Besides ending the donations from corporations and unions don’t leave out the green blob NGO contributions along with the unelected NGO ATTACKING the resource industry. Also dump the beaucratic carbon tax.

She should never have been there to start with.
she was defeated in her riding, obviously they didn’t want her either.
I wonder what the trade agreement was she had with the Liberal who stepped down so she could jump in.
and they have been running oddly ever since.

Change is here we are going to spend our way out of debt

How many more times is Clark going to claim ignorance for everything that’s goes wrong under her watch?

Well if there is a way that one can get rid of them early without paying heavy dollars to do it I will be glad to listen, but my feeling is that they are all cut from the same cloth::::::::::::::::::::: they say one thing but they do another—they make promises that are seldom ever kept—and when they can’t get something they promised done they tell us that is because of the previous gov’t. They all have one thing in mind, big paycheques while in office and huge pensions when they are ousted. I have said before and will say it again————–when they are running for office and are elected they have 2 years to get at least 75% done of what they promised and if they do not accomplish this they are HISTORY with no severance package and the same little pension that is given to the rest of us and I guarantee you that they would be very careful about what they said while campaigning. Just a thought

Can’t believe any party is planning to run with the “Conservative” label, after all the Mulroney stuff and now Harper, Duffy and so forth!

Mr. Brooks, I suggest a booth at Fan Con or Comic Con, you’d get more interest in the Conservative Party.

So PG in your world you pick and choose federal political history with some selective memory loss thrown in. In your world the liberals all walk around with halos over their collective heads. Well I hate to break it to ya, dream on.

You don’t work for the CBC DO ya?

Who is going to lead BC then if the liberals get out I highly doubt it will be the provincial conservatives no track record no history. Most likely won’t be the NDP either they do have a proven track record of running massive debt, scaring away investors and listening to the “natives” and environmentalists not a good choice either.

So then if not the Liberals who then…..

Seamutt: “In your world the liberals all walk around with halos over their collective heads.”

Far from it! To some people politics are like a religion. To me it is not! Never mix religion with politics! I must have touched a sore spot in your memory registers where Conservatives are angels! The evidence of reality is against such convictions! Every party and every politician has made mistakes! Some more recently and more objectionable than others! Fortunately Canadians had enough of the stuff and turfed some out!

The Liberals in B.C. are a conglomerate of those who relegated the NDP to two MLAs not too long ago! The conglomerate has a lot of people with Conservative convictions.

“You don’t work for the CBC DO ya?” Yes, Peter and I have desks across from each other!

Maybe it is time for the Social Credit Revival or the Wild Dogwood party to show up … (tongue firmly in cheek) … in BC, we don’t recycle the right, re-name it!

Dearth:-“So then if not the Liberals who then…?”
========================================================================
The Conservatives could easily do it if they were smart enough to advocate the same things Social Credit used to advocate for. In the beginning. Not later on, when they were just the BC Liberals under a (then still) more electable label. Til they’d wrecked that, too. Get back to, “That which is physically doable, socially desirable, and morally correct can always be made financially possible.” And without having to ‘rob Peter to pay Paul’, too.

Prince George:-“The Liberals in B.C. are a conglomerate of those who relegated the NDP to two MLAs not too long ago! The conglomerate has a lot of people with Conservative convictions.”
=========================================================================
And therein it has a fatal flaw which will eventually doom it to extinction. ‘Conservative’ convictions cannot be made to work long term under the current financial system. ‘Liberal’ convictions, on the other hand, work very well. For they fundamentally are, “..get while the gettin’s good”, and avoid conviction.

Socredible wrote: “Conservatives could easily do it if they were smart enough ……..”

There is the rub … they aren’t.

Who is this guy anyway?

Waving his magic wand like a fairy godfather, spreading some pixie dust and POOF.

There is a sucker born every minute.

Dan Brooks is quoted as saying: “we’re going to represent change”

We are going to this, and we are going to that.

We do not need any more people who are going to do something. We need people who will do something.

That should have read: “We need people who do something.” :-)

“He’ll be head (sic) to Vancouver Island to drum up support later in the second week of next month.”

Drum up support for the Conservatives on Vancouver Island, eh? … LOL.

Good luck.

Socredible the dreamer …. “under the current financial system”

It has been around for a few centuries. Good luck changing it.

gopg2015, when you get tired of swooning over Trudeau, which probably won’t take very long after you find out he really won’t do anything that is of any more advantage to most people than the previous government was doing, and whatever he does do will almost certainly be of greater disadvantage to most of us, ‘financially’ speaking, that is, then maybe, just maybe, you might begin to ask yourself WHY this is so. But then again, maybe you might not. Ignorance is bliss, so enjoy it while you can.

Do not accuse me of swooning!

It is simple, Harper had to go. He went.

I am happy the liberals are in instead of the NDP.

Simple!!!! No swooning involved.

Unlike your swooning over a fairy tale financial system.

gopg2015, obviously you weren’t here in BC back in the 1950’s and ’60’s, and so never witnessed first hand what went on ‘financially’ in that period. As you noted on a previous thread, BC is indeed a much more diversified province economically than are many others. And so should be much better situated to survive any economic downturns. This is the ‘physical’ reality. It is so, no question about it.

But the ‘financial’ reality is that we do NOT control our own credit. So when our economy was booming in the 1960’s as we expanded into utilising resources throughout the province, but mainly in the central and northern Interior, and actually had burgeoning markets in the USA and abroad for the products of those resources, we did have a protracted period of genuine prosperity for most of our citizens.

Our standard of living rose, generally, more than our cost of living did. For most of that period. But throughout it our seeming ‘boom without end’ was interrupted several times by short but serious recessions. Ones which were brought on, here, by a general contraction of financial credit. Induced by the eastern based banks at the behest of the Federal government to try to reign in inflationary tendencies that were getting out of control in Ontario’s industrial heartland.

This put the BC economy, where inflation was not yet a factor, on the skids. It is why WAC Bennett tried to get a Bank of British Columbia. With the necessary ‘seed money’ provided by the Province in the form of an equity position in it. It was NOT, be it noted, to use such an institution as a means of implementing purely ‘Social Credit’ ideology, such as the periodic payment of appropriate augmentations to inadequate ‘earned’ consumer incomes, but so that we had a banking institution headquartered in BC and attuned to BC conditions. So that it could assess the prospects of inflation here, and whether to institute a ‘tight money’ policy to try to forestall it, or not.

That it could have also been used, later on, as an instrument for actual ‘social credit’, is quite possible. But it WASN’T conceived for that purpose. It was simply to enable a ‘made in BC’ solution to providing needed financial credit as appropriate for the conditions here. Now what’s wrong with that?

At this point in time he could have as much a chance as the ndp of winning the next provincial election, so I think it makes sense to take what Dan Brooks has to contribute seriously and help influence him in the right direction.

Dan Brooks seems like an honest fellow trying to build a better type of politics in BC, and for that he deserves some praise, not silly self fulfilling scorn. Dan Brooks is saying that as a small party he has the ability to form its character from its genus; and is asking for input from the public on the direction this party should take. As such rather than taking drive by pot shots at him; if we genuinely cared, I think it would be more constructive to give suggestions at this point

Myself, I see the political party framework as the genus of modern corruption and partisan BS that infects the makeup of our current system. I think a majority see the party system as the problem, and would gladly lend their vote to a party that wasn’t built on propping up party power, but rather enabling a common ideological principle among a league of like minded constitutional based individuals that are loyal to bipartisan rule of law starting in the legislature.

I think the conservative party of BC could go from zero’s to hero’s if they could alter the balance of power from party insiders to that of MLA’s from their riding level. Doing this by leading by example through electoral reform that addresses this issue directly.

I think if the BC conservatives made the transferable preferential ballot as their primary issue, then they would win a lot of support, and possibly a majority as 59% of voters that vote had voted for that type of option during the BCSTV vote two elections ago.

Its a long time coming that those elected have the support of a majority of the voters in their local riding, thereby blunting the benefits of partisan politics, and enabling the candidate that benefits the greater good… eliminating strategic voting through deception, and enshrining the strategic vote to the ballot, where one can choose their first choice as their first choice, without the manipulations of media and dirty party dog whistle calls that pollute the true intent of the voters.

With a transferable ballot the BC conservatives could do very well as a second choice that is ahead of either the ndp or the BC liberals… that could sell well with the greens, libertarians, Christians, or any other vast number of choices where people could freely vote those as their first choice without wasting a ballot.

With a transferable ballot it takes the power of nomination away from the party as a method to exclude potential candidates from any influence over the ballot. This in turn would make our legislature a true Westminster style parliament where MLA’s choose the Premier, and the cabinet… rather than parties appointing a member that didn’t even win their legislative seat to be premier based solely on the party centric interpretation of the basis of power… when it should be the make up of the MLA’s in the legislature that determines the balance of power and the leadership.

We need to remove the hidden cloak for people behind the party curtains, so the power flows through the sunshine of the vote, rather then the hidden influences in the party system.

Your last post, I can buy that line of argument socred.

Have to agree with gopg2015! Harper is gone! I would have been happy had either the NDP or the Liberals had won, as long as Harper was gone!

Socredible, B.C. is part of Canada, Canada is part of the global economy and subject to playing by the existing global financial rules by which our trading partners are subject, broadly speaking. Adopting some ideological experiments would mean we are out of sync. Being the odd man out won’t accomplish a thing. It’s been tried. At that time when the governors of Washington, Idaho, Oregon, Alaska and the premier of Alberta had their meeting our B.C. premier did not get an invitation.
I am sure you know about that.

I also think a big sell for Northern BC would be a provincial re-investment into the forestry type camp sites, and an improvement to a network of roadside rest stops that can be used for quick overnight parks for the weary traveler.

The biggest complaints I hear from travelers coming through Northern BC is that they don’t feel we have enough safe locations along the highway to park for a quick rest when moving through the region or exploring the area. or trying to pull off to rest through a bad snow squall. Possibly this insecurity is due to all the highways of tears media play, or just the huge distances between communities, but it impacts the great tourism and highway safety factor throughout the north.

Rest stops like the well lit Brookside Resort rest stop and washroom facility should be the norm every 50km or so throughout the North IMO.

gopg2015:”Socredible wrote: “Conservatives could easily do it if they were smart enough ……..”

“There is the rub … they aren’t.”

=========================================================================
You may well be right. The BC Conservatives really need to look at what hasn’t worked for them, and why it will continue not to work for them. Their problem is that when those to the left of them preach that “the poor are poor because the rich are rich”, they’ve come to believe it, too. Instead of presenting credible answers to why this ISN’T so in any country which has the physical capacity to ‘produce’ far and away more than it could ever ‘consume’, they fall back on their usual nonsense that the ‘poor are poor’ because they don’t work hard enough, or such like.

This is like the British Army calling their evacuation at Dunkirk a great victory! It’s no more than a staged retreat against the socialism they so oppose. No one ever was victorious by continually retreating. They really need to look closely at the modern physical reality. We are automating the ‘job’ out of existence apace. Even if those displaced from one job manage to secure another, the costs of the automation do NOT distribute ‘incomes’ in the SAME cycle of production those costs become prices. Which are then supposed to be liquidated by incomes from the replacement jobs. Which create costs of their own. How do we liquidate them? The more we do what should be a great advance ‘physically’, the further in unrepayable indebtedness we go ‘financially’. To what end? Is the money, and those who control it, to be our servant, or our master?

Prince George:-“Socredible, B.C. is part of Canada, Canada is part of the global economy and subject to playing by the existing global financial rules by which our trading partners are subject, broadly speaking. Adopting some ideological experiments would mean we are out of sync. Being the odd man out won’t accomplish a thing. It’s been tried. At that time when the governors of Washington, Idaho, Oregon, Alaska and the premier of Alberta had their meeting our B.C. premier did not get an invitation.
I am sure you know about that. ”
=========================================================================
No, I don’t know about that. Which Premier are we talking about, PG?

I would think that if we’re to be a part of Canada, then Canada would benefit most from this part, and its other parts, having a strong economy. As we here particularly did in the 1960’s, and would have had to a much greater degree had we not been subjected repeatedly to a ‘one size fits all’ eastern based financial policy imposed by a federal government headed, at that time, mainly by Liberal Prime Ministers.

Eagleone:-“Rest stops like the well lit Brookside Resort rest stop and washroom facility should be the norm every 50km or so throughout the North IMO.”
=========================================================================
I agree, Eagle. The facilities at many BC rest stops and provincial parks and campsites are an utter disgrace for any modern province with a tourist oriented economy. A stinking outhouse or a port-a-potty are lousy substitutes for proper washroom facilities. We need to use the rest stops and facilities that have been constructed in the States south of us along I-5 at appropriate intervals as an example of what could, and should, be done here.

I was also not around in 1935 when Social Credit took 56 of 63 seats in the Alberta legislature. Maybe you were. Promises made at election time could not be kept – not enough money in the treasury to meet that month’s government payroll, let alone pay 400,000 people $25 each in social credit. The premier’s solution was to have Alberta print its own money.

He passed the Accurate News and Information Law, to control the press. Banking activities were restricted as were debt collections on farms. None of these schemes worked against the depression.

Discovery of oil in Leduc eventually saved the day for Alberta, not the Social Credit experiment.

I could also discuss the notion of Social Credit under Socialism and even Communism.

Speaking of which, have you seen what China is doing with its version of Social Credit. It is evaluating its people as social assets and providing those with acceptable social support characteristics with borrowing powers.

I am sorry, socredible, your fantasies are way off the beaten track for me and so far have proven not to work. I do not wish to become part of a social experiment, nor do I wish to live under a potential dictatorship.

I will go so far as to agree that this country should give more consideration to the assets which it has, both physical as well as social. It is, however, not taking good care of its physical infrastructure as we discovered in our city.

Discovering that Harper kept on living in his official residence during his term in office when it needed to be refurbished, even to the extent that it needed asbestos removed, showed me what kind of a person he is as well. The longer one waits, the more damage will be done and the more it costs to fix it. Not the way to building social credit, that is for sure.

Finally, I take your comment that I am swooning over anyone as a derogatory one. I try to think logically. I do my research. I try not to denigrate people. I wish more people would refrain from ad hominem attacks on posters her and rather present some arguments which have substance.

But, it is what it is. Right?

You guys just don’t get it . There is a new sheriff in town and cristy is done .

Public washrooms in general are much more common south of the border. Whether in stores, on city streets, along highways, in state and county parks they are super clean compared to those typically found here. Parks are patrolled and kept clean every evening. Barbeque facilities are also cleaned every evening. A day pass for county parks costs $10. An annual pass is something like $30.

There is a new Mayor in town and Green is done. I’ll go that far. The rest is wishful thinking at this time. A few more things have to play out first.

If the feds give Vancouver some infrastructure money to help with their transit system, how people vote in the hinterlands really does not matter.

gopg2015, I was not around in 1935. But I do know that what Premier Aberhart tried to do in Alberta was NOT ‘social credit’, despite his movement being elected under that name. Despite that, Aberhart DID have considerable success in alleviating many of the problems that were besetting Alberta due to the depression.

The previous government to Aberhart’s was the United Farmers of Alberta, which already had engaged Major Douglas, the foremost exponent of ‘social credit’, as its Chief Reconstruction Advisor, BEFORE Aberhart’s group swept into power.

Douglas had already produced an Interim Report to that government outlining what would have to be done if any province were to try to institute ‘social credit’. After the election, Aberhart was given a great deal of advice by Douglas, whose contract with the Alberta government had not expired, but chose to ignore most of it. Leading Douglas to seek to be released early from this contract. He did not want his name associated with measures which were NOT of his suggestion, and which he thought unlikely to succeed.

The printing of provincial money (Prosperity Certificates) was one of these, and an effort by Aberhart to provide a circulating medium in a Province where money was no longer available to most people, and pure barter a cumbersome or impossible substitute.

A later backbenchers revolt, when letters and telegrams between Douglas and Aberhart became public, forced Aberhart to begin to listen to advice given on ‘social credit’, which actually resulted in the payment of two ‘dividends’ before the outbreak of World War Two intervened.

gopg2015:-“He passed the Accurate News and Information Law, to control the press. Banking activities were restricted as were debt collections on farms. None of these schemes worked against the depression.”
=======================================================================
On the contrary, some of what was done did have considerable effect against the effects of the depression.

We should remember that the depression was caused by a contraction of bank credit, and made worse when this contraction prevented many loans that could otherwise have been repaid from being repaid.

The situation in Alberta grew worse as crop prices fell below the costs of production, and farmers began to abandon their farms unable to meet the mortgage payments on them. There was little sense in the banks foreclosing on these properties, they couldn’t be sold ~ no one wanted them. So they didn’t. They let, even encouraged, the farmers remain on them, for then they were being maintained, as best as was still possible, while the unpaid interest on the loans against them began compounding.

Much of this interest was at a fairly high rate, compared to other loans made during the later 1920’s, but crop prices had been high at that time, and so many farmers thought the rates manageable.

Shortly after Aberhart’s election some crop prices began to recover to where it was again possible to earn an income farming. THEN the banks began to foreclose. And the farmer who had been put in the position of dire straits financially largely because of banking policies found himself not only being dispossessed from his land, but facing garnisheement of any income he might earn from employment secured elsewhere in payment of compounded debts.

Some of which amounted to twice what he originally had borrowed.

Aberhart passed legislation to prevent this. It was later outlawed by the federal government ~ a LIBERAL government. Who obviously thought more of the protection of the interests of debt dealers than it did of those who actually worked for a living.

I know, people working in a bank do not work for a living.

gopg2015:-” I do not wish to become part of a social experiment, nor do I wish to live under a potential dictatorship. ”
=========================================================================

That would be absolutely hilarious if it wasn’t so ironic. YOU voted Liberal? You’re about to be an unwitting, but likely still paying, pawn in a ‘social experiment’. While you’re going to fare no better in your desire to escape a ‘potential dictatorship’.

Brooks said: “more responsible taxation”

Interesting concept …. 10% tithe for everyone.

The meaningless phrases these people come up with never fail to amaze.

Will all those people who do not believe in more responsible taxation please stand up.

Now that you are all standing, take out your wallets, come towards me, and give me what you think is reasonable.

Come on, don’t all come at once.

Oh come on, surely you think something is reasonable.

Okay, how about a loonie or twoonie or two.

gopg2015:-“I know, people working in a bank do not work for a living.”
=======================================================================
I did not say that, gopg. Of course they work for a living. But what they do only has meaning because of what those who produce ‘real’ wealth are doing. You could have, albeit with considerable difficulty, an ‘industrial’ system without a ‘financial’ system. But there is no way you can have a ‘financial’ system without an ‘industrial’ system to back it up.

That is your prediction, socredible, not mine.

Believe it or not, there are other maters that are important as well, not just financial.

Remember where Harper got us with his reliance on oil. So easy to forget, isn’t it? Leduc was the saviour in 47. He was stupid enough to think it would continue that way.

Anyway, enough of this chit…. I have better things to do than fight windmills.

gopg2015:-“I could also discuss the notion of Social Credit under Socialism and even Communism.”
========================================================================

Then you’d be talking about something of which you have no knowledge. For Social Credit is the antithesis of both socialism and communism. And fascism. The philosophies are completely incompatible.

One more …..

We do not account for all the costs of doing business, whether that is making stuff, storing stuff, moving stuff, selling stuff, inventing more stuff, counting stuff.

You could have, albeit with considerable difficulty, an ‘industrial’ system without a ‘financial’ system

As you wrote: “You could have, albeit with considerable difficulty, an ‘industrial’ system without a ‘financial’ system”

It is that “considerable difficulty” which needs to be accounted for and paid for. If you do not like it, then go back to your small island, gather clam shells and use them for a barter system.

g’night …. May Trudeau give you some good nightmares … LOL

gopg2015:-“Remember where Harper got us with his reliance on oil. So easy to forget, isn’t it? Leduc was the saviour in 47. He was stupid enough to think it would continue that way.”
=======================================================================
Well, where do you want us to be, gopg? At least Harper enabled us to sell something internationally that was still in demand, even in a global recession. Where would we have been if we had been trying to sell other goods abroad, more manufactured ones, say, throughout such a period? To keep people ‘working’, they would have had to be working for wages heading towards ‘nothing’. And their wages, in terms of purchasing power, are already inadequate.

The people working in the oil patch weren’t in that position. The wages earned there kept many communities far from there in a better spot than they’d have otherwise been. It wouldn’t have continued that way. But while it lasted it was better than the alternative.

Really, there is NO other solution if we want an economy that is capable of delivering its full potential to ALL than to have ‘social credit’ in its actual, original embodiment.

What Harper tried to do with international trade agreements, and Trudeau will no doubt continue, (and even the NDP, if they’d been elected, despite their rhetoric to the contrary) will just prove to be ‘Band-Aid’ solutions long term. The ‘accounting’ at the macro-economic level is flawed. It needs what could be viewed as some ‘adjustments’ to it. It’s not hard to do. We don’t have to alienate our trading partners to do it, or violate agreements we’ve signed onto. ‘Trade’, in the truest sense of the word, would increase, in all likelihood.

gopg2015:- “It is that “considerable difficulty” which needs to be accounted for and paid for.”
=======================================================================
Oh, but it WOULD be. There has never been any suggestion in any of the authentic ‘social credit’ prescriptions that banks, who do this ‘accounting’, not be paid for their services nor be made unprofitable in delivering them.

The question is, just WHO ‘owns’ the credit they are creating, ( ‘figures’ which would have no meaning whatsoever save for the actions of the general community in using them to facilitate ‘production’ and move it through into final ‘consumption’.)

Is it the BANK’S ‘property’, which would then form an undisclosed lien in favour of the banks on ALL other forms of property?

Or does it rightly belong to the community, from whose willingness to co-operate with one another it arises, and through its use gives it any credence at all?

There is a very big difference between the ‘administration’ of something, which is always a technical matter best done by those most qualified to do it; and the ‘policy’ desired to be achieved for the greatest good through that administration.

We have no argument with the bank’s ‘administrative’ abilities, and that they should be paid for exercising them. Even well paid. But we do have objection to them having control over ‘policy’. Which is then exercised to the exclusive benefit of banks, as THEY so determine is best for THEM. Not the general public. THAT is what MUST change.

gopg2015 wrote:-“Brooks said: “more responsible taxation”

Interesting concept …. 10% tithe for everyone.

The meaningless phrases these people come up with never fail to amaze.

Will all those people who do not believe in more responsible taxation please stand up.

Now that you are all standing, take out your wallets, come towards me, and give me what you think is reasonable.

Come on, don’t all come at once.

Oh come on, surely you think something is reasonable.

Okay, how about a loonie or twoonie or two.”
=========================================================================

Present day taxation is highway robbery.

How can we spend nearly half what we earn in a year, on average, paying the government for all the services it provides us, and the other half providing for our own individual needs and desires, yet the government year by year is still increasingly in debt?

Now what would happen if the government took ALL we earn, in return for providing that other half of what we provide for ourselves? Could it then do so without going increasingly into debt? And if it couldn’t, just what then, would it use to pay that debt? For its now got ALL our incomes.

gopg2015

Quit spewing nonsense about Harper and oil. Even JT and TM quit talking about that after the third debate, when a CBC reporter corrected them. 7.9% of GDP under Harper, 9.5% under Chretian .

Socredible: “Being the odd man out won’t accomplish a thing. It’s been tried. At that time when the governors of Washington, Idaho, Oregon, Alaska and the premier of Alberta had their meeting our B.C. premier did not get an invitation.
I am sure you know about that. ”
=========================================================================
“No, I don’t know about that. Which Premier are we talking about, PG?”

Glen David Clark.

There was a lot of hostility between B.C. and the federal fisheries minister who objected to being called an environmental terrorist, B.C. and the Americans because of the B.C. demand to shut down a US torpedo testing facility off the coast of Vancouver Island, the blockade of the Alaska Ferries terminal in Prince Rupert about salmon fishing and so forth. Can’t recall other items of contention but relations with our neighbours were soured beyond belief.