I like the BC Liberals Attitude. We might even see more funding, without an increase in taxes, available for private schools. Obviously the public school teachers want too much money, so lets really find out by asking for private sector tenders. Then we will have something to compare to.
Carole James can say words, that usually stick in the throat of NDP thugs, but she wouldn't know what "investment" was if it hit her in the face. Mind you, she does have "attitude" down pat.

James:"...so that we can actually have that stability, which is good for all of us in our province, good for the economy, and good for investment."

I remember the NDP nineties to be the most unstable decade in recent memory, with bingo gate, hydro gate, casino gate, fast ferry gate etc and with the economy and investment tanking by being driven out.

How amazing a shift of attitude, indeed! Let us hope it is a real conversion and not just an exercise in flim-flamming the voters yet again!

Investment by who? Private (for profit) industry? Heaven forbid!

The Straw Man approach to politics is alive and well, I see. You know the one: set up a false statement or impression then ridicule it. A really common one is that the NDP hates private investment, absolutely ridiculous nonsense of course, made by people who quite obviously don't understand the most basic tenets of Social Democracy, and presumably don't believe that working people should share in our province's wealth.

I say that because under the provincial Liberal government real disposable income in BC is declining significantly and we are now well below the Canadian National average, at least if we are to believe the Economic Council of BC.

I suppose we should congratulate Campbell and his cohorts, though, they set out to reduce incomes by breaking contracts in Contract-Gate, introducing wage rollbacks for Health Care Workers in HEU-Gate and forcing teachers into a strike in No-Raise-for-You-Gate.

Of course, that wasn't the worse, what with Gin-Gate, Cousins-Husband-Gate and Hospital-Bed-Shortage-Gate, not to mention Cut-Backs-in-Childrens-Ministry-Gate. Now we have a new one, in the news today, the Release-Private-and-Confidential-Information-On-Computer-Tape-Gate. What takes the cake, though, is the Billions of dollars borrowing fiasco so when they first took office, you know, the Lets-Shovel-Tax-Money-Into-Our-Friends-Back-Pocket-Gate!

Ammonra you say, "A really common one is that the NDP hates private investment, absolutely ridiculous nonsense of course"

And then you go on to rant about spending taxpayers dollars on the civil servants. That is the same "attitude" Carole James has. Remarkable.
Mmmm, do you work for the NDP?
Looks like you support lots of government spending, but you have to make someone pay for your ideas. Why don't you come up with an idea to make money and hire people to make something instead?
Opps, then you would be a Campbell lover.

>Ammonra you say, "A really common one is that the NDP hates private investment, absolutely ridiculous nonsense of course"<

I composed a lengthy reply to Ammonra but I believe it vapourized in Cyber space when I posted it!

Tenets of Socialism:

Definition is two part, economic and political.

"The economic part consists in State ownership of ultimate economic power, which involves, as a minimum, land and natural resources, capital, banking, credit and foreign trade."

Where does private investment come into the picture?

Is somebody trying to hide something?

Some people will say anything to get elected.

Ammonra:" Once again the Liberals borrowing Billions of dollars so they could shovel money into their friend's pockets..."

Some people don't know how to make a rational argument so they resort to making inflammatory cheap accusations like the one above!

Suppose I were to say that the NDP borrowed 17 billion dollars to shovel it into the pockets of their union friends?

I am sure you wouldn't be too pleased, now would you?

Well, gee, did I ever hit a nail on the head?

In order:

Paying civil servants, i.e. public sector employees, reasonably has absolutely nothing to do with private investment. People deserve reasonable wages for what they do and whether it is in the public sector or not is, or should be, irrelevant. Secondly a contract is a contract and one signatory to a contract (Cambell's government) should not unilaterally break it, after all they do tout the "No-one is above the law" attitude for everybody else, don't they? Hypocrites, they are!

No, I do not work for the NDP. I don't work. I am retired. I have never been employed by any political party. I am a member of the NDP. I am 62. I am fat. I am male. Any other completely irrelevant information you want. Typical of course Yama, if you don't like the truth of the message, attack the messenger!

I support sharing for ALL in the province's wealth, not just for one segment of it. ALL people who live in this province, including public sector employees are entitled to share in the wealth. That is social democracy. Your comments are just more straw men.

Diplomat, you give the tenets of what you call "socialism". Bully for you. Now give the tenets of social democracy. You are obviously using "Socialism" in its hijacked meaning of "Communism". Social democrats do not subscribe to the nonsense you stated. Please, learn at least a little about comparative political philosophy so you can talk with at least a smidgin of accuracy on what you spout about! Social democrats welcome private investment. I know that because I am one, and I welcome private investment. Now, go on, call me a liar. Tell me you know more than I do about what I believe politically!

You are right. I wouldn't be too pleased. In fact I wasn't too pleased when Campbellites did say stuff like that. You constantly refer to NDP borrowing, but you completely ignore Liberal borrowing after fritting away a billion and a half dollars. Why don't you comment on that, or are you hiding something? If you want rational argument, which I am quite capable of providing, use rational argument yourself. You will note that I have only ever used those comments in response to your own - Gate for Gate as an example.

Ammonra, relax. Don't start slinging personal insults. Maybe not everyone can be as clever as you, but that doesn't mean that the rest of us as ignorant as you think we are.

The New Democratic Party. If all of you are Social Democrats - why don't you identify yourself properly and call yourself the Social Democratic Party?

YOU are the one that accused others of not knowing what the definition of Socialism is! Now, that I have given it to you from an encyclopeadia - you DON'T like it! That is not my problem, but yours alone!

Read this for reality therapy. It applies to every country in this global free trade world.

After you read it you may not be as eager as before to convert B.C. into some radical social-democratic experimental site which is surrounded by provinces and states that are going in a different direction altogether.

Adapt or die.

Modern management is less touchy about luxuries like corporate legacies. If a company is to survive, its executives must obey the dictates of the global economy. Change management is the key: ongoing adaptation sometimes so radical that a company can become a ghost of its former self.

Today the rules of this new global game of Monopoly are laid down largely by investors, analysts and fund managers. They demand profits, profits, profits. Their new benchmarks - for local operations too - are the new production sites that have been springing up in Eastern Europe and China since the end of the Cold War. Just about everything marches to a tune played by American-style shareholder capitalism, now the dominant force in the world's financial markets.

CEOs are under pressure from investors hungry for dividends and closely monitored by private equity funds on the lookout for takeover targets. They are offshoring production and even developmental research to low-wage countries. Factories and complete workforces have become chess pieces to be maneuvered at will.

Cases in point: Adidas announced last spring that it planned to divest itself of its winter sports subsidiary, Salomon. Siemens intends to transfer parts of its automotive technology production from Würzburg to the Czech Republic and sell off its money-bleeding cellphone business. The employees who want to keep their jobs in Germany have to work longer and more flexible hours for the same pay and sometimes even less: in peak periods, weekend work is the norm. When business is slow, they are assigned to another plant in another city.

Even "Alliance for Jobs" programs such as those recently set up at Opel, Mercedes- Benz and VW can do no more than buy time. Germany will never win a competition for the lowest pay.

The job-security agreements being reached today all contain exit clauses. If the economy dips, the dollar dives, the price of oil or steel rises, or the competition leaps ahead, employees who have just accepted cuts will be catapulted back to square one.

The days are long over when a job at a major corporation like Daimler-Benz, Siemens, Bayer or Hoechst meant guaranteed employment and a good income - all the way to early retirement - and often even low-priced company housing.

Global business has ostensibly long been subject to the same principles that the naturalist Charles Darwin once postulated for the world of flora and fauna: Only those who adapt quickly to their environment will survive.

Of course, the name "New Democratic Party" does identify us as social democrats. Most Canadians do not have any problem with that.

I would note that I identified myself as a social democrat rather than as a socialist. In response you chose to give the definition of socialism and not that of social democracy. Apples and oranges are not the same.

Anyone with even a limited knowledge of political philosophy is well aware that the word "socialism" was hijacked as a term for "communism" especially in the USA and Eastern Europe. For that reason, dictionary and encyclopaedic definitions are suspect, and social democrats often avoid using the word because it is so often (deliberately) misunderstood.

However, at the very least you are now aware that the definition you provided does not apply to me, and you should be aware that it also does not apply to the vast majority of New Democrats.

Thank you for the lesson in unfettered American style economic world domination, but it has been tried before with disasterous consequences. I would only comment that corporations come and go. The mighty often decline and new babies blossom into adulthood, over reach themselves and die. Others meander along at a stedy rate for decades.

Certainly employees have to consider options when negotiating terms of employment, but my point was that the liberal government here did not even attempt negotiating. They imposed what they had decided without regard for legalities, then changed the law to suit themselves. They used raw, naked power. Size and power does not guarantee survival - ask a dinosaur.

The point still remains that in modern democracies all citizens are entitled to share in the common wealth. That includes me as well as you. It includes teachers as well as Canfor. The resources are ours, and if we allow others to exploit our property we are fully entitled to receive what we consider to be a reasonable return on that property.

For a reasonably accurate description of social democracy read the Wikipedia entry on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy

Ammonra:" Of course, the name "New Democratic Party" does identify us as social democrats."

Well, I don't agree. In most countries social democrats belong to a Social Democratic Party; they proudly identify themselves with the name. In some countries there are Socialist Parties, there are Free Democratic Parties, there are Labour Parties, there are National Socialists, and so on.

You specifically stated that some are not aware of the basic tenets of socialism. And you received an answer. I am unaware of any concerted plots by encyclopedias and other publications to intentionally misinform the public as to the connections between communism and socialism.

What would they gain by doing that? Is there some kind of conspiracy?

The Social Democratic Republics of Eastern Europe (before the Soviet Union of Socialist Republics collapsed) may have given social democracy a bad name as they were neither democratic nor particularly concerned with real socialism as generally defined. The party itself and the party cadre reaped all the benefits and led opulent and materialistic lives, much as we see in the extremes of capitalism.

Still, they called themselves democratic Socialists while maintaining secret bank accounts in Switzerland and South America.

Had you asked for a definition of the philosophy of social democracy I would have gladly obliged.

The article "Adapt or die" was not meant to be a lesson. It is simply a report by a journalist who keeps track of the latest in globalization and its effects on working people everywhere, both white and blue collar.

If B.C. does not position itself so that it has a fighting chance for survival in the new global competition then it will not make it. Nobody will do it for us.

Most of us endorse the ideals of equality and fairness that you espouse, including me. The only difference is that there is more than just one way to go about achieving them.

You think that yours is the only way.

Well, fortunately it isn't.

Cheers!

To Ammonra: My earlier lengthy post which never made it to posting did indeed adress both socialism and social democracy. I apologize for suggesting that you had exclusively isolated the definition of the tenets of socialism when in fact you wrote 'Social democracy.'

My mistake, entirely.

Well, my comments in respect to both of the above philosophies still stand and I will treat your suggestion to visit the wikipedia site with the suspicions that you pointed out earlier.

Cheers!

Enough said, perhaps, and touché!

Social Democrats or the Labour Party, believe the welfare state is the answer.
Britain started down this road just after the Second World War when they elected their first Labour Party. It lasted until the Iron Lady stepped on it. Britain was on it's death bed, but Social Democrats would never admit it.

The New (Social) Democratic Party in Canada, both provincial and federal, has an agenda that condemns corporations, profits and private capitalistic enterprise as the root of all the evil and injustices in this world.

At the same time it shamelessly skims off (whenever in power) the rewards of the above capitalistic economic activities to the greatest possible degree to finance its wealth and income re-distribution schemes.

It is like someone who piously rails against prostitution nevertheless collecting a huge cut from each sleazy 'transaction' that takes place.

All the while the NDP plays into the hands of the most evil profit mongering capitalists - the lenders and banking corporations - by the borrowing of vast sums of money from them!

One can certainly understand capitalists like the Conservatives running up huge debts at the banks to do their capitalist buddies a favour - but one would shudder at the thought that a party with a self-proclaimed social conscience like the NDP would stoop to do the same and deprive social programs, healthcare and education of billions of dollars each year that must be paid to the greedy profiteering bankers in the form of debt service charges!

The NDP seems to think that it is alright to stick the following generations of workers and taxpayers with the task of paying off huge public debts - personally I concluded long ago that only politicians with no social conscience at all would allow such socially irresponsible behaviour.

One would think that the NDP would be the greatest promoters of a pay-as-we-go financial attitude and resort to borrowing only when it is totally unavoidable, with a strict requirement to reduce debt by all means and as quickly as possible, this in order to keep the flow of taxpayers' dollars to the corporate lenders to the absolute minimum.

Unfortunately, whenever one raises this matter with any NDP supporter one will get snowed under with statistics and bleating lamentations with which they will claim that they are indeed the most savy and fiscally responsible people that ever walked on the face of the Earth.

Nothing could be farther from the truth, of course, and they know it.

Pity!

Interesting posts, although I thought you wanted rational debate. Instead we get rehashed invective based on stereotypical nonsense propoganda from right wing hacks.

Did you really mean to say it is OK to borrow money to give to companies, but wrong to do so for health care? Because that is what you said.

I really must have hit a sensitive nerve to get this response.

>"Did you really mean to say it is OK to borrow money to give to companies, but wrong to do so for health care? Because that is what you said."

I think you are a first-class expert at trying to put words into people's mouths!

A great example of the straw man type of argument, indeed!

You refuse to look at the rational points that I raised - such as the socially irresponsible NDP borrowing of vast sums of money from the money lending corporations!

Most of the borrowing was because of a failure by the NDP to pay the annual interest charges and produced NO tangible assets for the province!

I did NOT suggest that it is ok to borrow money to give to corporations!
Corporations borrow their own money by selling shares, to individuals and funds, like teachers' pension funds and pulpmill workers' pension plans, just in case you didn't know.

NDP officials/premiers made numerous trips to Asia with the agenda to persuade foreign corporations to locate in B.C.

They were offered money, taxbreaks, free infrastructure and seven years of no taxes as inducement - so I think your people were indeed trying to bribe corporations with borrowed money!

If my opinion sounds like non-sensical hype from a right-wing hack to you I COULD suggest that yours sounds like non-sensical hype from an extreme left-wing agenda!

I won't do that, because it means lowering this casual discussion to a very low denominator!

It would be more productive and induce more people to have a look at the positive side of your party's platform if you and others like you could refrain from declaring ideas and concepts that differ from yours to be nothing but non-sensical rubbish!

Surely, considering all the curious accusations you have made it would be wise to refuse to sign me up as a member should I ever apply for membership!

I know that the vultures that you always mention are really the geese that lay the golden egg -and you know it as well, but you would never admit it.

Cheers!

"One can certainly understand capitalists like the Conservatives running up huge debts at the banks to do their capitalist buddies a favour"

"one would shudder at the thought that a party...like the NDP would stoop to do the same and deprive ... healthcare"

These are quotes from your post. Let the words themselves speak.

"NDP officials/premiers made numerous trips to Asia with the agenda to persuade foreign corporations to locate in B.C."

You state the above, yet you claim the NDP is opposed to private investment. Rather contradictory, isn't it?

Ammonra: "You state the above, yet you claim the NDP is opposed to private investment. Rather contradictory, isn't it? "

Not all all!

It is your NDP which is contradictory in what is says what it actually does!

The NDP seeks private investment, it is the goose that lays the golden egg, remember,
although the NDP loves to portray that goose as a vicious vulture when it refuses to hand ALL the profit over to the social-democratic government.

The private sector can take all the risks and the government gets to pluck the goose.

Great arrangement, while it lasts!

By the way, in case you did not notice, since corporations, according to your party NEVER pay their fair share of the taxes it is the working stiffs like you and I that have to come up with the taxes that go the bankers and lenders when they demand their annual interest payment on the debt!

Of course, it is far too hard for some people to connect the dots together, especially the party which operates by the method of spend, tax and borrow.

Alright! Lesson:

Never argue with a zealous religionist or a fanatical New (Social) Democrat!

Sayonara! It's been eye popping, again!

Interesting dialogue. My preference is not to choose sides. But, I need to say this.

Every business is in business to provide a product or service that someone else is willing to pay for.

This is where most of the jobs should come from. Trading something of value with others willing to pay for it.

Let's not lose sight of the reason a business is in business. To make a profit for the owners or shareholders. They are the ones who incur all of the risk.

The reward should be the greatest for those who incur the greatest risk.

Now, along with this theory is the reality of jobs for everyone who is not willing to incur this risk. One party assumes the risk and therfore dictates the terms. The other party participates with little risk and makes a living providing their skills and talents and efforts so their employer can make a profit.

Why is it that the employees feel it's appropriate to take a run at their employers? The employer controls the butter. The employer takes all of the risk. The employer puts up all of the financial risk. The employer is responsible for finding customers to buy their products and services.

The employees just have to show up at work, do their job and get paid.

None of us should forget where the money comes from. It's all from business. Period. All of it. So, when are we going to figure this out? Percy

Some will never fiquire it out.
There is a pretty good show on TV called the "Commanding Heights" in just follows history and the various fiscal policies and the resulting social impact. Naturally both extreme socialism and capitalism have unacceptable results. Socialism causes outright poverty and hunger, capitalism causes unacceptable economic cycling.
The best balance is capitalism with inflation controls. Any whiff of socalism extiquishes the economic performance of the country.
Pretty hard to buck a long history of observing various models. Socialism is the road to hell, always has been, always will be and always going to be.