News from the Western Front
What kind of influence can a candidate expect to have in the legislature if they don't even know enough about their own party's policies to provide adequate answers to stock questions at all-candidates meetings?
This is what I was wondering throughout the debate I attended this evening in my home riding, and it applied to each of the candidates who decided to show up (with the exception of Liberal incumbent Dan Jarvis who "had a conflict" and couldn't grace us with his aged presence.
While the NDP candidate spoke eloquently about the state of our province's health care system - being a long time health care worker - she displayed a thorough lack of knowledge on just about everything else, from what's been stimulating the economy to the reasoning behind the existence of regional health authorities. When asked about her feelings on the future of French Immersion in British Columbia, she said she forgot to bring her material with her on the issue, and had to be prompted for "her thoughts" before giving an off-the-cuff response in favour of the program.
The Green Party candidate, a 27 year veteran of the grocery business, appeared to be the most professional and capable speaker in the beginning, but as time wore on I was disappointed to see him reading from his party's Green Book for most of the answers to the "difficult questions" from the audience. Moreover, when I asked him why his party was insisting so vehemently upon keeping all public assets in public hands - including electric power lines - he insisted that it's because they're basically ours to begin with. He chose not to get into the benefits to British Columbians - and ties to his own platform - coming out of the changes being made to BC Hydro, with contract bidding being opened up to private firms specializing in the development of sustainable energy solutions.
The Marijuana Party candidate, the last of the Fabulous 4...well, 3, in attendance this evening, was appreciated by all the high school students in attendance to secure bonus marks for their social studies classes, but succeeded only in making the "debate" even more of a farce than it already was. According to him, "the province should support health care, and health care should support the province", he'll have "ten plants in his front yard and ten in the back the moment marijuana is legalized", and all the revenue derived from taxing decriminalized marijuana will go towards "social programs, health care and education" (which he didn't get into), but mostly into drug rehabilitation programs to help the addicts on the downtown east side - a commendable yet impractical solution.
The highlight of the evening, to his credit, had to be his speech explaining that he was the only candidate in attendance who didn't actually want to get elected; instead, he was campaigning for votes in order to send a message to the government to illustrate how the people really feel about Mary Jane.
So where does this leave me and the rest of the people in my riding who want to elect someone who can adequately voice their concerns, who's knowledgeable about more than one particular issue, and who can bring some new ideas into a seat that's been occupied by the same man for over a decade? What is one supposed to do if they support most of the policies of one particular party, enough to elect their candidate assuming all else is equal, but can't support the candidate themselves?
Well, I don't know, but hopefully I'll figure it out before May 17th.
This is what I was wondering throughout the debate I attended this evening in my home riding, and it applied to each of the candidates who decided to show up (with the exception of Liberal incumbent Dan Jarvis who "had a conflict" and couldn't grace us with his aged presence.
While the NDP candidate spoke eloquently about the state of our province's health care system - being a long time health care worker - she displayed a thorough lack of knowledge on just about everything else, from what's been stimulating the economy to the reasoning behind the existence of regional health authorities. When asked about her feelings on the future of French Immersion in British Columbia, she said she forgot to bring her material with her on the issue, and had to be prompted for "her thoughts" before giving an off-the-cuff response in favour of the program.
The Green Party candidate, a 27 year veteran of the grocery business, appeared to be the most professional and capable speaker in the beginning, but as time wore on I was disappointed to see him reading from his party's Green Book for most of the answers to the "difficult questions" from the audience. Moreover, when I asked him why his party was insisting so vehemently upon keeping all public assets in public hands - including electric power lines - he insisted that it's because they're basically ours to begin with. He chose not to get into the benefits to British Columbians - and ties to his own platform - coming out of the changes being made to BC Hydro, with contract bidding being opened up to private firms specializing in the development of sustainable energy solutions.
The Marijuana Party candidate, the last of the Fabulous 4...well, 3, in attendance this evening, was appreciated by all the high school students in attendance to secure bonus marks for their social studies classes, but succeeded only in making the "debate" even more of a farce than it already was. According to him, "the province should support health care, and health care should support the province", he'll have "ten plants in his front yard and ten in the back the moment marijuana is legalized", and all the revenue derived from taxing decriminalized marijuana will go towards "social programs, health care and education" (which he didn't get into), but mostly into drug rehabilitation programs to help the addicts on the downtown east side - a commendable yet impractical solution.
The highlight of the evening, to his credit, had to be his speech explaining that he was the only candidate in attendance who didn't actually want to get elected; instead, he was campaigning for votes in order to send a message to the government to illustrate how the people really feel about Mary Jane.
So where does this leave me and the rest of the people in my riding who want to elect someone who can adequately voice their concerns, who's knowledgeable about more than one particular issue, and who can bring some new ideas into a seat that's been occupied by the same man for over a decade? What is one supposed to do if they support most of the policies of one particular party, enough to elect their candidate assuming all else is equal, but can't support the candidate themselves?
Well, I don't know, but hopefully I'll figure it out before May 17th.
posted by Per at 11:27 p.m.
<< Home