Letter to James & Sterk: Contact them to make an Electoral Accord Now!
Dear Carole,
As this campaign enters the home stretch I am asking you as Leader, and I am asking the NDP Provincial Council Executive to do something extraordinary: to meet with Ms. J. Sterk with the goal of not leaving the room until an electoral accord is agreed upon. I am asking you and Ms. Sterk to put aside the best interests of your respective political parties and do something extraordinary for the betterment of British Columbia. I believe you both have the ability to do that, to make a reasonable and fair electoral accomodation - it only requires willingness on your part and that of the party.
An accomodation so that the people of BC, our environment, our wild salmon, our public power system, our public rivers, those living below or at the poverty line can all come out winners, so that we can end the destructive legacy of BC Liberal governance of this province.
Proposal for a NDP/Green Political Accord
Last BC election the Liberals won 9 seats by less than 3,000 votes, many of those seats were in fact won by a few hundreds of votes. The presence of Green candidates and the culture of non-engagement in the political process being two substantial contributing factors. Why not Carole James and Jane Sterk sitting down, and do, what Vision did in Vancouver? A withdrawal of Green candidates would considerably strengthen the odds of an NDP victory, it would elect a provincial government with a much better environmental platform then the BC liberals, it would earn the Greens respect that they are putting the interest of the Province ahead of their ability to be Ralph Nadersque spoilers in this election, and it just might bring about the political appointment of some Greens to senior positions within a NDP government. For the betterment of this Province why do not these two women talk and compromise. My goodness, if Obama is willing to talk to Iran without preconditions after 20+ years of hardened animosity between the USA and Iran, surely, in this watershed election, excellent leadership demands the extraordinary. If we always do what we have always done..we will always get the results we have always got...a splitting of the vote and 4 more years of Campbell and the Fiberals...there will be nothing left when he is done. If you an NDPer (which I am not), if your a Green (which I am not), put pressure on your leaders to make an electoral accomodation now - write them email them, call them, question them, why not an electoral accomodation now. This compromise is the change we need now..plus STV to give parties less control and voters more genuine choice.
These times require extraordinary thinking and leadership, not just by politicians, but by people, you, I, and WE together.
Thank you,
Peter Dimitrov
ps. This letter has been sent to Ms. Sterk, BC Greens
pps: Our flag, the Maple Leaf, a symbol of unity, asks of us as citizens that we put aside our petty divisiveness to act in the best interests of this Province and Country. It asks each of us to step up to the plate now!
Yes, if only they would just listen, put aside their differences, forget about this silly competition for votes, and put their support behind the (place the name of party here) party for the sake of unity. Maybe, after that, the federal NDP could abandon their foolish struggle for votes at the federal level, and support the Liberals in exchange for favors to be discussed later. burp.
After all, if you can't jettison your political principles DURING an election, then when CAn you jettison them? Batter up!
Time for the one true party...
This would be a joke at this stage. First of all, its long past the deadline for candidates to withdraw and in any case 90% of the few people who will actually vote so-called green will do so regardless of what their dim bulb of a leader has to say - they are just voting for an international brand name and they will do so even if Jane Sterk marched down Robson St. wearing a sandwich board saying "Vote NDP"
Way too late.
However, as a footnote it's interesting to note how STV came to Scotland municipally. The Scottish Liberal-Democrat Party made it a condition of their coalition agreement with Scottish Labour. In fairness to Labour, they found it impossible to defend their continued faux-majority control of most municipal councils in Scotland under winner-take-all when the Scottish Parliament itself had been elected by PR precisely to prevent the entirely predictable faux-majority control of the Scottish Parliament by Labour.
This would be a joke at this stage. First of all, its long past the deadline for candidates to withdraw and in any case 90% of the few people who will actually vote so-called green will do so regardless of what their dim bulb of a leader has to say - they are just voting for an international brand name and they will do so even if Jane Sterk marched down Robson St. wearing a sandwich board saying "Vote NDP"
I agree this proposal is misguided (and the Greens would never agree due to the carbon tax issue alone) but those cheap shots against Sterk are totally out of line, Stockholm. She made a lot more sense than Carole and Gordo on crime and environmental issues during the leaders' debate, even if Carole's technical debate performance was a lot stronger. Sterk is hardly a "dim bulb" and she has the courage to stand up against the Lib/NDP "hire more cops and build more highways" nonsense on crime and transportation policy.
Courage? Hardly, given her Reform Party voting history, which also brings into question her commitment to social justice or "caring communities" as she has labelled it.
And hardly dim, as she managed to suck in a few people with good hearts.
The other thing is, what would the basis of the pact be? In a federal election situation where you might have, theoretically, a pact between the Liberals and the NDP(and granted, that's not going to happen)a pact would involve the Liberals standing down in some areas and the NDP in others in order to, again theoretically, the anti-Tory vote united behind whichever candidate had the best chance of beating the Tory in each riding.
In the B.C. provincial vote, there are a large number of ridings in which the NDP has a better chance than the Greens of beating the Liberal candidate, but hardly any(if any at all)in which the reverse was true. So the Greens would logically argue "what's in it for us"?
If the exchange was to be a Green stand-down in the bulk of the marginal ridings, the only thing the NDP would have to offer would be promisess on legislation after the election. And the Greens could, again say "If we trusted the NDPon the issues, we wouldn't have been running against them in the first place"
FInally, the Green leader's most recent remarks leave it an open question at best as to whether Green voters would, in fact, vote NDP in ridings where there wasn't a Green candidate.
I think most of the green party candidates would urge their voters to vote NDP if the ndp implimented STV if it gets over 50% support.
(Like any referendum in the real world ).
Even if the candidates didn't urge them, the NDP would still get most green votes if they promised to impliment STV in the event of it getting more than 50% in the referendum.
Although some green voters are stupid,
most have figured out that STV will give them some seats in BC while fptp will probably never give them seats in BC.
If the NDP supported electoral reform with 50% threshold and a carbon tax, the coming election would be an easy win for them.
But, i guess the backroom boys make the decisions.
I think Brian if STV got 50% of the vote, the NDP win would ensure that it was emplemented for the next election. Remember, many NDP supporters, plus NDP MPs, MPPs, NDP candidates are for electorial reform, and James is not against it, she just is staying out of the debate.
The carbon tax, on the other hand, James has made a clear statement. They want something better and more environmental.
Well about the carbon tax (for future reference) every day in the papers here, they are attacked on it.
By editorials, by environmentalists, by economists.
A couple of days ago a lady called vicky husband, who is always fighting the environmental fight (and who has absolutely no love for the bc liberals attacked them for it).
It is kinda like running into an erupting volcano.
I do not understand why political expediency counts for nothing with the current crop of ndp leaders in BC.
They started this shitstorm and they expect everyone else to back down.
Amazing!
When your bluff is called SO early, you should fold that hand.
But James continues to bluff. She could say "responding to chriticism from 3/4 of the environmentalists and 9/10 of the economists, I will keep the carbon tax until cap and trade is ready".
How hard is that? A tiny bit of humble pie shows a much bigger person.
AND it is politically sensible.
Most of the environmentalists were going to vote NDP until she brought up the axe the tax nonsense.
She can still back down and get my vote.
"I think most of the green party candidates would urge their voters to vote NDP if the ndp implimented STV if it gets over 50% support."
I doubt that very much. The federal NDP is strongly in favour of proportional representation, while the federal Liberals are 100% pro FPTP - and yet Elizabeth May all but openly endorsed the Liberals and attacks the NDP at every opportunity - so go figure.
There's a better chance of an electoral accord between the greens and the BC Liberals. I'm sorry, as progressive as I am, I can't support someone who said on the televised debate that they should legalize ALL drugs, including crack cocaine. And in terms of commonality, the BCNDP and the Greens have less in common than most people think. Its only the media that has the greens in the same ballpark as the BCNDP. A quick look at their platform shows vast ideological differences that make any accord with the Greens unpalatable. The Greens are banking on STV passing because they can't break through any other way in BC. And if STV is so great and glorious why hasn't it been implemented throughout North America? Why is is that like the Carbon Tax BC must be the trial grounds of these loonie programs?
You think that you are progressive, Dave. Which kills more people, drink or cigarettes or crack cocaine? Which kills more people, gun warfare over illegal drug markets or gun warfare as people raid legal drug stores?
The provincial NDP in BC have absolutely no intention of bringing any pro rep variation unless it beats a 40 percent veto.
And the truth is nothing new will beat a 40% veto. And the provincial NDP are DEPENDING ON rich old conservative white men in this province to fill that veto.
Sad and true (and traitorous behaviour by the rotten core of the provincial NDP). I think the inner core of that party have sold out.
Teilmann is working for campbell on the no stv campaign right now as is shreck. It simply aint democracy if 40 no votes = 60 yes votes.
But lots of babblers will argue that point.
They will say yes it is. (Because it suits some short term objective). Well done guys, you have just made a new class of voters, the traditionalists.
Those that want to keep things as they are. Well done indeed. You have just made change much more difficult to achieve. 1.5 times the voting power for each and every diehard political luddite everytime there is a referendum on anything.
SUPER Easy for the right to win these types of consessions when there is so much intelectual corruption on the left.
What happened to one person one vote? The provincial ndp in BC gave it away! And nobody said a word!
Well done indeed.
By the way, dave carbon taxes in europe are much higher and cars are much smaller. Not so loonie after all.
Stv WAS used in north america but the righ got it repealed (by referendum with 50% as a win) because they didn't want so many blacks and communists elected. And racist americians voted for racism.
But hey, you are progressive, right?
There's a better chance of an electoral accord between the greens and the BC Liberals. I'm sorry, as progressive as I am, I can't support someone who said on the televised debate that they should legalize ALL drugs, including crack cocaine. And in terms of commonality, the BCNDP and the Greens have less in common than most people think. Its only the media that has the greens in the same ballpark as the BCNDP. A quick look at their platform shows vast ideological differences that make any accord with the Greens unpalatable. The Greens are banking on STV passing because they can't break through any other way in BC. And if STV is so great and glorious why hasn't it been implemented throughout North America? Why is is that like the Carbon Tax BC must be the trial grounds of these loonie programs?
"The provincial NDP in BC have absolutely no intention of bringing any pro rep variation unless it beats a 40 percent veto. "
When STV gets crushed by about a 60-40 margin, what will be your new excuse? It won't be a 40% veto it will be a 60% veto!
So Stockholm, are you personally unalterably opposed to pr? Even though fptp gives the right a permanent unfair advantage?
hey Brian why are so called, or self alleged, Green Party supporters so bent out of shape about this STV referendum? Last time your party had submissions against it. And not a damn word was said in 2005 about a 60% needed majority to impliment electoral reform. But now wow! Or really, wow, by a handful.
Moreover, you would think that now people are educated more about it, and there being a referendum last election too, that 3% additional yes votes should be easy to acheive. Unless of course now people know more about and are saying "no damn way" if the polls are correct.
And talk about inner cores being sold out, you people have Jane Sterk, former Reform Party supporter, Ralph Klein friend, worshiper of Gordo, and a pretendy environmentalist, as your leader.
Remind I said lots and lots and lots about the 40% rich old white man veto before the last referendum. And I said lots abour Carr and her hissy fits too.
You never did retract the "30% would give one party 5 seats out of 5 under stv" lie.
So I have no respect whatsoever for you.
Perhaps it will dawn on you and stockholm (after a few decades) that the no vote has consigned the greens (AND THE NDP) to the sidelines for the rest of your life?
Federally and provincially. BC is getting older (more conservative) and rich old white farts are moving here all the time to retire.
They aint voting ndp. No way, not now, not ever.
hey Brian why are so called, or self alleged, Green Party supporters so bent out of shape about this STV referendum? Last time your party had submissions against it. And not a damn word was said in 2005 about a 60% needed majority to impliment electoral reform. But now wow! Or really, wow, by a handful.
Moreover, you would think that now people are educated more about it, and there being a referendum last election too, that 3% additional yes votes should be easy to acheive. Unless of course now people know more about and are saying "no damn way" if the polls are correct.
And talk about inner cores being sold out, you people have Jane Sterk, former Reform Party supporter, Ralph Klein friend, worshiper of Gordo, and a pretendy environmentalist, as your leader.
Where do you get the idea that James supports BC-STV? The day after the referendum in 2005 she said that she had voted no.
And, you know, her riding still has the second highest yes vote in BC! over 61%. But will she represent her constituents? No, nor did the 77 MLAs from the 2005 election when more than half of their ridings' voters voted for change. So much for local representation. . .
I've never seen any real reason to believe that anyone who matters in the BC NDP is strongly in favour of PR. During the election, James was talking about holding a referendum on MMP but what has she really done on PR in the last 4 years?
Show me somebody senior in the NDP that was "walked the talk" and done something on PR.
Thats not the way to get these things done, it never is.
"So Stockholm, are you personally unalterably opposed to pr? Even though fptp gives the right a permanent unfair advantage?"
I strongly support PR. I always have - even though I think STV is one of the worst models for it - its still better than nothing. I don't actually think that FPTP gives "the right" a permanent advantage at all. Under FPTP leftwing parties (ie: the NDP and Labour parties) have won majority governments over the years in such places as BC, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec (if we could the PQ), the UK, Australia, New Zealand etc...I support PR because I think its a better and fairer system overall, but I don't delude myself into thinking that it will necessarily produce governments that are more left-leaning. If that were the case, you wouldn't have people like Andrew Coyne and Bil VanderZalm being big proponents of it.
I suspect that if PR were introduced in BC, you would quickly have a BC Conservative Party in the running and they and the BC Liberals would win over half the vote for eternity - and BC would have a Conservative/Liberal coalition government forever.
Well only if Canwest global were to remain around!
And some centrist or left-of-centre Liberals, realizing that any government will eventually be defeated and voters will demand a choice, would start another party -- they might call it the Progressive Democratic Alliance -- that would work like the FDP in Germany, bargaining with the left and the right to get the best deal and the best moderate progressive coalition programme.
LOL< I love ON people knowing more about BC, than BC people.
If the Greens merged with the NDP in BC, I don't think 100% of Green supporters would go to the NDP.
Fair comment.
But do you think BC would see another PDA if you had PR?
It would take a few election cycles, if ever.
Do not think the word progressive, or even environmental, would float, anywhere else other than perhaps VIsland.
Moreover, a portion of the centre left of the BC Liberals voted NDP this election, and I doubt they are going back.
We already have between 25 and 32 registered parties in BC, a newly named party is going to rank right down there with all of the other fringe parties.
People would think their only choices would be BC Liberal and the Conservative Party, if there was no NDP. The BC Liberals would take on a fake left stance optically, while Conservatives would be the party of the social right.
Thus it would take a real left of centre party, several elections to even get people aware that they are not a fringe party, if they ever could even.
One could never, at this point anyway, include Green into any "democratic" name either, as NDP swing voters who are not overally environmentally concerned, hate the Green Party. More so than do I, but for different reasons.