Robbins SCE Research
Home| British Columbia Polls| Canada Polls| US & the World Polls| Contact| Register| Search| Donate
Public opinion Czar ROBBINS finds Campbell/Dobell 'guilty'
  Apr 30, 2007

As many people around me have noted, I have from time to time exercised more authority in my opinions and estimations of political actors, than has been granted me by establishment authority.
However, there comes a time when it becomes quite obvious that the opinions stated by ROBBINS become to mean more than those provided by the establishment.
The province has had more Premier's than I can remember over the past fifteen years. This erodes legitimacy. This is likely one of the core reasons that Premier Campbell was not turfed for drinking and driving a few years ago.
He admitted he was guilty, but on lawyer's advice never attended. The evening in which he was drinking, Premier Campbell was in the company of 'known' alcoholics.
The Premier is an alcoholic based on two powerful pieces of evidence. First, his father was alcoholic (to be fair, my own father who died when he was 52 and who to this day, I can honestly say I still love as much as I do my children, was a chronic alcoholic, and I am also an alcoholic in recovery or whatever is said these days). This information provides a foundation for such a claim. Second, he was convicted of drinking and driving not on a technicality, he was pissed drunk.
In my calculations, this puts the Premier in the high 80's percentile that he has an alcohol problem.
Lastly, and most importantly he said after his drinking and driving incident that he had met with a counsellor and everything was fine. This is a sure sign that the Premier is old style alcoholic. Absolute denial of the facts.
The only people who would not accept this evidence are people who are also in denial, or are protective of their own drinking, or the drinking of someone close to them.
This brings us to the 'bridge' between the Premier's alcoholism and the charges before ROBBINS at this time. ALL ALCOHOLICS ARE LIARS.
All substance abusers are liars. One of the main reasons people abuse drugs and alcohol relates to the incongruence brought on by a faulty 'ego'. What I mean is that the substance abuser has one view of reality that does not properly jive with the real world. This makes it virtually impossible for alcoholics to make good leaders.
The alcoholic can accomplish some things that give the appearance they can lead, however in most case the decision making process that all leaders must adhere to (no matter the different styles), the alcoholic is not able to keep a disciplined approach to various levels of decisions throughout different periods of time, against other events outside of their control
The alcoholic blurrs the lines of protocol and is willing to break all the rules.
An alcoholic is not a bad person per se, they simply are not able to adhere to rules. They will always blame someone else for their own mistakes, and are not able to see when they are making mistakes, because in the alcoholic's mind they don't make mistakes. An alcoholic is fundamentally unable to take responsibility for his/her actions.
This isn't simply an assertion of the alcoholic's actions when involved with other people, or in the case of the politician, the public. This is a fundamental truism of how the alcoholic explains the world to himself. Like the perfectionist (and many alcoholics are perfectionists), the alcoholic can do no wrong.
To survive the alcoholic must never admit a mistake, either to himself or to anyone else. This causes an even more acute psychological incongruence for the alcoholic as the more difficult the decisions become, the more sophisticated the lies and self-deception.
Gordon Campbell cannot tell himself the truth. He is unable to admit when he is wrong. He is more a danger to himself and others than he is an asset. He would not be mentally well enough to know the difference between right and wrong. No exceptions!
Notwithstanding the myriad other complex political matters the Premier must deal with (but always at a psychological handicap), he is certainly not going to personally accept rules that ultimately thwart his need for control. More than any other characteristic, the alcoholic is a control freak. How else can the alcoholic keep all of the lies together that hold their imaginary world in place?
The Premier has placed all of his bets on Vancouver and the Olympics as his legacy. To ensure he achieved this, he needed control of, or powerful influence over the City of Vancouver.
Mayor Sam Sullivan's popularity is dropping like a stone. Why? Because there is a powerful thread of public opinion that the Premier's office, or the Premier himself through all of the functions of agencies of, and entities related to the 2010 Olympic Games, must control Sam Sullivan who has also admitted to his own rendition of some weirdness when it comes to alcohol 'using Scotch as a mouthwash', or something along those lines. I have watched many tapes of Mayor Sam. (I watch alot of tapes of alot of politicians), and have asked myself if Mayor Sam has a issue with the barleycorn. I'm not the Twelve Step police, I don't care what people do in their private lives, however I do care about the political game, and I love to diagnose political leaders. I am very good at it, and obviously pull no punches. I am a firm believer that politician's should be paid much much more than they are making, but NOT REPEAT NOT until all of the greaseball politics in this province STOPS, and to date it isn't close. (So alone I march up to the top of the 'tower' and with my 'daisycutter' in tow, lamentably do my job, and that is...put ol' Yeller down. Pay the BC Supreme Court Judge $400,000 per year so that you attract the very best. Pay an MLA $100,000 per year, pay them more, I'm all for that. But when they start to bust a move that says 'ya know I'm bigger and badder than all these other basketweavers (Napoleon), and I can do what I want, because the editorial boards of the major newspapers will let me get away with it, because they care more about their advertising dollars than they do about the public interest', than it's time for ROBBINS to come around and do 'just a little old school ass kickin'. If this isn't true, than why is it whatever I write is never challenged? This is because the Phd's and the other educated folk are too afraid of losing cozy. The folks who get involved with political parties don't want anyone to find them out, and the rest of the people can't believe anybody has the balls to write this stuff. My American friends tell me 'Glen, normally we would ignore you for a few months, maybe a year, but after years of top notch deadly accurate public opinion, and on top of that a 'bring it-all in approach to guerilla journalism that makes even the pro's blush' we wouldn't ignore you any longer. The test of British Columbia's dysfunction is how long you can keep telling it like it is, and how long the establishment is prepared to pretend it isn't happening.'
This brings us to Ken Dobell, the Premier's top advisor. Mr. Dobell has had a relationship with Premier Campbell since their days in Vancouver, when Campbell was Mayor and Dobell was city manager there.
Therefore, both men know and understand Vancouver well. In fact, many critics of the premier have suggested that he conducts his affairs like he is the 'Mayor of British Columbia'.
It isn't a stretch than to accept the premise that an alcoholic (control), whose political legacy was staked out in an area (Vancouver) the politics of which he understood better than most, would ignore the normal protocols in place to secure that which he required to (he thinks) control the events in Victoria (provincial) and Vancouver (civic-Olympic).
How difficult would this be for him to do with Ken Dobell? Well, difficulty isn't the issue. Given what we have already established about the Premier's pschological profile, and given the history of both the Premier and his close advisor for thirty years (Dobell), it would be an anomoly IF THEY DID NOT COMMIT THE CONFLICT (and potentially the crime). There is no way, given their predispositions that they would have avoided this. Ninety nine times out of one hundred times, the natural forces of the Premier's illness, his proximity to someone who could help his illness along (control), and the easy opportunity and access (BC politics), and the fact that the press has given him a pass for many years now (owing in some part to the high number of Premier's we have lost), made the opportunity for the Premier both psychologically and practically impossible to avoid. It would be tantamount to a dog ignoring a piece of roast or steak (or food for that matter).
What about Ken Dobell?
We know he is a chain smoker. At a minimum, he has the basis of an addictive personality. It is well known that within the Premier's phalanx of advisors, a few other heavy drinkers exist. Is Dobell one of them? We don't know this. However , we can easily surmise that given the fact that the Premier is alcoholic, than either his wife, or other significant other, or possibly Ken Dobell, is either ALSO an alcoholic, or is the person who actually pulls the strings of the alcoholic.
More than any other complaint we here at ROBBINS, is one which relates to the problems of city managers in municipalites and cities. The complaints are the same ones over and over. City Manager's are unelected, unaccountable, yield far too much power within the city government, and are overpaid. For the purposes of my REASONS herein, I will not deal with the assertions regarding remuneration.
Clearly, though city manager's have power. They have apparently too much power and control. The firefighters, the police, the administration may not complain publicly, but they all complain about this privately.
Ken Dobell was a (large) city manager. Gordon Campbell was that city's Mayor. These two took their act up a level to the provincial stage.
The format of their existence politically has ostensibly to NOT be the BC NDP. The only allegedly conspicuously positive thing that the Campbell Dobell government has done has been to reduce red tape in government. But was this done for the good of the people in the province, or was it done with more nefarious plans in mind, like the takeover of Vancouver city hall, and cities and municipalities around the lower mainland?
One only has to give a cursory review of the 'Front Counter' set-up taking place in Coquitlam B.C. This involves reinstating an old gravel mine near the Pitt River with a much large view to the Gateway Project, using a government funded control group of inside government lobbyists, to control essentially the operations of all senior governments, without any outside review or control, and completely circumventing any rules with respect to lobbyists, or transparency. Place the experts within the purview of this 'made in government' lobby group and everything that is required: environmental sustainability, oversight, everything necessary to get from A to Z without any outside interference or scrutiny, is now available.
We have identified the two suspects and provided some historical insight into their relationship, and the overriding psychological predispositions as these relate to decision-making (or the proper lack thereof), as we make some assumptions about the liklihood of these two individuals motives to commit the 'crimes' they are accused of, namely breaking the law with respect to lobbying in British Columbia, and acting within a conflict of interest.
The BC NDP Opposition has accused Ken Dobell of breaking the law. The BC NDP has over the past fifteen years, either been the government or been the Opposition. If they didn't make the laws, they are aware of the laws the BC Liberals have been legislators of. The BC Liberals over the past fifteen years, have either been the government or Opposition.
If ignorance of the law isn't acceptable to ordinary citizens, (who a large number of have reduced respect for the laws and the lawmakers), than we certainly cannot countenance ignorance of the law by the elected legislators can we?
Both the Premier and his right hand man of thirty years Dobell must know of the laws. They must know them well enough to understand what the thought was going into the making of the laws. They were there, they discussed it, they knew these laws inside and out. They had to know the intent AND the spirit of the laws.
These laws are made by legislators with the help of lawyers, government and otherwise, who help them to craft the laws in a manner consistent with all other considerations of public policy law etc. in the specific jurisdiction (BC) where they practice their profession and their politics.
Mr. Dobell has recently claimed (or begun to claim) that he has recent legal advice blah blah blah, as this concerns the accusations of illegal lobbying and confict of interest. Why would he need recent legal advice? He had to have known all of the legal ramifications with respect to the law, and specifically to the law relating to lobbying in BC, long ago. He might even have had a hand in crafting the law when it was introduced. He certainly could not have been naive to ALL of the subtleties and nuances of the original law when it was before the BC Legislature.
For Dobell to suggest that he is exempt from any element of 'appearance of conflict' predicated on legal advice (oh it's before the courts {nearly}he can't say anything), cannot be considered reasonable by any right thinking person in society. He had too much information and advice going in to the drafting of the law. If there is wriggle room within the law for Dobell to escape the very law he HAD to have had a hand in, or to have been very aware of, it is just as easily answered that the wriggle room was calculated BEFOREHAND, and isn't the product of more recent scrutiny by the 'new legal advice', the stuff being offered while Dobell is under pressure and scrutiny.
For Dobell to exercise this strategy given the more practical assertions which would result from the most basic study of the history of the matter, creates the potential for the most sadistic and diabolical excuses for abuse of power that we have witnessed for a long time (it must be months now) in this pathetic excuse for a democracy.
Mr. Campbell and Mr. Dobell were well aware of the law relating to lobbying. If they didn't break it straight out, than they did so because they knew the technicality which would set them free if caught, BEFORE 'breaking the law' (which they technically did not break they will say).
If they are not charged with breaking the law, I am certain the public believes it has as much to do with Attorney General Wally Oppal, rather than being an adminstrator of oversight for BC laws, has in fact become their de facto legal counsel, helping to shepherd them from the full scrutiny of their apparent abuse (or potential breach) of the law, and not as he ought to be, a fair arbiter of the law in the public's interest.
If the law hasn't been broken, than at a minimum the establishment's 'alleged' oversight in the Commissioner of Conflicts-Ted Hughes must contemplate Dobell's (and in my view Campbell's) roles as far as conflict is concerned.
This is much easier. For elected officials, there must be an appearance of conflict. In my own dealings with Mr. Hughes, it has been determined that elected officials (I have his letter) are more or less self-regulating of their conflicts. Essentially, what Mr. Hughes told me in another conflict case involving BC Liberal backbencher Joan McIntyre was that an elected official is not in a conflict if they don't believe they are in a conflict, and the perception of a conflict is not a perception necessarily until an action is taken which would provoke the perception, EVEN if action prior to that 'conflicting' action taken by that person might have a look or (that's right a perception) of a conflict to a reasonable person in the first instance. In other words there is no room for being pro-active, an elected official is A okay until there is an absolute act of apparent conflict, (ALTHOUGH nearly the entire thrust of the conflict regulation {if you will} deals with perception).
Now my perception is the public perception. I am not interested in Ted Hughes perception, I am interested in the public perception, which I have already determined finds both Dobell and the Premier guilty, to varying degrees. Notwithstanding public opinion, we have sufficient information to at a minimum make a case for the perception of conflict. I honestly cannot see how the majority of the public (like a jury) would not see how this issue at THIS time in the media (BC Rail-Basi Virck), did not contain the element of perception of conflict. Surely when drafting the conflict rules, the idea was the public perception and the public interest, not the contrived 'in the room' perceptions of a few close amigo's {and amigettes-or midgets for short)of Gordon Campbell's friends and associates. The Premier has a few friends, donors and peers in his Cabinet who have either been proximate to, or working for, or involved with the booze business in this province. Beyond a shadow of doubt this is one of the central calling cards into the Campbell government. Don't expect any 'insiders' to step up and say 'you know that asshole Robbins is telling like it is and wants to save the taxpayers another two years of media and everyone else covering up this baloney we are trying hard to sell-Gord-its time for a change.'
Further, at the same time Mr. Dobell's conflict issues are being considered, the main Vancouver newspapers are chalk full of reporting relating to the BC Rail fiasco, and alleged illegal lobbying etc. This is the public gazette, the news, the alleged backdrop of public consideration that is within the full gaze of allegedly tens of thousands of citizens in the lower mainland. It's so bad, the day after I rant about BC Rail-and its successor, there is yet another devastating accident on the rails, and the death of an engineer, who the press calls a "hero", and his working buddies call "a guy likely too afraid to be blamed for a larger accident and bring shame and ridicule on his family". So he dies, but the big profit rail company continues to pay too little for jobs that deserve more, and railcars keep falling off the rails, people or ecology keeps dying, and somebody keeps investigating. Tell me when I've finally convinced you that this entire situation is crazy, and I keep predicting events because it isn't difficult to predict craziness in a crazy environment. Calling something crazy is one thing, having the ultimate courage to stop it is quite another, and no-one on the BC Liberal Team has that kind of moxy. (A one day ROBBINS course and I can teach courage, even to the most pathetic of cowards)!
If it is even marginally true, that even a fraction of the people alleged to read the recent reporting of this conflict, than there is reason to believe that the public will be far more acutely aware of the premise of lobbying, and in what context it is legal to in fact lobby government, that Mr. Dobell's actions being paid by the Province of British Columbia, and by 'another' but involving the City of Vancouver, a completely separate political (and legal) jurisdiction which without any doubt gives Mr. Dobell's actions (he did not register as a lobbyist)the distinct impression upon the public, and thus the perception of conflict of interest. It isn't important if there is a technical explanation for the actions, ultimately anyone who is even remotely perceived (God-I mean Mr. Hughes gives these political people FREE WILL on matters of conflict)as being in a position of conflict, should be proclaimed to be in a conflict, because it is the person who is being compensated who should be acting in an abundance of caution, not us having to catch them, and than rip them to shreds for their own inaction, greed, denial, or whatever sense of selfishness or other that compelled them onward in their quest for more control in a 'damn the torpedoes' approach to 'civic duty'.
If it doesn't than Mr. Hughes role as the establishment's Conflict Commissioner will be of no force and effect out here in the real world (the one that matters).
And here is something for you readers. If you have a friend who reads this, ask them what they think. If they say "I wonder what this guy's problem is?", make a few innocent comments about the harm that money brings...I guarantee you the take in this persons head will have them answer, something along the lines of "well you know money..everybody's got to have it." This person is a parrot. If you want a parrot for a friend, go buy one at the pet store. If the person reading it, says "If this piece is true, or even mostly true, than 'Houston we have a problem', and we need to make some serious changes in this province'.
Lastly, ya never know, I might decide to run for Premier and I'll have all of this writing that the press can use against me, or one of my associates like Van Rassel, if he wants to take a try at the job of running this province.
There isn't a shadow of a doubt (its that alarm commercial) that either of us would do a better job. Why? Because we would do our best in the spirit of peace order and good government to be straight with the people, to make freedom of information the citizen's absolute right, not a right if you have the money, like what the right to a fair trial has become. People get privacy, and very well paid politicians get none, if you can't deal with that (the proverbial kitchen), than get out.
Precisely my message to Premier Campbell and Mr. Dobell and any of their friends who ask "I wonder what that guy's problem is?"

Home| British Columbia Polls| Canada Polls| US and the World Polls| Contact| Register| Search| Site Map
Copyright Robbins SCE Research Inc. ©2017