Tell me about the upcoming B.C. provincial election on May 17

[Ken Burch]

I know that B.C. has an extremely right-wing "Liberal" government(the name being meaningless as the party was basically taken over by Social Credit and Canadian Alliance types)that made massive cuts in many social services and staged heavy layoffs of provincial employees.

Could any British Columbian posters here tell me

1)Whether it looks likely that the government will be reelected, or could the New Democrats(NDP)make a comeback?

2)How the Green Party is doing in the polls and is likely to do in the election?(I know they cut heavily into the NDP vote last time and made the "Liberal" landslide much larger in terms of seats than it might otherwise have been.

3)What would be the best sources on B.C. political news from a center-left or left-wing viewpoint?

Thanks.

[applegrove]

1. Mr. Rove - stop asking questions about our Canadian politics!! LOL

Just kidding.

[Ken Burch]

2. OK, Applegrove, I get the joke...

...now pass the damn cider!

[applegrove]

4. We are wine drinkers here baby ! No Kool Aid for us

[Ken Burch]

5. I meant Hard Cider

like they make in the B.C. Interior(I've had some and it had a decent kick to it!)

[applegrove]

7. Never been so lucky - Liberal is still a great word in Canada

We distinguish the party itself and the goofy way they act from the actual concept. Kind of like Democrat & democratic. But I am not from BC.

[achtung_circus]

3. As a former Bc resident

I'd be interested, as well. A coupek of people, HeyHey, iverglas and CanuckAmok come to mind.

[iverglas]

8. heh heh

iverglas is a maudite eastern Canadian who's never been west of the Rockies. ;)

BC politics is a bit of a mystery to me, I have to say. A whole lot of the politics of throwing the bastards out, is all I manage to make of much of it. I still want to know how none of the Basi's boys shit has stuck to Paul Martin yet, though.

Oh dear ... I was going to say someone should drag one of our colleagues over here, seeming to recall that BC's his stomping grounds (although I think I might be wrong on that), but when I go to check, I see that he screamed his last scream sometime when I wasn't looking. Oh, no, whew, a mere name change I missed, done in a rather unusual way. He is east of the Rockies, but I'm sure pays more attention than I do. And isn't a Liberal. ;)

The one thing about BC politics that wants to be watched is the move being made toward proportional representation. Google "british columbia" "proportional representation".

[yvr girl]

12. BC politics is a wild ride - no doubt about it

How many premiers have we had resign in disgrace, 3? You had it right when you said throwing the bastards out is the name of the game.

I think the Liberals will get in again. I don't think people are angry enough with the Liberals yet. The last election showed that there was a significant hate on for the NDP. The NDP will make gains, how could they not.

[Lisa]

13. "in the Maritimes, politics is a disease ...

in Quebec, a religion; in Ontario, a business; on the Prairies, a protest; and in BC, entertainment!"

I forget who told that to me, but I didn't fully appreciate it until I moved to British Columbia.

[yvr girl]

14. LMAO

That is so true. You find us amusing do you?

[Lisa]

15. let's just say that my usual bus route goes past a building ...

... named after a former BC premier -- "Amor de Cosmos". Somehow I can't imagine him getting elected in boring ol' Ontario!

[Ken Burch]

55. A bit of info on the last years of Mr. De Cosmos

(Who, you won't be surprised to learn, adopted that name while living in California.)

"Always an eccentric individual, De Cosmos's unconventional behavior increased in his later years. He was reported to be afraid of electricity, refusing to have it in his house or even to ride on electric streetcars. A heavy drinker, he was given to making emotional speeches and, from time to time, street brawling. In 1895, shortly after an abortive attempt at a return to politics, De Cosmos was declared insane."

Yeah, sounds like somebody who'd fit in just fine in B.C. politics.

[Northern Perspective]

6. It's more "Right Wing Wannabe"

As the most significant social systems are federal, the opportunity for a purely provincial initiative to undo the health-care system, etc., is mitigated by the other provinces and territories.

Campbell's Liberals are certainly on the conservative side of the ledger.

The big deal in this election is a referendum on a new electoral system, Single Transferable Vote (STV) System, similar to Ireland's and Australia's. Essentially you put the candidates in order of preference. Those against it say it will result in an disorderly series of minority governments which then must operate as coalitions.

As these coalitions consist of groups like the Green Party (our 3rd largest, behind the Liberals and the NDP), maybe not a bad idea.

The Campbell Liberals have a relentessly corporate agenda, have subsumed much of the rhetoric and many of the people who once ran the Social Credit (the tighty righties). They have decimated many social programs (especially for women and children), REALLY pissed off labour.

But the successful bid for the 2010 Olympics has made it harder to fight them.

The population centre of the province is Vancouver/Lower Mainland (like Seattle, leftish), the rest (the Interior)retro-conservative. It's not unlike Washington State in that.

Campbell, personally, is not popular. But Carol James (leader of the NDP) has to take on the recent 10-year record of her own party in power, which was a mess.

And returning to a previous point, people already have progressive (federal) programs, so they feel they can afford to vote for fiscal conservatives provincially.

I support Liberals federally and New Democrats in Vancouver.

[Spazito]

9. I live in B.C. and think the "Libs" or more accurately the

Retread Socreds will be re-elected but by a very small margin, possibly even a minority government situation. The NDP still has left over baggage from the puke Clark days and some of his old cabinet members who were defeated in the last election are running again giving credence to the 'same old, same old' argument the "Libs" will bring forward.

The Greens may gain votes and even seats in this election, will be interesting to see.

My riding has a retread NDP cabinet member running again and I will NOT vote for him again, he was a key part of decimating our health care and education programs through regionalizing and amalgamation. I normally support the NDP but cannot vote for the candidate they are running here and I am not alone in that feeling. There is still great anger at the NDP for the corrupt Clark government, enough, imo, to have the "Libs" back in power. I may vote Green for the first time ever providing there is a decent candidate in my riding.

This election is going to get VERY ugly, imo.

[Ken Burch]

54. If the B.C. Liberals were returned in a minority, could they survive?

It doesn't sound like a coalition with either the Greens or the NDP would work. Any other parties have a snowball's chance of winning seats?

[Spazito]

59. Good question, I agree, a minority Liberal government would

not last nor would an NDP minority. We are, at this point in time, very much a two party province, no other parties have won seats. If we vote to change our voting system from 'first past the post' to the single transferable vote, that would change.

I suspect the Liberals will win with a small majority, maybe a 10 seat difference.

[Lisa]

10. check out this "election futures trading market" at UBC

http://esm.ubc.ca/

Apparently they were pretty close on the predictions for the 2001 election (which was a wild one, even by BC standards).

I like to think that after being reduced to 2 out of 79 seats in 2001 (the NDP has 3 now, after a by-election), the opposition's going to do better no matter what.

As far as left-leaning info boards -- here is the links page from my provincial riding -- our web guy has picked out some good places.

http://www.obghnewdemocrats.ca/links.php

[Ken Burch]

56. Weird typo in the "election futures" sight...

They keep calling the NDP the "National Democratic Party."

[laundry_queen]

11. I could probably use a good source as well.

I haven't even thought about the upcoming election (BCer here). I have no idea who to vote for. Last election I voted for the Marijuana party, even though I've never touched the stuff it was more to do with some of their policies that I really liked. I'll have to start doing more research. The Liberals or the NDP will not be getting my vote though. Maybe Greens this time.

[V. Kid]

16. here's the skinny

Long Post coming so sit tight. :)

Okay there are a few people here who said they will vote Green. That being said the Greens won't win any seats. That's just not in the cards, their support is a mile wide and an inch deep, I suspect they'll finish with around 10% of the popular vote or less because of the fact that the election will be very polarizing. In the federal election they where estimated to be at around 10% in BC, they ended up with 6% and they where nowhere near winning any seats. They'll do better in some places if they organize their resources but they won't win any.

But here's an intresting observation about them that many people miss. The Greens got 12% during the last election, many former NDP supporters voted for them to make the landslide Liberal election win look even bigger. The thing is that the Greens are getting consistently around 12% in polls now even though the NDP and Liberals are neck and neck. So obviously some former Liberal supporters are now going to the Greens as a protest.

As for the Liberals, yes they are very right-wing economically (they could be best described as Moderate Republicans or Conservative Democrats). However there are liberals in the BC Liberal party, it's not just all conservative. Those who claim there aren't any liberals in the BC Liberal party are wrong. I can site various examples including Gulzar Cheema (former minister of state in Campbell's gov't ran for the Federal Liberals in Surrey during the last federal election), Mark Marissen the husband of the former deputy Premier was also Paul Martin's main organizer -- speaking of which -- Dave Basi and Bob Virk, the two guys who have been implicated in the raid on the legislature scandal, are both federal and BC Liberals. Basically the BC Liberals are a continuation of the Social Credit Party and it's basically a coalition of liberals and conservatives designed to keep the NDP out of power. Right now the social cons. are gaining influence within it, but there are still plenty of liberals in it. Think of it this way Canadian Liberals (capital L meaning the Liberal Party not small l liberals they are like Lieberman Democrats now adays. More liberal than them yes, but they still suck -- nowhere near as great as Pierre Trudeau.

The NDP is the NDP as redundent as that sounds. Federal NDP supporters usualy vote NDP provincially -- but there are federal Liberal supporters who vote NDP provincally too which means that the BC NDP is usually more centrist than the federal party. Also in the interior there are some federal Conservative (moderate's) voters who vote BC NDP cause they think the BC Liberals are too Vancouver centric. They will have difficulty trying to convince enough people to vote them into govermnet if the polls are still tight a month before the election, but they will claim that BC can't survive more Campbell.

Anyways as for the election It will defenetly be a lot closer than the last one (no shit eh ;) :)). But I suspect the Liberals will win just because they won by so much last time, even though the NDP will put up a far better fight. The Greens will try to break through, but they won't. I suspect the seats totals (out of 79 seats btw) will be somehwere around 45 Liberals and 34 NDP'ers and 0 Greens, 0 independents and 0 others. "Who do you trust?" Will be a big question. The Liberals will claim they turned the province around, and that you can't go to the NDP cause they'll turn "back the clock" or something like that. The NDP will claim the Liberals didn't turn it around, and that they are vindictive, mean and incomptent -- especially by attacking Campbell (a big negative for the Liberals). The Liberals will claim the NDP leader Carole James is in the back pocket of Unions (she's a wild card she's nice and likeable and can be tough -- but she's not vhitrolic it's hard to tell what will happen re her). Adrienne Carr will try to gain attention, but I doubt she will though.

Media? Hmm most mainstream media is centre-right or right wing in BC.

Best mainstream one is: www.cbc.ca/bc (centrist). You might get a decent article in Bill O'Reily's favourite paper the Globe and Mail (which is centrist to centre-right and has a smattering of lefty columists). You might get a few decent columns in the Province (generally centre-right paper) or Sun (generally centre-right paper) -- but they defenetly have a pro-Liberal, anti-NDP, bias. Plus they, along with the Globe, have pay for extra content requirements. CTV's bc coverage and City TV are okay but they are centre-right as well. There's no point in reading the National Post, beyond the fact that you have to pay for them, they are the most right-wing of all major media outlets.

Best weeklies, indepndents and alternatives included: The Vancouver Courier (centrist-centre left), The Georgia Straight (centrist to left), www.publiceyeonline.com (relativley non ideological it's the comments on it that make it ideological), www.rabble.ca/babble (go to the British Columbia, Alberta and Sakatchewan forum -- it's centre left to very left btw). Intresting commentators include David Shrek's site at www.strategicthoughts.com (centre-left) and Norman Spector although Norman Spector is centre-right he's relativley intresting (@ www.members.shaw.ca/nspector4/). I don't know if I forgot anyone but you might come across others searching.

Enjoy! Just google for the ones I didn't link too, their good too -- I just didn't think that there would be links when I first posted.

[Ken Burch]

17. Thanks for the links and the analysis, Kid.

[V. Kid]

18. no problem

[HEyHEY]

20. "Media? Hmm most mainstream media is centre-right or right wing in BC."

I disagree, this is a common statement made by left wingers...just as right wingers say the same bullshit.

I'm a member of the BC media and have met few reporters I would consider right wing.

[V. Kid]

21. Let's be serious now okay

You're a member of the media, so obviously you would take offence. But the fact is that the media isn't 'fair and balanced' or 'un-biased'. It's disingenuous to pretend that it is. Who bankrolls the Media? Generous philanthropists with a penant for public service? How would you characterize the Aspers? Non-ideological? Do they influence the news departments they own in any way? Do journalists have no opinions or at least precide over news like a Judge?

After that rhetorical interlude the fact remains that the media is composed of human beings, with financial pressures, political preferences and they have editors that have to answer to ownerships with their own agendas. All of this means that more often than not a bias will result from the media. I have no problem with bias persay, I just think the media should acknowledge it -- and there should be various sources and viewpoints reflected. It's essential for a healthy democracy.

Besides you said "I would consider right-wing" -- well that's a value judgement -- others would consider them "right wing" and not just out and out socialists either. By the way, I'm referring to economically right-wing politically -- not socially conservative. So the difference between your accusation that compares my critique to soc-cons who claim bias is that mine is based upon an irrefutable economic argument. I don't think the media has any specific social agenda liberal or conservative but it definitely has a pro-right wing economic agenda -- it's simply logical if one thinks it out.

[iverglas]

23. didya catch the one-on-one with Coulter?

Aha, in looking for it at CBC, I found that they now have the Sticks and Stones episode of the fifth estate on line:
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/sticksandstones.html

Maybe that's the one I'm thinking of, and it wasn't a One on One. Anyhow, Coulter was doing her usual shtick about how all the media are economically left-wing, and she was asked how it is left-wing (or "liberal", or whatever she says) for things like the NY Times, one of her bugaboos, to consistently cited right-wing sources when reporting or editorializing on economic issues. That is, they don't cite trade unions or leftish academics, they cite business interests and rightish academics.

Her response was along the lines of "how would I know? don't ask me to psychoanalyze them." She repeatedly refused to acknowledge what the question actually was. She pretended that she thought (or maybe she really thought) that the question was why the media do what she says they do, not why she says they do something they don't do.

So when was the last time the mainstream media cited a left-wing source when it wanted analysis of an economic issue, eh?

I'm sure that journalists working in Canada know quite well which side their bread is buttered on. Russell Mills would always be happy to tell them, if they haven't figured it out:
http://www.ifex.org/en/content/view/full/16694/
(media release, no copyright issues)

The following is a 17 June 2002 CJFE <Canadian Journalists for Free Expression> news release:

CJFE Calls for Reinstatement of Russell Mills

JUNE 17 -- Canadian Journalists for Free Expression (CJFE) is appalled at the decision by CanWest Global Communications Corp. to fire Russell Mills from the post of publisher of the Ottawa Citizen.

"With this ill-considered move, CanWest Global has damaged its own credibility and risks injuring that of the wider Canadian journalistic community," CJFE Executive Director Joel Ruimy said.

"We urge CanWest to reinstate Mr. Mills and to cease what appears to be a concerted series of attacks on its own employees."

... CanWest, like any newspaper proprietor, has the right to impose an editorial line on its newspapers. But it has abused this right by dismissing or disciplining not just a publisher but reporters and columnists who dare to challenge its corporate views in public. CanWest readers are also within their rights to ask why Canada's largest newspaper chain chooses to suppress divergent perspectives developed by its own employees, who are highly respected journalists with a long tradition of serving their communities.

In this latest incident, Mills quoted a senior CanWest executive as saying he lost his job because he failed to submit to head office in advance of publication an article and an editorial on the scandals surrounding the Prime Minister.

This is not a simple disagreement over editorial policy; CanWest has chosen to terminate a longtime publisher whose newspaper addressed a matter of serious importance to all Canadians.

http://www.caj.ca/mediamag/summer2002/firstword.html

When Black sold the Southam chain and the National Post to the Aspers and left the country with a massive chip on his shoulder, there seemed to be universal cheers of good riddance. No longer would people have to put up with Black’s right-wing diatribes against the centrist forces and the governing Liberals. No longer would the National Post be regarded as a glorified newsletter for the Canadian Alliance.

(Yes, don't let's forget Tubby:
http://www.canadians.org/display_document.htm?COC_token=:COC_token&id=36&isdoc=1&catid=62)

The Aspers, proponents of the conventional wisdom reasoned, may be friends of the Prime Minister, but they were more interested in their newspapers’ bottom line than their content. Then came the CanWest policy of national editorials that all newspapers in the Southam chain were forced to run.

In the last edition of Media magazine,we chronicled the outrage this editorial policy sparked at the Gazette in Montreal where journalists protested by withdrawing their bylines, setting up a website and granting media interviews until they were slapped with a gag order.

... Ironically, the firing came the day after he received an honorary doctorate for his many years in the business. He used the address to graduating journalism students at Carleton University to stress the importance of a free press. The next day he was fired.

Why? Not because of what he said to the students, for the address seemed to be the standard fare of a man who was viewed more as a cautious administrator and company man than a firebrand who rocked the CanWest boat.

In measured tones, Mills explained that he was fired because he failed to allow the Aspers to vet an editorial the Ottawa Citizen published at the beginning of June that declared that it was time for the Prime Minister to go. Mills claimed he didn’t know that he was obliged to submit editorials for CanWest’s perusal.

And if anybody imagines that the Aspers weren't just rather more ham-handed in their efforts to manage the news and influence public opinion than some others ... well, anybody need a bridge?

[HEyHEY]

24. It's not a value judgement by any means

It's not as if reporters don't sit around and talk politics. I could tell you the political leanings of at lest half the media members in the Okanagan. And few are right wing. Trouble is what happens is left and right wingers alike think that all news should reflect their personal opinions. So when the truth is reported, it's hard to accept. Then comes the accusations of bias.
Another reason people think there's a bias is they don't pay close enough attention to when their side is reported, they spend too much time being indignant that the other side got some play.
As well it's not as easy as people think to get both sides in a timely matter. For instance I spoke to a Cabinet Minister yesterday, he said typical BC liberal party line stuff. I couldn't get ahold of his opponent on the left by the end of my shift, so I ran what he said. This morning I did the other side...a day late but still there.
I'll wager dollars to doughnuts there's people on both sides who think I'm a shill now because they only heard one side.
As well, I worked as an editor for one of the largest paper chains in Canada... I was NEVER ONCE told what to write, never ONCE received any political pressure. And I wrote some pretty left wing editorials.
Fact is, in Canada we have a decent media.
But each side loves to piss and moan about it because they like to think there's some conspiracy behind the scenes, when there isn't. Except with reads like BC report and Terminal City.

What Canada should have, however, is a more British Style media... open bias and if oyu don't like it - read something else. Then we get rid of all these accusations.

I'm gonna write a book on this one day I swear.

[iverglas]

26. anecdotal evidence

As well, I worked as an editor for one of the largest paper chains in Canada... I was NEVER ONCE told what to write, never ONCE received any political pressure. And I wrote some pretty left wing editorials.

Does yours beat Russell Mills's? Or the experience of all of the editors and publishers of Asper papers, or of the journalists who suffered Conrad Black?

Has the phenomenon of media concentration escaped your notice??

For the record, I thought the V. Kid's analysis was pretty accurate. I differ in that I don't recognize the animal called "centrist", or "moderate", really. The best I hope for is ... how's that go ... "fair and balanced", and know that the "centrists" will show their right-wing colours when push comes to shove.

Your British media model assumes widely dispersed ownership and control over all forms of media. That is precisely what we don't have here.

[HEyHEY]

27. You say anecdotal I say first hand experience

The British Style is what's needed, as you say though it's too bad it can't be achieved.

Your arguments stem for what you've read in term papers. Most of it is just speculation.

As I said reporters talk, and so yes, I do know the history of many of the ones I know - and that's alot.

Example: Remember when the Vancouver Sun printed a pic of the Woodwards tower with the protest sign removed?

The media, including their own reporters tore the shit outta them. The Sun Apoligized.
The media does a fairly decent job ofd self-policing.

[iverglas]

28. what kind of insulting bullshit was that?

Your arguments stem <from?> what you've read in term papers.

What exactly was that all about? "Term papers"? What "term papers" do you imagine that I have read?

I haven't attended an educational institution in nearly three decades, myself, and haven't taught in one for about two. I can't think of where I might have been getting hold of "term papers" to read.

But hey, I did know old Norman Spector pretty well back when he was a journalism professor. (He preferred cheap white to cheap red, in case you ever need to know.) I don't think I read any of his students' term papers, though ...

Does whatever journalistic training you have (you do have some, right?) inform you that statements like

Most of it is just speculation.

can actually be passed off as rebuttal to the facts and arguments you purport to be addressing?

Is nothing too ludicrous and unpleasant to say in defence of "centrism"?

[HEyHEY]

30. Wasn't meaning to be insulting

Sorry if it came off that way.

The point I making is training and education have nothing on actual experience.
Most of my journalism instructors were VERY left wing as well. And you bet I defend centrists. They seem to be the only people that step back and take a look.

However, in your argument you slag the centrists....proving my point that the reason both political wings get upset with the media is they won't take their particular side.

[iverglas]

34. something sure does prove my point ...

However, in your argument you slag the centrists....proving my point that the reason both political wings get upset with the media is they won't take their particular side.

I slag "centrists" because I believe they are sheep in wolves' clothing. Those who define themselves as "centrist" (a practice that is really pretty foreign to the Canadian context, anyhow) are pretty reliably right-wing.

And my dislike for the right wing media, as expressed in this thread, has precisely fuck all to do with the fact that it "won't take <my> particular side". It has to do with the dishonesty of its reporting and editorializing.

And once again, no, I am not talking about things like doctored photos.

I'm talking about things like last Saturday's Globe and Mail editorial about the situation at the Jonquière Wal-Mart, wherein the editorialists puffed themselves up as defenders of "fair and balanced" in the labour relations field. How unfair it would be, they sighed, if Wal-Mart should be denied a voice on the question of whether its workers should unionize.

Well my goodness. And when shall we see a Globe and Mail editorial decrying the unfairness of denying Wal-Mart workers a voice on the question of what country clubs or churches or boards of trade Wal-Mart's executives should belong to?

When did the question of whether a group of individuals choose to associate themselves for the purpose of defending their mutual interests become something about which ANYONE else "deserved" a voice??

It is up to workers, and workers alone, whether they join trade unions. There is no principle on which it can be asserted that employers are entitled to any voice in that matter. If employers want employees to listen to their voice on the matter, they're quite free to take out ads in the local newspaper, of course, as are all the rest of us.

The Globe's apparently even-handed and rights-and-freedoms-loving opinion was in fact directly contrary to the central values of Canadian society, and the central principles of labour relations in Canada. The Globe took a position that was not only directly adverse to workers' interests and directly supportive of capital's interests, it was flat out insupportable by any criteria that apply to questions of rights and freedoms in Canada.

So what's "centrist" about that, if I may ask? The use of sophistry to try to persuade millions of people to a right-wing vision of the relationship between workers and capital is "centrist"? Not by me, it ain't. They "stepped back and took a look", all right, although I don't imagine they had to step very far. And they very easily identified the party that they wanted to support, and without a qualm proceeded to twist and misrepresent the fundamental values of our society in order to characterize something that is contrary to those values as something that is consistent with, nay, demanded by, them.

So you see, I'm slagging those "centrists" not because they haven't taken my side, but because they have taken a very particular side for very obvious reasons, in a very unethical way.

Howzat?

[HEyHEY]

36. Well...

"How unfair it would be, they sighed, if Wal-Mart should be denied a voice on the question of whether its workers should unionize.

Well my goodness. And when shall we see a Globe and Mail editorial decrying the unfairness of denying Wal-Mart workers a voice on the question of what country clubs or churches or boards of trade Wal-Mart's executives should belong to?"

That is semantics. The country club a Wal-mart exec belongs to won't have an effect on some greeter at Wal-mart... where as what union is in Wal-mart will effect them.

I'm not defending Wal-mart, I hate them more than anyone does.
However, the Globe is right, they should be allowed to voice their opinion on the matter for good or ill. Usually Ill.

[iverglas]

37. I tell ya what

I'll bring it over tomorrow, and type up the salient bits for you (or you could look at it yourself, assuming recycle day hasn't come and gone, or maybe your office has that sort of thing around).

However, the Globe is right, they should be allowed to voice their opinion on the matter for good or ill.

I'm afraid that what this mostly likely reveals is that at this point, you don't know what you're talking about, and I, not having memorized the editorial, have apparently failed to convey the point to you. The Globe and Mail didn't actually say what you characterize it as having said, and I certainly didn't say that anyone should not be allowed to voice his/her/its opinion on any matter, you might have noticed. Bit of a straw fella you've got yourself there.

That is semantics.

I wish that people around DU would learn what "semantics" is, and what arguing about semantics, presumably what you were accusing me of, consists of. There was nothing "semantic" about the question of mine that you quoted.

Where semantics does come into it is when one says, as I did, "have a voice", which can mean something quite different from "voice their opinion". It would be you, rather than me, playing semantics in this instance, if you happened to have caught the meaning that I intended. All will, it is to be hoped, be clearer when you see the actual words.

The country club a Wal-mart exec belongs to won't have an effect on some greeter at Wal-mart...

Ya don't think? Ya don't think that the fees paid for country club membership might have an effect on the wages of "some greeter" (how charming) in the company?

... where as what union is in Wal-mart will effect them.

Uh huh. And it will affect me too, if wages and thus prices go up. Do I get to interfere in the union's organizing efforts on that basis? Perhaps we should wait until you know what the Globe actually advocated that the employer be entitled to do (well, actually, took as its premise that the employer is entitled to do ...).


I'm a little surprised. You're in the biz, and you don't read Globe and Mail editorials? Myself, I find them considerably more worth reading than term papers ...

[HEyHEY]

38. ....

"That is semantics.

I wish that people around DU would learn what "semantics" is, and what arguing about semantics, presumably what you were accusing me of, consists of. There was nothing "semantic" about the question of mine that you quoted.

Where semantics does come into it is when one says, as I did, "have a voice", which can mean something quite different from "voice their opinion". It would be you, rather than me, playing semantics in this instance, if you happened to have caught the meaning that I intended. All will, it is to be hoped, be clearer when you see the
actual words."

Disregard that - I actually thought I had erased the semantics part.

Anyway, don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about because we have a separate opinion. I know EXACTLY what I'm talking about. More so than many on this board when it comes to this issue.

I don't by the Globe and Mail...why? Because I read a newswire all day. Last thing I feel like doing when I get home is reading, espcially anything about news.

Anyway, I obviously misunderstood the point you were trying to make about that editorial... if you could find it I'd like to read it.

[iverglas]

39. jesus fucking christ, eh?

Anyway, don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about because we have a separate opinion. I know EXACTLY what I'm talking about. More so than many on this board when it comes to this issue.

I don't by the Globe and Mail ...

What you happen to be talking about is an editorial published in the Globe and Mail this past Saturday, and I really thought it was quite clear that this was what *I* was talking about when I said you didn't know what you were talking about.

(Really; *I* really do not make big sweeping statements like "you don't know what you're talking about" ... or tell people they get their arguments from term papers ... as some way of winning an argument. That would be ad personam argument, and I don't generally indulge in it, and I don't expect people to latch onto some remotely possible meaning of something I have said as amounting to it.)

How, exactly, would you know what you're talking about when you have not read the thing that you are talking about?

At this point, I'm sorry to have to say, I think that I would rely on just about anybody else on this board for either information or opinion about just about anything before I relied on you or yours. I'm seeing complete carelessness and rush to judgment for no reason at all that I can discern.

Unfortunately, you've been replying to things that I didn't say, and failing to reply to things that I did say, with such wondrous consistency that you aren't exactly representing the Canadian print media in their best light.

Whether you know what you're talking about in this instance has precisely fuck all to do with what your opinion is about anything, or whether I happen to agree with it. It has to do with whether you know anything about what you have decided to have an opinion about: an editorial in the Globe and Mail that you have not read.

I am just about certain that this week was not paper recycle, and that I'll be able to put my hands on the paper and reproduce the problematic bit for you on the weekend.

[HEyHEY]

40. Don't be a hypocrite okay - I can take anything but that.

You made a sweeping generalization and in that I didn't know what I was talking about... you made the sweeping generalization that all centrists are wolves in sheeps clothing. I thought you didn't do that?

You're the one changing the discussion line, I already said I must have been mistaken with your synopsis of the editorial, even asked you to send it too me. But, now suddenly I'm STILL misreading it.

Iverglas, you keep twisting the argument and arguing the same point about the editorial even though I conceded I was mistaken with what you meant.

Rush to judgement... you outta know.

And you obviously don't listen to anyone on any subject, for if you did you wouldn't be spouting off.

[iverglas]

49. don't misrepresent me and what I say

You made a sweeping generalization and in that I didn't know what I was talking about

No, I did not, and you really need to stop saying that I did.

It went like this:

You: However, the Globe is right, they should be allowed to voice their opinion on the matter for good or ill.

Me: I'm afraid that what this mostly likely reveals is that at this point, you don't know what you're talking about, and I, not having memorized the editorial, have apparently failed to convey the point to you.

You could not possibly have known what you were talking about, because YOU HAD NOT READ THE EDITORIAL YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT.

How could you conceivably have an opinion about what the Globe and Mail said WHEN YOU DID NOT KNOW WHAT IT HAD SAID?

I did NOT make a sweeping generalization, and I'm rather sick of your mischaracterizations of what I have said.

you made the sweeping generalization that all centrists are wolves in sheeps clothing.

Gee, damned if I didn't do any such fucking thing.

I said (with emphasis to assist you):

I slag "centrists" because I believe they are sheep in wolves' clothing. Those who define themselves as "centrist" (a practice that is really pretty foreign to the Canadian context, anyhow) are pretty reliably right-wing.

Those are actually carefully qualified statements, and statements that I am perfectly prepared to back up with fact and argument, if someone asks politely.

In any event, even had I made such a generalization about unknown persons not present, it hardly provided grounds for you to make incorrect statements about me.

As it turns out, last week was paper recycle week, and the editorial in question did go out in the black box. I wanted it in any event, as a classic example of right-wing sophistry in the editorial offices of the right-wing press, so I'm going to try to get my hands on it.

I can't imagine wanting to pursue this discussion, however, since it has consisted of pretty much nothing on your end but insult and invective.

Rush to judgement... you outta know.
And you obviously don't listen to anyone on any subject, for if you did you wouldn't be spouting off.
Your arguments stem for what you've read in term papers. Most of it is just speculation.

Not reasoned argument or civil discourse, as I understand the concepts.

[iverglas]

29. ah, edited in the interim

Example: Remember when the Vancouver Sun printed a pic of the Woodwards tower with the protest sign removed?

The media, including their own reporters tore the shit outta them. The Sun Apoligized. The media does a fairly decent job ofd self-policing.

Actually, I don't remember, possibly because I never heard. Here I go:
http://www.langara.bc.ca/ljr/LJR2003/MI.html

I don't think that anyone was talking about any practice of actually publishing false information. The real issues are just a tad more subtle than that.

Maybe you didn't read the information I posted about the Aspers' and Black's editorial-control practices ... and never heard about them anywhere else ...

[HEyHEY]

31. Well, since Izzy's death

I must admit, I'd forgotten about his crap...and black doesn't even run his papers anymore.

[V. Kid]

33. I find it so strange

that you seem to think there isn't any bias in the Canadian media though.

I am for the British style system where the bias is open and out there -- so people can choose. And I appreciate news-wires and other truely un-biased sources like Reuters -- that catch their slips and take journalism very seriously (no offence -- but they are far more respect than Bell Globe Media, Can West, Chum etc). But the fact is that like iverglas said the concentration of media in a few hands makes this unlikely. I think it's only logical that with the concentration there will be fewer divergent viewpoints. Even so it's still a laudable goal to make sure that various viewpoints are discussed within the context of facts and reality of course.

You keep insisting that people on the right and left are just snipping and complaining, well riddle me this -- do you seriously think that various media ownership groups don't have an editorial effect upon their news departments? Because if you do then it would explain a lot, I would continue to disagree -- but all the same at least I'd know where your coming from.

[HEyHEY]

35. I don't think they do

As reported earlier I was an editor in the Black Press Chain... who one time did something terrible and out of line and hasn't done so since.
I find the local dailies have a full scale coverage they have left and right columnists.

Guys like Bill good do a good job of being in the middle.

[V. Kid]

45. Bill who?

Bill Good? I'm not sure who you're referring to.

[V. Kid]

46. One more thing

I forgot to ask this but don't you find it strange that the three major BC Dailes (focused on BC not the National Post or Globe and Mail), the Victoria Times Colonist, the Vancouver Sun and the Vancouver Province are all owned by the same company? Don't you think this is a problem?

[HEyHEY]

47. I think it is, however

It's funny, but the sun and province are still bitter rivals at the editorial level...but yeah, huge potential for trouble there.

[Fiendish Thingy]

60. So let me see if I've got this right:

The Liberals are conservative (centre-right), and the NDP is liberal/progressive (centre-left), and the Greens are Ralph Nader/Ross Perot spoilers? :-)
And, translating to American equivalencies all of the parties/players are to the left of Joe Leiberman? ;-)

Californian Curious about Canada

[Spazito]

61. By George, I think you have it!

This is in the Province in B.C. specifically, the Liberals in other Provinces may be more left leaning, not really sure tho.

[HEyHEY]

19. The Libs will be elected again

The question is by how much?

Hard to say, There are so many things to consider. The biggest thorns in the sides of the Liberals are Jim Sinclair and the BC Federation of Labour, Ginny Simms and the BC teachers Federation and of Course Carole James of the NDP.

Here's the thing, you'll notice all of those are labour or labour backed outfits. Unions in BC had their hayday for a longtime, resulting in an almost polarization of the province, union vrs non-union people. I think the Liberals recognized that and kept it going. So they busted many of the unions, with little outcry from non-union public.
However, now it's changin a bit. The latest BCGEU strike has many people on the side of the Union, and the Libs are looking like real dinks not offering them a fair deal. I think this shows people are starting to see the Liberals as...for lack of a better word...mean.

But, regardless of the union busting, the Liberals have had a smoother front on the labour issue, there's been few strikes in the last few years compared to before. So go figure.

As well the economy is going good as is job creation and I think the Liberals recent dishing out of cash will convince many they are going to start to fund alot of the shit they cut. People DO get fooled by cash passing.

I think Carole James is the "loser" they're running with her because they know they aren't gonna win, so why waste a heavy-hitter?

We'll see if people neglect voting green and avoid another left split.

[V. Kid]

22. Question since your in the media...

...there's this consensus that claims that Greens always draw from the left. Yet if the NDP is getting around 43%, the Liberals around 43% and the Greens 10% why is it that the Greens 10% would almost always go to the NDP normally? It's an in-correct assumption to say the Greens are automatically drawing from the left considering the fact that the NDP almost always gets around 35-42% in BC elections yet the Greens have stayed around the 12% they received last election even though the NDP have almost doubled their support from the last election. The polls have showed them to be around 8-18% so I don't understand how the media always assumes that the Green vote would go NDP?

Then again the NDP tries to claim that Greens should naturally vote for them, but regardless of I think the claim is incorrect. I think it's more realistic to say the Greens are a centrist party on most things except for the environment where they are clearly the most radical of the (relatively) mainstream parties.

[HEyHEY]

25. First off - the politcal cluster fuck known as the BC electorate is hard

to figure out.

I'll write more later..gotta work!

[V. Kid]

yes exactly

That's why I find it strange that the 'punditocracy' as it where tries to fit political discussion into a charachterized 'straight jacket' so to speak. Frankly you folks simplify things to such an extent that alternative media sources are increasing in popularity due to an urge by a very significant part of the population to have substantive discussions. This is why the Daily Show is one of my favourite shows, it dares to criticize the stupidity of the media -- whereas the mainstream media usually thinks this is just aweful. I know it's an American show and it doesn't apply to Canada to the same extent -- but I think the Canadian media has certain problems that are simply inherent that they ought to acknowledge so as to improve their product.

Don't get me wrong I don't have a 'hate on' for mainstream media, one of my favourite channels is CBC Newsworld -- but that's because it has substantive discussion. Sorry but the 6 o'clock news, the local papers just don't provide that.

Anyways this is just a tad bit of thread drift so...

[HEyHEY]

41. Okay, I have some time

I thought about why this might be happening, having not read any actual polls I can't say for certain, but here's a couple guesses that may help you.

1: The natural assumption, as you know, is that a lefty is a lefty. So, you'll get those just jumping to the conclusion that the Greens draw from the NDP. Which actually is a bit surprising, because I recall being a little surprised with how conservative the greens can be on financial issues.

2: Pack mentality, unfortunatley, and there was something written about it recently, information can get out and become public opinion without anyone knowing where it initially came from. Then because of THAT it get absorb as being fact and no-one challenges it.

3: There is probably alot of truth in that particular line of thought, then it gets blown out of proportion.

4: Ever considered it may be true? ;-)

I'll tell ya though, I can't trust alternative media sources, I even wrote for one once... too much slanted "news" in it.

[DU GrovelBot]

32. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v3.0
==================



This week is our first quarter 2005 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend almost entirely
on donations from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for
your support.

[Wat_Tyler]

42. The BC Liberals are not 'extremely right-wing'.

It does us on the left no good to do the histrionic thing and exaggerate matters in such a way. What would we then do if a geniunely 'extremely right-wing' force comes along.
I have no interest in defending the BC Liberals, I'm a New Democrat myself, but it helps to have some perspective - they're a right-wing party, but they're not extremists. They are, of course hopeless maladministrators, and riddled with crooks and ne'er-do-wells, but they're not even as right-wing as the Alberta PC's.

[HEyHEY]

43. Yeah, extremely right wingers that went for gay marriage

[V. Kid]

44. It's an apt discription though

,when it comes to economics. Cutting taxes on the first day of in office 25% across the board, without taking a look at the books is extremely right-wing economically. That sort of thing would give Grover Nordquist an orgasm. They definitely aren't fascist, but extremely right-wing is a perfectly fair description.

I don't think they're extremely right-wing socially, they're moderate socially and haven't done anything to oppose SSM or abortion rights . That being said the conservatives within the BC Liberal coalition (anyone who is anti-NDP basically) are getting people like Mary Polak to run and Rick Thorpe and Kevin Falcon have been increasing their influence -- if their not careful they could alienate (socially) liberal voters.

[HEyHEY]

48. When I think extreme right wing I think Cheney

ANd that brood, religion, all of it tied in. But that's just me.

Supposedly this loyd foreman guy (taking over for dave chutter) is really right wing...but I'm still waiting for a verdict on that. However Lali will probably win that riding again.

Dave Chutter was the most worthless MLA in histrory

[V. Kid]

50. Yeah I think the NDP

has an advantage in most of the Interior, expect the most conservative of areas -- I wouldn't be hugely surprised to the see the NDP sweep the interior except for the Okanagan and Peace areas (although if this will depend upon good candidates too -- something I don't think they've done well enough in East Kootenay).

But as for your response there's a difference between economics and social or "moral values" issues. And I think when they are forcefully combined political discussions are not as factually correct as they can be. So this is another one of those perception things. I would agree that the BC Liberals aren't extremely right-wing when it comes to moral values issues, but when it comes to economic issues they are.

Seriously how many other administrations made massive tax cuts without looking at the books? I think it's prudent to look at the books first and then cut or not cut. Not to mention the massive cuts to the civil service that where definitely not moderate. With the "moral values" agenda considered (something that isn't a huge factor in Canada) they are more moderate -- but in comparison with economic issues aren't very moderate.

[Ken Burch]

51. Glad to hear more and more info here.

I'll keep reading as you guys post.

[Ken Burch]

69. I thought it was the FEDERAL Liberals who did gay marriage

[V. Kid]

52. Oh in case your intrested

...here's a link you might enjoy.

http://www.elections.bc.ca/map/ed1999.html

It indicates where the ridings are. You just click them to get a better view.

[Ken Burch]

53. The elections future market seemed to be predicting

That the referendum on electoral reform would go down to an overwhelming defeat. Would you say that is an accurate prediction, Kid? and, if so, why?

What positions are the major parties taking on the referendum

[V. Kid]

57. They aren't really...

taking any position on it. At first the Greens leader, Adrianne Carr, came out vociferously against it because she wanted an MMP system (mixed-member proportional) system -- but the rest of the Green Party was sort of dismayed by this and she backed off. So the Greens are officially neutral now like the other major parties. I think it's better this way because if the NDP endorse the system they are likely to drive Liberal supporters into opposition of it, whereas the reverse is true as well. I think the issue should be kept as non-partisan as possible, and I think the major parties agree considerning how polarized BC is.

I don't know I thought it would be an accurate to claim it will go down to defeat. It's really confusing, it's taken me a while to understand the system -- I sort of get it now, but I don't think I could explain it properly. An Ipsos Poll at:

http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=2566

claims that:

"BC Public Has A Lot To Learn About BC-STV
Only Half (50%) Aware Of Either Citizens’ Assembly Or Upcoming Referendum
Among Those Aware: Nearly Two-Thirds (63%) Know “Very Little” Or “Nothing” About BC-STV"

So if they don't know anything about it one would think they'd either not vote, or vote against. But a Green Candidate, Ian Gregson, on that site babble claimed that Ipsos put out a poll on feb21st (maybe it's in the subscriber info) saying:

Yes No (Undecided)

Green 81% 19% (29%)
NDP 78% 22% (22%)
Liberals 62% 38% (13%)

There was no link to back this up though, so I doubt it. If that's true and people who don't know anything about the system break 50/50 for the No and Yes side it will pass. But considering that I've seen no evidence backing this poll up I air on the side of it failing until more people are informed about it.

[Ken Burch]

58. I'm glad that those polling numbers look better

because if STV passes, it will encourage the formation of new parties, including new left-of-center parties, who will sharpen the issues and become the originators of new policy ideas that the NDP or another progressive force still to emerge could eventually bring into place.

I think it would also have the effect of causing the current "Liberal" coalition to fragment, since its component parts would no longer have "nowhere else to go."

This last would clearly be to the good.

[V. Kid]

62. This is true

the BC Liberals are a coalition of right-wing liberals and conservatives, basically together (like the Social Credit before them and before them in the 30's, 40's and early 50's a Liberal-Conservative coalition goverment) to literally keep the NDP out of power. And there are some NDP'ers who are pretty left-wing compared to the more centre-left majority component of the party perhaps they can join a diffrent party. And maybe issues can be formed by consensus. I'd be worried that people wouldn't want to implment progressive legislation because the US has a lot less party discpline than the US and it's legislation is far less progressive than Canada, then again that shouldn't be the determining factor.

[HEyHEY]

63. Never thought I'd say I'm getting sick of Cash handouts.

It's fucking never ending with these guys now!

[V. Kid]

64. What are you talking about?

I'm really confused.

[HEyHEY]

65. THe BC liberals handing out money left right and centre

Over the past month to make themselves look nice.

[V. Kid]

66. Oh yeah I get it....

but your supposed to be objective eh? Your a reporter right -- no opinions right ;-).

[HEyHEY]

67. I get to take that hat off when conversing

You can't help have an opinion in this game!

YOu see the latest one on all the nice testing for kiddies?

Eyes Ears and teeth!

[Ken Burch]

68. Will that be the BC Liberal campaign slogan?

"Four More Years of Nice Teeth"?

[V. Kid]

70. Geoff Plant, the Attorney General, won't seek re-election

He's a promenent liberal (albiet right-wing) BC Liberal. He was kind of incomptent when it came to implmenting public policy, the law assocation of BC had a non-confidence vote in him a few years ago. Anywhom here's a link, you can probably find something better on google if you want. The Vancouver Sun doesn't have permanent links though so I gave this one from CBC, it's kind of bare bones.

http://vancouver.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=bc_plant20050311