Campbell has to go..

[Glacier]

I would encourage people to do their own research on the likely effects of the independent run-of-river projects (unfortunately, it is people from the urban centers who have never been north of Kamloops who will likely return the megomaniac Campbell to power). The economic numbers do not make sense for us and in addition to killing hundreds of streams in the province and lining the province with hundreds of service roads and transmission line right-of-ways through our forests, the profits made from the generation of electricity will be leaving the province (in the past BC Hydro has contributed hundreds of millions to our government coffers) and we will ultimately end up paying much higher prices for our electricity than we are now. One Crown owned mega project would provide more employment, be much more cost-effective at producing cheaper electricity, and ultimately have less environmental impact. This is a lose-lose proposition for the people of BC, and Campbell is recklessly pursuing his agenda of privatization for nothing other than ideological belief.

I am not a big fan of the way the government is running the IPPs, but I think we should pay more for electricity. If you want expensive alternative energy sources like wind power, you have to charge enough to cover the costs. I am involved in designing a huge wind that would not be possible to sustain at low electricity rates.

I am a supporter of public power, but we are a net importer of power. We will be doubling the amount of power we import in the next couple of decades if we don't add more power. What solution do you propose?

[Queen K]

Symbonite: Most people do not have to be ranting and raving to make a valid point.

I certainly was not. I was calm and steady. And if I was a ranting and raving person don't you think the dozens of media people there would have picked up on some kind of public disturbance directed at Campbell? Didn't happen.

Too bad in your world the only way to convey a vaild truth is to rant and rave. Sign of powerlessness.

[NAB]

Apparently, tomorrow (Wednesday) Campbell is going to make some statements via the media. Meanwhile, from
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news ... 82b8cd7c1a

He has made some comments resulting from the recent Premiers meeting..

"Faster spending, no deficit is B.C. plan
Jonathan Fowlie, Vancouver Sun
Published: Tuesday, October 21, 2008
VICTORIA -- Premier Gordon Campbell says he's considering fast-tracking infrastructure spending to combat a slowing economy, but his government won't rack up any deficits.

"What we're calling for is that we should look at accelerating some of the potential capital projects as we move into what will likely be a slower construction market to make sure we keep people [in] work across the province," he said Monday."

******************************

To me, this mindset and focus on avoiding potential deficit is worrying for BC. There are but a few ways deficit spending can likely be avoided in his proposed scenario...

- Increase borrowings/debt

- make cost cuts in many budget areas, particularly those related to social programs, policing, education, and health care.

- or maintain/increase taxation / defer or eliminate promised tax reductions such as income tax that are supposed to flow from the Carbon Tax, / or eliminate the Carbon Tax completely and replace it with some other form of tax increases.

.....or all those things in some combination. But it is still typical Campbell lower mainland oriented thinking, "we can spend our way out of trouble via development, construction, and real estate".

Even more worrisome is that part of his outlook seems to relate to getting Federal Government help, where he is quoted "he is hopeful the federal government will help in funding some of the accelerated investment."

In these times there are 10 provinces and the territories who will all be lined up at the tough times trough looking for more federal financial help at the upcoming premier's meeting with Prime Minister Harper. Ontario and Quebec will be no lightweights at that meeting, while Campbell will be. Somehow I think it is going to be very difficult for Campbell to make a case for more federal money. Much has flowed here already over the past couple of years. Any more available is going to go to those most in need as a result of an already deteriorating provincial economy, and that isn't in the west. Once again Ontario and Quebec will become the main focus for anything new to grease the axles and keep air in the tires.

Nab

[Al Czervic]

A couple of corrections Nab, first of all not all BC Liberal spending is lower mainland based; we have, and continue to get hundreds of millions being spent here in the Okanagan. I can’t speak for the Island of course; but we are definitely getting records amount of money here.

Secondly with respect to the Federal Government and accessing Federal funds; Campbell has been more successful at this practice than any BC Premier has been in the last 20 years. Campbell is not stupid when it comes to working with the Feds. I suspect he is well aware that Danny Williams will be getting shut out; and Quebec did themselves no favors either. Dalton McGuinty is not exactly a Harper favorite (nor a favorite of Jim Flaherty) and Alberta as we all know has buckets of cash. On top of all that BC just produced more seats for the Conservatives (and Harper will be eager to reward that) and the Olympics are coming as well. Don’t kid yourself and think that Campbell will come away empty handed. You may dislike the guy; but he has a proven track record of getting things done and I suspect he will land some federal dollars as well.

[NAB]

A couple of corrections Nab, first of all not all BC Liberal spending is lower mainland based; we have, and continue to get hundreds of millions being spent here in the Okanagan. I can’t speak for the Island of course; but we are definitely getting records amount of money here.

Secondly with respect to the Federal Government and accessing Federal funds; Campbell has been more successful at this practice than any BC Premier has been in the last 20 years. Campbell is not stupid when it comes to working with the Feds. I suspect he is well aware that Danny Williams will be getting shut out; and Quebec did themselves no favors either. Dalton McGuinty is not exactly a Harper favorite (nor a favorite of Jim Flaherty) and Alberta as we all know has buckets of cash. On top of all that BC just produced more seats for the Conservatives (and Harper will be eager to reward that) and the Olympics are coming as well. Don’t kid yourself and think that Campbell will come away empty handed. You may dislike the guy; but he has a proven track record of getting things done and I suspect he will land some federal dollars as well.

Thanks for those insights Al. Good points to consider, although I would suggest we need to look forward rather than back for what the economic possibilities are to be given the global crisis and belt tightening we face.

And when it comes to politics the same thing applies IMO. Is the money going to flow to where the voting power is or has been.... or to where you want more of it to be to gain that elusive majority next time 'round ???? I still don't think Campbell has any significant cards left to play that will help with his apparent 'plan'. It will be interesting to see what he has to say now that he is apparently going to show his face. And while you may be correct that under his gov'e more money has flowed to the Okanagan compared to NDP gov'ts, the numbers shrink into oblivion when one looks at what has been, and is planned to be, thrown around in the lower mainland (under both his and prior NDP regimes).

Ya, poor old Danny huh? Thinks that a few seats in Newfoundland is a big deal to anyone LOL. Cut em loose and let em sink or swim ;-) What's the population of that province, around 500K?

Edit to add: And in view of the fact we now have a reasonably solid Conservative regime at the federal level, it may not be such a bad idea to offset that with a (short) NDP regime in BC. As Steven has pointed out, any damage the NDP could do in the next 4 years is fixable, but what Campbell seems to be proposing will likely not be for a long time if things really go bad.

Nab

[Al Czervic]

Edit to add: And in view of the fact we now have a reasonably solid Conservative regime at the federal level, it may not be such a bad idea to offset that with a (short) NDP regime in BC. As Steven has pointed out, any damage the NDP could do in the next 4 years is fixable.

Nab

In many respects I actually hope the NDP do win the next election. How quickly voters seem to forget the way thing really were. I am at a point in my life where I can weather another NDP created storm; however I know that the province cannot and would quickly slip back to where it once was.

Personally I disagree that NDP damage is so easily undone. We are still training new doctors and nurses that they failed to train. We are building the new care homes that they did not build. We are still trying to replace the ferries they failed to replace. The aging bridges they would not touch are in many cases still under construction. Vaughn Palmer said today that at no time in the history of BC have more projects been underway than right now under Premier Campbell.

BC Hyrdo and the BC Transmission Corporation are finally upgrading critical infrastructure after NDP wage freezes and funding diversions into general revenue prevented them from doing so. Municipalities are hiring more police officers because they have more money because Campbell gave them traffic fines instead of sucking the money into General Revenue as the NDP did. New Hospitals and expansion are still under construction because the NDP did none.

And; we are still repaying the doubling of debt; some $ 17 BILLION is new debt the NDP piled on in spite of doing NONE of the above. I am sorry Nab, but right now BC is playing catch-up in almost every area. I don’t think the Province can afford another 4 years of going nowhere but backwards as they did under the NDP.

[grumpydigger]

In Campbells little announcements on oct 22 , he said the government was going to stop all unnecessary spending... Of course that is after they gave themselves insultingly large wage increases ........

[NAB]

In Campbell little announcements on oct 22 , he said the government was going to stop all unnecessary spending... Of course that is after they gave themselves insultingly large wage increases ........

And don't forget the pensions grumpy. At least he has come out of hiding and is finally going to recall the legislature. Nov. 20th as I recall. I guess doing it any sooner interferes with a golf game or summat.

Nab

[NAB]

According to Campbell's new 10 point 'plan', one of the issues was personal income tax cuts retroactive. One analysis put the additional impact for someone earning $40,000 per year as a tax saving of $56.00 for the year. Meanwhile of course, with carbon taxes, increases in utilities costs, inflation, etc the impact is between $500.00 and $1000.00 more outgo per year, so that $56.00 appears to be like spit in the ocean in terms of "putting more cash in peoples pockets", at least the average working stiff or anyone below that level.

Then there is this quote: - "The government will immediately curb spending, but Campbell stressed that will not mean cuts to existing services."

Politic speak ... -that of course doesn't necessarily bode well for planned IMPROVEMENTS to existing services.

Then...

"It was a lot of work to make B.C. a deficit-free zone and we aim to keep it that way," he said. "We will continue to live within our means and within the taxpayers' ability to pay. We will not start digging ourselves back into the hole that we worked so hard to get out of since 2001."

My question is... How is the "taxpayers ability to pay" determined and by whom and at what point in time? And all things considered based on the global economic mess we find ouselves in going forward, what assurances do we have that calculation is any more meaningful than the rest of the crap we have been fed by the "experts" and politicians right up to as recently as a week or two ago?

Edit to add: Of course this government and its MLA's, and their senior bureaucrats, have ensured their incomes are big enough (on the back of the taxpayers of BC) to have the ability to pay and weather the storm without taking on their share of the hurt.

Nab

[steven lloyd]

My question is... How is the "taxpayers ability to pay" determined and by whom … ?

If the politician’s decide they need more of our money, then they will determine we have the “ability to pay”. Some politician’s actually use that money to invest in the province and it’s people. Others, well ….

Edit to add: Of course this government and its MLA's, and their senior bureaucrats, have ensured their incomes are big enough (on the back of the taxpayers of BC) to have the ability to pay and weather the storm without taking on their share of the hurt.

Nab

[steven lloyd]

I am not a big fan of the way the government is running the IPPs, but I think we should pay more for electricity. If you want expensive alternative energy sources like wind power, you have to charge enough to cover the costs.

I have been away all week but agree with you completely receeding. I do not have a problem paying more for electricity – as long as I know that extra money is being used to benefit the people of the province and not being funneled off as profit to foreign companies and shareholders. Hydro produced electricity is a public resource (or at least should be, IMO), and the public (all of us) should benefit by its production. Under Campbell, our control of our public resources is slowly but surely being sold out from under us for reasons that are purely ideological. Unfortunately, once we lose control of our public resources to foreign interests, that control will be lost for good.

It is only because of our flawed electoral system that we have a criminal government in power (the majority of people in this province voted against Campbell in the last election, yet he controls our government). I’m not excited about the prospect of an NDP Government, however, I believe it is critical to the long term interests of the people of this province and their children to dispose the current criminal regime.

[Symbonite]

Symbonite: Most people do not have to be ranting and raving to make a valid point.

I certainly was not. I was calm and steady. And if I was a ranting and raving person don't you think the dozens of media people there would have picked up on some kind of public disturbance directed at Campbell? Didn't happen.

Too bad in your world the only way to convey a vaild truth is to rant and rave. Sign of powerlessness.

I guess your right it is a sign of powerlessness. Good thing I dont rant and rave and leave that to the crazies.

[NAB]

Liberal delegates eerily quiet on carbon tax
Les Leyne, Times Colonist
Published: Thursday, October 30, 2008

There's a gaping hole in the pile of policy proposals that B.C. Liberal party members will be debating at their convention tomorrow.

Where's the resolution supporting the carbon tax?

Party members back their government to the hilt on a host of other issues. But remarkably, there isn't a single resolution up for debate that professes any support for the carbon tax.

In fact, there isn't any mention of the carbon tax at all in the entire program.

It's the most controversial measure of the Liberal government's second term. But the party is going to pretend it doesn't exist.

Apparently they'd rather spend their time debating marginal trivia, like the need for more highway median barriers or doing away with front licence plates.

The policy book for the Whistler convention is full of retroactive endorsements for things the government has already done. Members will be debating a call for energy self-sufficiency, which has been government policy for the last few years. They'll vote on maintaining the softwood lumber agreement, which the government has already endorsed and backed. Same with supporting bio-fuel and the electrification of Highway 37 up north.

Those and several other calls are all on the agenda simply to show that the members support the government. They're designed to paint a picture of a party solidly behind its leader on all fronts.

But when it comes to the one issue where the leader needs all the backing he can get, there's nada. Zip. Nothing.

It should have been obvious to the party's organizers that some support would be welcome right about now. But there's nothing to be had. After a bruising public argument about the carbon tax, Premier Gordon Campbell will meet formally with his flock for the first time in two years and be greeted with a deafening silence on the centrepiece of his audacious climate change plan.

Which leads you to wonder if party members perhaps dislike it as much as the public does.

The party brain trust does not have its act together. A pro forma endorsement of the tax should have been a given. A resolution to that effect could have been whipped up on a moment's notice. They might have completely overlooked the government's obvious need for some moral support on the issue. Or they may have been terrified of putting it to a vote, for fear of losing.

There are already a few quiet little rifts within caucus on the topic of climate change in general and the carbon tax in particular.

The absence of any support for the tax on the convention agenda hints at another.

As the policy papers make clear, it's not like they have better things to talk about. After the gripping licence-plate argument, there is a grab-bag assortment of ideas from all over.

A random sampling:

? In order to come up with better, more equitable policies, Liberals will be asked to support the idea of "the government investigating differences in rural and urban population densities when making population-based decisions." Apparently, some people live in cities and some people don't.

? Greater Victoria Liberals are bringing with them a call for the government to create a sustainable transportation plan for Vancouver Island. The motion says Island transportation patterns are significant generators of greenhouse gases, the situation is unsustainable and the Island needs more responsible options for transportation. In other words: Include us in the Gateway Project already!

? Richmond delegates, of all people, will be making an effort to re-start the age-old bridge debate. They say high fuel prices improve the viability of bridges on what are now ferry routes.

They want their government to consider bridging options to eliminate or shorten some ferry routes.

Here we go again.

? The Young Liberals contingent has fronted a call to improve student grants, reduce interest rates on student loans and lower tuition fees. The full outline sounds a lot like what New Democratic Party Leader Carole James promised in her televised address this week.

Hey, Young Liberals! You're at the wrong convention!

The rest of the 60 pages of resolutions are a mushy collection of motherhood endorsements for positions the government took months and even years ago.

There is a small assortment of genuinely new ideas, but they are few and far between. Liberals have never been particularly keen on policy debates. Standard operating procedure for years has been: Let Gord worry about it.

Now that he's crawled out on a limb with the carbon tax, they're not particularly keen on coming to his aid, either.
From: http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolo ... ac8b5c&p=1

[RR24K]

Everybody in the area of this convention be aware Gordo may have couple of drinks and could be driving. So if you him driving call the police.

[steven lloyd]

The Young Liberals contingent has fronted a call to improve student grants, reduce interest rates on student loans and lower tuition fees. The full outline sounds a lot like what New Democratic Party Leader Carole James promised in her televised address this week.

Hey, Young Liberals! You're at the wrong convention!

Wonder how long it will take them to figure it out.