Ian Gartshore

Simplistic and populist politicians frequently fail to appreciate the long-term consequences of their platform and thrust. Dropping a stone into a still pond send ripples in every direction. Everything is connected and related to some extent; those who have eyes to see will recognise this truth in human activities. I understand the hardships being experienced by increasing numbers of people in the world due to the inflationary effects of higher fossil fuel costs. The ‘ripples’ from their excessive profits have impacted the price of food (largely grown on oil/gas dependent chemical fertilisers, pesticides and other inputs), oil-dependent transportation, and virtually everything else. Now interest rates are rapidly climbing, further impacting those who have limited incomes. In the same way, cities negatively impact the cost of living (and far more) by being car-centric. The physical space to accommodate the automobile takes up valuable real estate that would otherwise be available for

With the election of three Green MLA's last month many hoped that the province of B.C. might experience something of a resurgence in democracy. Greens are known to work with other parties and now hold the balance of power. Ever the strategists the Liberals have decided to not cooperate and hope for more seats in an election that will be called in the near future while blaming the Greens for not supporting them. Here are signs of this strategy:  None of the Liberal MLA's are willing to stand for election as the Speaker of the Legislature, expecting the NDP or Green to provide one, thus creating a very unstable tie vote. This is unusual in the Westminster tradition Christy Clark is currently campaigning in the vote-rich lower mainland, wooing them with promises of improving their transit (finally!) and more Their budget will include many of the policies promised by the Greens and NDP such as more funds for social assistance and an end to corporate donations (which would,

Turns out that when Green candidates do well their right-wing counterparts don't!  How is this? Let's take a look at the data from past elections in B.C. that had strong Green candidates. In the 2008 federal election, the Saanich-Gulf Islands riding was won by a Conservative incumbent with 43% of the vote. The Liberal’s had 39% and the Green Party had 10% (Note: the NDP candidate dropped out of the race but still received votes). In 2011: Elizabeth May won with 46% of the vote, Conservatives 35%, NDP 12%, Liberals 6%. Provincially, in 2009, the Oak Bay- Gordon Head riding was won by a right wing Liberal incumbent with 46% of the vote, followed by the NDP with 44% and Greens at 8.9%. In 2013: Andrew Weaver and the Green vote won with 40% of the vote, followed by Liberal Cabinet Minister Ida Chong and the NDP each receiving nearly 30% each. The federal riding of Victoria in 2011 saw NDP incumbent Denise Savoie with 50%, Conservatives were second with 23% and the G

Here on Vancouver Island there is a lot of talk about the “need for strategic voting” in order to prevent any Conservatives from winning seats. Even though it is rather obvious that on the national stage it is the NDP and Liberals who are splitting the non-Conservative vote, here on Vancouver Island many NDP’ers are again (falsely) accusing Greens of doing so. Their anti-Harper cause is being boosted by third-party organisations using questionable polling results to encourage all but those in Elizabeth May’s riding to vote for the NDP. In some ridings the NDP are even using election data from four years ago to boost their fear-campaign. Back then they and the Conservatives received over 80% of the vote. By ignoring the surging Greens (and improving Liberal support) their strategy intends to sway voters into believing that one has to vote NDP in order to stop the Conservatives. (Using old data to suppress or sway the voters of another Party is, frankly, manipul

Now that it appears Thomas Mulcair is pulling out of the consortium's televised debates (thus following Stephen Harper's lead) the net result may be that Canadians do not get a chance to hear Elizabeth May in the debates. I wrote to the Globe and Mail last month, encouraging them to include her. Here is my response to theirs (their response can be read by clicking on this link ): Quoting one paragraph from their response: David Walmsley, The Globe’s editor-in-chief says, “We’ve set up the debate this way because we believe that by limiting the format to Canada’s three main party leaders, we will create a truly focused, successful discussion about the state of the Canadian economy.”  I responded: "As all three party leaders are fundamentally all neo-liberal in their world view (Mr. Mulcair was a cabinet minister in Quebec’s right-wing Liberal government) the debate may indeed be 'focused,' but sadly lacking any real diversity. With Mr. Mulcair no

As I reflect on the Nanaimo municipal election November 15th I am aware that the candidates have real skills and talent, so the choice is very difficult. I think I could work with virtually all of them (a good sign!). So how to choose? I made up a list of my values and then tried to rate the candidates based on that list. Not an easy task. There are a lot of candidates, many of whom I do not know. I sourced my information from in-person, on-line, newspaper and the opinion of others. Oh, and because incumbents usually get enough votes I have not included them on this list; although Fred Pattje earns my respect because he goes to the most community events, takes personal interest in connecting with people, is willing to take on city staff, is a team player, is an independent thinker, is willing to change his mind (e.g. Leadercast), understands how to make the city more sustainable and shows his care for people and the city. I chose based on my perception of their ability to: 1. c