P'3s are nothing more than governments spreading the cost of capital projects over many generations, so they can claim that they have balanced the books. It's plain fraud, pure and simple.

Costs can not be cut only transferred on other sectors, the environment and the future.

Global warming, pollution, the pine bug debacle, the worldwide growing poverty and destitution, etc. etc. are all the calculable, transferred costs of "wealth creating".

Ed Deak, Big Lake.

rockyvoids
well, there was chretien, who was forced out by his own team, knowing the scandal was coming, and the stink started and ended in the pm's office.

bill van der zalm was premier of the socreds when he got caught accepting $20K on the side. there were many other corrupt socreds. the party died, and has become the bc liberals.

glenn clark was premier when he had to step down due to casinogate. he was exonerated in court, when it was proven he acted honorably.
where he blew it was the fast ferries, and the pulp mill up north. the ndp was reduced to 2 seats in the following election.

was colin thatcher premier of sask when he killed his wife. at any rate he is now in prison.

and let us not exclude lyin' brian mulroney.
the conservatives were poisoned by him, and now the rotting carcass has the head of stephen harper. according to the new book, he thinks he was canada's best pm ever, except mayby

oops!

except maybe john a macdonald. what an ego.

the result is the mess we have today with the federal lying liberls.

and trudeau left such a disgraceful situation, that voters preferred 2 terms of phoney mulroney.

for some reason all this is forgotten when they quit, and they receive nothing but praise from then on.

go figure.

this p3 situation is a bad idea.

if you have nerver been in a dirty hospital, you need to go to one now. msa in abbotsford is a fine example. or has it been closed yet?

hospitals should be financed and run on a need basis, not a cost basis. sick and injured have needs. their wellbeing should not be based on govt beancounting.

they need to be staffed by professionals, at all positions.

contracting out, and health for profit do not serve the voters.

but it serves the politicians, and their rich business backers.

it looks like it is time to get some new politicians.

Burner

As I read rockyvoids post he is referring to the fact that after they left office they have all beneftited on a personal financial level. Thatcher was not premier. He was a multi- millionaire before he went into politics, due to the inheritance he received from his father, who had been premier.

It is interesting to note that none of the neo-cons who regularly post on the Tyee have entered the fray.

I have not heard any of the arguments supporting P3's.

And I have to wonder why.

Me thinks it may be somewhat deep for their slanted foreheads.

The main reason that governments like P3s is because of the accountability of running the hospitals goes from them to a private company. If there are systematic screw-ups, they can act all huffy and "get to the bottom of this thing." Afterall, it is not their fault if these hospitals are not running efficiently and effectively. So, it costs a little extra money ... that is the price of shifting the blame. It's well worth it to a government that wants to get re-elected. Unfortunately, it is our sick relatives, friends, and colleagues who suffer.

The article above tries to paint a picture of P3s to those in other jurisdictions, then attempts to link same to non-related issues.

P3s do provide government with an alternative funding formulae to build and maintain facilities. Generally that does include setting policy for whatever the application might be.

The cost of using P3s might be greater as such is usually over a longer period of time. This is off set however, by reduction of risk to government.

The notion that P3s create filth and negative conditions is false. Where such might, is where a separate contractor might be engaged to 'operate' the facility. But that is not the norm.

Recent times have witnessed a huge increase in costs to government for labour and other needs. The days are gone that allow government to respond to the menu of demands without hefty increases in taxes.

Right now most folks are taxed to the hilt both individually and corporately. P3's try to reduce the overall taxburden.

"P3's try to reduce the overall taxburden."

and so far they've failed. Should we just keep doing this and hope the outcomes eventually change?

Hog swill.

P3s are just another form of State subsidy/welfare to the private corporate sectory, and a way of attacking a larger share spread across a section of the working class, and spent by them in the small businesses of our communities. In place of a larger share spread over these unionized public sector labour and other unionized private sector workers, you have a smaller share going to non-union private sector labour, and the balance skimmed off benefits otherwise going to them, and "a sum perhaps near, but something less than union wages". This skimmed off portion that would otherwise go to labour and local businesses and communities, is absorbed into the cost plus profits formula guarantees that typically will go instead to private corporate capital-, as often, or more often than not, off shore to foreign (US/Euro) corporate capital interests.

And to that "corporately" sector you cry your tears for, they have ready access to built in tax lawyers and CAs skilled in the craft of tax reduction and evasion, offshore tax havens and shelters, and even then far more favourable tax breaks regimes than are available to the working "cheated masses".

Those whom you would defend are the Head of The Table social class, discussed here from time to time, already taking more than their fair share of the socio-economic product and increasingly impoverishing everyone else about the table.

You are too, too predictable still, sdgreen. Try a site that buys your schtick more ideologically ready conditioned. (They are about here too, but like yourself, already discredited, such that also like yourself, no one takes them seriously anymore.)

Coyote;

Your basic premise is the 'profit' is a nasty business, yet profit exists in every ideology in one form or another! You indicate the the taxbuden should not be smoothed or otherwise rationalized, yet you do not provide any logical solution.

I have yet to find a tree where $100 bills are poking from the branches. I have yet to see any system that can afford the demands of society. The only way to do so is to reduce the expectation and the standard of living of the community.

State subsidy will always exist in one form or another, no matter what system is employed. The objectives of any organization is to support the requirements thereof. The question is how is that done.

P3's in the format to construct and maintain facilties in the BC sense, is a good one. If the foundation, airconditioning systems or other infrastructure fails, then then taxpayer is not liable. (depending on contract language).

The issue of resources to lawyers et al is academic, since that will always be apparent.

Teh fact is that costs to society today are extravagent exacerbated by demands of labour and goods.

How do you pay for all this? How much tax should one pay?

You still miss the fundamental point SD, P3's mean more tax money needs to be collected.

How much profit is legally, or morally acceptable? I'm asking this as a lifelong private enterpriser, owner manager for 48 years, who has seen good many lives ruined by the insatiable demands of the so called "investors" of big business. Far more than by governments.

How many airconditionings could be repaired from the huge taxbreaks given to multinationals, so they can take more and more and more out of BC and Canada ? Is this morally, or legally acceptable ? How about the
SLAPP lawsuits against people who dare to question the actions of privatized services, now removed from public scrutiny and conducted in secret, blessed by a corrupt government, "to maintain their competitiveness" so they can run over and steal more from more ?

Profits are not earnings, but forms of unilateral taxation added on the top of legitimate costs. Profits are necessaary, but how much can society be forced to pay to maintain the "growth" of businesses listed on the stockmarkets? The Dow-Jones dropped today on account of "disappointing returns" reported by corporations. If Bush were reported to have constipation tomorrow, or choked on another piece of "potato chip", the bottom would fall out of the markets. Is this a legitimate form of economic progress, or process ? Is this the purpose of our existence on this Earth ?

Why is it that while profits have been going out of sight for 30 years, with executive salaries in the clouds, wages have remained standard and the foodbank lines are growing by the day?

What benefits did BC get from the privatization of BC Rail and Accenture etc. Why do we get constant reports of losses of service and jobs, filth, corruption, increasing accidents, with the costs transferred on society, from privatized services, not only here in BC, but from all over the world ? Why are our politicians stupid, or corrupt enough to beg for more? Why are people stupid enough to believe that this is "good economics" and "savings" ?

Ideological madness may be excused to a certain degree, so are rational profit margins, or the occasional glass of wine or beer, but this doesn't mean the legitimization of total alcoholism, or of crime waves to increase the profit margins of crooks, who should be in jail, instead of prancing around with pride and heaped with praise.

What is the neocon answer to these questions and a few thousand more if necessary ?

Ed Deak , Big Lake.

A very interesting article and many good commments after. I especially liked Burner's request for some new politicians. But this is actually comical because he quotes corruption back for 120 years.

Call me naive, but here's a thought to help control corruption within politics. Require politicians to be qualified. Engineers go to Engineer's school, then they get certified. Doctors go to medical school and get certified by the Medical Board. Lawyers go to Law school then pass the bar exam. Teachers start out as student teachers, then get certified after a criminal record check. Nurses, real estate agents, gas fitters, electricians, plumbers etc. The list is endless. These people require training and certification before they are allowed to do the job.

Why do we keep electing *&^%^&# idiots? Why don't we require politicians to attend "politics" school where they can learn economics, history, ethics, environmental science etc, then pass a criminal records check to finally be certified as a politician.

We let anyone run for politics. It sounds like the democratic thing to do, but would you let anyone install that new 240 V circuit breaker box? (Well it seemed like the democratic thing to do, to let my neighbour have a crack at it)

It seems to me that the people who run for political office are only interested in personal power and control over the masses. If we keep voting for idiots who don't know what is best for everyone, then we get what we deserve. These politicians only know what is best for them and their power.

There are a lot of very smart people who do not run for politics because they are not interested in the pursuit of power and control. (I personally don't like kissing babies and smiling for the cameras)

Isn't it ironic that the politicians who put in all the rules of the game for the rest of us, can't play by those same rules.

Ah, but what are you going to do?

We let anyone run for office because they are to represent us , anyone or everyone. The problem is politicians don't represent us, but they represent the people who contribute to their campaigns. Why did the BC Liberals attack the teachers, because the teachers did not support them. The BC Liberals don't care for students, unlewss it becomes politically useful. P3's should be called P4's for public pays, private profits.

Now, where have I ever said that, to give you that idea. Indeed, I understand the "desirability" of some profit from human economic activity. (Though I accede to much of Fait Lux's thinking on this one.)

But you see, I also understand the source of it. It drops not down out of the sky from something magical and wonderful done by the Great Men owners of Capital. Au contraire, it is a "useful" result, at reasonable levels, and under socially controlled conditions, that comes about as the result of the collective effort of large numbers of people across the entire economy.

In fact, you and I have discussed this before, so it is not like you are actually unfamiliar with my view of profit. (Why is it we all want to fall to our knees at the mere mention of the word? Or genuflect, genuflect.)

Profit is fundamentally the difference between the selling price of a commodity and that which is paid for the raw materials and other cost inputs, which are fixed and cannot be readily manipulated, and that which is paid to the collective human labour of often very large numbers of people. All other inputs being equal, including productivity rates, it is the sum greater or lesser than the real value returned to labour that determines the possibility of greater or lesser profit rates.

So again, there is not real mystery to the transaction, other than it typically takes place in the marketplace, between capitalists, or across a counter at the sleight of hand time of exchange with consemers (also workers and their families), outside the view and experience of workers and the community, so that there does grow up a certain air of mystery or magic around the creation and source of profit,no doubt.

So profit is the difference between fixed material cost inputs plus the share that goes to labour, and the actual "sale price value" the capitalist actually realizes for the product, and pockets for reinvestment AND..., himself course-, after already typically having factored in a "salary and perks for his own labours". (Indeed, one does not typically or for long hire workers unless they contribute in some way, a share to that "bottom line" which goes to the increased share to the capitalist.)

Continued next post...

From previous post...

In the process of course of practical capitalist form economic activity, the only real source for greater or lesser "profit share" return to the capitalist, is the extent to which he/she is able to wring out more or less share from human labour, by paying it multiples less. Rarely, be there a scarcity of a particular labour, the capitalist will be compelled to pay more, squeezing his profit share.

Every capitalist, if he thinks about it, wants to pay his own workers less than his competitors, so there is larger share and margins for himself, of course, and have every other capitalist/competitor pay exceptional wages to their employees-, so there will be more consumers (his competitors workers and their families) in the marketplace who can afford the actual purchase price of his product. (This is especially typical, "small business think.", though to which the Big Capitalist is no less prone.)

So, you see, the only real difference between us is, I think that profit is a social product that results from the human activity of large numbers of citizen workers and consumers, which benefits are best realized when they accrue socially, to infrastructure creation etc. Whereas you see it as a result of the pure magic/skill of the Great Man capitalist, who then has the right to pocket for himself and his own determined priorities, such great of quantities as he can, owing none to none other-, and certainly not the working class, their communities or infrastructure needs (hospitals, schools etc.), or as a return for environmental damage.

Ahhhh, the Great Men of Capitalism so extolled by the sdgreens of the world..., where would we be without them?

But hold that thought We may wish to dwell on the possibilities awhile. :-)

(And it is not that I even wish to destroy all "businessmen", especially the small owners and shopkeepers that are part of the consumer service infrastructure of our communities and economy-, really hardly more than workers themselves, most of them.)

Rex Murphy, last night on CBC was ranting on about patronange appointments and the Ad scam in Quebec. Rightfully condeming the abuses of power, but he didn't take it far enough. He didn't make the connection between them and us. While these things are disturbing they are going to continue to deteriorate, because it's how the game is played. The rest of us are catching on. Soon business ethics and fair play will be completely replaced by looking out for #1 and screwing whoever you can for profit and gain. There are no consequences, except for the extreme cases ie: Ebbers. If there was a strong deterent at the highest levels of government and business to resist corruption, maybe we'd have a chance. But time after time they walk away with a slap on the wrist. It was his first time, he had a problem with depression, he was cut by his Pee Wee hockey team. First time my ass! First time he got caught. When you are a habitual lie and a cheat, or a chronic thief to support a drug habit, getting caught is just the cost of doing business. These people are stealing money right out of your pocket, so what are you going to do about it? Screw the government and your employer every chance you get thats what. Great state of affairs isn't it?

Name goes here, once you've got all those politicians educated, could you do something about all these unqualified parents who have children without certification and some of those webpage commentators who's thoughts show they are likely to have already been certified?

Our education is almost near completion. Except for the elites and a few dying middle classes, we have been converted into drones. "Dumbed down" into beleiving this is a life of freedom and liberty. Just as in nature though, if you falter and cannot contribute your tuppance you will be stepped on and left behind. Go to work, make your wage, pay your rent and consumme as you're told! Sure you can check out for a while and visit the tropics in an illusion of freedom but in two weeks you're back at the hive making honey. More pressure to compete as future generations aim for bigger and better than that before them. It's a wonder more people aren't cracking under this strain. Where's the challenge in converting resources into false wealth? The corporations can just elect their minions and get them to change the laws of nature. Far easier to live for today than plan for tomorrow. Can you imagine the logistics of trying to plan our sustainability 200 years into the future? Forget that, too complicated. Look! It's Friday! Enjoy the party! This rant brought to you by the Coalition to Ignore the Television This Weekend.

October 28, 2005

ROBBINS Sce Research (1998)
robbinsceresearch.com

Part A "Tyee" -P3's-Canadian political culture

For immediate Release- Survey of Ontario and Manitoba Re: Gomery report and another

Question #1- If an election were held today for which political party would you caste your vote? Federal New Democrats-21.5%; Federal Conservative Party-30%; Federal Liberal Party-38%; Other-1.5%; Undecided-09%

Question #2- Justice Gomery’s initial report relating to the Quebec sponsorship scandal arrives at the beginning of November 2005. In your opinion will this initial report hurt the governing federal Liberals in terms of public support? Yes-46%; No-54%

Question #3- In your opinion will Justice Gomery’s reports relating to the Quebec sponsorship scandal link Prime Minister Paul Martin or any of his close advisors to the scandal? Yes-41%; No-55%; Undecided-03%

Question #4-In your opinion how likely is it that PM Paul Martin or those close to him are in fact linked to the Quebec sponsorship scandal: Very Likely-21%; Likely-16%; Unlikely-29%; Very Unlikely-34%

Question #5- To which Canadian political party (if any) do you believe Governor General Michaelle Jean is most closely associated? Federal Liberal Party- 37%; Federal Conservative Party- 00%; Federal New Democratic Party-11%; Other Federal Party/Undecided-32%; No party whatsoever-20%

Numbers adjusted for population-undecided (09%) across Ontario and Manitoba.

Commentary- With Justice John Gomery’s initial report expected out the first week of November 2005, our poll through Ontario and Manitoba, follows the footsteps of newly minted Governor General Michaelle Jean.

It seems that most respondents in Ontario and Manitoba are of the opinion that the attractive new Governor General is most closely associated to the federal Liberals. In fact a significant majority of respondents (65%) (relative to the number who appear aware that the Governor General is not associated with any political party), see her as related to the federal Liberals.

Generally speaking, after adjusting for population, the federal Liberals are down ‘statistically’ by approximately 4% from 2004 election totals in both Ontario and the Manitoba. The Conservatives are down statistically about 1%. The New Democrats have increased modestly. The New Democrats public support is gaining in the City of Toronto sufficient to be ‘cautiously optimistic’.

Respondents do not believe the (initial) Gomery report will do too much damage to the governing Liberals, however there is enough who do, that given the current position the Liberals are in; any loss of public support could be a problem. For any number of reasons a majority of respondents do not think that it is likely that PM Paul Martin or his close friends are linked to the scandal.

This poll suggests Conservative Party support is holding its own in these two Provinces, one the largest in the country and the other the gateway to the west, but its public support is not moving forward. Will Conservatives make gains amongst undecided respondents particularly in suburban Ontario?

Federal New Democrats appear to be the winners. The question for NDP Leader Jack Layton remains: Is his party’s rise in support real or are some Reform Liberals parking their vote? The significant number of undecided (Question #4) who think PM Paul Martin is likely implicated in the Quebec scandal (relative to the overall number of respondents) should be good news for the New Democrats.

Robbins Sce Research (1998)

Tyee-Part B-P3's Canadian political culture

Insight- This poll of respondents in two provinces who are neighbours (but in many cases over 2,000 kilometres apart) was intended to be about public perceptions of the anticipated initial Gomery report on the Quebec sponsorship scandal and the potential implications for public support that may follow. We also hoped to provide some valuable insight into perceptions about the new Governor General Michaelle Jean as she traveled in the region.

What ROBBINS found out though was something entirely different. Respondents in Central Canada have not forgotten the Quebec sponsorship scandal; it may yet provide some further difficulties for Paul Martin’s minority government. But scandal and over spending (Dingwall) is boring for these Canadians. The people are long past being apathetic or untrusting of government with their money. There is a general acceptance that politicians are really in it for themselves whether financially or for power. Oddly, there is little anger. “What can we do?”

What is happening underneath the surface however is stark and may be a sign of an entirely different type of thinking amongst the citizenry. They are deeply insecure. They are philosophical. The public sentiment isn’t just about terrorists or SARS, or earthquakes, or hurricanes, yet these events have certainly provoked this shift in the public psychology. It is deep, dark, thoughtful and without specific direction. The public has come to ask themselves these questions: What does government do for me, and if my family and I are ever in trouble what will my government do for my family and me? Although we didn’t ask these questions specifically, there is a sense that the answers may be nothing and nothing. The relationship to the questions in the poll may well be that the government and political parties simply play games with one another, while the public is forgotten. Really, it is our government, who dare you be so arrogant!

One respondent said, “The last five years has impacted on our society more than the last fifty and people have a sense they are on their own-the government either won’t or can’t help them.”

It is a little ironic that out of all of this very troubling message a small reserve of Cree in Northern Ontario may serve as the best example yet of what the mainstream public has expressed in this ROBBINS poll-the fear that the government simply doesn’t give a damn about its citizens.

In a market economy no government can afford to give a damn about its citizens.

That's what the whole theory is about. Read the books of Milton Friedman, the publications of the Fraser and CD Howe Institutes who get their orders from the Cato and Heritage Fund. Their purpose is to destroy all vestiges of public control, accountability and democracy and replace it with global, multinational corporate dictatorship, called "rules based trade agreements".

Ed Deak, Big Lake.

Enjoyed your rant Clubofrome. :-) Have a good weekend.

And very interesting as well Robbin, your poll results immediately above. I'm never sure how much stock to put in them, but interesting, no doubt.

Fiat Lux-from your own perspective you aptly described the type of sentiment we are trying to convey.

Coyote-thanks for the comments, and I promise you if ever I have a poll that does not accurately assess the public in the group we ascribe the poll to (see Robbins in Prince George pre- 2005 election)-I will be the first to stand up and take the fruit, veggies and eggs. I certainly don't purport to make hay of my polls on one hand, and than back away when I stink the house out (which is going to happen from time to time).

I think two advantages we have over the mainstream pollsters are these: we don't have a whole group of transient callers @ $8.50 an hour, we record most non answer commentary, and I and some of my more interested associates make many calls ourselves.

The aggregate of the ticks, the tracking of the respondents from question to question, and the commentary tells you alot about what the people think.

And I always read your poll posts here, Robbin. I would certainly not rush to discount them. :-)

Thank you Coyote-I am most grateful

I propose you give a weekly column to Ed Deak, Big Lake. Of of all your commentaters he is the one I scroll down to read regularly. Give him the best headline of the week and lets hear what he has to say about it.

Name goes here.
best bloody idea I have heard
in a long time,a politics school.
Ed.