babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » from far and wide   » bc, alberta, saskatchewan   » Anderson talks of alliance with NDP

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Anderson talks of alliance with NDP
Panama Jack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6478

posted 30 July 2004 03:08 PM      Profile for Panama Jack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Anderson talks of alliance with NDP over offshore oil & gas

Yeah! Looks like Anderson is going to end his political career with some style... I was getting a little worried that he'd back off and just accept some sweet partronage appointment (ambassador, senate, etc.), but it really looks like this Liberal (gasp!) actually has some personal principles he stands by.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
99th Floor
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6260

posted 30 July 2004 03:52 PM      Profile for 99th Floor     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
As the article says, he's got nothing to lose. He's an old codger. Do you think he'll run again in the upcoming election?
From: the corner of Grant and Fernwood | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Panama Jack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6478

posted 30 July 2004 05:21 PM      Profile for Panama Jack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well.... he's hinted at running AGAIN if he thinks he can regain his Environmental post ... which does seem pretty unlikely.

The article certainly finished off with a flattering quote:


"David Anderson isn't starting out a career. He is probably completing a very significant career in public life and he doesn't need to play those political games that other politicians do. He has never been known for compromising his principles and in that sense he's always been quite an extraordinary politician."

Why hasn't the NDP run anyone with an enviromental background? I was really disappointed with David Turner's knowledge on environmental issues (granted he's dedicated his life to social work), but I think he might have won if could have been a tad more articulate with issues like Offshore O&G.

I think Andrew Petter would be an ideal choice although I dont' think he has any interest being an opposition MP...


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
99th Floor
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6260

posted 30 July 2004 05:25 PM      Profile for 99th Floor     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Andrew Petter ... who he??
From: the corner of Grant and Fernwood | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
beverly
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5064

posted 30 July 2004 05:27 PM      Profile for beverly     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Petter former BC NDP MLA. Law prof UVic.
From: In my Apartment!!!! | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Panama Jack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6478

posted 30 July 2004 05:32 PM      Profile for Panama Jack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by 99th Floor:
Andrew Petter ... who he??

Ex-NDP MLA/Cabinet Minister for... Saanich South (?). He's currently Dean of Law at UVIC.

Check out this interesting 2001 Egloo Interview here... nice discussion on the NDP/Green spilt...


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 30 July 2004 08:54 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Isn't this the same David Anderson who decided the Libs could govern as though they had a majority?
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Panama Jack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6478

posted 30 July 2004 11:59 PM      Profile for Panama Jack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DrConway:
Isn't this the same David Anderson who decided the Libs could govern as though they had a majority?

Yup! What a self assured arrogant s.o.b. -- this old spurred Maverik.... And he's probably mostly right for the next little while, as all the partys are broke, or so I'm told by the mass media.... This he new funding formula just makes things alot more scripted eh?

Anybody care to guess how early the Liberals (who would get the most money) could afford to call the next election?


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Dagmar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5444

posted 31 July 2004 04:20 PM      Profile for Dagmar   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The last thing we need right now is Dopey Dave jumping on our ship. Our flirtation with Sheila Copps was bad enough. I'd rather we attract intelligent Liberal life-forms to our camp.
From: Santa looks a lot like Daggy! | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Privateer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3446

posted 31 July 2004 04:36 PM      Profile for Privateer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I don't see Anderson joining our caucus. But we can't ignore this development. Layton was known for coalition building around specific issues during his time in muncipal politics. We should form a working relationship with Anderson where we see eye-to-eye. And like or not, Anderson has eco-credibility. The same kind-of relationship could apply to other Liberal MPs. We gotta take full advantage of a minority situation.
From: Haligonia | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 31 July 2004 05:15 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I agree, there's no reason we can't work with Anderson or anyone else prominent who's willing to fight for the same cause -at least between elections. Maybe some Liberals are able to stand for something progressive -when they're looking towards retirement.
From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Panama Jack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6478

posted 31 July 2004 05:21 PM      Profile for Panama Jack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dagmar:
The last thing we need right now is Dopey Dave jumping on our ship. Our flirtation with Sheila Copps was bad enough. I'd rather we attract intelligent Liberal life-forms to our camp.

Dagmar: did you even read the article? I guess it was a bad headline job on the journalists part (attention grabbing though), Anderson has been the NDP's biggest South Island nemisis for ages... he doesn't want to cooperate, but knows it's his best option for keeping his baby (the offshore mortitorium) alive.

Dopey Dave eh? I've talked to him on a number of occasions and that never was my impression.... pretty slick actually, and knows his stuff.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 31 July 2004 05:24 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Our flirtation with Sheila Copps was bad enough. I'd rather we attract intelligent Liberal life-forms to our camp.

I though publically flirting with Copps was an excellent move, though I doubted it would ever come pass. Who would you consider "intelligent Liberal lifeforms" -Anne McLellan, John McCallum, Dr. Keith Martin...?


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 31 July 2004 05:28 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
he doesn't want to cooperate, but knows it's his best option for keeping his baby (the offshore mortitorium) alive.

I would go so far as saying the "moratorium is "his baby", I'm pretty sure the BC NDP put a moratorium on it years before he entered government. Just good if we have an ally in government on the issue.


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 31 July 2004 05:28 PM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Actually, I think it's imperative that the NDP are seen to be making big-wheel collaberations, not just because it makes us seem powerful, but because it makes us seem like a group that can get along with others. One of the major reservations that people have about the party, besides the whole fiscal cred thing, is the impression that we would be tyrants, ramming through our ideological programs with no regard for the rest of the legislature and the people they represent. Building a perception of being team players who can make deals and get things done will build trust with the electorate.
From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 31 July 2004 05:37 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
As long as it's an issue most of us agree on, and we can take some credit for, why not?
From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Panama Jack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6478

posted 31 July 2004 05:38 PM      Profile for Panama Jack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Erik the Red:

I would go so far as saying the "moratorium is "his baby", I'm pretty sure the BC NDP put a moratorium on it years before he entered government. Just good if we have an ally in government on the issue.


Nope. He put in the moratorium 30 years ago when he was in the Treadeau government... he put his heart and soul on this issue.

See:

BC Offshore O&G History

He's had an interesting career, regardless of what you think of him personally:
David Anderson's Bio

[ 31 July 2004: Message edited by: tomlovestrees ]


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 31 July 2004 06:19 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The BC moratorium, in fact, was put on in 1958, if memory serves.

As for the NDP generally, I think federally if we push the Liberals far enough to the left and make it clear that it was Layton and his MPs doing all the spadework getting Martin to go along, the NDP will be seen as a visible, energetic party which is not afraid to articulate a fresh vision for Canada besides just giving away the store to Canada Steamship Lines.

Provincially, I would like to see the NDP take the stance that the moratorium should not be lifted unless the oil companies can figure out a way to suck the oil out while keeping the rigs on land, or otherwise improving the safety of the offshore drilling and extraction process.

We should be seen as being open to the possibility, but not without a helluva lot of backup with respect to safety and environmental concerns.

That having been said I personally dislike the idea, because it would accentuate the resource-extraction bent of BC's economy, rather than making it more diverse.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Panama Jack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6478

posted 31 July 2004 07:01 PM      Profile for Panama Jack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DrConway:
The BC moratorium, in fact, was put on in 1958, if memory serves.

I think that's when pre-limerary interest started on it, as offshore oil was just coming into its own around that time... however, it wasn't until the late 1960's when real interest came about. Thankfully, ecological awarness was also fashisonable at the time as well..



Provincially, I would like to see the NDP take the stance that the moratorium should not be lifted unless the oil companies can figure out a way to suck the oil out while keeping the rigs on land, or otherwise improving the safety of the offshore drilling and extraction process.

Frankly, that's impossible, and would probably be more expensive. The work on the rigs is actually extremely safe, it's in the transport process that there's any risk, and even at that it's statistically very rare.

Of course, when there ARE problems, things get real ugly


We should be seen as being open to the possibility, but not without a helluva lot of backup with respect to safety and environmental concerns.

This was Anderson's bent for the last little while... not too be completly opposed but insist on a very stringant pre-cautionary approach.


That having been said I personally dislike the idea, because it would accentuate the resource-extraction bent of BC's economy, rather than making it more diverse.


Of course, this doesn't have to be the case. The best, most balanced person I've talked to about this actually said that the best case one could make for offshore oil and gas development is that government could use most of the royalities to transform the Provinces economy, especially with regards to renewable energy. Look and see what Alberta does with it's future huge surpluses... our favourite Albertan JackisBack claims that since the last downturn in Alberta's economy (when the price of oil was around $10-15 USD/barrel) they've spent alot of their oil wealth in diversifying away from their fossil fuel economy.

Eventually, no matter what people opposed to offshore development say or do, the oil that is claimed to be there will get developed. SO.... the question is when and how we develop it, and how we decide to use those riches.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668

posted 31 July 2004 07:01 PM      Profile for Agent 204   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Erik the Red:
I agree, there's no reason we can't work with Anderson or anyone else prominent who's willing to fight for the same cause -at least between elections. Maybe some Liberals are able to stand for something progressive -when they're looking towards retirement.

Under those circumstances, yes. Chretien did more good things in his last year as PM than in all his previous years combined.


From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 31 July 2004 11:23 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by tomlovestrees:

Nope. He put in the moratorium 30 years ago when he was in the Treadeau government... he put his heart and soul on this issue.

I stand corrected. I do seem to remember the BC NDP declaring oil development off limits to any development, but perhaps just reaffirming the existing moratorium. Site said something about the BC government adding their own offshore limits but didn't say which one exactly, hm.


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 31 July 2004 11:41 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:

Under those circumstances, yes. Chretien did more good things in his last year as PM than in all his previous years combined.

Ya, it's too bad he took so long to remember he was a Liberal after all. Maybe we should remind Martin it's time to start thinking of his own legacy...or maybe spread rumours that Sheila Copps is planning on running again after he's gone.


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Panama Jack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6478

posted 01 August 2004 01:49 AM      Profile for Panama Jack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Erik the Red:

I stand corrected. I do seem to remember the BC NDP declaring oil development off limits to any development, but perhaps just reaffirming the existing moratorium. Site said something about the BC government adding their own offshore limits but didn't say which one exactly, hm.


The provincial government does "own" the seabed of Georgia Strait; perhaps their moratorium was on development there... complicated stuff, who has jurisidiction of the seabed.

The Haida have a pretty good case nonetheless... even though they didn't traditionally utilize the seabed, there is archelogical evidence that their village sites were right above the current deposits (sea level rise through the centuries however have changed the coastline and hence the village locations).


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sir George Williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6119

posted 02 August 2004 02:11 PM      Profile for Sir George Williams        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
tomlovestrees

While it is true that most acidents are in the transport not the drilling/production of oil, history's second largest spill ever was the blowout at ixtoc in the Gulf of Mexico. It was the largest accidental spill.

"The IXTOC I exploratory well blew out on June 3, 1979 in the Bay of Campeche off Ciudad del Carmen, Mexico. By the time the well was brought under control in 1980, an estimated 140 million gallons of oil had spilled into the bay. The IXTOC I is currently #2 on the all-time list of largest oil spills of all-time, eclipsed only by the deliberate release of oil, from many different sources, during the 1991 Gulf War"

http://www.hamburger-bildungsserver.de/ozean/oel-137.jpeg

However there are many causes of marine pollution due to offshore drilling other than well blowouts. As David Suzuki said in an ad "oil drilling is a leaky business".

For instance:

Risks of Offshore Oil and Gas
http://www.oilfreecoast.org/about.htm

" Besides spills and blowouts, the industry produces drilling muds and produced waters that put poisons into the ocean. A single production platform can discharge over 90,000 metric tons of drilling fluids and metal cuttings into the ocean. A single offshore rig emits the same quantity of pollution as 7,000 cars driving 50 miles per day."

For a google search click on the follwing link:
http://tinyurl.com/4w3bu

And what about the ultimate decommissioning of the drilling platforms?

[ 02 August 2004: Message edited by: Sir George Williams ]


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Panama Jack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6478

posted 03 August 2004 03:25 PM      Profile for Panama Jack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Actually, FAR more pollution is caused (in total) by source point pollution like when someone spills some gas at the pump or on the lake ... but that ain't nearly as obviously destructive to habitat as your exceptionally rare Exxon disasters... offshore rigs are quite "safe", with incredibly stringent enviro/safety standards (thank Norway for that!) but of course there's always an element of risk, which in the case of Haida Gwaii/Charlottes is even higher due to the proximity to the foreshore (the rigs would be place 10-15 off the coast, instead of several hundred km like Hiberna or Terra Nova), as well as being located in an active earthquake zone. In short, you have a sitiuation with some substantial risks that can be "scientifically proven" to have a very low probability of happening. It's going to be a historic battle between the "wise users" and those who advocate the "precautionary approach".

That said, oil is just going to get more valuable, and eventually even the NDP will join the rallying cry (as has Dan Miller) to "pump it OUT!!".

At the moment, however, offshore development exists as a crucial wedge issue that the NDP should advance with some thought -- and not just empty Victoria/Vancouver based NIMBY rhetoric.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 03 August 2004 03:43 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:

That said, oil is just going to get more valuable, and eventually even the NDP will join the rallying cry (as has Dan Miller) to "pump it OUT!!".

At the moment, however, offshore development exists as a crucial wedge issue that the NDP should advance with some thought -- and not just empty Victoria/Vancouver based NIMBY rhetoric.



Is that how other members of the Green Party see it too or are you just speaking for yourself?


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Panama Jack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6478

posted 03 August 2004 06:51 PM      Profile for Panama Jack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Erik the Red:

Is that how other members of the Green Party see it too or are you just speaking for yourself?

Just me! (I'm not a supporter of any party in particular.. although I tend to vote whistfully for the NDP).

Remember: it was the NDP that instigated Northern BC's natural gas boom -- which included directional drilling underneath local parks and protected areas.

Think the BC NDP was always diametrically opposed to offsore oil & gas development?

Read this 1998 article:
Offshore Drilling: Coming soon to a coast near you


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Panama Jack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6478

posted 03 August 2004 07:00 PM      Profile for Panama Jack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I guess my point Eric is that the NDP need to take a different tack than from the Green's "no offshore development at any cost" approach...

The oil WILL get pumped, sooner or later -- much sooner if BC elects a couple more Liberal governments. Therefore, I'd like to see the NDP take an extremely cautious but eventually optmistic view on offshore development, ie. have the riggs literally surronded by offshore wind turbines (a project proposal already exists for one, NaiKun Wind Energy). Right now, I see NDPers trying to take over the Greens position, something that I think they'll regret in another election cycle.

I'd personally support careful extraction of that valueable resource under the condition that the lions share of the royalites (and those royalites better be stiff!) go towards transforming BC into some sort of 'steady-state' economy that Scumacher and countless other Greens refer too [focus on "Green" renewable energy, local and robust agriculture, plus another dozen or so pipedreams..]. The GP could never really do that [sacrifice SOME *bad* development for the better good]... it would be seen as betraying far too much.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sir George Williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6119

posted 04 August 2004 12:57 PM      Profile for Sir George Williams        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by tomlovestrees:
Actually, FAR more pollution is caused (in total) by source point pollution like when someone spills some gas at the pump or on the lake ... but that ain't nearly as obviously destructive to habitat as your exceptionally rare Exxon disasters... offshore rigs are quite "safe", with incredibly stringent enviro/safety standards (thank Norway for that!) but of course there's always an element of risk, which in the case of Haida Gwaii/Charlottes is even higher due to the proximity to the foreshore (the rigs would be place 10-15 off the coast, instead of several hundred km like Hiberna or Terra Nova), as well as being located in an active earthquake zone. In short, you have a sitiuation with some substantial risks that can be "scientifically proven" to have a very low probability of happening. It's going to be a historic battle between the "wise users" and those who advocate the "precautionary approach".

That said, oil is just going to get more valuable, and eventually even the NDP will join the rallying cry (as has Dan Miller) to "pump it OUT!!".

At the moment, however, offshore development exists as a crucial wedge issue that the NDP should advance with some thought -- and not just empty Victoria/Vancouver based NIMBY rhetoric.


I just told you the BIGGEST OIL SPILL IN HISTORY (other than Saddam's act of deliberate vandalism in 1990) occured in the Gulf of Mexico.

Your response: Offshore drilling is quite safe.

I talk about the inevitable pollution of drilling mud and other materials, seismic testing etc and you talk about preventable spills on land.

I guess you love trees but don't like fish.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sir George Williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6119

posted 04 August 2004 12:59 PM      Profile for Sir George Williams        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 

I agree, the oil will eventually be pumped out. But let's be aware of the risks (at the very least) and not belittle them.

[ 04 August 2004: Message edited by: Sir George Williams ]


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Panama Jack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6478

posted 04 August 2004 07:06 PM      Profile for Panama Jack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sir George Williams:

I just told you the BIGGEST OIL SPILL IN HISTORY (other than Saddam's act of deliberate vandalism in 1990) occured in the Gulf of Mexico.
Your response: Offshore drilling is quite safe.
I talk about the inevitable pollution of drilling mud and other materials, seismic testing etc and you talk about preventable spills on land.
I guess you love trees but don't like fish.

Geez.... don't need to get so huffy.

I'm *not* a offshore supporter... I'd rather see a world were we *don't* need oil and gas... but the fact is our entire civilization is dependant on the stuff, and BC's still pristine waters are hiding up to 9 billion barrels of the stuff, plus lots of of natural gas.

In stating "offshore drilling is safe", I meant that in a comparative way.... ALL human oil related pollution is preventable, if we wanted to pay for it... the fact is if consumers really wanted oil that doesn't needlessly pollute the ground/sea bed it was pumped out of, everything would be much more expensive.

I'd personally politically support a vision like that, but the fact of the matter is, left-right-or centre, most people want their consumer lifestyle as cheaply as possible, to hell with stringent environmental standards.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Panama Jack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6478

posted 04 August 2004 07:20 PM      Profile for Panama Jack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by tomlovestrees:

ALL human oil related pollution is preventable, if we wanted to pay for it... .

Actually I take that back.... just read an interesting stat that maintained that upwards of 40% of oil pollution worldwide is caused by natural leakage... of course, this is done at a slow enough rate as to be handled (more or less) by mother nature... of course, no ecosystem can effectively deal with a real nasty spill.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 04 August 2004 08:50 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 

[ 04 August 2004: Message edited by: 'lance ]


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 04 August 2004 09:01 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
BTW: Let me remind everyone that virtually all the potential economic benefits from offshore oil drilling would accrue in the coastal areas of BC. Areas that are largely in the federal ridings of Skeena-Bulkley Valley and Vancouver Island North.

The federal NDP was very explicit about being totally opposed to any off-shore drilling and went on to win Skeena in a stunning upset and surprised everyone by coming within 400 votes in North Van. Island. Obviously being anti-drilling did the NDP no harm at all in those areas. In fact it probably helped!


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Panama Jack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6478

posted 05 August 2004 12:00 PM      Profile for Panama Jack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Didn't Dan Miller represent Prince Rupert?

Again, the NDP (at least provincially) have flip/flopped on this issue like they were a Liberal.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sir George Williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6119

posted 05 August 2004 01:14 PM      Profile for Sir George Williams        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by tomlovestrees:
Didn't Dan Miller represent Prince Rupert?

Again, the NDP (at least provincially) have flip/flopped on this issue like they were a Liberal.


Isn't that what all parties do in this system called democracy, where the demo's (i.e. people's) part is just making an X every four years or so and then the elected government does what it likes to do?


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 05 August 2004 05:58 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Didn't Dan Miller represent Prince Rupert?

Again, the NDP (at least provincially) have flip/flopped on this issue like they were a Liberal.


Dan Miller isn't the NDP Tom, I'm not even sure if he's a member anymore. Maybe someone else can enlighten me here.


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Panama Jack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6478

posted 06 August 2004 02:06 PM      Profile for Panama Jack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Erik the Red:

Dan Miller isn't the NDP Tom, I'm not even sure if he's a member anymore. Maybe someone else can enlighten me here.


Well he WAS an extremly influenial member.... and acting Premier even for a time.

I was replying to Stockholm's claim that since the Fed. NDP won Skeena, that means a majority of people there don't want anything to do with offshore O&G -- which I found to be rather bad analysis, as there was a near 3-way spilt there (NDP won with 37%, CPC 33.7%, Lib 21.%).

Also, you just can't assume that everyone who voted for the NDP did so because of their offshore position.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
BleedingHeart
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3292

posted 06 August 2004 02:58 PM      Profile for BleedingHeart   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Interestingly enough, I read a profile of the candidates in one of the Nanaimo ridings and the Green candidate supported offshore drilling while the NDP candidate didn't
From: Kickin' and a gougin' in the mud and the blood and the beer | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 06 August 2004 03:44 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I was replying to Stockholm's claim that since the Fed. NDP won Skeena, that means a majority of people there don't want anything to do with offshore O&G -- which I found to be rather bad analysis, as there was a near 3-way spilt there (NDP won with 37%, CPC 33.7%, Lib 21.%).

Also, you just can't assume that everyone who voted for the NDP did so because of their offshore position.


I wasn't arguing that. First of all, the federal Liberals AND the NDP (and I assume the Greens) oppose off shore oil drilling BC (at leats for the time being). Therefore about 60% of people in Skeena voted for candidates who oppose off shore drilling. I'm not arguing that this was the only reason people voted the way they did. I am arguing that even though some would argue that a lot of jobs would be created in Prince Rupert if there was off shore drilling, tghe NDP's opposition to it did not prevent the NDP from winning the seat.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
BleedingHeart
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3292

posted 06 August 2004 03:53 PM      Profile for BleedingHeart   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
David Anderson has been involved with the Liberals since 1968, he should be familiar with their environment policy since then. He has had lots of time to form an alliance or even join thd NDP.
From: Kickin' and a gougin' in the mud and the blood and the beer | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Panama Jack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6478

posted 06 August 2004 04:02 PM      Profile for Panama Jack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:

I wasn't arguing that. First of all, the federal Liberals [snip]... oppose off shore oil drilling BC (at leats for the time being). .

Um.. how did you arrive to that conclusion? Switching David Emerson for David Anderson as the provincial lieutenient seems to be as "clear a signal" as the Liberal party is capable off in terms of supporting the lifting the mortitorium.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 06 August 2004 04:12 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yes, but before the election Andreson was still the Environment Minister and anyone voting on June 29th would have done so under the assumption that the Liberals were still against offshore drilling.

Suffice it to say that if you lived in Skeena and you were passionately in favour of off shore drilling there was only one party to vote for - the Conservatives. The are unambiguously in favour of it. But 66% of people voted against them.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Panama Jack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6478

posted 07 August 2004 02:28 PM      Profile for Panama Jack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
Yes, but before the election Andreson was still the Environment Minister and anyone voting on June 29th would have done so under the assumption that the Liberals were still against offshore drilling.

Suffice it to say that if you lived in Skeena and you were passionately in favour of off shore drilling there was only one party to vote for - the Conservatives. The are unambiguously in favour of it. But 66% of people voted against them.


I disagee... Anderson was/is the lone anti-offshore figure in the Liberal government BEFORE and AFTER the election... this was constantly brought up by David Turner in all-candidates events.

quote:
From the "TEAM BC" LIberal election agenda:
We all recognize the challenges associated with developing BC’s offshore oil and gas resource. To proceed, we must have confidence that the environmental effects are known and that our coastal communities will benefit."

Again, this, in a LIberal sort of way, is pretty much saying "we'll find a way to support offshore development.... as long as the enviro-effects are known!!

I've been trying to find the Liberal candidates, Miles Richardson (Haida treaty negiotator) views on offshore.... all he really seems so say is "we first need to resolve any outstanding treaty issues before considering anything else"[sic], DUH! The oil companies keep telling Gordo this, and Gordo just keeps on alienating First Nations with land-bribes.

[Gordo offered last year to give the Haida title of 1/3 of Haida Gwaii if they renounced their claims to the seabed, bolding asserting that this our "best and final offer".... the Haida just laughed and threw the document back in their faces]

Offshore is a very divisive issue with the Haida, some with $$$ signs in their heads, others with a larger concern on their ancestoral fishing lands. SO..... lots of people might have voted for Richerson -- the negioitator -- as the most pragmatic way forward to getting the moratorium lifted. Voting LIberal IS certainly proving to be more effective than Conservative in terms of actually advancing the issue.

[ 07 August 2004: Message edited by: tomlovestrees ]


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Lefty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3697

posted 07 August 2004 03:56 PM      Profile for West Coast Lefty     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Yes, but before the election Andreson was still the Environment Minister and anyone voting on June 29th would have done so under the assumption that the Liberals were still against offshore drilling.

While I agree with you about the NDP winning Skeena proving that being anti-offshore oil is not political death in BC, Stockholm, your statement above is an oversimplification. Herb Dhaliwal was very favourable to offshore oil and gas development and launched a process to remove obstacles to drilling over the past few years. There is every indication that Anderson was gradually losing the battle to keep the moratorium in place, even as Environment Minister under Chrétien.

Miles Richardson and many other Liberal candidates were all over the map on this issue during the campaign - so much so that Anderson had to issue a public "reminder" that his position was the Liberal one on offshore oil - his removal from Cabinet confirms just how wrong he was about the Liberal Party's direction on that issue.

quote:
I agree, the oil will eventually be pumped out. But let's be aware of the risks (at the very least) and not belittle them.

Actually, as Anderson and others have said, it's not even confirmed that "the oil" is there at all, the First Nations issues are a very long way from being resolved, and no major oil companies have expressed any serious interest in offshore oil and gas at this time. There's no certainty that the "oil will eventually be pumped out", and Kyoto, climate change and other factors will be much more important in the next 10 years which is the earliest possible timeline that any exploration would take place in this region.


From: Victoria, B.C. | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca