Pete's Viewpoint

To hear some pundits say it, the thought of offering a chance to change BC's voting system is to be the end of human civilization as we know it. What they're doing is misleading people, and it's very dangerous. I just read in the linked article that the fear is that if only 50% bother to vote, potentially 25% +1 will decide the outcome of our system. This is apparently an outrage. But by the same math, should 40% vote for one party in the current FPTP system, they stand to get 100% of the power. If you're still counting, 40% of the 50% turnout is 20% of all voters. Is 25 > 20? Asking for a friend. A more ludicrous assertion was that proportion representation will prop up extremist groups. This is disproven right here in Canada. In 1993 and every election until 2011, the regional support concentration in Quebec meant that one party with an anti-Canada mandate would win 40-60 seats despite 7% nationwide support. Did I mention that this regional party didn't ev...

Damned if they do. If the NDP proceed with SiteC, they will have invalidated many of the arguments they hit the BC Liberals with. The dam is not a $7 billion dollar project, it's likely to exceed $12 billion if allowed to continue. This $12 billion is on top of the billions more debt the provincial government has forced upon BC Hydro while simultaneously taking billions in "dividend" payments* from the crown utility to prop up their imaginary budget surplus. Did I mention that the BC Liberals had forced BC Hydro into deferring debt payments while this dangerous liability was growing in the background. This is the state of things now, and if the NDP continues SiteC, this becomes their mess as they will have signed on to the plan. In doing so, the NDP risks alienating a large section of supporters who believed their promise that a negative verdict from a BC Utilities Commission report would trigger it's cancellation. Folks who generally see themselves somewhere on ...

Oh for God's sakes! People on twitter - who have likely never attended a BC legislature Question Period - are equating the NDP calling Coleman "minister of hot air" or the Libs calling Trevena the "consultation paralysis minister" with workplace bullying. Unbelievable. #bcpoli — Keith Baldrey (@keithbaldrey) November 9, 2017 To follow political pundit, Keith Baldrey rant about the recent decision by Speaker Plecas to cool down the insults and name calling in the BC Legislature, you'd think that a revolution was underway. Sorry Keith. You're on the wrong side of history here. If the 2017 election proved anything, it's that BC voters were done with the same old politics. Voters chose a minority parliament which obligates politicians to work together. This isn't a bad thing at all. Yes it's true that MLA's often behaved badly in the past. But, since when is bad behaviour of the past an excuse to continue bad behaviour in t...

Breaking news today points to a major leak called #paradisepapers. While I'm still trying to get my head around what this all is, the first glance shows some shady business dealings with offshore tax havens and powerful people. People, that is, linked directly or indirectly to the Prime Minister and his party. Now, I'm no lawyer or tax expert, so I can't really assess the information revealed. But the optics suck if you're a federal liberal. Setting aside any possible illegal activity, when your party and leader campaign on the notion of #RealChange and a clean break from the Harper govt previous Martin (Liberal) leadership styles, headlines like this don't help. Justin Trudeau is already under fire for abandoning his commitment to electoral reform. Already taking heat for waffling on his environmental platform. For a narrative like this to come out isn't going to help those pretending that this brand of Liberal Party is different from the last time they g...

To listen to some BC Liberal leadership candidates talk, you'd think that the NDP is about to end democracy as we know it. They are arguing that to have a referendum on electoral reform *is* to rig elections. The NDP and Greens have made their feelings well known; that a form of proportional representation better serves voters than our current, polarising and gerrymandered 'first-past-the-post' system. While the referendum question hasn't yet been determined, the proposed change hasn't been decided either. But to change from the system that serves two parties instead of serving voters is some kind of abomination. But I think we saw the crux of their argument in the Vancouver city by-election. Where the NPA won a seat with 27% of the dismal turnout. The other 73% were split amongst a menu of moderate and progressive/left parties; but because the BC Liberal linked NPA got there first, they got the seat. BC Liberals don't play well with others. In the abo...

The first mistake in trying to project a narrative from the Vancouver city by-election result is to believe that it carries any weight beyond the 10% turnout that it was. Geoff Meggs resigned his council seat to take a senior position as John Horgan's chief of staff. So a by-election was held to replace him. 27% of the 10% eligible voters chose the NPA's candidate. Pretty underwhelming of a mandate. But, a decision nonetheless. Today's spin: This is a verdict against the NDP. Against the NDP/Greens. BC Liberals on the rebound. Nope. Accurately, however: For a party on the rebound, netting less than a third of the popular vote in an election that excited no one is hardly worth celebrating. That "27%" mandate is with only one party on the centre-right. The NPA used to dominate this field and would have no trouble getting high numbers. The other 73% are voters, candidates, parties that are centre and centre-left. The 73% have to get their shit together. ...

A healthy political party is one where it's membership and support base are drawn to its banner because of shared ideals; that it not be afraid of fair questions, criticisms nor afraid to change. That is all. Have a good day folks.