NDP shoot down FIFA games

[rustled]

You could, but why bother? There's a clear reason only one of these courses of action is on topic.

What makes this on topic is that the NDP and their supporters are pointing to "protecting the taxpayer from the perils of a blank cheque" to defend against refusing a public sporting event with potential advantages for the public, while simultaneously refusing to protect the taxpayer from the perils of a blank cheque for their own personal purposes.

It's disappointing, but not surprising, that instead of acknowledging the incongruity the NDP is displaying in using this reasoning to turn down a public sporting event while simultaneously expecting us to ignore them doing it for their own personal benefit, posters will ignore or deflect to "yeah, but the Liberals..."

I'm sure that if you were more familiar with how hosting FIFA events operate, your next breath would be criticising the NDP for doing business with a corrupt FIFA. For detractors, the NDP would find themselves criticised despite which direction they took.

You're sure, are you? I haven't criticized their decision re: FIFA, and I'm not sure I would. As some who know more than me have pointed out, it was probably a prudent choice. I have criticized their ability to understand why they ought to apply at least the same level of prudence when it comes to protecting us against the costs associated with their own personal wrongdoing. And of course I'm criticizing the stalwart NDP defenders for not simply acknowledging the difficulty of claiming prudence when really, the NDP are simply "prudent unless that is inconvenient to the NDP".

[FreeRights]

I actually agree that taxpayers shouldn't be footing the bill for personal lawsuits for politicians. I judge the NAP on that, just as i did the Liberal Party before them. But with that being said, that and stepping out of thr World Cup bid are two very different, unrelated things.

[rustled]

I actually agree that taxpayers shouldn't be footing the bill for personal lawsuits for politicians. I judge the NAP on that, just as i did the Liberal Party before them. But with that being said, that and stepping out of thr World Cup bid are two very different, unrelated things.

I'd agree they're unrelated, had the NDP not drawn the direct connection themselves. What they've said is, in effect, "Blank cheque drawn on public purse is bad (unless of course it's because the NDP need access)." And the NDP stalwarts are, as usual, turning a blind eye or deflecting to "but the Liberals..."

So while the NDP may indeed be exercising prudence on our behalf (and good on them if that's the case!), I for one would like to see them extend that same level of prudence on our behalf to include situations where the same level of prudence is less convenient for the NDP.

[FreeRights]

I'd agree they're unrelated, had the NDP not drawn the direct connection themselves. What they've said is, in effect, "Blank cheque drawn on public purse is bad (unless of course it's because the NDP need access)." And the NDP stalwarts are, as usual, turning a blind eye or deflecting to "but the Liberals..."

So while the NDP may indeed be exercising prudence on our behalf (and good on them if that's the case!), I for one would like to see them extend that same level of prudence on our behalf to include situations where the same level of prudence is less convenient for the NDP.

I would expect the same from all political parties, and yet I dont think that's happened.

[rustled]

I'd agree they're unrelated, had the NDP not drawn the direct connection themselves. What they've said is, in effect, "Blank cheque drawn on public purse is bad (unless of course it's because the NDP need access)." And the NDP stalwarts are, as usual, turning a blind eye or deflecting to "but the Liberals..."

So while the NDP may indeed be exercising prudence on our behalf (and good on them if that's the case!), I for one would like to see them extend that same level of prudence on our behalf to include situations where the same level of prudence is less convenient for the NDP.

I would expect the same from all political parties, and yet I dont think that's happened.

Aye, you'll find examples in other threads of people who generally support the BC Liberal party taking them well and truly to task for their stupidity and grandstanding and cavalier waste of our resources.

But here in this thread, we're focused on the party that made this decision, the party that gets the free pass from their stalwarts, no matter what. Even with clear examples of where the NDP has gone off the rails, there is nary a peep from their stalwarts taking their party to task and holding them accountable. Here, the stalwarts have taken the time to explain a blank cheque on the public purse is BAD. But you won't find them agreeing a blank cheque is also bad when it's used for two NDP members' personal defence in a defamation lawsuit.

[FreeRights]

That's classic partisanship. When you align yourself to a party or identify yourself on a specific point of the political spectrum, that's what happens on all sides.

[rustled]

That's classic partisanship. When you align yourself to a party or identify yourself on a specific point of the political spectrum, that's what happens on all sides.

That does not make it okay. (I'm trying to come up with an example of a poster here who always defends the BC Liberals, no matter what. Haven't come up with one yet.)

When Horgan says:

"I have to make sure that taxpayers aren't on the hook for unknown costs at the whim of FIFA. I'm just not prepared to sign off on that and nor is the minister of finance."

people across the spectrum may agree, but only those with blinders firmly in place will agree while simultaneously ignoring his willingness to "sign off on" the unknown costs for his defamation suit.

[FreeRights]

I would agree with you, but I'd rather them take the taxpayers into consideration on at least one of these topics instead of signing two blank cheques.

Ultimately though, this thread is about the NDP backing out of the FIFA World Cup, not all of the things they did spend money on. I think there's already multiple threads for that.

[Veovis]

I would agree with you, but I'd rather them take the taxpayers into consideration on at least one of these topics instead of signing two blank cheques.

Ultimately though, this thread is about the NDP backing out of the FIFA World Cup, not all of the things they did spend money on. I think there's already multiple threads for that.

There wasn't even a study or commission done so how could they make a decision? ha ha. Let's be honest, this was just the "NO" they are known for, they just are likely right to have said "no" this time.

However FIFA=bad (sure they are a corrupt org so I agree) but Johns personal wallet is excusable is quite the terrible attitude.

[rustled]

I would agree with you, but I'd rather them take the taxpayers into consideration on at least one of these topics instead of signing two blank cheques.

Ultimately though, this thread is about the NDP backing out of the FIFA World Cup, not all of the things they did spend money on. I think there's already multiple threads for that.

Hm.

I'd like some forum posters explain why they support NDP prudence with our pocketbook regarding FIFA, but don't expect it elsewhere, and you're working very hard to shift the conversation away from that. Odd.

Maybe you could just let them answer? (If the mods deem it too far off topic, I'm sure they'll step in so you don't have to.)

It seems prudent when Horgan says: "I have to make sure that taxpayers aren't on the hook for unknown costs at the whim of FIFA. I'm just not prepared to sign off on that and nor is the minister of finance", but should we not expect the same level of prudence to be exercised when exposing us to unknown costs of his defamation suit?

The unknown costs associated with FIFA could be balanced against economic stimulus and revenue, so one would think it would be a better gamble than the choice they've made.

[flamingfingers]

The unknown costs associated with FIFA could be balanced against economic stimulus and revenue, so one would think it would be a better gamble than the choice they've made.

If the costs are UNKNOWN, how could they possibly be balanced against economic stimulus and revenue???

[flamingfingers]

Keith Baldrey
‏
Verified account

The Alberta government has also said no to the 2026 FIFA World Cup. Edmonton can still go on its own, but not with provincial govt. dollars. #bcpoli #fifaworldcup

So let Vancouver, or Kamloops or Kelowna host the games - but WITHOUT provincial government $$$.

[GordonH]

Keith Baldrey
‏
Verified account

The Alberta government has also said no to the 2026 FIFA World Cup. Edmonton can still go on its own, but not with provincial govt. dollars. #bcpoli #fifaworldcup

So let Vancouver, or Kamloops or Kelowna host the games - but WITHOUT provincial government $$$.

Of course only stadium with enough seating capacity in BC is BC Place

[rustled]

The unknown costs associated with FIFA could be balanced against economic stimulus and revenue, so one would think it would be a better gamble than the choice they've made.

If the costs are UNKNOWN, how could they possibly be balanced against economic stimulus and revenue???

Funny that's what you'd choose to latch onto. It's clear I didn't say it would balance, but let's explore it further.

We do know some of the unknown costs related to FIFA would be offset, but we don't know if they'll balance or even come close to it. We don't know how much of it we would be on the hook for.

Much like what you carefully choose to ignore: the unknown cost of the defamation suit, which certainly won't be balanced by economic returns to the taxpayer. The difference being, that's a straight up unknown cost we are fully on the hook for. But no comment about that, right? Quibble over the FIFA "balance" instead.

Again, I'd suggest if you find the NDP prudent for their unwillingness to gamble with the FIFA, which could provide us with at least some return compared to cost, you should expect them to be equally prudent and unwilling to gamble with the unknown costs of a defamation lawsuit where they are the only people who stand to gain.

There's no balancing that against stimulus or revenue, but apparently that's okay. Funny, huh?

[flamingfingers]

Of course only stadium with enough seating capacity in BC is BC Place

FIFA stipulates 80,000 seating capacity. BC Place has seating capacity of only 54,500.

Do you think it is reasonable to expand BC Place 25,500 seats for maybe 3 games??
Or replace artificial turf laid down at a cost of $1.3 million a few short years ago and replace it with turf?
What about training facilities?
Fan zone costs of $1.2 million?
Security and policing costs? (Shades of 2011 Vancouver Stanley Cup Riot.)

For a lousy 3 games?