A Mordor budget

"With 1990's NDP taxation policies, we would likely have a balanced budget."

I should frame that quote.

I guess we'll soon be hearing the squeals of outrage from the 52% who didn't bother to vote when Campbell starts making his big cuts.

To me its like hobbits not bothering to vote to get rid of Sauron and then complaining they didn't realize Sauron would really do THAT in spite of the warnings.

What?????

Luke says

"Hmmmmmm... yeah... but did ya hear that Carole James wanted to increase those tax cuts, starting with the $600 million/year elimination of the carbon tax... blowing a larger hole into the provincial budget?"

"Hmmmmmm", alright..... So OK, Luke, if the carbon tax is supposed to be "revenue neutral", how could eliminating it be "blowing a larger hole into the provincial budget?"

I see...........

[EDITED FOR PERSONAL JAB. -MODERATOR.]

"Oh what tangled webs we weave, when we first practice to deceive" should be Gordo's motto.

But wait, didn't a judge overturn a Whiterock election because the winning candidate lied? Hmmmmmmmmmm is that a precedent to take court action against Gordo and his mob, if they lied about the budget deficit?

What is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander, or in BC, does a lesser liar have less rights than a major liar?

ME2...

Two sides of the ledger... James was still going to allow the $600 million in tax cuts that were to be offset by the collection of the carbon tax.

Luke

But according to your ideology wouldn't that $600 million tax cut make the economy grow?

Or do tax cuts only grow the economy when they're for rich people?

I recall

"Weren't you Glen Clark's 1996 election strategist... and who came up with the term "wriggle room" back then anyway? ;)"

I recall Mr T standing right up next to Glen as his master used that term and smilin' smilin' smilin'

Good gig. I would like to make $100,000 in six months.

Wilf

I see you would prefer to attack the $350 million NDP budget deficit of 1996 rather than the current Liberal one. Surprise surprise.

And since you don't want to talk about the article and would rather talk about what the article's author was being paid 13 years ago I'm sure you'd be interested in what Liberals are paying their consultants nowadays. About $2,700 a day plus expenses apparently.

http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/643972

"Good gig. I would like to make $100,000 in six months."

Ask PAB for a raise.

Lets see the liberals wiggle out of this?

And Mr. T. could very well have been standing smiling as at least there was something to smile about because they still had room to wiggle. Unlike the Liberals who came in taking government Ministries down to size while hiring incompetents to man the Ministries. And after 8 long years of belt tighten there is no wiggle room left as the dinner plate is empty and how do you wiggle out of that?
And when its comes to the actual numbers I'm thinking double digits because thats what been put in office, and now BC is going to pay the price.
http://www.leg.bc.ca/hansard/37th5th/h40219a.htm
Let's not forget that government doesn't have any money of its own. It's all your money. The dollar you take off your paycheque every second Friday or every Friday, or whenever it is you get your paycheque, is all the dollars government has. It's your dollar.

The Premier made a commitment, as did all of us as members we would bring stability and fiscal responsibility back to the province and do it in such a way that the little ideological changes that come from time to time…. When, God forbid, we would have a change of government and find ourselves in the throes of what took place through that decade of decline with the NDP, they wouldn't be able to go helter-skelter off in their own direction one other time.
That's why we passed balanced-budget legislation. That's why we brought transparency into the whole budgeting process. That's why we've made three-year revolving budgets. Now we have a budget in British Columbia that is the most transparent and, by legislation, the most affirmed of any of the jurisdictions in Canada, any of the provinces or the federal government. That's because, quite frankly, of strong leadership by the Premier of British Columbia.
Have the Liberals gone Helter Skelter on BC's economy?

And Get On Topic Liberal Trolls

The NDP have nothing to do with the 2009 dire state of the econom7y where the Liberals have gone helter skelter when it comes to low income while spending, spending, spending. As BC's safety net leaves residents to fend for themselves as women are forced to the streets and often beaten and robbed along with children. And its the reality for the low income but go to the police, what to ask for more?
Thats like going to any government ministry where they take the tramatized and further tramatize victims as its all part of the game plan down at Victimizers Assistance. Or try ICBC as I'm sure you'll feel like you have been run over trying to receive any benefits from the program.

funny

I thought Tieleman wrote that he was paid 'less than 100,000 dollars'...seems to me that's what he wrote wasn't it Frank?

I certainly won't be hiring any engineers with such a cursory understanding of numbers as that. Good way to end up with a bridge that 'won't' stand up to traffic - let alone scrutiny....

And Luke, quick message - the BCLiberal Carbon Tax is 'REVENUE NEUTRAL' did that email not get through to you?

And the Carbon Tax

http://www.bcbudget.gov.bc.ca/2008/backgrounders/backgrounder_carbon_tax.htm

Is a Tax, is a Tax that is resulting in tax reductions, and boy oh boy is this going to cost residents. Survery after survey shows those who drive will continue to drive, until they have their wheels knocked right out from under them. And helter skelter it will be for those in need of health care or any other services providing by government as family and childrens buget is future reduced despite running on a 60% shortfall. So tighten your belts there BC little ones because Mr. C. has a check in the mail for you for a hundred bucks for the year. Don't spend it all in one place. As the $100 dollars comes but once a year but the hunger is all year round, 365 days a year as groceries prices continue to climb leaving them without.

Yes, but!

On the other hand you have Coleman saying they planned for an increase in 'able to work' welfare!

So they new the revenues woere reduced substantially with fewer people working!

Greasy pigs!

"Able to Work" Welfare

At a time when there is no Work?
Surprised, I'm not. But you may find this suprising every dollar you spend has energy associated with it. Call it the cost of doing business along with How About Save Water Save Money. How about recycling in this province, especially of waste water as indiscriminate wastage with the belief we can never run out or over pollute as our water resources have been exploited to promote economic and demographic growth.
And why did I say BC was going to pay, pay, and pay for the carbon tax because you are. Because lets face it BC is in a deficit with record job losses, along with record number of immigration your going to be paying, and paying and paying as whats the going rate on paying back a couple billion dollars so far. And this I am certain is going up, up, up as you got some of the greedess on the job. Enjoy your tax breaks while they last, as its like they will be almost invisible much like the benefits of the Tax as its takes a lot more carbon dollars to pay back the Interest.
http://www.amortization.com/national_debt_interest_savings.htm

And since you have handed BC hydro over to the private sector any decreases in hydro will end up in a increase in costs. Its how its works in the private market although it certainly has no competition and its down and dirty as usual, something like our media.
http://www.inc.com/articles/2008/08/energy-overview.html

The doom and gloom of.......

The 2000s, the BC Liberals take debt from 31 billion to 95 billion dollars,workers flee province for oppertunities in other provinces,convention center costs millions per month in operating costs to tax-payers.......
BC hydro on verge of bankruptcy,proposal is delayed for removal of open net fish farms as complete ban of salmon fishing is impossed to try to save the last fish....

Golden ears bridge is a huge monthly toll LOSS to Translink,Fortress asks/demands 500 million for mountain rental for lead up to and Olympic games........

Carbon tax is tossed,the reason given for killing the tax is competiteness for industry......

Run of River is a financial BUST for BC tax-payers,first nations threaten provincial blockades if recognition act isn`t acted upon,.............

Now Mr. Teileman might be upset over the 4 times bigger than the NDP`s fudge,believe me,the headlines of theft,corruption,scandal,asset sell offs,will dwarf the budget lies in scale,the Liberals and everyone who drank their Kool-aid will have to live with nightmares and shrunken testacles (the result of quick fix steroids)for the remainder of their days..........

P.S. at least the 42% that voted NDP can sleep at night with a clear conscious!

Cheers-Eyes Wide Open

Qarry....

"P.S. at least the 42% that voted NDP can sleep at night with a clear conscious"

Quarry, it was more like 21%. BTW, wasn't the election "in the bag" according to you?

The story is pretty clear, a Liberal fudgit budget!

It was a lie to get past the election. All the rubbish about the economy and the budget was a fraud and the first post is an attempt to smokescreen the issue. Luke and Wilfred are Canwest moles who never hesitate to try to change the subject when the truth is too uncomfortable. Repeat after me, "It's a Cambell election fraud." These guys couldn't run a peanut stand without screwing the taxpayers.

Yep, that bears repeating Skywalker

"It's a Cambell election fraud." These guys couldn't run a peanut stand without screwing the taxpayers.

I'd just add that there are a few taxpayers who don't get screwed....that's what it's all about for Campbell.

The strange thing is the profound inability of the 'screwed' to understand how thoroughly they're being - screwed, that is.

Otherwise sensible people who can walk upright without dragging their knuckles still can't seem to understand why voting for the cluck doesn't even make sense for them.

Bill Tieleman on his 1996 salary

Wilfred Laurier can't seem to let it go - I was paid less than $100,000 a year, not $100,000 every 6 months - if I wanted to make that much I'd be a Campbell Liberal!

Here is an irony.

Everyone here knows who Bill Tielmann is. We don't know who Wilfred Laurier or Luke Skywalker are. These two write under a phony name. I do as well. But it gives Wilf and Luke an unfair advantage when the attack Bill. Here's a piece of advice to the two of you cowards. Write under your real names when you attack Bill. That would put you on the level playing field. Until then, Bill is still better than both of you.

Pro-cyclical, counter-cyclical, or neutral?

Should the BC Govt's fiscal policy be pro-cyclical, counter-cyclical or neutral? The statements over the past several months by Premier Campbell and Finance Minister Hansen clearly indicated that they intend to be pro-cyclical, just as Bill Bennett was in the early 1980s.

Why are fake names allowed?

Skywalker
Everyone here knows who Bill Tielmann is. We don't know who Wilfred Laurier or Luke Skywalker are. These two write under a phony name. I do as well.

Why are fake names allowed? If you write a letter to the editor, they want a real name, a real address, and a real phone number to check the name and address. Why do INet chatrooms assume that the best discussions will happen when posters can hide behind anonymous labels?

The Trendsetters.......

It has now become fashionable to be a conservative or Liberal debtor.......

Harper....70 billion$ deficit (Clown)

Mcginty...20 billion$ deficit (Wallflower)

Stelmac...5 billion$ deficit(drill baby drill)

Campbell..3 billion$ deficit (crimanaly insane)

Cheers

Where's the beef?

It's hard to get excited about this when columnists have been saying since before the election campaign that whoever got elected would be restating the finances in the fall. Frankly, anyone who expects politicians or their hangers-on to be meticulously honest must be from another planet. Why do you think they hire spin-doctors like Bill?

And speaking of which, Bill wasn't exactly pure as the driven snow when he ran the No STV campaign (wherein he and Schreck saved BC from democracy). At least 2 of the claims they made repeatedly (the farther away from Victoria you are, the more votes you need to get there; you won't know where your vote went) are demonstrably false. Dr. Dennis Pilon wrote a critique of their methods which can be viewed at http://rabble.ca/news/2009/05/stv-your-guide-through-spin-and-fear. Suffice it to say their claims were not up to academic standards.

ReeferMadness

As I recall Pilon was not exactly honest when it came to the details regarding STV. He avoided certain issues whenever I heard him debate. But here is the real point, what does that have to do with the column Bill posted here. Once again because you know who he is, you attack him on an unrelated issue just like Luke and Wilf do. I mean really, what does Bill's salary back in the 90's have to do with the issue above. You would be less inclined to use Wilf's and Luke's technique if you didn't go by Reefermadness. Bill might then have something on you.

So a word of advice here. Debate the issue.

Skywalker... Smelser...

Damn, since ya wanna out everyone else... let's start with yourself first. ;)

We all wanna know who the real name of the poster "Skywalker" is and his location. It's only fair since ya brought it up.

N'est pas?

You first.

Ya aren't now gonna chicken out on us are ya? :D

Smelser... good one! Rod Smelser... formerly known as Budd Campbell... formerly known as Fraser Valley Man... etc., etc.

If you are in fact the REAL Rod Smelser on Facebook, there is no way in hell... :D ... that you can ride a bike all the way up to Golden Ears Provincial Park as ya stated in another thread. NADA ;)

Anyhoo... I now annoint you as the Tyee's "Out Man" and look forward to you outing the other hundreds of posters on this site. Ya know... their real names and locations, etc.

You will finally make yourself useful. ;)

Any seconders???? Anyone ????

Skywalker

WRT Dennis Pilon, your claim is vague and unsubstantiated.

My post is exactly on topic. Tieleman is complaining that the government is being dishonest. He seems to think people should be outraged over this. All I'm saying is that Bill might want to take a long hard look in the mirror before he accuses anyone of dishonesty.

And the bigger issue is that politics itself has become all about spin and counter-spin. Fairness and honesty seem to be quaint notions that some of us teach our kids.

And maybe that's why people are staying away from the polls in droves.

...ugly mug

The fudgit budget is simply one prop in our deity society.
Our self annointed god only has a bag of dirty tricks ...and he's getting a lot of blood on his hands. But his women don't care and that is all the enabling any dog needs.

Hey Luke

I'm not the one attacking Bill on something 10 years ago and off topic. You are using information you know about him to infer that his comments here are not to be considered valid. That is cowardly and typically liberal.

And reefermadness..

...I think the same applies to the yes side and Pilon. They were careful to avoid some unpleasant details in their debate. But the point here is about a fudged budget. Do you have any thoughts on that?

one small positive note Skywalker

It does appear that WilFRED has taken his ball and gone home...serial embarrassment does seem to have been effective in that case.

Was wondering if you'd heard that the current 'budget' contains a significant increase in spending for the Public Affairs Bureau?

No, but I'm not surprised.

You have to be able to spin the fuged budget as something that is not your fault. That takes more money to hand over to Canwest for advertising. It will ensure "the story has no legs".I guess that is why some of these people focus all their energy on the independent Tyee.

I can and I do

If you are in fact the REAL Rod Smelser on Facebook, there is no way in hell... :D ... that you can ride a bike all the way up to Golden Ears Provincial Park as ya stated in another thread. NADA ;)

I could lose a few pounds. Some people could do with additional brain cells. And then there's people who are afraid to use their name. What do they need? More verterbrae perhaps?

The point is we can't trust politicians...

or their hangers-on. If the NDP had won the election, we'd be having the reverse argument as suddenly the NDP "discovered" things were much worse than we thought. I'd like a show of hands from people who seriously believe that Tieleman is part of the solution instead of part of the problem.

The discraceful and dishonest No STV campaign was just an example of politics in action. In all likelihood we will be suffering from Bill's success at saving us from democracy long after everyone's forgotten about this budget.

Let's fix politics instead of pretending like this is something new.

Reefermadness

We know you don't like Tielmann. You credit him with killing your sacred cow. We've heard that ad nausium. Now how do you feel about the liberal's fudged budget? Oh, and by the way, the NDP are not the government and have not been for 7 years.

Reefermadness.......

What the fff are you talking about?.....

You bet the NDP would be talking about a 3 billion $ deficit if they won the election,SO WHAT........

This debt,this mismanagement,this lie about revenue through the in/out door is Campbell`s baby!
Do I blame Campbell for the world meltdown?..No I don`t..........

But,Campbell is a fucking economic dinosaur,his thoughts,his ideology has completely failed and guess what,it has failed all over the world..........

Campbell`s economic plan is this.......

Let the corporation operate for free,low taxes,screw the workers,let the corporation run wild,let investors screw the economy,Campbell`s ideology depends on endless growth,endless uptick,Campbell will mearly trim a little token amount from the big boys and keep the peasents working and paying with user fees and hidden charges.........
Well,that plan of Campbell only works during cyclical boom times.........

and now what? The fucking corporations flee in a heartbeat,they got the money,the assets,who gives a fuck about the workers,the community or the fabric of society,can you name one place in the world where the corporation stayed and prospered because of low operating costs?......
No,Campbell and his fellow dinosaurs have failed around the world,time to change course,time for the workers,community,society to rake the corporation over the coals,time for the corporation to make a few scant dollars,time for the corporation to be dependent upon the people for survival,not the other way around!

Ferries should be built here,NO subsidies for oil n gas,no forest giveaways,no fish farm use in oceans,no Keiwit getting every fucking bid in the province,Sheesh......
No P3s,no more racing to the bottom,no raw log export PERIOD,hell if China wants to mill logs,or the USA wants to mill logs they can cut their own forest down,no one in the world has old growth fir and cedar like BC,SO WE DON~T HAVE TO SHIP IT RAW,thet can either take it milled or not at all!........
Campbell is a dinosaur,Luke,Wilfred,your both losers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

P.S. excuse my bad language,insults intended,Reefermadness,the NDP can`t change the financial books only the financial direction.........Mark my words,Campbell will have to run over the NDP to reach the proverbial cliff but rest assured he will........

Cheers Eyes Wide Open

What I don't like....

is being lied to. So, when the inevitable happens and the Government finally admits that there will be massive cutbacks, a much bigger deficit or both, that will be an outrage.

But this game is played by both sides. And the irony of an NDP spin doctor accusing the Liberals of dishonesty is too much.

Tieleman was Glen Clark's "communication director". Do you think he often said things like "Gee, Glen we can't say that because it's not exactly true"?

Give your head a shake. Old Bill is not much different from whoever advised Campbell.

If we're being lied to, it's not the first time and won't be the last. I ask you again: Is Bill part of the solution or part of the problem?

For about six months!

Give your head a shake - attack Tieleman all you like for what he says and does now - calling him down for a short period of service more than ten years ago is just silly...

I don't agree with a lot of what Tieleman says - I think he was wrong to defend FPTP without pointing out the mess it has created here and everywhere else it's in use; I didn't agree with his stand relative to the coalition which (had the Liberals any balls) would have rid the country of Harper in January. It's fair game to attack him on those issues and anything else he writes on the merits. To dismiss anything he says because he once worked for Glen Clark is just lame.

I think Tieleman IS part of the solution - but that doesn't mean he's a liar nor does it mean I have to agree with everything he says.

In the final analysis, a comparison between the Harcourt/Clark years and the Campbell years is a slam dunk.

Campbell is the worst premier we've had in 60+ years - by a VERY long shot.

Electoral Reform

ReeferMadness
The discraceful and dishonest No STV campaign was just an example of politics in action. In all likelihood we will be suffering from Bill's success at saving us from democracy long after everyone's forgotten about this budget.

I read Denis Pilon's article and he does make a point, that the NO STV side used selectively picked examples to make their point, a common debating tactic, but hardly one that deserves the title "disgraceful and dishonest".

Just how truthful was the pro-STV side? Did they admit to people that either we went to computerized voting or else faced a constitutional crisis as day after day of counts proceeded with increasingly weary staff, countless challenges, etc., etc. Of course not, that would disuaded some voters, so they didn't mention it. Is that dishonest and disgraceful?

I think Gordon Campbell was very shrewd in setting up the Citizens Assmbly. It had the effect of sending all kinds of "good government" people on a wild goose chase instead of becoming involved in the party system. A great diversionary tactic.

Of

You're missing the point

Say what you want about the Liberals - I'm not defending them.

What I am saying is that we have a political culture where truth and honesty are quaint notions; and where spin and fear-mongering reign supreme. If you think that culture begins and ends with the Liberals, think again. And Bill is very much part of that culture. Just because he no longer works for the premier doesn't mean he's left politics behind.

BTW, No STV didn't defend FPTP, they simply attacked STV in ways that were fundamentally dishonest.

Once a spin doctor, always a spin doctor. A pox on them all.

Electoral Reform

Rod Smelser
I don't speak for the pro-STV side but I didn't witness anything like the misleading and otherwise dishonest statements made by No STV. I should point out that your claim about STV requiring computerization ignores the fact that STV was used in Alberta & Manitoba in the early decades of the 20th century. It's a good bet they didn't have computers back then.

WRT No STV, in one of my previous posts, I mentioned two claims they made that are demonstrably false. I could go through everything on their website and classify almost all of it as misleading or irrelevant.

Wild Goose Chase

Rod, you may be right that STV was a diversionary tactic. If so, it makes it all the worse that so many NDP insiders devoted their time to beating it instead of focusing on the Liberals.

I didn't vote for STV

I didn't vote for STV because I don't think the complicated counting mechanism can be justified. If there's a desire for greater proportionality in the results by party, then a simpler proportional system would be indicated.

The Globe and Mail had an editorial on this subject recommending a mixed system of district and proportional representation. I think they're on the right track.

Suppose that each of the 36 federal electoral districts each returned one member to the BC Legislature. Then the popular vote from those district elections could be used to allocate another 50 members at large to each of the parties. This setup would keep some representation tied to geography, and would furthermore tend to give the plurality party enough of an advantage that majority governments and four election-free years would still be a likely outcome.

But smaller parties could be ensured of obtaining representation, all parties could seat their leader without difficulty, and the larger parties could also be assured of enough proportional seats that a contingent of front benchers, people with reputations as leaders or experts in their fields would be available to serve as major cabinet ministers or shadow ministers.

Let Me Help

Litigated Democracy will be heading your way soon. First, please note that Mr. Campbell's quote occurred during the election campaign after the Writ was dropped.

He made this statement as a private citizen--he can be sued for damages as a private citizen---hoping to win his seat in Point Grey.

His status as the Leader of the BC Liberal Party does not shield him from the law.

Similarly one of Gordon Campbell's disciple's Richard Stewart made promises as a private citizen when running for the job of mayor in Coquitlam regarding zero based budgeting and nominal taxes tied to cost of living (2.5%?). He has breached his promise and like Campbell is vulnerable to the (SAP) Sue a Politician.

The tactic available under this new measure of grassroots reform is to use provincial courts and not necessarily the BC Supreme Court where court costs are so ridiculous (and not normal relative to other provinces). At the provincial court or small claims level one can sue a politician for lying or misrepresenting them---while a private citizen during the Writ period. There are no costs even if you lose--short of the filing fees--approximately $100 or so for $3,000 in damages and $145 for $25,000. I have documented phone calls to all provincial small claims courts verifying this--so if a change is made vis-a-vis court costs--this means the changes have been made to protect one class of citizen--those seeking elected office--from the same rule of law that ought to be applied to all citizens equally and fairly--when it most certainly is not in this province.

We will be enabling a series of these explosions errrr rather measures--in order to facililate the eventual eradiction of this ongoing scam perpetrated on citizens of the province--aided and abetted by others---as quickly as possible.

The beauty of this is it enables citizens sufficiently motivated to spend $100 to $150--to take charge of their own citizenship rather than watching like lemmings from the sidelines and listening to the endless parade of apologists and other anonymous public affairs flunkies using anonymous names--masks--false courage--etc. With BC Rail and other--the courts--whose reputation is severely tarnished will be loathe to enable the politicians --- against this simple but effective measure.

I can't wait.

Our motto is to keep squeezing until something snaps--and it will.

ROBBINS Sce Research is proof that "You don't have to fly a plane into a building to make political change"

"Fudge Packed Budget"

Hereinafter the new trademark applied to this budget 'deaf--a cite'.

I hope everyone gets behind it.

Luke S. - What's the name of YOUR Facebook profile?

Luke S.

Since you're interested in what I have on my Facebook profile, perhaps you can give us all the name you use for your's? Or does the PAB not allow its employees to have such profiles? Or are you allowed to have such profiles, but only in your real name, and never to link them with your fake poster name?

That's the ticket

That's the ticket Rod--everyone out of the closet---let's get online discussions and news moving forward---anonymous blogging has no place--it interferes with the proper evolution of Internet journalism--, imo;

It's like twelve step groups--one must first admit they have a problem----"Hi my blog name is buffalo bill and I am a closet coward--who values his/her opinion so little that I am unwilling to put my name behind it--as it is required in any other area of endeavour in life---I do this for a myriad of not so good reasons, including but not limited to--I earn my living from the government---I am part of a political party--I am part of the media establishment--I want to express myself but have little courage and have seen the Wizard of oz--and like that character better than Dorothy and the rest---but now I want to change and put the name given to me from my mom and dad---(or other combination) on anything I write like I was taught when I was young--when my parents told me--if you can't put your name to it--its worthless shit son/daughter.///

I am having some initial discussions about an online newspaper---and have only one principle going in--identify yourself--an anonymous blog name is no basis for an opinion--and suggests a lack of confidence of other motivation that is inconsistent with any pursuit of truth of debate which imo is what this entire effort is all about.

Anonymous bloggers imo are the de facto bureaucracy of Internet journalism--having said that I duly note that I am posting this on the Tyee and appreciate the opportunity to do so.

STV is not complicated

Rod, if you voted against STV because someone (like no STV) convinced you it was too complicated, I'd say you've been had.

The system that you saw described in the Globe & Mail is called Mixed Member Proportional (MMP). It was defeated in Ontario in 2007 where the no campaign used a list of reasons that are almost identical to those used by anti-STVers (too complicated, ridings too big, too much power to parties, yada, yada). http://nommp.ca/faq.cgi

One of the reasons that MMP was controversial is that critics complain it creates two classes of representatives. There 'at large' members were portrayed in Ontario as "party appointees". Not good, since your proposal makes them the majority.

Finally, if you really think MMP is simpler, look at this actual description of the election process in New Zealand (where MMP is used).

Here's a quote:
"The Chief Electoral Officer then took the total party votes for each qualifying party and divided the figures by a sequence of odd numbers starting with 1 (1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15 and so on shown in the far left column of the table). The resulting numbers are called quotients. The division continues until enough quotients had been found to allocate all 120 seats. The numbers to the right of the highest 120 quotients indicate their order from highest to lowest. The 121st quotient is shown in brackets."

Full website here:
http://www.elections.org.nz/voting/mmp/sainte-lague.html

Someone campaiging against electoral reform could have a field day with that. The bottom line is that No STV was able to portray STV as complicated because most Canadians don't know much about voting systems.

madness: one half of the

madness: one half of the population doesn't know what 'first past the post' means in terms of electoral systems--unless you associate with "our current system".

On the theory that STV and other electoral systems are too complicated--it follows that if voter turnout is lower for the more simpler system--a problem with the existing system from which a jabberwocky number of arguments must appropriately flow.

No-one wants to buy into a new system-because many believe politics is a waste of time--BC politics is a worse waste of time--accordingly anything that requires an investment of their valuable or invaluable time will be rejected - as ROBBINS predicted would be the case.

STV MPP MVP NHL whatever you call it--won't make it here--to use the automobile as an example--if someone isn't interested in a vehicle--then selling them a fancy one is very unlikely--when they are desirous of purchasing a bicycle.--or nothing at all.

To be the most proficient at politics--an esoteric industry if there ever was one--a person must be vigilent about their investigation of it. Most politicians in this province that I have met, are not proficient about their understanding of politics as a science as they are about the politics of their ideology or in the alternative what gets them re-elected.

The small group of followers of politics--are also generally ideological which makes their understanding of the complete 'board' of the game--limited to the demographic of issues they support.

This does not flow down even to the mainstream of the public.

The main reason Campbell had for another government was the economy and his party's management of it. This thesis had at it centrepiece--an amount of deficit which according to ever 'expert' including his friends--is only a fraction of what the truth is.

If the truth is 2 billion---and Campbell fell off a cliff shortly thereafter well walking with security----you would NOW have the attention of more people to the political industry.

The life of Gordon Campbell's political career has a direct relationship with the death of democracy in this province at this time.

Those who benefit don't want to give up the goods. Those who don't benefit aren't paid by the government or other related elements of the establishment.

Simple as Einstein says is ought to be.

Enough about STV.

It's over. Done. Off the radar. Finished. Don't you get it. Move on! There are bigger issues.

Agreed - to a point

Robbins - I agree with you, to a point. Generally, people barely understand the current system, which it makes it so easy to confuse them about a new one. People need a reason to get motivated and care about an issue. Ironically, the issue that gets them motivated enough to demand electoral reform may not be directly related to electoral issues. For example, there is a big hue and cry in Britain right now over frivolous expense claims and that is leading to cries for voting reform. It takes a bit of a circuitous argument to claim that the easiest way to fix expense claim problems is voting reform but it does show that when people get mad, they get motivated enough to make changes.

My reading of this province's history is that democracy was dead long before Gordon arrived on the scene. Maybe it never really lived at all. Power has certainly accumulated at the top but that is a phenomenom hardly unique to BC.

Skywalker -
My initial point was that Campbell by no means has dishonesty market cornered and I brought up what happened with STV to help make the point. People kept responding so I responded in kind.

If you don't like it, you don't have to read.

reefer

I think the problem is that CAMPBELL does have the dishonesty market cornered.

And as long as he has the ability to organize the power structure at the top that's unlikely to change.

Would STV have made a difference?

Probably.

The real problem is the fecklessness of the media - the one institution capable of providing a conduit for change has failed the society it's meant to serve.

The concept of public service - in both government and the media - has become debased currency.

I agree that Tieleman is on the wrong side of this debate - where I think you're wrong is that Tieleman has anything significant or meaningful to do with the NDP.

I happen to be reasonably close to elements of the party in the Legislature and I can tell you unequivocally that Tieleman's period of influence within the party is minimal to non-existent.

In fact, much of what he says and does is viewed with a considerable amount of suspicion these days. On the other hand, I know of nobody who thinks of him as dishonest or untruthful...a lot of us just think he's wrong and/or confused.

In the final analysis, I think the way the STV campaign grew out of the Citizen's Assembly was problematic and I further believe their crusading campaign turned a lot of people off.

Many of my friends and associates voted 'No' this time even though they'd voted 'Yes' in 2005 - not a few of them because of the arrogant and elitist approach of these self-appointed and 'anointed' disciples. People do not like being told what’s good for them.

Personally, I voted ‘YES’ in both referenda – but not because I believed STV was great – only because it was the only option available from a lame and compromised process…and, it was significantly better (in my view) than the current method.

Unlike in Ontario where the referendum opponents were mostly in the media, the NoSTV folks seem to have done their nasty work more or less independent of the press.

Do you have an explanation, other than the one you've already given, for that?

Reefermadness

The NDP has paid, and is still paying, for whatever shortcomings you believed were real in the Canwest propaganda that passed for news in the 1990's. This is now about Campbell and you should move on to realize that he should be taught a similar lesson. Will it happen? Probably not as these guys always get a pass onthese issues but the NDp has to be pure as the driven snow. Bill Tielman who you hate s o much is barely a speck on the 90's screen. Still he gets all this attention from youn because your nose is out of joint on STV. There are bigger issues than STV.

Whether or not Bill T. is

Whether or not Bill T. is currently with the NDP isn't the point -my man- GWest.

For the STV--and for that matter he is fairly connected to the NDP. Non swing voters--of both main parties--NDP and BC Liberals--don't want STV----they want majority government---post style--

The NDP 'stopped short' of the finish line in this election--because the of trouble Campbell is going to confront.

Chris Delaney says the BC Conservatives are setting up shop---beginning with AG in Chilliwack--the 2.5% they received was in less than one third of ridings.

I would speculate that they will be much stronger over coming years---there are swing voters who want a home with other than centre right BC Liberals.

NDP doesn't care -- they want---at least two terms beginning in 2013.

Campbell was able to slink through for one last hurrah---has the courts organized to keep up their paper shuffling Bojangles until after the Olympics-- whose costs we won't know until 2012--and whose true costs we won't know until the NDP et al get the chequebook in 2013---the next application will be to have 2 judges sitting on BC Rail--who will play checkers during all court applications--Bryan Adams will play rocker to Celine Dion's greatest hits outside--to entertain followers of this court saga---while David Suzuki juggles wads of environmentally friendly 'cash balls'----the press will have their cameras out---, as Wally Oppal shows youngsters how he has learned to moonwalk since being out of office.

The establishment, particularly the media will be happy--saying it is a small price to pay to ensure BC doesn't go through 20 Premiers in 2 years--like it used to when the press did their job.

The streets will be privatized---and run on a public private partnership basis with gangsters--who will wear T shirts saying "say hello to my little friend".

All will remain well in the province of British columbia.

Glen

There certainly are spokespeople in the NDP who don't want to dump FPTP...some are allies of Bill T and Bob Plecas...BUT, and this is where I disagree with you, the rank and file of the NDP (the ones I'm familiar with) voted about 60/40 Yes in the STV Referendum

There are a few war horses who covet a good long innings (four years at minimum) of untrammelled power of the sort Campbell's enjoyed for the last 8...but thoughtful professional people who vote NDP most elections have no problem with the kinds of changes that a more representative legislature would bring.

Anyway, time will tell - unless something fundamental happens soon the 'idea' of democracy in this province is dead.

Personally, as the economy falls into the tank this summer (and you and I both know we ain't seen nothing yet, I think there may be more important things to worry about.

Campbell's first problem is how to stay upbeat for the Olympics while the rest of the economy is in the toilet.....

G west

Voting reform isn't the only thing that needs to be changed but it is key. Carole James seems to be hoping that if she focuses on other needed reforms like party financing changes, people will forget about PR. It was kind of funny that she started talking up MMP in the middle of the campaign while her party was officially neutral on BC-STV. In fact, it seemed to me that No STV was an NDP enterprise with a couple of token CA members and a couple of token ex-Socreds tossed into the mix.

If you tell me Bill is persona non grata within the NDP, I don't have enough knowledge to argue that. All I can do is look at what he says, whose pictures he shows on his blog, who hires him to speak and draw my own conclusions. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, I'm going to assume it's a duck. But maybe I'm wrong. At any rate, I don't think that Bill is out of the business of politics. And I think there is a certain conflict of interest in being a political consultant on one hand and what - a journalist? a political commentator? on the other. Sort of working both sides of the street from my point of view.

I've pointed out a lot of problems with things that No STV have written. If you think it's all honest, well, I'm not going to debate it further.

Maybe you fiends & associates who voted no "because of the elitist & arrogant approach" should pay more attention to substance and less to style. Maybe if more people did, we would be in less of a mess today. You managed to get over it - are they all shallower than you?

Finally, WRT the STV debate. The government did little to educate the voters and the media did less. The editorials and op-eds I saw were indifferent or hostile to STV. For every letter to the editor in favour of STV, there was another from No STV and a third from somebody advocating their own voting system invention or claiming that STV would allow Nazis to be elected (no lie - the Nazis thing was printed). In the resulting cacophany, it would be amazing if anyone other than those dedicated enough to do their own research, understood STV at all.

For the most part, the major parties ignored STV, clearly hoping it would go away. Even there, Carole James started talking up MMP in the middle of the election. Now that the election is over, she's dropped it like a hot potato so the "voters can have the conversation".

The Yes side ran information sessions that were sparsely attended.

G West

You're right that the NDP membership want PR. But the people at the top aren't listening. They are too loathe to give up the advantage that FPTP gives them (i.e. their vote is more "efficient" than the Liberals) to worry about something as trivial as democracy.

I wandered past a STV debate at UVIC where John Heaney was defending FPTP because Canada is a right wing country and phony majorities are the only way progressive parties can get elected. He actually said that! Then he said he supported reform but it had to be MMP. As if that made any sense!

Being the polling firm

Being the polling firm closest to predicting the outcome of the STV vote--I would say that these theories about NDP membership don't quite add up.

If STV 'yea' is 40--and all Greens 8 are STV and swing voters are 30--- and 40-50 of swing voters are STV---where are the numbers to support this theory when NDP/Liberal = 86?

Are all BC Liberal voters against STV? Even if this were the case--the theory remains not properly supported.

The truth of the matter when the enabling is distilled away is this--the BC Liberals and BC NDP are the only 2 political parties in play. Neither would benefit from a percentage based system as the liklihood of either achieving 50% plus 1 in the future is nearly impossible--unless---(1) Campbell and BC Liberals run into so much of their own political garbage; (2) Greens decide issues like poverty and such matter as much as the environment and merge with NDP; and (3) BC Conservatives create new right wing vote split (1996).

Back to the Numbers

And I bet you they don't add up, as 2008 budget is in the red I got a hunch. And with that in mind does that mean that tax breaks are going to be on a borrowed dollar? And does it also mean the finance minister can't add or that things just don't add up in the province of BC.

They went that away or least your money has and exactly how much of it you don't get to know, never or as long as the Liberals rule. As its going to take until September to fix the numbers from 2008, as its pay back time Liberal deficit style.

Its what it adds up to every-time real issues come up about the economy and such the Liberals refer back to the NDP.
As the Liberals go Helter Skelter on the economy blaming a government that has no say for eight years. And I do believe the NDP were rewarded for there mishandling of the province as they found themselves without a job? Yet the BC Liberals continue to use the NDP record, as well the NDP did it as they skirt around the real issues like a slippery bar of soap only no bodies coming clean. Not a good way to run a province and an even worst way to run a budget in to the red.

2 Billion you should be so lucky.
And since the deficit legislation was in place in 2008 does that put Ministers and Government on the hook? As I'm saying Scampbell cash shortfalls were the motivation for carbon tax as scampbell scrambles for those green dollars.

And the STV was stupid

Because in order for it to have voter appeal it needed to be simple. And that it wasn't as voters are having a hard time coming out and marking their X how do you think they are going feel about taking a course to help them vote? Keep it simple, stupid makes a lot of sense especially when you have so many that already don't understand the system. And making the average voters decision that much more complex isn't the answer, its a problem.

reefer

I didn't say Bill T was persona non grata in the party - I said he is not a big factor in determining policy at the present time. There is a difference. I followed Bill's campaign against STV and I don't think he ever once claimed to 'speak' for the party.

Of course right-wing n'er do wells who think the occasional NDP victory in this province heralds the end of their class will, and do, use anything they can against the socialist hordes.

I do agree with both you and Glen that there's an element among older echelons of the party (not very influential and not a little bitter) who can't seem to understand why democracy requires some fundamental reform in this country.

Not for the party, but for the sake of democracy and the society itself.

I still put most of the blame on the media....with a good dollop of it ladled onto the plates of Gordon Gibson and the Citizen's Assembly....