Welcome to British Columbia
In the five days since I arrived home I've already managed to fit in two phenomenal days of skiing up at Whistler, a BBQ, a family dinner and two sleep-ins in which I didn't wake up until after 11am. It's good to be home.
I realized yesterday that I haven't been in Vancouver in mid-April since the spring of my grade twelve year nearly five years ago; consequently, I almost forgot the fresh smell of the cool air, the bright pink of the blossoming cherry trees and the various, disctinctive shades of green that characterize the forests of the North Shore at this time of the year. Now, this doesn't mean that I've been overwhelmed by nostalgic memories of years gone by or that I regret in any way the time I've spent away from home, just that the atmosphere created by such sights and smells has made me think that I might like to stay here for a while.
Not only am I excited to make up for lost time on the hiking and mountain bike trails of the North Shore and Whistler mountain this summer, but I'm also keen to get caught up on (or in...) the issues surrounding the upcoming provincial election and the circus that is the federal sponsorship scandal. One can only stay informed about these things to a certain extent while living overseas, as the coverage provided by national newspapers and even local weeklies online pales in comparison to the multiple perspectives and daily arguments one is exposed to while living at home.
From a pseudo-newcomer's perspective, it appears as though both Gordon Campbell and Carol James - the largely untested leader of the NDP - will be stressing the economic reforms implemented by the Liberals over the last four years with the help of their 73-3 majority in Victoria. While Campbell and his cronies are claiming that such policies were put in place to clean up the mess left by the former NDP government in 2001 and have lead to unquestionable increases in economic prosperity throughout British Columbia, James and Friends are stressing the negative impact such reforms have had on the working class and the social fabric of our resource rich yet politically polarized province.
Equally as interesting as the Campbell vs. James showdown, however, is the referendum on adopting the Single Transferable Vote (STV) electoral system, a form of proportional representation, as recommended by the innovative Citizen's Assembly. It seems to me that adopting the STV would be a step in the right direction: multiple members per (enlarged) electoral riding would increase the extent to which its constituents and their preferences are represented, as they would essentially be voting not only for the party they best identify with, but also for the individual in whom they place the most trust regardless of his or her political stripes.
There are certainly a number of pros and cons to each option, but at this point what I'm least clear about is how the members in each enlarged riding will allocate the duties and take responsibility for the issues that were once addressed by a single representative. If they're all responsible for the same portfolios as the single member was before, then there will either be increases in the effectiveness and representative nature of their decisions (two heads are better than one), or a decrease in individual accountablity (no one will want to take the blame for a particularly poor decision).
Not being fully aware of the intricacies of the STV system and its subsequent division of authority, I'm not sure if one, both or neither of those possibilities might transpire, but I'm willing to give it a shot nonetheless. In the end, however, the outcome of the referendum will likely depend on whether or not British Columbians will be able to put aside their fear of the unknown and take a chance with a novel, though not entirely new, idea.
I realized yesterday that I haven't been in Vancouver in mid-April since the spring of my grade twelve year nearly five years ago; consequently, I almost forgot the fresh smell of the cool air, the bright pink of the blossoming cherry trees and the various, disctinctive shades of green that characterize the forests of the North Shore at this time of the year. Now, this doesn't mean that I've been overwhelmed by nostalgic memories of years gone by or that I regret in any way the time I've spent away from home, just that the atmosphere created by such sights and smells has made me think that I might like to stay here for a while.
Not only am I excited to make up for lost time on the hiking and mountain bike trails of the North Shore and Whistler mountain this summer, but I'm also keen to get caught up on (or in...) the issues surrounding the upcoming provincial election and the circus that is the federal sponsorship scandal. One can only stay informed about these things to a certain extent while living overseas, as the coverage provided by national newspapers and even local weeklies online pales in comparison to the multiple perspectives and daily arguments one is exposed to while living at home.
From a pseudo-newcomer's perspective, it appears as though both Gordon Campbell and Carol James - the largely untested leader of the NDP - will be stressing the economic reforms implemented by the Liberals over the last four years with the help of their 73-3 majority in Victoria. While Campbell and his cronies are claiming that such policies were put in place to clean up the mess left by the former NDP government in 2001 and have lead to unquestionable increases in economic prosperity throughout British Columbia, James and Friends are stressing the negative impact such reforms have had on the working class and the social fabric of our resource rich yet politically polarized province.
Equally as interesting as the Campbell vs. James showdown, however, is the referendum on adopting the Single Transferable Vote (STV) electoral system, a form of proportional representation, as recommended by the innovative Citizen's Assembly. It seems to me that adopting the STV would be a step in the right direction: multiple members per (enlarged) electoral riding would increase the extent to which its constituents and their preferences are represented, as they would essentially be voting not only for the party they best identify with, but also for the individual in whom they place the most trust regardless of his or her political stripes.
There are certainly a number of pros and cons to each option, but at this point what I'm least clear about is how the members in each enlarged riding will allocate the duties and take responsibility for the issues that were once addressed by a single representative. If they're all responsible for the same portfolios as the single member was before, then there will either be increases in the effectiveness and representative nature of their decisions (two heads are better than one), or a decrease in individual accountablity (no one will want to take the blame for a particularly poor decision).
Not being fully aware of the intricacies of the STV system and its subsequent division of authority, I'm not sure if one, both or neither of those possibilities might transpire, but I'm willing to give it a shot nonetheless. In the end, however, the outcome of the referendum will likely depend on whether or not British Columbians will be able to put aside their fear of the unknown and take a chance with a novel, though not entirely new, idea.
posted by Per at 4:51 p.m.
<< Home