BC Politics Thread 2026

marsvolta

Well-known member
Aug 31, 2009
968
837
93
looking forward to having a premier named Lorne "Dork"son. his experience working for the Black Press and as a "financial advisor" are going to go a long way! i wish i could say that i'm thrilled that he's raising the provincial basic taxable amount but i haven't paid personal income tax since the late 90's when i started to shield my income behind a corporation.

of course, it would be nice to have a doctor but only the sweet looking girl was going to probably give me that. i've started flying out of country for medical stuff anyways.
 

masterpoonhunter

"Marriage should be a renewable contract"
Sep 15, 2019
3,324
5,655
113
Finally rid of lame duck Eby.
NDP under him fucked things up about as much as it could be. Last straws, calling a stupid fucking election and saying they were going to add another few percent tax to "high income earners" where to them that meant someone just getting by in BC.
I for one am just fine with the Conservatives under LD. Seems he got the alt right wing nuts to shut up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bang4thebuck

marsvolta

Well-known member
Aug 31, 2009
968
837
93
well there you have it... the conservatives got 50k votes less than in the last election and the NDP 275k. i strongly suspect that NDP voters just thought it was a done deal. that there was no way that the conservatives were even in the running.

the new premier announced today that he was attacking health care and the cost of living head on... just kidding. he installed the big oil lobby as his transition team.
 

Bridge

Well-known member
Nov 11, 2014
987
1,019
93
I can understand the voters being really p$$$$$ off but that's not a reason to opt out of voting. i'm beginning to think the Aussies have the right idea.
 

Larry123

Active member
Dec 7, 2005
112
92
28
Lorne Doerkson seems like a decent guy. With such a large majority, the far right members in his party probably won't have much influence (I hope).
 

Forum mod

Moderator
Jan 1, 2018
3,449
18,402
113
Under the party constitution as it reads currently, Lorne cannot run for leader, because he's the interim leader. They are talking about changing it, to allow him to stay on, but it's not a done deal from the sounds of it, needs a super majority of members to change.
 

Fingus

New member
Nov 8, 2025
27
18
3
Under the party constitution as it reads currently, Lorne cannot run for leader, because he's the interim leader. They are talking about changing it, to allow him to stay on, but it's not a done deal from the sounds of it, needs a super majority of members to change.
This is true but I think He could still also be premier and not be the party leader. Either way, a leadership vote after a stupid election like this where people humbled the NDP for their hubris would be political suicide for the cons. If they want a good start and to keep the moderate voters (like myself) happy then they need to keep Lorne.
 

marsvolta

Well-known member
Aug 31, 2009
968
837
93
this will be worse than 4 years of Trump. at least they have mid terms in the US.

expect usage fees for just about everything to sky rocket as they attempt to pay for the attacks on the progressive tax system. this is really the only consistent and meaningful policy difference between "left" and "right"... progressive taxation vs regressive taxation. that, and socializing the costs of free enterprise and privatizing the profits.

but first things first, get the pipelines built to feed the international oil conglomerates. announcing huge investments in oil and gas subsidies. big enough so that no later government can walk away from it without writing off some devastating loss.

its not all bad. oil to the west coast will mean we are less dependent on the US for that business. and independence is a good thing.

the 1.2 million people without meaningful access to health care can eat cake!

should be fun!
 

sealion of bc

Member
Oct 26, 2020
33
24
8
this will be worse than 4 years of Trump. at least they have mid terms in the US.

expect usage fees for just about everything to sky rocket as they attempt to pay for the attacks on the progressive tax system. this is really the only consistent and meaningful policy difference between "left" and "right"... progressive taxation vs regressive taxation. that, and socializing the costs of free enterprise and privatizing the profits.

but first things first, get the pipelines built to feed the international oil conglomerates. announcing huge investments in oil and gas subsidies. big enough so that no later government can walk away from it without writing off some devastating loss.

its not all bad. oil to the west coast will mean we are less dependent on the US for that business. and independence is a good thing.

the 1.2 million people without meaningful access to health care can eat cake!

should be fun!
worst than trump,,, give your head a shake lad
 

Larry's Torch

Banned
Apr 26, 2020
723
977
93
this will be worse than 4 years of Trump. at least they have mid terms in the US.
(snip)
worst than trump,,, give your head a shake lad

Worse = comparative (two things): "This option is worse than that one."
Worst = superlative (three or more): "This is the worst option of all."

In this case I believe "worse" is correct. 😏
 

PuntMeister

Punt-on!
Jul 13, 2003
2,296
1,462
113
this will be worse than 4 years of Trump. at least they have mid terms in the US.

expect usage fees for just about everything to sky rocket as they attempt to pay for the attacks on the progressive tax system. this is really the only consistent and meaningful policy difference between "left" and "right"... progressive taxation vs regressive taxation. that, and socializing the costs of free enterprise and privatizing the profits.

but first things first, get the pipelines built to feed the international oil conglomerates. announcing huge investments in oil and gas subsidies. big enough so that no later government can walk away from it without writing off some devastating loss.

its not all bad. oil to the west coast will mean we are less dependent on the US for that business. and independence is a good thing.

the 1.2 million people without meaningful access to health care can eat cake!

should be fun!
I take it you voted for Eby and more massive deficits, hospital emergency room closures, giving free drugs to addicts, continuing the DRIPA fiasco, etc. etc.

There is Dumb, and then there is Dumberer.
 

Bridge

Well-known member
Nov 11, 2014
987
1,019
93
I take it you voted for Eby and more massive deficits, hospital emergency room closures, giving free drugs to addicts, continuing the DRIPA fiasco, etc. etc.

There is Dumb, and then there is Dumberer.
What happens if you don’t give uncontaminated drugs to addicts on or off the streets? Would the death rate start to escalate rather alot? Addiction needs multi-layered thought, surely. Addicts come from all walks of life.
 

PuntMeister

Punt-on!
Jul 13, 2003
2,296
1,462
113
What happens if you don’t give uncontaminated drugs to addicts on or off the streets? Would the death rate start to escalate rather alot? Addiction needs multi-layered thought, surely. Addicts come from all walks of life.
The free drugs just created more addicts. Cured nobody. Overdoses continue. Another failed NDP program.

No government should be in the illegal norcotics distribution business. Street safety has deteriorated horribly under the NDP. The people voted for accountability, not ongoing il-advised enablement of crime, regardless of demographics.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Illuminated

Bridge

Well-known member
Nov 11, 2014
987
1,019
93
The free drugs just created more addicts. Cured nobody. Overdoses continue. Another failed NDP program.

No government should be in the illegal norcotics distribution business. Street safety has deteriorated horribly under the NDP. The people voted for accountability, not ongoing il-advised enablement of crime, regardless of demographics.
The government is in the drugs business with BC Liquor Stores. Perhaps that is a better safe supply model to use?
 

PuntMeister

Punt-on!
Jul 13, 2003
2,296
1,462
113
The government is in the drugs business with BC Liquor Stores. Perhaps that is a better safe supply model to use?
Yup. Tax grab. Because liquor is a legal non-narcotic. It was argued distribution of liquor was also a natural monolpoly where the government could control costs and enforce distribution to responsible adults only. Turns out the liquor taxes prop up the innefficiencies of a government controlled workforce, but we still have private liquor stores for convenience and selection.

But Safe Supply of narcotics turned out to be a failed policy, with Eby finally abomdoning it and moving toward involuntary care after his il-fated wasteful SRO experiments.

There is no doubt that alcohol abuse can cause harm, yet society largely tolerates it. Society though is fed up with people shooting up on the streets in public places making their neighbourhoods and workplaces unsafe. Feeding drug addicts free drugs didn’t work and broadened the harm rather than reducing. Opening up all the liquor stores for free booze would be a bad idea too. Duh.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jgg
Vancouver Escorts