Adrian Dix-led BC NDP

105 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthReport
Adrian Dix-led BC NDP

""

NorthReport

Will Dix's NDP Revive 'Dying' Social Housing?

It's a question poverty activists want answered now, but party says specifics must follow the budget.

http://thetyee.ca/News/2013/02/08/NDP-Social-Housing/

NorthReport

Good ole Rafe but he may have a point!


Rafe Mair to Adrian Dix: 'Row like Hell'

Keep coasting and your New Democrats could lose the May 14 election.

-----------------


How to fight Libs' negative attacks

Today's BC Liberals have a lousy leader but a good campaigner at the helm and she will concentrate on two things -- Dix's creating a false memo to help Glen Clark out of the mess he was in over a gambling license and the dismal financial record of the NDP years.

Allow this old pol a few words to help Mr. Dix.

Politics in B.C. is a blood sport and you ignore that at your peril.

You're scarcely the first to promise that you would clean it up. Bob Skelly tried that and was obliterated. Moreover, you're scarcely the one to talk about raising the level of debate.

You have to deal with the memo and it can be done simply. "At least I resigned, which is a hell of a lot different from Gordon Campbell who was in jail from drunk driving and carried on as premier as if nothing had happened."

Moreover, this is the time to talk about BC Rail, an ongoing scandal.

The charge of fiscal irresponsibility must be faced down, which you can do by pointing out that the BC Liberals have tripled the provincial debt. Moreover, they won an election in 2009 with a budget that was $1.2 BILLION dollars out!

The Liberals will claim that they were sideswiped by the recession which you offset with the NDP being hit by fall of the Thai baht -- the so-called Asian flu -- which all but shut down the forestry industry.

If you insist on staying on a lofty plane the Liberals will kill you on these two issues.

http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2013/02/04/Advice-For-Adrian-Dix/

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

The big question for me is what the fracking hell are they going to do on the LNG file.  If they proceed with the massive LNG projects then they will be at most a one term government.  The LNG is a make or break file for them on the environmental front.  Also they have not definitively ruled out expansion of the Delta port coal facility to ship American coal to Asia nor have they ruled out expansion of the Kinder Morgan pipeline to ship bitumen out of Burrard Inlet. 

If he blows those two files the Greens will look better and better to many who put the environment as a top priority.

As for housing I would hope the NDP both provincially and federally would be proposing building more Sec 96 coops and less "social housing" run by bureaucrats who are then given control over the people in the projects.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Just saw this: New firm combines BC’s political foes

In theory, wouldn't those three guys be working against each other?

felixr

People dislike Christy Clark because she has no credibility, flip flopper extraordinaire with no coherence to her government. Adrian Dix has made virtually no public commitments on anything and just wants to win by default. He hasn't road tested more than 1 policy commitment. It's going to be fun trying to trial balloon policies during the campaign for the first time or better yet run a campaign on nothing about nothing, which is probably what Dix intends to do. So...vote for the guy who will commit to nothing at a time when there are major challenges in BC or vote for the joker who can't figure out what side of the political divide to stand on. Frankly, I will not weep if Dix comes up short due to his "I've got it in the bag" attitude to win-by-default campaigning.

And Topp and Boessenkool partnering like brothers? Who never said the NDP and Liberals weren't same parties, just with different donors.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

felixr wrote:

And Topp and Boessenkool partnering like brothers? Who never said the NDP and Liberals weren't same parties, just with different donors.

Guy is the Liberal.  Boessenkool was brought in by Christy to up her conservative credentials and try to beat back Cummins.  All parties are the same in a capitalist election only their donors are different.  They all spin instead of talking substance and these three fancy themselves the best spin doctors around.

Aristotleded24

felixr wrote:
People dislike Christy Clark because she has no credibility, flip flopper extraordinaire with no coherence to her government. Adrian Dix has made virtually no public commitments on anything and just wants to win by default. He hasn't road tested more than 1 policy commitment. It's going to be fun trying to trial balloon policies during the campaign for the first time or better yet run a campaign on nothing about nothing, which is probably what Dix intends to do. So...vote for the guy who will commit to nothing at a time when there are major challenges in BC or vote for the joker who can't figure out what side of the political divide to stand on. Frankly, I will not weep if Dix comes up short due to his "I've got it in the bag" attitude to win-by-default campaigning.

He could very easily be following the strategy of, "when your opponent is careening off a cliff, get out of the way."

NorthReport

How refreshing to hear a BC politician, any Canadian politician, talking about fairness and equality as a top priority.

Let's help him get elected to ensure that happens.

Adrian Dix — off the cuff

http://www.langleytimes.com/news/199430571.html

NorthReport

I guess the Globe and Mail has finally resigned itself to the fact that their beloved BC Liberals are going down, and are going down big, and are going down hard. Or maybe it was Christy's brilliant campaign manager attacking the Globe. Whatever, it seems the tide has turned for good at least in the eyes of the Globe and Mail. But don't worry as the Vancouver Sun will still have its useless head buried in the sand until every vote is finally counted on May 14th. Now finally, perhaps the people of BC will finally get to to know the real Adrian Dix.

Adrian Dix: The NDP’s comeback kid in B.C.

With media entourage in tow, Adrian Dix scrambles up an embankment by a logging road deep in the interior of British Columbia. Under a canopy of mature pine, he stops to discuss forestry. Or, rather, he listens to a silviculture expert do the talking.

This baffles his host, a grizzled former tree planter – what politician doesn’t lust for the spotlight? But like many people in B.C., he can see that the odds-on favourite to become the province’s next premier takes a very different approach to politics.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/adrian-dix-the-ndps...

mmphosis

kropotkin1951 wrote:

The big question for me is what the fracking hell are they going to do on the LNG file.

The Un-Natural Gas Boom: A Bridge to Nowhere (vancouver.mediacoop.ca)

ACTION ALERT: Ask the NDP to say “no fracking way!” in B.C. (canadians.org)

This is an excerpt from an email I received recently in response to my opposition to fracking...

BC NDP April 3rd, 2013 wrote:
Adrian Dix and B.C.’s New Democrats support an expanded natural-gas industry because it is good for the BC economy, and will mean more permanent jobs in BC

janfromthebruce

Jack Layton never too far from Adrian Dix's B.C. New Democrat campaign

McGrath said Dix's decision to run a campaign on ideas, policies and debates rather than personalities and attacks is Layton's style.

"He was tough for sure, but he was tough on the issues and the different vision and not on the personalities, and I think that's what Adrian is doing as well," she said.

snip

University of Victoria political science Prof. James Lawson said the Layton legacy continues to gather momentum because of his sudden and tragic departure from the political scene, but also because for left-of-centre Canadians he was able to build a united social democratic movement that included social activists, unions and free thinkers.

So taking cheap shots shows one lack of substance on their position(s). And one needs to distinguish between a "political attack" and a "political attack" on your opponent"s position, record on the issue at hand, or their political record.

janfromthebruce

Dix is making a dash to the finish line - 14 communities - go Dix

NDP's Dix ends campaign with 14-stop, 1,700-kilometre, 24-hour blitz

New Democrat Leader Adrian Dix plans to spend every minute of the last day of B.C.'s election campaign hustling for votes.

Dix has set a 24-hour campaign schedule starting today at Courtenay on Vancouver Island and finishing at his campaign office in his Vancouver-Kingsway riding Tuesday morning.

Over the 24-hour period starting at 8 a.m. this morning, Dix plans to visit 14 communities and travel 1,700 kilometres.

He plans to makes stops in Kamloops, Williams Lake, Prince George, Penticton, Langley and Richmond.

NDPP

janfromthebruce wrote:

So taking cheap shots shows one lack of substance on their position(s). And one needs to distinguish between a "political attack" and a "political attack" on your opponent"s position, record on the issue at hand, or their political record.

Here's one:

British Columbia NDP Courts Big Business in Run-Up to Provincial Vote

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/05/13/elec-m13.html

 

janfromthebruce

For the record I agree with this assessment

But ultimately, the attacks on his character by the B.C. Liberals and his lack of hubris are probably what did him in during the election campaign.

I have a hunch that Dix will be able to recover from this, notwithstanding all of those who are ready to write his political obituary.

Gary Doer lost three elections in Manitoba before leading his party to three consecutive majority governments. Gordon Campbell blew a lead in 1996, losing to a political leader, Glen Clark, who showed far more hubris on the campaign trail. Campbell, too, went on to win three majority governments.

Dix isn't stupid. And Christy Clark's hubris, like that of George W. Bush and many other politicians, will likely trip her up eventually.

We've just seen round one between Dix and Clark. The rematch, if it happens, could have a radically different result.

Out of Character offers clues as to why a leader lacking in hubris lost the B.C. election

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Good article.

While most of the comments were just cyberdroppings from the paid spammers, the one about the way each party dealt with ethnic communities sounds like its worth taking on board.

The BCNDP needs much more of a multi-ethnic face in the future as part of any program of renewal.

janfromthebruce

I agree Ken.

Aristotleded24

A little quibble:

janfromthebruce wrote:
Gary Doer lost three elections in Manitoba before leading his party to three consecutive majority governments.

Out of Character offers clues as to why a leader lacking in hubris lost the B.C. election

Different situation. Doer was able to stay on because under his watch the NDP gained seats in every general election. The only exception was in 1988, when he took over a party brand that was so unpopular and so tarnished that it had nowhere to go but down.

janfromthebruce

I just disagree with the idea that after electing a new leader, and if they don't do well in the first time out, that we get rid of them like the Liberals do.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

janfromthebruce wrote:
I just disagree with the idea that after electing a new leader, and if they don't do well in the first time out, that we get rid of them like the Liberals do.

Yep.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

I'm open to giving people second chances in many situations...provided they are open to critique, willing to change in response to critique, and willing to listen in times when they wouldn't listen before.  None of those things apply, from what I can see, to Mr. Dix.

It's almost impossible for a party leader to win a second election as leader after leading her or his party to a loss in seats the first time.  And if they don't get rid of Dix, we can assume the memo thing will work just as well the second time as it did the first.

Combine those factors with the fact that Dix is almost certain to argue that the BCNDP needs to be FURTHER to the right next time(when ANY further rightward swings on any issues at all would make it pointless to even try to elect a BCNDP government ever again)and it's hard to see any reason at all to keep Dix as leader.   The only possible direction Dix can take the BCNDP in is the direction of full-on-unreconstructed Blairism- and the results of the 2010 UK election prove it that Blairism doesn't even win elections in Tony Blair's own country any more.

Can't we pretty much already tell what would happen if Dix were given the chance to lead ANOTHER BCNDP election campaign?  IF the man has shown himself already to be totally unwilling to listen to dissenting voices and non-inner circle ideas, if he's already demonstrated that he has next-to-no learning curve as a leader whatsoever, why even bother with him anymore?

What has Dix got to offer that could possibly be worth chancing ANOTHER loss in seats?  Another drop in the popular vote?  A possible finish in 2019 BEHIND the freaking Greens?

The only chance the BCNDP has is for a complete change of course...internal democratic renewal and a leadership and candidate slate that reflect the multicultural, continuing class struggle facts of real B.C. life.  The BCNDP may never win again with a bland, centrist, middle-aged straight white dude as leader(and I say that as a straight, if not entirely bland, middle-aged white dude myself).

 

wage zombie

I think the important thing is to have a leadership review.  We may have even gone into this election with Carole James as leader if she had been willing to subject herself to a formal review.

I think I would personally be happier with David Eby or Nathan Cullen as leader but I don't think it's a foregone conculsion that Dix should go.

This analysis seems off:

Ken Burch wrote:

I'm open to giving people second chances in many situations...provided they are open to critique, willing to change in response to critique, and willing to listen in times when they wouldn't listen before.  None of those things apply, from what I can see, to Mr. Dix.

Too early to tell.

Quote:

It's almost impossible for a party leader to win a second election as leader after leading her or his party to a loss in seats the first time...

Disagree.

Quote:

And if they don't get rid of Dix, we can assume the memo thing will work just as well the second time as it did the first.

Disagree.

Quote:

Combine those factors with the fact that Dix is almost certain to argue that the BCNDP needs to be FURTHER to the right next time...

Disagree.

What is being pitched in post #19 as near certainty is conjecture from outside the province.

Again, I would personally be happier with David Eby or Nathan Cullen as leader, and potentially there are others that I would prefer to Dix.  But I think the calls for Dix's head are overblown.

The criticisms of Brian Topp, well, I think some of those are bang on.  Brian, I was friendly to your leadership bid.  But I have no idea how you think it's going to be ok to start a firm with key right wingers.  I'm not sure how you could do that and not expect to lose trust with large numbers of the membership.  You have brought the visceral reactions on yourself.  Seems pretty clueless and I would implore you to get your act together.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

It isn't a rebuttal just to say "that's wrong".

What actual case would you make against the analysis I offered in that post?

Why would you believe that Dix is salvageable as leader?

The next two years are going to be a time when the party will be totally irrelevant in the legislature anyway-nobody is going to be swayed by them or by Dix if they couldn't be swayed by them DURING the election.  So why not do a total party renewal, wide-open debate and discussion period?  You can't have party renewal while you still have a just-defeated leader who is making it clear that he's not going anywhere.  Such a leader will be obsessed with silencing all debate and preventing any real change. 

jas

wage zombie wrote:

The criticisms of Brian Topp, well, I think some of those are bang on.

I've been trying to remember for a couple of years now why I distrust Brian Topp (sorry, I know he posts here occasionally). Was it from the 2009 election? Or earlier than that?

But absolutely. Why is Dix taking more heat than the actual CAMPAIGN MANAGER??

janfromthebruce

I thought that Carol James was co-campaign manager? yes, it's a shame that official opposition happen in 2011 and I'd distrust that outcome too. So sick of this witchhunt by the left on babble.

I'd advice Nathan not to bother jumping ship provincially. Anyway, he'd have to disavow working with libs and how often do you think that would throw in the NDP faces?

You really need to reach for the perfect pure NDP leader - good luck with that.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

It's not about "perfection"- it's about knowing what's salvageable and what's not.

What the BCNDP needs is a root-and-branch party renewal, with open and full discussion on where the party needs to go from here, what it should stand for, how it should present itself publicly, who it needs to listen to, and who it needs to STOP listening to.

Most incumbent party leaders, in a situatio like this, aren't open to things like that.  Their instinct is to keep any changes to a little peripheral tinkering, and to put the blame on those below them(and their "purity tests" and things like that)rather than root-and-branch reform and revitalization efforts.  They are especially terrified of any changes to their parties that do anything at all to empower the rank-and-file at the expense of the "pros".

I'd be interested to know, jan, why you would think Dix would be open to what needs to be done in a way that most figures like him instinctively wouldn't.

Oh, and it's not like I think the man is evil...just that he's not right for staying in this particular position.  I don't want him drawn-and-quartered in the public square or anything.

Policywonk

wage zombie wrote:

I think the important thing is to have a leadership review.  We may have even gone into this election with Carole James as leader if she had been willing to subject herself to a formal review.

According to the Constitution:

11.03 At every Convention that is not a Leadership Convention a secret ballot vote will be held among Convention delegates to determine whether or not aleadership election should be called. If 50% plus one delegate supports the calling of a leadership election, such an election will be held within one year of the Convention vote. This Section may be waived by Provincial Executive when there is a general provincial election that would not allow sufficient time to comply with the time frame set out.

 

The next Convention is this fall. This was passed in 2009 so there wasn't a requirement at that Convention. I don't remember what the result was in 2011, but I assume if one was held it was a resounding endorsement of Adrian. I recall the expectation of a snap election had passed in the wake of the HST referendum so I don't think there would have been any justification to waive the requirement, but I could be wrong. There will certainly be no justification this fall to waive the requirement.

Policywonk

Ken Burch wrote:

It isn't a rebuttal just to say "that's wrong".

What actual case would you make against the analysis I offered in that post?

Why would you believe that Dix is salvageable as leader?

The next two years are going to be a time when the party will be totally irrelevant in the legislature anyway-nobody is going to be swayed by them or by Dix if they couldn't be swayed by them DURING the election.  So why not do a total party renewal, wide-open debate and discussion period?  You can't have party renewal while you still have a just-defeated leader who is making it clear that he's not going anywhere.  Such a leader will be obsessed with silencing all debate and preventing any real change. 

It remains to be seen whether the Party will be totally irrelevant in the legislature, or whether the debate about the Party's future will be constricted in any way.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

So...what is the case for NOT getting rid of Dix? 

Policywonk

janfromthebruce wrote:

I thought that Carol James was co-campaign manager? yes, it's a shame that official opposition happen in 2011 and I'd distrust that outcome too. So sick of this witchhunt by the left on babble.

I'd advice Nathan not to bother jumping ship provincially. Anyway, he'd have to disavow working with libs and how often do you think that would throw in the NDP faces?

You really need to reach for the perfect pure NDP leader - good luck with that.

Carol James was co-chair of the platform committee. The Liberals in BC are the right wing party in BC; moreso than the federal Liberals. I think we need to discuss what we need to do to win elections, including Leadership aspects. That may mean that Adrian isn't a good fit with what we need to do, but I don't think it's a good idea to change the Leader right now, at least not until a proper review and more takes place. We may or may not get that.

Policywonk

Ken Burch wrote:

So...what is the case for NOT getting rid of Dix? 

Timing.

Policywonk

Ken Burch wrote:

It's not about "perfection"- it's about knowing what's salvageable and what's not.

What the BCNDP needs is a root-and-branch party renewal, with open and full discussion on where the party needs to go from here, what it should stand for, how it should present itself publicly, who it needs to listen to, and who it needs to STOP listening to.

Most incumbent party leaders, in a situatio like this, aren't open to things like that.  Their instinct is to keep any changes to a little peripheral tinkering, and to put the blame on those below them(and their "purity tests" and things like that)rather than root-and-branch reform and revitalization efforts.  They are especially terrified of any changes to their parties that do anything at all to empower the rank-and-file at the expense of the "pros".

I'd be interested to know, jan, why you would think Dix would be open to what needs to be done in a way that most figures like him instinctively wouldn't.

Oh, and it's not like I think the man is evil...just that he's not right for staying in this particular position.  I don't want him drawn-and-quartered in the public square or anything.

I don't think the Party will accept just a little tinkering, but it's still a question of how far the "review" will be allowed to go.

Pogo Pogo's picture

I think Dix would make a great Premier.  Needs to be a better debater, but that is clearly something within his capabilities.  Needs to better define his key stances.  For example:

  1. Running a clean election vs a strong campaign.  Indicate which attacks are not acceptable (ie: no images of the other parties leaders in your ads).  Talk about the importance of campaigns of hope vs campaigns of fear.
  2. If you say that process is important (ie: environmental reviews) then stick to it.  Find ways to circumvent breaking your committments or if necessary find a greater principle to hang your decision on (the publics right to know).
  3. Celebrate NDP governments of the past.  Particularly fiscal management.  It is going to be front and center anywise.

I was really excited about Adrian and his willingness not to abandon goals (even if he did put some on the far back burner).  I thinik we need to find a way of governing without demonizing people who do not hold the same views as ours.  I am not convinced yet that it isn't possible.

Pogo Pogo's picture

dbl post

Malcontent

Dix whether fair or not is damaged goods. he has too much baggage.

Pogo Pogo's picture

What again is the baggage? 

Aristotleded24

Is it possible that the 2-party system in BC (and possibly Saskatchewan) is preventing the renewal of the parties? Consider this:

As long as the NDP remains in the first or second position, it is one of the main options, and thus is attractive to power-seekers and "hangers on," which tends to have a stifling effect on the grassroots. In BC's case, perhaps too many people in the top ranks of the NDP feel that they'll win eventually on their own, and don't have to listen to other people, and the "why-doesn't-the-NDP-ever-listen-to-its-members?" question is always going on. However, on the East Coast, the traditionally marginal position of the NDP in Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, and New Brunswick has forced the party to work hard and think outside the box, as a marginal party is not attractive to careerists. As a result, the NDP in all 3 provinces is having increased polling success as of late. Here in Manitoba, the NDP rebounded quite quickly after being knocked into third place in 1988.

Thoughts?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

In BC the inner circle that stabbed Harcourt in the back is still in control.  They have yet to win the popular vote in the last five elections. I think that power seekers and hangers on is a good description of the BC NDP central office.

Unfortunately when the party was reduced to two seats the architects of that meltdown maintained control of the party.  People like Moe and his allies in the BC Fed are very good at beating any new members into submission or out of the party but not so good at winning elections.

Aristotleded24

kropotkin1951 wrote:
In BC the inner circle that stabbed Harcourt in the back is still in control.  They have yet to win the popular vote in the last five elections. I think that power seekers and hangers on is a good description of the BC NDP central office.

Unfortunately when the party was reduced to two seats the architects of that meltdown maintained control of the party.  People like Moe and his allies in the BC Fed are very good at beating any new members into submission or out of the party but not so good at winning elections.

Even in 2001, the NDP was still the number 2 party, and since it had been around for a while, it would still have an inbuilt inertia from that, no matter how small the caucus became.

I'll ask my question a different way: Let's say a different party (the Greens, for example) knocked the BC NDP into third. Would that have any impact on shaking up the party, along the lines of what happened in Manitoba post-1988?

Policywonk

kropotkin1951 wrote:

In BC the inner circle that stabbed Harcourt in the back is still in control.  They have yet to win the popular vote in the last five elections. I think that power seekers and hangers on is a good description of the BC NDP central office.

Unfortunately when the party was reduced to two seats the architects of that meltdown maintained control of the party.  People like Moe and his allies in the BC Fed are very good at beating any new members into submission or out of the party but not so good at winning elections.

Except obviously the one who fled to the federal Liberals.

Policywonk

Aristotleded24 wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:
In BC the inner circle that stabbed Harcourt in the back is still in control.  They have yet to win the popular vote in the last five elections. I think that power seekers and hangers on is a good description of the BC NDP central office.

Unfortunately when the party was reduced to two seats the architects of that meltdown maintained control of the party.  People like Moe and his allies in the BC Fed are very good at beating any new members into submission or out of the party but not so good at winning elections.

Even in 2001, the NDP was still the number 2 party, and since it had been around for a while, it would still have an inbuilt inertia from that, no matter how small the caucus became.

I'll ask my question a different way: Let's say a different party (the Greens, for example) knocked the BC NDP into third. Would that have any impact on shaking up the party, along the lines of what happened in Manitoba post-1988?

What happened post-1988 in Manitoba was also a function of the Liberals not building on their success. I think the fact that the Party has lost three elections in a row, against an unpopular incumbent party, when we should have won the last two easily with a better campaign and platform, and lost another election disasterously when it should have been at least a little closer should give us pause, if not cause a real shake-up.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Policywonk wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

So...what is the case for NOT getting rid of Dix? 

Timing.

Is that just for right now, or did you mean it would be bad timing to vote him out during the next leadership review?  If not then, how long shuold he get?

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

If they only change the leader it will not be good enough. The entrenched leadership needs to be cleaned out but unfortunately those people will not go willingly. The party has been courting  the center so long it doesn't really even know what it stands for.  Even now the NDP is talking mostly about holding the Liberals accountable for balancing the budget.  Like that is going to excite the people who should have voted for them as the left wing alternative but didn't bother to show up at the polls. On issues like the environmental degradation that will be caused by the LNG plants, fracking and dedicated pipelines they have to be silent because they also agreed with those developments during the election campaign.

wage zombie

Does the party president get elected every 2 years at provincial convention?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Good question?  Moe was paid a salary in the lead up to the election. Not much value in that investment.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

It really gets close to the question...is the BCNDP WORTH saving, or should a Left alternative to it be created now?  If they're going to keep obsessing on "appealing to the center", there's going to be less and less reason to elect them.  Today, there's no longer any meaningful difference between "the center" and the corporate Right.  There's nothing that "the center" is ever going to be willing to do to provide justice for FN's, for the poor, for the workers and the former workers who'd like the chance to work again.  And, Tommy Douglas be damned on this, today there's nothign progressive at all to be gained by putting a balanced budget before all OTHER objectives.  Putting "fiscal responsibility" first is the same thing as promising to fail in advance.  It means reducing the NDP to being the Canadian wing of PASOK.

It wouldn't even be worth bothering if they did The Full Nova Scotia and ended up to the right of the Right, like Dexter's party did.

JKR

Ken Burch wrote:
It really gets close to the question...is the BCNDP WORTH saving, or should a Left alternative to it be created now?  If they're going to keep obsessing on "appealing to the center", there's going to be less and less reason to elect them. 

A new left-wing party would be counterproductive to the left as the new party would split the left of centre vote and perversely increase the chances of more right-wing government in BC. The prime objective of the left should be electoral reform and proportional representation. In exchange for its continued support, the left should expect that the BC NDP support proportional representation.

One of the interesting aspects of the BC election was how right of centre voters easily practiced strategic voting in order to maintain right-wing power. The total collapse of support for the BC Conservatives seems to show that the right is more adept at playing the game of FPTP than the left is.

Policywonk

Ken Burch wrote:

Policywonk wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

So...what is the case for NOT getting rid of Dix? 

Timing.

Is that just for right now, or did you mean it would be bad timing to vote him out during the next leadership review?  If not then, how long shuold he get?

There is no real mechanism for removing him between conventions; although if all of the caucus were to ask him to leave I doubt he would stay. Whether it would be good (timing and otherwise) to vote him out during the next Leadership review at the next Convention depends on what happens between now and then (whether the delegates feel he is an asset or a hindrance toward the changes they think need to change and/or whether the review looks at or will examine the issue they think need to be looked at).

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

JKR wrote:

The prime objective of the left should be electoral reform and proportional representation. In exchange for its continued support, the left should expect that the BC NDP support proportional representation.

That requires getting rid of the old guard in the BC NDP. They will never make PR a priority. it was the absence of a progressive platform that included things like PR that caused the potential NDP vote to not even bother to mark a ballot.  The old guard is likely sitting around now saying they have to be more centrist next time. They seem to be that delusional.

Stockholm

PR is not a left/right issue and I don't think even 1% of BC voters consider it a vote determining issue.

Aristotleded24

Ken Burch wrote:
It really gets close to the question...is the BCNDP WORTH saving, or should a Left alternative to it be created now?  If they're going to keep obsessing on "appealing to the center", there's going to be less and less reason to elect them.  Today, there's no longer any meaningful difference between "the center" and the corporate Right.  There's nothing that "the center" is ever going to be willing to do to provide justice for FN's, for the poor, for the workers and the former workers who'd like the chance to work again.  And, Tommy Douglas be damned on this, today there's nothign progressive at all to be gained by putting a balanced budget before all OTHER objectives.  Putting "fiscal responsibility" first is the same thing as promising to fail in advance.  It means reducing the NDP to being the Canadian wing of PASOK.

It wouldn't even be worth bothering if they did The Full Nova Scotia and ended up to the right of the Right, like Dexter's party did.

I'll remember this the next time there's a discussion about third party left wing politics in the States. Surely by now you would understand that the Democrats should be abandoned?

Pages

Topic locked