Campbell has to go..

BC's provincial election and STV referendum takes place Tuesday May 12th.
NAB
Buddha of the Board
Posts: 22985
Joined: Apr 19th, 2006, 1:33 pm

Re: Campbell has to go..

Post by NAB »

Well said damngrumpy. The economic policies (or proposed policies) of ALL party's in BC were set in terms of trend 1, 2, or even more years ago. Last year the economic worm started to turn, but Gordo and gang shouted damn the torpedos and forged ahead with their February budget and its implementation anyway, and now they are even more in a box because the economic forecasts are even worse now than they were then - yet still they don't react or even acknowledge their errors. And IMO we are looking now at at least 2 - 3 years of increasingly tougher times (regardless of what party comes to power next spring).

Sure, "they" may be able to demonstrate reductions in income tax policy, and that's great, and also great we have a choice in some (very) limited areas to reduce our costs associated with various sales taxes. But those savings are almost irrelevant in terms of total impact on consumers of lower to middle income fame (the majority of folk) who face disposable income, even increased fixed costs, destruction due to increasing costs on so many other fronts. Nice that corporations who "benefit" however are largely free to simply pass on those additional costs in the largely non-competitive consumer environment we have in BC in so many areas.

Erosion of disposable income is one thing, but when it gets to the point that disposable income is virtually eliminated in some sectors, even starts to erode ability of more and more to meet the cost of basics of life, then Scotty, we have a serious problem!

What I will be looking for between now and spring election time is which party has the flexibility and will to change gears in a way that can at least stabilize, if not reduce, the impact of those tougher times in the lower income groups. Most governments (even private industry), when faced with such a sudden turnaround in potential fortunes, immediately tighten their free spending ways and habits, even make expense budget cuts to avoid having to do it much more deeply down the road. IMO the various "Green Plans", highway and bridge expansions in the lower mainland, and yes, even the Olympics budget, need to be addressed and suffer severe cuts in light of the new reality.

Frankly, I think this whole environmental/global warming thing is going to kill us financially long before it kills us in other ways.

Nab
"He who controls others may be powerful, but he who has mastered himself is mightier still." - Lao-Tzu
User avatar
usquebaugh
Guru
Posts: 8984
Joined: Mar 19th, 2005, 3:17 pm

Re: Campbell has to go..

Post by usquebaugh »

^ Re: the Olympics budget. Isn't the security for the Olympics costing boat loads more than they originally said?!

Budget won't cover 2010 Olympics security: RCMP

Updated Fri. Jul. 27 2007 7:37 AM ET

Canadian Press

VANCOUVER -- The Mounties say there's not enough money in the budget to cover security at the 2010 Olympics in Vancouver.

RCMP spokesman Sergeant Pierre Lemaitre says it will cost more than the original $175 million earmarked for the games in 2002.

He says the Mounties had expected to secure 20 venues, but that number has jumped to more than 100.

Colin Hansen, the provincial minister in charge of the Games, denies the number of venues has gone up.

He says the RCMP has told his office they'll be needing more money, but he hasn't been officially told what was wrong with the original budget.

Lemaitre says the integrated security unit -- comprised of RCMP and officers from the West Vancouver and Vancouver Police departments -- hasn't come up with a new cost figure yet.

He says people shouldn't be worried about any security issues at the 17-day event.


Granted some of that increase is due to inflation, but not all of it! Is that why they've already started selling 2010 memorabilia?! I just saw some wine glasses at Save-On with the logo on it.
Where oh where’d my body go?
Africa or Mexico?
Where or where’d my body go?
Where’d my body go?
Have you seen my ghost?
Staring at the ground?
Have you seen my ghost?
Sick of those *bleep* clouds
NAB
Buddha of the Board
Posts: 22985
Joined: Apr 19th, 2006, 1:33 pm

Re: Campbell has to go..

Post by NAB »

"He says the Mounties had expected to secure 20 venues, but that number has jumped to more than 100.

Colin Hansen, the provincial minister in charge of the Games, denies the number of venues has gone up."

And therein lies the Campbell Gov't spin on the security budget front ndp. Hopefully the media can pry out the reality of that argument. After all, an original budget in 2001/2002 covering 20 expected venues and cost forecasts now suggesting more than 100 will need security coverage is a bit of a wide margin to close at the last minute and still feel the games will be secure.

Edit to add: We are now seeing that the ability of this government to forecast and budget is not that much better than the NDP's poor capabilities in that regard, if even better at all.

Nab
"He who controls others may be powerful, but he who has mastered himself is mightier still." - Lao-Tzu
User avatar
steven lloyd
Buddha of the Board
Posts: 19172
Joined: Dec 1st, 2004, 7:38 pm

Re: Campbell has to go..

Post by steven lloyd »

Nabcom wrote: Sure, "they" may be able to demonstrate reductions in income tax policy, and that's great, and also great we have a choice in some (very) limited areas to reduce our costs associated with various sales taxes. But those savings are almost irrelevant in terms of total impact on consumers of lower to middle income fame (the majority of folk) who face disposable income, even increased fixed costs, destruction due to increasing costs on so many other fronts. Nice that corporations who "benefit" however are largely free to simply pass on those additional costs in the largely non-competitive consumer environment we have in BC in so many areas.

Nab


Something Gordon Campbell and members of this conspiratorial (criminal) regime do understand is that you truly can fool all of the people some of the time, and you can even fool all of the people some of the time. Shame on us (the electorate) for believing the lies (when the truth was available)and electing this regime into power the first time. Double shame on us for electing these criminals to a second term (even though the majority of voters voted for someone else). Triple shame on us if we allow this criminal regime to enjoy a third term of power.
User avatar
Nebula
Buddha of the Board
Posts: 16288
Joined: Jul 6th, 2005, 9:52 am

Re: Campbell has to go..

Post by Nebula »

There you go with the "criminal" word again, Steven. It's a pretty strong word to be throwing around, over and over, when you haven't cited one law broken.
You cannot reason someone out of a position that they did not use reason to arrive at.
User avatar
usquebaugh
Guru
Posts: 8984
Joined: Mar 19th, 2005, 3:17 pm

Re: Campbell has to go..

Post by usquebaugh »

writerdave wrote:There you go with the "criminal" word again, Steven. It's a pretty strong word to be throwing around, over and over, when you haven't cited one law broken.


His drunk driving in Hawaii isn't enough for you?
Where oh where’d my body go?
Africa or Mexico?
Where or where’d my body go?
Where’d my body go?
Have you seen my ghost?
Staring at the ground?
Have you seen my ghost?
Sick of those *bleep* clouds
User avatar
Nebula
Buddha of the Board
Posts: 16288
Joined: Jul 6th, 2005, 9:52 am

Re: Campbell has to go..

Post by Nebula »

No it's not, ndp. Steven continually uses the word "criminal" when referring to the provincial Liberals. The Liberals didn't drive drunk, Campbell did.

And you keep bringing up the drinking and driving thing over and over. As I pointed out once already, shall we take a walk through history and start citing NDP discretions or even outright criminal behaviour?
You cannot reason someone out of a position that they did not use reason to arrive at.
User avatar
steven lloyd
Buddha of the Board
Posts: 19172
Joined: Dec 1st, 2004, 7:38 pm

Re: Campbell has to go..

Post by steven lloyd »

writerdave wrote:There you go with the "criminal" word again, Steven. It's a pretty strong word to be throwing around, over and over, when you haven't cited one law broken.


I’ll keep throwing it around Dave. It is a strong word but it so aptly describes the thugs currently in power. Fraud, intent to defraud, conspiracy, intent to commit conspiracy, insider trading, graft and racketeering, etc. If only we could bring these crooks before the Court right now. You might want to pay closer attention to what the Auditor General has been uncovering as late. I know Campbell and his criminal cohorts are very sophisticated and smooth when it comes to pulling the wool over the eyes of this electorate, however, they’re still just thugs.
NAB
Buddha of the Board
Posts: 22985
Joined: Apr 19th, 2006, 1:33 pm

Re: Campbell has to go..

Post by NAB »

writerdave wrote:No it's not, ndp. Steven continually uses the word "criminal" when referring to the provincial Liberals. The Liberals didn't drive drunk, Campbell did.

And you keep bringing up the drinking and driving thing over and over. As I pointed out once already, shall we take a walk through history and start citing NDP discretions or even outright criminal behaviour?


Yes, let's do WD. It may make for some interesting diversions and comparison's to this government's higher level capabilities by comparison ;-) Gotta list handy?

Edit to add. ndp probably isn't old enough to have been aware of much of it.

BTW I assume you meant "indiscretions"?

Nab
"He who controls others may be powerful, but he who has mastered himself is mightier still." - Lao-Tzu
User avatar
usquebaugh
Guru
Posts: 8984
Joined: Mar 19th, 2005, 3:17 pm

Re: Campbell has to go..

Post by usquebaugh »

Edit to add. ndp probably isn't old enough to have been aware of much of it.


Why, thank you. Yes, I do still get ID'd at the liquor store, which is both flattering and a pain in the *bleep*. :)
Where oh where’d my body go?
Africa or Mexico?
Where or where’d my body go?
Where’d my body go?
Have you seen my ghost?
Staring at the ground?
Have you seen my ghost?
Sick of those *bleep* clouds
User avatar
Nebula
Buddha of the Board
Posts: 16288
Joined: Jul 6th, 2005, 9:52 am

Re: Campbell has to go..

Post by Nebula »

steven lloyd wrote:Fraud, intent to defraud, conspiracy, intent to commit conspiracy, insider trading, graft and racketeering, etc. If only we could bring these crooks before the Court right now. You might want to pay closer attention to what the Auditor General has been uncovering as late.


So the government hires some guy from Western Australia to be the province's auditor general, releases a few reports and you're hanging onto every word in his reports as if it is gospel.

Yes, Doyle did note what he called an unusual volume of trading in Western Forest Products' stock around the time of the deal on Vancouver Island. He wrote that in his report and noted that he sent the information to the B.C. Securities and Exchange Commission for investigation.

What Doyle did not write in his report is that the commission checked the allegations out and cleared anyone of any wrongdoing.

I would not take that information and start claiming that a provincial government is criminal and guilty of insider trading.
You cannot reason someone out of a position that they did not use reason to arrive at.
User avatar
steven lloyd
Buddha of the Board
Posts: 19172
Joined: Dec 1st, 2004, 7:38 pm

Re: Campbell has to go..

Post by steven lloyd »

writerdave wrote: I would not take that information and start claiming that a provincial government is criminal and guilty of insider trading.


No worries Dave. I had Campbell and his cronies pegged as criminal long before Doyle came along.
NAB
Buddha of the Board
Posts: 22985
Joined: Apr 19th, 2006, 1:33 pm

Re: Campbell has to go..

Post by NAB »

writerdave wrote:
steven lloyd wrote:Fraud, intent to defraud, conspiracy, intent to commit conspiracy, insider trading, graft and racketeering, etc. If only we could bring these crooks before the Court right now. You might want to pay closer attention to what the Auditor General has been uncovering as late.


So the government hires some guy from Western Australia to be the province's auditor general, releases a few reports and you're hanging onto every word in his reports as if it is gospel.

Yes, Doyle did note what he called an unusual volume of trading in Western Forest Products' stock around the time of the deal on Vancouver Island. He wrote that in his report and noted that he sent the information to the B.C. Securities and Exchange Commission for investigation.

What Doyle did not write in his report is that the commission checked the allegations out and cleared anyone of any wrongdoing.

I would not take that information and start claiming that a provincial government is criminal and guilty of insider trading.


Ah yes, the B.C. Securities Commission... Supposedly operating under rules established by the BC Government through legislation in 2004..... I wonder in who's favour these delays serve? The new BC Securities Act was Legislated before the 2005 election under a massive Gordo government majority, (they got about 57% of the popular vote but 97% of the legislative seats, crummy electoral system that we have) and was a leading plank in the election that saw an NDP comeback from relative oblivion. Here we are facing another election and Gordo and Gang have managed to continue delays in implementing that Securities Legislation, as well as ward off a recommendation to change to the Single Transferrable Vote system, even though it was recommended by the Citizens Assembly Campbell himself founded to give the impression he was prepared to listen to the people!

Some excerpts...

""The British Columbia Legislature passed a modern, innovative Securities Act in 2004, but the government has not yet brought it into force. The government initially delayed implementing the act to give industry more time to prepare for the changes.....

In February 2006, the BCSC recommended that the government further defer bringing the 2004 act into force.......

.....The government agreed with the recommendation and deferred implementing the 2004 act until at least December 31, 2007 (As far as I know it still hasn't been brought into force. Nab)

.....The 2004 British Columbia Securities Act was designed to provide industry with a streamlined and simplified rulebook, written in plain language. It places greater emphasis on establishing clear principles and replaces detailed and prescriptive rules with an outcomes-based approach that supports a responsive and flexible regulatory system.""

As for Gordo's DUI charge, I got a chuckle out of MacLean's magazine report of the time, which as lead-in said..

"MOMMA, don't let your babies grow up to be premier. Certainly not in British Columbia, the banana-peel belt of Canadian politics. Here - with the inevitability of gravity, of taxes, of winter rain - supreme leaders are doomed to an ugly comeuppance, usually at their own hand.

Covering B.C. politics is a sad business. The premiers look so darned happy at their swearings-in, one cringes at the naïveté. It's as though they're the only ones in the room not to know they've won a starring role in an ongoing political tragedy. Inevitably they pledge a new era of politics, and invariably they deliver - finding deep within themselves the unique means of their own demise.

I claim with more sorrow than exaggeration to have spent nearly as much time watching the province's fallen premiers in court as I have in the legislature. Bill Bennett, premier from 1975 to 1986, was the last to survive a full term in office. Even he, in retirement, needed a good defence lawyer.

Now comes Premier 03-02659, the identifier number Maui police gave an over-refreshed Gordon CAMPBELL after his failed date with the department's Intoxilyzer 5000. This time it was the spectacular stupidity of driving drunk after three martinis, dinner and much wine at the Hawaiian condo of Canadian friends. But, hey, it's always something....."

Nab
"He who controls others may be powerful, but he who has mastered himself is mightier still." - Lao-Tzu
User avatar
steven lloyd
Buddha of the Board
Posts: 19172
Joined: Dec 1st, 2004, 7:38 pm

Re: Campbell has to go..

Post by steven lloyd »

Nabcom wrote: Now comes Premier 03-02659, the identifier number Maui police gave an over-refreshed Gordon CAMPBELL after his failed date with the department's Intoxilyzer 5000. This time it was the spectacular stupidity of driving drunk after three martinis, dinner and much wine at the Hawaiian condo of Canadian friends. But, hey, it's always something....."

Nab


Was it stupidity, or simple arrogance on his part in believing he was someone above the law. Interestingly, in recent cases where NDP politicians have been caught in situations unbecoming of a premier, they have taken the high road and resigned – despite ultimately being acquitted over their allegations. On the other hand, Gordon makes an international embarrassment of himself and our province and pleads no contest (essentially admitting guilt), but believes he is personally too important to resign. The only thing more pathetic is the fact this electorate allowed him back into power.

Now I’m not going to suggest every person in this province is an idiot (because, in fact, the majority of voters in our last election actually picked anyone but Gordon Campbell to be our next/current premier), but we need to collectively start learning and executing effective election strategy. Unfortunately our current electoral system sucks. It is a system where 70% of the population could desperately plead for anyone but the criminal Gordon Campbell to be premier again, but where he and his party could win yet another majority government. And typical of their arrogance they would then believe they have carte blanche to proceed however they and their handlers see fit.

While it is not ideal, or even right in profound ways, voters sometimes need to cast their votes strategically in ways to defeat corrupt governments – recognizing the greater good is satisfied by defeating those who would continue to subjugate and oppress.
User avatar
Nebula
Buddha of the Board
Posts: 16288
Joined: Jul 6th, 2005, 9:52 am

Re: Campbell has to go..

Post by Nebula »

You know, Steven, your continued use of the term "criminal" just cheapens your posts on this forum. It is only surpassed by your contempt for anyone who voted Liberal in the last election. Sure, our electoral system is not perfect but it is the one we have and people cast their votes democratically in the last election and Campbell became premiere. To call those people pathetic is just wrong.

Your message is getting lost in the noise of contempt.
You cannot reason someone out of a position that they did not use reason to arrive at.

Return to “B.C. Provincial Election 2009”