babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
While I agreed with you that the NDP and unions shouldn't have formal links (though I doubt it was relevant in determining the election result), I think this isn't very apt.
Defending BC Hydro as the sole provider of energy in this province is easy and doing so doesn't automatically make someone a hard-left ideologue. Making a pro-BC Hydro argument aptly gives the NDP more economic credibility. And I'm certain that a strong, publically held, BC Hydro is quite popular. Maybe people don't care whether our Liquor Stores are government owned - but you can be sure they do when it comes to BC Hydro. It not only affects your wallet personally, it affects the BC economy, giving our province a competitive advantage. Our public power provider provides cheap energy private companies cannot ever hope to match. While it will need more capital to increase its power generation, therefore lowering its costs to British Columbians and increasing its export capacity, it's not as if private companies don't need the capital to build new power generation projects either. Furthermore, they obviously need to have a profit margin to motivate the investment in the first place. Profit from BC Hydro is pumped back into the company, or into government coffers, therefore it stays in BC. Private companies who invest in power generation are not necessarily British Columbian, therefore we don't get all the benefits of their investment. So, providing British Columbian residents and businesses with cheap, green, energy means that it's illogical to allow private competition. Every other jurisdiction with private power generation has higher rates. Our lower energy costs give us a competitive advantage when it comes to other jurisdictions. And considering the cost of living expenses companies and workers have to incur for being based out of Vancouver, we can use all the competitive advantages we can get.
This doesn't surprise me. Any party that is "happy" with a loss, or thinks it can “sneak” into power by avoiding talk about the most important issue of the campaign (the economy) will continue to loose. While it may have been at least unsurprising in 2005, seeing as the NDP had just been decimated a few years before, it's completely unacceptable now. Especially, in light of the fact that the NDP lost votes that had they gotten this time - they would've won the election. While the party shouldn't do anything too rash, it will need to realize that this election was a rebuke, not a vote of confidence by British Columbians in its approach. Let's hope that some people realize that spinning your wheels seat (and pretty much) percentage wise, while loosing votes from the last election is not progress. Gerry Scott? Carole James? Listening?
Not suprising, the NDP's voter contacts have been getting worse and worse in the last few elections. One would think that they'd have the voter information for former volunteers (such as myself), and then see if we're interested in coming out again. I never heard a word from the NDP this election. Granted, I wouldn't have volunteered for them. But I was never even asked if I would vote for them. Someone dropped off literature, but everytime I walked by my NDP candidate's campaign office, it never seemed like it had much activity.
One thing I'd like to see the NDP flip-flop on soon is the Carbon Tax. Carbon will have to be taxed in the future and cap and trade is just another form of a Carbon Tax, albiet with more bureuacratic overhead, and a hidden cost that's passed onto consumers anyways. While criticizing the Liberals' Carbon Tax wasn't necessarilly bad, because of their Gateway policy contradicts its intended effects in addition to their lack of investment in affordable and effective public transit. As well as the unfair effect it has on rural communities that don't have an alternative. A Carbon Tax of sorts will be needed. The Green Bond was a good idea, but it alone came across as one of those... 'that's nice but how are you going to pay for it' ideas.
I agree. The NDP, or the Greens too, never made an effective argument why the Liberals needed to be replaced. This was a very boring election where everyone seemed to be promising very similar things.
Irrelevant, the Liberals still won. In fact, let's make a presumptious assumption. Suppose those 183,000 people did vote this election. Suppose 130K voted NDP (holding its vote, then convincing 50K former Liberals to vote for it), suppose 30K voted Liberal, suppose 30K voted Green, then suppose the rest voted for various other parties. The NDP would've won the election. If you take nothing else away from these results, keep that in mind.
The results in that riding were deceptive, due to the Ray Lam thing. The person who replaced him had no time to establish a presence. Not to mention the fact that Vision Vancouver actually won the polls in that area during the last municipal election. Vision is pretty much an NDP farm team, seeing as all but two of its candidates for council, and six of the seven (out of eight) that were elected, had clear NDP ties.
The lesson: Good public policy can be a catalyst for gains from skilled emigration when combined with a healthy economy that can make real use of the skills highly educated migrants have to offer.
http://www.triec.ca/news/story/75
Established immigrants increasingly stuck in low-education jobs, study findsGlobe and Mail
http://www.bclocalnews.com/greater_vancouver/northshoreoutlook/news/44484017.html?period=W&
Paul Martin:
"I would not make the comparison with the Great Depression of the '30s. This is not that (but) it is the most severe financial crisis since the Second World War. This is a banking crisis that goes right to the heart of the financial systems in the United States, Europe and Japan.
"Everybody really knew that the U.S. real estate market was overbuilt, that it was a bubble. A lot of us raised the issue that this idea that you can compensate for declining income by raising your house prices and you can continue to incur debt - we knew that (system) was going to blow ... but some people said 'It's going to happen next year' and then 'It will happen next year' and year after year it didn't happen and eventually you build up a feeling, 'Well, my gosh, it may never happen.'"
And somebody has got to point out that this thing blew and the most knowledgeable people in the world - not just bankers but (leaders of) industries didn't have a clue that it was going to happen."
You can compensate for declining income by raising your house prices and you can continue to incur debt-we knew that system was going to blow?
Well that's certainly a surprise as Mr. Martin it did happen as housing bubble has burst. And what are Harper/Campbell trying to do but compensate for income by raising house prices once again with immigrants but only the market is barely moving as prices along with interest rates are unbearably low. And what did the bankers and leaders believe was going to happen that they would blow the place before anyone found out?
To what extent do you see the media influencing our view of society, of politics, of the state of the world in general? To what extent is the media going to win or lose the election? Do you think the effects can even be more dynamic with a media monopoly where the message is consistent through all mediums as outlined in Liberal Communication Strategy along with having Can West sitting on boards and former members working for them?
I think that the media both shapes and reflects our view of society. It is a powerful influence in Canadian society today. It shapes our views because so many people rely on the media for information, and there is no such thing as judgment free or unbiased news. The news media, through what they report (and what they don't report), and the pictures they show (and the pictures they don't show), can make people believe pretty much anything. Sometimes the media acts as judge and jury. Look at the way the media portrayed Glen Clark like he had already been convicted when they raged on his home and private life. And his government was in the daily news non-stop as Can west was fixated on the Ministries that was before but now that Campbell is in and conditions are the worst they have ever been BC Children are no longer of interest to Global or the Provincial Sun or Van Province Newspaper or Radio stations or anyone else for that matter it seems except for the Ministry workers themselves who said they were running on empty as 60% shortage that will cut those kids down to size. Its go Campbell go you're the one to keep those kids down and get them to the stroll along with getting rid of the poor with either low paying jobs or no jobs and homes as low income move to the streets to make way for new Canadians. Be the monkey on their backs.
A great example of what the media can do to a politician's career is the Dean scream. A sound made for only a few seconds was rebroadcast a million times, jokes were made, and Dean's career took a nosedive.
I imagine its chilling for those who are either unemployed or employed during this recession and this being the province with the largest unemployed for several months in a row while unprecedented numbers enter BC. Making BC that much stronger some how or so the Media says along with BC Liberals and of course Harper is no doubt a big help along with Railgate which despite its obvious public interest remains out of the daily news.
Campbell's Strong Immigration during Strong Economic Uncertainly and High unemployment + Inflatinary Prices is just what BC's unemployed workers needed at this time was to fight for non existent jobs and a place on the sidewalk..
Strong Immigration + Strong Unemployment + Global Recession = A Strong Economy
Wrong Its more like
Strong Immigration + Strong Unemployment + Strong Economic Uncertainly + Carbon Tax = Economic Disaster + High Unemployment + Reduced services + Increased Taxes + Inflated prices
BC Voters Sure Know How To Pick a Winner, but its not like they didn't have a great deal of help as all those bright smiling faces that give us the news and the low downs didn't make it all a nightmare for BC children who are now going to have to figure out how to live through Mr. Campbell's new cuts to their existance.
Guess what the number one job that was created in Canada? Thats right the low paying retail clerk but I imagine that postion has moved to part-time as many stores are fighting to stay open and don't want to give employees any benefits. What about a cab driver as most get injured and because they are immigrants really get the shaft from ICBC. Although ICBC has no problem doing in natives also. A Strong Economy with a bunch of retail clerks without jobs oh Canada your so hot with your $8 hour jobs and your overpriced homes and your high unemployment and your over taxed small business in your major cities and your overpriced rents and inflated prices. Hot, Hot, Hot makes you wonder why anyone comes here but then you must have noticed the adds certainly weren't true as $8 an hour job is pathetic along with the high unemployment as its going to get them a space on the sidewalk at least until the Olympics or someone murders them or they die of disease or stress. Yes all that economic prosperity how do you live and its looks good on the voters because you asked for it from the nicest guys out there, Campbell who would starve a child without a blink of an eye or leave them to an abuser. What did you think he is going to do for you? I realize not all of the population is going to be adversely affected as small % will not be but if those around you are hurting dosen't that hurt?
Kootenay West (66.85%) -- actually, I've since found out that a small group in one area wasn't covered but most polls were covered all day.
Doesn't anyone get the irony of the tone that's running through this thread -- "I wouldn't vote for and/or support the NDP but boy are they doing a shitty job at contacting people and getting their message out"? I talked with someone today who said he didn't vote NDP because of the equity policy, because the party can't expect to "appoint" someone (there was a nomination meeting but this guy isn't a member) and get people to vote for that candidate. You just can't please people when you're the NDP, apparently. Some think we're too right, others too left, the media and David Suzuki campaign for the BC Liberals and a whole bunch of people who don't take the time to get involved in the process whine about how the party doesn't turn out to their satisfaction.
Tell that to my mother who is caring for my elderly father who suffered brain damage (he's threatening her and he requires constant care and supervision) during his recent heart surgery -- they can't get enough home care and he has to wait two months, minimum, for a long-term care bed. When he does get placed, she will have no place to live because the costs of that care, while minimal for the service, will mean that she can't afford to keep their small condo.
Thanks for standing up for your principles...I know it will be a source of consolation to my mom and others in her position.
The other really troubling aspect of this election was the complete and utter demobilization of the unions. Other than the one very minor spat the striking paramedics had with Gordon Campbell, and the HEU's Livable Wage rally in support of their own contract negotiations, the unions were completely invisible on provincial political matters during the election. I have my suspicions that orders for the unions to stay out of the spotlight came from the top, from Jim Sinclair himself. The unions have suffered the worst eight years in recent decades under Gordon Campbell, and their response is to stay demobilized during an election campaign? What gives?
On the other side of the coin, the NDP platform promised almost nothing to the unions, apart from support for a the BC Fed's $10 minimum wage proposal, and a promise to respect union bargaining rights. So while the unions need to be criticized for not mobilizing to defeat the BC Liberals, the NDP also need to be criticized for giving the Unions next to nothing to mobilize behind.
The 'no need for a profit', 'can make investments with lower interest rates' and 'all the money stays local' are the exact same arguments Clement Atlee used to argue in favor of nationalization of the 'commanding heights' 60 years ago. While no doubt a lot of the opposition to nationalization is based on biased papers written by people financed by the private sector, I believe most independent university economists and other researchers have also found that, in most areas, public sector ownership is unsuccesful compared to private sector ownership. This tends not to be true for services like health, education and the like, but is true for many other things.
The basic problem, as we saw with B.C Hydro, is that having no profit motive, there is no incentive to innovate. In fact, the incentive works entirely the other way. All of the motivations are in favor of the status quo so as not to annoy the established interests like the unionized employees and the management who are all used to doing things in certain ways. Of course, B.C Hydro has many highly skilled and educated people who, no doubt, would like to try new things, but in most cases, they are overruled by management.
For instance, it took years (and Barry Penner) before B.C Hydro allowed people to generate their own energy and put any surplus back into the grid. Why bother to change when you've done things the same way for so long? It's no surprise that practically all (at least that I'm aware of) of the ideas for new power generation come from people in the private sector and not from B.C Hydro or that run of the river projects are developed by private sector interests.
But, hey, if you're the NDP, demonize the private sector and condemn those wanting to (horrors!) make a profit.
As to the 'cheapness' of the electricity produced by B.C Hydro. B.C happens to have great geography allowing for hydroelectrical power that can be produced at cheap rates. That is their advantage, not the advantage of being publicly owned.
Did anyone say they were against the generation of electricity from individuals who happen to have Solar roofs, biomass generators, or many other sources back into the system? If they did, I'd be interested in hearing it. And if it was some ossified public sector union activist, I'll criticize them for their myopic view.
I hesitate to give Barry Penner a whole lot of credit though, seeing as very few people have not generated their own electricity for very long, nor has the idea really been very popular outside of academia for all that long. And frankly, I could see Hydro being a tool to encourage people to do these things. In any case, I'm not sure what your point about management stifling innovation has to due with Hydro being in the public sector. All large organizations have this problem; because all of them petty rivalries, political posturing between and within departments, managers who don’t want to be upstaged by their inferiors as well as more important considerations like short-term balance sheets that look bad when funds are put into R/D. Frankly, these things happen in both the private and public sector. Maybe it's cynical of me to say this - but I doubt anything can be done about it. Just look at the Detroit Three for a private sector example if you don't believe me. Now taxpayers across North America are picking up the tab for these private corporations who haven't been innovative, or invested and designed attractive products. (Not to say that we should nationalize the car companies or anything, even though we're pretty much giving them money with no guarantee that we'll ever get it back - especially with Chrysler LLC.)
In any case, if your point about geography were true, electricity rates would be lower in Alberta because of its geographic connection to the sources of power that underwrite its wealth. If it were true then the decision to deregulate the energy markets in California, Alberta and other places would've led to cheaper energy in both jurisdictions because, according to the position you're defending, only the private sector can and will innovate in interesting new technologies, then put up the capital to build them therefore lowering the cost of energy. If your point about creating a process to privatize power were true, then Ontario would be experiencing a renaissance of investment in new power generation. Hydro One, would've been not only profitable, it would've also maintained low energy costs for Ontarians. Except that in reality, none of this happened! In any case, I just don't see a rational reason, which has been backed up by examples and proof of why privatizing the corporation is a good idea. Essentially, if it were true that it would lead to cheaper, cleaner and more plentiful energy then I would support it. Frankly, that’s the only rational position. Supporting privatization for the sake of it is ideological, not rational. Supporting continued nationalization, because it’s rational, is not ideological - despite the tautology of this - it’s rational. BC Hydro, despite the fact that you may think this is heresy, is a profitable public sector enterprise. But I suppose if "socialists" like Raif Mair and Wilf Hanni believe in keeping it public, due to their antiquated belief in using the government to control the commanding heights of the economy, it ought to be privatized.
In any case, despite all of this, I have to criticize the NDP for the way they handled this issue. It should've been tied to the economy and not presented in an ideological sense of privatization = bad (i.e. take back your BC). I think more people care about their money than BC Hydro being in the public sector per se. If the connection is made that it saves you money, then I think they support it. I think the NDP somewhat realized this near the end of the campaign with those ads about how Campbell was even "bad for your wallet" though. Unfortunately, that was far too late.
Not really. I've been getting the impression that people who vote NDP, and volunteered for them in the past, are criticizing the NDP for being kind of - bleh. Look at the voter turnout; I think most people will agree with me (cause barely half bothered to vote, compared to 70-80% twenty years ago).
I voted for them because they're better than the alternative on most issues. But I can't very well volunteer and donate to a party I disagree with on some important issues, ie. the NDP's support for Gateway, opposition to the Carbon Tax, support for removing land from the ALR to deal with land claims, certain candidates hard-right drug policy views (Gabriel Yiu - who made the Liberal look reasonable in his riding) and the decision to whack their own candidates over the knuckles because of inane controversies like Mabel Elmore saying the word 'zionist' or Ray Lam having dumb pictures on facebook (not even his own facebook page btw, but, w/e.) Not to mention how dismissive Carole James was to young people during that whole incident, "it was, you know, his age..." Hey Carole, it's Colonel Mustard get a clue. Zionist isn't an anti-Semitic slur and we're in the 21st century so learn how to use the internets and facebooks would you?
Land should be taken out of ALR to deal with land claims. It is First Nations land afterall. Though I agree about the CJC BB created inanity of Elmore's use of the word Zionist.
Ray Lam's picture of gropping a woman's breast is unacceptable to me, and I do not care if it is the 21st century or not, public sexual objectification of women by a potential public figure is unacceptable.
Loretta,
"Doesn't anyone get the irony of the tone that's running through this thread -- "I wouldn't vote for and/or support the NDP but boy are they doing a shitty job at contacting people and getting their message out"?"
I find that's the case in most elections. There's always some reason the NDP can't be voted for. Must be easy on the Right since it doesn't matter how much your leader is disliked or what your policies are you can always say if you don't vote for us you'll get the NDP.
Its clear that the NDP isn't the problem as most babblers can't even agree with each other so I fail to see how the NDP could please all of them. There will always be a number of policies that someone will find unacceptable.
The carbon tax and run-of-rivers are issues which were supported by 2 parties out of 3 with only the NDP being against. Yet being a choice for those opposed to those policies was found to be unacceptable by so-called progressives. Well that's tough, but at some point people will have to realize parties will disagree on some issues and you have to make a choice. If the carbon tax is more important to you than leading Canada in child poverty year after year then you have an easy choice to make, vote Liberal or Green. No one should be complaining they have no one to vote for.
Therefore the lack of participation displayed in the low turn-out was inexcuseable. Not only did half the population find it too hard to mark a ballot in support of a political party but they also found it too onerous to show up and vote Yes or No to a new electoral system that might have fixed some of the problems they complain about in politics. At some point one must assume democracy is just too much responsibility for too many people.
YUes frank and Loretta, I agree.
And Loretta, what you must be going through in repect to your parent's plight. And your poor mother now going to be deprived of her home. I am extremely empathetic to you and her.
After my mother's stroke in 2003, my partner and I had to subsidize her home care, and putting her in a care facility was not an option. And I took 2 years off work, and lived with her to care give, hundreds of miles away from my home and partner. We are still struggling under the finacial strain it put upon us. Having said that, I would still do it all over again.
Yes, the right seriously promotes voter apathy and cynicism so that more progressive voters will stay away and, guess what, it works!
Ah yes, the NDP is imperfect and people makes mistakes but like many, rather than getting involved to make it better, it's easier to be an armchair politician and shout criticism from the sidelines.
here here Loretta!
Sorry, remind. I missed your supportive post upthread -- I appreciate it and your strong and informed position on the NDP. I think that, for many here, rather than admit that they are being influenced by the crap promulgated in the msm (it permeates our culture so we are all subject to its effect), people here point the finger at the NDP, often in misinformed ways. They believe what they read and then use it as an excuse not to get engaged in the process -- and now it's the NDP's fault that they walked by an empty campaign office and nobody called them. Waah!
I also think that there are right-wing infiltrators on this board, dividing and conquering, an ages-old tactic, to which it seems many have been susceptible. Free thinkers, all. I hope it's of comfort when they can't get much-needed surgery (especially when you live "beyond Hope"), when your kids need special ed, or when their parents need long-term care.
Carole did an amazing job - as a Leader of the NDP, a woman and a person of aboriginal descent, she was up against power, in a big way. She wasn't the leader choice I supported but she has handled herself, while imperfectly as do all human beings, in a strong and graceful manner. Her performance in the leader's debate was so strong that Campbell cancelled the next radio debate and her concession speech spoke truth to power, in spite of her obvious heartbreak. I hope she stays on -- she will make a fine Premier.
Remind, my dad is way beyond anyone caring for him at home -- he's bordering on violence since the brain damage, is incontinent and doesn't sleep more than 2 hours on most nights. I live far away and have an 8 year old so leaving here to care for him just can't be managed. Our family is in ongoing conversation about what supports we can provide...it's a sad way to go out of this life.
Politicians have managed to turn so many people off over the years. Record low turnout at the polls.
Even the last Alberta election was a record low, the last federal election in Oct 2008 was also the lowest in history..so obviously we are seeing a pattern here....
It seems to me many people are fed up with politicians or is it something else?
Thank you Loretta, and I agree completely with your first 3 paragraph conclusions.
In respect to your father, in juxtaposition with my mother, I am, or was a nurse, so it was much easier for me to take on my mother's care burden, than it would be for those not trained to do so. But she was much the same as you decribe your father as being. I could not have done this though, had I had small children as you do.
Home support came in for 4 hrs a day so I could sleep, it was partially subsidized with us paying the remainder. I also paid out of my own pocket, to have a private nurse come in if I needed free time for other. When my son in law died resulting from a car accident, it cost us large for private care for her while we were contending with our daughters and granddaughters resulting needs, for several weeks after the fact.
Thank goodness you family is working together on this, mom and I were not so fortunate, mine did not bother with her after her stroke, literally.
Perhaps money contributions of small amounts from everyone in the family, could go towards his long term care costs, and thus your mom could stay in her home?
And could she not access provincial pension top up funding for herself, once he is in a home?
Had this had to your family in the 90's you would not be facing this, Gordo has done much to harm families, and seniors, but heyy the carbon tax is worth it right?
So why didn't the NDP do a competent job promoting voter participation and optimism then? It worked pretty well for Obama didn't it?
If James had what it takes to be Premier the NDP would have won the election. Sorry to sound harsh but there is no excuse this time for not winning. The voters have spoken. Fewer people voted for the party than in the last election.
James is the first leader since Dave Barrett to have been given a second try after a loss, and she's not going to get a third. The NDP got 45% of the vote on Barrett's last try, BTW. It has never done as well since.
Norman Spector (who I rarely agree with) has a column in today's globe on the BC election and i have to say that i agree with about 100% of what he says in it.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090513.wcospector14...
"Those who had mourned the crushing defeat of Stéphane Dion's Green Shift last October were particularly interested in the fate of Mr. Campbell, the carbon tax's pioneer. Indeed, even before all the votes were counted, the spin had begun.
In truth, however, Mr. Campbell had lost that particular war well before the writ was dropped. As gas prices skyrocketed above $1.50 per litre last year, NDP Leader Carole James matched the Premier's political opportunism by campaigning to "axe the tax." When the Liberals' lead in the polls eroded, Mr. Campbell threw his climate change secretariat under the bus; he also stopped touting a measure that, from the day it was introduced, was more about garnering positive headlines than about reducing emissions.
By the time British Columbia's fixed election date rolled around, pump prices had dropped, which meant that the issue had lost its salience for the NDP campaign too. Still, for a time, it appeared that Ms. James would pay a political price as environmentalists hijacked the election agenda. The media lapped up the conflict, of course, until polls showing a tightening race forced commentators to recalibrate their analyses.
In the end, it turned out that the Green Party's share of the popular vote shrank and the NDP's increased, relative to the 2005 results. This, despite the fact that Green voters had an additional incentive to turn out at the polls - a referendum on electoral reform."
...
"Mr. Campbell, on the other hand, had the good fortune of running against the NDP - a brand not known in B.C. for strong economic management. Moreover, to the extent that he was in the unenviable position of no longer being able to equate good economic times with his Liberals and bad times with the NDP, Mr. Campbell had another advantage to exploit: He was running against a woman.
From the opening bell, Mr. Campbell set the tone of the campaign: "Ms. James doesn't have a lot of business experience. She clearly doesn't understand a lot of the challenges."
Then, under fire during the leaders debate, he let slip, "Ms. James, you should understand - this is a big job and it is hard to get a handle on it."
Many in the media criticized the comment as "patronizing"; in the context of the Liberals' 2009 election campaign, "sexist" would have been a more appropriate word.
It's not clear when business experience became a qualification for the job of premier or prime minister. Mike Pearson had no business experience. Nor did Tommy Douglas nor Ralph Klein. Stephen Harper has none to speak of. And, in the recent plethora of coverage of Mr. Ignatieff, I can't think of a single mention of his business experience, or lack thereof.
Why the difference? Let's be frank: None of the gentlemen mentioned above was or is a woman.
Notably, Mr. Campbell's business experience is thin, and what there is of it is decidedly unimpressive. Notably, too, he did not run this kind of sexist campaign against Ms. James in 2005."
If James wants to stay on a lot of us will fight to make sure she is allowed to.
"The NDP got 45% of the vote on Barriett's last try, BTW. It has never done as well since."
So much for change for the sake of change then. Another reason to stay with Carole.
Well since it is obvious from this election, the last Alberta and last federal election people think their vote does not count.
What I would like to see so people think their vote means something and they get the representation they want is for a start when the election s over the percentage of seats you win in the house is the percentage of cabinet seats you get.
We have 308 seats so if party 'A' wins 154 seats on Election night which is 50% of the seats then they get only 50% of the Cabinet positions, then the next party if they get 25% of the seats in the House get 25% of cabinet spots and so on and this way all parties will have representation in Cabinet. Regardless whether the party that won the most seats gets a majority or minority.
The way it is now, especially federally 40% will get you a majority with all the cabinet seats etc and the 60% that did not vote for that party get no representation period. People feel left out, we have so many people with different ideas who support different parties and they should be represented instead of the same two being con or lib depending on who wins getting all the representation.
I don't think that idea is too far fetched. Lowering the voting age to 16 may be another idea to look at......
Enough people in the US saw an obvious need for change and responded to the call -- here, that wasn't the case. Here, many people bought into the "economic mismanager" mantra, and on top of the shots fired by the so-called environmentalists, the damage was done.
Excuse me, the whole point of an election campaign is to convince the voters that your party is more compentent than the other party, and to get out and vote. You're talking as though voter perception - and voter turnout - is some sort of external factor that the NDP could do nothing to influence.
If people found the Liberals' campaign more believable, that means the NDP campaign did not do a good enough job. The current economic crisis and recession is not some event external to BC, but the result of the same policies pursued by governments in the US and in BC. It is the NDP's failure that the voters did not make the connection.
Allowed to by whom? The leader is answerable only to the membership. As far as I know, any member of the party has the right to run for leader at any provincial convention.
"So why didn't the NDP do a competent job promoting voter participation and optimism then? It worked pretty well for Obama didn't it?"
It helps if you have a $600 million campaign budget.
I thought the NDP ran a ALI rope-a-dope campaign. There were so many opportunities to advance great ideas, great policies and instead we settled for as was said above 'bleh'. For me the big example was the debate. Coming out the debate the media had picked Campbell's dismissive statement as a key mistake. The NDP should have been all over it. It was sexist for starters, but more than that it honed in on Campbell's key weakness: he can not work in a collaborative fashion (heck he cannot keep his own cabinet members for any period of time). It was an ideal time to talk about his way of doing politics being bad for BC and that it was time to build the province together instead of as adversaries. James had a chance to make this clear and her answer instead killed the issue, it almost gave Campbell a pass.
NDP supporters cannot say both that FPTP is the better alternative and that the election campaign was acceptable.
Yes, a great deal of it is...money talks, as has already been noted.
The republicians royally fucked up the economy and ordinary people were losing their jobs and houses on a massive scale. So they voted for change.
The republicians had a massive turnout too. Obama is black. Mccain got a hell of a lot of votes.
Crime, justice and marijuana prohibition is a good example of where people got involved, the membership passed party policy and then the executive not only ignored it but went against it. Just as "everyone matters but not most of your votes", "get involved but don't expect the executive to listen" is the reality behind these easy slogans and plattitudes.
Canada isn't the first democracy to deal with massive apathy towards the status quo and crippling cynicism. Australia and the USA saw what passes for the centre left party tailor their message and organization to appeal to younger and disillusioned voters and make people belleve in change and the electoral process. None of those lessons have been learned by the NDP. They seem to be completely unable to figure it out. The diehards can continue to blame environmentalists, the media, young people, progressives ect if they want but the fact is there is nothing unique about the NDP's dilemma and its entirely possible to create a successful coalition for progressive change. There seems to be firmly entrenched party elites that don't want to see a greater grassroots influence for whatever reasons.
And, and I never thought I would say this, if you have a media that is at least willing to report on BOTH halves of the campaign, as opposed to just 1. And reported on actual doings of Gordo.
Like last night on the news, they had Iggy taking exception to Harpers attack ads in person, but when it came to their asking Layton about what he thought, they showed a picture of him, then paraphrased what he said. Whcih indeed takes his voice away and disempowers.
If James wants to stay, I, for one, am all for it, and I would take out a membership again to help her, it if she did. If she doesn't then I would for Dawn Black!
I am sickened by those who are trying to drive women out of politics, and thus leadership roles. Plus some NDP men had better remember, who the actual public supporters of the BCNDP are in the majority, before they get the knives out for James.