“I don’t really want to get into the specifics because she’s gone, let her leave with grace. You don’t have to beat people up.”

With that statement MLA Darryl certainly provided a notable example of Orwellian Newspeak.

To make that statement after having, at length, denounced Christy Clark for having no “moral compass’; of not “always trying to do the right thing” but of making decisions “with political calculations front-of-mind”; and of having “$6 billion of surpluses and not [be] doing things for people in need”; is hypocrisy wrapped in insincerity.

It makes one wonder whether when Mr. Plecas accused Ms. Clark of not being “willing to let politicians speak their minds” he was referring to an expectation that things said in caucus remaining in caucus.  What is said in caucus remaining in caucus and not becoming fodder for the media, public and political opponents is necessary to ensure frank and open discussion when caucus meets.

If you stand up in caucus and say you will resign if the party leadership does not change, then that statement should remain in caucus not being blabbed about in public. If asked about the matter by the media or public the appropriate reply is that one has no comment as the matter is between oneself and the Premier.

No matter how one prattles on about doing the right thing or having a moral compass, the worth and substance of what is said is created by the deeds of the one who spoke the words

MLA Plecas has demonstrated that when he speaks of ‘doing the right thing’ he is speaking of doing what he believe the right thing to do is.

All the hundreds of millions of people who, in their time, believed the Earth was flat never succeeded in unrounding it by an inch.

ISAAC ASIMOV

The complexity and rate of change in issues today means that before one can ‘do the right thing’ one needs to makes sure one has a clear understanding of what the ‘right thing to do’ in fact is..

Setting aside what you know is the ‘right thing’, examining current knowledge and the outcomes being experienced vis-à-vis the issue being addressed and then applying thought to the facts to achieve an understanding of the issue and what has proven effective [or ineffective] is hard work.

The effort, time and discomfort in achieving understanding is why governments, politicians, the public, the media and pundits so rarely, if ever, undertake the deliberate effort needed to understand an issue and prefer to act on what they already ‘know is true’ – disregarding the evidence [no matter how overwhelming] that what they know ain’t so.

In an urban riding supporting the banning of the trophy bear hunt is an easy, politically popular expediency. I wonder what MLA Plecas would say if the ban was not about ending trophy bear hunting but banning the cruel practices used in the chicken and egg industry?

It was interesting that MLA Plecas sense of ‘the right thing’ apparently does not include those who would lose their livelihoods in a ban on trophy hunting.

Suggesting we throw BC’s ‘surpluses’ at social issues is not simply pointless, the thoughtlessness in that suggestion is irresponsible.

However, it is far, far easier to talk about the need to do something about social issues and speak of throwing money at social issues than the thinking needed to achieve an understanding of both the social issue(s) and the economic and financial realities of BC, Canada and the world today.

Christy Clark and the Liberals were being squeezed between the proverbial rock and a hard place, between voter’s sense of entitlement and the reality of BC’s finances. While Clark and the Liberals failed to understand the fundamental change in the nature of the economy and the effects of that shift, they did least understood the need to limit government spending to the revenue government takes in.

The tightening vice of financial reality, the Liberals failure to understand that the New Economy was NEW with different fundamentals and knowing voters will turn on anyone who dares to tell them what they do not want to hear, flocking to whoever will cater to their wilful denial by telling them what they want to hear.

If MLA Plecas wanted to be heard under those circumstances he needed to stop trite regurgitation of what everybody knows – that ain’t actually so – and be insightful.

Of course that would require hard work and thought applied to facts.