Charlie Smith heralds the arrival of Ben West
Somewhere in the offices of the Georgia Strait, Charlie Smith is looking for the next Libby Davies.
He seems to think that he's found her... or, in this case, him.
Smith is seemingly ready to annoint Ben West the heir apparent to the riding of Vancouver-East. West has built himself an accomplished (by Smith's standards) career as a political activist, having attached himself to seemingly every far-left political cause under the sun.
Right now, West is affiliated with the Wilderness Committee, a group dedicated to publicizing urban environmental issues.
Perusing Smith's loveletter to West, one question has clearly been ignored:
If Ben West is as impressive as Smith claims he is, why on Earth would he want to be the next Libby Davies?
Davies, after all, has consistently demonstrated that she is someone who simply just doesn't get it. She doesn't seem to get anything.
Whether it's voting against anti-human trafficking legislation out of her ideological opposition to mandatory minimum sentencing, or declaring Israel to be the longest occupation in history, Davies' dedication to various far-left dogmas has not given her the clairvoiance to help her party make desperately-needed inroads with centrist Canadians.
West, meanwhile, could potentially find such inroads. His accomplishment in making Metro Vancouver blink on its garbage incineration plans could potentially resonate well with NIMBY-thinking Canadians. It's certainly a legitimate concern.
There is one other reason West may not be the next Davies: he's currently affiliated with the Green Party, not the NDP.
Whatever Ben West may want to be, he should run screaming from Charlie Smith's efforts to annoint him as the next Libby Davies. Whatever West may end up being, he certainly deserves better than that.
Showing posts with label BC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label BC. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Murray Dobbin Declares Carole James To Be Off the Reservation
Dobbin's hostility toward private enterprise is positively palpable
In a column published in the Vancouver Sun, Murray Dobbin -- who often declares the NDP to be the true voice of Canada, despite their distant third-party status -- has declared British Columbia NDP leader Carole James to be off the reservation.
Her grave misstep? Talking to business.
In the column, Dobbin declares his sheer lunatic hatred for private enterprise while spewing tired, worn-out socialist rhetoric.
He declares BC's business interests to be carpetbaggers, and declares James to be a traitor. Fortunately for James, this is Murray Dobbin. His opening volley hilariously drips with the frustrated sweat of intellectual impotence:
It's hard to tell if Dobbin is more frustrated with his own exhausted ideas, or with the idea that an NDP leader simply may have woken up from that particular slumber.
Moreover, when Dobbin refers to services that British Columbians desperately need, it all too often isn't actually health care or education that he's really thinking about. Rather, he's thinking about whatever idea may pop into his head at any given time.
Dobbin, who has never allowed reality -- such as the reality that an NDP government might need to attempt to get along with the businesses that generate the wealth necessary for them to operate their programs -- to restrain his writing, has proven that he has a lascivious appetite for tax-funded social programming. He could never get enough.
Which in turn leads to outbursts like the following paragraph:
Apparently, the idea that government has a responsibility to try to keep the demands placed on private enterprise as low as necessary doesn't at any point cross Dobbin's mind. No. In his mind, the responsibility of government is to create as business-stifling and growth-smothering a social safety net as possible, and to force private enterprise to pay for it.
And if Carole James, as the leader of a social democratic party, understands the need for governments to work collaboratively with the businesses they expect to pay the taxes to fund their every pet project, he declares her to be Judah:
It's as apt an expression of Murray Dobbin's ideological selfishness as he's ever produced. It's a shame that he has to extend his seething hatred of private enterprise to an NDP leader who's trying to do the right thing for her party, and for her province.
In a column published in the Vancouver Sun, Murray Dobbin -- who often declares the NDP to be the true voice of Canada, despite their distant third-party status -- has declared British Columbia NDP leader Carole James to be off the reservation.
Her grave misstep? Talking to business.
In the column, Dobbin declares his sheer lunatic hatred for private enterprise while spewing tired, worn-out socialist rhetoric.
He declares BC's business interests to be carpetbaggers, and declares James to be a traitor. Fortunately for James, this is Murray Dobbin. His opening volley hilariously drips with the frustrated sweat of intellectual impotence:
"So Carole James thinks meeting with business is going to help her look like a leader. Good luck with that. No one will take this sad effort seriously – not her supporters, who want her to represent them which means against the reactionary interests of business. And certainly not business who will only be impressed with an NDP leader when said leader commits hari kari for ever having had the temerity to challenge the Liberal party. This isn’t just a waste of time – it is embarrassing and counterproductive.It's rather amusing to see Dobbin accusing business interests of being "reactionary", when he's the one blowing a gasket because Carole James so much as talks to private enterprise.
How does humiliating yourself – essentially apologizing to the most reactionary business class in Canada – make you look like a leader?"
It's hard to tell if Dobbin is more frustrated with his own exhausted ideas, or with the idea that an NDP leader simply may have woken up from that particular slumber.
"James said in her speech that the wealth created by business 'helps pay for the services that make for a just and fair society.' Well, yes, if they actually paid their fair share of taxes that might also be true – but they don’t. The irresponsible corporate tax cuts delivered by the Campbell government in the first week after its first electoral victory means we don’t have the money needed to pay for the services we need. The obscenity of overcrowded emergency rooms, school boards millions of dollars short of what they need, cuts to everything that makes BC a good place to live lies at the door of the BC corporate elite.Of course, the assessment of what business' "fair share" is would have to be subjective. In Dobbin's judgement, private enterprise is nothing more than a piggy bank for government to ruthlessly and endlessly raid while denying them the opportunity to compete with crown corporations (also known as Dobbin's sacred cows).
This is the business class James is talking to and what do they think about the multi-billion dollar shortfall they are responsible for? Why, they want even more tax cuts."
Moreover, when Dobbin refers to services that British Columbians desperately need, it all too often isn't actually health care or education that he's really thinking about. Rather, he's thinking about whatever idea may pop into his head at any given time.
Dobbin, who has never allowed reality -- such as the reality that an NDP government might need to attempt to get along with the businesses that generate the wealth necessary for them to operate their programs -- to restrain his writing, has proven that he has a lascivious appetite for tax-funded social programming. He could never get enough.
Which in turn leads to outbursts like the following paragraph:
"Did James talk about that while she genuflected before this crowd of carpetbaggers? Did she tell them if they want to live in a civilized society, they have to pay for it? Did she remind them that educated, healthy workers and a strong infrastructure are good for business?"If the "carpetbaggers" of private enterprise -- who in Dobbin's mind couldn't possibly citizens of BC or of Canada -- want to live in a civilized society, they have to pay for it.
Apparently, the idea that government has a responsibility to try to keep the demands placed on private enterprise as low as necessary doesn't at any point cross Dobbin's mind. No. In his mind, the responsibility of government is to create as business-stifling and growth-smothering a social safety net as possible, and to force private enterprise to pay for it.
And if Carole James, as the leader of a social democratic party, understands the need for governments to work collaboratively with the businesses they expect to pay the taxes to fund their every pet project, he declares her to be Judah:
"This is an NDP leader with no stomach for the truth or social justice – she will never call for tax increases even though everything the NDP is supposed to stand for requires tax revenue."Dobbin would prefer that she do as he demands: a ritual sacrifice of the geese that he expects to lay golden eggs for BC, all while his own sacred cows not only remain untouched, but forever spared the inconvenience of having to compete for grazing land.
It's as apt an expression of Murray Dobbin's ideological selfishness as he's ever produced. It's a shame that he has to extend his seething hatred of private enterprise to an NDP leader who's trying to do the right thing for her party, and for her province.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
The HST: The Great Divider
Political tensions over HST have intriguing implications
One benefit Canada's recently-averted election holds for Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff is the freedom to flip-flop on his own rhetoric without any serious consequences.
Take, for example, a recent Ignatieff flip-flop on the issue of the Harmonized Sales Tax.
For those not in the know, a Harmonized Sales Tax is a fusion of Provincial Sales Taxes (PST) the federal government's Goods and Services Tax (GST). The argument being raised in favour of these taxes is that they're good for business, making it easier and less costly for business to remit these taxes to the government.
The argument against these taxes -- and a very persuasive argument at that -- is that these taxes are bad for consumers, and would apply sales taxes to transactions to which they hadn't previously applied, such as grocery and housing bills.
Needless to say, the matter has been very controversial in provinces that are planning to implement the HST -- chiefly British Columbia and Ontario. There's been an intriguing federal-provincial political dynamic at play in the affair, in which both major provincial and federal parties seem to be at odds with one another over the issue.
The Stephen Harper government in Ottawa has been instrumental in decisions to implement the HST, offering billions of dollars in short-term help to provinces that decide to implement the tax.
Ignatieff has publicly derided the HST, referring to it as the "Harper Sales Tax".
Finance Minister Jim Flaherty admits that the HST would be bad for Canadians in the short term, but it insists it would be good for the country in the long run.
"It's good longterm economic policy for the people of Canada," Flaherty insisted, noting that this is a provincial matter. "The decision to harmonize is always up to the individual province whether they choose to do it or not."
When pressed on whether or not he was "picking a fight" with Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty (or BC Premier Gordon Campbell for that matter, also a Liberal), Ignatieff seemed to shift his position away from using it to score cheap political points and closer to the position being taken by the government.
"Our position from the beginning has been that this is a matter between the Harper government and the provincial governments concerned. Period," Ignatieff insisted. "I'm the leader of the Opposition. I've got no position to clarify. It's between those two governments. And when I become Prime Minister I'll have other decisions to take."
Ignatieff has apparently moved to reassure McGuinty that his party's federal cousins wouldn't kill the HST deal just to maintain their own rhetoric.
"I assured him that the Liberal Party of Canada is a party of government," Ignatieff said. "We don't rip up agreements that have been duly negotiated by previous administrations, and I made that clear to him and I think we're on the same page on this issue."
That's an obvious shot across Harper's bow in regards to various issues such as the Kelowna Accord and the national daycare program. (Unfortuantely for Ignatieff, the Canadian public at least seems to be largely comfortable with these particular decisions.)
However, Ignatieff and McGuinty aren't the only ones to be at odds over the HST.
Ontario Progressive Conservative leader Tim Hudak has been vocal in his opposition to the HST, paying little mind to the governing federal party's effective sponsorship of the tax. Although Hudak has a different name for it than Ignatieff's -- he calls it the Dalton Sales Tax.
"[Toronto Dominion] Economics shows the 'Dalton Sales Tax' is just that - a permanent tax grab that will result in higher prices on the things we buy with no immediate benefit to consumers despite the premier's promises," Hudak publicly fumed. "[Premier] Dalton McGuinty has taken the idea of reducing red tape for business and turned it into a massive tax grab on Ontario's families in the midst of a recession."
Any direct tensions between Hudak and Stephen Harper on the matter must certainly be minimal -- Harper has had very little to say about the HST, and simply allowed his Finance Minister to carry that particular football.
But Hudak's deputy leader, Christine Elliott, is married to Jim Flaherty. Whatever political tensions subsist between the two over the matter are likely being contested -- perhaps silently -- over the dinner table.
"As Christine said to me on the weekend ... we'll remain married of course, and the children are very happy with that, but we're non-harmonized," Flaherty recently joked.
So if the Flaherty-Elliott marriage isn't at risk over the issue, the Liberal party faces a much more serious dilemma.
One way or another the HST is an issue that may harm the Liberal party significantly. Liberal MPs are worried that they'll be the ones to suffer the political consequences for the HST should they have to face a federal election before the Campbell Liberals face a provincial vote.
That particular dilemma for the Liberals could be as immediate as Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe decide it should be.
However this federal-provincial political dynamic plays out -- with the actions of provincial parties harming the prospects of federal parties, and vice versa -- the HST could be a largely-peripheral issue that could interest Canadian political scholars for years.
One benefit Canada's recently-averted election holds for Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff is the freedom to flip-flop on his own rhetoric without any serious consequences.
Take, for example, a recent Ignatieff flip-flop on the issue of the Harmonized Sales Tax.
For those not in the know, a Harmonized Sales Tax is a fusion of Provincial Sales Taxes (PST) the federal government's Goods and Services Tax (GST). The argument being raised in favour of these taxes is that they're good for business, making it easier and less costly for business to remit these taxes to the government.
The argument against these taxes -- and a very persuasive argument at that -- is that these taxes are bad for consumers, and would apply sales taxes to transactions to which they hadn't previously applied, such as grocery and housing bills.
Needless to say, the matter has been very controversial in provinces that are planning to implement the HST -- chiefly British Columbia and Ontario. There's been an intriguing federal-provincial political dynamic at play in the affair, in which both major provincial and federal parties seem to be at odds with one another over the issue.
The Stephen Harper government in Ottawa has been instrumental in decisions to implement the HST, offering billions of dollars in short-term help to provinces that decide to implement the tax.
Ignatieff has publicly derided the HST, referring to it as the "Harper Sales Tax".
Finance Minister Jim Flaherty admits that the HST would be bad for Canadians in the short term, but it insists it would be good for the country in the long run.
"It's good longterm economic policy for the people of Canada," Flaherty insisted, noting that this is a provincial matter. "The decision to harmonize is always up to the individual province whether they choose to do it or not."
When pressed on whether or not he was "picking a fight" with Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty (or BC Premier Gordon Campbell for that matter, also a Liberal), Ignatieff seemed to shift his position away from using it to score cheap political points and closer to the position being taken by the government.
"Our position from the beginning has been that this is a matter between the Harper government and the provincial governments concerned. Period," Ignatieff insisted. "I'm the leader of the Opposition. I've got no position to clarify. It's between those two governments. And when I become Prime Minister I'll have other decisions to take."
Ignatieff has apparently moved to reassure McGuinty that his party's federal cousins wouldn't kill the HST deal just to maintain their own rhetoric.
"I assured him that the Liberal Party of Canada is a party of government," Ignatieff said. "We don't rip up agreements that have been duly negotiated by previous administrations, and I made that clear to him and I think we're on the same page on this issue."
That's an obvious shot across Harper's bow in regards to various issues such as the Kelowna Accord and the national daycare program. (Unfortuantely for Ignatieff, the Canadian public at least seems to be largely comfortable with these particular decisions.)
However, Ignatieff and McGuinty aren't the only ones to be at odds over the HST.
Ontario Progressive Conservative leader Tim Hudak has been vocal in his opposition to the HST, paying little mind to the governing federal party's effective sponsorship of the tax. Although Hudak has a different name for it than Ignatieff's -- he calls it the Dalton Sales Tax.
"[Toronto Dominion] Economics shows the 'Dalton Sales Tax' is just that - a permanent tax grab that will result in higher prices on the things we buy with no immediate benefit to consumers despite the premier's promises," Hudak publicly fumed. "[Premier] Dalton McGuinty has taken the idea of reducing red tape for business and turned it into a massive tax grab on Ontario's families in the midst of a recession."
Any direct tensions between Hudak and Stephen Harper on the matter must certainly be minimal -- Harper has had very little to say about the HST, and simply allowed his Finance Minister to carry that particular football.
But Hudak's deputy leader, Christine Elliott, is married to Jim Flaherty. Whatever political tensions subsist between the two over the matter are likely being contested -- perhaps silently -- over the dinner table.
"As Christine said to me on the weekend ... we'll remain married of course, and the children are very happy with that, but we're non-harmonized," Flaherty recently joked.
So if the Flaherty-Elliott marriage isn't at risk over the issue, the Liberal party faces a much more serious dilemma.
One way or another the HST is an issue that may harm the Liberal party significantly. Liberal MPs are worried that they'll be the ones to suffer the political consequences for the HST should they have to face a federal election before the Campbell Liberals face a provincial vote.
That particular dilemma for the Liberals could be as immediate as Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe decide it should be.
However this federal-provincial political dynamic plays out -- with the actions of provincial parties harming the prospects of federal parties, and vice versa -- the HST could be a largely-peripheral issue that could interest Canadian political scholars for years.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Just Another Reason Why Unions Should Leave Political Campaigns to the Pros
With a provincial election just around the corner, the Canadian Office and Professional Employees union is gearing up to take a serious run at Liberal BC Premier Gordon Campbell.
Their message for BCers is actually a simple one: Gordon Campbell may possibly hate you.
In an ad recently uploaded to YouTube, COPE seems to poke fun at some of bombastic messages of amateur political ads. An obnoxiously-loud voice asks "did you know", then lists off a litany of imaginary Campbell offenses -- trying to "kill your grandma", "is fighting a secret war against wild salmon and river otters", and "eats children" while a more moderate and evidently skeptical voice questions the assertions, although noting that Campbell has closed down hospitals, approved hydro-electric development and ignored child poverty.
A myriad of poorly-photoshopped images flash by on the screen, including one of Campell firing a gun off into the air while flames engulf fish and otters.
Yet at the end of the ad, the one assertion that seems reasonable is that "Gordon Campbell hates you".
"Hmmmm," the narrator's seemingly-more moderate foil muses. "That actually seems reasonable, based on everything he's done so far."
"Maybe everyone should be asking 'does Gordon Campbell hate you?'" he concludes.
While it clearly has an amusing edge to it, the ad's conclusion clearly falls well short of its evident goal of parodying childish political rhetoric. When the ad concludes that all BCers should wonder if Campbell hates them, the ad's attempt to counter-brand Gordon Campbell as antithetical to the ads' evident targets values instead embraces that childish rhetoric.
The ad is reminiscent of the Albertans for change ads -- which were bankrolled by Alberta unions -- in which some "ordinary Albertans" were shown professing distrust for Premier Ed Stelmach with smiles on their faces.
The ads were a flop, as Stelmach was reelected with a dominant majority government.
COPE's ironically petulant anti-Campbell ad could turn out having the same effect. This, along with CUPE's recent anti-Israel debacles and then-CAW President Buzz Hargrove's 2006 self-humiliation, is just another reason why labour unions should leave political campaigning to those who know how to do it.
Hilarious addendum - It's amazing what can turn up in the "related videos" section:
Monday, March 09, 2009
United They Stand
BC amalgamation plan will give aboriginals a stronger voice
In a province where dealing with aboriginal affairs has been notoriously difficult things are about to simplified significantly.
In 2002 the people of British Columbia approved the Gordon Campbell government's eight principles for treaty negotiation.
Those principles set the Campbell government's criteria for treaty negotiations. They stipulated the following:
-Private property rights should be respected, and that treaty settlements shouldn't involve the expropriation of property.
-Land use terms and licenses should be respected, and anyone whose commercial interests are disrupted should be compensated.
-The use of Crown land should be reserved for all British Columbians, including for hunting, fishing and recreation.
-Provincial parks should be reserved for the use of all British Columbians.
-Resource management and environmental protection standards shoulda apply province-wide.
-Aboriginal government should be modelled on local government. All powers delegated by the federal and provincial governments should apply.
-Harmonization of land use planning should be entrenched within treaties.
-Tax examptions for aboriginals should be phased out.
Even with the government's criteria for an agreement mandated by the citiens of BC negotiation of those treaties have proven very difficult. With more than 200 separate aboriginal groups in BC, reaching an agreement would prove nearly impossible.
A recent piece of legislation introduced by the government of BC would allow aboriginal groups to amalgamate, reducing the number of separate groups to a number as small as 25.
The legislation will also recognize the title rights of BC aboriginals as the original inhabitants of the province.
"We heard the B.C. minister of aboriginal relations and reconciliation say that it is up to the First Nations to determine what their political structure is going to be -- and it might well be 203 First Nations or it might be 30 or it might be 100. We just don't know how that's logically going to play out," said Chief Judith Sayers of the Hupacasath First Nation. "People have to ask questions because I don't want to be forced into working with First Nations that we might not get along with or it doesn't make a natural fit."
By amalgamating their groups not only will aboriginal treaty negotiations with the BC government go smoother, they will also have stronger, more unified voices to speak with.
That's why the Member of the First Nations Summit's decision to support the legislation put forth by BC Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation Mike de Jong is so important.
It could even provide a better model for Aboriginal self-government for the rest of the country.
Other bloggers writing about this topic:
Chrystal Ocean - "Native Rights to be Entrenched in BC Law"
In a province where dealing with aboriginal affairs has been notoriously difficult things are about to simplified significantly.
In 2002 the people of British Columbia approved the Gordon Campbell government's eight principles for treaty negotiation.
Those principles set the Campbell government's criteria for treaty negotiations. They stipulated the following:
-Private property rights should be respected, and that treaty settlements shouldn't involve the expropriation of property.
-Land use terms and licenses should be respected, and anyone whose commercial interests are disrupted should be compensated.
-The use of Crown land should be reserved for all British Columbians, including for hunting, fishing and recreation.
-Provincial parks should be reserved for the use of all British Columbians.
-Resource management and environmental protection standards shoulda apply province-wide.
-Aboriginal government should be modelled on local government. All powers delegated by the federal and provincial governments should apply.
-Harmonization of land use planning should be entrenched within treaties.
-Tax examptions for aboriginals should be phased out.
Even with the government's criteria for an agreement mandated by the citiens of BC negotiation of those treaties have proven very difficult. With more than 200 separate aboriginal groups in BC, reaching an agreement would prove nearly impossible.
A recent piece of legislation introduced by the government of BC would allow aboriginal groups to amalgamate, reducing the number of separate groups to a number as small as 25.The legislation will also recognize the title rights of BC aboriginals as the original inhabitants of the province.
"We heard the B.C. minister of aboriginal relations and reconciliation say that it is up to the First Nations to determine what their political structure is going to be -- and it might well be 203 First Nations or it might be 30 or it might be 100. We just don't know how that's logically going to play out," said Chief Judith Sayers of the Hupacasath First Nation. "People have to ask questions because I don't want to be forced into working with First Nations that we might not get along with or it doesn't make a natural fit."
By amalgamating their groups not only will aboriginal treaty negotiations with the BC government go smoother, they will also have stronger, more unified voices to speak with.
That's why the Member of the First Nations Summit's decision to support the legislation put forth by BC Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation Mike de Jong is so important.
It could even provide a better model for Aboriginal self-government for the rest of the country.
Other bloggers writing about this topic:
Chrystal Ocean - "Native Rights to be Entrenched in BC Law"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)