i'm going to throw something out there, though.

bc's a mess as it is. but, if you look at some of the recent by-elections there, the people's party seems to be doing better than any polling would have suggested. i've pointed out previously that the ppc seems to be getting it's vote share from the liberals more than anywhere else, but this is particularly interesting in bc, given the history.

the ppc has a precedent in canadian history, namely the social credit party. they're not identical, but there's some dramatic overlap. there's usually been a party to the right of the conservatives, in canada - it was the merger in the early 00s that was ahistorical.

social credit initially formed governments in alberta, but, dwindled in the middle part of the century. in the end, they were left with pockets of support in rural quebec (the ppc is a splinter party created by an mp from quebec) and in british columbia.

the bc socreds were a powerful political force, but they did eventually dissolve due to internal squabbling, before reorganizing themselves as the bc liberal party. there is a bc conservative party, but it's a minor force. rather, what you have in bc is a coalition between the liberals and conservatives (called the "liberal party") that occurred mostly under periods of socred rule.

that means that a substantive number of liberal voters in bc today came from a political tradition that is actually on the far right - to the right of the conservatives.

so, it would not be surprising if the ppc did outperform their polling results in bc, even if they're not actually competitive anywhere. nor would it be surprising if, in the end, that's what we learn is behind the drop in liberal support in bc.

it's very hard to predict the outcome of an election where four or more parties are competitive because you start creating substantive ballot questions out of things that the media doesn't cover. just don't be surprised if it happens...

the liberals are supposed to do better than this.

when you create a society with winners and losers, and threreby create a lot of losers by design, those losers are going to socialize with each other, thereby nullifying their loserness.

in the end, the losers stick together.

so, you can go to parties nowadays with hundreds or thousands of losers at them.

so, think this through: you focus so much on this idea that socialism eliminates the drive to succeed and win. but, what we're seeing happen in front of us, as neo-liberalism moves into second and third generations, is that it's eliminated the stigma around losing, as people become desensitized to it as a normal fact of day-to-day life.

....because almost everybody loses, in this system, so nobody cares any more.

the liberals are supposed to do better than this

you know, it's interesting to me that they're running hard on this, because it really is such a complicated, delicate issue.

i believe that the last time that somebody proposed this seriously was the infamous chretien white paper back in 1969, and there was such an outcry that they had to retreat from it.

i've tried to explain this here previously, but if there's a more complicated issue in canadian politics, i don't know what it is. the natives want to reframe the issue, but can't agree how to - the indian act is seen as assimilative, but so is the call to abolish it. so, any talk of doing anything at all becomes horribly divisive, and nothing gets done.

in the end, there's no real answer besides assimilation, but you still can't say that, not even now. yet, she nearly is doing exactly that.

i've stated repeatedly that the importance of indigenous support to the green movement cannot be underestimated. so, to come out with a policy that is so controversial in the indigenous community - if almost universally accepted by white liberals - is kind of head-scratching.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/greens-indigenous-reconciliation-election-1.5310561

the liberals are supposed to do better than this

i'm home, with some difficulty - it seems like somebody tried to steal my bike in hamtramck, but only got so far as deflating the tube. i had to walk it up to the gas station near the russell, which got me enough air to get me back to the tunnel. it doesn't look like it's going to hold, though....

i was worried i'd have to spend the night again tonight, which would have been bad.

i'll take a look at it. maybe i hit some glass. but, the tire was off the rim, so i think it was a botched attempt at trying to take the tire off.

the bike's worth $20.

i'll state it clearly - saturday was a little messy. somebody at the trumbullplex gave me a heaping amount of vodka. that doesn't happen often, but i was actually too drunk on saturday. i want to be honest - it really was the alcohol, this time. i remember buying beers number 4 & 6, but not beer number 5 (which i only deduce was purchased due to the fact that i otherwise lost $3), so i think i lost roughly an hour. i'll tell this story as best as i can recall it over the next few days.

right now, i want nachos.

the liberals are supposed to do better than this