Clear Full Forecast

On the expulsion of MLA Bob Simpson from the NDP caucus

By Peter Ewart & Dawn Hemingway

Friday, October 08, 2010 03:44 AM

Sometimes you wonder if we don’t live in some kind of absolute monarchy, one in which the establishment political parties are the 21st Century version of royalty.  How else to explain the expulsion of MLA Bob Simpson from the provincial NDP caucus? 

 

Simpson is a capable, thoughtful and hardworking member of the party, one of the few who has a definite grasp of forestry issues in this province. 

 

So what was his “crime”?  Along with being critical of speakers from other parties, he also criticized the current “queen” of his party, Carole James, for “lack of specifics” in her speech to the Union of BC Municipalities convention last week.  “Off with his head” was the response of the NDP brass, all of which exposes the serious systemic problems in the political processes of this province.

 

British Columbia suffers under an extreme party-based political system whereby voters get to vote once every four years, but for the next 1400 days are under a kind of elected dictatorship, enforced by a “party whip” system that keeps MLAs meekly in line. 

 

On the surface anyway, MLAs are elected by voters to represent them in the Legislature.  In reality, candidates are selected by small, often secretive, highly-partisan organizations (called political parties) and, once elected, must kiss the ring of the party brass. 

 

Such a system does not favour the voters of the province, and it especially does not favour rural areas, such as the Central and Northern Interior, whose MLAs have their voices muffled, and sometimes even strangled, by so-called “Cabinet” and “Party” solidarity. 

 

It is no accident that a number of MLAs, both Liberal and NDP, who were expelled from caucus or made the decision to leave their party in recent years, have come from this region, including Paul Nettleton, Blair Lekstrom, and now, Bob Simpson.

 

British Columbian politics have not always been this way.  When the province was established in 1871, the first impulse of voters was to have a non-party based electoral system, where, in effect, all MLAs were elected as independents.  After being elected to the Legislature, the new MLAs worked out the composition of both the government and the opposition. 

 

There were, of course, “growing pains” in those first years as the political process was being developed.  Unfortunately, the big establishment political parties came over the mountains from Eastern Canada and took advantage of troubled political waters in this still very young province.  They overthrew the “independent” electoral system in 1903 and established the extreme party-based and “backroom boy” system which has remained until the present time.

 

Over the years since then, these political parties have feathered their nests with numerous privileges and perks, and set up hurdles that make it very difficult for independent candidates, or even small parties, to be elected anywhere in the province.

 

Today, when we think about what has happened to Bob Simpson, Paul Nettleton and Blair Lekstrom – all of whom should be commended for their stands - we should also think about that original impulse of British Columbians to go for a system in which MLAs represented the people of their ridings and not the political parties.  That impulse still remains today, simmering below the surface, and it one of the main reasons so many people are angered by the “party first” behavior of their local MLAs, as well as the antics and partisanship of the two parties in the Legislature. 

 

Why is it that party riding associations, which often have at most a few hundred members (in ridings of tens of thousands of people), get to select the candidates who will run in the next election?  Why must these “selected” candidates be then given royal approval by the party leadership far way in Vancouver or Victoria?

 

There are alternatives, as the history of British Columbia shows.  We don’t need to go back to exactly the same system of long ago.  But we can certainly learn from, and even build upon, that system.

 

For example, instead of party riding associations - which are exclusive and highly partisan organizations - monopolizing the candidate selection process, we could have wide open, non-partisan candidate selection meetings, in which anyone in the riding could participate, irrespective of their political views, and decide who would be candidates.  Instead of running “their” candidates, the main role of political parties would be to educate voters about issues.

 

A range of four or five candidates could be nominated from such a riding meeting, and, subsequently, their names would be put forward on the election ballot.  Once elected, the successful MLA would be in a position to clearly and forcefully represent all the voters in the riding and not be under the thumb of some party whip in the provincial legislature or backroom “boys” at party headquarters.

 

We need a modern political system, not some moldy relic of feudalism and party monopoly.  One in which candidates can, first and foremost, freely represent their constituents and speak out on their behalf.  One in which no one has to undergo the indignity of having to kiss the ring of the party brass in Victoria.

 

Peter Ewart is a writer, columnist and community activist.  He can be reached at: peter.ewart@shaw.ca.  Dawn Hemingway is a writer and educator.  Both are based in Prince George, British Columbia. 

 


Previous Story - Next Story



Return to Home
NetBistro

Comments

The answer is simple....Bob criticized James' leadership and was calling for a leader review. Either Bob wanted to replace her (as rumour has it)...or he had someone else in mind that whose bid he was going to support. James found out and was lookoing for the slightest excuse...she found it. So much for the NDP BS about being the "peoples" party. Never was..never will be.
This information should be pinned to every wall in the province of British Columbia ...

and we should read it every morning before breakfast. Then, let's break the impasse.

Without knowing the early history of BC's political system, I promised in 2006 when I started my blog (The Legislature Raids) to present information about BC Rail in non-partisan terms ...

Why? Because the citizens of B.C. are equally affected by having such a vital public asset as BC Rail slide into private pockets. And because the system which allows such piracy is obviously a risk. Even a neophyte could see that partisan politics can't solve problems; partisan politics (the Me good, You bad school of politics) is a convenient tool which keeps the citizens busy squabbling with one another, too distracted to realize what the big power-brokers are doing to us.

For the extended implications of the BC Rail deal -- which we should never forget, is revocable -- see

http://bctrialofbasi-virk.blogspot.com/

Many thanks to Peter Ewart and Dawn Hemingway for explaining that there's a far, far better thing we could do.
We can try all different kinds of schemes and plans, all kinds of voters consultation and well-intended changes - NOTHING will CHANGE when politicians are ALLOWED to get away with breaking the solemn promises they made to get elected in the first place!

We can keep the present system and work on correcting this most offensive and intolerable habit FIRST!

What good will all the fancy footwork do when at the end of the day we are back to them offending us again by still not keeping their promises or, even worse, doing exactly the opposite to what they swore to in the first place???
Politicians will never be able to be held accountable for the broken promises they were elected on so long as we allow them to utter the ultimate excuse without further explanation. That ultimate excuse is "... I know we said we'd do it, but we just don't have the money."


I've found political parties to be much like gangs. The behaviours are much the same. Blind loyalty being just one of the traits exhibited.

Perhaps comparing and contrasting political parties to competing cults could be helpful.

What are some of the elements of a cult?
http://www.factnet.org/rancho5.htm

QUOTE: The cult is authoritarian in its power structure.

The cult's leaders tend to be charismatic, determined, and domineering.

The cult tends to be totalitarian in its control of the behaviour of its members.

The cult tends to have a double set of ethics.

The cult has basically only two purposes, recruiting new members and fund-raising.

END QUOTE

In the instance of political cults... er, I mean parties, a third basic purpose to secure political power lends itself to other less then honourable behaviours.

With no guarantees of fulfilling election promises, and being exempt from honesty in advertising legislation it is understandable that a growing percentage of the electorate do not bother to attend the polls.

In closing, Peter Ewart makes mention of feudalism. In today's context I no longer see "representatives" as elected Lords and elites, but rather a roving bands of competing highwaymen beset upon the rest of us, operating with the blessings of the new age church of big business, the transnationals, the IMF and the rest of the alphabet soup.

Only about 5% of Canadians belong to political parties, yet they wield 99% of the power. Gangs, cults, highwaymen...

DeMOCKracy does not care what colour your tie is.



good analysis of party politics, to which i would add...

it fragments our communities as people huddle up in their party corners at election time breaking up collaborative work that then needs to be resumed after the madness has passed.

no matter who gets "elected", decisions are made by a small cabal and an entrenched bureaucracy executes the corporate agenda.
"That ultimate excuse is "... I know we said we'd do it, but we just don't have the money."

The broken promise regarding the sale of the BCR (for instance) had nothing to do with not having any money. In fact the sale netted a whole pile of money! There are other instances of blatantly doing the opposite just because they can get away with it!

The other lesson they must learn (the hard way = dismissal by a panel of judges and/or jail time, forfeiture of pensions, etc) that they MUST NOT ever make promises which they either will not or can not keep.

Since they always borrow vast sums of money for all kinds of adventures that *no money* excuse doesn't hold any water.

I also would not vote for any candidate who does not have to disclose what a bunch of them would do in the legislature once they band together to hatch some weird schemes.

That was a hundred years ago and we can do a lot better than that.

Peter misses the point, as seen by the past 7 years we think that electing a government is electing a dictator, This is the true legacy of WAC Bennett. We reflect on the good times of our youth and think that WAC was responsible, as someone who disagreed with some of his direction remember how ruthless he was with any oppossition. Now every premier since thinks this is good and apparently Carol James thinks so too.
I've found political parties to be much like gangs. The behaviours are much the same. Blind loyalty being just one of the traits exhibited.

Perhaps comparing and contrasting political parties to competing cults could be helpful.

What are some of the elements of a cult?
http://www.factnet.org/rancho5.htm

QUOTE: The cult is authoritarian in its power structure.

The cult's leaders tend to be charismatic, determined, and domineering.

The cult tends to be totalitarian in its control of the behaviour of its members.

The cult tends to have a double set of ethics.

The cult has basically only two purposes, recruiting new members and fund-raising.

END QUOTE

In the instance of political cults... er, I mean parties, a third basic purpose to secure political power lends itself to other less then honourable behaviours.

With no guarantees of fulfilling election promises, and being exempt from honesty in advertising legislation it is understandable that a growing percentage of the electorate do not bother to attend the polls.

In closing, Peter Ewart makes mention of feudalism. In today's context I no longer see "representatives" as elected Lords and elites, but rather a roving bands of competing highwaymen beset upon the rest of us, operating with the blessings of the new age church of big business, the transnationals, the IMF and the rest of the alphabet soup.

Only about 5% of Canadians belong to political parties, yet they wield 99% of the power. Gangs, cults, highwaymen...

DeMOCKracy does not care what colour your tie is.



Carol James was saying she can't come out with specifics until next election because then the liberals would use it against the ndp. So we are to have no effective and organized opposition is her response... until next election... its all about winning power and not about good governance is what I read.


Bob Simpson is a good man. One of the few I would vote for. One of the few in all levels of politics that still stands for the free enterprise system our country was built on. If he started a middle of the road party of free enterprise that represents the middle working class and the small business sector in a fiscally responsible platform... I'd not only support and vote for his party, but I'd maybe consider running for it as well.

I think Carol James has just effectively finished the ndp as a viable alternative in BC. I think those supporting her are the liberals best supporters. I also think the suggestion by Peter and Dawn above is an excellent idea.
Peter if you get the time could you (and Dawn) please consider doing an update to the excellent series of articles which you posted on this web site approximately 3 years ago that was entitled "Invasion of the Moneylenders".

I particularly liked the following paragraph which you had in the 3rd article of your series:

"Today, there is only one way to describe the amount of debt in the world – absolutely frightening. Future generations will look back in amazement at the herds of politicians, bankers, corporate leaders and establishment economists who have refused to address or even acknowledge the extent of the problem, and who, in fact, have contributed greatly to it. Like Nero, they have their fiddles. And, yes, while Rome burns, they play, and play, and play."
The amount of debt in the world could certainly be described as "absolutely frightening", Charles, but when have ANY of those you mentioned above ever admitted that exponentially rising debt itself is simply "a cumulative deficiency of PURCHASING POWER recorded over time" ?

The first order of business that a newly elected party has is 'to get re-elected'. That is the very first thing on the agenda. It has nothing to do with good governing or fiscal resposibility or the issues they were elected on. That is what makes the party system so flawed.
"Today, there is only one way to describe the amount of debt in the world – absolutely frightening."

Has there ever been a time when there was no debt in the world?

It is all internal debt. Not as if we owe it to Martians.

If I owe $1,000 and have $3,000 savings, what is my debt?

If I owe $1,000 and have $500 savings, what is my debt?

In other words, let us see both sides of the ledger to see how much net debt and net worth there is in the family, the community, the country, the world ......
One of you mentioned "feudalism". How about trying "fascism" on for size?
Under fascism, government is in the hands of business. This does not require extermination of any identifiable group as with the Nazis. It can work by instilling fear of some "other"... like, perhaps, Muslims. Then a "security state" is built on that fear. (Anyone been through an airport recently?)
Please, government, protect me and I will sacrifice my rights to privacy and freedom. (Our right to legal representation under harsh interrogation? Kiss that good-bye.)
We are suffering a slide toward fascism that will be impossible to reverse unless we regain control over our politicians.
SummerSoul, "we" never really had control over "our" politicians.

They are controlled by those who control, and claim ownership, of "our" money.

That control emanates not from "business" in general, but rather from a specific business ~ that charged with the creation and destruction of 'money'. Those who literally have, and hold, a Monopoly of Credit.

And who are determined we view the mere 'figures' used by them in what is essentially an all encompassing bookeeping service necessary for the facilitation of actual production and consumption as a 'commodity' in itself, completely apart from that production and consumption.

A 'commodity' whose value, to them, can be enhanced by its scarcity, over which they., and they alone, can exert complete control.

It is analogous by saying that the real value of a theatre ticket is somehow separate and inherent in the 'ticket' itself, and not in seeing the show. But when the show's over, what use is the ticket to you? Would it ever have been of any use to you, or anyone else, if there were NO show?
Gus:-"Has there ever been a time when there was no debt in the world?"

Yes, before the advent of 'money'. Debt is merely a financial tool, a very useful one, actually, that is bound up in that unique human ability to make a contract. There is no such thing as a 'debt' in nature ~ it is entirely a human construct.

In straight barter transactions there is no debt because the exchange takes place at one and the same time. When there is a differential in TIME in trading exchanges then there is always a debtor and a creditor. One party to the transaction will be in debt to the other, who then holds a credit with that party. A contactual obligation over him exercisable at some time in the future, payable on demand or on of after some specified date. If there is some token or other tangible means of signifying there is a contract between the parties to it, that token has served its purpose in regards to THAT contract when the obligation has been discharged.

Gus:-"It is all internal debt. Not as if we owe it to Martians."

It's all of THIS world, if that's what you mean. We can, and do, as a Nation or Province, have external (foreign) debt. Which can be described as an obligation to export, for ultimately that's all it CAN be.

Gus:- "If I owe $1,000 and have $3,000 savings, what is my debt?"

$1,000. Until you pay it. Then you'll only have $ 2,000.

Gus:- "If I owe $1,000 and have $500 savings, what is my debt?"

$1,000. And if it's due soon you'd better start saving!


Gus:- "In other words, let us see both sides of the ledger to see how much net debt and net worth there is in the family, the community, the country, the world ......"

That's what I've been saying for months on here. And others have been saying for almost the last hundred years. Even the NDPs former MLA and two time leadership hopeful, Corky Evans said it publicly, several times, ( and available on the Internet) ~ making me wonder if he really ever belonged in the NDP any more than Bob Simpson does, er, did.

For the NDP, and socialists in general, have traditionally had an surprisingly "reactionary" view of anything to do with "finance".

I think that springs from old Karl Marx paying so much attention to the "class struggle", and so little to the FACT (that he overlooked), that all money systems are 'creditary'. Money is NOT a "commodity", like tea, or sugar, or lumber, etc. Its quantity is not fixed and invariable, as if by the Laws of Nature, or something. Which completely negates the socialist thesis that "the poor are poor because the rich are rich", at least in any area where poverty is primarily a financial condition, and not in any ways otherwise, a physical one.