In the last two elections there has not really been any significant right wing parties running in the BC Elections.
In 2001 there was an attempt to create the Unity Party out of the ashes of Social Credit and BC Reform, but they did not manage to do much. Their leader was in the debate but they only managed to run 56 candidates and averaging only a bit above 4% of the vote where they ran. BC Reform ran 9 candidates, the Conservatives ran 6, and Social Credit 2 achieving a combined vote of almost nothing.
In 2005 the right wing did even worse. The Conservatives ran 7 candidates of which their candidate Beryl Ludwig in Shuswap actually managed to come third. Another 25 candidates ran for 10 different right wing parties and managed a total of just over 4000 votes.
Now we are at 2009 and suddenly there seems to be one right wing party emerging, the BC Refederation Party. We are just three months before election day and the party seems to have found 40 candidates already. The BC Conservatives only have 8 at the moment. BC ReFed is ahead of the Greens in selecting candidates.
The issues ReFed may get some traction on are the carbon tax in rural BC and the anti-aboriginal vote.
Their policy statements on their website are 'amusing' at best, in general they point to someone that does not seem to understand how our system of governance works. As examples, we have a constitution for BC. They also do not understand the underpinnings of our whole system of law and governance and show this when they suggest removing the powers of the Lieutant Govenor.
Now that said, their primary concern that the federal government has too much power and there needs to be more powers in the hands of the provinces is a fundamentally sound idea. Canada would be better off as a country if the provinces had more powers, this is in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. As an example, there is no useful benefit in having the federal government have any role in healthcare. Fisheries would be better managed by the provinces so that it could be done a more whollistic manner than in bizzare world we have now where some fish are federal and some are provincial.
Is Refederation BC the party to accomplish this? Highly unlikely because they look and sound like the cranky end of the federal Reform Party. They want an official langauge in BC, we seem to have managed well enough provincially not regulating what languages people can use.
I suspect the upper limit of BC ReFed is about 10% of the vote in this election if they manage to run a full slate of candidates, the media pays any attention to them and no one says anything too crazy. Their impact on the election will be zero this time around, the cranky right wing sat out the 2005 election so the Liberals should not lose too much vote to BC ReFed. If Mike Summers manages to get the party to do anything, it will be to bring people back to the polls that sat out the last election.
6 comments:
Nice try Schulman; those 40 candidates were attracted to a 'centrist party' -- "right wing / left wing", little platitudes to pander to a 3 second sound byte audience, conveniently labelling us. Besides, right wing Parties do not enshrine DDActs into their platform, ya know, 'giving people power over their government', which is our founding principle, something you neglected to point out.
As to "not understanding government", 8 years of intense research just proves how wrong you are and what a scam has and is being perpetrated on the people.
You have the tone of the status quo, comfortable in the thought that, while BCRefed is opposing the system, it is all just so nice to see 'democracy in action'...and we will amount to nothing more than 'opposition' to that system, thus stamping credibility on the process you are so enamored of ...how wrong you are!
If anything is evident, it is that the old line parties, "fully understanding the flawed system of government" have used their self appointed powers and knowledge to sell us out.
And if you really understood, you would realize that the Reform Party of Canada made a fatal error by forming federally, when in fact, it was the Provinces that created Canada, and not Ottawa.
We are not making the same mistake and we will work tirelessly to have returned what is ours, legally and constitutionally.
Last but not least BC does not have a Constitution....maybe you should re-do your homework.
Thank you for your comments..funny how we are being noticed..threats to the establishment usually do that.
Mel Garden
VP/BCRefed Party.
Mel, you clicked on the link for the BC Constitution? I know most people are unaware of it, but we do have one. Check out the link above.
Iconoclast wrote:
Their [BC Refed]policy statements on their website are 'amusing' at best, in general they point to someone that does not seem to understand how our system of governance works. As examples, we have a constitution for BC.
BC Refed answers:
We [BC Refed] understand very well how the existing Canadian system of law and government works, and it is unlawful.
What Iconoclast loosely refers to as a constitution is in fact an Act of Parliament in Canada and an Act of the BC Legislature in BC, and an Act is not a constitution, so neither Canada nor BC have a constitution. In the absence of a constitution a government is de facto [unlawful] according to the World Bank, which deals with governments daily.
Iconoclast also writes:
They [BC Refed] also do not understand the underpinnings of our whole system of law and governance and show this when they suggest removing the powers of the Lieutant Govenor.
BC Refed replies:
The underpinnings of the whole system of law and governance in a democracy are based on the authority given by the people to their government in the form of a people-approved constitution. That constitution gives the government the right to pass Acts with the force of law.
The government can not simply call one of its own Acts a constitution. Without a people-approved constitution the underpinnings of law and governance do not exist. There is nowhere else a government can get its authority to govern.
The only definition of a constitution that produces democracy is in Blacks Law Dictionary [Ed 6] -"A charter of government deriving its whole authority from the governed".
Iconoclast would be wise to read all the material on refedbc.com instead of dismissing the BC Refederation Party as amusing. "Rejection without investigation is the height of ignorance" is attributed to Einstein.
So by using your own chosen definition of a constitution you say that we do not have in BC.
A constitution is simply codification of the set of rules by which a governing body operates.
The reality is that we have a constitution and you may not like how it operates or the fact that we are constitutional monarchy, but that does not change the fact we do have a constitution. To claim there is no BC Constitution is to be fundamentally wrong. Just because some one calls a rose a tulip does not make it so.
You make reference to Black's Law Dictionary, you are aware this is specifically created for the US and is not directly applicable in Canada? The common law traditions and some precedence does flow back and forth, but the US has a very different legal setting than we do in Canada.
What you are proposing is an end to the legal history of Canada. The government governs on behalf of the Crown and no the people. The nation is vested with the Crown and not the people. The people choose the government and the Crown is bound to the decisions of the government.
You either need to make it very clear you are looking to institute a republican form of government or explain how you reconcile your statements and ideas with what we have at the moment in Canada.
I am not opposed to the idea of a republic as a form of governance, but be clear that is what you are proposing.
Iconoclast wrote:
So by using your own chosen definition of a constitution you say that we do not have one in BC.
BC Refed replies:
Iconoclast awakes at last - Yes, of course everything depends on the definition of a constitution. BC Refed accepts only a definition that gives the people democracy - a say in how they govern themselves, as the Swiss do.
Iconoclast, YOUR definition [a codification of the set of rules, etc] omits mention of who must write the codification. If politicians write the code they naturally give themselves all the power and the people have no democracy. You are obviously content with that situation.
If the people write the code [the constitution] and retain the right of veto over their representatives , that is as close to democracy as we can hope for. Why do you sneer at that ?
Iconoclast writes:
You [BC Refed] make reference to Black's Law Dictionary, you are aware this is specifically created for the US and is not directly applicable in Canada?
BC Refed replies:
We are concerned, and you should be too, with the greatest good for the greatest number, not about which side of the border we live on.
Iconoclast writes:
What you are proposing is an end to the legal history of Canada.
BC Refed replies:
BC Refed proposes an end to the politician-imposed system of government in Canada and in BC. When the Canadian people were declared sovereign by Britain in 1931 there was a break in legal continuity and the people should have chosen their preferred form of government at that time. The politicians of the day did not allow that to happen.
Later Trudeau codified this unlawful situation in the Constitution Act, 1982, but that does not make an unlawful situation lawful.
Iconoclast writes:
The government governs on behalf of the Crown and not the people.
BC Refed replies:
You are definitely awakening - Yes, that is the present state of affairs, and it is not democracy. Actually, when a government governs without the written consent of the people it does not govern - it rules.
Iconoclast writes:
The nation is vested with the Crown and not the people.
BC Refed replies:
This legalese means that a fiction called "the crown", not the people, runs the country, and you are correct in that. Section 12 of the old BNA Act gives the GG sole and total control over the country – quote “All powers … shall be exercisable by the Governor General individually…” - the old BNA Act is part of Trudeau’s Constitution Act, 1982 today.
Iconoclast writes:
The people choose the government and the Crown is bound to the decisions of the government.
BC Refed replies:
The fiction called the crown can hardly be bound by the government when what you call the Canadian constitution gives the GG all power in Section 12 ?
Iconoclast writes:
You [either] need to make it very clear you are looking to institute a republican form of government
BC Refed replies:
If 'people controling politicians' is a republican form of government, then you may call it that, but perhaps 'people controling politicians' is better named a “constitutional democracy" ? Whatever. But representative democracy without the people’s veto is not democracy and needs to be changed, starting in BC.
The RefFeds have all the hallmark of election spoilers. I wish to they go away.
This said, I believe what they say that a proper constitution must be by debate and then by referendum of the governed, is essentially correct, and there are good reasons for it, especcially in politically developing countries.
Canada has past the point where such distinction is more than quaint.
Post a Comment