I always respected Nettleton for doing what he did.
Problem was,very few were listening at the time.
We know better now.
Looking at what Campbell has done with the awarding of water rights to run of the river power companies,nettleton not all wrong.
B.C. Hydro is a mere shell of what it once was,and it has become almost redundant under this Liberal government.
I suspect that at some point,we may see Nettleton throw his hat back into the ring,but who knows.

There's the difference between the current BC Liberals, a Party that many people have often described as the BC Social Credit Party under a different name, and the original Social Credit government that WAC Bennett headed for so long.

There was room for 'dissenters' in Social Credit. Socred MLAs could criticise the leadership of their own government, and some of them regularly did, and they weren't driven out of caucus for doing so.

They didn't have to march in lock-step with the leader. They could speak up, and do the job they were elected to do ~ represent their constituents.

Contrast that with what we have today. Is it any wonder Campbell has more of his caucus in Cabinet, and bound to silence by the oath of Cabinet secrecy and solidarity, than it takes to run the whole US Federal government? Does he, or we, really need all that high priced help?

Or is the REAL reason they're there to effectively silence any who might publicly criticise his direction by buying them off with higher pay and more priviledges and perks?

Until Lekstrom, for whatever reasons, found his voice and redeemed his honour, and broke ranks.

We would like to think that others will follow, for surely if we're going to have a Party that enforces such universal thought control over its members we might just as well have the NDP. Whose very philosophy stands for that kind of herd mentality.

To its detriment, in my opinion, because it binds otherwise thoughtful MLAs to a Party imposed constraint, and prevents them from publicly expressing opinions that most people would find refreshing.

Such was, unfortunately, the case with former NDP MLAs like Corky Evans. Who, if he could have brought himself to speak outside the limits his Party imposed on him, had many ideas that most British Columbians would agree with. That would have been far more beneficial both to his own Party, and to all of us, than the "group mentality" that prevails.

Well said socredible!...bang on!

It would be totally GREAT if Paul Nettleton could stand the thought of returning to BC politics.

I was just thinking that bringing Nettleton into the discussion had already had a beneficial effect ... when I came to this segment of "socredible's" comments. Was it really necessary, or helpful, to say

" if we're going to have a Party that enforces such universal thought control over its members we might just as well have the NDP. Whose very philosophy stands for that kind of herd mentality. "

Jeez. Now there's a thoughtful political comment. Straight from the "Me-Good, You-Bad" School of Political Science. Come on, socredible ...

Nobody could be more disgusted with the Do-Nothing performance of the BC Opposition, than I am. But I'd rather have a Do-Nothing Government than a Destroy-Everything Government ...

And among many admirable characteristics of Paul Nettleton is his courtesy. I think it proves for us, that co-operation will serve us better than flat-out war amongst the very citizens who have the most to lose.

Good post Mary!

"There was room for 'dissenters' in Social Credit"

You had inside knowledge of the Caucus? Or the caucus of other parties?

I think that there has been a total shift in philosophy in the last 40 or so years. When I started my working life the word "team player" was not in the vocabulary of organizations or the gneral public. It was not found in the personnel ads.

The notion of "team player" has grown over the years. It now means one has to follow the consensus of the group. If you don't, you are no longer a "team player". So, you are off the team. Simple.

It does not allow for testing options properly. It generates "yes" people. It puts the organization at risk, not from internal dissention, but from external forces that see the weak spots and will go after them relentlessly if you do not shore them up from the inside first. It does not allow for change over time. It creates organizations based on dogma. Those organizations eventually die.

In my mind, simple minded.

BC Mary, whether you agree with me or not, the underlying philosophy of the NDP, as a nominal 'socialist', or now as they call themselves, 'social democratic' Party, is that the individual exists to serve the group. Solidarity forever. The "union" makes us strong. Meaning the "union" FIRST, and through it, the members in it. Who are subservient to it.

That kind of philosophy is the antithesis of Social Credit philosophy.

And so, as I said, we have had some very thoughtful people in the NDP, like Corky Evans, who do not speak out publicly when it might involve their saying something contrary to the herd mentality of their Party. I, personally, think this is sad for the NDP. That they're not mature enough as a group to stand any internal dissention.

Those who believe the NDP does not tolerate dissent have obviously never been to an NDP meeting. I have, and I have strongly disagreed with other prominent New Democrats, with absolutely no consequences whatsoever.

The practice of speaking with one voice outside a party caucus is not unique to the NDP. It is a standard practice in almost all parties in western democracies. I, too, would prefer that it not be so, but anytime a politician does offer a dissenting opinion it makes the front page of the newspapers and all the political pundit shows with comments about the party concerned imploding amid its imminent demise. That consequence undoubtedly irritates the party leaders, I'm sure, but with that as a common consequence, of course politicians hold their tongues. If political commentators would not grossly exaggerate the significance of dissenting opinions then there might be more of them.

The political world is not just composed of elected MPs and MLAs etc, it is also composed of those who feed off them, commentators, pundits, reporters, internet news site hosts, and so on. No man is an island, as the saying goes.

"Divide and Conquer" might be admirable on a battlefront in wartime, but in the crises being faced by humankind these days, it seems a foolhardy exercise.

In fact, even in wartime (WWII) political parties were tossed aside. In Britain, Churchill (diehard Conservative) as Prime Minister had Attlee (Labour leader) as his deputy and they got along famously. Got the job done. Canada raced from being an Agricultural economy to being the world's 3rd largest economy on the same un-political theme.

More currently, I don't see Obama being able to resolve the oil-spill in the Gulf of Mexico by relying upon politicians. Surely it's a mug's game for people to be squabbling about politics (Me good, You bad) while the land or the oceans (our food supplies) are being lost to the bandits.

Frankly, what's wrong with individuals (you, me) existing to "serve the group" if you mean the community?

The problem arises when the community is expected to serve certain individuals, such as Gordon Campbell and his cronies.

Paul Nettleton saw that. Lekstrom saw that. I hope others will find it a credible concept and put the public interest first and foremost, too.

It is too bad Lekstrom didn't realize this before he voted for the HST. He was also behind the Clean Energy Act which will cost BC Hydro users billions of dollars.
I don't think he did the right thing, he is just trying to cover his ass.

"Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country."

There would be no armed services if individuals did not exist that were willing to "serve the group" to the extent of giving up their lives.

Using people who are willing to serve the group is not exactly reserved for left of centre political systems. Quite the contrary.

Just make people feel they are special, they are important, they are needed, they will feel good, they will be recognized and all those positive things and they will do whatever you ask of them.

Being able to do that is a key attribute of a successful politician and political party.

"Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country."

"There would be no armed services if individuals did not exist that were willing to "serve the group" to the extent of giving up their lives.
-----------------------------------------
There would likely be far fewer wars where anyone felt they had to do that, too, Gus. If you look back at history, virtually every great leader who's subscribed to the "Man was made to serve some System" philosophy has been a curse to mankind.

In response to BC Mary's question ~ "Frankly, what's wrong with individuals (you, me) existing to "serve the group" if you mean the community?" ~ absolutely nothing, Mary. Though I wouldn't use the word "existing" as a replacement for "wanting", which latter is what I believe you meant. I hope.

Quote from socredible comment:

"BC Mary, whether you agree with me or not, the underlying philosophy of the NDP, as a nominal 'socialist', or now as they call themselves, 'social democratic' Party, is that the individual exists to serve the group. Solidarity forever. "

"exists" was your choice of words, my friend.

Yes, Mary, and in the sense I intended it, it's the correct word. But in the sense you used it, wouldn't "want" be more appropriate?