Castanet

maple leaf wrote:Adrian Dix has come out strong against the Government advertising for political gain on the tax payers dime, and if elected that will change.On the other hand the liberals dig in deeper with their false miss leading politically motivated 16 + million dollar waste of tax payers money.So instead of looking over there at everyone else look at your own party.

Yet Dix has had his own candidates use inappropriate funds for funding adverting. Even putting that trivial amount aside (it wasn't a financial show it was a character show) I can agree with the concept of limiting spending ONLY if the following terms exist for all interest groups.

1 - Taxpayer money is not to be used in a fashion deemed to be to gain favor for any party currently ruling or not. (though not illegal the jobs plan stuff can fall into this category.)

2. - Businesses shall not contribute to political parties, or fund advertising/campaigning for (or against) political parties

3. - no union shall spend funds on advertising/campaigning or donate to any political party nor run "general" campaigns that are against parties except the one they support.

4. - going into an election, both governing parties should be required to present 3-6 months prior to election potential platforms and budgets, for practical review by the electorate. (I tire of grand BS promises by all parties that can never happen)

Mind you these are general concepts that would require a lot of refinement before application to avoid all parties finding loopholes and "breaking the rules legally"

UPDATE: i guess Christy will be saved from the embarrassment of a non confidence vote.....at least for now..

Apparently, the government’s budget will survive. Pat Pimm is back, as will be Kevin Falcon. And Bob Simpson is still making noise about supporting this corrupt government. Lord, how I hope he loses his seat. What a vindictive snake!
So, let’s work backwards, that means that Kash Heed will also vote to support the budget. He’s too bright a guy to pick this as a hill to die on. In addition, watch John Slater not want to be the last guy left before the lights go out, so he might turn as well.
But it’s still early yet. Things might loosen up again. Christy’s still got another 24 hours to screw things up with someone.
Therefore, budget passes, barely on first reading. But the February 28th writ drop is still a solid story. I’m told there is all sorts of disinformation being spread by BC Liberal executive director Mike McDonald to various favourable members of in order to throw the NDP off.
Stay tuned! It could be a wild eyed next 48 hours. Or not…let’s see.

http://alexgtsakumis.com/2013/02/17/exc ... -instruct/

steven lloyd wrote: Until we start voting governments out of power instead of back into power then nothing will ever change. And I'm talking about voting governments who do the same thing as the last group every four years until the message starts to get across that we expect more from our elected representatives. If nothing changes then nothing changes. Viva la status quo!

maple leaf wrote: I agree, if the NDP doesn't follow through on these types of things being promised, then we vote their butts out, until politicians get the message we won't put up with the BS anymore. But we have to start doing it now,instead of rewarding them with another 4 years. But it also takes public pressure and holding their feet to the fire while in term and get some of or all these promises kept.

Exactly! If every one of these self-serving, corrupt and malfeasant governments were voted out of power every four years, there might be some hope that eventually a government would come along that understood the electorate not only expected, but demanded some accountability. These current miscreants mishandle multiple millions in our tax dollars every year and we reward them for it by re-electing them. Truly we have and will get the government we deserve.

Veovis wrote:Yet Dix has had his own candidates use inappropriate funds for funding adverting. Even putting that trivial amount aside (it wasn't a financial show it was a character show) I can agree with the concept of limiting spending ONLY if the following terms exist for all interest groups.

1 - Taxpayer money is not to be used in a fashion deemed to be to gain favor for any party currently ruling or not. (though not illegal the jobs plan stuff can fall into this category.)

2. - Businesses shall not contribute to political parties, or fund advertising/campaigning for (or against) political parties

3. - no union shall spend funds on advertising/campaigning or donate to any political party nor run "general" campaigns that are against parties except the one they support.

4. - going into an election, both governing parties should be required to present 3-6 months prior to election potential platforms and budgets, for practical review by the electorate. (I tire of grand BS promises by all parties that can never happen)

Mind you these are general concepts that would require a lot of refinement before application to avoid all parties finding loopholes and "breaking the rules legally"

Well the NDP are proposing pretty much what you want.Government advertising would have to be passed by the Auditor general. http://www.timescolonist.com/news/local ... ix-1.54048
They are also on record proposing that both Union and Corporate political donations be banned.
There is also talk about changing election dates from the spring to the fall ,which would help with them putting out fudget budgets just before an election
The liberals are not backing any of these proposals for change to make it better.They will keep with the status quo,and nothing will change.

maple leaf wrote:They are also on record proposing that both Union and Corporate political donations be banned.

Are they on record however stating they cannot spend against anyone? I have seen campaigns not for the NDP but against the other parties done by unions that had to cost somewhere between 500,000-1.5 million each.

This is a theft from union members in my personal view. Just banning it one way does not prevent the same old union tactics old the past. None of the money counted as a donation to the NDP as it wasn't "for" the NDP, just against the other options.

I personally have no illusions that the NDP plan to handcuff any spending by the unions, but do plan to handcuff the other side. This is no less offside than the Liberals calling the jobs plan spending neutral either. Personally I disprove of this crap from either side, however many will allow the NDP or the Liberals free reign and "innocence" when it comes to this kind of "It sounds good" but is complete bull type action.

The fact that through the issues, even though often small, Dix has stated one set of values but lets his members act against it without reproach lowers the amount I trust his policies to be honest. That leaves, the liars I know and the liars I don't.

Fall election dates would be ok, due to holding them accountable for their actions instead of their offers, however, why not put out proposed budgets as part of the election platform. IF the NDP desire to take over in a couple months, shouldn't they have that prepared already anyways?

Veovis wrote:Are they on record however stating they cannot spend against anyone? I have seen campaigns not for the NDP but against the other parties done by unions that had to cost somewhere between 500,000-1.5 million each.

This is a theft from union members in my personal view. Just banning it one way does not prevent the same old union tactics old the past. None of the money counted as a donation to the NDP as it wasn't "for" the NDP, just against the other options.

I personally have no illusions that the NDP plan to handcuff any spending by the unions, but do plan to handcuff the other side. This is no less offside than the Liberals calling the jobs plan spending neutral either. Personally I disprove of this crap from either side, however many will allow the NDP or the Liberals free reign and "innocence" when it comes to this kind of "It sounds good" but is complete bull type action.

The fact that through the issues, even though often small, Dix has stated one set of values but lets his members act against it without reproach lowers the amount I trust his policies to be honest. That leaves, the liars I know and the liars I don't.

Fall election dates would be ok, due to holding them accountable for their actions instead of their offers, however, why not put out proposed budgets as part of the election platform. IF the NDP desire to take over in a couple months, shouldn't they have that prepared already anyways?

Banning political donations to a political party ,weather a union donating to the NDP or corporate donating to the Liberals is a different matter than unions or corporate paying for their own advertising,such as the CC4BC is now doing on the corporate side.Or unions advertising during a strike.

Banning Unions and Corporate from donating to a political party will go a long ways to take the influence they have on a governments policies and agenda out of the pictures.And put Governments focal point back on the voters.The I'll scratch your back with a donation now you have to scratch mine with a plumb contract .wink, wink, nudge, nudge.
By not banning both union and corporate donations ,things will never change.

Banning unions and corporations from advertising on their own. Opens another whole can of worms and freedom of speech.
How a union spends their money is between the members and their elected representatives.

Pat Bell is an obnoxious politician
who rarely answers a question directly.

George+ wrote:Pat Bell is an obnoxious politician
who rarely answers a question directly.

He's been a highly capable cabinet minister and I'm sorry to see that he's retiring due to a potentially serious health problem. "Obnoxious" does not describe Pat Bell but it is an apt description of your incessant trolling.

flamingfingers wrote:Pat Bell jumping ship at this late date. No one knows his reason (if any)....

Very, very low to rejoice at the man's life-threatening illness. I shouldn't be surprised, but sometimes I still am.

[/quote]
Very, very low to rejoice at the man's life-threatening illness. I shouldn't be surprised, but sometimes I still am.[/quote]


You find rejoice in the comment you quoted?

maple leaf wrote:Banning political donations to a political party ,weather a union donating to the NDP or corporate donating to the Liberals is a different matter than unions or corporate paying for their own advertising,such as the CC4BC is now doing on the corporate side.Or unions advertising during a strike.

I was referring to union spending during election campaigns not strikes. Strikes are a whole other matter of advertising separate from elections. If the BCGEU spends 7 million campaigning against everyone but the NDP it doesn't count as advertising for the NDP and I think that's ridiculous, just as the CC4BC doesn't count as a Liberal donation. I think both kinds should be removed as it's just big players looking for big favors, not anything to do with the welfare of BC and it's citizens.

While I question CKNW's online polls, I find it somewhat amusing to see the results of their poll for today:

CKNW's Question of the Day

Will the release of BC’s pre-election budget tomorrow determine how you will vote in the provincial election?
No 90.6%
Yes 9.4%

Seems apparent that people are putting little faith into ANYTHING the 'budget' has to present.

Not a big shock there though, many aren't concerned with actual facts and figures but rely more one the myths and promises both sides make without any substance to them. That and it's a loaded question to an extent. It ignores all factors like people having already made up their minds, people who hate one party or the other, people who don't bother to see what the budget means to them, people who don't trust the liberal budget etc.

It's a lot like asking "have you ever stuck your child?" YES or NO to determine abuse in a general online survey. (it could have been abuse, accident, while playing, light, hard, etc etc etc., when unqualified the question means much less)

However, the results aren't surprising to me.