Saturday, December 04, 2010

The Dissident Hypothesis, Revisited


Late Thursday, I hypothesized that the dissident MLAs attempting to destroy the current incarnation of the BC NDP have neither a grand grievance nor a grand plan for moving forward.

Since then, all manner of proMedia commentators and old Pols have weighed in on both sides of the issue.

And lots of regular folks have commented on the hypothesis here in sometimes valid, and sometimes feverish, but always interesting, ways.

The upshot is that I clearly have been overly-speculative based on evidence currently available. However, as far as I can tell, nobody has put a stake through the heart of the flesh-wounded hypothesis yet.

Still, I feel compelled to respond to the many folks that have directly commented on the hypothesis, and a couple of the peripheral issues associated with it, so far.

Here is that response (which is re-worked from the comments to the original post):

Thanks all (especially to the folks that are new here) for commenting.

To those who commented on Corky Evans' letter....I myself have often been invigorated by Corky's rhetoric...However, I'll have to dig a little more to see if there is any validity to the suggestions by some that there may have been some inaccuracies in his account of what actually went down...

I, also, agree with many folks who have suggested that it would appear that Mr. Sihota's stipend and his operating instructions to the braintrust may be part of the issue here...

I honestly think that to compare Carole James' actions to those of Gordon Campbell in this regard is not on....In fact, I would argue that none of this would have happened if Ms. James' was as heavy-handed in all aspects of caucus discipline as was (and still is?) Mr. Campbell....

Paul (Willcocks) has a valid point - My original hypothesis really is overly speculative without reliable observations from somebody on the inside...I just wanted to get it out there because I really don't see any rhyme or reason in this race to self-destruction by the Lotuslandian Dipperians....

Finally, a little off topic (but not really given who broke the 'Sihota Stipend' story)....A number of folks are slagging Sean Holman for taking advertising....That is just flat-out crazy...Unlike we pikers, Sean is actually trying to make a living at what he does (even Paul's blog is, I would hypothesize, a hobby)...If you want to keep Sean from taking ads, send him money (seriously)...And for those of you concerned that Sean has ads up for Kevin Falcon, I have to ask the following...."How come no one complained when the ad for Guy Genter first popped up?"...Sorry to be so strident about this, but I honestly believe that Mr. Holman is the best of all the pro-reporters/commentators covering provincial politics right now....As such, his archives really are the best history we have of those politics in the "Golden Era"....

Anyway, regardless all that, I'm still open to any new wooden stakes you might want to send my way that could be used to kill the hypothesis dead during the run-up to Sunday's Showdown (and if you really feel differently about the advertising on Sean's site issue let us know).

Thanks again everybody for all the thoughtful comments (even the ones I don't agree with) and the discussion....It is really the part I enjoy most about this blogging thing.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going off-line for awhile....It's Saturday morning....It's sunny....And for the first time in ages I don't have a trip in the cigar tube to the science geek bunker looming just over the horizon...So...I'm putting on my toque, grabbing my fingerless gloves, revving up the whackadoodle, and we're going to the beach.....Why?.....So that she and I can do this....So......My advice is to go out and do something fun today everybody (even you angst-ridden Dipperians - it may be your last chance for awhile)....OK?



paul said...

Heading out into the sun, but wanted first to support the view that critics of Holman for the Kevin Falcon ads on his site are wrong.
Full-time journalists need an income. Holman sacrifices financial gain in order to do his excellent work. The ads provide needed revenue to support him. There is no evidence that they have or will influence him. (And there is a reasonable argument that commercial freedom of expression is important.)

North Van's Grumps said...

“We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.” Albert Einstein

Its the child in Kevin Falcon's lap that's going to solve the mess that the BC Liberals have created. There's only twenty years difference between Falcon and Campbell, but there's 65 +_ between Campbell and the child.

Tony Martinson said...

I think Corky is brilliant. I think he's a passionate man about that which he believes.

I don't know what he actually accomplished in his years in government. Maybe he did stuff that I don't know about, but he was a minister for several years. I can't tell you what his legacy was.

The ability to give rousing speeches is not necessarily indicative of an ability to govern. You have to be able to work as part of a team, listening to and respecting the voices that aren't yours. Corky's ability to do those two pieces is suspect. Funny, but Bob Simpson is of the same ilk. So smart, they think no one else has anything of value to add.

Carole James has her own problems, sure. I suspect that regardless of what transpires at these emergency meetings, she will not recover. A good chunk of those problems are her own responsibility. When the change occurs, I hope those on the left think good and hard about electing someone who can lead us to government, and not do as we have done in the past, which is elect the polar opposite of what we have now. [Think about that: mild-mannered Harcourt to bombastic Clark to soft-spoken James.)

I am not optimistic. I think the nonsense of the past eight weeks has doomed us to conservative rule for another decade. Whatever the aims of the (ugh) dissidents, the chaos is at least partly on them, as much as it is on James.

Norm Farrell said...

Tony Martinson is very clear and, IMO, totally correct.

So too are Paul and RossK about Sean Holman's site. Sean does not create events, he reports them. Progressives unhappy with recent developments should blame the newsmakers not the reporters.

The suggestion at my site is for each of us to double the support provided Public Eye. Additional financial flexibility might enable greater selectivity in advertising, although as Paul notes, even that is dangerous territory. Maybe Public Eye has already separated the advertising side from the editorial content. Regardless, I trust Holman and the results speak for themselves on the page, over time.