🚀 go-pugleaf

On Wed Nov  8, jcorman@island.net (John Corman) wrote:
>
>On Wed, 08 Nov 1995 09:38:11 GMT, kpollak@portal.ca (Karl Pollak)
>wrote:
>
>>What this province needs is a variety of choices across the political
>>spectrum to ensure that the concerns of all British Columbians are heard
>>adn addressed and that the interests of all British Columbians ar being
>>respected.

One way to increase the number of choices is to switch from our
current electoral system, which seems to prefer 2 parties, but
does allow 3 at times, to a proportional system, which can
generate a very large number of parties. This may not be the
desired result either.

>>The only way I can see that happening is when we finally get rid of the US
>>vs. THEM on both ends and voters start casting their ballots FOR a
>>candidate, instead of trying to keep "the other guys" out of office and
>>when a much larger part of the population will get actively involved in the
>>politcal process.

One other way that this might happen is to have extremely good
disclosure laws along with improved public access to government
information. People interested in responsible government, from
all parties, should work within their party to implement
policies that improve citizens' access to information.

One example, in the area of patronage, is to require the
government to publish, for every person hired, full details of
the hiring process: when the position was posted, the posting,
the candidates, their job applications, the decision of the
panel. The same would apply whenever a person was moved from one
position in government to another. This is not an attempt to
eliminate patronage, just an attempt to understand its scope.

>The left has traditionally comprised those individuals who demand a
>direct benefit from their government.  Organized labour, the poor etc.

John makes two points in his first statement: that the left
demands direct benefits from government and that the left is
comprised of organized labour and the poor.

While people with leftist views want the government to
redistribute wealth to the neediest, they are far from the only
group that demands direct benefit from government. If this was
the only group demanding benefit, the income tax act would not
run to thousands of pages. The government can supply direct
benefits in two ways: grants and tax breaks. The value of
grants, in the form of welfare for the poor and perhaps
unemployment insurance, it easy to quantify and report. The cost
of the foregone taxes is not as often reported, but surely
exceeds the former.

The left may be for the "working man" and the poor, but it is
not of them. Union members do not vote massively for left wing
parties, nor do business men vote massively for right wing
parties. As evidence of the former, the Reform vote in the last
federal election. As evidence of the latter, the regular
business support for federal Liberals over the years. So, I
would disagree as to who makes up the left.

>It is possible that these individuals may now be forced to find a
>niche in a party besides the NDP.  For that I feel we will be much
>better off.  We are still going to get the provincial versions of Bob
>White et al but I bet many of the union members will shift to one of
>the other parties and in so doing will give that party a broader
>constituent base and a less confrontational outlook.

Confrontation appears to be deeply ingrained in BC politics.
What goes on in the house would not be permitted in any other
venue. If people working for me behaved like that they would be
fired (hopefully never hired). It is confrontational and
non-productive.

Perhaps we could go through Hansard and rate each member on how
confrontational they are versus how constructive. We could
publish the criteria and the ratings. To change behaviour, you
need to provide feedback.

Brent
--
Brent Beach, Victoria, BC