Terahertz

I haven’t blogged much about the BCNDP leadership debate (and haven’t posted much here anyways), but hopefully this will pick up as the election date approaches.

Tonight I got my first full taste of each of the candidates, which was helpful since so far I’ve been pretty unsure as to which way my support was leaning. All of the candidates said many things I supported, so it will be a difficult decision to make.

Before I give my summary of the 6 pages of notes that I took, here’s my overall thoughts:

I was really disappointed to not see any media cameras or reporters at the debate. The room was packed, there was supposedly seating for 100, but it was standing room into the hall, I estimate 200 people.

Dana Larsen was definitely the the speaker that most exceeded expectations. Despite seeming the pro-pot, single issue candidate, he has potentially the most fully thought out platform and was among the most eloquent speakers tonight.

Adrian Dix was the most combative, and would have no trouble taking the media spotlight and getting some good jabs at the Liberals in. Unfortunately, he has somewhat of a politics as usual feel and would probably have the shortest leash on party discipline.

Nicholas Simons, while a bit soft-spoken, impressed me the most with “science-based” approaches to policy and democratic approach. He also added at the end to me that he wants to question BC Lottery’s support of discriminatory religious organizations.

And now for the long form of my notes. They gave opening statements of 2.5 minutes and then gave 1.5 min responses to 3 pre-planned questions and audience questions. Since time was short, each referenced their websites for more information (linked from their opening statements).

Opening statements:

Nicholas Simons (NS): Recognized the upcoming International Women’s Day and discussed the need for integrity, trust and respect for the people of BC. He also wants to see policy based on research, science and the views of constituents.

Dana Larsen (DL) admitted he was an idealist (which I like) and outlined his 4 goals: Democracy (through easier referenda), Sustainability (including the BCNDP Sustainable BC document, support for railways and eliminating SkyTrain/transit fares), Social Justice (through tax reform, including repealing corporate tax cuts since 2001 and increasing taxes on the top 0.6%), and Smart on Crime (i.e. no to prisons and the war on drugs).

John Horgan (JH) reflected on the success of the Harcourt & Clark governments of the 1990s and emphasized the need to lower child poverty and raise the minimum wage. He alluded to the importance of education and the need for private investment that respects the environment, wages and that pays taxes.

Mike Farnworth (MF) wants the NDP to become a “governing  party” and to broaden support beyond just health care and education. He would emphasize working with people and communities and build support for the NDP based on jobs and the economy.

Adrian Dix (AD) sees equality as the biggest issue and suggests 5 ways to achieve that through the economy, environment, education and public health care (I missed the 5th). He only managed to get through the first but he emphasized how the Liberals have been the worst at the economy and the need to reverse corporate tax cuts and invest in transit.

How to deal with party unity?

DL: Need to listen to the grassroots and be more democratic within the party. He suggested an Open NDP website which would facilitate policy discussions in advance of conferences (something I really like and support).

JH: Admits that the November scraps were a “collective caucus failure” and that collective cooperation is required to fix it. He suggested focusing on the prize and leading by example would help.

MF: Wants to make all of the caucus feel valued and involved and to improve communication between caucus and the party/membership. Finally, he believes that the party must solve its internal financial problems so it can get to discussing policy and not begging for money (my words).

AD: Also wants to lead by example but emphasized that respect is necessary and that accountability is important, both for the leader and for caucus. He also emphasized respect for the party and its institutions. He struck me as the candidate who would have the tightest leash on party discipline (for better or worse).

NS: Echoed the others and reminded people that we’re all on the same team and that we should learn from our mistakes.

Action on the environment

JH: Implement Sustainable BC document. Would immediately acknowledge the severity and urgency of climate change and admits that the ‘09 campaign should have been “fix” not “axe” the carbon tax. Also, all old growth forests should be kept standing.

MF: Sustainability should be applied to all policy. Wants integrity and funding restored the the environment ministers and environmental assessment agencies. BC needs groundwater and species at risk legislation and the carbon tax should be extended. Finally, BC should protect at least 10% of its coastlines.

AD: The BCNDP has not been as strong on the environment as it needs to be and it must take this policy to the Liberals and show the true differences. Currently the carbon tax revenues are handouts in corporate tax cuts to big business, when it should be directed to transit and the environment.

NS: Echoed the others and wanted to see the public involved in the discussion in a “Citizens Assembly on Climate” which would be given the appropriate science. He also discussed the need for long-term policy that resonates.

DL: Also emphasized Sustainable BC and the need for full cost accounting. He wants to switch from GDP to a better system of tracking progress (e.g. happiness indicator), and that cap & limit is better than cap & trade. He’s against tankers and the gateway project and prefers rail over road. He also suggested new solutions like cannabis-hemp which is a very green product with many solutions (he had to get a couple pot references).

Raising the minimum wage and achieving a living wage

MF: Would raise the minimum to $10 and peg it to inflation. Also need affordable housing which can be funded with the affordable housing trust and through working with local and federal governments. He would also address cutbacks and negotiate fair collective agreements and restore student grant funding.

AD: Would also raise and link the minimum wage and enforce workplace/pay standards and ensure fair workers compensation payments are given out. He would repeal Bill 29 and position the BCNDP as a champion for living wage campaigns (among others).

NS: His first policy released was on poverty reduction and he would bring a minimum wage of $12 by 2012. He also wanted disability and income assistance rates to be based on an objective standard like the market basket rate rather than the arbitrary rate that exists now. Finally, he wants more social housing and a long-term strategy.

DL: Agrees with $12 wage tied to inflation so debate isn’t recurring. He explained how poverty is expensive and that the welfare system shouldn’t punish people who want to work by cutting their assistance. Finally, he wants to start discussions on living wages that would likely vary by region.

JH: Jokingly said that he would have to offer $14 to beat the others. He stated the NDP needs to be bold and tell the rich that they have to pay their fair share. He, ironically in his words since he’s the “right-wing” candidate, quoted Marx saying: “From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.”

Would you decriminalize marijuana?

AD: Best way to do this is to elect federal NDP members in the (very likely) upcoming election who will campaign on this. We also need to improve rehab services in BC.

NS: As a criminology graduate and from first-hand experience, prohibition doesn’t work. Need to end the war on drugs and make sure that medicinal marijuana is free and accessible through health care. We also need to fight local bylaws that circumvent privacy rights.

DL: Obviously supports and wants to end the war on drugs. See pot as provincial jurisdiction due to health care and wants to ensure regulations exist to ensure availability. Also need to regulate, tax and monitor growers and distributors in the province.

JH: Agreed with AD in the need to support federal NDP. Agreed with NS about preventing BC Hydro from cutting services and emphasized that people are criminals.

MF: Would deal with medicinal pot so that licenses are clear and would open up a broader discussion.

My question: Will you end funding to private schools and transfer that money back to the public system?

Unfortunately, when asking a question it’s harder to write responses since their attention is focussed on you, so my notes are less complete for this section.

NS: Admitted he weaseled around question but suggested that discussion is needed and he supports the publics system. The issue is murky (briefly mentioned the religion issue) and controversial. There is potentially some space for private schools.

DL: Not opposed to private schooling; however, is against the trend of increasing private funding while decreasing public funding. Suggested this is intentional to destroy trust in public institutions. Supports public pre-schools. Would also increase funding for more arts, music (etc.) programs. Added that education is an investment in our future.

JH: Agreed with DL about attacks on public systems and emphasized support for public schools.

AD: Would repeal Bill 33 (he might have said/meant enforce it, don’t quote me), and wanted to replace FSA tests (that the Fraser Institute uses) with something better. He really emphasized the need to focus the discussion on public educations, because with a well funded-public  education system, there’s no need for private education.

None were equivocally anti-private schools (since it was one of the more controversial issues raised), and they all emphasized the need to reverse the Campbell-era cuts to the public system. In hindsight I should have phrased my question on religious private schools, which is my greater concern. One candidate (I forget who, maybe JH or AD), mentioned the reason private school funding has risen is mostly due to increased enrolment.

Since DL may be expelled for pot videos and NS for refusing to turn over social networking passwords, should all candidates be allowed to run for leadership?

DL: Disagrees with a party that would kick-out candidates. Also, recognized the difference between an election and a leadership race where dirty laundry is distracting in the former, but less critical in the latter. Expected NS to be approved shortly (this may have been JH).

JH: Supports all candidates in the race. Wants the race to be about ideas and said the party fails if they’re kicked out.

MF: Wants both in race and supported DL candidacy from the start. Raised his own concerns with password privacy with the party but sorted them out internally.

AD: Seemed to support the other candidates but emphasized that the rules were set by a democratically elected party council and these discussions shouldn’t happen in public. Emphasized the need to follow the party’s rules and to respect the party and its institutions by following outlined appeal processes. If your appeal fails (as one of AD’s did): “There’s no crying in baseball.” This was probably the least inspiring answer and gives AD a “politics as usual” type of feel to me.

ND: Has appealed 4 times to no avail and emphasized that sometimes you have to fight injustice and fight for your rights. He also added that there isn’t any internal fighting going on, despite the media’s portrayals.

Would you implement a publicly-funded childcare system?

JH: The Social Policy Committee is currently working on one and he’d implement it. It’s the #2 issue he hears about after poverty.

MF: Very important issue. Would implement.

AD: It’s the best way to address child poverty and we need an NDP government and a majority of BC MPs to be NDP to make it happen.

NS: Echoes the others and has it in his poverty reduction platform.

DL: Sees it as an investment and has a link to a “Build families, not prisons” document on his website.

How will you handle Christy Clark in the next election since the media loves her?

MF: Remind people of her record in government. He also discussed how she is no “Hillary Clinton.”

AD: Will also beat her on her record. It’s “style vs. substance” and the NDP is closer to real people.

NS: Says the NDP (or himself, couldn’t quite tell) was “style and substance,” and that Clark’s policies pushed him into politics. Echoed the others.

DL: There’s lots of dirt on her including BC Rail. NDP also needs its own positive agenda.

JH: She’s very weak on BC Rail – it breaks her smile. Also put forward positive agenda.

Increasing animal protection and not letting groups investigate themselves (e.g. SPCA on the Whistler dog slaughter)

AD: Need to protect animals and pet owners (e.g. renters with pets). Reverse government cuts to animal protection.

NS: Needs more info on the maybe biased investigation, but the SPCA should be more accountable.

DL: Would regulate the SPCA and also review factory farming practices. Was disappointed that a task force on women in the DTES was slow while a sled dog task force was near instantaneous.

JH: Also needs more info, but has received many emails. Is disappointed that in many months the legislature has only sat 4 days: no legislature = no legislation and issues get ignored. Would implement legislative reforms.

MF: Need an NDP government to fix tragedies and would make SPCA more accountable and would restore FOI enforcement.

How to make health care more sustainable?

NS: Need a long-term strategy including preventative services. Shouldn’t waste money, e.g. acute care beds, and solve inefficiencies.

DL: Sees intentional mismanagement. Would restore funding. Sees drugs as expensive and need controls with more generic drugs and better patent laws. Would fund alternative therapies and preventative measures like massage. He also suggested more herbal and cannabis medications that seems to work better for some. I’m not sure whether he was alluding toward shifting our health care system to less efficacy-based medicine or not.

JH: There is a lack of accountability in the entire system from the boards to the health minister. Access is necessary and the answers are out there. Also suggested a cover-up about the dangers of black mould.

MF: Need more doctors and nurses in rural BC and a better approach to pharmaceutical drugs. We need to stand up for public health care. We must also prevent the Conservatives from getting a majority or health transfer payments are in jeopardy and they represent the only health funding BC has had for years.

AD: Money has been shifted to private health and it needs to be reversed. He would support more generic drugs with prices as affordable as in Ontario and would support therapeutics and evidence-based drugs. Finally, more nurses for rural BC.