Wednesday, July 30th34.8°C
22568
21195

BC Conservative Party option.

Discuss the upcoming provincial election. Keep it civil in here, people. It's not the Political Arena.

Moderators: Jo, ferri, Triple 6

Re: BC Conservative Party option.

Postby Smurf » Oct 11th, 2012, 4:19 pm

This could be the best chance Christy has. If the Conservatives implode some of the right wing might go back to the Liberals.
Consider how hard it is to change yourself and you'll understand what little chance you have of changing others.

The happiest of people don't necessarily have the best of everything, they just make the most of everything that comes their way.
User avatar
Smurf
Guru
 
Posts: 5359
Likes: 285 posts
Liked in: 410 posts
Joined: Aug 12th, 2006, 8:55 am
Location: Okanagan BC

Re: BC Conservative Party option.

Postby coffeeFreak » Oct 11th, 2012, 4:36 pm

Smurf wrote:This could be the best chance Christy has. If the Conservatives implode some of the right wing might go back to the Liberals.


It appears implosion has occurred. Cummin's refusal to resign is even worse if what this article is reporting is true:

B.C. Conservatives implode
by The Canadian Press - Story: 81697
Oct 11, 2012 / 12:39 pm

Dissidents within British Columbia's Conservative party say they were hoodwinked by their leader John Cummins when he didn't resign.

Surrey-White Rock constituency association president Allison Patton says those opposed to Cummins leadership were told yesterday that a deal had been reached where Cummins would quit, but keep his $4,000 per month salary for six months.

Instead, Cummins did a round of media interviews saying he wouldn't quit and that "things were going remarkable well" within the party.

Cummins brushed off those opposed to his leadership as a noisy, but small group of party members.

Patton and several other party dissidents held a news conference in Vancouver later in the day Wednesday where they gave Cummins until Friday to resign.

Patton says the BC.Conservative Party, which was challenging the governing BC Liberals in public polling numbers six months ago, is now in destruction mode under Cummins' continued leadership.

http://www.castanet.net/news/BC/81697/B-C-Conservatives-implode
Last edited by coffeeFreak on Oct 11th, 2012, 4:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
coffeeFreak
Lord of the Board
 
Posts: 4896
Likes: 445 posts
Liked in: 167 posts
Joined: Oct 22nd, 2009, 6:06 pm

Re: BC Conservative Party option.

Postby maple leaf » Oct 11th, 2012, 4:39 pm

Smurf wrote:This could be the best chance Christy has. If the Conservatives implode some of the right wing might go back to the Liberals.


I think that is what it is all about.Undermine the Conservatives until the party has no hope in hel* of amounting to anything ,effectively driving all righties back to the Libs.
User avatar
maple leaf
Übergod
 
Posts: 1398
Likes: 152 posts
Liked in: 99 posts
Joined: Nov 6th, 2011, 11:37 am

Re: BC Conservative Party option.

Postby ScottSA » Oct 12th, 2012, 9:57 am

I don't believe this nonsense will hurt the BC Conservatives substantially. The election is 7 months away - an eon in politics. The group of trouble-makers is a small 14-member minority tied at the hip to the BC Liberals, and due for expulsion. After that the BC Conservatives will get on with the job of winning Okanagan seats.

Allison Patton - whose photograph standing beside Christy Clark and a high-ranking Liberal MLA has been making the rounds on the internet http://bcblue.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/patton.jpg - has been accused of lying by the mediator himself. Clearly the so-called "revolt" has no teeth, no integrity, and no agenda beyond trying to tear down the party. The Okanagan ridings and most of the party is strongly behind John Cummins.

"In both an interview and a press release, Patton said the backroom deal had been negotiated Wednesday afternoon by retired lawyer and party insider David Wilder.

It's a suggestion Wilder, president of the party's Vancouver-Quilchena constituency association, flatly denied. "Let me make this bloody clear, my name was used in vain. The events of (Wednesday) had very little to do with what was set out in the letter," Wilder said in an interview.

He said he met Wednesday with party president Al Sie-bring, campaign organizer Will McMartin and one other party official. And he agreed he had been giving updates to Patton's group. But he was insistent that Cummins' resignation was never on the table. Siebring concurred.

"The meeting was established on a precondition that everybody understood that John Cummins would lead this party in May of next year into the election," Siebring said. "His leadership never came up."


http://www.vancouversun.com/Cummins+pla ... story.html
ScottSA
 
Posts: 83
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: Feb 1st, 2009, 9:22 am

Re: BC Conservative Party option.

Postby ScottSA » Oct 12th, 2012, 2:46 pm

ScottSA
 
Posts: 83
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: Feb 1st, 2009, 9:22 am

Re: BC Conservative Party option.

Postby George+ » Oct 13th, 2012, 10:40 am

Nah-not the B.C Liberals.

They have more integrity than that.

NAH?
George+
Guru
 
Posts: 6279
Likes: 1 post
Liked in: 134 posts
Joined: Oct 10th, 2011, 12:08 pm
Location: Lake Country

Re: BC Conservative Party option.

Postby LoneWolf_53 » Oct 13th, 2012, 10:57 am

ScottSA wrote:Bill Tieleman's take on things:

http://billtieleman.blogspot.ca/2012/10 ... sible.html


Somewhat amusing that his ammo consists mainly of photos of people standing together in a picture, as if that confirms anything beyond the fact that they are standing together in a picture.

Even more amusing to see said "exhibits" as he puts it, flanked by a long line of photos of himself with all manner of public figures.

Most amusing however is that he's mired armpit deep within the Tyee. :dyinglaughing:

In other words about as unbiased a news source as a shop steward at a BCTF convention. :dyinglaughing:
"Friends are the family that we choose ourselves!"
User avatar
LoneWolf_53
Walks on Forum Water
 
Posts: 10625
Likes: 321 posts
Liked in: 907 posts
Joined: Mar 19th, 2005, 1:06 pm

Re: BC Conservative Party option.

Postby ScottSA » Oct 13th, 2012, 3:37 pm

JOHN CUMMINS COMING TO VERNON

Town Hall

When: 6:00-8:00 p.m., Saturday, October 13
Where: Schubert Centre, 3505 - 30 Ave, Vernon
Why: To give the citizens of Vernon-Monashee to see how the BC Conservatives will bring REAL CHANGE to British Columbia politics

Brunch
When: 11:00 a.m.-1:30 p.m., Sunday, October 14
Where: KT's Restaurant, 3127 - 30 Ave, Vernon
Why: We all have to eat, don't we? This is a little less formal chance to talk to John and meet your new BC Conservative candidate!
ScottSA
 
Posts: 83
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: Feb 1st, 2009, 9:22 am

Re: BC Conservative Party option.

Postby ScottSA » Oct 15th, 2012, 8:16 am

Here's the portion of my acceptance speech for the candidacy of Vernon Monashee that deals with the so-called "revolt":

"...I sent a letter out to those of you with email the night before I declared my candidacy, and in it I promised to always tell you what I believe to be true and not what I think you want to hear. I make that promise here again. That won't change now and it won't change when I'm in the legislature. With that in mind, there's an elephant in the room I want to talk about because it's got to be on everyone's mind.

You've all been reading the papers, and I want to ask: Who here thinks the BC Conservatives are falling apart?

We're not. If I thought for one minute that were true, I wouldn't be standing here ready to invest my time and money in something that's going to take 7 months of my life and strain my family's resources. So let me tell you what I believe is happening within our party.

I believe there are a very small group of malcontents, probably 14 but maybe as many as 20. Some of them may have originally felt they had legitimate grievances, and some are openly working with the Liberals. They are actively trying to destroy this party from the inside.

The first I heard of any dissension was when I got the email many of you received, from one of three former board members who tried to create what the media likes to call a "revolt." Prior to that I had heard nothing at all about any issues with John Cummin's leadership.

Over the next week leading up to the AGM, two more letters arrived by email, carefully spaced out to keep this leadership review question on the front burner. Of course they were also sent to the media, and naturally, the media carried the story, since it's their job to report the news.

And I must admit the three dissidents had an effect on me - going into the AGM I was concerned, and I know others were too.

But I didn't need to be. As you all know, the leadership review was rejected by a substantial margin. What you may not know - although you can just hear and see a bit of it at the beginning of the film clip CBC ran, is the standing ovation and shouts of joy when the results were announced. The entire room was on its feet clapping and laughing - except for one table and one MLA.

Now remember - the AGM was in Langley and the epicentre of the so-called revolt was in Vancouver - a short drive away. Most of us had to drive across the province to be there, but the dissidents only had to jump in their cars and drive a maximum of 45 minutes to make it. And all they could manage to bring were a few people?

Lets put this vote's numbers in perspective, because some members of the press have emphasized the 29% who voted for a leadership review.

Adrian Dix, of the NDP, won his own primary by 52% after three runoffs. Now for those of you who don't know the runoff system - if there were 4 nominees standing up here right now, you would vote for whoever you wanted. The nominee with the lowest number of votes would then drop off the ballot and you'd vote again…and you'd keep doing that until one of us got over 50%.

So the percentage of NDP members who voted for Adrian Dix the first time was a small minority. Christy Clark, after three runoffs, squeaked by at 52% as well.

John was endorsed by over 71% on the first vote. I don't think there's much of a problem here. Do you?

But then the real clincher came. The three former board members who were causing the problems ran for President, Vice President, and Member at large. They lost. Not by a little bit or even a substantial majority, but by a landslide. I can't think of a clearer endorsement of John's leadership than that. Not only that, but of the 20 or so candidates who ran for the four possible member at large positions, ONLY the four put forward on a slate in support of John won.

I don't know how much clearer a message from our membership has to be. I know I speak for the entire board and most if not all of the Vernon-Monashee membership when I say…

We want _ John Cummins_to lead us into the next election!

How badly have the dissidents hurt us? It's showing. As some of you have heard on the news, the latest Angus Reid poll puts us down a few points from the poll before that. However - and it's a big however - the same poll says that in the interior we're in a statistical tie with the Liberals. And unlike the Liberals, we have nowhere to go but up. Add to that the fact that our region in the Okanagan has just passed the 1000 member mark. You wouldn't know it from the news coverage, but our membership base is expanding, not contracting. Especially here in the Okanagan.

I believe that within a month this so-called "revolt" will be old news and we'll be walking over the Liberals and presenting a real challenge to the NDP. By May of next year the voters of Vernon Monashee will have one clear choice between the BC Conservatives and the NDP - and we know Vernon-Monashee is a strong conservative riding."


This is not "spin" - they are the facts as I understand them from being in close proximity to the situation.
ScottSA
 
Posts: 83
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: Feb 1st, 2009, 9:22 am

Re: BC Conservative Party option.

Postby maple leaf » Oct 16th, 2012, 10:56 am

ScottSA wrote:Here's the portion of my acceptance speech for the candidacy of Vernon Monashee that deals with the so-called "revolt":


If your the guy running for the Conservatives, what are your personal views on the Enbridge pipeline.And what is your parties official stance on the proposed pipeline.
User avatar
maple leaf
Übergod
 
Posts: 1398
Likes: 152 posts
Liked in: 99 posts
Joined: Nov 6th, 2011, 11:37 am

Re: BC Conservative Party option.

Postby ScottSA » Oct 16th, 2012, 1:54 pm

My personal view (as distinct from what my party's position may be on it) is this:

Premise:
1 We need economic development.
2 We need environmental safety.
3 We don't have legal or constitutional grounds for taxing Alberta (or whatever Clark is on about from this day to that depending on the polls)

Discussion:
If the economic benefits are there, we need the pipeline. BC is being hollowed out from within, with a net loss of people - and especially young people. On the other hand, the environmental concerns have to be addressed.

I think we have to be careful when we're talking about the environment - not only do a whole lot of side agendas slip in under the umbrella of "the environment" (carbon tax on one side and redistributive schemes on the other), but our extant reality depends on carbon fuels whether we like it or not. Just waking up in the morning "harms the environment," so we have to determine a balance between environmental stewardship and the economy.

On the other hand, "economic benefit" is a moving target, especially under the current Liberal government. We all know about the "economic benefit" of our resource sector, and how the mines opening in BC turned out in the final analysis to be an economic benefit for upwards of 2000 skilled Chinese workers and the balance of jobs in less-skilled, lower paying positions for British Columbians. And remember that this government knew about the skills required for operating the mines as long as 5 years ago, yet did nothing to address the training issue. It's frankly an outrage, and it casts doubt on just about every economic claim this government makes.

So just because some "study" claims there is an economic gain to BC, it doesn't necessary mean A) that there is, and B) that it outweighs the environmental impact of the pipeline.

Conclusion
If, given all the above, there turns out to be a real, concrete, long-term economic benefit to the Enbridge Pipeline for British Columbians, then we should go ahead with it. The best idea I've heard to alleviate environmental concerns is to establish a significant trust fund, funded by pipeline profits, to be used ONLY in the case of a pipeline disaster.
ScottSA
 
Posts: 83
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: Feb 1st, 2009, 9:22 am

Re: BC Conservative Party option.

Postby maple leaf » Oct 16th, 2012, 6:33 pm

ScottSA wrote:If the economic benefits are there, we need the pipeline



According to Enbridge's web site there will be about 1,500 long term opportunities ( as they put it) throughout Canada 104 permanent operating positions created and 113 positions with the associated marine services .They don't break it down as to how many "opportunities " it will work out to for BC.Or how many people will be hired as BC residents or how many will be brought in from out of country.Of coarse there will be some economic benefits from the construction period.
Compare that to the risk of an oil spill and it's effects on the fishing industry in BC.Aquaculture estimated to be 1/2 billion annually,sports fishing to be estimated to be 2.8 billion,Commercial fishing to be 2 billion.For a combined total of 5.3 billion dollars annually.


http://www.northerngateway.ca/economic- ... -canadians

ScottSA wrote: The best idea I've heard to alleviate environmental concerns is to establish a significant trust fund, funded by pipeline profits, to be used ONLY in the case of a pipeline disaster.


In the event of a oil tanker spill in Canadian waters, worst case scenario ,Canada has funds of a max 1.33b available .The Exon Valdez spill cost at least 3.5 billion.That does not include the loss to the fishing industry,estimated to be another 2.8 billion.The Valdez spilled 260,00-750,000 barrels,todays super tankers carry around 3,166.353 barrels.How much would there have to be in a fund to pay for a spill?
Enbridge estimates that total local, provincial and federal tax revenues over the 30 year lifespan of the project will be approximately $2.6B. This includes an estimated $36M per year to be paid by Northern Gateway in local property taxes.That probably won't pay for even one small spill.So tax payers would foot the bill .I think most people in BC agree that the risks way out weigh the benefits.

And as far as Christy Clark goes I don't think even she knows what she is doing.I doubt she believes in the stance she has taken but is doing what she is told by the string pullers in her party.

http://www.jlsreport.com/wp-content/upl ... tsheet.pdf
User avatar
maple leaf
Übergod
 
Posts: 1398
Likes: 152 posts
Liked in: 99 posts
Joined: Nov 6th, 2011, 11:37 am

Re: BC Conservative Party option.

Postby ScottSA » Oct 16th, 2012, 10:13 pm

Christy Clark will do whatever she thinks is popular at the moment. Fortunately she won't be premier next year.

I wouldn't put much stock in what Enbridge has to say about jobs until its "study" is vetted through an independent research organization without an axe to grind. By the same token, I wouldn't use a "worst case study" to determine environmental risk either. We can't simply wish away the cost in a cost/benefit determination, nor can we ignore the benefit. There is always risk to anything. If we build a road it's going to hurt the environment. If we manufacture solar panels or windmills or coal mines it's going to hurt the environment. And any of those enterprises may have the potential to cause much greater damage in the event of an accident.

Instead of using lobby groups' "studies" (anyone who has taken a first year statistics class knows that studies can arrive at any a priori conclusion they want to), we need to sit down, take a hard unbiased look at the cost vs benefit, present our conclusions to the people of British Columbia, and only then act. That's not so hard to do, frankly. Had the Liberals done that with the HST and avoided the temptation of adding on a significant tax grab to boot, the HST would probably still be here. My understanding is that there were significant advantages to it, had it not been loaded up with additional taxes not included in the GST/PST.

ETA: Your calculation above may be close to the mark. However, a trust fund established from Enbridge profits, perhaps with accrued interest being negotiated into BC coffers, would take care of the cost of potential spills, bring more money to BC, and keep our taxpayers off the hook.

And by the way, I do appreciate this exchange. Not only does it help focus my own thoughts, but it's the kind of discussion we need between government and citizens.
ScottSA
 
Posts: 83
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: Feb 1st, 2009, 9:22 am

Re: BC Conservative Party option.

Postby maple leaf » Oct 17th, 2012, 12:22 pm

ScottSA wrote: we need to sit down, take a hard unbiased look at the cost vs benefit, present our conclusions to the people of British Columbia, and only then act


The Liberal government under Gordon Campbell effectively signed away BC's right to have an Environmental Assessment.Christy Clark has not taken steps that would allow BC to back out of that agreement .

http://www.eao.gov.bc.ca/EAO_NEB_Projects.html


The environmental Assessment Act would provide for the thorough, timely and integrated assessment of the potential environmental, economic, social, heritage and health effects that may occur during the lifecycle of these projects, and provides for meaningful participation by First Nations, proponents, the public, local governments, and federal and provincial agencies."


I don't feel BC's best interests are being looked after.Espectially when the Federal government supports this project and has changed the rules to weaken environmental protection in favour of large oil companies. Will your government back out of this agreement with the National Energy Board ,and have a BC assessment done ?
User avatar
maple leaf
Übergod
 
Posts: 1398
Likes: 152 posts
Liked in: 99 posts
Joined: Nov 6th, 2011, 11:37 am

Re: BC Conservative Party option.

Postby dudlee » Oct 20th, 2012, 10:14 am

GordonH wrote:
GordonH wrote:The only way 2 right wing parties would working in BC would be to have second strong left wing party, without that right will always split and left will win every time.

So IMO 2013 election will be pretty well given to Dix, shortly after the right will work to rebuild (hopefully all new faces & idea's with a strong leader) under whatever name they choose to be ready come 2017.

as I see it

Gordon


NAB wrote:That's an interesting viewpoint Gordon. From my perspective however we are already rapidly evolving into two strong left wing options (NDP and Liberal), ....and no viable right wing option at all?

Nab


I only see that with Federal Liberals thats whole different animal to BC Liberals. BC Liberal is a coalition of Liberal & conservatives/reform no different from earlier version under the name of Social Credit Party. Third generation will be the same combination just more than likely also under a new name.

have good day Nab


Oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

I think that as long as that reject Dix doesn't get in the province will be better off . Yes the Conservatives have sold out to the Iberals but at least they didn't sell out to he greater of the two evils. With that being said , I would however like to see Cummings ousted and a true representation of Conservative be more visible , it would make them more accountable and less devious . This alliance of the Conservatives and the Liberals only makes the Liberals look stronger and the Conservatives weaker, but it is still better than having the full blown sell out communist union A$$ kissing Dix crew in charge , if that happened only the unions would prosper and our taxes would skyrocket .

Oh and remember citizens that to balance a budget , you need only to raise more income revenues , which is accomplished by raising taxes , fees or lowering your currency values , all tricks played y the Tru-Dum , Craptien governments , sounds great to raise revenues till you realize that what they are really sayingis take money out of taxpayers pockets again , and again, and again.
"A lie stated over a long enough period of time, becomes the truth" Adolf Hitler. But I say , "A half truth is a lie and there is always two sides to a story, but only one truth"
User avatar
dudlee
Übergod
 
Posts: 1316
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: Feb 8th, 2008, 2:21 pm

PreviousNext

Return to B.C. Provincial Election 2013

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron