Members of the green party should do the same thing. Support the fiberals, vote green.

"I still support direct democracy, butI still support direct democracy, but BC families and the provinces infrastructure cannot endure one more BC Liberal government." says Summers.

"BC families and the province's infrastructure cannot endure one more BC NDP government." says PrinceGeorge.

Well PrinceGeorge, if BC families and the province's infrastructure cannot endure one more BC NDP government or one more Liberal government, what do you support PrinceGeorge?

Quite a dilemma, isn't it? It's like being between a rock and a hard place. I'll wait and see, perhaps some new party will emerge in time. I would definitely support a party which has a real worthwhile platform and which hasn't any of the skeletons that all parties have been so good at collecting in the past.

I agree, I think politics in general has got to change in BC to see any real change, somehow politicians need to be held accountable. The problem seems to be, one could support a new party with no skeletons, but there is no checks and balances in place to stop a new party once they are in power to fill their own closets with new skeletons.

I agree, I think politics in general has got to change in BC to see any real change, somehow politicians need to be held accountable. The problem seems to be, one could support a new party with no skeletons, but there is no checks and balances in place to stop a new party once they are in power to fill their own closets with new skeletons.

oops

well said PrinceGeorge,I have not forgot what the NPD did to us

Yup, and I'm not forgetting what the lieberals are doing to us now.

We need a "Voter's Veto" more than we need any more Parties. An effective mechanism that would provide a much needed check on the power of whichever Party forms government when it ventures outside of the mandate it was given. Where it introduces some particular measure clearly contrary to the wishes of a majority of the electorate.

Ideally, our elected MLAs would perform such a function, if they were truly representative of the majority of their constituents.

Most seem unwilling to to put constituents first nowadays, and jeapordise their personal position with their Leader, or Party in the pecking order that's pervasive in all Party politics.

Set up properly there is still plenty of scope for a government to govern. And, where a government feels what has been vetoed is still vital for it to continue to govern, to overturn that Voter's Veto through the mechanism of fighting and winning a general election called on that specific issue.

No Party, or Leader, or government can ever successfully "lead" where most people are determined NOT to follow. And why, in any place that calls itself a 'democracy', should they be trying to do that anyways?

I agree with Mike Summers about the BC Liberals, no matter who is finally annointed as their new leader. They won't change, and we don't need what will in store for us from them next.

Mike might be a little pre-mature in believing the BC NDP can seize the opportunity and put in a leader with policies that appeal to a majority of British Columbians, though. I'm not an NDPer, and their Dave Barrett led the worst government we'd ever had until Campbell came along, in my opinion.

But that was then, and this is now, and
I honestly hope they can, and finally give people something meaningful to vote FOR, at a time when so many of us already know who we have to vote against.

If you want to keep a party on the straight and narrow, you should become a member and be involved.

The BC First Party is the new kid on the block, and I suspect that they will become a force by the time the next election comes about. People wanted a third choice and I beleive this is it.

In any event there is always the BBC Party Bitch, Bellyache, and Complain. They are always open to new members and ideas.

"..and put in a leader with policies that appeal to a majority of British Columbians,..."

The policies are only written down on paper...what matters is the walk, not the talk. They all know how to talk once they spot a microphone and a camera! We must learn not to be enchanted by smooth and slick talk and not adore whom we think of as the latest idol!

Perhaps Summers did not think much of the BCNDP either or he would not have started his very own party - now however he has become a follower by necessity because according to him there is only one objective?

"I agree with Mike Summers about the BC Liberals, no matter who is finally annointed as their new leader. They won't change, and we don't need what will in store for us from them next."

The BCNDP had four different leaders during the decade and it wouldn't change either, remember?

Now it has done away with another leader (who stubbornly promoted a cast in stone party agenda without any thought to Change)so why would anybody think that even with yet another new BCNDP party leader there would be some change to the party's agenda in order to make it more palatable to Joe/Jane Public?

Like they say: When pigs fly...

Prince George wrote: "I would definitely support a party which has a real worthwhile platform and which hasn't any of the skeletons that all parties have been so good at collecting in the past"

A real worthwhile platform? I would say they all do with their own little leanings which would not concern me either way.

Skeletons? Everyone creates some on the way.

The problem is that the platforms are all wishful thinking, partly because they are based more on political ideology rather than an understanding of how things work in the real world.

In other words, the platforms eventually collapse because they cannot prop them up long enough with ideology alone.

Sort of like hiring people on the basis of their promises rather than on their records of accomplishments. Eventually everyone is going to be kept on a few years too long after their "best before" date. First the look becomes noticeable and then the stench become unbearable.

;-)

Jane Public's blog

http://janepublic.blogspot.com

Politicians think only about the appearance of policy and what they can get in the polls if they support the leaders policy objectives.

Look at the BC liberals and the new mercury light bulbs legislation.

Legislation proposed in Europe because the thinking there was that if people were forced to buy mercury filled light bulbs that burned less wattage, then they would see a reduction in coal fired electricity needed to power those light bulbs, and thus less mercury contamination in Europe from the coal fired electrical plants... especially if slaves in China were the ones to make the light bulbs thereby contaminating their population and not that of Europe (initially).

The numbers were played with by the global warming folks and they considered it a good trade off to have the localized contamination of water and homes from these light bulbs replace the widespread contamination of coal fired electric power.

When the edicts came down from the Builderburg Group and Gordon Campbell signed on... then all the lemmings from both parties signed on without any forethought of their own.

Not one single politician in BC had the independent mind to think gee... BC doesn't have any coal fired power plants, so in effect all we are are doing is increasing our mercury contamination risk with this legislation, rather than reducing it like was the policy objective in Europe.

A classic example of the political correctness gone awry here in BC from both established political parties. They took away our right to choose a safe product based on an argument that doesn't even apply to a province that gets 95% of its electricity from hydro.

I agree we need a new party in BC that can think policy for themselves and not just adopt the latest edict from Europe and their EU NWO masters. I'm not sure if BC First Party is the party though, because I have no idea what their policies even are. Time will tell I guess.

I think Mike Summers actually had some good ideas and identified some real flaws with our current system. Its too bad he didn't have the funding or the forum to open up the debate more on the core issues as he saw them (I'm sure I would have debated the merits of some of them). Maybe by going to the ndp he is thinking he can get a bigger audience and a more receptive acceptance if he can tie their fundamental core support to realize that centralization and globalization in the long run hurt their interests as well... just thinking... but if so maybe his influence in that party would be a good thing for everyone. If so then maybe the ndp can be seen as truly open to critic and improvement from within, and then maybe the ndp would have opportunity to have greater political success as a responsible party with sovereign policies... but a lot of ifs and maybe's in that statement.

Considering the Liberals governed during the greatest global boom in history, I don't think they come across as financial whiz kids either.

What I'm afraid of is that no matter who takes over the government now, the damage the Liberals have done to the province can never be undone. There's not much left that hasn't been given away, or leased for 30, 50, or 990 years.

"Considering the Liberals governed during the greatest global boom in history, I don't think they come across as financial whiz kids either."

What? You have not heard about AIG, the mortgage meltdown, the worst recession since the Great Depression, millions of Americans losing their houses and millions losing their jobs, the bailouts of the banks in the USA and the bailouts of the automakers, the emergency bailouts of Greece and Ireland, Iceland etc, etc ...is that the definition of a Global Boom?

Considering all that BC has done a pretty good job.

There's still our water and air, my2bits. The water the Liberals are already working on with the "licensing" fee you'll soon be subjected to if you draw water from a well on "your" property.

Then metering will follow. And the ever increasing price on top of that.

And don't think you'll be able to catch any rain that falls on "your" land and drink that free instead. You'll be taxed on every cistern or rain barrel you install.

Would it be any different under the NDP, or BC First, or BC Conservatives, or the Greens? Not likely. The POLICY is the same with all of them ~ WE don't get any say on that, it's imposed on governments, and us, 'financially'. The only choice we'll ever have with "Party politics" as they are now is one involving the METHODS of implementing it. A very safe choice for our financial overlords to allow us to make ~ they come out ahead no matter how we choose. Always.

The sane choice has always been here as it always has in Canadian politics - The Conservatives. Everything else is just bunk. When you grow up and put the slogans and marches and chants and psychoactive drugs and other nonsense behind you, there it is, sound political thinking. Get a gun. Get a job. vote Conservative!

"Considering all that BC has done a pretty good job."
----------------------------------------
For who? Overall, your dollar buys you less each year of the last ten than it did in 2001. That's a mark of failure for any government, no matter what's going on elsewhere, boom or bust.

The price of a home all over BC has been made increasingly unaffordable for more of our citizens, in spite of record low interest rates. More are homeless now than then. In a land where we can't even find markets abroad for all the building materials we produce to have people sleeping out on the streets, and more still crowded into substandard housing, is a disgrace.

We pay way more for hydro, ferry fares, medicare, property taxes, gasoline, and a whole host of other things. Either wholly or largely because of the increasing exactions of "government".

The overall gap between 'incomes' and 'prices' grows ever the wider. Unrepayable debt that grows exponentially makes up the difference, inflating prices still further as it does.

A gap that now includes 7% more in HST on goods and services that never used to be taxed. A percentage that can be raised at any time. And, under the dictates of the coming "Austerity", undoubtedly will be.

We've traded a miniscule cut in Income Tax in terms of the actual take-home dollars most have gained that way, for a Consumption Tax increase that applies to more of your current spending, not only from what you've already earned, but will HAVE TO EARN. To keep paying on what you're now borrowing to live.

"A good job"? No, this government has done a lousy job, Prince George. A truly lousy job for the PEOPLE of British Columbia.

It continually mistakes 'inflation' for 'prosperity'. It tells us we're getting richer, while it's pernicious pocket-picking to try to maintain its own credit is driving more and more of us towards 'financial' poverty. While the continuing demise of more of our industries portends an upcoming potential 'physical' one.

Given the resources we possess and the productive potential of this Province ~ the ONLY jurisdiction in all of Canada that could be, if it had to be, physically self-sustainable on its own without a major drop in its standard of living ~ we continue to seriously under perform economically. And deny access to ALL our citizens 'financially' to a standard of living that should always be advancing faster than our cost of living is.

And we pat ourselves on the back for largely avoiding, so far, what has happened elsewhere? At best we've only deferred the inevitable. Nothing has yet been done to prevent it. Without a willingness to make the necessary corrections, starting with an ACCURATE method of accounting in government itself, any congratulations to our "government" are completely premature and entirely unwarranted.

"Considering the Liberals governed during the greatest global boom in history,"

I too have to give my head a shake at this revionist look at such recent history!!!

No wonder we can't elect people! We do not even know what is happening around us, and when we do, we can't remember when it happend.

The boom was pre-Bush. The boom was during the time of Clinton.

The bust came much as a result of 9/11 in 2001 or at least following it. The world took a set-back for at least 2 years. Then was followed by others shortly after.

If you want to relate BC governments in power during that real boom time, and National governments in power at that time, then think back and think back a bit harder .... maybe look for assistance from google ......

"A good job"? No, this government has done a lousy job, Prince George. A truly lousy job for the PEOPLE of British Columbia."

I qualified my statement by saying that considering all that (that being all the external problems) BC (as a province) did a pretty good job - I can think of another party which almost had to write BC off, running it into have-not status, from #1 to #10 deadlast because of some economic problems in Asia, which did NOT involve the whole world like the 2008/2009 global meltdown.

""There is the likelihood of an election this fall, and the need to remove the BC Liberals from governance is imperative. With that said, I am giving my support to the BC NDP. I still support direct democracy, but BC families and the provinces infrastructure cannot endure one more BC Liberal government." says Summers.""


Spineless leadership imo, and probably a reflection of why his fledgling party couldn't come up to the plate. I wonder how long Moe Shitoa had to talk him into it, he could perhaps be minister of families when the ndp get elected????

I also think Mike Summers is a good man, with some good ideas.
If he ran for the NDP in my riding,I would listen and take a good look at voting for him.
Actually,I would take a serious look at him as long as he wasn't running for the Liberals, regardless of what party banner he ran that was not Liberal.
We need to pay more attention to the "person" themselves who is running,as opposed to what party they follow.
Mind you,they all fall into the "party" mentality sooner or later, and stop paying attention to their constituents in favour of their "leader".
Politics is a very lucrative profession,and to think these people only jump into politics for the benefit of their fellow citzens...is a bit naive.
They may start out that way,but the party mentality soon beats that out of them.
I am also waiting to see who runs as an independant, even though they have about as much chance of winning and accomplishing anything as a snowball in hell.
I have always figured that each party running in an election should also have their leadership choices elected by the voters on the same ballot.
Just because the party members elect their leader,that doesn't mean the people voting for that party want that person to run the province.
In other words,the Premier should be elected by the voters in B.C.,not the party.

Prince George, the recession hit in the US in 2008, and for us it was 2009. Straangely enough during the Federal election of 2008 and the Prov election of 2009, neither Harper nor Campbell acknowledged that we were in trouble, even though the rest of us peons knew it.

The previous 10 or so years the entire world was in a huge boom. Commodity demand and prices grew exponentially. But I'm sure you know all that. When things were booming you said it was because of the Liberal policies. Now that we're in a recession, it's a global thing. The way I look at it, the boom and the bust were both global.

Gamblor, you seem to forget that at the time of the recession, both the governments in the US and Canada were Conservative. Besides the local Liberals are also Conservative, only under a different name.

I don't profess to have any answers, if I did I'd probably be in politics.

But making stupid mistakes financially can always be fixed. What the Liberals have done to the Province can never be turned around.

"But making stupid mistakes financially can always be fixed. What the Liberals have done to the Province can never be turned around."
-------------------------------------------

And there you have it. Truer words were never spoken! Unfortunately for us, ALL our current Parties are completely unwilling to admit the truth contained in your first sentence.

They ascribe to mere 'figures' with that $ sign in front of them a status completely separate from the 'physical' reality they are supposed to accurately and completely REFLECT 'financially'.

Until that begins to be realised, and we move to correct it, it really won't make much difference who we elect as government. We'll continually serve a system of 'money', rather than having that system in place to serve us.

We'll just continue to see-saw back and forth as the candidates and big backers of each Party scramble for the sweets of office at the expense of everyone else. They're the ones who know what 'getting elected' is really all about now, and how to profit from it.

When their sleaze, lies, corruption and gross mismanagement finally become too readily apparent, we'll vote them out. The 'other side' then gains office by default. And will just repeat the whole sordid process, only with themselves as the new beneficiaries. We get the leavings, at best, and the bills.

Why do WE put up with it? When it comes to finance, we fall into the trap of not being able to discern a distorted 'reflection' from the actual reality. And have been too long and carefully conditioned not to even look for the difference.

We're 'dumbed-down', and that's just where the big backers of political Parties, and the bankers of those backers, want us to remain.

The rules and conventions of "finance" are entirely a man-made construct. They are not 'set in stone' and invariable as those determined by the laws of nature. Errors and omissions can readily be corrected, indeed must be constantly corrected at the micro-economic level where we use those 'figures' in our own business or personal affairs. Or they'd all too quickly become completely useless.

But we don't make the same effort to ensure that the continual correction of much larger errors and omissions at the 'macro-economic' level, in our WHOLE economy, taken as a whole, gets the same attention. And so we fall prey to those few who know how to manipulate the distortion for their own advantage, or what they suppose it to be. In the end, everyone loses ~ ALL of us, victim and victor alike, there are really NO winners.

Lumber sales, oil and gas sales, global stock markets, and commodities in general were never higher than they were from 9/11 up until 2008 for the first 8-years of BC liberal rule. That was a direct result of Alan (treason) Greenspan dropping interest rates below bond rates to fuel the housing bubble in the US to make fake wealth in the form of home equity to replace the theft that took place from the dot.com scams by the financial elite in 2001 (why WTC 7 was demolished to hide the paper trail of the crimes).

BC rode the wave of the US debt financed boom in the US for 8-years there is no doubt. BC then financed our own economic support after the American boom ended with our own $2.5 billion dollar fiscal deficits, which were the highest in BC history and far and above the balanced budgets Campbell promised at the election... ignoring what was going on in the US and telling us at the same time no HST.

Its the politics of perjury last election and ever since the BC liberals came onto the political scene in BC. They sold out our economic base in this province riding the biggest global economic debt financed boom in human history, lied about its effects on our provincial budget to get elected once again, and now after the Olympics we are all going to have to face reality like the rest of the world.

20,000 full time jobs disappeared last month alone in BC (during the Christmas shopping rush)... good times are over for BC other than further exploitation and Gordon Campbell leaving politics after he ran the ship aground is the reality of the situation IMO.

The only thing financing BC now is our policy to let any Chinese with a million dollars immigrate here pushing the BC middle class out of home affordability and displacing our domestic market place with foreign wealth. Bringing in immigrants that come with a sense of entitlement rather than real contributions of modesty, ingenuity, hard work, and perseverance. When times are tough they will be the first to pull the plug on this province and Vancouver will disproportionately feel the pain.

Prince George:-"I can think of another party which almost had to write BC off, running it into have-not status, from #1 to #10 dead last because of some economic problems in Asia, which did NOT involve the whole world like the 2008/2009 global meltdown."
-----------------------------------------

I believe anyone who lived in BC in the 1990's well remembers the many failings of the NDP, Prince George. So much so we seldom remember any of their successes. Not that there weren't some, for there were. Just as there have been some under Campbell ~ he didn't do EVERYTHING wrong, (just way more than he did right).

Even so there have been some improvements made, and many of those involved un-doing some of the stupid mistakes the NDP previously made. Other reversals and new initiatives undertaken were overridden, unfortunately, by other, even stupider mistakes. Some that are really going to cost us big-time for years into the future, and hardly compare to the NDP failings, which were often inane reversible annoyances, costly only at that time.

But BOTH Parties have failed miserably, in my opinion. They've BOTH failed fundamentally to advance our 'standard' of living FASTER than they aided and abetted the simultaneous advance in our 'cost' of living.

Financially, we're still going backwards faster than we're going ahead. And that's so whether there's boom or bust anywhere else.

The question now is, which one of them realises that, and is going to learn from past mistakes, and move to set things right?

I see no sign that the Liberals have even grasped the nature of that problem. They've been too busy still selling our 'capital', and pretending the proceeds are 'income'. You can't do that for long without having either capital or income.

And while the NDP still has within its ranks one prominent figure who, I believe, has begun to discern the problem and even suggested the beginnings of a solution ~ Corky Evans ~ there's scant indication so far the NDP's controllers are even the slightest bit interested in changing course from their failed ideology.

If either Party wins the next election it's likely only to be that the majority believe they're choosing the lesser evil. There's no real enthusiasm for either, we know we're going to be buggered either way. Too bad more don't want to look at why.

www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdpchg.xls

The common measure of boom is the GDP. The USA has typically been the leading indicator for western world "global booms" and most certainly a leading indicator for booms in North America.

Having stock markets increase when resources such as oil become rare or aere proejcted to become rare is not my idea of boom indicators.

Since the second world war, the greatest increase in GDP in the USA based on constant 2005 dollars was during the Kennedy-Johnson 8 year period of 1961 to 1968 inclusive when GDP changed changed an average of +4.85%/year. (Johnson averaged 5.05% and Kennedy 4.65%)

The next highest was Clinton's 8 year period between 1993 and 2000 with an average change of +3.875%/year. (4.45% over the last 4 years)

Truman's last 4 years between 1948 and 1951 were also up in there at 4.925%/year

Reagan was at 3.4%/year between 1981 and 1988.

Not counting Truman's immediate post war years, which showed a decline in GDP of 2.125%/year from 1945 to 1948, Bush the Younger had the worst showing of all presidents with an average annual increase of just over 2%/year and 0% in his last year of office, 2008. Even Ford (2.6%) and Carter (3.25%) did better. He did, however, do better in his first 4 years than Bush the Elder did with his 2.175%/year.

Global boom? By whose definition?

Gee gus, most of those fiscal responsible presidents were Democrats!

"If either Party wins the next election it's likely only to be that the majority believe they're choosing the lesser evil. There's no real enthusiasm for either, we know we're going to be buggered either way. Too bad more don't want to look at why."

Well said! It describes the dilemma one finds oneself in at election time. I have voted without any enthusiasm for a very long time. It's always to keep the bigger known evil from getting their hands on the rudder again. Like the tongue-in-cheek election sign so aptly used to say: *It doesn't matter how you vote as long as you vote!*

Even if one looks at the "why" one does not find another way, except for staying home on election day and doing something useful, like having a beer or mowing the lawn, or both!

BTW, this thread was worthwhile reading and has a lot of meat on the bones.

In a boom, the overall costs of production are increasing faster in terms of "cash flow" than they are being recovered through their "expensing" against overall sales under the rules and conventions of double-entry accounting.

Firms, in general, are actually spending more through investment than they are simultaneously receiving back over their sales counters, but are still booking a profit.

This is because profit under the rules and conventions of double-entry accounting is NOT the same as most of us think of profit being. It is NOT Revenues minus Disbursements, but rather the operational difference of Sales minus "Expense" ~ 'Expense' being the delaying in time of today's investment against tomorrow's sales, which are prospectively going to be greater than today's sales as a result of that investment.

In the economy as a whole, that "prospectively" has been seriously affected by ongoing, overall 'labour displacement', in all its varied forms. This happens as the whole structure of production is continually lengthened and broadened through improvements in process.

What this means is that while the TRUE costs of production, overall, are continually falling with each rise in productive efficiency, the distribution of most incomes is still based on current 'labour' wages and salaries, which are continually falling in ratio to the overall costs of production "expensed" against sales.

In accounting, this pinches off the rate of profit expected on past investment, which in turn leads to the constriction of further investment necessary to currently keep the whole system functional. And we have a bust.

There is currently no way to distribute sufficient incomes to fully liquidate all incurred costs of production, so long as that distribution is wholly dependent on wages and salaries alone.

Booms and busts are primarily a problem caused by a flaw in accounting as it relates to the economy as a whole. The business cycle can only be made to function evenly to the greater advantage of all by correcting that flaw ~ which is not difficult to do, and would bring tremendous advantages to any country that makes such a correction.

So the BC refed party is done! No other party has offered the people the right to make the decisions that are important to BC. That's good. Now I can sit home and have a beer because there is no other party worthy of my vote and I will not "cast my pearls before swine."

While I, for one, greatly appreciate the effort Mike Summers put in with the anti-HST effort, BC Refed was "done" long before he came on the scene as its leader. What did it in was the naivety of believing meaningful changes can be made 'Constitutionally' ONLY if those changes are acceptable to the Banks. In other words, whose REALLY in control now is going to stay in control. Which kind of makes the whole exercise moot.

Gus, the problem with your GDP numbers is they do not account for the magic of debt and finance that are built into the system, which are a hidden hand perverting the statistic.

GDP =
private consumption
+ gross investment
+ government spending
+ (exports − imports)

-------------------

Private consumption: has a factor of public debt... we all know that with lower, record low, interest rates private debt has increase substantially.. just in home debt alone.

Gross investment: includes finance... nearly 40% of US profits are from the financial industry... Greenspan gave the global finance industry the ability to borrow money for less than the long term bond rates, thereby enabling the pyramid scheme that enabled the debt leveraging revolution... US finance industry percentage of debt to GDP went from 12% of GDP during the Kennedy years to over 130% today hugely influencing GDP accounting for multiple trillions of dollars leveraged.

Government spending: includes the $52 Billion dollar Canadian federal deficit last year ($2 Trillion in the US), as well as the $2.5 Billion BC deficit, as well as the provincial and municipal deficits. Its all new money transacting in the Canadian economy... it all subsidizes the perception of the health of the real economy through debt financed GDP.

Exports minus imports: as long as we can drill for more natural gas and export more raw logs this will always increase, but whether or not it provides the most utility for the Canadian economy remains up for debate. Previously this was mostly made up of commercial products manufacture in Canada employing Canadians, but those were the old days now its just raw resources with profits going to finance and government.

-----

The moral of the story is finance uses debt leverage to gain control over real assets... collecting huge amounts of the real profits from industry and services (40+%)... these profits often go to off shore multinationals, but are counted as GDP... meanwhile more and more of these profits are derived from debt that finances the private, public, and individual sectors... what GDP does best is mask wealth transfers while justifying current economic policy by banksters in finance.

BTW only 1.2% of GDP is agricultural (yet how many people are employed by agricultural?)... 20% is industrial... 79% is services (majority of which is financial related).