Massage Therapy Aroma
Ashley Madison

BC Liberals

hornydude

New member
Dec 23, 2004
646
0
0
Surrey
Omigod!

Those Liberals are mean to dip-shits! Dip-shits of the world unite! Vote the oppressors out!

Later, Comrades!
 

BushPilot

New member
Apr 23, 2004
390
0
0
hornydude said:
Those Liberals are mean to dip-shits! Dip-shits of the world unite! Vote the oppressors out!

Later, Comrades!
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?
 

qwerty

New member
Jun 19, 2003
214
0
0
Vancouver
Let me see if i understand this correctly, The b.c. liberals didn't waste any of our tax dollars on frivolous spending, and they cut a few programs to get the budget balanced. Yeah i guess we should vote them out, i mean, we don't need a govn't that acts responsibly, we need one that will waste more money than the feds on things like ferrys that don't even work:)
 

BushPilot

New member
Apr 23, 2004
390
0
0
The problem is that the BC Liberals made very specific promises about what they would do or not do if they were elected during the last election campaign. Once they were elected, they blatantly broke those promises without the hindrance of any parliamentary debate because there was no opposition. This time around, we'll probably end up with a Liberal government that will carry about forty-five seats. The difference is that the NDP will likely win thirty-five seats and form a much needed opposition that will force the Liberals to keep it honest. The real race to form the government will come in the next provincial election when the NDP will be ready to make a serious run at beating the BC Liberals.
 

James

Member
Jul 23, 2002
792
1
18
The left coast
Hmm....

Health Care spending (on Health Care, not gardeners, etc) - Way up.

Education Spending - Way up.

Some schools closed? Yes, many were operating at less than 50% capacity. Many new ones opened, at near full capacity.

Overall teaching jobs down? Yes - just like student enrollment.

Overall employment? Up, including the "trades".

Overall economy? Up.

Have the Libs pissed me off with some things? Yes.

Will they be the next government? Almost certainly.
 
Last edited:

RobBC

<Insert goofy tag here>
Oct 27, 2002
452
35
28
Victoria
James said:
Health Care spending (on Health Care, not gardeners, etc) - Way up.
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:
Education Spending - 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:
Some schools closed? Yes, many were operating at less than 50% capacity. Many new ones opened, at near full capacity.
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:
Overall teaching jobs down? Yes - just like student enrollment.
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 employment? Up, including the "trades".
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 economy? Up.
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:
Have the Libs pissed me off with some things? Yes.

Will they be the next government? Almost certainly.
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.

RobBC
 

niteowl

New member
Jun 29, 2004
913
1
0
Burnaby
One of my favorite's from 'Slash' Gordon was when he complained to the media about the HEU breaking the law when they were legislated back to work.

Shall we take a little history tour?

Did he or did he not tear up a legal binding contract that the doctors negotiated?

Did he or did he not tear up a legal binding contract that the teachers negotiated?

Did he or did he not drive a car while intoxicated in Hawaii?

So should he not look in the mirror before crying wolf to the media?

Whether you agree or not about the teachers and doctors, they DID have 'An agreement between two parties.'
 

James

Member
Jul 23, 2002
792
1
18
The left coast
Rob, all good points, and all arguable.

Add in that "in-migration" is up from within Canada, and at least somebody else figures that we're better off than the rest of the country.

As for "waiting lists" being up, what about the fact that "waiting time" is down? One fellow I know recently had a relatively minor procedure completed within three weeks of deciding to have it done, and he was offered a surgery date a week after the choice was made. He delayed it for business reasons. It required the full Operating Room setup, team, etc, at a busy Lower Mainland hospital, so we're not talking an office visit here.

As for "quality being down", I have plenty of friends and neighbours who pride themselves on the quality of health care service that they provide.

Open, impassioned debate, that's one of the things that makes this country interesting.

Tonight should be interesting television.

Like them or not, Gordo and his troops are the ones that are most likely to run the show for the next few years. Probably somewhere around a 60-40 split. Even the die hards will admit that 77 - 2 didn't work well.
 

Maury Beniowski

Blastocyst
Mar 31, 2004
1,873
0
0
In a nice wet pussy!
Healthcare, the big bugaboo...

The shortage of doctors and nurses could be solved overnight, if there was one. There are literally thousand of qualified doctors who are not allowed to practice in this country due to an engrained, parochial system of Unions or Professional Association that block their admission into the profession. Nurses and doctors are very territorial. So this is a big, fat red herring. The alleged health crisis is not native to BC. Line ups and shortages are in fact systemic here, throughout Canada, the US and Europe.

Politicians of every stripe are masters at fear mongering on this issue. Everytime I've had to use the system, the lineups were non-existent, the services were professional and there were qualified professionals at every turn.

Don't believe everything you read or hear...
 

wilde

Sinnear Member
Jun 5, 2003
3,023
23
38
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.

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, don't like the government running a balanced budget, are hoping that the NDP will screw up the next four years with just enough time to vote the Liberal back in power before the Olympics; I just don't see why anyone will vote for the NDP (with the exception of niteowl and hornydude). Happy voting, it won't be even close.

On a lighter note.... To nightowl:
Are you or are you not a die hard NDP fan? Does any of the above or none of the above apply to your situation?
And if you are going to start taking history tour, I don't think we have enough space here to list all the screw ups by the NDP in the last decade. Here is a tip, if you are going to pick a fight, at least pick one that you have a chance of winning. Or maybe you are just suicidal.
 

Fudd

Banned
May 1, 2004
1,038
0
0
Still on the fence

Although I think the Liberals have been getting a tight reign on wastfull spending and working towards fiscal responsibility, I think some of their cuts were very damaging to the poor. The bus pass to seniors and the training wage is definitely something I'll be thinking about when I'm at the pools.
 

RobBC

<Insert goofy tag here>
Oct 27, 2002
452
35
28
Victoria
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'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:
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,
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:
Happy voting, it won't be even close.
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.
 

iberidin

Member
Jan 15, 2004
57
1
8
Both the Green's and NDP want to do all these wonderful things to make EVERYONE happy. Well, you can't please everyone. And we can't afford to have either of them running BC.

Liberals have pulled a couple dumb ass manouvers, but overall have pretty much in 4 years recovered from 8 years of NDP waste and overspending.

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. 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.

My guess, the Lilberals will end up with 62 seats.
 

RobBC

<Insert goofy tag here>
Oct 27, 2002
452
35
28
Victoria
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, 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:
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.
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.

What strikes me as sad is it seems to me that all of the NDP supporters on here are voting NDP because they don't want a Liberal govt, and all the Liberal supporters are voting Liberal because they don't want an NDP govt. So much for "real choice".

RobBC
 

James

Member
Jul 23, 2002
792
1
18
The left coast
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.
 

BushPilot

New member
Apr 23, 2004
390
0
0
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.
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.
 

wilde

Sinnear Member
Jun 5, 2003
3,023
23
38
Union is not a dirty word

But when we see or hear that a staff with seniority on the ferry for example, who may or may not have graduated high school making anywhere from $30 to $60 an hour for no other reason than being in a union. It becomes a dirty word. :mad:
 

James

Member
Jul 23, 2002
792
1
18
The left coast
Advancement in job position, scheduling, hours worked, wages, and benefits, is often largely determined by nothing other than "time on the job". Little or no regard paid to "ability". To be fair, there are some exceptions.

By the way, how many of those who are planning on enjoying their "Union" pension (largely, in some cases fully, funded) by the employer, have instructed the Trustees of said plan to avoid investing in "business"? Just how much money do the Unions invest in the "Union" pension plan? Honest answer: Not nearly as much as the Employer, and the Employee. In the three plans that I have been involved with? Zero, other than providing Trustees (who are paid by????).

Betcha that "profit" isn't a dirty word come time for the annual report of the pension plan.

"Union" isn't always a dirty word, but it often is.

As for where the NDP money is coming from... read a Union website these days. See how much they are encouraging their membership to donate. Private individuals? Yes. Union sponsored? Without a doubt.

That said, there are some, ahh, funding issues with the Libs as well.

Given that at least some members of Unions will support the Liberals, I wonder how much of the Union campaign funding is being spent in support of them? I wonder if those members think that the Union is truly supporting them?