Half of B.C. voters chose quasi Socialism and can expect continuing problems with everything

[ExFlyer]

58 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Social credit traditionally is definitely socialist you are absolutely right. However in British Columbia is weird habit of having governments named for something that they absolutely are not our social credit party was actually pretty  right wing. Just as our liberal party was not really liberals

I grew up and lived in BC during the end of Wacky's term and through his son and Vander Zalm....socialism to the utmost degree. Very very NDP LOL

[CdnFox]

48 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

I grew up and lived in BC during the end of Wacky's term and through his son and Vander Zalm....socialism to the utmost degree. Very very NDP LOL

You are patently insane!    or yanking my chain I can't decide which  

Calling vanderzalm "socialist" is going to get you strung up by a flock of ndp activists and hung from an illegally funded deck  LOLOL

 

[herbie]

Easy to yank the chain on someone who thinks that they must have been socialist because social was in their name. Same as the Nazis were cuz they had socialist in their name and Gordon Campbell was Liberal because they had Liberal in their name.

Probably thinks all those People's Democratic Republic of.... were democracies too.

[Aristides]

4 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

The Scoial Credit party was certainly socialists.

"Social credit is a distributive philosophy of political economy developed in the 1920s and 1930s by C. H. Douglas. Douglas attributed economic downturns to discrepancies between the cost of goods and the compensation of the workers who made them."  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_credit

The Bennetts were a hardware store owners in Kelowna BC.

Social Credit  basically collapsed in about 1996 when NDP came into the picture. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Columbia_Social_Credit_Party

 

BC Socreds were like the BC Liberals, in name only.

Quote

While the Social Credit party was founded to promote the social credit theories of monetary reform, these could While the Social Credit party was founded to promote the social credit theories of monetary reform, these could not be implemented at the provincial level, as the Alberta Social Credit Party had learned in the 1930s. Bennett quickly converted the provincial party into a populist conservative party. It was devoted to keeping the CCF out of power. But, as leader of the Social Credit Party of Canada's second most powerful provincial branch, Bennett spoke for the party in federal election campaigns. During the 1957 election, he spoke for the party at a rally in Regina, Saskatchewan. In the 1965 election, Bennett and his cabinet ministers toured BC to encourage voters to elect Social Credit MPs to promote BC's interests..

https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/william-andrew-cecil-bennett

Quote

Bennett was not a social credit fundamentalist, but instead pursued conservative fiscal policies while aggressively developing the province’s energy, transport and other infrastructure. 

 

The Bennetts owned a chain of hardware stores and a winery.

And then there was.

RJ Bennett

Edited October 23, 2024 by Aristides

[CdnFox]

34 minutes ago, herbie said:

Easy to yank the chain on someone who thinks that they must have been socialist because social was in their name.

Are you saying that he thought they were socialists because they had socialist in the name?  I don't think that's what he said.  Are you confused again?

 

Quote

Same as the Nazis were cuz they had socialist in their name and Gordon Campbell was Liberal because they had Liberal in their name.

Nazis were socialist because they were socialist, and nobody even mentioned gordon Campbell. 

So ...  we agreed on ONE dose of nyquil a day right?

[cannuck]

On 10/23/2024 at 8:59 AM, blackbird said:

That's fine to know, and thanks for the information.   But whoever brought it in, never understood the consequences which would develop over time and which have been a tragic disaster.The health care system is getting worse in B.C. and the government can't fix it because they don't have the money and the problems in the system appear to be insurmountable.  The Socialists just don't seem to understand that.  Their only interest is in seeing a system that everyone can use without paying even though it is not providing health care equally to everyone. 

You are acusing and confusing the failure of sick care (that is VERY different from health care) to the concept of universal funding when what you describe is 100% a failure of governments to manage.   And that has happened with EVERY party in power in all of Canada.

Edited October 30, 2024 by cannuck

[blackbird]

2 hours ago, cannuck said:

You are acusing and confusing the failure of sick care (that is VERY different from health care) to the concept of universal funding when what you describe is 100% a failure of governments to manage.   And that has happened with EVERY party in power in all of Canada.

That is a confusing statement.  I agree with part of it;  it is a failure of governments, which only proves government is not the right one to be the sole provider of health care.  Of course if happened with every party in power. 

The problem is the left including the Liberals and NDP are adamant that only government can provide good health care when it has been proven they can't.

[cannuck]

19 hours ago, blackbird said:

That is a confusing statement.  I agree with part of it;  it is a failure of governments, which only proves government is not the right one to be the sole provider of health care.  Of course if happened with every party in power. 

The problem is the left including the Liberals and NDP are adamant that only government can provide good health care when it has been proven they can't.

I am not in total disagreement with you.  IMHO (and I have had a fair bit of involvement with this question) government's role should be to provide universal sick care insurance as well as DELIVER universal health care (i.e. preventative medicine).  There is and should be a place for government to deliver sick care, but what is sadly lacking is accurate costing to allow the private marketplace to deliver those same services - that can be done FAR more efficiently and effectively than from state owned entities.  The first thing needed is legislation to allow that, the second is an educational platform tuned to deliver workers and the last is right to work legislation to prevent labour unions from hijacking the process.

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, cannuck said:

There is and should be a place for government to deliver sick care, but what is sadly lacking is accurate costing to allow the private marketplace to deliver those same services -

I think we pretty much agree.  I am not sure just how the system could be changed to a mixed system of public and private to enable everyone to receive good health care.  This would raise the average age that people live.

The problem is the governments that we have are not interested in changing the system.  That is a very difficult hurdle.  B.C. just re-elected an NDP government and they will only be holding onto power by a thread with a bare majority by one seat.  They are not likely to legalize and enable private medical care on any scale because that goes against their ideology and they also depend on the big unions for voting support.  So more of the same, massive doctor shortage and long waits in ERs, and people dying on waiting lists unfortunately.

It would appear the whole system of how doctors are educated and brought into the system needs major changes.  Whoever is running the present system seems to be an impediment.  We need a system that produces a lot of new doctors every year.

[cannuck]

8 hours ago, blackbird said:

I am not sure just how the system could be changed to a mixed system of public and private to enable everyone to receive good health care.  This would raise the average age that people live.....So more of the same, massive doctor shortage and long waits in ERs, and people dying on waiting lists unfortunately.....It would appear the whole system of how doctors are educated and brought into the system needs major changes.  Whoever is running the present system seems to be an impediment.  We need a system that produces a lot of new doctors every year.

Across Canada there are already a variety of mixed delivery routes.  Common in Yurp.  This is all for sick care. We don't do health care because there is no money in it for Big Pharma, big insurance, medical practices and unions.  The sick care medical system is pretty much run by the same people who espouse the status quo of drug dealing.

[herbie]

Did you know 19% of former BC Liberal/United voters voted NDP this time? 7% voted Green and 7% did not vote at all?

Room for a 3rd party next election. Perhaps Christy Clark should think of reviving the BC Liberals instead of going after JTs position. At worst they'd replace Green as the party with influence.

[Aristides]

1 hour ago, herbie said:

Did you know 19% of former BC Liberal/United voters voted NDP this time? 7% voted Green and 7% did not vote at all?

Room for a 3rd party next election. Perhaps Christy Clark should think of reviving the BC Liberals instead of going after JTs position. At worst they'd replace Green as the party with influence.

I think if the Conservatives can get rid of their more lunatic fringe members and get some experience in the legislature, they could become a decent government. I'm not unhappy with the way the election turned out, the NDP had a spanking coming but don't think the Conservatives have matured enough to form a government. Hopefully next time.

[herbie]

Obviously.
The more loonie on the site would suggest they move even further right as that's they're solution to everything.
There are people like me that did vote and even act for thE BC Liberals when I felt the NDP got stale but  had no option this time.
Especially living in Rustad's riding and aware of his lacklustre performance as MLA and being violently opposed to almost every policy of theirs.
I don't like either/or choices. Revive the BC Liberals.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, herbie said:

Obviously.
The more loonie on the site would suggest they move even further right as that's they're solution to everything.
There are people like me that did vote and even act for thE BC Liberals when I felt the NDP got stale but  had no option this time.
Especially living in Rustad's riding and aware of his lacklustre performance as MLA and being violently opposed to almost every policy of theirs.
I don't like either/or choices. Revive the BC Liberals.

Nope, you'll get the conservatives. And they'll probably move further to the right although appear that they are moving more to the center.

It's pretty easy to fool Uneducated tards like yourself. I mean you're so oblivious to the way the parliament works that you think a guy who wasn't even in the opposition government is responsible for the business development of your local area.

[CaringCdn]

On 10/31/2024 at 8:34 AM, blackbird said:

I think we pretty much agree.  I am not sure just how the system could be changed to a mixed system of public and private to enable everyone to receive good health care.  This would raise the average age that people live.

The problem is the governments that we have are not interested in changing the system.  That is a very difficult hurdle.  B.C. just re-elected an NDP government and they will only be holding onto power by a thread with a bare majority by one seat.  They are not likely to legalize and enable private medical care on any scale because that goes against their ideology and they also depend on the big unions for voting support.  So more of the same, massive doctor shortage and long waits in ERs, and people dying on waiting lists unfortunately.

It would appear the whole system of how doctors are educated and brought into the system needs major changes.  Whoever is running the present system seems to be an impediment.  We need a system that produces a lot of new doctors every year.

For mixed healthcare, all we need to do is look at Europe where both systems exist. It can be done if the will is there to make it work. Unfortunately, Canadians have been brainwashed to understand that ANY private healthcare is bad while public healthcare is good.

What we DON'T seem to understand, at least in Alberta, we already have private health care. Our chiropracters, psysiotherapy are examples of private healthcare. The funding is different but could be changed to reflect what currently happens in other countries. Again, where there's a will there's a way. I don't know what's available in B.C. or other provinces so I can't comment. I'm sure people here will advise. It seems to me that B.C. covers natural health as well or I could be misremembering because I remember mom mentioning that Alberta doesn't cover it. I could be wrong tho'. There are options out there that we must research & not be so afraid of trying something new, especially since what we have now doesn't work!  

[SpankyMcFarland]

Guys, why did you lose? I know nothing about BC politics but I would say this to the supporters of any losing party - don’t blame voters. The political market has spoken. Secondly, Eby looked like a guy waiting to be knocked out. What a sourpuss, not a natural politician at all. It’s time for a real post mortem that identifies who screwed up if you want win in the future. 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Guys, why did you lose? I know nothing about BC politics but I would say this to the supporters of any losing party - don’t blame voters. The political market has spoken. Secondly, Eby looked like a guy waiting to be knocked out. What a sourpuss, not a natural politician at all. It’s time for a real post mortem that identifies who screwed up if you want win in the future. 

It's not complicated. Until like 5 minutes before the election started the conservative party had been a party in name only for the last 60 years. Most people didn't even know it existed. There were other right-wing parties that fill that role and the conservatives were just a shell.

A series of events led to a situation where all of a sudden that party took off in the polls. And the other party, the liberals which were actually a little bit to the right of most liberals, collapsed and their vote went to the conservatives.

It was a just add water instant sort of party. And as a result they had no ground game. They had no real volunteer network, they had no preparation, no voter management software, barely any get out the vote planning. To top it all off a couple of the old liberal parties people decided to run anyway as independence and that cost the conservatives about four or five ridings which would have given them the win. The independents did not win but split the vote. 

And is icing on the cake they didn't get any advanced polling out because they had no prep for it and on the night of the election there was a terrible storm they kept a lot of people at home, and the evidence is that cost them a lot of votes and some key ridings.

Their leader also didn't have a super great campaign, it was his first campaign and again he really didn't expect to be running it from the front and some of his prep work showed that. If they spend the next 4 years getting their act together and properly merging the two parties and prepping for the next election they should win quite handily. Considering where they started from they actually did pretty well. Zero seats in the last several decades to one seat short of forming government

[Videospirit]

Hmm...

The German healthcare system costs them 5699 Euros($8,434.52) from taxes and Canadian healthcare costs $8,740 from taxes, per person.

The Average starting salary for a general practitioner in Canada is $187,500 per year.

The average salary for a doctor in Germany is about €6000 per month,($106,560 per year) for a starting salary. 

We have a way lower population density than Germany does. This makes healthcare more expensive for us. Since our tax burden is already so close to Germany's, I'm not sure there's any benefit for us to adopt Germany's system. We're already paying our Doctors way more, so it's not that our hospitals aren't as competitive as Germany's.

I don't think the problem is our single payer healthcare. It's more systemic in how we train and hire Doctors.

Edited February 20 by Videospirit

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, Videospirit said:

Hmm...

The German healthcare system costs them 5699 Euros($8,434.52) from taxes and Canadian healthcare costs $8,740 from taxes, per person.

The Average starting salary for a general practitioner in Canada is $187,500 per year.

The average salary for a doctor in Germany is about €6000 per month,($106,560 per year) for a starting salary. 

We have a way lower population density than Germany does. This makes healthcare more expensive for us. Since our tax burden is already so close to Germany's, I'm not sure there's any benefit for us to adopt Germany's system. We're already paying our Doctors way more, so it's not that our hospitals aren't as competitive as Germany's.

I don't think the problem is our single payer healthcare. It's more systemic in how we train and hire Doctors.

It also has a lot to do with our population planning. Train all the doctors you want but if Population growth exceeds the number of doctors you trained you're going to have a problem.

In recent years the federal liberals have been bringing in immigrants at a rate that causes a very high increase in population, and they've done so without giving a single moment's thought to what each province is adding in the way of healthcare resources. Not to mention housing resources and other infrastructure.

The winning system has to be tied into population growth one way or another. If we want x amount of growth in population then we have to have a corresponding x amount of growth in medical services and other infrastructure

[herbie]

On 2/3/2025 at 10:04 AM, SpankyMcFarland said:

Guys, why did you lose?

Because Rustad merely stole the name Conservative and courted every disgruntled alt-right populist he could and everyone could see that.
Even with the surrender monkey actions of BC United they only came close.

Because in spite of the online whining and yelling, the NDP hadn't done that bad of a job in most people's eyes. The whole fooferall over carbon tax doesn't play as well in a province where many support it, or at least demand a viable alternative. Rustad like Poilievre had none at all.
In a Province affected by droughts, floods and fires consuming whole towns here and nearby denying climate change and proposing to do f*ck all about it just doesn't fly.

 

[CdnFox]

34 minutes ago, herbie said:

Because Rustad merely stole the name Conservative and courted every disgruntled alt-right populist he could and everyone could see that.
Even with the surrender monkey actions of BC United they only came close.

Because in spite of the online whining and yelling, the NDP hadn't done that bad of a job in most people's eyes. The whole fooferall over carbon tax doesn't play as well in a province where many support it, or at least demand a viable alternative. Rustad like Poilievre had none at all.
In a Province affected by droughts, floods and fires consuming whole towns here and nearby denying climate change and proposing to do f*ck all about it just doesn't fly.

 

Virtually all of that is untrue, but at this point the NDP are desperate to believe that the work has some sort of relevance left in Canada. It doesn't  

[Videospirit]

2 hours ago, herbie said:

Because Rustad merely stole the name Conservative and courted every disgruntled alt-right populist he could and everyone could see that.
Even with the surrender monkey actions of BC United they only came close.

Because in spite of the online whining and yelling, the NDP hadn't done that bad of a job in most people's eyes. The whole fooferall over carbon tax doesn't play as well in a province where many support it, or at least demand a viable alternative. Rustad like Poilievre had none at all.
In a Province affected by droughts, floods and fires consuming whole towns here and nearby denying climate change and proposing to do f*ck all about it just doesn't fly.

 

Yeah, BC has the strongest public support for the Green party in all of Canada. Being anti-environment is not going to win you favour there.

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Videospirit said:

Yeah, BC has the strongest public support for the Green party in all of Canada. Being anti-environment is not going to win you favour there.

They lost seats in the last election. Their leader lost their riding

Edited February 21 by CdnFox

[herbie]

Yeah it was a slaughter. The Greens lost ONE seat.
Let's make it look real bac - they lost ONE THIRD of their seats.

If you want to go by percentage of popular vote, they did lose half their support. But if you think a single Green vote went Conservative, you're madder than a hatter.

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, herbie said:

Yeah it was a slaughter. The Greens lost ONE seat.
Let's make it look real bac - they lost ONE THIRD of their seats.

 

That actually is pretty bad. If anybody else lost a third of their seats we call it a disaster. But it gets even better than that, it was their leaders seat. The leader couldn't even hold on to her own seat. They went from a fringe party to a fringe of a fringe

2 hours ago, herbie said:

If you want to go by percentage of popular vote, they did lose half their support.

I feel like maybe you've made my point for me enough already.