BC Provincial Election-I Voted Already
- Thread starter Dogbreath
- Start date
Bag-Juan
Well-Known Member
Well let's just say good-bye to the lying, cheat'n , thieve'n, ignorant, two-faced, back stab'n, a-holes! All they did for the last 12 years is stick it to the average joe and then grease the palms and line the pockets of there big buisiness buddy's! Never gave a crap about anyone that was not worthy of there status. They make me sick, just as much as the reffing in the NHL!
beemer
Well-Known Member
One of the best articles that has helped me decide who to vote for.
I’m concerned that many British Columbians are more focused on “change” for the sake of change rather than electing the party most likely to foster job creation and financial stability. Our province’s resource endowment has always been a mainstay of both jobs and the generation of revenues needed to fund social programs. From what I have seen and heard, an NDP government would rev-up spending while stymieing resource development through endless environmental reviews and or by just saying “no,” driving investment to other provinces and other countries. We need new mines and gas fields, pipelines, refineries, ports and processing plants to replace jobs lost by tech change and by events like the pine beetle catastrophe.
Protection of the environment and economic development are not mutually exclusive. Yes, we must be good stewards of our beautiful province, but we do have the technology to move the economy forward in an environmentally responsible manner. Saying no to new projects will mean job losses for currently employed and no opportunity for young people looking to join the work force.
We also need to focus on balancing the provincial budget, rather than taking money away from social programs to fund rising interest costs. Forty years of experience in business has taught me that too much debt is crippling. It scares me that the NDP has rolled out billions of dollars in new spending during this campaign, and their “every dollar is accounted for” rhetoric just isn’t credible because their anti-development attitude will reduce revenue at the same time as spending rises.
There is truth to the adage, “Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” The NDP came to power in 1991 and governed the rest of that decade. Investment dried up and economic growth trailed the rest of Canada. A low point came when the Edmonton Chamber of Commerce thanked the B.C. government for driving growth investment in Alberta. Glenn Clark’s 1996-1999 tenure was arguably the most disastrous for B.C. and with Adrian Dix, Premier Clark’s former Chief of staff leading the province, I’d be very worried about history repeating itself.
It took many years for the Liberals to repair the damage. During their time in government, North America suffered through a major recession and yet we now have a triple-A credit rating, higher than the U.S. government, allowing B.C. taxpayers the lowest possible interest rates.
Have the Liberals done everything right? Certainly not. The introduction of the HST by the Campbell government was badly handled. There have been other gaffes and ill thought out policies. And while there is a natural inclination for people to vote to change long governing parties, it’s important not to let the NDP sleepwalk to victory without thinking about which party is likely to create jobs and not burden today’s young people with a mountain of debt.
I’m not asking that you agree with me, only that you think through the full consequences of your choice carefully. And then get out and vote on May 14.
Gwyn Morgan
I’m concerned that many British Columbians are more focused on “change” for the sake of change rather than electing the party most likely to foster job creation and financial stability. Our province’s resource endowment has always been a mainstay of both jobs and the generation of revenues needed to fund social programs. From what I have seen and heard, an NDP government would rev-up spending while stymieing resource development through endless environmental reviews and or by just saying “no,” driving investment to other provinces and other countries. We need new mines and gas fields, pipelines, refineries, ports and processing plants to replace jobs lost by tech change and by events like the pine beetle catastrophe.
Protection of the environment and economic development are not mutually exclusive. Yes, we must be good stewards of our beautiful province, but we do have the technology to move the economy forward in an environmentally responsible manner. Saying no to new projects will mean job losses for currently employed and no opportunity for young people looking to join the work force.
We also need to focus on balancing the provincial budget, rather than taking money away from social programs to fund rising interest costs. Forty years of experience in business has taught me that too much debt is crippling. It scares me that the NDP has rolled out billions of dollars in new spending during this campaign, and their “every dollar is accounted for” rhetoric just isn’t credible because their anti-development attitude will reduce revenue at the same time as spending rises.
There is truth to the adage, “Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” The NDP came to power in 1991 and governed the rest of that decade. Investment dried up and economic growth trailed the rest of Canada. A low point came when the Edmonton Chamber of Commerce thanked the B.C. government for driving growth investment in Alberta. Glenn Clark’s 1996-1999 tenure was arguably the most disastrous for B.C. and with Adrian Dix, Premier Clark’s former Chief of staff leading the province, I’d be very worried about history repeating itself.
It took many years for the Liberals to repair the damage. During their time in government, North America suffered through a major recession and yet we now have a triple-A credit rating, higher than the U.S. government, allowing B.C. taxpayers the lowest possible interest rates.
Have the Liberals done everything right? Certainly not. The introduction of the HST by the Campbell government was badly handled. There have been other gaffes and ill thought out policies. And while there is a natural inclination for people to vote to change long governing parties, it’s important not to let the NDP sleepwalk to victory without thinking about which party is likely to create jobs and not burden today’s young people with a mountain of debt.
I’m not asking that you agree with me, only that you think through the full consequences of your choice carefully. And then get out and vote on May 14.
Gwyn Morgan
GLG
Well-Known Member
Gwyn Morgan....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwyn_Morgan
I hope others read this link to see who this fella is and what his views are.
Where ever he goes you can count on him to have his friends interest first and foremost.
He is a firm believer in the "race to the bottom" and damn the torpedoes.
A simple Google search finds that he is Chrisy Clark's right hand man.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwyn_Morgan
I hope others read this link to see who this fella is and what his views are.
Where ever he goes you can count on him to have his friends interest first and foremost.
He is a firm believer in the "race to the bottom" and damn the torpedoes.
A simple Google search finds that he is Chrisy Clark's right hand man.
bigbruce
Crew Member
Seems to me that Mr Morgan appears to be a very successful and well respected business man who is more likely to be a firm believer in the "race to the top". I suspect, GLG, you too could be counted on to have you and your friends' interestes first and foremost.
Also seems to me that there's a bit of bitterness and envy in your comments. You might want to think about deleting the Hippocrates quote in your signature - the part about opinion begetting ignorance is particularly significant here.
Also seems to me that there's a bit of bitterness and envy in your comments. You might want to think about deleting the Hippocrates quote in your signature - the part about opinion begetting ignorance is particularly significant here.
Englishman
Well-Known Member
How incredibly ironic! The cause of the pine beetle catastrophe was/is global warming!! Warmer winters are enabling the bug to survive. And this guy wants more of the same medicine!!
It is always the same with these guys - sacrifice the sustainable - forests, fisheries and the oceans, for unsustainable oil and gas and quick mega bucks for the few.
This guy should be called "Grim Morgan" - what an absolutely ignorant, immoral and unsupportable stance!!
Last edited by a moderator:
GLG
Well-Known Member
The Gwyn Morgan file.
Must read on this guy.
http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2011/03/17/GwynMorganFile/
http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2011/03/18/GwynMorgan2/
http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2011/03/08/ClarksHardRightAdvisor/
Must read on this guy.
http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2011/03/17/GwynMorganFile/
http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2011/03/18/GwynMorgan2/
http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2011/03/08/ClarksHardRightAdvisor/
triplenickel
Well-Known Member
Canada and especially BC's emissions are a fart in the wind compared to China's, I bet you support china financially don't ya?
GLG
Well-Known Member
Nope I'm just calling them as I see it. Been watching and reading since I retired here from Alberta.
Spent many a year working in the oil patch as a youth. Moved on to computers when the personal computer came out. Travel and lived in most provinces of Canada including Quebec. Tried my hand at learning business in Ontario working for a big newspaper chain. Brought everything together and back to Calgary and cranked up a computer consulting firm. Shut it down and moved here to raise a family as Alberta is not my idea of a place to live anymore. Yup I do have my friends interest in mind..... I don't what to see the same mistakes made over again that were made in Alberta. My friends are everywhere..... the whole planet for that matter. We are heading down a path that spells destruction to the things I hold dear to me. And for what reason..... money..... sure it makes the world go around but how much is enough? What is the cost? Are we willing to give up clean air, water and land?
Perhaps my views have changed since I stopped chasing the mighty buck. I know that since I have become a father things are different now and my concern is for my kid. I will do anything to protect her future including shinning a light here on this forum on a guy like Gwyn Morgan. Even if it means taking a hit from fellas like you.
Last edited by a moderator:
tincan
Well-Known Member
This is the part of the campaign that I'm really having a tough time wrapping my head around. If too much debt is crippling, how the hell are the Liberals getting away with being the fiscally responsible party after what has happened under their leadership in the past 12 years? What is our debt/obligation per capita in BC right now? By most calculations (of course the parties differ on what to include/exclude in this) it's close to $40,000 per person! when the Libs came into power it was under $10,000 per person. If you are going to tell me that a fiscally responsible gov't is what BC needs, you must reconcile these statistics. Who knows what our debt would look like under the NDP for the past 12 years, maybe more, maybe less. But, the fact is the Libs have not run a balanced budget and have not reduced debt... debt is through the roof in the past 12 years under Liberal leadership.
I have voted for 3 parties in my life so I'm not a "die hard" anything. Just can't vote Liberal this time around based on their poor track record with the environment and their fiscal irresponsibility.
trendsetter
Active Member
Do a little research on Debt to GDP, debt per capita and the budget surplus / deficits in BC over the past 20 years. Most of what you've said is incorrect. The liberals posted surpluses for five years starting in 2004/05 and lowered our taxes significantly at the same time. BC Dept per capita is $8,408 as of 2013. This is the third lowest in the country.
Vote for whomever you want, just try and make your choice based upon facts and not fiction.
Edit: Here is a great, non partisan resource to get you started. http://www.rbc.com/economics/
Last edited by a moderator:
tincan
Well-Known Member
Here is the first thing I read in that link you posted:
http://www.rbc.com/economics/market/pdf/bcbud2013.pdf
Taxing, selling its way to balance
Pressures on British Columbia’s fiscal
situation clearly mounted in the
last year. Lower-than-expected natural
gas prices were the main cause of
these pressures, as they significan
tly reduced royalties collected by the
province. In quarterly updates sin
ce Budget 2012, BC Finance Minister
Michael de Jong warned that the 2012/2013 deficit would come in sub-
stantially higher than originally projected – $1.5 billion at last count com-
pared to the original $970 million shortfall expected in last February’s
budget. He also put forward a number of measures (including salary and
hiring freezes, and travel budget cuts)
to mitigate the impact of lower
revenues and reducing the shortfall. Budget 2013, thus, was presented
with a tough challenge to balance the provincial books by 2013/2014 as
previously planned.
Despite much adversity, Budget 2013 yesterday reaffirmed the BC gov-
ernment’s commitment to a balanced
budget in 2013/2014. In fact, Min-
ister de Jong projected a small surplus of $197 million in the coming fis-
cal year, followed by surpluses of $211 million in 2014/2015 and $460
million in 2015/2016. Furthermore, he lowered the estimated deficit for
2012/2013 to $1.2 billion. His government is tackling the weakness in
natural resource revenues by selling
assets, raising corporate taxes and
personal income taxes on wealthy individuals (temporarily), and main-
taining a strict line on spending.
http://www.rbc.com/economics/market/pdf/bcbud2013.pdf
Taxing, selling its way to balance
Pressures on British Columbia’s fiscal
situation clearly mounted in the
last year. Lower-than-expected natural
gas prices were the main cause of
these pressures, as they significan
tly reduced royalties collected by the
province. In quarterly updates sin
ce Budget 2012, BC Finance Minister
Michael de Jong warned that the 2012/2013 deficit would come in sub-
stantially higher than originally projected – $1.5 billion at last count com-
pared to the original $970 million shortfall expected in last February’s
budget. He also put forward a number of measures (including salary and
hiring freezes, and travel budget cuts)
to mitigate the impact of lower
revenues and reducing the shortfall. Budget 2013, thus, was presented
with a tough challenge to balance the provincial books by 2013/2014 as
previously planned.
Despite much adversity, Budget 2013 yesterday reaffirmed the BC gov-
ernment’s commitment to a balanced
budget in 2013/2014. In fact, Min-
ister de Jong projected a small surplus of $197 million in the coming fis-
cal year, followed by surpluses of $211 million in 2014/2015 and $460
million in 2015/2016. Furthermore, he lowered the estimated deficit for
2012/2013 to $1.2 billion. His government is tackling the weakness in
natural resource revenues by selling
assets, raising corporate taxes and
personal income taxes on wealthy individuals (temporarily), and main-
taining a strict line on spending.
trendsetter
Active Member
I agree tincan, these are trying economic times. Have been since 2007/2008. Not because of the Liberal government but because of the global recession. What I get from that article is that the Liberals are doing whatever they can to return to a balanced budget. The NDP have stated they will raise taxes and post deficits. So I ask you, which party platform is better for the economy in BC?
In your original comment you were very vocal about debt per capita, budget deficits and economic stewardship in general. The NDP have not brought forward a platform that will in any way improve the above. The article indicates the Liberals are in fact making hard choices and working towards long term economic prosperity for the province at the expense of short term gains.
In your original comment you were very vocal about debt per capita, budget deficits and economic stewardship in general. The NDP have not brought forward a platform that will in any way improve the above. The article indicates the Liberals are in fact making hard choices and working towards long term economic prosperity for the province at the expense of short term gains.
tincan
Well-Known Member
Thanks for implying that I haven't done even a little research on Debt to GDP, debt per capita, surpluses/deficits over the last 20 years in BC. Just because I post something that you don't like doesn't mean I haven't done my research and doesn't mean it's not accurate.
When I state that the debt/obligations of each person in BC has grown massively I am fully supported in that statement by the BC gov't:
http://www.fin.gov.bc.ca/ocg/pa/11_12/Contractual_Obligations.pdf
http://www.fin.gov.bc.ca/ocg/pa/11_12/PA Prov Debt Summary 11-12.pdf
Please show me where I am wrong in stating that. Please provide links to credible sources. Just because our current provincial gov't tries to hide our contractual obligations (mostly to IPPs upwards to $55 billion in horrible contacts for power that is several TIMES the current market rate) doesn't mean these don't exist.
While I agree that looking at solely debt (or any metric for that matter) is not worth much, looking at Debt/GDP is also quite flawed. As we know, a provinces GDP can be increasing while the vast majority of the population see their incomes/standard of living dropping... sound familiar?
Also, that non-partisan source you provided only gives that last few quarters/years of info.. at least from what I saw. Not very helpful in looking at long-term numbers.
When I state that the debt/obligations of each person in BC has grown massively I am fully supported in that statement by the BC gov't:
http://www.fin.gov.bc.ca/ocg/pa/11_12/Contractual_Obligations.pdf
http://www.fin.gov.bc.ca/ocg/pa/11_12/PA Prov Debt Summary 11-12.pdf
Please show me where I am wrong in stating that. Please provide links to credible sources. Just because our current provincial gov't tries to hide our contractual obligations (mostly to IPPs upwards to $55 billion in horrible contacts for power that is several TIMES the current market rate) doesn't mean these don't exist.
While I agree that looking at solely debt (or any metric for that matter) is not worth much, looking at Debt/GDP is also quite flawed. As we know, a provinces GDP can be increasing while the vast majority of the population see their incomes/standard of living dropping... sound familiar?
Also, that non-partisan source you provided only gives that last few quarters/years of info.. at least from what I saw. Not very helpful in looking at long-term numbers.
tincan
Well-Known Member
I agree the NDP have not brought forward great platform on reducing deficits/debt. My vote this time around is based more on my demand of public officials that our environment be taken seriously. The liberals have not shown me this in the slightest. I also tend to have a long-term view (decades) when voting and while the Libs may make our short-term (couple years) budget look OK (by selling off provincial assets) they have shown very little in terms of long-term vision (LNG is risky). IMO, we need to think about sustainable dev of our resources and I think both the greens and NDP show much better vision in this regard. I'm not happy with Dix as a leader (I think he's awkward, shifty, unsure) which goes to show what I think of Clark (worse than Dix). Best of two bad choices IMO
trendsetter
Active Member
It's not that I don't like your numbers tincan, it's that they don't match the results of my own research. I use many resources including those provided by the provincial government.
I'm curious what the timeline is of the contractual obligations used to create that graph. Some of that may be money that's going to be spent 10 years or longer from now. Much of the "contractual obligations" are also self supporting; meaning the interest and principle payments of that debt/contract is paid for by revenue generated by a crown corporation.
Tax payer supported debt is the most relevant metric in my opinion. Others may (and do disagree). Most of the contractual obligations are for long term capital projects and services. Everything is in there including costs associated with collective agreements with public sector unions, health care, police, fire, ambulance etc. The economic output, jobs and industry supported by these contracts also play a large part in the prosperity of our province so shouldn't be discounted as "debt" rather contractual funding commitments.
Here's another chart that shows surplus / deficit as a percentage of GDP over the past 20 years. In this metric clearly the Liberals have been far more effective than the NDP were. Again, there was a severe global recession from 2007 onwards so trying to blame the current government for the economic downturn and resulting increased debt / deficit is not an accurate representation. This is especially true when trying to compare performance against previous years.
http://www.bcprogressboard.com/2011Report/PI7.html
I'm curious what the timeline is of the contractual obligations used to create that graph. Some of that may be money that's going to be spent 10 years or longer from now. Much of the "contractual obligations" are also self supporting; meaning the interest and principle payments of that debt/contract is paid for by revenue generated by a crown corporation.
Tax payer supported debt is the most relevant metric in my opinion. Others may (and do disagree). Most of the contractual obligations are for long term capital projects and services. Everything is in there including costs associated with collective agreements with public sector unions, health care, police, fire, ambulance etc. The economic output, jobs and industry supported by these contracts also play a large part in the prosperity of our province so shouldn't be discounted as "debt" rather contractual funding commitments.
Here's another chart that shows surplus / deficit as a percentage of GDP over the past 20 years. In this metric clearly the Liberals have been far more effective than the NDP were. Again, there was a severe global recession from 2007 onwards so trying to blame the current government for the economic downturn and resulting increased debt / deficit is not an accurate representation. This is especially true when trying to compare performance against previous years.
http://www.bcprogressboard.com/2011Report/PI7.html
trendsetter
Active Member
High-five contractual obligations are not debt in the sense that money has been borrowed, spent and the government now has to pay that back with interest. It is money that the government has agreed to spend over set period of time on everything from capital projects, health care, education, transportation and on and on.
