued for proportionality when it comes to Senate appointments, so that every party can have representation based on popular vote in the upper chamber.
Quebec nationalists demand that their province have 25% of the electoral representation in the House of Commons. Given the population of Quebec, this would happen anyways...but not forever. BC, Ontario and Alberta are growing fast enough that by their population expansion, Quebec's share would drop...not their fault, but then, why should other provinces be denied representation to protect an artificial number?
But, we're basically agreeing to a Conservative talking point here. Topp, Mulcair, and others who dare submit their name as candidates for leadership of the federal NDP need to attack the Conservatives AS the BQ. The enemy is regionalism; and regionalism naturally morphs into racism and bigotry. The Reform Party and BQ were born out of regionalist angst, and it naturally flowed to a hatred of each other...which conveniently sustained each other. One could accurately say that the BQ's best candidates were in the Reform Party and vica versa. This is how you get western conservatives that used to have a national dream, launching electoral ads attacking the notion, "No more Prime Ministers from Quebec"...if that isn't racist, then what is?
In Quebec, the BQ was more than happy to point out the far right leanings of the Reform party as a rallying cry to their team.
Fast forward from 1993 to 2011 and the NDP who have vaulted to the #2 party in Canada...and now the party has a leadership candidate spouting off some of the rhetoric that enraged the west when it comes to pandering to Quebec nationalists. The only thing this will serve is to drive populist NDP supporters in the west BACK to the Conservatives much in the same way the 1993 NDP collapsed its support to Reform.
Selecting Brian Topp as leader will polarize the nation, trigger a new kind of BQ vs Reform war of hate; only the NDP will be the old BQ and the Reform party is naturally the governing Conservatives. This is not the NDP I want...and its unhealthy for Canada.

Make Jack Layton's legacy mean something

2011-08-23T09:55:00.000-07:00

Jack Layton, federal NDP leader from 2003 until his passing yesterday, has rebuilt the party. Its a contender again just as it was under Ed Broadbent. Probably more of a contender as the NDP replaced the Liberals as the second party in Canada. But its all on the line; the next move for the NDP will determine if it climbs the mountain top of falters back again.
Canada is grieving the loss of a great man in Jack Layton. He believed what he preached, he lived by the principles he campaigned on, and his personal integrity is unassailable; something that is rare in politics today...indeed it only comes along once a generation - if not longer. No wonder the massive outpouring of grief across the nation - this loss hurt badly.
But, politics is politics, and the party will get on with the business part of this and launch the leadership mechanics to replace Layton officially with a permanent leader. That leader must be ready to be Prime Minister.
The party, with its 103 MP's should have a couple of good faces and personalities that could carry the flag.
Peter Stoffer (NS), Thomas Mulcair (PQ), Pat Martin (Man), Peter Julian (BC), and Nathan Cullen (BC) are some of the caucus that should consider a leadership run. Not to mention several other names outside the parliamentary caucus.
Activists and supporters need to harness their collective grief and turn it to action. Make Jack Layton's dreams a reality by getting involved. Never before in Canada has a generation of youth been affected and motivated by a politician; now is the time to act.

HST delimma

2011-06-06T16:14:00.000-07:00

#hst #bcpoli #bcndp #bclib

So, we're about to get our vote on the BC HST that was rudely dropped on the province. I have to admit that I am on the fence on the tax and I hate that fact.

I want to oppose the HST. I am just as furious about how former Premier Gordon Campbell hit BC with this tax without consultation, and despite his party pledged that the tax wasn't on the radar, so to speak. It was a lie. Negotiations were well under way with the federal government on an HST conversion before the 2009 BC election that saw the unprecedented third straight victory for the BC Liberals.

On politics alone, I would vote to scrap the HST.

But fiscal policy is at play here. The HST is a value added tax - on consumption. On principle, that's something that I ironically support. In an era of over production and consumption of unnecessary or essential consumer goods that are draining our natural resources, a government levy is entirely appropriate. Taxing consumption on non essentials does seem fair. Its not like you are being hit with a huge tax bill when you buy normal groceries for every day living. Basics for children are largely exempt from the tax, as they should be.

It is a simple tax too. Its one form that's remitted to the government by the retailer at the point of sale. The retailer simply deducts the tax s/he was obligated to pay from the tax that was collected at the point of sale and remits the balance. Having two sets of tax policy to deal with is problematic and expensive. In one fell swoop, this tax makes a savings at the administration end for the retailer...that savings can either be used to hire, lower prices, increase profit margin (taxable) or invest in building the business.

I have to acknowledge that not all policies of a party that I despise are necessarily bad ones. While I disagree with most of them, I'm afraid the HST is not one of them.

I am typically an NDP supporter, but I will probably be voting to keep the HST...it does not however mean that I will be voting Liberal...that will never happen.

Attacks on federal NDP come fast and furious

2011-05-04T21:09:00.000-07:00

#cdnpoli #ndp #cpc #lpc #elxn42

As soon as it was clear that the NDP had ousted the Liberals as official opposition to the federal government in the House of Commons, the media decided that the NDP were the enemy of the people.

First, it was the attack on the NDP for having such inexperienced candidates running for office, who won seats no less. Second, it was another attack for having a Anglo-phone candidate running in a predominantly French speaking constituency in Quebec - and wasn't well spoken in the local French language. Now the attack is based on an allegation that she may have submitted falsified nomination papers...apparently, one of the locals wasn't able to tell the difference between an electoral nomination form and a petition. Although it is a serious allegation, and if true, the winning NDP member could be disqualified from her seat and a by-election called.

The media played a central role in electing Jack Layton's NDP to the opposition bench. They were soft on the NDP, hard on the Liberals, and fairly soft on the Conservative. They played along with Stephen Harper's strategy to destroy the Liberals...too effectively. The NDP were in striking distance of winning the election - winning 30% to the Tories 39.5%, any more of a shift from the Liberals could have produced an NDP led minority government.

But back to the attack on the inexperienced NDP candidates. I remember when the Reform Party was elected in western Canada in 1993. Western Canada sent 53 Reform MP's to Ottawa, and many of them had absolutely no experience in electoral politics. One of them was Nanaimo-Cowichan MP, Bob Ringma. This MP's claim to fame was his comment in a media interview about how he felt it would be justified for a business owner to 'move to the back of the shop..' or fire any black or gay employee that the shop owner felt were offensive to a bigoted client.

Bob Ringma only lasted one term, he was replaced by MP Reed Elley for Nanaimo-Cowichan. The point is that the massive win by a new party, or the stunning growth of a party that had little success previously was bound to have some inexperienced candidates who probably didn't think they'd win.

And given the xenophobic, racist comments by some of the more outspoken Reform MP's as rookies, I'd gladly take the innocent inexperience of a new, young MP who will learn the job properly.

Its not going to work

2011-04-30T09:51:00.001-07:00

#ndp #elxn41 #jacklayton #cpc #toronto

The recent smear on Jack Layton isn't going to work. Remember Bill Clinton? His extra marital affair was used by his conservative enemies to undermine his office and tried to impeach him from office. Hardly a treasonous offense, but his Republican enemies figured they had the galvanizing issue to motivate the people for some sort of uprising. It didn't happen. If nothing else, it made the former President more human, as everyone is guilty of bad judgement from time to time.
Now its Jack Layton. It's alleged that he used the services of a bawdy house in Toronto. He says it was just for a massage. His wife knew about the appointment. Wether or not it was innocent or not, it happened in 1996. Those that would use a morality based wedge issue like this with only 2 days before an election would be well cautioned about Bill Clintons experience. Its was damaging and humiliating, but not political.
Bill Clinton survived alright, he was re-elected. The whole fiasco actually harmed the social conservatives who sought to gain from the fiasco. Democrats made unusual gains in the 1996 election.
There's little doubt what the Layton smear is all about. He is in striking distance of winning the first ever NDP government in Canada. His Conservative and Liberal opposition are beside themselves in hysteria at this notion and will go to any length to stop him. Including bringing up a 15 year old mishap. If that's what it really was.
The sheer fact that this bomb was dropped so close to election day is an act of desperation.
But it can't work. The political world in Canada has already shifted. Morality based votes are already in the conservative party fold, there aren't any to pull from the NDP. And the liberals that have shifted to the NDP are the progressive ones. Harper wants to knock the 'blue liberals' loose and vote conservative. But the facts are that those blue liberals are already gone. All this stunt will do is reaffirm support for the conservatives by those already in the blue camp. It might though, trigger some more support for the NDP by those still on the fence and really mortified by how negative and destructive the conservatives really are. Its already started.
This pseudo-scandal might flip a narrow loss by the NDP into a narrow win thanks to this smear.

A few words about monetary policy

2011-04-29T09:04:00.001-07:00

Liberal policy meant severe cuts to social program spending at the provincial level and massive provincial deficits to maintain programs, or punitive cuts. Also, liberals introduced us to bracket-creep tax increases that hurt anyone when they had an income increases.

Conservative policy has been that of massive deficits and debt. Corporate tax cuts at the expense of the formerly balanced budget and the average taxpayer.

NDP policy will keep corporate rates lower than America's, lower small business tax rates and still balance through budget.

Next deadlock: Alberta

2011-04-20T08:47:00.000-07:00

I refuse to believe that the people of Alberta are as socially conservative and right wing as their political representation suggests. I do not believe that the people of Alberta would take away a woman's right to control her body, or is genuinely opposed to gay and lesbian lifestyles and their right to marry, or support the reckless destruction of the environment, or as anti-union as their politicians are...but that's who represents them.

I think the support that the Conservatives enjoy in Alberta is mainly due to political convenience. The current Prime Minister is from Alberta, and the Conservative party in its current form can trace its roots to the Reform Party movement that almost is exclusively an Alberta phenomenon.

But the Conservative party ideology is hardly progressive, its hardly even mainstream. There may be pockets of hard core social conservatism, but largely, the nation - including Alberta, is progressive.

There needs to be a concerted effort to unmask the Conservatives IN Alberta (and the Prarie provinces) as about as un-Canadian as the Repubicans in America that Stephen Harper's party got most of its training and knowledge.

Quebec voters to break separatist deadlock?

2011-04-20T08:10:00.000-07:00

It seems that Quebec voters are warming up to the idea of voting NDP. It was only a matter of time before voters there would tire of separatist parties and would tire of wasting their vote for a party that could never govern or have a meaningful role in power. Their flirtation with the NDP is entirely surprising and not so surprising actually.

Quebec is a progressive province. Its been socially liberal since before the phrase was ever coined. Most are supportive of the liberal social policies of the NDP, pro-union, pro-environment, and anti-Ottawa. But for generations, since there was a political force that embodied the separatist movement, Quebec voters were stuck between the party that wanted independence, and the party that would fight the separatists, even if that federal party wasn't as socially progressive as Quebec voters really are.

What a difference an election campaign makes. Jack Layton is more popular that Gilles Duceppe, and is eroding into the BQ base.

Finally, this deadlock is about to be blown wide open.

Stalemate on the left cannot continue

2011-04-10T09:51:00.001-07:00

Canada is a progressive nation but our progressive voters are fractured between three parties. As long as this imagined conflict is allowed to continue, the minority conservatives will govern us.

Why do leftists alight with the far right?

2011-01-13T12:01:00.000-08:00

It baffles me to no end why activists who pretend to be on the left, back parties and organisations that are clearly right wing, even fascist. For example, in Canada, we have a very active left wing that aligns itself with Hamas, the Palestinian organisation that is rightly defined as a terrorist organisation by almost every democratic regime that exists. Hamas pretends to be a political party that seeks office with official candidates, but what party has its own military? The Nazi party did, the Soviet (and other eastern bloc countries) had its own army - outside the official national military.
Backing these right wing Islamic "parties" makes no sense. The programme of these parties is simply Shiria law of Islam that outlaws democracy, voting, debate, womens' rights. How can parties like the NDP and Liberals possibly defend linking their political fortunes to Islamic fundamentalist parties that are almost identical to Afghanistan's Taliban? The Taliban is a party of sorts, with its own army. There are several progressive organisations to support in Islamic countries that are pro-human rights, pro-union, pro-democracy, etc...why support Hamas and Taliban?
And furthermore, why support regimes that aren't even in place legitimately? Israel is the only legitimate democracy in the middle east; fundamentalist Jewish parties sit in the same legislative chamber as a handful of Islamic parties that represent Israels minority Muslim population...non-religious parties also fill up the Knesset that are secular in nature. Where is this variety of opinions represented in any Islamic country? No where. Yet the left in Canada aligns itself with the pseudo-democracies where opposition is outlawed (or suppressed), when they call for the destruction of Israel and reject with contempt anything that attempts to defend Israel.
Israel is no angel either; their tactics in dealing with hostile neighbors are at best questionable, at worst - criminal. But I submit that Israel is reasonably justified in its actions in defending herself against a collective enemy that wants Israel scrubbed from the map.

Peter Kelly thinks you should join Groupon

2010-12-09T16:43:00.001-08:00

View this email in a browser | Unsubscribe

Be sure to add mail@e.groupon.com to your address book or safe sender list so our emails get to your inbox. Learn How

A special note from Peter Kelly:

Go ahead—join Groupon right now!

See you on Groupon,

Peter Kelly

Need help? Have feedback? Feel free to Contact Us

Don't want to receive extraneous promotional emails from Groupon? No problem Unsubscribe with one click.

Delivered by Groupon, 600 W. Chicago Avenue, Suite 620 Chicago, IL, 60654, USA

NDP dodges a bullet, but not out of the woods

2010-11-14T21:23:00.000-08:00

The NDP was lucky not to have faced Dianne Watts as a prospective BC Liberal party leader. She and Carole Taylor declined the opportunity to run for leadership of the party. Unfortunate for party planners and strategists, because those two ladies were the only widely known BC Liberal members that had any positive rating at all. Every other name associated with the BC Liberals had either a slight negative rating to an appalling negative rating as potential leader. Choosing any one of them would have only been slightly less devastating as keeping Gordon Campbell as leader.

As much as good news as this might sound for the NDP, its not clear sailing to a landslide majority in 2013. Its a long time from now, and the NDP has its own problems.

Carole James is seen as a moderate in some circles, but many British Columbians simply do not like her. I do not like her. I think she has missed almost every opportunity to advance the party, and she has lost two elections to Gordon Campbell. While some of her supporters try to credit her with rebuilding the NDP after 2001, its a misguided theory actually.

Former Leader Joy McPhail and only other NDP MLA Jenny Kwan were responsible for holding the torch for the NDP after the 2001 catastrophe, not Carole James. The upswing in support for the NDP has more to do with a traditionally centre-left province abandoning the BC Liberals after punishing the NDP in 2001 than some imagined adoring support for Carole James.

Until Carole James gets her personal approval rating above her negatives, and until those numbers approach the support levels of the party itself (sitting in the mid-to-high 40 percentages), then she is the wrong leader of the party.

Think of where the BC Liberals were at the same place in history when the NDP Government was on its electoral deathbed. Opposition Leader Gordon Campbell was hitting approval ratings in the 60's. In fact, in August 1999, the BC Liberals had the support of 60% of BC voters, the NDP was looking at 14%; while BC Reform was ahead of them at 16%...that was almost 2 years away from the 2001 crushing the NDP got, but the polls didn't improve much either.

There is every reason for the NDP to be sitting at 65% in the polls and the BC Liberals should be scrapping it out with the Greens and BC Conservatives for 3rd and 4th place...but they're not. It must come down to leadership.

If the NDP fails to deal with its leadership problem, then the BC Liberals will. They'll pick a leader that is somewhat distant to the scandal and outrage, they'll pick a leader that can bring most of their electoral coalition back together, they'll pick a leader that's serious about winning - because the NDP won't.

BC Liberals outraged that NDP supporters might participate in recall campaigns

2010-10-17T16:31:00.000-07:00

My first response is "so what?!"

Remember the then activist, Kevin Falcon, as part of a so-called grassroots movement to unseat a number of NDP MLA's in 1997? He was one of the ring leaders behind the recall efforts in 1997 and eventually became a powerful and influential MLA and cabinet minister.

The experts predicted it, as did many NDP insiders; that the three slimmest marginal seats the NDP won in 1996 would be subject to recall efforts as they might be easily toppled. The thinking was, if three seats could be flipped to the BC Liberals, then the balance of power would be 36-36-3 (instead of the 39-33-3) that the NDP was re-elected with in 1996. Then, Opposition leader Gordon Campbell could trigger a non-confidence vote and force an early election that the BC Liberals would most certainly win.

Well the recalls failed as voters weren't about to be tricked into an early election (despite the unpopularity of the NDP at the time). While the BC Liberal party likely instructed its members and officials to play no organized part of any recall effort, you can bet your annual salary that the members of the BC Liberals and their supporters were actively helping recalls - as private individuals. Of course they did - if successful, the BC Liberals could have been in power from an election triggered in 1998 - instead of 2001. If I were a card carrying BC Liberals, I might have participated in a recall campaign too; as a private citizen...there is nothing illegal about it.

For the BC Liberals to attempt to make political hay out of this is laughable - they're actually blaming the NDP for organizing recalls when its a known fact that the bulk of the support for recall is by conservative opposition to the BC Liberals. Making this a tactic is asinine, as it puts recalls back into the spotlight.

And, so what if NDP members and supporters hit the bricks in support of recalling BC Liberal MLA's from office; they will be likely joined by thousands of non-political people that have no affiliation to anyone. Its not just the NDP that the BC Liberals need to fear.

The NDP might win, but...

2010-10-13T08:05:00.000-07:00

The NDP under Carole James is poised for a landslide election at this moment. But there is another 3 years to go before the vote. A lot can happen between then and now.

Its a perfect storm for the party, the governing BC Liberals are mired in scandal after scandal, and dealing with a new sales tax they neglected to inform voters about before the election. The BC Liberals conservative flank is fracturing off, and its supposed left flank is bleeding to the Greens. In 2013, unless thing change, the BC Liberals are facing their own “2001” election.

But this is no overwhelming victory for the NDP, they are disliked almost as much as the BC Liberals. The BC NDP governed the province from 1991 to 2001 with their own controversies and scandals. One might argue that it happened so long ago...but that argument was heard in 1991 just before the election in referencing the 1972-75 Dave Barrett NDP Government - “..but it was such a long time ago..”

The BC Liberals deserve this defeat more than the NDP deserves the victory. For an opposition party, I am shockingly disappointed at their lack of performance not just in the opposition benches, but MLA’s in the communities.

The Liberals have gift-wrapped scandals for the NDP to crush them with...but in two elections since, could not close the deal. The NDP doesn’t chase down support, they wait for support to reluctantly come their way. When voters are pissed off enough at Social Credit/BC Liberal, etc - THEN the NDP win power. Not out of the skill of campaigning, message control, and coalition building.

Winning power in BC is all about building bridges. The BC Liberals and Social Credit were skilled at this because the non-NDP voters out there are almost opposed to each other as much as they oppose the NDP. Social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, federal Liberals, *some* environmentalists, and certainly most business groups oppose the NDP, but have little to do with each other.

Its been the skill of the centre-right coalition party to gather all of them and hold them together long enough to win power in Victoria. Keeping power has been a tricky measure though. But the fear of the NDP taking over is usually the motivating factor in keeping everyone in this big tent.

There is a myth that the NDP is a progressive big tent party as well. That might have been true when Mike Harcourt was leader. His leadership saw the party aggressively draw in the equally fractured progressive voters into the NDP’s fold. Environmental activists, liberal social activists, some small businesses and of coarse labour unions formed the NDP’s 1991 coalition...and even though they got less actual votes (and less share) than 1986, it was a party united as a governing coalition. It would never happen again.

The NDP did win again in 1996, but largely due to two factors. Premier Glen Clark was a master at wedge issues, and the BC Liberals had a problem with their right wing - had little choice but to campaign on the right. This left the opening on the centre to the NDP and Clark was only too pleased to accommodate.

Since 1991, there has been a battle within the NDP. Its a battle between pragmatists and puritan socialists. The NDP is constitutionally a Socialist Party, and the purists are legitimate defenders of this political constitutional reality of the NDP. The pragmatists are the ones that are in favor of coalition building to win power, while the purists argue that compromising everything is what lead to the 2001 disaster in the first place.

They are both right. But there is little middle ground for these two camps within the NDP. Right now, the pragmatists are in power within the party, but the purists are the activists. Apathy by one group towards the other means that little happens outside the party while this fight goes on. BC suffers.

BC is crying for a new government and is sick of the poisonous corruption that leads it now. The NDP will likely win power, but only long enough for a refreshed centre right to gather its strength again and knock it off in the following election...and it will be entirely their own fault.

The NDP will take power and unleash a programme that will seemingly appear right wing...they’ll hack and slash all things “BC Liberal”. Then they will re-brand things and start the spending all over again. The fights at the activist levels will show up in the halls of power when the Premier and Cabinet will be trying to pass somewhat centrist laws against the will of a decidedly left wing activist base. The result will be more apathy at the grassroots level since the leadership isn’t listening to the party, the activists will respond by leaving the party or withdrawing efforts (including fundraising) from the party.

This cycle will go on until the activists can undermine the leadership enough to trigger a leadership campaign where they can elect a true left winger into leadership. Since BC isn’t any more a left wing province than a far right wing province, this move will galvanise a predominantly moderate voter and oust the NDP; electing the BC Liberals all over again...or whatever party replaces them.

To put this election away, the NDP needs to hit the road with town hall meetings. They need to pledge to beef up the conflict of interest laws and install legislative guarantees for freedom of information requests. They need to pledge to revert BC Rail back to a Crown Corporation (forcing the BC Liberals to defend their tainted sale of the former crown rail service). The NDP needs to have a frank talk with taxpayers on sales tax reform - exactly what the BC Liberals should have done in advance of the last election.

If the NDP wants to be a true, progressive big tent party that offers a reasonable governing alternative, then they have to start acting like one. They have to aggressively start chasing down the votes from natural electoral constituencies that *should* be voting for them.

In that respect, I have to refer to America’s Republican Party as an example of coalition building. They got it together. They started reaching out to conservative groups of all shades. They didn’t promise all things to all groups, but they did promise that if we all worked together, we can oust the Democrats from both houses, win the White House, and command public sentiment with our issues.

The GOP sent its representatives to meet and greet and share ideas with local chapters of the NRA, religious groups, business groups, and other special interests within the general conservative universe. It was a stroke of genius because these far flung groups with little or no connection to each other found themselves being courted by a party that shared some of its values.

How does this apply to the NDP? Do they send representatives to my union’s meetings and events? No. Does the NDP send representatives to environmental based organisations? Unlikely. What about non-profit societies that advocate liberal social issues? Probably not. How can you claim to be representative of the whole movement if you make no effort to listen to the very groups you claim lordship over?

BC has a robust and motivated progressive political movement, but it is poorly led...if led at all. The NDP once was the standard bearer of this movement, but infighting and power struggles have made it a special interest party of the left wing; and little else.

The NDP might win this election coming up, but not because they’re popular. Hopefully between now and the 2017 election, a real progressive party can form itself and supplant the NDP from its position as the only party viable of winning an election on the centre left.

BC Liberals outflank NDP on HST – get their Mojo back

2010-09-17T13:44:00.001-07:00

That’s what I said. The Liberals out manoeuvred the NDP by tricking the NDP MLA’s to support the notion of the province-wide referendum in 2011. In one fell swoop, the Liberals moved the HST off the front burner and upstaged the NDP.

By moving to a referendum instead of legislative vote in Victoria, the BC Liberals get to avoid showcasing which MLA’s actually support the HST, the Premier avoids the (remote) possibility of a non-confidence vote and early election (of which he would most certainly lose), the government gets to gather its resources and start to legally promote this tax and collect its revenue for a year, and most importantly – NDP, BC Conservatives and anti-HST critics of their biggest issue.

The BC Liberals now have repositioned themselves as the champion of respecting the will of the voter if the HST is rejected (its too bad they didn’t understand this when unveiling their hated tax despite electoral promises not to do so).

BC voters can’t wait. I sincerely hope that BC Liberal targeted recall efforts go fully ahead in November. The BC Liberals lied their way to power. To pull this referendum trick now is no different than reverse billing tricks that the cable companies got fined for about 10 years ago – where they gave you a service for free, then started billing you for it after 30 days (despite never asking for it).

The best weapon against this latest BC Liberal stunt is knowledge. Understand what they’re trying to do, ignore it, vote them out of power anyways.

But my fire is also aimed at the NDP too. How dare they fall for this? They got snookered by a group of rookie Liberal MLA’s on an issue that the NDP could have won the next election on. The NDP stood close to gaining up to 50% of the popular vote had this thing gone the other way; the Liberals appeared to be digging in their heels and it looked all but hopeless for Campbell.

The BC NDP has fallen on their swords so many times in opposition, I wonder how effective they’d be in government. They got snookered again in allowing MLA’s to resurrect the gold plated MLA pension plans that former Premier Glen Clark helped to wipe out. The NDP took the pension plan, took the substantial MLA pay raises, and even defended them.

The NDP would have won the next election by a mile, but with their misstep on the HST, I’m almost ready to wager a small sum on the BC Liberals getting another term.

Technorati Tags: bc liberals,bc ndp,gordon campbell,carole james,bc conservatives,hst,referendom

Open letter to the NDP

2010-09-02T22:43:00.001-07:00

Given the state of affairs in BC right now, if I was a betting man, I’d bet on the NDP not just winning the next election, but betting the BC Liberals lose official party status too. The next BC legislature would probably have a landslide NDP government, and the opposition split between BC Conservatives and the Green party…the BC Liberals might hold on to 2-3 seats.

This isn’t because the NDP are popular and loved by the people, they’re not. Its that the BC Liberals are so hated, that BC is set to return to the party they once loathed as much in the late 90’s.

But what can we expect from the NDP and have they learned much from being in opposition for 12 years (by the time the next election is scheduled to happen)?

When the NDP left office, they left under such a dark cloud. They had their own scandals, but it seems that voters tend to accept corruption to a degree these days. The NDP was acting more and more like the conservative BC Liberals that they campaigned against. The NDP was attempting to balance the budget by cutting into social programs, cuts to education and healthcare; and were giving into to the mistaken opinion that major tax cuts pay for themselves by magically creating economic activity that generates new government revenue.

I remember the NDP when they were in power. Scandals aside, they were the first to take a deep knife to social programs in BC. Remember BC Benefits? That was a response to conservative pressure to reign in spending in welfare funding; violated recipients privacy and started a downward spiral in the system that the BC Liberals were only too pleased to carry on with once they got into power.

If I am disgusted with the BC Liberals in power, then I am equally disappointed with the BC NDP as the Official Opposition. Carole James as leader has been weak and ineffective as a leader. I remember the old NDP pit bulls that ripped apart the former (pre-1991) Social Credit Government under then-Premier Bill Vanderzalm. MLA’s like Glen Clark, Moe Sihota, Robin Blencoe, Dan Miller, Andrew Petter – they tore new holes in a hobbling government that likely sped their ultimate demise in the October 1991 election. I see no blood thirst in the current NDP front bench. The only MLA it seems with an ounce of testosterone is probably Adrian Dix. Maybe another term in opposition would hone their skill more, but can anyone stomach another four years of Gordon Campbell?

The big elephant in the room however is the HST. If the NDP took power tomorrow, what will Carole James and the NDP Government do? Will they send official notice to Ottawa that they we no longer wish to participate in the HST, along with a refund cheque of $1.6 billion? Will the NDP negotiate a lower rate of 10%? Right now, everyone is furious at the BC Liberals for lying to BC about the HST. But this is a matter that the NDP will ultimately have to deal with. Will the NDP determine that the HST is good and keep it? If so, why would we vote for them at all?

In the end, the NDP should win this election outright. Its time for change. But we the progressives of BC are less than enthusiastic about the NDP as they have pretended to be conservative before and acted as such. We’ll certainly give them our votes in this election, possibly even some cash and volunteer hours. But if the NDP fails to reconnect with its progressive roots, then we will prepare ourselves to move to a new political movement. One that stands on the principles and ideas that it was founded on.

In defense of conservatism

2010-08-28T23:52:00.000-07:00

I used to abhor conservative politicians and their policies. I thought, 'how could any reasonable person vote for these nut-jobs?'
But what are conservatives? Most of them are actual conservatives that are upset with a generally Liberal slant on western civilization and see this as the primary cause of the decline of western democracy and freedom. The conservative motivation is to steer society away from the anarchy and selfishness that naturally comes from a Liberal society and focus on uniting a people on principles, morals, and absolute values.
At the core of this is the liberal moral-relativism. Public morals in the Liberal world are in flux as society changes. For example, in the 1940's - gay and lesbian lifestyles were not just immoral, but illegal. No politician went near the idea of equal rights for gays, lesbians and transgendered people. But in a morally-relative Liberal western world, it became socially acceptable to be gay or lesbian (etc), so the natural gravitation to extend anti-discrimination laws to alternative lifestyles was inevitable. This gradual but steady shift of morals can be traced everywhere. From our music and TV, to fashion, the drift from what was unacceptable only a generation to what's acceptable now is textbook liberal moral-relativism.
Say what you will about conservatives, but they long for a return to a more traditional order of things. Social activists are flatly opposed to such an agenda, as its exactly what they had been advocating against for all these years. Gays and Lesbians are a massive sub-community that spends a lot of money and pays a lot of tax in their professional careers - to outlaw their existence and lifestyle could have an significant impact on the economy. What if it was legal to lower pay women less just because of their gender? That would have a sudden and dramatic effect the economy too.
I'm not advocating a return to 1950's laws and morals, but the conservatives are on to something. What is wrong with motivating people on some core principles again? We're a society that spends too much time in needless debate over trivial things when the major ones are pushed aside.
Our country is sinking further in debt and no one has a plan to stop the red ink, let alone pay off this massive debt. Canada owes over half a trillion dollars to banks (foreign, no less). Every dollar that we spend on this debt financing is a dollar not spent on healthcare and education.
We're at the mercy of some very flawed thinking, and its time to correct not just the policy, but the general thinking that goes into it. For decades, we were of a delusional opinion that there is always more tomorrow - so its ok to borrow from tomorrow to pay for what we want today. Well, we're at a place where the growth tomorrow isn't keeping pace with the demand of today. If we keep this up, we'll be looking at a national bankruptcy like Greece - or America.
Its time for difficult and necessary choices. Meaning, we're going to have to let go of somethings to hold on to others. What we need is a fundamental discussion on the role and purpose of the state - Federal, Provincial, and Municipal. All taxpayer supported authorities need their roles re-defined and laws to force them to stay within the confines of that legislative framework. Maybe even a new constitution; but something to refocus our nation on the things we hold dear and let go of the things that are frivolous (and very expensive).
If we can agree that as a nation, we demand an adequate, single payer healthcare system that covers everyone, then lets do that. Certainly we can agree that our federal government protect us through the military and police, so thats a national priority...and the government rightly has an obligation to protect the environment, health and safety standards, transportation and international trade and communications and basic human rights. Pretty much everything else is fluff; and costly. The social spending that is acceptable is a national pension plan, unemployment benefits, and assisting the provinces with welfare and education funding as needed.
If we concentrate on what we need, eliminate what we don't need, there will be plenty to go around. But breaking even isn't what we need now - we need to get ahead and pay down this debt.
Significant re-aligning our spending priorities (cuts) and a hefty (but temporary) tax increase are the only way out of this way.
Its like taking on a second job to pay down your credit cards. Maybe you earn enough to pay the minimum payments, but that won't pay them off...but the increase in income doesn't mean anything if you increase your spending; you have to cut your own spending too - if that second job is to mean anything. Once you pay down (or pay off) that debt, then you can drop the extra job and stop burning out from the extra work; and the lower overall debt will be less of a draw on your expenses. The extra cash you're no longer spending on debt payments can go to investing or whatever you see fit. Same idea in government.
If we increase taxes temporarily, cut spending on unnecessary programs, we can create massive surpluses we can use to lower the national debt scene by hundreds of billions. If we can pay off even $100 billion in overall debt, then we're saving almost $500 million a month in interest fees (do the math, that's $6 billion over a year). That's free money - $6 billion saved that can be shoveled back into debt payments, build hospitals and schools, or freeways or airports. $6 billion, every year. This only works if government doesn't go on a spending spree on the extra revenue they get from increasing taxes - that increase is temporary, and dedicated to one cause only.
What does this have to do with liberals or conservatives? Liberals have it in their DNA and their moral relativism that any extra revenue they get their hands on would end up financing a new program or policy that wasn't acceptable only a few years back...the fiscal conservatives out there might have the toughness to make these choices.
I do not believe that conservatives are inherently corrupt (I don't believe that of anyone actually). Corruption is a weakness of the soul that can affect anyone near authority and power...and money. Conservatives have no monopoly on corruption. I also don't believe that the conservative is hellbent on military action and war; although war does tend to unify a nation on absolute values of freedom and democracy...but in the end, maybe war is what we need to remind ourselves what's important.

BC Liberal conspiracy to defraud BC voters - AGAIN!

2010-06-12T22:33:00.000-07:00

Call me cynical, but MLA Blair Lekstrom's exit from the BC Liberal caucus seems hardly genuine, possibly part of a carefully planned production that at its conclusion will see Premier Campbell exit government. In my view, he may have scripted his own exit to look as if its an internal, grassroots revolution within the BC Liberal party.
Gordon Campbell may be a terribly arrogant politician, but he is not stupid. He has seen the writing on the wall and knows his days are numbered. He knows that if he manages to hang on to leadership, there will be little left of his party after the next election. He is desperate to avoid that sort of electoral blowout, and if there is one thing he is trying to avoid more than losing his job as party leader and Premier, its to hand the keys of power to the NDP. To that extent, I think he'd orchestrate some phony outrage from within his caucus that would 'push' him from office; trigger a leadership convention and hopefully convince voters that with a new leader, the BC Liberals are fit for a fourth term...because a 4th term for the BC Liberals is better than any term of the NDP (or so the spinners would have you believe).
My theory is based on the fact that it took a year for Blair Lekstrom to act on the HST. I've lived in Dawson Creek and I know first hand the anger at sales taxes...they want nothing to do with them. There is a healthy movement afoot in the BC Peace River region to leave this province, and have Alberta annex that whole section of our north. Alberta has no sales tax; they have lower income taxes; and its a 30 minute drive from Dawson Creek.
Its not just the north Peace region that feels this way, its border communities that feel this disadvantage on sales tax compared to Alberta and we have little to stop locals from taking that drive across the provincial boundary and pick up a TV, washing machine, or a car - and not pay any provincial sales tax. Enter the HST.
There should have been an immediate threat from all BC Liberal MLA's that border Alberta to vote down the government and trigger an early election. This was not done - and they knew the political risk at the time. I doubt the government pulled the idea out of a hat AFTER the election, I think there was a plan to drop the HST on BC with a faint hope that anger would fizzle out after a while and life would be ok. But any recorded evidence to suggest this alternative theory conveniently cannot be found...shocking.
Think of how this is going to unfold. Blair Lekstrom resigns from cabinet, probably Olivia Chow (elected 1996) next, than maybe one or two more (that are juicy targets on the recall list) and the pressure will be on for Campbell to resign...more than the pressure already.
And magically, he will announce his retirement from BC Politics and declare a leadership contest open. All of the MLA's that "resigned" in protest will be welcomed back with open arms, the party will unite behind its new leader and will proclaim itself (again) the best hope to save BC from the "threat of an NDP government"...and win the next election.
In other words, all the drama you are seeing now is in my view, a staged event. Gordon Campbell already has his exit strategy figured out and this is my theory on how it goes. He is prepared to be demonized like he is in order to take the heat off other potential leadership contenders...and it might work.
But the problem is that up until this HST fiasco, Campbell's grip on the BC Liberal party has been iron fisted. No BC Liberal could stand as a candidate without Campbell's personal approval. Every person in any sort of elected office within the party is a loyal ally of Gordon Campbell. Every ranking officer of the party is loyal to Gordon Campbell. The entire government and its thinking is a product of the cult of Gordon Campbell...therefore, there is no one free from the corrosive stain of Gordon Campbell. The next leader owes their ascension to power to Gordon Campbell as he enabled their career to blossom.
Worse, opponents of Campbell within the party have already fled the party. They are either sitting the next election out, cut up their membership card and joined the BC Conservatives, support Greens as a protest, or possibly even vote NDP.
All thats left in the BC Liberal party are diehard loyalists of Gordon Campbell, so no one can honestly claim to be a 'fresh start'. In the next election, BC must exact punitive political punishment on every BC Liberal they can find. If any survive the next election, then Gordon Campbell still wins.

Merger talk: Liberal dream to absorb NDP

2010-06-10T16:14:00.000-07:00

The recent talk of 'talk' of a merger in the works between the NDP and Federal Liberals is pure fantasy - even if it were true. Members of both parties would never stand for it.
This is nothing like the 'unite the right' movement in the 90's after the PC Party was blown to smithereens in the 1993 election. The whole conservative movement was split between east and west.
Western conservatives were more socially conservative, tilted towards an anti-Quebec thinking (refer to the unabashed anti-Quebec political ads of the Reform Party), where eastern conservatives were more fiscally conservative. For generations, they were part of one party, the Progressive Conservatives. At times there were leadership contests, the two pillars would spar as one group would try to assert control over the party, but generally pulled together for the sake of trying to win elections.
This is not a valid issue with the NDP and Federal Liberal parties. They were never part of one party and got disgruntled and left, they both have a depth of history and have contributed to the Canadian story in their own way. For talk of a merger to happen now is simply opportunism likely by desperate Liberals seeking a new way to baffle voters into handing them a governing mandate.
I suspect that if that merger was to happen, that the Green Party would supplant the NDP as the third party in Canada and score some impressive seat hauls.
The fact is that there are few things within the NDP and Liberals that are common links. That might be the socially progressive agenda of both parties; despite their governing records. The Liberal governments of Trudeau and Chretien were probably the most socially progressive in Canadian history. That's were we got same-sex marriage laws, abortion laws, and some environmental legislation that has at least the appearance of being progressive. The legacy of the Liberals also is one of cuts to social program spending and healthcare that the NDP is diametrically opposed to.
Federal Liberal governments of the 1990's were responsible for some of the most dramatic cuts to healthcare and education funding that this country as ever seen. The cuts were deeper than even Conservatives dared to go. Why the NDP would dare to combine with that legacy is baffling to say the least.
The thinkers within the Liberals must have drummed this up, and its based on a flawed thinking that if you combine two parties that generally fall into one category, all their previous voters will follow. This was the mistake of the Conservatives too. They assumed that all voters of the PC party and the Alliance party would rally to the 'new' Conservative party and they'd win a majority. In the 2006 election, that united Conservative party scored only 37% of the vote...less than the mathematical combination of the Alliance + PC Party sum that they counted on.
Well, its the same mistake about to be repeated all over again. This time, by parties never being linked in the past. The thinking is that the Liberals with their 28-34% and the NDP with their 16-21% could form a electoral block that would win at least 40% of the popular vote (likely translating into a majority mandate). But the voters of the respective parties are not likely to follow.
They're going the wrong way with this; its not a merger of parties that we need, its a change of system that we need. It might be that the NDP and Liberals have many things in common, but let the voters decide that. Let the voters choose in a mixed proportional representation system. If the voters decide that, then the two parties can form a parliamentary coalition to pass legislation that both parties agree on.
If we're to have one party try and represent all of progressive Canada, then it cannot be the Liberals or the NDP...it needs to be a new one, built from the ground up...without the baggage of the other ones.

Consolidation is the future for public services

2010-06-04T12:25:00.000-07:00

The more I think about it, the more it makes sense to have one central office for payroll and administrative duties for our education system. It can be done; larger employers have one central office that gets these tasks done, why not teachers too? The same plan could be used for healthcare in BC (that still remain in the public sector at least). The only thing that gives me pause for thought is the possibility that this centralized payroll and administration office could end up privatized and in the hands of a contractor with friendly links to a political party...this one office should remain in the public domain for accountability reasons, and staffed by persons knowledgeable in the area they're working for.

In this consolidation, the upper executive management should be brought into one office too. We do not need a dozen overpaid CEO's to manage health districts when this can be done from one office that reports directly to the Ministry of Health. Same for public education: one administration...use the savings to hire more teachers/nurses/doctors.

Not every idea that the BC Liberals have are bad, lets hope they don't fumble this one and make it just another way to reward high rolling donors and supporters.

NDP need to make a definitive stand on the HST

2010-05-16T08:35:00.000-07:00

The pro and anti-hst forces are out in force. The BC Liberal government is out there defending its new tax, its supporters have hit the bloggosphere/newspapers, etc while the Anti-HST petition gatherers and protesters have made their voices perfectly clear. What's missing however is the official position of the NDP on the HST.
They are poised to smash the BC Liberals into oblivion in the next election and no one knows what they will do about the HST? Will they keep it? Repeal it? Lower it? This is more important that you know. 80% of BC is opposed to this surprise tax, but if the NDP isn't going to get rid of it, then why change?
C'mon, NDP - get ahead of this issue.

Oil spill changes everything - CNN.com

2010-05-01T15:17:00.000-07:00

Oil spill changes everything - CNN.com

I wonder if the BC Liberal government is still as gung-ho about offshore exploration and drilling on the pacific coast. True, the risk of a hurricane is almost non-existent here, but we have earthquakes to be concerned about. I'd never claim that BC's pacific coastline is more important than the Gulf of Mexico, but it sure is special to us; and the wildlife and local communities that depend on clean oceans are no less important here than it is in the gulf coast.

The difference is that in light of the huge oil spill in the gulf coast, BC hasn't started exploration or drilling - but the current government wants to. Now would be the right time to re-think that; it would be ok - I'd give them credit for doing the right thing.

CBC News - World - Anger mounts over Greece's austerity plan

2010-05-01T11:47:00.000-07:00

CBC News - World - Anger mounts over Greece's austerity plan

This is unfair, yes...but necessary. Get used to it as well. Well meaning welfare state programs that are largely hold-overs from the end of the last world war are too generous to be supported by an aging taxpayer. If there is a lesson here, its that everyone should have their own backup plan and not rely on government or politicians to take care of you.

The tragic irony is that these cuts are inflicted by a left-wing coalition government that JUST took power in Greece. They had been governed by conservatives for the last dozen or so years. Not that it matters any, since the whole country had been living beyond its means for so long.

My heart goes out to the people of Greece, but if you work together to get through this, life will get easier on the other side of this crisis.