Letter to the Courier-Islander:
From the Courier-Islander, Dec. 4, 2009:
"...rather than going to the time and expense of a referendum for taxpayers' permission to borrow the money, the city has launched the Alternate Approval Process. Under that process, the borrowing is considered approved by the taxpayers unless 10 per cent of those on the voters list, or 2,332 people, formally sign forms by January 4, 2010 demanding the city go to referendum or drop the proposal."
Until a few days ago I thought the council we elected a year ago was looking after our interests quite responsibly. Now I'm not so convinced.
$2.78 million dollars added to our tax bill and no referendum? Is Council delusional?
I don't know if I'm for a runway extension or not; there simply hasn't been enough discussion of the issue. But surely we have to have the discussion. And, thanks to Council, that means 2332 people have to sign the forms by January 4, 2010.
Last time we participated in one of these schemes, it was the cruise ship terminal that was going to boost our local economy. Thanks a lot, Council, for apparently not learning anything from that experience.
Letter to the Mirror:
Is it not somewhat appalling that the Campbell River City Council proposes to add $2.78 million to our tax bill to pay for an airport runway expansion that we are unlikely to need and haven't discussed at all?
Yes, there is federal money on the line, and provincial money as well. But why do we need a longer runway when Comox, which has the second-best airport in western Canada, is only 45 minutes away?
If we want to have the discussion, 10% of the electors, or 2332 of us, need to fill in one of the forms, available from City Hall, that ask for a referendum. And we have to submit these by January 4, 2010. Otherwise the money will be borrowed, and we'll have to pay.
Has Council learned nothing from the cruise ship terminal fiasco? Do they still think that, "if you build it they will come?"
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Boys' school
Boys are falling behind in the city's public schools, says the Toronto board's new Director of Education, who released yesterday an aggressive plan to launch an all-boys academy next fall and introduce 300 boy-friendly classrooms across the board.
"When we take a look at who we suspend, when we take a look at who's underachieving, it's disproportionately boys," said Dr. Chris Spence, who joined the board this year.
"I want us to explore better ways to serve our boys because I believe with differentiated support ... our schools will be safer and perform better academically."
I took this from the National Post, but it could have been from the Star, or the Globe, or possibly any daily across the country. Obviously the story touched a chord.
And why not? Dr. Spence’s is a seductive proposal. If we accept that there’s a problem, then it makes a kind of intuitive sense that isolating this problem so that it can be dealt with, solves it. It’s the kind of thinking that produces an all-black school in Toronto, or an aboriginal school in Saanich, or, for that matter, special schools for the mentally and physically handicapped.
The notion that it is beneficial to isolate classes of students in order to have them achieve their best makes me more than a little uneasy. It reminds me a lot of what one of my colleagues in London asserted in the staffroom one day – no room for doubt – while I was on exchange there: “Of course, comprehensive education doesn’t work.” Although I was a visitor to their system, I felt obliged to point out that he’d just denigrated all of North American public education. But that didn’t make a dent in his absolute certainty; people’s certainties are not so easily shaken.
And the boys’ project might just raise the academic achievement of some of the participants, although probably not for the rationale given. An illustrative anecdote: when my dad was a teacher in Victoria, he was part of a project to try to increase choice for elementary parents and students by introducing a more linear, instruction-based, discipline-oriented “traditional” school they could opt for, as well as one that would emphasize more child-centered, artistic, “progressive” methods. The latter was called “Sundance”, and is still in existence (it describes itself as “a small and gentle public elementary school"); I’ve forgotten the name of the former, which was ultimately less successful in catering to a clientele, and I gather relatively quickly reverted to being indistinguishable from the norm. In both cases teachers from across the system were asked to apply, and staffs were carefully selected.
It may not surprise you to learn (although I think my father, who very much favoured the Sundance model, was somewhat surprised) that both schools were equally successful academically in their first years. But it was predictable: it is one of the axioms of contemporary education that good administration and good teaching plus good parental and community support, makes the particular method of delivering a curriculum of secondary importance, if not pretty much irrelevant. (The fact that one school still survives and one doesn’t had to do with parental support, and is not a comment on the academic success of the students.)
So why would people like me care if this Toronto project appears to be a success? Well, that’s because there are dangers. Here's another instructive anecdote, by way of illustration: when middle schools became vogue, we in Canada very quickly started looking for models. Consequently, one year my district sent, at considerable expense, about 20 teachers to a conference in New Orleans to be indoctrinated, even though we had already been operating a quite-successful middle school in Campbell River for years, and had developed considerable local expertise. The “Middle School Philosophy” that was subsequently imported made a lot of experienced and effective teachers very unhappy, created a lot of upheaval, and ultimately did nothing to enhance student learning in our district.
Public education is pretty much constantly reacting to the educational enthusiasms of the moment, and if this project is considered successful, there will be calls and movements to emulate it, even thought it's a fantasy, based on a misapprehension. There’s no reason to think a widely-promulgated series of all-boy schools would solve anything. Here’s neurobiologist Dr. Lise Eliot quoted in the Globe:
"When we take a look at who we suspend, when we take a look at who's underachieving, it's disproportionately boys," said Dr. Chris Spence, who joined the board this year.
"I want us to explore better ways to serve our boys because I believe with differentiated support ... our schools will be safer and perform better academically."
I took this from the National Post, but it could have been from the Star, or the Globe, or possibly any daily across the country. Obviously the story touched a chord.
And why not? Dr. Spence’s is a seductive proposal. If we accept that there’s a problem, then it makes a kind of intuitive sense that isolating this problem so that it can be dealt with, solves it. It’s the kind of thinking that produces an all-black school in Toronto, or an aboriginal school in Saanich, or, for that matter, special schools for the mentally and physically handicapped.
The notion that it is beneficial to isolate classes of students in order to have them achieve their best makes me more than a little uneasy. It reminds me a lot of what one of my colleagues in London asserted in the staffroom one day – no room for doubt – while I was on exchange there: “Of course, comprehensive education doesn’t work.” Although I was a visitor to their system, I felt obliged to point out that he’d just denigrated all of North American public education. But that didn’t make a dent in his absolute certainty; people’s certainties are not so easily shaken.
And the boys’ project might just raise the academic achievement of some of the participants, although probably not for the rationale given. An illustrative anecdote: when my dad was a teacher in Victoria, he was part of a project to try to increase choice for elementary parents and students by introducing a more linear, instruction-based, discipline-oriented “traditional” school they could opt for, as well as one that would emphasize more child-centered, artistic, “progressive” methods. The latter was called “Sundance”, and is still in existence (it describes itself as “a small and gentle public elementary school"); I’ve forgotten the name of the former, which was ultimately less successful in catering to a clientele, and I gather relatively quickly reverted to being indistinguishable from the norm. In both cases teachers from across the system were asked to apply, and staffs were carefully selected.
It may not surprise you to learn (although I think my father, who very much favoured the Sundance model, was somewhat surprised) that both schools were equally successful academically in their first years. But it was predictable: it is one of the axioms of contemporary education that good administration and good teaching plus good parental and community support, makes the particular method of delivering a curriculum of secondary importance, if not pretty much irrelevant. (The fact that one school still survives and one doesn’t had to do with parental support, and is not a comment on the academic success of the students.)
So why would people like me care if this Toronto project appears to be a success? Well, that’s because there are dangers. Here's another instructive anecdote, by way of illustration: when middle schools became vogue, we in Canada very quickly started looking for models. Consequently, one year my district sent, at considerable expense, about 20 teachers to a conference in New Orleans to be indoctrinated, even though we had already been operating a quite-successful middle school in Campbell River for years, and had developed considerable local expertise. The “Middle School Philosophy” that was subsequently imported made a lot of experienced and effective teachers very unhappy, created a lot of upheaval, and ultimately did nothing to enhance student learning in our district.
Public education is pretty much constantly reacting to the educational enthusiasms of the moment, and if this project is considered successful, there will be calls and movements to emulate it, even thought it's a fantasy, based on a misapprehension. There’s no reason to think a widely-promulgated series of all-boy schools would solve anything. Here’s neurobiologist Dr. Lise Eliot quoted in the Globe:
This idea that boys and girls learn differently is misleading. They clearly have different interests and somewhat different needs as far as physical movement. But the idea that the process of learning how to read or do arithmetic is fundamentally different for boys and girls is wrong and probably even dangerous.
There has been a big push for single-sex schooling. I spent a lot of time looking at the research, comparing single-sex schooling to co-ed education. It's not very compelling.
It is very difficult research to do, but the data we have thus far suggest if there is an advantage, it is for girls. The largest body of data from many countries – Canada, the U.S. Britain, Australia – suggests boys do not benefit from single-gender education compared with co-ed. It leads to the conclusion that both boys and girls do better with girls in the classroom, that girls sort of settle a classroom down and provide good role models.
The only reliable solution for the statistically-significant fact that boys are falling behind girls in their basic skills is a public education system that makes good teaching both possible and realistic. Let’s put our money and effort into that.
There has been a big push for single-sex schooling. I spent a lot of time looking at the research, comparing single-sex schooling to co-ed education. It's not very compelling.
It is very difficult research to do, but the data we have thus far suggest if there is an advantage, it is for girls. The largest body of data from many countries – Canada, the U.S. Britain, Australia – suggests boys do not benefit from single-gender education compared with co-ed. It leads to the conclusion that both boys and girls do better with girls in the classroom, that girls sort of settle a classroom down and provide good role models.
Monday, September 7, 2009
Our first elected female BC Premier is...
All the polls agree: the BCLiberals have, since last May's provincial election, taken a huge credibility hit. Their numbers are down significantly, presently more than 10 points behind the BC New Democrats.
And Carole James, leader of those New Democrats, trails her party by about the same margin.
This pretty much re-enforces a feeling many of us have had since before the last election: Carole James is not destined to become the first elected female premier of BC.
It's not really her fault that she lacks the necessary charisma. She has been an effective, credible, and extremely hard-working party leader, who has remade a party that was down, at one point, to its last two MLAs. She has run two competent, if pedestrian, election campaigns. And her stump speeches have improved enormously; the last time she was in Campbell River I even saw her strike some sparks.
If she were a man she'd probably be premier by now. (There has been only one elected female Premier in the history of Canada, Liberal Catherine Callbeck of PEI, and she lasted less than one term. It's obviously one very tough sell.)
Unfortunately (fortunately!) the next election is four years away, and that's enough time for any party to re-invent itself. I predict the Liberals will do just that, and we'd better think about it ourselves as well, or we're pretty much guaranteed to lose another one.
Here's a scenario:
1 Within a year of the conclusion of the Olympics Premier Campbell discovers some pressing reason for why he cannot complete his mandate. (Would you believe a Senate appointment by Prime Minister Ignatieff?)
2 In the subsequent race all the right-wing male contenders for the job are trumped when Carole Taylor is persuaded to come out of retirement and wins in a walk. The press, as usual, rolls over for her. (That's charisma!)
3 By the time the next election rolls around - in May of 2013 - the public sector unions will be smarting from the effects of a 4 year wage freeze. Will the public sector unions be prepared to play footsie with Carole Taylor again? Probably not. Will the public be in the mood for a salary-restoring contract? Probably not. Will the economy have recovered? Probably not. Would a Carole James-led NDParty win against a Carole Taylor-led BCLiberal Party in such a climate? Probably not.
4 Et voila! Premier Carole Taylor, first elected female Premier of BC.
And Carole James, leader of those New Democrats, trails her party by about the same margin.
This pretty much re-enforces a feeling many of us have had since before the last election: Carole James is not destined to become the first elected female premier of BC.
It's not really her fault that she lacks the necessary charisma. She has been an effective, credible, and extremely hard-working party leader, who has remade a party that was down, at one point, to its last two MLAs. She has run two competent, if pedestrian, election campaigns. And her stump speeches have improved enormously; the last time she was in Campbell River I even saw her strike some sparks.
If she were a man she'd probably be premier by now. (There has been only one elected female Premier in the history of Canada, Liberal Catherine Callbeck of PEI, and she lasted less than one term. It's obviously one very tough sell.)
Unfortunately (fortunately!) the next election is four years away, and that's enough time for any party to re-invent itself. I predict the Liberals will do just that, and we'd better think about it ourselves as well, or we're pretty much guaranteed to lose another one.
Here's a scenario:
1 Within a year of the conclusion of the Olympics Premier Campbell discovers some pressing reason for why he cannot complete his mandate. (Would you believe a Senate appointment by Prime Minister Ignatieff?)
2 In the subsequent race all the right-wing male contenders for the job are trumped when Carole Taylor is persuaded to come out of retirement and wins in a walk. The press, as usual, rolls over for her. (That's charisma!)
3 By the time the next election rolls around - in May of 2013 - the public sector unions will be smarting from the effects of a 4 year wage freeze. Will the public sector unions be prepared to play footsie with Carole Taylor again? Probably not. Will the public be in the mood for a salary-restoring contract? Probably not. Will the economy have recovered? Probably not. Would a Carole James-led NDParty win against a Carole Taylor-led BCLiberal Party in such a climate? Probably not.
4 Et voila! Premier Carole Taylor, first elected female Premier of BC.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
More cultural artifacts
In the rain, up through a very narrow, winding valley along Highway 6 from Spanish Fork, just south of Salt Lake City, over the Wasatch Range, ultimately towards the blazing red buttes of Arches, Canyonlands, and Moab. The highway is designated, according to a sign posted at the rest stop at Tucker, as a “Blue Star” highway, dedicated to US military personnel of the past, present, and future.
And this “Blue Star” highway is part of a patriotic movement, rather than a mere local curiosity:
The Blue Star Memorial Marker Program of the National Garden Clubs, Inc. began in 1945 to honor the men and women serving in the Armed Forces during World War II. The name was chosen for the star on flags displayed in homes and businesses denoting a family member serving. Garden clubs pictured a ribbon of living memorial plantings traversing every state. The designation of Blue Star Highways was achieved through petitions to the state legislatures and cooperation with the Departments of Transportation. A uniform marker was designed to identify the Highways.
The Blue Star Memorial Program grew to extend thousands of miles across continental U.S., Alaska, and Hawaii. All men and women who have served, are serving, or will serve in the Armed Forces of the United States are included.
The next day, which is the last day of the Memorial Day weekend, we arrive at the KOA in Romeroville, New Mexico. They have a special on: veterans get a reduction. The lady knows we’re from Canada, but doesn’t hold that against us: am I by any chance a veteran?
I joke, “I don’t suppose being a retired reserve naval officer in Her Majesty’s Canadian Forces counts?”
Take that, Port McNeill, home town of Willie Mitchell!
We’re there on the Memorial Day weekend, when even some of the thousands of churches in Utah are flying flags, and it seems altogether appropriate that we should be climbing towards the high point of the road, a pass called “Soldier Summit”.
And this “Blue Star” highway is part of a patriotic movement, rather than a mere local curiosity:
The Blue Star Memorial Marker Program of the National Garden Clubs, Inc. began in 1945 to honor the men and women serving in the Armed Forces during World War II. The name was chosen for the star on flags displayed in homes and businesses denoting a family member serving. Garden clubs pictured a ribbon of living memorial plantings traversing every state. The designation of Blue Star Highways was achieved through petitions to the state legislatures and cooperation with the Departments of Transportation. A uniform marker was designed to identify the Highways.
The Blue Star Memorial Program grew to extend thousands of miles across continental U.S., Alaska, and Hawaii. All men and women who have served, are serving, or will serve in the Armed Forces of the United States are included.
----------
The next day, which is the last day of the Memorial Day weekend, we arrive at the KOA in Romeroville, New Mexico. They have a special on: veterans get a reduction. The lady knows we’re from Canada, but doesn’t hold that against us: am I by any chance a veteran?
I joke, “I don’t suppose being a retired reserve naval officer in Her Majesty’s Canadian Forces counts?”
But it does, and she thanks me for my service, before showing us to our site, driving her quad with the McCain/Palin poster on the back.
----------
Fort Sumner, New Mexico, is an unprepossessing small town, which features a couple of gas stations and, thanks to the Pecos River, the only trees or greenery for miles.
Take that, Port McNeill, home town of Willie Mitchell!
American Corrections
Maybe American prisons just advertise better, or maybe our travels took us past a concentration of them; whatever the reason, on our trip from Vancouver to Austin we saw, or saw direction signs to, no fewer than a dozen prisons, and probably more. None of these were in Canada, although I know there's at least one major prison somewhere in the Fraser Valley.
One couldn’t avoid the impression that, for many of the communities we passed through, incarceration is an important - in some cases the most important - industry.
Imagine my delight then, to have this confirmed on line, as I was checking the name of one prison I thought I remembered passing, high in the mountains of Colorado:
More than half the jobs in Fremont County stem from the corrections industry. Yet, despite living in close proximity to these 13 different prisons, area residents and visitors soon discover the diversity of the Royal Gorge Country is what makes it such a great place to visit, live and work.
Friday, July 3, 2009
Flags
July 1 was Canada Day. As is increasingly the custom, even here on our island off the left coast, it was marked by a good deal of flag flying.
In ranchland Texas the driveways frequently sport a Texas flag on one side and a Stars and Stripes on the other. This appears to be something of a theme in Texas generally, and I gather has something to do with the inalienable right of Texans to either secede or divide into four states, if they want to. Sort of like Quebec, except that the language in Texas is Spanish, and most Spanish-speakers in Texas just want to be Americans who speak Spanish.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Election backsplash
So what about that voter turnout? Is the fact that only a reported 48% (or 52%, according to some) of eligible voters went to the polls significant?
I just wonder how much the lists distort the picture. Here are just three anecdotes which may (or may not!) be illustrative:
A man we know has two names, one his legal name and the other the one he goes by. So he appears at the same address twice, but votes once.
A couple has moved since the last election. They registered at their new address with Elections BC. Consequence? They appeared on the voters’ list twice.
We received 5 cards at our address. One was for eldest daughter, teaching in Turkey. Another was for middle daughter, who has, since registering for the last election, joined her husband in Texas. Youngest daughter got one card at our house and another at the address in Campbell River where she actually lives when she’s here, so that’s the address she presented when she voted. Consequently, only 40% of the registered voters at our address voted in our poll.
Maybe before we work ourselves up over this point we should make sure the base statistics are reasonably accurate.
I’m rather more concerned about the demographics, as they proved out in this campaign. The average age of our campaign team, financial contributors, and volunteers cannot have been much under 60, and the Liberals, judging from everything I saw on my radar were even fewer and older.
That’s obviously not sustainable.
Obama’s campaign proved this trend isn’t democratic destiny, but I don’t see anything on the horizon of the NDP (or the Liberals, or even the Greens) that suggests it’s about to change in BC.
Which takes me to the subject of electoral change. I’m not positive it would connect more younger people to our democratic institutions, but it obviously couldn’t hurt. Most British Columbians, me included, think it’s well past time BC had some Green MLAs (and a Marijuana Party MLA or two wouldn’t hurt either).
So why did I vote against BC-STV? Because the more I thought about it the more unworkable it seemed. Because David Schreck’s research convinced me that where it’s in force STV doesn’t do most of the things its proponents argued for, including making room for more women in politics, or giving voice to minority opinions, or even reducing the influence of political parties. The only system that can guarantee those laudable goals is MMPR (mixed member proportional representation) with a vote threshold of about 5%, so that the clowns don’t get to run the circus.
So I’m proposing a plank in the next campaign which obliges the NDP, if elected government, to change our electoral system to MMPR as a matter of confidence (meaning there will be a new election if it’s defeated). And no cop-out referendum either: change we can believe in.
For a change.
(By the way, how ironic is it that the Liberals elected more female MLAs than we, the party of affirmative action, did? How ironic is it that Leslie McNabb in Comox was widely derided in her local papers for being an affirmative action candidate rather than the best candidate the NDP could put up, and that this certainly cost her votes and maybe the election as well, given a weak and novice Liberal opponent? Ouch.)
I just wonder how much the lists distort the picture. Here are just three anecdotes which may (or may not!) be illustrative:
A man we know has two names, one his legal name and the other the one he goes by. So he appears at the same address twice, but votes once.
A couple has moved since the last election. They registered at their new address with Elections BC. Consequence? They appeared on the voters’ list twice.
We received 5 cards at our address. One was for eldest daughter, teaching in Turkey. Another was for middle daughter, who has, since registering for the last election, joined her husband in Texas. Youngest daughter got one card at our house and another at the address in Campbell River where she actually lives when she’s here, so that’s the address she presented when she voted. Consequently, only 40% of the registered voters at our address voted in our poll.
Maybe before we work ourselves up over this point we should make sure the base statistics are reasonably accurate.
I’m rather more concerned about the demographics, as they proved out in this campaign. The average age of our campaign team, financial contributors, and volunteers cannot have been much under 60, and the Liberals, judging from everything I saw on my radar were even fewer and older.
That’s obviously not sustainable.
Obama’s campaign proved this trend isn’t democratic destiny, but I don’t see anything on the horizon of the NDP (or the Liberals, or even the Greens) that suggests it’s about to change in BC.
Which takes me to the subject of electoral change. I’m not positive it would connect more younger people to our democratic institutions, but it obviously couldn’t hurt. Most British Columbians, me included, think it’s well past time BC had some Green MLAs (and a Marijuana Party MLA or two wouldn’t hurt either).
So why did I vote against BC-STV? Because the more I thought about it the more unworkable it seemed. Because David Schreck’s research convinced me that where it’s in force STV doesn’t do most of the things its proponents argued for, including making room for more women in politics, or giving voice to minority opinions, or even reducing the influence of political parties. The only system that can guarantee those laudable goals is MMPR (mixed member proportional representation) with a vote threshold of about 5%, so that the clowns don’t get to run the circus.
So I’m proposing a plank in the next campaign which obliges the NDP, if elected government, to change our electoral system to MMPR as a matter of confidence (meaning there will be a new election if it’s defeated). And no cop-out referendum either: change we can believe in.
For a change.
(By the way, how ironic is it that the Liberals elected more female MLAs than we, the party of affirmative action, did? How ironic is it that Leslie McNabb in Comox was widely derided in her local papers for being an affirmative action candidate rather than the best candidate the NDP could put up, and that this certainly cost her votes and maybe the election as well, given a weak and novice Liberal opponent? Ouch.)
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
North Island: reflections and gossip
May 13, 2009
The 2009 Provincial Election campaign is in the can, so here are the news, as Edith Josie used to say:
1 signs of an election...
As those of you who read my blog after the municipal elections last November will know, I like to watch the sign campaign unfold.
Ours (Jim’s crew, Deanna’s phoners to identify locations) was textbook, in my opinion the best ever: the signs came out early, there were lots, they looked good, and best of all, we had hardly any on public land or vacant lots. You couldn’t miss the clusters of NDP signs driving into town from the south along the old highway or along Alder, a dominant manifestation of organization and enthusiasm.
By contrast, several days after our first wave had emerged, the vacant lots started to sprout large, ostentatious, Liberal signs. Marion Wright’s photo on them didn’t do her any favours; in fact, they made her look kind of frumpy. The ones identifying Liberal households, when they did finally start to appear were very light on the ground and of the bag variety. They never achieved any significant numbers. Liberal signs implied, “Lots of money, no workers”, which was likely the case.
2 sowing and reaping
What’s up with the teachers of Campbell River?!
Last election quite a number worked on Claire’s first campaign, and I’m told some even helped out financially. Of course, having been seriously screwed over by the government, they had lots of incentive.
This time? Not so much. Their retired colleagues, people of my generation, had their hands all over Claire’s campaign, but I can count on one hand the number of Campbell River teachers who volunteered and on two the number who contributed financially. It could well have been the worst showing ever, and that takes some serious apathy.
The CRDTA leadership was totally absent (in fact, when Shelly asked to use teacher email to encourage her colleagues to get involved, she was rebuffed!), and of course the BCTF, as per tradition, was one of the very few unions not to contribute either locally or provincially. As far as I know, there wasn’t even the traditional central campaign to urge BCTF members to volunteer for the party of their choice.
And what about the BCTF campaign to promote public education? The gag law pretty much pulled its teeth, and although they joined other unions to challenge the law and won, by that time the victory was largely symbolic.
When after the election the government, pleading poverty, screws them over again, will they expect their MLA to forget their lack of support?
Count on it.
3 North Island Libs
I wonder if we’ll ever find out why the Liberal campaign was so limp.
Of course the $70,000 spending ceiling can’t have helped (even we would have had no trouble spending more!) but where were the volunteers distributing leaflets and knocking on doors? Where was the office? Where, for that matter, was the candidate?
Early in the campaign Sandy fielded a call from the Liberals. A south-Asian voice. “Oh, and where are you calling from?” said Sandy. “Uhhh...my office,” said the woman after an obvious and uncomfortable pause. “Maybe you could tell me where I could find Marion Wright’s office,” Sandy then said. “I’ve been looking for it, and I haven’t seen one.” The lady couldn’t tell her.
Our workers spotted Ms Wright at various fundraising and social events around Campbell River, but we had no reports of her campaigning either in Campbell River or elsewhere in the riding. A quick perusal of First Nation websites shows the Liberal candidate shmoozing with various local aborignal leaders, so maybe that was the campaign. To me it’s remarkable that there were no visiting Cabinet Ministers during the campaign, and that the Premier showed only once for a very brief whistle stop right at the end. Pretty weird for a riding Rod Visser lost by under 700 votes last time, and which every newspaper report listed as a “swing” riding.
4 the candidate and the cousin
You had to wonder if the Liberals liked having an aboriginal candidate but really didn’t want to encourage a Marion Wright win.
Three tangential observations on that note:
a) it was never mentioned in public but reasonably well-known that former MLA Rod Visser and Marion were “an item”, and had been, according to rumour (supported by observations), since well before (another rumour, supported by the fact that his daughter now goes by her mother’s maiden name) Rod’s very nasty divorce.
b) Sean Holman reported that the Vancouver Island Aboriginal Transition Authority, chaired by Marion Wright, had been closed down for lack of effectiveness after it had seriously overspent its budget. So much for any claim to fiscal prudence, or for getting things done.
c) The closest the campaign got to nasty was when Christine Hunt, our Northern Organizer and Marion Wright’s cousin, asked Marion at the all-candidates’ in Port Hardy to comment on a forensic audit being done on the Fort Rupert Band’s books (they’re both members) for the time when Marion was the elected Chief. We’d known about the rumour, had already decided not to go there, and clearly Christine shouldn’t have put the question while in our employ. Consequently, Paul, in his Campaign Manager capacity, went to Marion’s office next day to apologize on behalf of the Claire Trevena campaign. But Marion insisted that Claire apologize in public and fire Christine. She made that demand loudly in Port Hardy and again next day at an all-candidates’ in Campbell River. The moderator of the Campbell River meeting had to tell her to stop insisting and the meeting very clearly had no idea of what was going on and was not on her side.
We continued not to use the rumour, and the question hasn’t been answered.
From a purely political point of view Christine should probably have persuaded someone else from the band to pose the question, assuming it was important. But maybe Wright, who appears to me to have particularly thin skin for someone aspiring to political office, is too scary for anyone else from that community to take on.
5 paying the piper...
As the financial agent for Claire’s campaign, I processed all the donations. So I know something about this file.
Every dollar that is raised on behalf of an NDP candidate is split 50-50 with the provincial campaign. That’s only appropriate, and we definitely got our money’s worth this time out. However, that means if a campaign spends the maximum of $70,000, it must raise $140,000; best to have some serious money in the bank before the campaign starts, especially in a recession year like this one, when many of the people who could logically be expected to support us were pretty strapped financially.
Happily, for the first time I know of and thanks to fund raising that started as soon as we had paid off our debt from the last campaign, this time we had half of what we expected to need in the bank by the time the writ was dropped.
The popular wisdom has it that unions pay for NDP campaigns and businesses pay for those run by the Liberals. I don’t have any insight into Liberal funding, but can report that while some unions do contribute (some, like the BCGEU, handsomely), many (like the BCTF) don’t, and the overwhelming bulk of the money raised in a constituency like ours comes from approximately 200 to 300 very ordinary, middle-class people, a disproportionately-large number of them retired.
That funding is absolutely essential in our system, and it continues to astonish me that so many well-educated younger people, the kind who hold down good jobs and are consequently utterly dependent on their political system and government functioning smoothly, don’t feel a need to either contribute or become involved.
Ultimately, that’s just not very smart.
6 and this is potentially brilliant... and scary
Let’s assume Rafe Mair is correct when he accuses Gordon Campbell and the Cronies of plotting to privatize BC.
That would go some way to explaining what must be the most incredible reversal of policy in this province’s history: the government that came in on a platform of having a referendum on treaty negotiations with first nations only 8 years ago is now promising to pass legislation acknowledging aboriginal title and rights to the entire province.
When North Island MLA Claire Trevena dared to question the Klahoose band’s support for Plutonic Power’s plans for Toba, Knight, and Bute inlets last April, she was immediately and loudly declared both paternalistic and racist by Klahoose Chief Ken Brown. As Claire’s record of support for the First Nations of North Island had been pretty-well unassailable to that point, this is an interesting turn of events, to say the least.
But it’s probably an early sign of what’s to come, should the proposed legislation pass.
Environmental activists have been thorns in the government’s paws for decades. They have opposed many of the major extraction projects proposed for the province, from Mac-Blo’s plans for clearcutting the Clayquot in the 80’s, to Shell’s proposal to extract coalbed methane in the “Sacred Headwaters”, to the Tulsequah Mine on the Taku, to the coal mine proposed for the headwaters of the Flathead River... The list goes on. In most of those cases, environmentalists and First Nations have been and are on the same side, and that makes it politically very difficult for the government to help push these projects through.
The proposed legislation changes everything: if First Nations have title and rights to BC, and if they, like the Klahoose, become partners in the development of their “traditional territories”, and if to oppose such development on environmental grounds is “racist” and “paternalistic”, will people like Claire continue to oppose projects on purely environmental grounds?
(Will the NDP caucus oppose the Tsawwassen land claims settlement which permits that band to pave over 200 acres of prime farmland and rent it to Deltaport for container storage? Will Clayquot heroine Tzeporah Berman oppose Plutonic? )
Ooops! Mission accomplished.
We could be running on “Take back your province” for some time, and having to take it back from bands like the Klahoose is beyond ironic.
The 2009 Provincial Election campaign is in the can, so here are the news, as Edith Josie used to say:
1 signs of an election...
As those of you who read my blog after the municipal elections last November will know, I like to watch the sign campaign unfold.
Ours (Jim’s crew, Deanna’s phoners to identify locations) was textbook, in my opinion the best ever: the signs came out early, there were lots, they looked good, and best of all, we had hardly any on public land or vacant lots. You couldn’t miss the clusters of NDP signs driving into town from the south along the old highway or along Alder, a dominant manifestation of organization and enthusiasm.
By contrast, several days after our first wave had emerged, the vacant lots started to sprout large, ostentatious, Liberal signs. Marion Wright’s photo on them didn’t do her any favours; in fact, they made her look kind of frumpy. The ones identifying Liberal households, when they did finally start to appear were very light on the ground and of the bag variety. They never achieved any significant numbers. Liberal signs implied, “Lots of money, no workers”, which was likely the case.
2 sowing and reaping
What’s up with the teachers of Campbell River?!
Last election quite a number worked on Claire’s first campaign, and I’m told some even helped out financially. Of course, having been seriously screwed over by the government, they had lots of incentive.
This time? Not so much. Their retired colleagues, people of my generation, had their hands all over Claire’s campaign, but I can count on one hand the number of Campbell River teachers who volunteered and on two the number who contributed financially. It could well have been the worst showing ever, and that takes some serious apathy.
The CRDTA leadership was totally absent (in fact, when Shelly asked to use teacher email to encourage her colleagues to get involved, she was rebuffed!), and of course the BCTF, as per tradition, was one of the very few unions not to contribute either locally or provincially. As far as I know, there wasn’t even the traditional central campaign to urge BCTF members to volunteer for the party of their choice.
And what about the BCTF campaign to promote public education? The gag law pretty much pulled its teeth, and although they joined other unions to challenge the law and won, by that time the victory was largely symbolic.
When after the election the government, pleading poverty, screws them over again, will they expect their MLA to forget their lack of support?
Count on it.
3 North Island Libs
I wonder if we’ll ever find out why the Liberal campaign was so limp.
Of course the $70,000 spending ceiling can’t have helped (even we would have had no trouble spending more!) but where were the volunteers distributing leaflets and knocking on doors? Where was the office? Where, for that matter, was the candidate?
Early in the campaign Sandy fielded a call from the Liberals. A south-Asian voice. “Oh, and where are you calling from?” said Sandy. “Uhhh...my office,” said the woman after an obvious and uncomfortable pause. “Maybe you could tell me where I could find Marion Wright’s office,” Sandy then said. “I’ve been looking for it, and I haven’t seen one.” The lady couldn’t tell her.
Our workers spotted Ms Wright at various fundraising and social events around Campbell River, but we had no reports of her campaigning either in Campbell River or elsewhere in the riding. A quick perusal of First Nation websites shows the Liberal candidate shmoozing with various local aborignal leaders, so maybe that was the campaign. To me it’s remarkable that there were no visiting Cabinet Ministers during the campaign, and that the Premier showed only once for a very brief whistle stop right at the end. Pretty weird for a riding Rod Visser lost by under 700 votes last time, and which every newspaper report listed as a “swing” riding.
4 the candidate and the cousin
You had to wonder if the Liberals liked having an aboriginal candidate but really didn’t want to encourage a Marion Wright win.
Three tangential observations on that note:
a) it was never mentioned in public but reasonably well-known that former MLA Rod Visser and Marion were “an item”, and had been, according to rumour (supported by observations), since well before (another rumour, supported by the fact that his daughter now goes by her mother’s maiden name) Rod’s very nasty divorce.
b) Sean Holman reported that the Vancouver Island Aboriginal Transition Authority, chaired by Marion Wright, had been closed down for lack of effectiveness after it had seriously overspent its budget. So much for any claim to fiscal prudence, or for getting things done.
c) The closest the campaign got to nasty was when Christine Hunt, our Northern Organizer and Marion Wright’s cousin, asked Marion at the all-candidates’ in Port Hardy to comment on a forensic audit being done on the Fort Rupert Band’s books (they’re both members) for the time when Marion was the elected Chief. We’d known about the rumour, had already decided not to go there, and clearly Christine shouldn’t have put the question while in our employ. Consequently, Paul, in his Campaign Manager capacity, went to Marion’s office next day to apologize on behalf of the Claire Trevena campaign. But Marion insisted that Claire apologize in public and fire Christine. She made that demand loudly in Port Hardy and again next day at an all-candidates’ in Campbell River. The moderator of the Campbell River meeting had to tell her to stop insisting and the meeting very clearly had no idea of what was going on and was not on her side.
We continued not to use the rumour, and the question hasn’t been answered.
From a purely political point of view Christine should probably have persuaded someone else from the band to pose the question, assuming it was important. But maybe Wright, who appears to me to have particularly thin skin for someone aspiring to political office, is too scary for anyone else from that community to take on.
5 paying the piper...
As the financial agent for Claire’s campaign, I processed all the donations. So I know something about this file.
Every dollar that is raised on behalf of an NDP candidate is split 50-50 with the provincial campaign. That’s only appropriate, and we definitely got our money’s worth this time out. However, that means if a campaign spends the maximum of $70,000, it must raise $140,000; best to have some serious money in the bank before the campaign starts, especially in a recession year like this one, when many of the people who could logically be expected to support us were pretty strapped financially.
Happily, for the first time I know of and thanks to fund raising that started as soon as we had paid off our debt from the last campaign, this time we had half of what we expected to need in the bank by the time the writ was dropped.
The popular wisdom has it that unions pay for NDP campaigns and businesses pay for those run by the Liberals. I don’t have any insight into Liberal funding, but can report that while some unions do contribute (some, like the BCGEU, handsomely), many (like the BCTF) don’t, and the overwhelming bulk of the money raised in a constituency like ours comes from approximately 200 to 300 very ordinary, middle-class people, a disproportionately-large number of them retired.
That funding is absolutely essential in our system, and it continues to astonish me that so many well-educated younger people, the kind who hold down good jobs and are consequently utterly dependent on their political system and government functioning smoothly, don’t feel a need to either contribute or become involved.
Ultimately, that’s just not very smart.
6 and this is potentially brilliant... and scary
Let’s assume Rafe Mair is correct when he accuses Gordon Campbell and the Cronies of plotting to privatize BC.
That would go some way to explaining what must be the most incredible reversal of policy in this province’s history: the government that came in on a platform of having a referendum on treaty negotiations with first nations only 8 years ago is now promising to pass legislation acknowledging aboriginal title and rights to the entire province.
When North Island MLA Claire Trevena dared to question the Klahoose band’s support for Plutonic Power’s plans for Toba, Knight, and Bute inlets last April, she was immediately and loudly declared both paternalistic and racist by Klahoose Chief Ken Brown. As Claire’s record of support for the First Nations of North Island had been pretty-well unassailable to that point, this is an interesting turn of events, to say the least.
But it’s probably an early sign of what’s to come, should the proposed legislation pass.
Environmental activists have been thorns in the government’s paws for decades. They have opposed many of the major extraction projects proposed for the province, from Mac-Blo’s plans for clearcutting the Clayquot in the 80’s, to Shell’s proposal to extract coalbed methane in the “Sacred Headwaters”, to the Tulsequah Mine on the Taku, to the coal mine proposed for the headwaters of the Flathead River... The list goes on. In most of those cases, environmentalists and First Nations have been and are on the same side, and that makes it politically very difficult for the government to help push these projects through.
The proposed legislation changes everything: if First Nations have title and rights to BC, and if they, like the Klahoose, become partners in the development of their “traditional territories”, and if to oppose such development on environmental grounds is “racist” and “paternalistic”, will people like Claire continue to oppose projects on purely environmental grounds?
(Will the NDP caucus oppose the Tsawwassen land claims settlement which permits that band to pave over 200 acres of prime farmland and rent it to Deltaport for container storage? Will Clayquot heroine Tzeporah Berman oppose Plutonic? )
Ooops! Mission accomplished.
We could be running on “Take back your province” for some time, and having to take it back from bands like the Klahoose is beyond ironic.
Friday, April 17, 2009
Phil Hochstein is just wrong
Phil Hochstein is the President of the Independent Contractors & Business Association of BC, an anti-union lobby group. His organization has been running a television campaign for several months now called "VoteSmart BC" claiming that the 1990's, when the NDP was the government in BC, was the equivalent of the Dark Ages, economically.
The Courier-Islander ran a letter from him making the same claims. My response was printed April 17, 2009:
The headline on Phil Hochstein's letter says it all: "NDP policies will lead BC back to the '90s"
We should be so lucky!
Annual growth for the last 8 years: 2.6%. Annual growth during the 90's? 2.8%.
Total jobs added under the Liberals? 323,700. Under the NDP? 344,100.
As Bill Tieleman says in his 24 Hours column of April 24, "Premier Gordon Campbell's B.C. Liberals [are the] worst economic managers in the province's history!" and "British Columbia job losses lead all Canada in recession!" and "B.C. 2009 budget deficit [is as] phony as a $3 bill!"
He cites the statistics that back up his claims.
So yes, please, let's see if we can recreate the growth of the '90's. Bring back the NDP.
The Courier-Islander ran a letter from him making the same claims. My response was printed April 17, 2009:
The headline on Phil Hochstein's letter says it all: "NDP policies will lead BC back to the '90s"
We should be so lucky!
Annual growth for the last 8 years: 2.6%. Annual growth during the 90's? 2.8%.
Total jobs added under the Liberals? 323,700. Under the NDP? 344,100.
As Bill Tieleman says in his 24 Hours column of April 24, "Premier Gordon Campbell's B.C. Liberals [are the] worst economic managers in the province's history!" and "British Columbia job losses lead all Canada in recession!" and "B.C. 2009 budget deficit [is as] phony as a $3 bill!"
He cites the statistics that back up his claims.
So yes, please, let's see if we can recreate the growth of the '90's. Bring back the NDP.
Monday, April 6, 2009
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil ...
printed in the Globe and Mail, April 6, 2009
Dear Sirs,
I regret not donating to the fund that bought Abousfian Abdelrazik's plane ticket home.
But now I'm both angry and worried: what kind of precedent is it when a minister of government gets to decide which of Canada's citizens can return to his Canadian home?
Sign me up for helping to finance the court case.
--Justus Havelaar
Dear Sirs,
I regret not donating to the fund that bought Abousfian Abdelrazik's plane ticket home.
But now I'm both angry and worried: what kind of precedent is it when a minister of government gets to decide which of Canada's citizens can return to his Canadian home?
Sign me up for helping to finance the court case.
--Justus Havelaar
Monday, March 9, 2009
Marion Wright's Plutonic relationship
Published in the Campbell River Courier-Islander, March 6, 2009:
The Editor,
Dear Sir,
re: Wright, Trevena square off on mill (March 4)
This is the second time Marion Wright, Liberal candidate, has criticized our MLA for speaking out against Plutonic Power's Bute project.
Of course Ms Trevena's position is considerably more nuanced than this criticism suggests, but one couldn't expect Ms Wright to acknowledge that.
One could, however, wonder why Ms Wright is becoming such a shill for a project that has passed no environmental reviews, has not received any approvals, and has not demonstrated it is needed for anything except supplying power to California.
Ms Trevena's comments and politics are a matter of record. Maybe Ms Wright would be equally transparent if she answered some relevant questions:
- Is such uncritical and premature enthusiasm what we could expect from Ms Wright should she become a Liberal MLA?
- Would any and all economic activity, regardless of environmental impact, garner equal enthusiasm? Or is this project somehow special?
- Has the government already decided to approve the project should it be re-elected?
- To what extent are Plutonic and its principals funding her campaign?
Sincerely,
The Editor,
Dear Sir,
re: Wright, Trevena square off on mill (March 4)
This is the second time Marion Wright, Liberal candidate, has criticized our MLA for speaking out against Plutonic Power's Bute project.
Of course Ms Trevena's position is considerably more nuanced than this criticism suggests, but one couldn't expect Ms Wright to acknowledge that.
One could, however, wonder why Ms Wright is becoming such a shill for a project that has passed no environmental reviews, has not received any approvals, and has not demonstrated it is needed for anything except supplying power to California.
Ms Trevena's comments and politics are a matter of record. Maybe Ms Wright would be equally transparent if she answered some relevant questions:
- Is such uncritical and premature enthusiasm what we could expect from Ms Wright should she become a Liberal MLA?
- Would any and all economic activity, regardless of environmental impact, garner equal enthusiasm? Or is this project somehow special?
- Has the government already decided to approve the project should it be re-elected?
- To what extent are Plutonic and its principals funding her campaign?
Sincerely,
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Some adventures involving Eli
The approaching dog is one of those goofy, tongue-out, tail-rotating, ramble-in-the-creek and pee-on-the-stick lab crosses.
He is accompanied by a young woman who, as they approach, calls out reassuringly, “It’s OK: he’s friendly!”
By now I’ve got Eli sitting on the side of the trail, and I’m stroking his throat. “Good boy, Eli. It’s OK; just relax,” and then, “sit!” as the lab gambols closer.
“He’ll probably nip if your dog comes too close,” I say to her, just before Eli snarls and tries to jump up to do just that. But I have hold of him. He’s not going anywhere.
The woman calls the lab to her, as I explain, “He gets paranoid when he’s on the leash, but I can’t let him off because he’d probably take off.”
“Sorry,” she says.
“No harm done. Sit, Eli.” He does.
Then they’re past, and Eli, following his nose, leads me up the trail, cool as if the confrontation had never happened.
We meet several other dogs before the end of our walk but a couple are leashed and none of them approach. Eli doesn’t so much as raise a hair.
Then, when we’re nearly back at the car, we overtake a man walking two large black and brown spaniels. They’re running back and forth across the road. One of them spots us; Eli goes into his stalking crouch as we catch up to them. When I let him off the leash, he takes of like a rocket, shooting past them and off the trail into the bush, the spaniels in hot pursuit. They flash back and forth across the road, looping through the undergrowth each time. There’s no way the spaniels can keep up.
“Is he a puppy?” the man asks.
“No, he’s at least five,” I say. “He just loves running.”
A little later we’re well past , and I put Eli back on the leash so he can lead me to where the car is parked.
Eli has an impeccable sense of where the good stuff lies.
In December he and I were up near the Island Highway when he went for a ramble in the woods and then just disappeared. I walked all the way back to the car, then most of the way back to where I’d last seen him, then drove to his house and mine, and finally spotted him, about an hour later, ambling along Dogwood near where I’d been parked. He smelled of dead stuff, and consequently got hosed when I returned him home.
So it wasn’t as much of a surprise as it could have been when, about a month later, he once again disappeared in the same general area. This time he was gone for a somewhat shorter time, but it was still over an hour of much calling and searching (I’d just decided to let him find his own way home) before he came streaking down the trail to where the car was parked. This time he hadn’t rolled in it, at least.
So these days he walks on the leash.
He is accompanied by a young woman who, as they approach, calls out reassuringly, “It’s OK: he’s friendly!”
By now I’ve got Eli sitting on the side of the trail, and I’m stroking his throat. “Good boy, Eli. It’s OK; just relax,” and then, “sit!” as the lab gambols closer.
“He’ll probably nip if your dog comes too close,” I say to her, just before Eli snarls and tries to jump up to do just that. But I have hold of him. He’s not going anywhere.
The woman calls the lab to her, as I explain, “He gets paranoid when he’s on the leash, but I can’t let him off because he’d probably take off.”
“Sorry,” she says.
“No harm done. Sit, Eli.” He does.
Then they’re past, and Eli, following his nose, leads me up the trail, cool as if the confrontation had never happened.
We meet several other dogs before the end of our walk but a couple are leashed and none of them approach. Eli doesn’t so much as raise a hair.
Then, when we’re nearly back at the car, we overtake a man walking two large black and brown spaniels. They’re running back and forth across the road. One of them spots us; Eli goes into his stalking crouch as we catch up to them. When I let him off the leash, he takes of like a rocket, shooting past them and off the trail into the bush, the spaniels in hot pursuit. They flash back and forth across the road, looping through the undergrowth each time. There’s no way the spaniels can keep up.
“Is he a puppy?” the man asks.
“No, he’s at least five,” I say. “He just loves running.”
A little later we’re well past , and I put Eli back on the leash so he can lead me to where the car is parked.
Eli has an impeccable sense of where the good stuff lies.
In December he and I were up near the Island Highway when he went for a ramble in the woods and then just disappeared. I walked all the way back to the car, then most of the way back to where I’d last seen him, then drove to his house and mine, and finally spotted him, about an hour later, ambling along Dogwood near where I’d been parked. He smelled of dead stuff, and consequently got hosed when I returned him home.
So it wasn’t as much of a surprise as it could have been when, about a month later, he once again disappeared in the same general area. This time he was gone for a somewhat shorter time, but it was still over an hour of much calling and searching (I’d just decided to let him find his own way home) before he came streaking down the trail to where the car was parked. This time he hadn’t rolled in it, at least.
So these days he walks on the leash.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Note to Mr Martin
From today's column:
"The Iggy strategy is to give the federal government a lifeline until the fall or thereabouts, and then pounce."
"But Iggy won’t be terribly bothered by either’s reaction."
All other references to political leaders, present and past, use either their full names, or their last names prefaced by "Mr", or refer to them by position.
Using "Iggy" to refer to the Leader of the Opposition is belittling, verging on the disrespectful, and I would prefer if commentators like yourself (whose commentary I read regularly and admire) would at least be consistent.
Please, Mr Martin, set an example and dump "Iggy" (unless of course you also use nicknames to refer to Mr Layton, Mr Harper, et al).
Sincerely,
"The Iggy strategy is to give the federal government a lifeline until the fall or thereabouts, and then pounce."
"But Iggy won’t be terribly bothered by either’s reaction."
All other references to political leaders, present and past, use either their full names, or their last names prefaced by "Mr", or refer to them by position.
Using "Iggy" to refer to the Leader of the Opposition is belittling, verging on the disrespectful, and I would prefer if commentators like yourself (whose commentary I read regularly and admire) would at least be consistent.
Please, Mr Martin, set an example and dump "Iggy" (unless of course you also use nicknames to refer to Mr Layton, Mr Harper, et al).
Sincerely,
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Let's make the federal NDP relevant again...
Do you think you’ll see serious federal electoral reform in your lifetime? Neither do I.
That’s just depressing, because the system we have isn’t working very well for us at the moment:
Since May of 2004 we’ve had three elections, each costing us about $300 million, each producing a minority government. Our most recent government, elected last September, almost didn’t make it to Christmas, and could easily fall before Spring if the Conservative leadership hasn’t learned how to govern according to their mandate. (that’s under 38% of the 59.1% of eligible voters who bothered to turn out – the lowest percentage in Canadian history)
At present we have 5 competitive parties, the least of which (Greens) pulled 6.8% of the vote last time. This means the next election will probably produce another minority. However, should it produce a majority, the party that forms government will almost certainly have commanded far fewer than 50% of the votes cast, and will nonetheless rule as if the Prime Minister were an absolute monarch.
We’ve already experienced that, and it didn’t make us happy. Lots of us agreed with the Globe’s Jeffrey Simpson at the time when he complained that Prime Minister Chrétien had concentrated so much power in his office that Liberal MPs had effectively become rubber stamps. Since then the situation has only grown worse; the democratic ideals of the Reform Party (remember when it ran on a platform of MPs representing constituents rather than a party?) have transmuted into the absolute obedience to Prime Ministerial diktat required of Conservative MPs. One really cannot blame voters for tuning out.
So people like me were pretty impressed by the Liberal-NDP “Accord on a Cooperative Government” signed in December, just before the Governor-General prorogued Parliament. For one thing, the proposed coalition represented 44% (as opposed to 38%) of the electorate, and would have represented 55% when supported by the Bloc. (over 60% if one includes the Greens, who of course didn’t win a seat). For another, it proved political parties could cooperate to work in the best interests of the country. It set out an achievable agenda and a time-frame. It appeared to put off another inevitable election. It held promise of reflecting the views most Canadians have of the common good.
To us it appeared to be a welcome and civilized alternative to an unusually-petty and dogmatically-partisan government.
Well, we all think we know how that turned out, although the final pages of the script have yet to be written. The punditry has pretty uniformly concluded that events have killed the deal, even though in the meantime popular opinion turned from overwhelmingly against in December to 50% in favour by mid-January. Apparently so far voters tend to like the idea of Prime Minister Ignatieff.
And what’s not to like? A Liberal-NDP government could surely find (or compromise on) policies on the big issues of the day – the economy, the environment, social policy...– which would be an improvement on what we have presently and wouldn’t offend any of our core values. Surely we can accept incrementalism, particularly if it’s effective.
I suspect we’d be a lot less happy with prime Minister Ignatieff, the leader of a majority Liberal government.
Whether the coalition comes together or not, we NDPers should hold on to the idea. During the last election many of us were not happy with the “I’m Jack Layton, and I’m running for Prime Minister” campaign, when nobody, Layton included, thought he’d actually be Prime Minister in the foreseeable future. But he and the rest of the New Democrat caucus could be a key part of any number of coalition governments in the future, and the country would be the better for it, because all our MPs would have a voice in the government caucus, inevitably some of our policy ideas would be in play, and some of our people would even hold portfolios in cabinet.
I bet we’d still pull about 15% of the vote, maybe more if voters knew that voting NDP could mean a vote for an ethical, socially and environmentally-conscious, majority government.
That may not be the proportional representation we really need, but it’s doable, now.
And it could be a lot better than what we have.
That’s just depressing, because the system we have isn’t working very well for us at the moment:
Since May of 2004 we’ve had three elections, each costing us about $300 million, each producing a minority government. Our most recent government, elected last September, almost didn’t make it to Christmas, and could easily fall before Spring if the Conservative leadership hasn’t learned how to govern according to their mandate. (that’s under 38% of the 59.1% of eligible voters who bothered to turn out – the lowest percentage in Canadian history)
At present we have 5 competitive parties, the least of which (Greens) pulled 6.8% of the vote last time. This means the next election will probably produce another minority. However, should it produce a majority, the party that forms government will almost certainly have commanded far fewer than 50% of the votes cast, and will nonetheless rule as if the Prime Minister were an absolute monarch.
We’ve already experienced that, and it didn’t make us happy. Lots of us agreed with the Globe’s Jeffrey Simpson at the time when he complained that Prime Minister Chrétien had concentrated so much power in his office that Liberal MPs had effectively become rubber stamps. Since then the situation has only grown worse; the democratic ideals of the Reform Party (remember when it ran on a platform of MPs representing constituents rather than a party?) have transmuted into the absolute obedience to Prime Ministerial diktat required of Conservative MPs. One really cannot blame voters for tuning out.
So people like me were pretty impressed by the Liberal-NDP “Accord on a Cooperative Government” signed in December, just before the Governor-General prorogued Parliament. For one thing, the proposed coalition represented 44% (as opposed to 38%) of the electorate, and would have represented 55% when supported by the Bloc. (over 60% if one includes the Greens, who of course didn’t win a seat). For another, it proved political parties could cooperate to work in the best interests of the country. It set out an achievable agenda and a time-frame. It appeared to put off another inevitable election. It held promise of reflecting the views most Canadians have of the common good.
To us it appeared to be a welcome and civilized alternative to an unusually-petty and dogmatically-partisan government.
Well, we all think we know how that turned out, although the final pages of the script have yet to be written. The punditry has pretty uniformly concluded that events have killed the deal, even though in the meantime popular opinion turned from overwhelmingly against in December to 50% in favour by mid-January. Apparently so far voters tend to like the idea of Prime Minister Ignatieff.
And what’s not to like? A Liberal-NDP government could surely find (or compromise on) policies on the big issues of the day – the economy, the environment, social policy...– which would be an improvement on what we have presently and wouldn’t offend any of our core values. Surely we can accept incrementalism, particularly if it’s effective.
I suspect we’d be a lot less happy with prime Minister Ignatieff, the leader of a majority Liberal government.
Whether the coalition comes together or not, we NDPers should hold on to the idea. During the last election many of us were not happy with the “I’m Jack Layton, and I’m running for Prime Minister” campaign, when nobody, Layton included, thought he’d actually be Prime Minister in the foreseeable future. But he and the rest of the New Democrat caucus could be a key part of any number of coalition governments in the future, and the country would be the better for it, because all our MPs would have a voice in the government caucus, inevitably some of our policy ideas would be in play, and some of our people would even hold portfolios in cabinet.
I bet we’d still pull about 15% of the vote, maybe more if voters knew that voting NDP could mean a vote for an ethical, socially and environmentally-conscious, majority government.
That may not be the proportional representation we really need, but it’s doable, now.
And it could be a lot better than what we have.
Monday, January 19, 2009
From BC-STV to FSA
I
Last Saturday the Globe and Mail published a column by Gordon Gibson, who was, in the days when Social Credit ruled BC, leader of the provincial Liberal Party and is now, along with Preston Manning, a Senior Fellow of the Fraser Institute.
In 2002 Mr. Gibson was appointed by the Premier to be the architect of the Citizens’ Assembly, a body specifically constituted to consider BC’s electoral system. It ultimately came up with a “made-in-BC” system called “BC-Single Transferable Vote” which was put to referendum and lost narrowly (just under 58%; it needed 60%) during the last provincial election. Because the result was so close, it’s up for referendum again.
Naturally Mr Gibson claims it could pass this time. “Good ideas can be contagious” he says. “British Columbia may decide to lead the way” for the rest of Canada, he says.
Not a chance, I say. The proponents will be lucky to get 40% this time. I may have changed my mind and voted “yes” last time, but I’m changing my mind back. And I’m betting at least 18% of yes voters are on the same page.
This time we have maps. Our area (North Island-South Coast, 4 seats) would consist of the mainland from Howe Sound north to nearly Bella Bella, plus the entire Island north of a line drawn between Qualicum and Port Renfrew. Mid-Island (4 seats) would cover the east coast from Qualicum to the Malahat. The capital Region would cover the rest of the Island: Saanich, Victoria, Sooke, and the southern Gulf Islands (7 seats). Imagine living in, say, Port Hardy and trying to figure out which of your four representatives is going to deal with the fact that you don’t have an ambulance service on weekends, or that your mill is closing. Imagine trying to decide who to vote for when you’ve never met any of the candidates and there are 24 on the ballot.
Imagine being a candidate, trying to run a campaign.
Last time we actually had an incentive to vote yes: we had Gordon Campbell’s virtual dictatorship (3 NDPers, and no Official Opposition) to remind us why our present system sucks. This time the system still sucks, but at least we have an opposition; we’ve lost the urgency of the call for electoral reform.
I hate our present system, but BC-STV no longer seems like any kind of solution. It just seems eccentric and opaque.
II
Mr Gibson also made an either astonishingly-naive or calculatedly-provocative claim when he predicted that the NDP could win the next provincial election: “Ms James is the way to bet as of today.”
Today a Mustel Group poll was released showing the BCLiberals ahead by 14%, and yes, in spite of my partisan inclinations, I’m taking bets from anyone who thinks the NDP can be the next government of BC!
Not to worry: Gibson doesn’t actually believe that the NDP could win, or he’d have dragged out many more of the usual canards about the BCNDP than the two he couldn’t resist: “the old class warriors still to be found in the NDP backrooms” and “”big unions will still be with the New Democrats”.
So yesterday, Gordon.
But in tactics, so Socred. Remember the “Socialists at the gates”? Remember the “red tide” threatening BC freedoms? The barbarians are upon us; everybody chip in, and we’ll defeat them before they take over!
His column is just one of the first shots in an election campaign.
III
The BC Teachers’ Federation is running television ads exposing (just in case we’ve gotten used to the current situation) what the government has done to public education since it was elected in 2001.
Why on earth would they do that in January? The election isn’t until May, and anything said to influence voters today will be overwhelmed by then.
Well, they can’t do it closer to the election date, because that would be illegal. As of this election, all third parties are limited to spending $3000 per constituency (about $150,000 provincially) on any communications that could affect the election outcome in the three months before the election. That means for those three months political parties control the message, and those parties with the deepest pockets have the advantage.
Guess which party has no problem raising money? Guess which interests provide it?
Hint: it’s not unions. Or individuals.
IV
The BCTF is being beaten up in the press for its opposition to the Foundations Skills Assessment tests to be written in grades 4 and 7 in February.
It is evident that to most journalist this opposition looks like nothing much more profound that teacher insubordination, likely based on their unwillingness to have their work assessed. The fact that many teacher spokespersons drag out questionable anecdotes about emotional trauma suffered by some vulnerable students doesn’t help with this perception.
What’s lost in all the journalistic noise is the fact that the BCTF position is more nuanced than a mere boycott: the official position is that the tests are fine as long as they’re not used to draw conclusions about individual students or the schools they go to.
I’m no longer in any way connected to this issue, but I suspect the Federation isn’t exactly leading the parade: I think teachers have really had their buttons pushed by this test. How else to interpret an 85% vote in favour of boycott when it doesn’t directly affect the vast majority of teachers?
The real killer for teachers, I suspect, is that they resent having to spend the time to prepare their students for writing these tests, resent having to spend time marking them, and resent the millions spend on administering and reporting on them. This is especially so because they do not find the tests useful either for their work with students, or for their students. Teachers know that parents get more reliable and more useful information directly from them, and they know that the use the Fraser Institute makes of the results is overtly political.
I have no doubt that the government will attempt to use the boycott to deflect attention from their less-than-brilliant record in dealing with public education. If I’m right about the origins of that boycott, they risk stirring up hornets.
Last Saturday the Globe and Mail published a column by Gordon Gibson, who was, in the days when Social Credit ruled BC, leader of the provincial Liberal Party and is now, along with Preston Manning, a Senior Fellow of the Fraser Institute.
In 2002 Mr. Gibson was appointed by the Premier to be the architect of the Citizens’ Assembly, a body specifically constituted to consider BC’s electoral system. It ultimately came up with a “made-in-BC” system called “BC-Single Transferable Vote” which was put to referendum and lost narrowly (just under 58%; it needed 60%) during the last provincial election. Because the result was so close, it’s up for referendum again.
Naturally Mr Gibson claims it could pass this time. “Good ideas can be contagious” he says. “British Columbia may decide to lead the way” for the rest of Canada, he says.
Not a chance, I say. The proponents will be lucky to get 40% this time. I may have changed my mind and voted “yes” last time, but I’m changing my mind back. And I’m betting at least 18% of yes voters are on the same page.
This time we have maps. Our area (North Island-South Coast, 4 seats) would consist of the mainland from Howe Sound north to nearly Bella Bella, plus the entire Island north of a line drawn between Qualicum and Port Renfrew. Mid-Island (4 seats) would cover the east coast from Qualicum to the Malahat. The capital Region would cover the rest of the Island: Saanich, Victoria, Sooke, and the southern Gulf Islands (7 seats). Imagine living in, say, Port Hardy and trying to figure out which of your four representatives is going to deal with the fact that you don’t have an ambulance service on weekends, or that your mill is closing. Imagine trying to decide who to vote for when you’ve never met any of the candidates and there are 24 on the ballot.
Imagine being a candidate, trying to run a campaign.
Last time we actually had an incentive to vote yes: we had Gordon Campbell’s virtual dictatorship (3 NDPers, and no Official Opposition) to remind us why our present system sucks. This time the system still sucks, but at least we have an opposition; we’ve lost the urgency of the call for electoral reform.
I hate our present system, but BC-STV no longer seems like any kind of solution. It just seems eccentric and opaque.
II
Mr Gibson also made an either astonishingly-naive or calculatedly-provocative claim when he predicted that the NDP could win the next provincial election: “Ms James is the way to bet as of today.”
Today a Mustel Group poll was released showing the BCLiberals ahead by 14%, and yes, in spite of my partisan inclinations, I’m taking bets from anyone who thinks the NDP can be the next government of BC!
Not to worry: Gibson doesn’t actually believe that the NDP could win, or he’d have dragged out many more of the usual canards about the BCNDP than the two he couldn’t resist: “the old class warriors still to be found in the NDP backrooms” and “”big unions will still be with the New Democrats”.
So yesterday, Gordon.
But in tactics, so Socred. Remember the “Socialists at the gates”? Remember the “red tide” threatening BC freedoms? The barbarians are upon us; everybody chip in, and we’ll defeat them before they take over!
His column is just one of the first shots in an election campaign.
III
The BC Teachers’ Federation is running television ads exposing (just in case we’ve gotten used to the current situation) what the government has done to public education since it was elected in 2001.
Why on earth would they do that in January? The election isn’t until May, and anything said to influence voters today will be overwhelmed by then.
Well, they can’t do it closer to the election date, because that would be illegal. As of this election, all third parties are limited to spending $3000 per constituency (about $150,000 provincially) on any communications that could affect the election outcome in the three months before the election. That means for those three months political parties control the message, and those parties with the deepest pockets have the advantage.
Guess which party has no problem raising money? Guess which interests provide it?
Hint: it’s not unions. Or individuals.
IV
The BCTF is being beaten up in the press for its opposition to the Foundations Skills Assessment tests to be written in grades 4 and 7 in February.
It is evident that to most journalist this opposition looks like nothing much more profound that teacher insubordination, likely based on their unwillingness to have their work assessed. The fact that many teacher spokespersons drag out questionable anecdotes about emotional trauma suffered by some vulnerable students doesn’t help with this perception.
What’s lost in all the journalistic noise is the fact that the BCTF position is more nuanced than a mere boycott: the official position is that the tests are fine as long as they’re not used to draw conclusions about individual students or the schools they go to.
I’m no longer in any way connected to this issue, but I suspect the Federation isn’t exactly leading the parade: I think teachers have really had their buttons pushed by this test. How else to interpret an 85% vote in favour of boycott when it doesn’t directly affect the vast majority of teachers?
The real killer for teachers, I suspect, is that they resent having to spend the time to prepare their students for writing these tests, resent having to spend time marking them, and resent the millions spend on administering and reporting on them. This is especially so because they do not find the tests useful either for their work with students, or for their students. Teachers know that parents get more reliable and more useful information directly from them, and they know that the use the Fraser Institute makes of the results is overtly political.
I have no doubt that the government will attempt to use the boycott to deflect attention from their less-than-brilliant record in dealing with public education. If I’m right about the origins of that boycott, they risk stirring up hornets.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Beaver Lodge Forest Lands
One Saturday earlier this month, shortly after Sandy and I had parked at the McPhedran access to the Beaver Lodge Lands in preparation for setting off, we were accosted by a gentleman(1) who asked us if we would take a UBC survey dealing with the Lands.
Of course we were delighted to do so. To our minds the BLL is one of the very best things about living in Campbell River (not least because of the back story of how they came to be, for which see http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/dcr/blflfolder/index.html) one of those geographical attributes that would make us the envy of the rest of the world if only it knew about them.(2)
At present, the Beaver Lodge Lands is a relatively-undeveloped 502 hectare gem within Campbell River's municipal boundaries. The area was heavily logged in the late 1920’s, and was either the first or one of the first replanted forests on the Coast. Consequently, large sections are mixed forest, featuring 75-year old Douglas Firs and Sitka Spruces, huge Bigleaf Maples, Red Alders, and Black Cottonwoods, as well as Western Hemlocks, Grand Firs, White Pines, Cascara and Dogwood, plus cherries and crab-apples, and all the shrubs, flowers and ferns associated with an East Vancouver Island forest. The only thing missing in numbers are the Red Cedars that must once have been among the most impressive features of the area; today there are some, but one has to know where to look, and it will take another few decades before these really stick out.
There are also areas that were logged more recently, and thus illustrate what happens while a coastal forest recovers.
The area is crossed by the remains of several logging roads, plus the grades of the original logging railway and its spurs. There are also a number of lovely unimproved trails following the various manifestations of Simms Creek as well as some linking trails and even a couple created by mountain bikers which fulfill their eccentric requirements.
I’ve been running in this area since the 1970’s, long before we knew it had been given to the province as an experimental forest, and that eventually it would be protected, by legislation, from development. In fact, to those of us who used it to run from Carihi to Southgate, the trail now called the “Rail Trail” was known a
s the “Jeep Trail”. It was quite overgrown in places, and in winter so muddy that it was an uncomfortable, if not impassable route. We fully expected that, as Campbell River grew, it would eventually be covered by the subdivisions that now squeeze up to the boundaries.Anyway, I talked to other agents soliciting survey completion on at least three more occasions, at other entrances to the Lands. Although it was unusually cold and snowy for most of the survey time, I hope they got a good sample; it’s always amazing to me the number of people one sees on the trails, particularly on weekends, at all times of the year, and how few of them are people I recognize, although I walk or run there almost every day. I also hope that people won’t press for more development or more infrastructure. Our experience of the area won’t be enhanced by interpretive signs or fencing or more wheelchair access or restrictions on dogs and horses.
It’s not Stanley Park, and Campbell River isn’t Vancouver. The Beaver Lodge Forest Lands are pretty much perfect the way they are, and I hope they are left that way.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Turned out he was a former student from Carihi days. He did not appear disappointed that I couldn’t remember him.
2) Happily most of it doesn’t, or we’d be overrun!
Thursday, January 1, 2009
Explaining the car in our driveway
In our life together, Sandy and I have had many more than our share of memorable motoring adventures, fortunately very few of them actually life-threatening.In other words, there haven’t been a lot of incidents comparable to that time in 1970 on a very icy highway just south of 100 Mile House when I lost control of our Karmann Ghia and ended up doing several 360’s before stopping, completely enervated, facing back towards Quesnel on the wrong side of the road... Happily, the road was straight and there was no oncoming traffic at the time.
Sandy likes to claim that we’ve broken down at least once in every province in Canada except Newfoundland, but I think she’s exaggerating: as I recall it, we haven’t broken down in Prince Edward Island, or Nova Scotia either. Of course we weren’t there for very long, thus lessening our chances, and we did nearly break down in Nova Scotia, before we found the propane station in Springhill, just as we were pretty much down to fumes.
But I digress.
Although she appears to handle these events with more equanimity and resignation than I do, Sandy does not enjoy them at all. So it was a good thing that, when I slid our Corolla off the highway just north of Parksville while driving Robin to the ferry during the snows of the week before Christmas, she was not with us. And it was also a very good thing that the car came to a soft rest in a bank of lovely powdery snow, and that, after we had done a little digging, several people stopped and helped push us out. We could complete the errand, and I returned to Campbell River, expecting something dire to happen at any time.
Because the entire engine compartment had filled with snow, it first looked as if, apart from a large but only decorative piece of bumper missing, I’d gotten off lightly. We decided to live with it. Then I noticed the plate that protects the underside of the engine had come partially unmoored, so I took the car in to ICBC and from there to the body shop.
Well, it turns out it needs a new radiator as well, plus the fan housing is cracked and needs replacement. The parts are on their way; meanwhile, the car is in the shop.
So yesterday we took the Vanagon out to go up the mountain skiing. We had already turned onto the highway when I remembered I hadn’t put in the chains, and then the road surface deteriorated, so we decided to return home.
We were nearly back at the turnoff to Campbell River, when suddenly the alternator and oil warning lights went beserk.
We were hauled to the Mazda dealership, which is also our body shop and our VW mechanic when we have work done in Campbell River.
Turns out the belt that drives the alternator had shredded, and, flying about, threw off all the other belts. It would be nice if that’s the total extent, but it’s a 1989 van with over 350,000 km on the odometer, so we’re always prepared for more.
Anyway, today is New Years Day, and the garage is closed. We have a brand-new Mazda 3 in the driveway until one of our vehicles is returned to us, and we have another chapter in our motoring history.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
