Yesterday, CBC posted an opinion piece about New Brunswick’s political narrative, and had the author on air to talk about it. I found the piece was pretty weak, making claims that weren’t supported by what was happening on the ground. So I wrote a reply that was read on air.
Today, I happened to need a copy to link to. So, here’s what I wrote:
To be honest, I’m not sure what election you and your guest are talking about. The one I saw had five vibrant options with a wide range of positions on the issues, including shale development. Of the three parties against development, voters chose the one with the weakest position, a moratorium, instead of the ones offering stronger positions like an outright ban.
That doesn’t support the hypothesis that voters are strongly against it and industry lobbying is forcing it to happen anyway. Nor do the polls support that. There were many issues in play in the election. Voters made their choice, and it seems to me that democracy worked as intended.
There are certainly problems, but the idea that voters are disenfranchised because they got exactly what they voted for stretches credibility an awful lot.