BC Election Aftermath
Comments
there is a lot of interesting info here, from people who are familiar with the people and campaigns in BC, which i can't speak to.
as a person from outside the province, catching bits of what went on, it is bizarre that NDP exec didn't support STV. that inconsistency was very unhelpful, even to me on the other side of the country. STV would have been better that FPTP.
on the economy and ecology and people supports- there is entirely no contradiction in having green public and people supporting policies. maybe more positive messages are needed to bring people together and forward vs. 'axe' messages. the messages and policies need to be strongly pro-environment-and-pro-people, not foggy P3 and private sector promo as some have suggested above.
the grid and major generation has to be public, so much is needed, and a few private boutique showcase projects masking tons of profit siphoning to offshore corps is not the solution. That is the big problem which needs to be addressed-it sounds like some people in BC made it an issue of mom and pop operations putting some extra watts into the grid net-metering style. Selling off BC's energy and water to the US wholescale, a al Campbell, is an entirely different matter. The only reasonable conclusion is that people like Suzuki et al really don't get it, or are co-opted. Sad, but i can't see how he and other so-called enviros couldn't see this.
The carbon pricing issue has been discussed elsewhere. A cap has to be put into policy. The carbon tax and the energy/water selloff go hand in hand, reinforcing eachother; take a bit from the mega corps which will run the energy and water under a Campbell/Harper P3 and give it back to them to ship more of both south.
the mess has to be stopped at the federal level now, ditching NAFTA and the EU deals, along with the Colombia FT deal. Bankers and Lib/Cons. politicians are using that, along with the still rampant casino to keep squeezing everyone.
So this is to say that policy needs to stay clear.
Vansterdam Kid wrote: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).
Yes, the right seriously promotes voter apathy and cynicism so that more progressive voters will stay away and, guess what, it works!
You've only diagnosed the right's role in this, you are failing to take into account the left's job. Liberal AND NDP votes decreased (so did the Greens, but really, I couldn't care less about them). Frankly, your response is loser talk - and seeing as the NDP has governed this province for 13 of the almost 50 years of its existance this is not surprising. If you believe that the right seriously promotes voter apathy and cynicism then the left's job is to counteract that and encourage voters to come out. If they can't do that then they'll loose. It's not the right's job to encourage high-voter turnouts if it doesn't act in their interests.
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.
I always find this sort of response from some people, ie. the kool-aid drinkers, funny. Do you actually think that your response is helpful in getting people involved? It's almost a religious response, like, "you sinner... repent!" Oh yeah, I'm gonna go to church again now that you're insulting me. LOL. BTW, I have a life too you know, I don't have the time to waste on things I support just because it's better than the alternative. But you know, maybe if there is a convention in November I will join back up and try to cause some trouble. I'd rather use that 10 dollars to buy something useful, but this could be entertaining.
It helps if you have a $600 million campaign budget.
It also helps if you offer the voters an attractive alternative they want to donate to.
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.
I'm annoyed that you constantly equate criticism of the NDP with sexism. Believe it or not, ie. look at the archives, I used to be a James supporter. But the results speak for themselves. And the results, if I must remind you are... the NDP did not win the election. The Liberals won a third straight majority and will be in government for at least twelve years. Loosing = looking at ALL aspects of the party including leadership (but not only James, also the "braintrust" which includes many men such as Gerry Scott), its policies, its outreach etc.
If you believe that the right seriously promotes voter apathy and cynicism then the left's job is to counteract that and encourage voters to come out. If they can't do that then they'll loose. It's not the right's job to encourage high-voter turnouts if it doesn't act in their interests.
You speak as if you're not part of the left by using "they" -- wanting to deflect, I guess. You could have been part of the solution but it's just never good enough for some people. Given that we know what we're up against, you and some of the other "allies" don't have to make it harder.
Do you actually think that your response is helpful in getting people involved?
I spent weeks on the phone, went to meetings and have participated face to face with lots of people here. Yes, I'm sure that my response had something to do with some people's involvement. We're now analyzing, after the fact, and the reality is that there are those who are just too pure to get their hands dirty. I agree that politics is more than party politics however, at election time, that's the kind that counts. You didn't get involved and you didn't carry your share of the load. You think that the NDP has lousy policy and lacks appeal? Where the hell were you and your great ideas? (Hint: walking by an empty campaign office, obviously desperate for volunteers. Good on ya!)
If the NDP respected its membership and stuck up for resolutions they passed they would get more volunteers and members. When the executive not only ignores those resolutions but goes against them then obviously it turns people off from getting involved. I don't see how that is about purity, it seems like a pretty basic respect issue.
"It also helps if you offer the voters an attractive alternative they want to donate to."
Its also a lot easier to get huge donations and massive numbers of volunteers when you are running against something as hated as the Bush administration - and especially in American politics where the states are vastly higher and where who gets elected president means the difference between war and peace and having ofr not having abortion rights etc... In comparison - whether the next premier of BC is Gordon Campbell or Carol James is about as consequential as who gets elected deputy mayor of a suburb of Cleveland!
The BC Liberals have led the NDP in every single poll from 2005 to 2009 and Campbell's approval rating has been close to 50%. I think that ultimately governments defeat themselves and up to now, enough people in BC LIKE Campbell that he can win. In some ways its amazing that the NDP managed to keep the election quite close considering that in Campbell's second term, the government agenda was much more centrist and much less provocative than in the first term. Setting aside all the cynical motives, he did give public sector unions just about everything they wanted in order to buy labour peace leading up to the election, he at least gave the appearance of being more like a mainstream federal Liberal type in his second term - as opposed to the Reform party crackpot that he was in his first term. Even the carbon tax paid political dividends - regardless of what position the NDP took - because it allowed Campbell to give the appearance (and believe me it is just an appearance) of being moderate. i mean, how bad can he be if DAVID SUZUKI is singing his praises.
I'm not convinced that there is ANYTHING that the ND could have done differently that would have won the election. To win, you need two ingredients - a hated incumbent government and a credible opposition. I just don't think that the BC Liberals are unpopular enough right now to have lost.
If the BC NDP did what babblers wanted their popular vote would have been in the 20's. It would have been Dosanhj redux
Hardly any evidence for that, since the only NDP candidate that seemed to get considerable support from Babblers was Mable Elmore, and she won her seat, despite the dire predictions about the backward electorate who would never vote for "radical" or "militant" lesbian woman of colour with a solid ties to the labour movement (eek! Unions! everybody run!!!) , or so we were led to believe.
As Unionist put it on a recent thread on that topic: "the voters are way ahead of you".
You speak as if you're not part of the left by using "they" -- wanting to deflect, I guess. You could have been part of the solution but it's just never good enough for some people. Given that we know what we're up against, you and some of the other "allies" don't have to make it harder.
Semantics are lame.
But, yes, we do have to make it harder for the NDP. Because if the NDP won't learn then we'll get to repeat this pointless excercise in four years. Unless of course you wish that people hear no evil, see no evil? I prefer winning, because let's be honest this result was no "moral victory", so I'll be a miserable shit until that happens.
I spent weeks on the phone, went to meetings and have participated face to face with lots of people here. Yes, I'm sure that my response had something to do with some...
Yep. Way, to rally potential supporters with another spiel about your purity and how you did your duty. God, it's like talking to a brick wall with some of you hear no evil, see no evil folks. Maybe your riding was different, but it looks like voter turnout in my riding was probably down at least seven thousand votes, despite population growth. I suppose I could throw my anecdotal evidence into the ring of how, meh, all the options (but I only really care about the NDP - cause that's the only one I'd want to win) were. One friend of mine who lives in the riding didn't bother to vote, two that could've voted absentee didn't bother to and another voted Green. As for my Dad who has been an NDP supporter, since he started voting (he was eligible in 1966 - if the voting age was still 19 back then...but don’t tell anyone I said that) ... he didn’t bother to vote either. All voted NDP last time!
If the NDP respected its membership and stuck up for resolutions they passed they would get more volunteers and members. When the executive not only ignores those resolutions but goes against them then obviously it turns people off from getting involved. I don't see how that is about purity, it seems like a pretty basic respect issue.
Agreed. I had to vote NDP, and despite my criticisms of the NDP this election, I liked the candidate enough in my riding to do that. But if I was a few ridings away, Vancouver-Fraserview to be precise, and Gabriel "Drugs are Bad" Yiu was my candidate.... that would've been really hard to do. I mean jeez, here was a perfect example of a candidate completely ignoring the platform to pander to the law and order crowd. He even made the Liberal Kash Heed sound reasonable (not that I could ever vote Liberal mind you).
People are far more interested in the sense of things, as opposed to the detail of the policy being pursued. Integrity counts for a lot with voters, many of whom simply tire of election chatter and talking heads, but when they get the feeling that the executive acts at odds to the decisions of the membership, people immediatly glom onto the fact that the executive has a cavalier attitude toward democracy, and stinks of corruption.
If a party can not even respect the vote of its own membership, why would the general public think the NDP will respect their vote?
If integrity counted with Canadian voters, the Liebrals and Libranos, Whigs'nTories and Lyin' Brian to Steve I'm just another lap poodle all would never have won the phony-baloney majorities and exaggerated minorities that they did. In fact, Canadian voters, the ones who do vote, tend to have short memories
Nice way to admit, you don't give a fuck about integrity.
The watchword that brought Reform/Alliance to national prominence was integrity. It doesn't matter if they were backward, jinogoistic and right wing. The same can be said for Ed Broadbent and Tommy Douglas and a few others. The appearance of integrity is a big seller to the emotional sentiments for most voters, who are very dissillusioned with smooth talking cynical political operators like the Liberals.
But yeah, even when you set the bar that low, there is no reason for the NDP to try and slither through the mud under it.
"Hardly any evidence for that"
Babblers demand that the NDP adopt policies already adopted by other parties with the assumption that this will mean votes moving to the NDP. I can't see why that would be if the other 2 parties already offer those policies.
Seems like a good strategy though if the NDP wants to shed the supporters they have.
For example, I've heard here that if the NDP supported the carbon tax, run-of-river, was friendlier to business (keep the $6/$8 minimum wage?), dropped language like "working people", more openly supported STV, was softer on crime and drugs, and didn't try to have the party's candidates reflect the population that some might be able to lower their considerable standards enough to actually vote for it.
Meanwhile families that have been NDPers for generations are to be pushed out because, gasp, they might have union members such as teachers and nurses among them or because things like social justice are no longer considered Kewl by the internet savvy kids in Yaletown condos set.
The last time I looked at the electoral map I couldn't help but notice the NDP is still winning seats in areas where the Reform tends to rule federally and everybody doesn't yearn to live in a tower with built-in wireless, a view of False Creek and an aversion to shop stewards.
Nice way to admit, you don't give a fuck about integrity.
I suppose that foaming at the mouth comment was aimed at me. With Canadian politics, integrity of political parties is measured by the parties' records in power as the governnment. You blather on endlessly about the fourth political party in Ottawa but say very little about those two stale as moose farts old line parties that have swapped federal power back and forth for well over one-hundred years and sharing power now in Ottawa. Those two parties have records in power to examine front to back, sideways and upside down, and yet I think I can county on one finger the number of times youve ever said anything about the big business party's integrity as government of Canada.
With BC politics, the NDP does have a record in government to examine. And whether it's NDP economies or social policies - both before and after the neoliberalarama since 1991 - the BC-NDP measures up very well against them all. Now you can post more irrelevant, always misleading and sometimes even false information about the NDP as you tend to do on a regular basis on this site.
"Hardly any evidence for that"
Babblers demand that the NDP adopt policies already adopted by other parties with the assumption that this will mean votes moving to the NDP. I can't see why that would be if the other 2 parties already offer those policies.
Seems like a good strategy though if the NDP wants to shed the supporters they have.
For example, I've heard here that if the NDP supported the carbon tax, run-of-river, was friendlier to business (keep the $6/$8 minimum wage?), dropped language like "working people", more openly supported STV, was softer on crime and drugs, and didn't try to have the party's candidates reflect the population that some might be able to lower their considerable standards enough to actually vote for it.
Meanwhile families that have been NDPers for generations are to be pushed out because, gasp, they might have union members such as teachers and nurses among them or because things like social justice are no longer considered Kewl by the internet savvy kids in Yaletown condos set.
The last time I looked at the electoral map I couldn't help but notice the NDP is still winning seats in areas where the Reform tends to rule federally and everybody doesn't yearn to live in a tower with built-in wireless, a view of False Creek and an aversion to shop stewards.
Maybe we don't disagree so much. But I am not so concerned with electoral positioning, as policy. And I disagree on a number of items here.
"Hardly any evidence for that"
Babblers demand that the NDP adopt policies already adopted by other parties with the assumption that this will mean votes moving to the NDP. I can't see why that would be if the other 2 parties already offer those policies.
Seems like a good strategy though if the NDP wants to shed the supporters they have.
For example, I've heard here that if the NDP supported the carbon tax, run-of-river, was friendlier to business (keep the $6/$8 minimum wage?), dropped language like "working people", more openly supported STV, was softer on crime and drugs, and didn't try to have the party's candidates reflect the population that some might be able to lower their considerable standards enough to actually vote for it.
Meanwhile families that have been NDPers for generations are to be pushed out because, gasp, they might have union members such as teachers and nurses among them or because things like social justice are no longer considered Kewl by the internet savvy kids in Yaletown condos set.
The last time I looked at the electoral map I couldn't help but notice the NDP is still winning seats in areas where the Reform tends to rule federally and everybody doesn't yearn to live in a tower with built-in wireless, a view of False Creek and an aversion to shop stewards.
Why, "Frank", you've completely exposed me for the charlatan that I am. I do say, good sir, I must compose myself by moseying on over to Whole Foods and buy myself a salad made with Arugula lettuce. I can comfort myself with the fact that the good workers making it are making at least 13$ an hour, the ingredients all say 'organic' and it was only $11.99! What a great deal, great, great deal. Then, I'll drive my Prius home to my Yaletown Condo overlooking False Creek, and the common folk in the rest of Metro Vancouver. Oh did I mention that my Prius is even more environmentally friendly than average, since it's powered by my sense of self-satisfaction. Anyways, I'm going to ponder the plight of the common folk while I sip organic fair-trade wine from pottery made by the indigenous people of the Yucatan peninsula. Now if only everyone else, and you know who you are, would admit that all of these contradictory things are what we want the NDP to do - otherwise we’ll “kill” this dog as they, then we can all move on.
[/sarcasm]
P.S. Perhaps not all babblers believe the same thing. Um, this is a message board, there's a pretty diverse range of opinions spanning from the centre-centre-centre-left to the far left. Basically what we've all said though, is that the NDP is not inspiring. Obviously British Columbians agree because of the eligible voting age population only about 48% of people even voted. And just for the record shop stewarts are great. I don't know where you got that comment from since I'm going to need one soon, cause my boss is getting on my nerves by not paying attention to what my job description is. I for one am happy to be a unionized worker, I just don't see why unions and the NDP need to be officially married. They should be allies obviously, but, affiliation and guranteed votes don't seem very democratic for a party calling itself the New Democratic Party.
I noticed the abysmal failure of the leading parties - the Liberals and the NDP - in succeeding in reversing the bottoming out of voter participation. This election had the lowest turnout in decades at 52%. If the current trend continues, then in the next BC election we will see more voters choosing NOT to vote - for whatever reason - than choosing to vote.
I don't agree with the view that the NDP bears a larger responsibility for this ongoing problem but the failure to offer an economic alternative to more of the same from the Liberals doomed the NDP. If you don't distinguish yourself enough from the government then why would people vote for a change? Sidebar: If Vancouver Island was a province, we'd have an NDP regime forever.
At some point one must assume democracy is just too much responsibility for too many people.
This is too much disrespect for those who choose not to vote. Some are, eg, undoubtedly of the view that the differences between the parties are too insubstantial to bother about. As a union activist I knew in Winnipeg was fond of saying, "The members are always right".
Clearly I need to go read some Dale Carnegie as its not my intention to make enemies of people whom I know nothing about.
The NDP gets a lot of votes and continues to get a lot of votes. The people that vote for it seem to generally be pretty loyal. Perhaps the NDP base in BC is 300,000 grandmothers who like "nice, polite people" and think hockey players and Bill Gates are paid too much and the nice girl at the checkout isn't paid enough. Perhaps they're absolutely appalled that a child anywhere in BC would go hungry. In other words, social justice and a sense of fairness. I'm just guessing.
The thing is you don't throw away the 700,000 people that vote for you over and over whenever a new bandwagon comes along. The NDP knows computers have been invented, it knows the environment is under threat and so on. But every policy that someone wants adopted may turn off someone else. What's the point of adding a policy that pleases a younger demographic where 1 in 10 bother voting if you're going to raise the eyebrows of those 300,000 grandmas that have been voting for you in every single election since the days when Ed Broadbent was considered young?
After all its not like the Greens are cashing in by being the most popular party among non-voters. What have all those "new" ideas got them? Nothing at all. Yet the NDP is being told they need the support of the Green demographic, even Stephen Hume in the Vancouver Sun is saying the NDP and Greens need to merge!
Nobody seems to be asking the current NDP voters what they think. Maybe they don't like the idea of legalized crack. Maybe they don't like the idea of increasing the taxation on local food and industry. Maybe they don't like the idea of business being competitive by paying obscenely low wages. Maybe they don't like the idea of lowering progressive taxes and increasing regressive ones. Maybe they like public health care and public education and publicly owned hydro.
Finding new supporters is all fine and dandy but we can't turn our backs on our voters of the last 50 years overnight. Perhaps its like the euphoria of cozying up with a new and exciting woman that you think is exactly what you want before remembering you're married?
My point is simply that the NDP is getting 42% of the vote and the Greens are getting 8% and I'd like to keep the 42% pleased even though I'm always willing to try and bring in new supporters. I'm happy to try and accomodate where possible, even compromise but I'm not willing to surrender and start over at 0% and see how it goes. Because there's just no guarantee that the NDP voters of Williams Lake and the Green voters of False Creek have enough in common to stay together long term.
I don't agree with the view that the NDP bears a larger responsibility for this ongoing problem but the failure to offer an economic alternative to more of the same from the Liberals doomed the NDP. If you don't distinguish yourself enough from the government then why would people vote for a change?
Nonsense.
If there is something that every single member of the BC electorate agrees on (save for a few on the far left), it is that the NDP and Liberals differ on economic policy. The NDP stands for "socialism", "social democracy", "big government", etc, and the LIberals stand for "free enterprise", "capitalism", etc. Of course different voters have different ideas of what these stand for but they all agree that the NDP and Liberals stand for different things.
The riight in BC (be it the old Coalition, Socreds, or Liberals) has always emphasized this difference between themselves and the CCF/NDP. The riight has never, ever, said or implied "The NDP's economic policy isn't really different from ours, so why vote for them?". Rather the complete opposite - they say "stick with us because our economic policies work and the NDP's don't".
The problem is that the NDP's economic alternatives are not seen as credible by enough of the electorate. Of course the right is always trying to emphasize this - that's the way you win elections. It is the NDP's own fault that its alternatives are not seen as credible.
You are right that the electorate percieves the NDP to be socialist. The problem is that the NDP has spent so much of the last 20 years desperately trying to distance themselves from those ideas in order to appear "mainstream", that they no longer understand them well enough to know how to articulate them effectively.
That's a completely valid perspective but doesn't change the fact that many people whine and complain about the NDP not doing everything they think is right, all the while, not getting involved at any level. I've heard people complain about various policies, platforms, media statements, etc, yet they are not members, they don't help with campaigns, or help in any other way. We can argue all day long about the merits of principle versus pragmatism in a campaign -- I think what the NDP has been doing is trying to find a combination of the two. In my opinion, when it comes to election campaigns and those who hold progressive views, some of them bring to mind the old adage "with friends like this, who needs enemies".
All I know is that my mom won't get the help she needs, neither will my college-age son, my 8 year old's excellent teacher (whom I do not know personally) was in tears on the playground one day early in the year wondering how she could bear any greater of a load, there are more homeless than ever, and women are being increasingly stripped of gains in equality that have been made. Progressive folks, by not putting aside their differences in order to stop what's happening to the people and the environment, hold the responsibility for the outcome. Ultimately, it's a lot more pragmatic to put the effort in for a few weeks during a campaign than it will be to hold 4 years of protests/marches/strikes/social action in response to what will unfold in a third term. And, whether or not the NDP was willing to put some things in the platform that were controversial, I know that they are open to listening and responding where the BCLibs are not.
Again here here Loretta!
Ok, I have decided that I can't sit back anymore, and keep quiet. There was no buzz to this election campaign. For better or worse, The Libs message about changing teams in a bad economy resonated with the electorate. This election was a complete saw off. Nothing changed. The seats, though more, are about the same. And best of all... not a single green got elected. Not only that, they dropped in their popular vote. 3 separate elections they haven't had a sniff, and have dropped consistently in popular vote. Is there a hint there? Not as long as the fed Green Party are using their per cap vote money to help out the provincial wing. That being said, here's what went wrong. (time to piss everyone off.)
In 2007, anyone could clearly see that this election would be about the economy, in any given way. That was, except those policy makers in the darkest of dark places in the BCNDP, who thought it would be about appearing to do the so called right thing. So much time wasted talking about the equity mandate and little to no debate on the economic issues facing BC. You could see the iceberg heading towards the good ship NDP a mile away. But there were too many hands on the wheel of the ship. You had Carole James who I think wanted to run a balanced fair platform focusing on the economy, jobs, sustainability, and the like. Then you had the likes of the BCFED, Sierra Club, all the environmental groups, the public sector unions, and every other flavour of the month single issue interest wanting to steer the ship as well. For 2 years, there was a brawl in the wheel house, and today we see the effects of it.
A 3rd term for Convict Campbell, and a crap load of navel gazing coming from party HQ. I don't think that the BCNDP can go forward with the people who hold prominent positions in the party. Gerry Scott, I thought they had thrown a roast for his retirement a few years back? How many more candidates are going to slip through basic candidate vetting? When is enough enough? The people in charge of the policy direction, and platform for this election, buh bye. And others throughout the backrooms of the party. Sorry folks, no celebrating 33 to 36 this year like they did 3 to 33 at the 2005 convention. As for Carole, I actually support her leadership and hope she doesn't resign. But I also hope she cleans house at the head office and brings in new blood. Because I'm fed up personally with getting emails from everyone wanting my money and giving me the golden shower for it. If you are a hard left type person, there's a party for you, its called the Communist Party. If you're baliwicke happens to be the environment, and electoral reform, the Green Party is for you.
The BCNDP should be a centre left political force, and a fierce opposition to the 4 years of crap we're about to have foisted on us by the Socreds on Steroids called the Campbell liberals. Fighting for the little person as it were. I would venture to say that the majority of the electorate don't support either the Libs or the NDP or the crack legalizing Greens. The Libs are on the far right of the spectrum, the BCNDP seems headed for the far left, and the Greens... who knows. Like a said, legalize crack???? If there was a party that was a true centrist party, ala the Blair Labour party, they would probably be the most successful. Because as I said, most people in Canada aren't far left or far right, they generally are in the middle. Whats wrong with going after those voters. Oh well 4 more years. Come on everyone say it together... 4 More Years.
I agree Gerry Scott must go!
Hmm job opportunities at BCNDP HQ, maybe I will get a membership. ;)
Well I think it cuts both ways and if people didn't feel that way about the NDP then there wouldn't have been 85,000 less people voting for them after the last four years in opposition. I know first hand Gordon Cambell governments have had brutal consequences for people's lives and hopefully we see more cooperation and an effective opposition to his agenda. We certainly need it.
Huh? You were in no mood to co-operate, even if you know "first-hand", so why should you put the onus on others to do so, when you yourself won't?
lmaooooooooo
By my rough calculations, the BCNDP vote dropped by about 81,591 votes. However, the BC Liberal vote dropped by approximately 94,543.
People need to take responsibility for their choices during the campaign and afterward. When the phone calls requesting participation in rallies, etc, begin, don't call me. I'll be busy taking care of my family and those abandoned to their fate by the progressives here in BC.
Loretta, by some self alleged progressives.
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.
1.I never blamed anybody in the unions for this. I'm clearly not as knowledgable on this as you are so I don't have a huge amount of facts at my fingertips, but I am well aware that a number of states and provinces allowed for people putting energy back into the grid long before B.C Hydro did.
2.It's natural it wasn't popular outside of 'academia' in so far as since people weren't able to do it, there was no reason for them to look into it.
3.I would give Barry Penner credit on it. B.C Hydro opposed allowing it, there was some public pressure over it in favor, and he responded to that pressure. Good for him. When a politician does the right thing, they deserve the credit.
Yes, and generally the best solution for this problem is competition. I'm not against B.C Hydro's monopoly in energy distribution, but I don't see any reason for them to have a monopoly in energy production, especially when so many people and companies have great ideas for energy production. Why should British Columbia be restricted, in terms of energy output to only the ideas that the 'ossified' management of B.C Hydro deams worthy? That doesn't sound like a good idea to me if B.C wants to remain competitive into the future.
I don't think that is true at all.
1.Alberta's oil is pretty expensive to get at.
2.Oil sells on the world market and there is a set world price. While Alberta could choose to insist that in-province sale of oil be done at set local prices, I think it's highly unlikely they would do that given the 'free enterprise' nature of the province. It smacks of the 'national energy policy' days and I'm not sure if even the Alberta NDP has argued in favor of it.
At any rate, my understanding is that nearly all the Alberta oil, as I said in point one, costs at least $30 a barrel to get to, so it's highly unlikely it's cheaper than B.C Hydro hydroelectricity. If you want to push for continued low energy prices with B.C Hydro remaining the monopoly, the only practical solution is continued daming of the province. Something I'm sure both the environmentalists and the NDP would oppose.