Why is it that the NDP comes across as always seeming to want to set the agenda when it makes announcements like this? It seems to be a regular feature in ALL their mail outs Federally, and now they're doing the same here, too.

If Ms. James is truly interested in HEARING from British Columbians in her travels wouldn't it be better to ASK THEM what THEIR concerns are first? Instead of continually inferring that they're just "...the HST, the need to protect health care and education or the need to consult British Columbians to build a stronger and more inclusive economy"?


We know Ms. James and the NDP, to their great credit, are opposed to the HST. As are clearly the overwhelming majority of British Columbians. So there's not much point in talking with us about that. We're all on side there.

What we don't yet know is whether the restoration of the PST as it WAS is the NDP's preferred alternative to it when it's rescinded.

Or whether they have other ways in mind to try to wring more tax dollars out of us ostensibly to
"... protect health care and education or, "...to build a stronger and more inclusive economy."

Ms. James has a great opportunity before her if she takes lesson from what the success of the Petition process should be telling her ~ NO NEW TAXES.

We're taxed to the max right now. And it's time for the next government to commit to doing what we're so often told we have to do ~ live within your means.

Likely a change in the way governments do their books, WITHOUT any MORE takings in taxation from us, would greatly extend those "means".

But to do so, Ms. James and her Party would have to show that they truly do desire to be a government "of the People", and not just another group of lackeys to the dictates of their bankers. Same as we have now with the present, currently disintegrating, mob.

So far, I haven't seen any indication from her that she's willing to even look at doing this, but is simply biding her time til she gets her own chance to further tax and spend.

She should, if she wants the job of Premier. Or likely once more, her Party will only snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2013.

and not just another group of lackeys to the dictates of their bankers. Same as we have now with the present, currently disintegrating, mob.

socredible you make some really good points. But the problem with the government of the people is that in many instances the people will support the government as long as they are on the receiving end. And as soon as you start beating on the bankers and developers they know what to do and it dos not take long for them to bunch up and dry up the economy.

It takes someone with a good business sense. Past NDP leaders have soon discovered that you cant favor one group and beat the hell out of the next. Industry and development is also very important to all forms of government in our modern society.

I for one dont believe that Carol has the balls and the business know how to last long in government Like Harcourt lets hope the current Mayor of Vancouver gets enough business sence and heads the NDP

Agriculture on the prairie provinces have done well with the NDP as it is a much looser group compared withe industry that is well organized and know how to get things done their way. They are just like our unions that fight for the working person.
Cheers

As much as the liberal government in our province is disliked we have to admire them for the stance that they took with the Vancouver School Board. All of our government authorities need to be examined from time to time to se how our tax dollars are spent. And that includes our cities that are getting government funding.

There is not a single government authority that’s not involved in EMPIRE BUILDING. The bigger the empire the more money to spend and they know that our politicians are green as grass and that the supply of tax dollars is endless. The average tax payer to wrapped up in their own affairs to care what the politicians are doing.

The current HST proposal is a fine example. Our cities are to close to their tax source so the senior levels of government are going to help feed them from another source of taxation. To build bigger empires.
Cheers

socredible, perhaps you could go to one of her presentations and listen to what she has to say and find out where the NDP stands on the issues. You may even get a chance to speak to her to get more info.

Astro
It is easy to find where the NDP stands. They are for everything the Liberals have cut to try and get the books balanced. Liberals have closed schools and ordered school boards to work within budgets. The NDP are for keeping schools open and more money for education. The Liberals are trying to keep control of spending in the health care system's insatiable appetite. The NDP think we should spend much more money in the health care system. Because of the downturn in the US market, our biggest customer, we have laid off forestry workers in both public and private sectors as we find new markets. The NDP thinks we should reemploy all those workers. The Liberals have cut funding to many organizations to keep spending under control. The NDP would fund all these organizations as they stand in the house and scream endlessly about funding cuts.
It is very simple really. It is very easy to spend your money when you are in opposition. When it comes to paying for things it is not so easy.
When the NDP were last in power BC"s economy went to not only last in Canada but bottom of the barrel when compared to all fifty US states and even below ten states in Mexico.
So, it is all very simple, if you want higher minimum wage, unlimited health spending, expanded education, no school closures, restore funding for all organizations, cut gambling, no wait lists, no homeless, treatment for addicts and criminals, expanded curriculums, free university etc, Simply pay for it because somebody has to.
As our US neighbours are finding out. The left sounds good as they are very adept at spending your money but eventually the buyers remorse sets in as they realize
someone has to pay.
Careful what you wish for.

The left sounds good as they are very adept at spending your money but eventually the buyers remorse sets in as they realize
someone has to pay.

Since we are on left against right we seem to forget that its all about management of our tax dollars Its not about can the left or can the right do it. Its about responsibility and it up to the voter to keep government on track. But the problem appears to be what can my government do for me.

Remember these words of wisdom, Unless you take an interest in those who govern you, you shall be governed by those worse then yourselves.
Cheers

I absolutely agree retired.
In most cases we have to choose between the lesser of two evils.
We vote parties out not parties in.
But in every case of the failing economies in Europe and the US it is because of the left/socialist/democratic/progressive/labor agenda of big government, entitlements, political correctness, pandering to the unions that has put them in the mess they are in.
It seems inevitable that voters will almost always vote for the party promising them the most without thinking about how they are going to pay for it.
That is why the left media in the states is so worried about the grass roots Tea Party movement.
No party affiliation, no politics as usual, no old boys network, no corruption but just back to basics. Government by the people for the people.
Until that happens in BC I'll vote on the right for we have seen the other side.
If we can not learn from the failing economies then be prepared to kiss your a$$
Goodbye

Really, RIP commonsence!

Lets go back to 2008.

The economy had just collapsed.

Lets look at who was in power.

8 years of a right wing repulican government in the USA.

3 years or a right wing Conservative government in Ottawa.

8 years or a right wing Liberal government in BC.

According to you RIP that is your political dream team.

All with maybe the exemption or the government in Ottawa were in power for too long to blame any previous administrations.
Thankfully in Ottawa it was previos administrations who put "left type" government red tape in place within our banking system that saved our Canadian banks.

So RIP tell me with this political dream team at the controls, WHAT HAPPENED?

Ah Gus I knew you would show up and play the Devil's disciple on any and every posters comment.
So Gus, please explain all those countries in Europe's failure with the social democratic agenda and inability to pay.
As for the US that giant Ponzi scheme of Wall Street was all about greed and brought everyone down.
So again, explain to us how the Democrats left agenda of bank bailouts, wasted and ineffective stimulus programs, immigration,etc is sustainable.
Surely you must know the answer.

And Gus you knew of course that Bill Clinton the Democrat on his last day in office was the one who brought about deregulation permitting this whole collapse and that those very same bankers who profited are still in charge of the banking and Obama.

??????

RIP, you are trying to blame the people who were left with the disaster for the disaster.

Kinda like blaming 911 on the Police and Fire departments of NYC.

Like I said it was your right wing political dream team who were in power when disaster happened.

Like I said above they had plenty of time in power to prevent this disaster, if they were so great.

WHAT HAPPENED RIP?

Gus???? did I post on here? maybe someone removed my post?

From my point of view, governments are all alike. None are perfect. If they were, they would stay in power. Then again, maybe some are perfect, it is just that the people are fickle. :-)

So it swings back and forth, like everything else in the world and in nature. Things go in cycles - winter, spring, summer, fall ......

"wasted and ineffective stimulus programs, immigration, etc."

Sounds like Harper to me. He created the Canuck version of stimulus packages. Not saying the Federal NDP would not have, nor the Fed Liberals. To me, it is a reasonable way of handling the economic card we were dealt by the States.

Retired wrote:-"But the problem with the government of the people is that in many instances the people will support the government as long as they are on the receiving end. And as soon as you start beating on the bankers and developers they know what to do and it dos not take long for them to bunch up and dry up the economy."
-----------------------------------------

We HAVE 'government' to be on the "receiving end", Retired. It is there to serve OUR needs, as is every other form of human association. Or should be.

We don't exist to serve the State, or enrich it, or build it up by impoverishing ourselves as individuals by giving over more and more of our already inadequate incomes to it. It is there for our service. And it is failing us.

Not because we don't give it enough money already ~ but because the way it accounts for that money cannot currently help but show a continual shortfall in revenues versus expenditures.

We are regularly told that "...government is just like any other business, it can't spend more than it takes in." Without arguing the point, if that were so, then why doesn't government do its books the same as "...any other business"?

Where, for instance, is the government's Balance Sheet? Which lists three separate categories of account ~ ASSETS, LIABILITIES and CAPITAL. Governments are good at showing us their growing LIABILIIES ~ we all see or hear about the continual growth in National or Provincial Debts. And they do this regularly as a further excuse to tax.

But they're not showing us the corresponding growth in ASSETS ~ which must, of necessity, be greater. Or we would physically be going backwards. And as inept as both the worst of those on the Left or Right in government have been, we have NOT collectively been going physically backwards.

Each year, barring war on our soil, or natural catastrophes that actually destroy real wealth, there is a greater overall Capital APPRECIATION than there has been Capital Depreciation. And in the books of any private company this would be reflected as an accretion to CAPITAL analogous to a profit.

But we see none of this in the way the government's bookkeeping is currently done. All we do see is a Budget. Which is supposed to be 'balanced'. From taxation, not loans. That is what both the NDP and the BC Liberals aspire to do. Publicly, that is the stated policy of both of them. On the surface it seems more than desirable. But lets look a little deeper.

A Balanced Budget through taxation is simply a statement in accounting terms that your government is going to recover all the money it spends from the public in the same fiscal period it has spent it.

To give you but one of numerous examples where such a policy is financial lunacy under the current rules of government accounting, just consider the expendture of public money on a new road.

We'll say the road will last ten years before it has to be re-surfaced. In a private business such an Asset would be "expensed" over that period, and paid for thorugh an allowance for depreciation charged into the price of using that Asset over that period.

But with the government, as its books are done now? It's going to try to pay for a road that lasts TEN years in ONE, if it wants to have a Balanced Budget, that is.

It's no bloody wonder we're continually giving more than we're getting with a set up like that! It's designed to make us poor ~ financially poor, and keep us there. Continually running back to the bankers to get them to further indebt us just to try to stay even. Time for some meaningful changes. Starting with some accounting in government that ACTUALLY REFELECTS THE FACTS.

I will provide the opinion that I do not view Carol James as a leader. She is a bureaucrat, not a visionary.

While I realize that many feel that government should serve the people, that is true in some sense. However, it takes leaders with vision to be able to understand what they can do to keep the population relatively well taken care of.

A true leader does not look for where the people are lined up already and pushes his/her way to the head of the line. A true leader starts to form the line.

When you think of Ghandi, do you think of a little fellow who was looking for the line or one who started to form the line? How about Martin Luther King? Churchill? Tommy Douglas? Trudeau?

People with the guts to stand for something, to speak out about what they stood for, and to be able to bring people along to go towards the dreams they had.

So, who is going to make BC the best province there is in Canada? Is that waht we want? We have the land, we have the resources, we have the people, but we do not have the leader that will push us to that over the next decade. We did alright in the last, but leaderships needs to renew itself and the time has come for that.

So, who is going to be the next leader who has the charisma, the vision, and the knowhow to gather the right people around him or her to make the entire province the lotusland of Canada, not just Vancouver. Share the wealth. Share the spirit. Share the happiness. Share the compassion. Share the welcome.

Who is going to be such a fine leader? Good question. People who have such qualities are idealists, they are intellectuals and they are highly sensitive individuals.

A person like that will not go into the morass of politics where one *wrong* word or miscalculation can lead to immediate crucifixion.

Politics is a ruthless affair. The saintly types won't last.

The search continues.

Carole James is a lame duck leader.
Big time!
What is really suprising is that the NDP party has kept her around as long as they have.

Gus So sorry.
Somehow attributed Lost it All's remarks to you.
Freudian slip
I apologize

Lost it All
mentally or financially?

RIP you are proof that commonsence is not so common.

Perhaps the question we should ask, Gus, is just WHO "financed" Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Winston Churchill, Tommy Douglas, and Trudeau?

And what did all of them have to deliver in return for it?

Neither of the first two ran for, or were elected to, political office. Both being assasinated and achieving martydom from their unfortunate deaths which undoubtedly elevated them to a level neither could've likely ever achieved if they'd lived, and gone on into administering a government.

I think it safe to say that while there was a great deal of 'small' money behind both, there must've also been considerable 'big' money, too. Or they'd have never been noticed.

As for the latter three, it's pretty clear that it wasn't just the family fortune that kept dear old Winnie in scotch and cigars in his 'wilderness years' while he was awaiting political redemption from some of the bone-headed moves he'd made earlier on in his career.

Ones from natural incompetence, like WW I's Gallipoli fiasco, or to pay off some previous financial markers. Like forcing Britain (disasterously) back onto the gold standard in his short tenure as Chancellor of the Exchequor in the late 1920's. Or trying to get Britain to go to war in 1938, before what was left of its armed forces (after being left unable to "afford" them from his earlier move), were able to fight.

Closer to home, Tommy Douglas's earlier public views were conveniently sanitised when he desired to rise beyond the backwater of Saskatchewan and onto the national stage.

Ones like his proposal to castrate every male Japanese Canadian as a condition of their remaining in Canada after World War Two. I wonder what David Suzuki would think of that?

And then there were those ones on eugenics ~ from a "man of the cloth", no less. Why, when old "Bible Bill" Aberhart expressed some similar sentiments as Premier of Alberta, way back when, the press couldn't wait to equate him with Hitler, and all but crucify the guy. But "our" Tommy, the CBC's choice for 'Greatest Canadian'? Ah, the power of 'money'!

And then there's Peeair. Take a look back at the record of who blocked the proposal WAC Bennett put forward to have a Bank of British Columbia with the Provincial government holding 25%, (initially, then 10%, if that was more acceptable to Ottawa), of its shares. NOT, be it noted, as a "Social Credit" idea (because, contrary to what many may believe, government ownership of banks was NEVER a "Social Credit" idea), but because he felt we needed a Bank headquartered in BC and more attuned to BC economic conditions.

The late Paul Martin, Sr., figured it was a good idea. But Peeair? Unh-uh. No way. HIS government could own 100% of an oil company, Petro-Canada, (didn't mean WE'd get gasoline any cheaper), but having Bennett's government own even 10% of a Bank? That's socialism for you! Higly selective socialism. With control by FINANCE.

Well socredible, Your point on bookkeeping is a good one and in a true democracy the government is supposed to serve the people but they still have to manage the affairs of government aqswell. I have to go with Gus its all about leadership and as I have said before good management. And it is true we have had some great leaders and in the end we just tossed them.

If my memory serves me correctly I think it was Gus that once told us, “there’s nothing like a good dictatorship to get things done”.
If I'm wrong well thats politics.
Cheers

It is foolish to put so much stock in any leader. Simply ask yourselves, "Where do you want to go?"
And go.

Winston Churchill once remarked that all "..sound finance was unpleasant finance". Perhaps he was recalling his own personal financial experiences, with the likes of Mr. Bernard Baruch. Which, while allowing him his personal pleasures, without the expenditure of his own "blood, sweat, or tears", weren't exactly what most of us would call sound.

Regardless, it is a statement which is NOT, in a general sense, in any ways true as it applies to any sovereign community. What determines whether ANYTHING can be done or not is NOT the amount of 'money' necessary to do it, but rather whether it can actually be physically done. The 'money' is nothing more than a means of account. When we finally come to realise this basic FACT, we might begin to start to see some meaningful progress for the country as a whole, and, more importantly, every individual in it.

It will be interesting to hear what Carole James has to say when someone asks her point blank, what she intends to do about the HST?
And someone WILL ask her just that.
Let the dance begin!
She will likely talk,talk,talk, and actually say nothing, as politicians are famous for.
What it comes down to is, who is the better bullsh**ters...the Liberals or the NDP?
This is the best shot the NDP have had at becoming a viable option at polls again in quite a while... how much do you want to bet they blow it?
5 will get you 10!

It is foolish to put so much stock in any leader. Simply ask yourselves, "Where do you want to go?"
And go.

But there in lies the problem. The present leaders have to many gods before them. And you need a leader that has the balls to say,'GO". And this is why I say we have had good leaders that have said,"Go"and in the end we tossed them.
Cheers

Carol James shouldn't be placed in a position where she has to do anything about the HST, Andy.

WE should dispense with that tax directly, ourselves. Through "Recall in the Fall", or by any other means that are legally available to use to pressure the government for its removal. If WE make it continually more unpleasant for them to keep the HST than the BC Liberal's big corporate backers, and bankers of those backers, are capable of making it miserable for them if they remove it, we will get rid of it.

Likely if it were left up to Ms. James, should her Party attain power in 2013, she'd simply tell us that the sanctity of the agreement between BC and Ottawa establishing that tax had to be respected, and she couldn't do anything. Or it would then be "too costly" to go back to collecting our own sales tax. Or some other lame excuse.

If WE don't keep the pressure on for it to be rescinded now, we'll be stuck with it. My guess is that Ms. James, or her NDP successor, would be more than happy to spend the money it brings in to, as she would no doubt vaguely put it, "... protect health care and education, and, ... build a stronger and more inclusive economy."

Sadly, there is scant evidence that simply paying health care practitioners, teachers, and everyone else involved in providing both health care and education services more money is really doing anything to enhance, let alone protect, either.

And as for a "stronger and more inclusive economy", the PRIMARY purpose of ANY economy is to produce and deliver actual goods and services TO CONSUMERS ~ all of us, because we're ALL consumers. And do so in the most genuinely efficient manner possible.

Employment and Financial Return are both SECONDARY to that primary purpose. They flow from it. Naturally.

When we try to elevate either of these two secondary purposes into the primary one, we're kidding ourselves that we're building a "stronger and more inclusive economy."

We already 'produce' more than enough of virtually everything for everyone, and if we needed more we could certainly produce more. And would.

What we fail to do is adequately 'distribute' what we do produce, or could produce, to those who need and want it.

We can't solve that problem by just producing 'more' for the mistaken belief that either meaningful employment, or greater financial return will somehow be benefitted.

We keep trying to do that, and all it does is filch the purchasing power of 'money' itself. You could have "full employment", but if your wages won't BUY you what you need or want, and ever the less so over time, you're really no better off than a slave. And the same is true for corporate profits ~ as 'money' they're only good for what they'll BUY, too.

I agree completely,socredible.
The HST SHOULD indeed be gone,but she will still be bombarded with the questions about how she will deal with it!
But the fact that James has NOT said she would get rid of it,tells me she probably won't.
Which makes her no better than Gordon Campbell and his band of 40 thieves!
Recall in the Fall sounds like a good plan to me!

"Which makes her no better than Gordon Campbell and his band of 40 thieves!
Recall in the Fall sounds like a good plan to me!"

Well, why bother with all the recall stuff when she is *no better than Gordon Campbell and his band of 40 thieves* - you would only be changing the actors while the comedy continues?

A new band of thieves? That's the last thing we need if nothing will change and we would still be stewing in the same juice.

So what would you suggest PrinceGeorge...just leave the thieves we know in place,rather than take a chance on thieves we don't know?
If Campbell were to win this one,we are in MAJOR trouble!

IF, and at the moment it's a very big IF, Recall in the Fall even becomes necessary, and it's sucessful, the lesson it holds will not be lost on the next government. No matter who forms it.

That lesson is that no government, or its leader, can take people where they clearly DON'T want to go when they have learned how to alter that course, and have the means to do it.

This may well be the very best thing that's ever happened in BC politics in a very long time. For however it plays out so far as political parties are concerned it's going to mean that they have to govern more for the greater benefit of ALL, rather than just a select few.

Campbell won't win since he will be stepping down.

The real question is, who will be annointed in his place. Will it make a difference? Who is it that can reach out to the whole province, not just the lower mainland? Yet to be found, or already there?

In days of yore, before the current Premier conned us into supporting his idea of having a "fixed election date" every four years, any Premier in Campbell's current situation still convinced of the correctness of his position on the HST could simply call an election on that issue, and let the voters decide whether they want to follow where he wants to lead, or choose a different path.

WAC Bennett did that, numerous times in his two decades in office. So did Bill Bennett. Bill Vander Zalm could have, when his critics were attacking him from both outside and inside his own Party. And he should have, but he chickened out when he had the chance to call their bluff. Rita Johnston should have, too. The day after she was chosen SC leader to replace Vander Zalm. She didn't, and her Party disappeared largely because she didn't.

The NDP Premiers were all scared of the electorate, too. And it showed.

Is it really worth trying to lead people where they don't want to go? What is really accomplished by that? Who benefits? It's certainly not 'democracy', not even good leadership.

In our system, how does one know where people want them to go? Polls? So polls rule or ballots rule?

Put 8 issuse on the table at election time, and the whole thing gets far to complex. Make it a single issue election and it is simple. Except that the party that wins will have to deal with the other 7 issues that should have been there for all to debate as well and those could be the undoing of the government.

Its just not that simple, as I see it, socredible.

If we have a government that is just not astute enough to have the fingers on the pulse of the people, such as the people in the Peace who obviously have special circumstances that were ignored, then they will have the tendency to rule in ways similar to a benevolent oligarchy.

And if they do not do that well enough, well, then they get kicked out at the next election.

At anything other than an election, or at an election process such as recall, someone else is at the controls and that is very scary to me and most certainly totally undemocratic.