John Lynch is a remarkably effective and capable governor. Because the people of New Hampshire understand the truth of this statement, Lynch has an approval rating approaching 80 percent. As the 2006 election nears, state senators from the Republican caucus have decided that the surest way to garner votes is to claim a record of support for the governor and his policies.

If only it had been so.

Time and again, on issues the governor and his Democratic Senate caucus felt were most important, the Republican majority took the field to hand the governor defeat. The record is clear.

On education funding, the governor's plan was passed by a bipartisan majority of the senators - and was then suddenly killed by a partisan group that wished to defeat the governor. The plan passed by that group has now been struck down in the latest school funding decision. As a result, New Hampshire faces more years of pain and anger as the Legislature tries to find a way forward.

So it was with the workplace smoking ban, the bill that would have protected the health of thousands of workers and lowered the health-care costs for all New Hampshire taxpayers. The governor fought for the bill. The Republicans in the Senate killed it.

If they had only listened to the clear majority of voters, a vital piece of health legislation would have passed, and everyone could have taken credit.

The list of partisan defeats engineered in the Senate by the majority party goes on. There was the governor's budget, which accurately predicted revenue and paid for programs like LCHIP. Defeated. The bill to extend school attendance to 18. Defeated.

These were partisan events, not policy struggles. The majority party was working to defeat Lynch's proposals because they were Lynch's proposals.

During this fall's campaign, many of the same senators who consistently opposed Lynch have had a change of tone when talking to the press. Sen. Robert Flanders, for example, was recently quoted by the Monitor saying, "I've broken with leadership and voted with the governor many times."

That's funny. If I recall, Flanders sided with the partisan majority in opposing Lynch on most of the major initiatives above. Flanders not only turned his back on Lynch, but he turned his back on working families by being one of the most ardent defenders of the law that tripled health-insurance costs for some small business owners and allowed insurance companies to discriminate against sick workers.

So what should this mean for the coming election? It should mean that voters will look at what has happened in Concord and decide that it is time to put new senators in office, ones who are truly willing to work with the governor and the members.

It's time we had a new start with our capable governor. It's time we began to solve our problems, not roll them into a partisan melee and block the good solutions that come along just because they come from a Democratic corner office.

We need a change of tone, with a new focus on the common good of New Hampshire. We can get there on Nov. 7.

(Democratic state Sen. Peter Burling lives in Cornish.)

By PETER HOE BURLING

For the Monitor