I guess you're the smart one, eh, hornydude? the 40% of BC voters who currently support the NDP couldn't possibly know what they are doing. They disagree with you, therefore they must not be smart enough to understand. However would we all survive without bright lights like you to lead our way?hornydude said:Those Liberals are mean to dip-shits! Dip-shits of the world unite! Vote the oppressors out!
That's an arguable claim at best. And even if I granted you that, it still doesn't change the fact that wait lists are longer now than when the liberals went into power, nor does it change the fact that the quality of health care in BC has declined.James said:Health Care spending (on Health Care, not gardeners, etc) - Way up.
Again, arguable. Many of the proposed increases in education spending will not be seen for another 5-6 years. Post secondary tuition has (in some cases) gone up over 200%, and grants have been eliminated.James said:Education Spending - Way up.
I love weasly terms like "many". "Many" of those schools closed were operating at full capacity (or near it). Furthermore, many of those schools were some of the most earthquake safe schools around, and got closed over schools that now require millions of $$$ in siesmic upgrades. Aside from that, part of the reasons those schools were operating at lower capacities were due to the fact they serviced rural areas. Now those same students have to travel hours a day to get to/from school.James said:Some schools closed? Yes, many were operating at less than 50% capacity. Many new ones opened, at near full capacity.
I'm not sure I understand the point you're trying to make here, are you trying to say that it's a good thing we have fewer teachers? A good thing that enrollment is down?James said:Overall teaching jobs down? Yes - just like student enrollment.
Yes and no. Unemployment rates are lower, but part of the reason for that is now people get kicked off UI after a certain length of time. Most shelters seem to indicate a *large* increase in the number of homeless on the streets in BC today vs 4 years ago.James said:Overall employment? Up, including the "trades".
I'll give you that, but is the upswing in the economy purely a result of Liberal policies, or would many of the gains made have happened under any government? For that matter, do the pluses outweigh the minuses?James said:Overall economy? Up.
Unfortunately I think you're right, although I think that's more due to a lack of a viable alternative than anything else. I will probably vote NDP in this election, but Carole James certainly doesn't inspire me as a leader, nor am I convinced that a James-led NDP party will be any better than the Harcourt/Clark/Dosange (sp?) NDP days. Having said that, I'll take the days of fast ferries over the days of school and hospital closures anytime.James said:Have the Libs pissed me off with some things? Yes.
Will they be the next government? Almost certainly.
I'm inclined to agree with you, there is a very real "greenness" about her, and even after the debate there is a sense of not really knowing what she stands for. She did fairly well in the debate, but I think the lack of real political experience will be a factor in this election.wilde said:I'd hate to judge the book by it's cover, but I just don't think Carole James is ready to lead even the official opposition's party. Maybe 4 to 8 more years might help.
I think you could make a very good argument that the people who have those 4 characteristics comprise more than half of the population of the province.wilde said:This election is the Liberals to lose. Unless you have been on welfare but have since been taken off, are a member of a worker's union, a die hard NDP fan, are directly or indirectly affected by the Liberals' spending cuts,
We'll see, I certainly hope your wrong. Even if the Liberals do get in, I'd really hate to see another 77-2 split.wilde said:Happy voting, it won't be even close.
Well, that depends on whether or not you believe the economic growth was due to Liberal policies or due to upward shifts in global markets that were beyond the control of the Liberals. Certainly the latter was argued last night in the debate by the NDP & the Greens, and I didn't really see Campbell entirely disagreeing with them on that.iberidin said:At this point, changing the Gov't to NDP would be a huge mistake. The positive outlook on the economy and investment would dry up.
Well, there's a difference between being responsible and finding balance, and gutting provincial support systems. I'd argue that the Liberals fell more into the latter category than the former. I've give you though that you may be absolutely right that the current NDP will return to their frivoulous spending ways if elected. OTOH you may be wrong. There might have been real change in the NDP over the last 4 years. Being nearly completely kicked out of the legislature can do that to a party.iberidin said:The NDP would try to spend thier way out of it, eventually we would vote them out and spend the next 4 years bitching about the Gov't cuts to bring things back in control... kind of like the last 4 years......hmmmmm.
From what I've seen, one of the Liberals' main strategies for this election, and it's been pretty successful, so far, has been to get many to regard 'union' as a dirty word. They've successfully painted the NDP as chiefly being funded by 'organized labour' while doing a good job of dodging the parallel question of their own corporate backing. I guess that's politics, though, for you. Sometimes strategies come off, other times they don't.James said:Real change?
Given the return as candidates of several members from "the previous goverment", the numerous failures of which Ms James seems to want to ignore, I doubt it.
Glen Clarke's legacy is well represented by having his former number one sidekick run as a candidate.
The candidate in at least one Lower Mainland riding is a "big union" vice-president. I'll bet that there are many more union executives around, if only in the "back rooms".
Real change? Doubt it.