Pete's Viewpoint

One of the more insidious talking points of the anti reform side is that changing to a proportional representation system will give rise to extremist groups. This is bullshit. The electoral system doesn't determine who gets seats, it determines how they're elected. Ultimately, voters choose who gets to represent them. But to the false point being made by the chicken-little movement, consider Alberta for a moment. To consolidate conservative votes into one party in order to beat the NDP in '19, Jason Kenney has formed his UCP movement.  Mathematically, it works. If you take all the right leaning votes that had split into 2 or 3 parties and replace with 1 option (assuming all vote for #1), then you win. The trouble is that among the conservative spectrum in Alberta, they have...issues. I'll pause here for a moment and underline this: not all rational conservatives are extremist in their views . While I don't necessarily agree with their political

Global writer Keith Baldrey penned an opinion piece on the coming storm regarding the carbon tax. More than anything, it muses about the politics around the carbon levy and its future. My bet is that it isn't going anywhere. Both Justin Trudeau and John Horgan have little to be concerned about regarding the political noise being made around it. The legal challenge. Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan have filed a legal challenge to attempt to stop the federal government from imposing a carbon tax (in the absence of a provincial one) of up to $50/tonne once fully in place. The trouble is that the federal government, constitutionally, has no limit to what tax it can impose. Literally, in Article 91(3) it reads , "The raising of Money by any Mode or System of Taxation.". So if I was a betting man, this challenge doesn't go far. The Confidence and Supply Agreement The NDP and Green Party in BC signed a "CSA" in 2017 that put the NDP into office for t

Article: "Times Colonist: NDP's draft gag order could limit public dissent on party positions." (link) There is a time for internal confidentiality and there's a time for public debate. A healthy political party knows the difference and isn't afraid of the latter. So, with that, I oppose any gag order placed on party officials. I didn't join this party in 1995 to watch this party become an organization of yes-men. It is fundamental to the health of a democratic organization that it listen to voices of dissent and disagreement to help a course correction if drifting off path too far. So now what? Should a local party official (read: activist and volunteer) speak against a govt policy that runs opposite of party philosophy, is that person going to be stripped of their role? Let's be honest. If you're a member of a party, in this case the NDP, chances are that you're onside for probably 90-95% of what the govt is doing. That's what puts us a