I sort of like the simplistic idea of independent politics but my practical side keeps reminding me they just don't work.
I still don't understand how neighbouring independents would grapple with inter-constituency programs. In the case of Delta and Surrey, for instance, how would an environmentally-minded independent work with a business-minded independent on issues relating to infrastructure and land use build-out between their respective constituencies?
You can see how this could be problematic and detrimental to the greater public. This is why we have party politics, so that decisions can be made to get things done for all concerned.
The certainty of party politics is something the vast majority of voters like no matter how much they may hate the government of the time. It has been this way for a very long time.
Our current MLA's campaign suggests she is "our only choice for a voice in Victoria." This is not true. The two other candidates belong to political parties and there is a 100 per cent chance that one of those parties will be in government. That is exactly 100 per cent more than an independent choice.
An independent vote is not an "only choice;" rather, I see it to be a lonely choice.
At last Tuesday's all-candidates debate, the B.C. Liberal candidate noted that discussions with local government on issues of the day were non-existent with our MLA, after which it was noted that Vicki Huntington looked flustered.
I can see why she was flustered. It must be frustrating standing on the outside looking in. There has been much commentary on the perceived ineffectiveness of government backbenchers. Backbenchers are team players for the most part but can express displeasure or offer recommendations for government policy within caucus meetings.
Businesses and local governments want to speak to decision makers, cabinet ministers, when they want things done. MLA backbenchers can get this face time.
Independent candidates don't usually have this access.
Four years ago, our MLA was elected by what could be termed a protest vote. Traditional NDP votes went to the Huntington camp, many of them due to the now infamously botched power line saga.
During that campaign, Huntington argued the South Fraser Perimeter Road could be rerouted or even halted altogether. Seriously, how could constituents believe that one independent MLA could achieve such a feat? Now that the SFPR is a few months away from you and I driving on it, what do you think about our MLA's claim that T2 can be stopped?
In a comment in the Georgia Straight in April 2009, Huntington spoke to the effectiveness of MLA Roddick on the SFPR file: "She was a member of the government caucus and was utterly ineffective at changing the decision to industrialize the most valuable agricultural land in the country. In the last four years, not one decision was altered by our sitting government MLA."
For someone that essentially campaigned on stopping the South Fraser Perimeter Road, let's make this observation right now on the very same file. Our sitting MLA has done nothing to affect the loss of the "most valuable agricultural land in the country" in the past four years.
Recommendations for the future? Vote carefully.
