The_Squid Posted March 2, 2011 Report Posted March 2, 2011 (edited) Tell me something,BC'ers... Were there any substantial public hearings on the efficacy of the HST in British Columbia... No, we were lied to and told that it was not being contemplated. And,to grease your collective palms,are you being bribed with your own money and being told by the provincial gov't that it will create up to 600,000 new jobs?? Yes. More lies with no substance. Edited March 2, 2011 by The_Squid Quote
The_Squid Posted March 2, 2011 Report Posted March 2, 2011 There's always trouble ahead for BC premiers. BC is a province that eats its leaders and spits out the chewed remains. Heck, even when they haven't done anything wrong, like Mike Harcourt, somehow the whole political system is geared towards humiliation of premiers. If this were true, Gordo would have been chewed up and spit out after his drunk driving incident. I don't think you can say this about right-wing leaders of BC.... Gordo and Vanderzalm both did some terrible things in office that lead to their downfall after many years of being Premier. Who this happens to are the NDP Premiers.... the right-wing in this Province seem to be masters at smearing leaders who have done nothing wrong (Harcourt), or something quite minor in the grand scheme of things (Clark). BC has this reputation, but it only happens from one side of the political spectrum (other than James, but she wasn't Premier and it was party politics in her case, not BC as a whole). Quote
Wilber Posted March 2, 2011 Report Posted March 2, 2011 How do you come to that conclusion? And anyway, tax policy is not merely a question of who-pays-what. It's also a question of setting the right incentives so you don't get unintended consequences. ----- Pretty simple really. I am undecided because the tax may very well be good for the economy in general. On a personal level, I will be paying more tax on more things. When your costs go up and your income doesn't, your standard of living goes down. There have been lots of consequences to the service industry and others which stand to save very little from the HST but have to increase costs to their customers by 7%. You would have to ask the government if they were intended. While the idea of a woman leader will always be a problem for some, I don't think Clark's gender is a big issue in BC. Six months ago, if you had asked the average person on the street who they would like to see as the next leader of the provincial liberals, Dianne Watts and Carol Taylor would have been the front runners by a wide margin. Unfortunately they both decided not to run. Clark has been out of politics for six years and other than a talk show host people have only seen her as a controversial minister in a government that had a two member opposition. Like many people, I would like to see her do well but have many questions as to whether she is just a political animal or actually has a vision and the ability to carry the party and the people along with it. I think she owes it to British Columbians to use the next two years to show them some of what she's got before she asks them for another four year mandate. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
ToadBrother Posted March 2, 2011 Report Posted March 2, 2011 If this were true, Gordo would have been chewed up and spit out after his drunk driving incident. To early into his tenure, and the Liberal domination of the Legislature was pretty damned huge. Beyond that, it was an extremely minor offense in the grand scheme of things. I don't think you can say this about right-wing leaders of BC.... Gordo and Vanderzalm both did some terrible things in office that lead to their downfall after many years of being Premier. Who this happens to are the NDP Premiers.... the right-wing in this Province seem to be masters at smearing leaders who have done nothing wrong (Harcourt), or something quite minor in the grand scheme of things (Clark). BC has this reputation, but it only happens from one side of the political spectrum (other than James, but she wasn't Premier and it was party politics in her case, not BC as a whole). There haven't been enough NDP premiers around to make that clear. Clark's real sin was that he was just a plain horrible Premier. It certainly wasn't the BC Liberals that ended his career, it was members of his own cabinet, in particular Ujjal Dosanjh, who yanked the government from underneath him, but it had been a long time coming. The same happened to Harcourt. It wasn't the BC Liberals that ultimately saw him ousted, it was the Rat Pack of such pleasant guys as Moe Sihota and Glen Clark, who basically had the knives out for him. Quote
ToadBrother Posted March 2, 2011 Report Posted March 2, 2011 Pretty simple really. I am undecided because the tax may very well be good for the economy in general. On a personal level, I will be paying more tax on more things. When your costs go up and your income doesn't, your standard of living goes down. There have been lots of consequences to the service industry and others which stand to save very little from the HST but have to increase costs to their customers by 7%. You would have to ask the government if they were intended. VATs are always preferable to sales taxes. Yes, in one hand costs will go up, but the drag on the economy is considerably less. Besides, the PST was a bloody awful tax, absolutely horrible. Why anyone would defend it is beyond me. Clark has been out of politics for six years and other than a talk show host people have only seen her as a controversial minister in a government that had a two member opposition. Like many people, I would like to see her do well but have many questions as to whether she is just a political animal or actually has a vision and the ability to carry the party and the people along with it. I think she owes it to British Columbians to use the next two years to show them some of what she's got before she asks them for another four year mandate. Maybe she owes it to people, but she's going to be looking at this strategically. Calling an early election will catch the NDP off balance. It will allow her to kill a number of other birds with one stone, in particular allowing the ministers most attached to the HST like Colin Hansen to bow out gracefully. If she's victorious, she can claim a full mandate, and her position not just with British Columbians but also with her own party, is secured. Remember, Clark is a Liberal Liberal. She has few friends with the Federal Conservatives, and yet a fair chunk of her caucus are essentially Tories in drag. There has to be a substantial number of ex-Socreds and Federal Tory types who are very unhappy that someone from the "left" wing of the BC Liberals is now leader, and she needs to worry about them to. If she can pull off an election win, that buys her internal peace. Quote
The_Squid Posted March 2, 2011 Report Posted March 2, 2011 A Premier who is a drunk driver isn't minor in many people's opinions.... Christy Clark will not call an early election to catch the NDP off guard. It would be against the law. BC has a fixed election law. This would show her as underhanded and as much of a political opportunist (i.e. dirt-bag) as the typical BC Liberal politician. I think this would be a losing proposition for her. I hope she does it... it would be fun. But it won't happen. Quote
ToadBrother Posted March 2, 2011 Report Posted March 2, 2011 A Premier who is a drunk driver isn't minor in many people's opinions.... As I recall at the time the majority of British Columbians did not view it as an end-of-the-world scenario. Christy Clark will not call an early election to catch the NDP off guard. It would be against the law. BC has a fixed election law. This would show her as underhanded and as much of a political opportunist (i.e. dirt-bag) as the typical BC Liberal politician. I think this would be a losing proposition for her. I hope she does it... it would be fun. But it won't happen. The text of the amendment to the BC Constitution Act: General elections 23 (1) The Lieutenant Governor may, by proclamation in Her Majesty's name, prorogue or dissolve the Legislative Assembly when the Lieutenant Governor sees fit. (2) Subject to subsection (1), a general voting day must occur on May 17, 2005 and thereafter on the second Tuesday in May in the fourth calendar year following the general voting day for the most recently held general election. (3) In subsection (2), "general election" and "general voting day" have the same meanings as in section 1 of the Election Act. You'll note that section 23.1 retains the Lieutenant Governor's right to dissolve the Legislature, and since in our system of government in almost all cases in a majority government this would be on the advice of the Premier, I'm afraid it is very much legal for her to call a new election (or more properly for her to ask the LG to dissolve the Legislature and call a new election). Quote
The_Squid Posted March 2, 2011 Report Posted March 2, 2011 As I recall at the time the majority of British Columbians did not view it as an end-of-the-world scenario. The text of the amendment to the BC Constitution Act: General elections 23 (1) The Lieutenant Governor may, by proclamation in Her Majesty's name, prorogue or dissolve the Legislative Assembly when the Lieutenant Governor sees fit. (2) Subject to subsection (1), a general voting day must occur on May 17, 2005 and thereafter on the second Tuesday in May in the fourth calendar year following the general voting day for the most recently held general election. (3) In subsection (2), "general election" and "general voting day" have the same meanings as in section 1 of the Election Act. You'll note that section 23.1 retains the Lieutenant Governor's right to dissolve the Legislature, and since in our system of government in almost all cases in a majority government this would be on the advice of the Premier, I'm afraid it is very much legal for her to call a new election (or more properly for her to ask the LG to dissolve the Legislature and call a new election). I fully understand that the law is, essentially, non-binding.... however, it would go against the spirit of the law.... it would certainly hurt her chances by showing her lack of integrity to follow the law that was brought in when she was part of the government. She voted for it. Most people probably think that she should have to abide by it. Quote
ToadBrother Posted March 2, 2011 Report Posted March 2, 2011 I fully understand that the law is, essentially, non-binding.... however, it would go against the spirit of the law.... it would certainly hurt her chances by showing her lack of integrity to follow the law that was brought in when she was part of the government. She voted for it. Most people probably think that she should have to abide by it. The spirit of the law? It's right there, the Lieutenant Governor has the right to dissolve the Legislature. Everyone knew that because this prerogative power was still in place that the fixed election legislation could do but one thing, and that is to reduce the maximum amount of time the legislature could sit without election from five years to four and to set a fixed date to the second Tuesday in May providing the Legislature was not dissolved prior to that date. Quote
fellowtraveller Posted March 2, 2011 Report Posted March 2, 2011 We now have women as PMs in Canada's two extremeties - but neither have been elected.......... ----- ......Women can become leaders of parties. They can get elected as Mayors of small towns, federal MPs or to provincial legislatures. But we balk at electing them to the position of PM. US Democrats chose Obama over Clinton. Despite Charest's deep unpopularity, Pauline Marois is not picking up support. In simple terms: women are not electable as leaders in the West. The obvious exception is Thatcher but she was a force to be reckoned with. What an astonishing statement,women are not electable asleaders in the West. There are many examples of just that right now, and many more in the past. Here is a list of current female leaders just the current ones. Ever heard of Merkel? Quote The government should do something.
ToadBrother Posted March 2, 2011 Report Posted March 2, 2011 What an astonishing statement,women are not electable asleaders in the West. There are many examples of just that right now, and many more in the past. Here is a list of current female leaders just the current ones. Ever heard of Merkel? Angela Merkel is an awfully good example, because as it stands now, she basically holds the EU's currency union in her hands. She is the most powerful person in Europe right now... much to the new Irish government's chagrin. Quote
fellowtraveller Posted March 2, 2011 Report Posted March 2, 2011 The Alberta PCs have a good chance of electing a female leader as well, that's more of what I was getting at then Danielle Smith. IMO Daniellle Smith has absolutely no chance of leading Alberta, certainly not in the next election. The Tories will bide their time, elect a new leader(Gary Mar is about to enter and is a very strong contender), then hold an election and win easily. Write that down. Quote The government should do something.
fellowtraveller Posted March 2, 2011 Report Posted March 2, 2011 Angela Merkel is an awfully good example, because as it stands now, she basically holds the EU's currency union in her hands. She is the most powerful person in Europe right now... much to the new Irish government's chagrin. Is that the same Ireland led by President Mary Macaleese for the last 14 years? Why, yes it is, Quote The government should do something.
ToadBrother Posted March 2, 2011 Report Posted March 2, 2011 Is that the same Ireland led by President Mary Macaleese for the last 14 years? Why, yes it is, Except the Irish President, like our Governor General or the German President, has very limited powers. Merkel is actually head of the German government and wields pretty substantial power. Quote
Wilber Posted March 2, 2011 Report Posted March 2, 2011 Maybe she owes it to people, but she's going to be looking at this strategically. Calling an early election will catch the NDP off balance. It will allow her to kill a number of other birds with one stone, in particular allowing the ministers most attached to the HST like Colin Hansen to bow out gracefully. If she's victorious, she can claim a full mandate, and her position not just with British Columbians but also with her own party, is secured. Remember, Clark is a Liberal Liberal. She has few friends with the Federal Conservatives, and yet a fair chunk of her caucus are essentially Tories in drag. There has to be a substantial number of ex-Socreds and Federal Tory types who are very unhappy that someone from the "left" wing of the BC Liberals is now leader, and she needs to worry about them to. If she can pull off an election win, that buys her internal peace. She has been called a federal Liberal and that would just give the claim more credence. Pure Chretien, never put the people ahead of political expediency when it comes to elections. I think calling an early election when she was a member of the government that brought in fixed dates is going to piss a lot of people off. She won't get my vote if she does and I've always voted Socred or Liberal provincially. How do you figure an election will buy her internal peace, do you think all those Socred and Tory types are going to voluntarily give up their seats? She will have to make some kind of peace with them, after all they are the ones the people elected. Just because the folks are happy to see Campbell gone doesn't mean they have all turned into Liberal Liberals. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
ToadBrother Posted March 2, 2011 Report Posted March 2, 2011 She has been called a federal Liberal and that would just give the claim more credence. Pure Chretien, never put the people ahead of political expediency when it comes to elections. I think calling an early election when she was a member of the government that brought in fixed dates is going to piss a lot of people off. She won't get my vote if she does and I've always voted Socred or Liberal provincially. It will piss the usual suspects off. Me, I love elections, so I'll gladly take an early chance to make my feelings known in that most dramatic of ways. How do you figure an election will buy her internal peace, do you think all those Socred and Tory types are going to voluntarily give up their seats? She will have to make some kind of peace with them, after all they are the ones the people elected. Just because the folks are happy to see Campbell gone doesn't mean they have all turned into Liberal Liberals. It will buy her piece because having won an election will silence them. Until she's won an election, she'll be at risk to challenges from right-wing members of her caucus, who while publicly having kissed her hand, will in six or seven months likely begin thinking dark thoughts. Quote
Wilber Posted March 2, 2011 Report Posted March 2, 2011 It will piss the usual suspects off. Me, I love elections, so I'll gladly take an early chance to make my feelings known in that most dramatic of ways. Great, lets forget about governing and just have elections. The purpose of government is not to have elections. It will buy her piece because having won an election will silence them. Until she's won an election, she'll be at risk to challenges from right-wing members of her caucus, who while publicly having kissed her hand, will in six or seven months likely begin thinking dark thoughts. No she won't. She was chosen by the party fair and square, they have nothing to bitch about. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
sharkman Posted March 4, 2011 Report Posted March 4, 2011 The NDP will also be choosing a new leader after a sudden ousting of the old one. It looks like they were happy enough to have Carol serve while in minority, but when an election looms in which a majority might be in play, they cast her aside and ignore her years of service. At any rate, they will be hard pressed to come up with someone who has the recognition factor of Clark. The new leader will have to start all over because I doubt that James will offer much in the way of help after the way she was ousted. I predict the NDP will try for a leader with 'centrist' policies, much like they did with Harcourt, who was then cast aside in a bait and switch strategy. Quote
PoliticalNick Posted March 9, 2011 Report Posted March 9, 2011 It will not matter who is leader of whichever party or which one of them gets elected. The corporations will still buy them all off with huge bribes..I mean campaign donations. None of them will ever represent the average working people because they are not legally obligated to us after the election. And we as individuals can't buy our way into their offices. I tried for 4 1/2 months to get a 5-10 minute meeting with Campbell. I sent over 100 emails and about 50 phone calls and 18 mailed letters. Only ever got 1 response, actually got one of his assistants on the phone. His words were "the premier doesn't have time for you, he has to deal with more important matters". Not a sorry or by your leave or maybe we could try. And what the hell does he mean that a citizen of the province is not important!!! All I wanted was 5 minutes inhis office. Quote
scouterjim Posted March 9, 2011 Author Report Posted March 9, 2011 It will not matter who is leader of whichever party or which one of them gets elected. The corporations will still buy them all off with huge bribes..I mean campaign donations. None of them will ever represent the average working people because they are not legally obligated to us after the election. And we as individuals can't buy our way into their offices. I tried for 4 1/2 months to get a 5-10 minute meeting with Campbell. I sent over 100 emails and about 50 phone calls and 18 mailed letters. Only ever got 1 response, actually got one of his assistants on the phone. His words were "the premier doesn't have time for you, he has to deal with more important matters". Not a sorry or by your leave or maybe we could try. And what the hell does he mean that a citizen of the province is not important!!! All I wanted was 5 minutes inhis office. My MLA (Shirley Bond) is always happy to speak with constituents. I have spoken with her many times. I will give her credit for being approachable. When I lived in Coquitlam many years ago, my NDP MLA (what was his name?), NEVER took time to speak to anybody. He lasted one term. Quote I have captured the rare duct taped platypus.
sharkman Posted March 11, 2011 Report Posted March 11, 2011 I tried for 4 1/2 months to get a 5-10 minute meeting with Campbell. I sent over 100 emails and about 50 phone calls and 18 mailed letters. Only ever got 1 response, actually got one of his assistants on the phone. His words were "the premier doesn't have time for you, he has to deal with more important matters". Not a sorry or by your leave or maybe we could try. And what the hell does he mean that a citizen of the province is not important!!! All I wanted was 5 minutes inhis office. Uh, you actually expected to have a meeting with a premier of a province, simply because you wanted to? Campbell certainly had his faults, but managing his time was not one of them. Quote
ToadBrother Posted March 12, 2011 Report Posted March 12, 2011 The NDP will also be choosing a new leader after a sudden ousting of the old one. It looks like they were happy enough to have Carol serve while in minority, but when an election looms in which a majority might be in play, they cast her aside and ignore her years of service. At any rate, they will be hard pressed to come up with someone who has the recognition factor of Clark. The new leader will have to start all over because I doubt that James will offer much in the way of help after the way she was ousted. I predict the NDP will try for a leader with 'centrist' policies, much like they did with Harcourt, who was then cast aside in a bait and switch strategy. Mike Farnworth certainly has name recognition. He's been a fixture in provincial politics for a couple of decades. Yes, he isn't a tooth flasher like Clark, but that's one of my chief worries about her, that she may be the next Bill Vanderzalm or Glen Clark. She already has demonstrated a troubling habit of shooting from the hip and letting the first thought that pops into her head slip off her tongue only to have to backpedal. Take the trial balloon she floated about having the HST debate in the Legislature and having the very MLAs who voted for it be forced to vote against it. A lot of BC Liberal MLAs went "What...?" Quote
Pliny Posted March 12, 2011 Report Posted March 12, 2011 (edited) Christy Clark is a bully and liberal do-gooder. WE even have a day designated as the day when everyone can be a bully. It's called pink shirt day. She expects everyone to wear pink that day. She took what was a good idea and showed everyone how to be a bully by being the biggest bully on the block. Bullying stops here - hahaha. Even the head of the BCTF criticized her for using the concept for her own purposes but in doing so missed the point and demonstrated she too had no clue by saying bullying was about racism and homophobia only. Bullying is a behavior that has its base in character. You never know what you will get if you oppress bullying - it might turn into being something a lot meaner because you aren't recognizing what a bully is, only trying to be a bigger bully yourself. I would be called a bully for fighting back no doubt while Christy has won the luxury of calling other people bullies. It seems she came up with the usual political solution of trying to create a monopoly under the guise of attempting to stomp it out. That's what can be learned from pink shirt day. Bullying is perhaps a good personality trait if you are a politician and/or a leader of some sort. You need to overcome obstacles that require persistence but you must be right most of the time. There has to be some way to differentiate when someone is bullying or someone is being persistent and successful to the chagrin of any opposition. I think the difference is probably in the intent. Pink shirt day is about "not liking" bullying and saying no to bullying, being intolerant. Bullying is a behavior that has malicious and harmful undertones. If pink shirt day were actually about countering bullying we should better define it. In a competitive world, and like it or not we are in one, we cannot mistake or confuse bullying for true competitive spirit. Is the winning football team just being a bully? Believe me, the politically correct will confuse, and have even demonstrated a confusion, between what bullying is and what a normal behavior is. Bullies have a tendency to create more harm than good, and one has to look at the motive of whether or not it is constructive or destructive. The intent of pink shirt day is to stomp out bullying. It has a destructive intent. Seek and destroy. A correct approach would be to identify and define the behavior. A person that is trying to accomplish something may have to railroad someone or something in the process. A normal process would not be to destroy opposition in order to score the touchdown but one has to be willing to push some others around to make it - some would mistake that for bullying - especially if one player is bigger than the other - it isn't "fair". I have belaboured the point for perhaps too long but if Christy Clark is going to make a successful Premier of BC she will have to temper her bullying personality somewhat and not assume she or any political party can resolve all the problems of the province because they feel they know what's best. A "Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead!" attitude may work in war or in specificity but not as an overall strategy and intent must be the criteria that differentiates bullying from struggling for accomplishment . What is best? In my opinion, it is government that enables the people to act, not one that cripples or demonizes one sector to favour another. And as it has been pointed out, government cannot give without first taking. I believe it was Barry Goldwater who said that, "if government is big enough to provide you everything then it is big enough to take everything away". It is just a matter of shifting targets that can turn the tables. In conclusion, am I just being mean to Christy Clark? Well, I will probably vote liberal. The conservative party in its confusion allied itself with the NDP on the HST issue and the NDP doesn't represent anything to me but it's own interests of, first deciding who fits the category of being in the productive sector and should be demonized and who fits in the non-productive sector and can be exploited - Bullying, in other words - all for the "collective good" of course. Christy will have to rein in the horns, and it will have to start with her party affiliates, my bet is she is deciding who is her buddy and who is not instead of unifying the party. She is a little too far left for my liking and will insist upon trying to destroy her opposition before she can effectively proceed to do good for everyone. If she isn't successful it will because there were people who wouldn't help. All someone else's fault, of course. A typical bully response to being exposed. Edited March 12, 2011 by Pliny Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
kimmy Posted March 12, 2011 Report Posted March 12, 2011 fail -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.