Sounds good to me.
Cheers

According to the article, Big Business & Political Elite run the whole show and there is a tradition of the white horse/black horse principle as administered by Big Business & the Political Elite in B.C.

If one examines the tradition, i.e. history of B.C. politics one comes to the conclusion that the wole decade of NDP rule in the nineties was also orchestrated, co-ordinated and controlled by Big Business & the Political Elite.

It could not have been otherwise, logically.

Big Business and Political Elite are always in control.

What were all the tireless anti-business and and anti-corporation NDP tirades all about?

Is this why Elections B.C. advertised: *It doesn't matter how you vote - just vote*?

The realization that EVERY party is in the back pocket of Big Business will come as a shock to those who thought that this is impossible - especially those who are socialists in the true meaning of the word.

Most political opinions expressed on Political Parties, and politics operate under the assumption that Politicians and voters have intelligence and actually do things that are planned over a period of time with a designated end result.

This of course is not true. We have just had a perfect example of **The best laid plans of mice and men offtimes go awry**

Because the Liberal Leadership voting system was changed, and the fact that they went into the election before any thought or consideration could have been given to the possible results, the end result could not be controlled. Not like the old conventions where you could buttonhole someone on the convention floor and convince them to support you on the next ballot, or cut a few deals, that could get you some votes.

No; This Leadership convention was a classic example of the blind, leading the blind. Falcon, Abbot, and DeJong actually beleived that the worst case scenario, would be that any one of the three would get elected, and they would look after each other. Christy Clark was odd man (women) out. They did not expect her to survive the second ballot. She did survive and as a result she is now the Premier.

What went wrong. Well its basically simple. They all signed up a huge number of new members and they all expected these new members to vote for them on the first ballot, however they paid little or no attention to the following ballots, nor did they get a good feel for who would get a significant number of the second and third ballots.

Thats where Christy came in, because she was a so called **new** face, and for a lot of people, after their first ballot I suspect that they voted for her because she was new, fresh, and was actually smiling. (Not grumpy like most other candidates)

So because they had no control over the second or third ballots, they lost. Kevin Falcon going into the third ballot was sure that he would win. What a let down. (Boom) the balloon popped, and reality set in. He and his cronies lost. The game was over. The mantra **Anybody but Christy** was thrown into the garbage.

We now have a caucus that was almost entirely against Clark, and in fact worked hard to ensure that she would lose, having to work with her over an extended period of time, or leave for greener pastures. What will they do?? We now have all those old dogs, who had aspirations for the top job, going back to mundane cabinet positions, or sitting as MLA's. with no chance of any change for a number of years to come.

There was no grand conspiracy behind this Leadership race, it was nothing more than a series of circumstances that culminated in Christy Clark being elected, through a process that at best could be compared to throwing dice in a casino.

In other words the Liberals continue to limp along with hairbrained ideas, with no clear cut plan for the future. The best they have been able to do, is tax and spend. Any fool can do that.

Lets see if Christy makes a difference. Somehow I dont think so. I expect that the party will fracture within a couple of years, and we will be looking at some sort of a coalition Government.

EVERY Party is in the back pocket of the banking system, Prince George, not "big business". Under the current financial set-up, they can't help but be. With any of them that form government it's kind of a symbiotic relationship. They can't do without one another. Or "do" unto us, either!

"Big business" finds a home in that same back pocket. It's "agenda" that Peter Ewart and others constantly rail against is to maximize 'profit'. Just like the stated priority of EVERY Party now is to have a 'balanced Budget' when they become government. Or better still, a surplus one.

Both are necessary to maintain their credit with the Banks. It is purely a FINANCIAL "agenda" ~ and one doomed to failure. Because the 'figures' do NOT accurately REFLECT the 'facts'. And what COULD easily be done 'physically', all too often CAN'T be done 'financially'. Accordingly, our economy will continue to perpetually under-perform, and business 'profits' and 'balancing Budgets' will become ever the more elusive. No matter WHO is in office.

"There was no grand conspiracy behind this Leadership race, it was nothing more than a series of circumstances that culminated in Christy Clark being elected, through a process that at best could be compared to throwing dice in a casino."

I totally disagree. I believe there would have been an identical outcome at a conventional convention.

The dynamics are simple. There are more urban ridings than rural ridings. I assume everyone understands that PG and simlar cities in the hinterlands are rural ridings. Urban ridings tend to lean more to the left.

When people recruited members, they really did not have much control over who they recruited. They just wanted warm bodies. In addition, I believe we had a significant group of those who had already been members when the leadership race was called that were unhappy with the process of decision making in the party. They may have been for the HST, for instance, but they did not like how the decision was made.

This vote was in a large part an urban/rural split and the urban part won. And why not? That is where the masses of people are, where the money to run the province is collected, and where the costs to provide programs and infrastructure are spent. Christy's group understood that more than anyone else. She campaigned most effectively and it showed in the end.

BTW, with the data collected on voting day, one could run the numbers through a simple one person, one vote calculation as well as a weighted calculation as it was done.

I suspect that had it been done without the weighting factor that Christy would have had a wider margin of victory. She was so sure of her ability to win that she did not speak against the weighted system.

Does anybody know (for sure) why former BC Liberal m.l.a. Paul Nettleton came out early in support of Christy Clark for premier?

What could have changed within Gordo's Gang, to have brought him back into the toxic brew of BC provincial politics?

This might provide some insight to your question.

http://communities.canada.com/vancouversun/blogs/viewfromtheledge/archive/2010/12/27/critic-of-b-c-rail-sale-endorses-christy-clark.aspx

Thanks, Gus, but Vaughn Palmer didn't actually tell us what brought Paul Nettleton back into the toxic brew of BC provincial politics.

Nor do I really understand why Paul doesn't explain that himself. Do you? The whole posture of capitulation doesn't fit with the Nettleton I thought we knew.

There's more about him at my blog:

http://bctrialofbasi-virk.blogspot.com
The Legislature Raids

He talks about Lara Dauphinee there, but not a word about Christy Clark. I find it very puzzling.