babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » from far and wide   » bc, alberta, saskatchewan   » Campbell implies BC NDP has no platform...

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Campbell implies BC NDP has no platform...
verbatim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 569

posted 18 March 2004 10:22 PM      Profile for verbatim   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
http://www.canada.com/victoria/story.asp?id=735B5104-0411-4F68-BDF1-C15E9C7AC013

From the article:

quote:
Campbell says all that's known so far about James and the NDP is that they believe in more taxes and more debt.

But he says that's what got B.C. into trouble in the 1990s and it's taken a lot of hard work to get out of that mess.



That made me laugh. It sure was hard, I'll give him that. And now it's going to take a lot of hard work to repair the damage caused by the Liberals' reckless evisceration of the province.

BTW, I think that the BC NDP has to try to create a different underlying message than the kneejerk one that Gordo refers to. By this I'm referring to the core understanding of the NDP as simply being about taxing and big government.

[ 18 March 2004: Message edited by: verbatim ]


From: The People's Republic of Cook Street | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 18 March 2004 10:45 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Ooh! A verbatim sighting!

No platform, my ass. What did Gordo do with the BC Liberal platform when the BC Liberals got elected? Chopped it up and used it for firewood.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sara Mayo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3714

posted 18 March 2004 10:54 PM      Profile for Sara Mayo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
At least we know the NDP will have a platform before he has a list of any benefical accomplishments.
From: "Highways are monuments to inequality" - Enrique Penalosa | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Kevin
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3645

posted 18 March 2004 11:05 PM      Profile for Kevin   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
We believe in more debt?

I guess if Gordo keeps telling himself stuff he figure's it'll eventually come true.

The BC Liberals created a record deficit for BC, didn't they? And I assume that wasn't creating more debt.


From: Simon Fraser University | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
NDP Newbie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5089

posted 18 March 2004 11:11 PM      Profile for NDP Newbie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
How fucking stupid is Campbell?

How does one manage to cut virtually every worthwhile service the government does and then still run a record deficit?

Is he reading from the Grant Devine Grimoire of Bad Government?


From: Cornwall, ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
verbatim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 569

posted 19 March 2004 12:05 AM      Profile for verbatim   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Campbell is playing to the mindset that the BC NDP represent a simple proposition: if there's a problem, throw money at it and create a bureaucracy around it. And it's probably what he'll harp on until James and the crew get something definitive out there. Her explanation, while probably true, came across a tad more like an excuse.

(P.S. I'm back from an extended hiatus, Doc. It's good to see you!)


From: The People's Republic of Cook Street | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
spindoctor
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 958

posted 19 March 2004 01:05 AM      Profile for spindoctor   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
What's with the awful, awful picture of Carole?

Either it's another example of the media picking on unflattering images, particularly of women, or bad planning by her staff!


From: Kingston, Jamaica.....oh alright....Kingston, Ontario | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
beluga2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3838

posted 19 March 2004 03:00 AM      Profile for beluga2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Indeed. I suspect that somewhere in the bowels of CanWest there's an employee whose whole job is to find unflattering pictures of pinko women. (Remember that "crazed serial killer" photo they used for Sunera Thobani?)

I detect a welcome whiff of desperation in Gordo's latest brain-burp.

PS: a warm welcome back, verbatim! You've been missed!


From: vancouvergrad, BCSSR | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
LukeVanc
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2735

posted 19 March 2004 05:07 AM      Profile for LukeVanc     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
If I wasn't too lazy to search through the archives, I would dig up the thread I started on "Carole James' Wardrobe"


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
spindoctor
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 958

posted 19 March 2004 12:56 PM      Profile for spindoctor   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
f I wasn't too lazy to search through the archives, I would dig up the thread I started on "Carole James' Wardrobe"

I thought of that thread when I saw that, Luke.

I'm sure it is the media seeking out unflattering images of women, and particularly of left women. It seems to happen all the time.

The media's obsession with women's appearances and superficial characteristics appals me.
I remember when Anne McLellan hinted that she might take a run at replacing Chretien. honest to god, the Edmonton Sun put that on the front paage the next day and the major focus of the story was how her voice would hinder her chances.
I'm no fan of her, but that one sent me over the top.


From: Kingston, Jamaica.....oh alright....Kingston, Ontario | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 19 March 2004 02:40 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Here you go: Carole James' Wardrobe

If nothing else, the thread reminds us that Gordon Campbell, Ernie Eves, and Preston Manning have all had their turn in the hot seat, superficial-looks-wise.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 19 March 2004 03:20 PM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I didn't think her answer sounded bad at all. I thought it sounded great. But I suppose me and the average voter don't have a lot in common . I also didn't think that the picture was terrible. It could have been a lot worse.

We all know that the media (especially the corporate fuckwad Canwest media) is going to be our enemy, not our ally. I hope Carole and crew have a full understanding of this. No matter how media-savvy they are, they'll never get a fair shake. In addition to making a big effort to create favourable press in the traditional avenues, they have to think of creative ways to spread their own messages, outside of the Canwest monolith structure.

This was one of the problems with the last NDP government. Always running scared trying to do damage control within the news, which would just keep spinning things to make them look bad, digging them deeper and deeper. If I were running, I'd attack this head on, come right out and say that media concentration is the enemy of democracy, and a citizens' panel would be assembled to find solutions to this problem.


From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
verbatim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 569

posted 19 March 2004 05:07 PM      Profile for verbatim   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Surely there are people in the NDP who are clever and savvy enough to be able to manipulate the media as effectively as the Liberals have? If not, perhaps it's time to recruit a few? I don't see (until the results of a citizen's panel could be put into effect) how the NDP can operate outside the monolith, when that monolith is the SOLE source of information for the vast majority of voters.
From: The People's Republic of Cook Street | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Lefty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3697

posted 20 March 2004 12:56 AM      Profile for West Coast Lefty     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
We believe in more debt?
I guess if Gordo keeps telling himself stuff he figure's it'll eventually come true.

The BC Liberals created a record deficit for BC, didn't they? And I assume that wasn't creating more debt.


Gordo is talking total bullshit - BC had the lowest debt per capita in the country for most of the 10 years the NDP was in power. The Auditor-General put out a report a couple of years ago saying that the level of public spending under the NDP was sustainable and affordable. We balanced 2 budgets, presented a 3rd balanced budget just before the 2001 election , and left office with the biggest surplus in BC history and the lowest unemployment rate in 20 years.

Gordo will not come anywhere close to that record. He'll have one completed balanced budget if he's lucky (and that won't be verified by the A-G until after May 2005) and he'll present a 2nd one right before the election. In fact, even the current BC budget is only balanced because of the SUCH sector accounting change - which is legit, but if that change had been made in 1996, the so-called "NDP fudge-it budget" would have been balanced as well.


From: Victoria, B.C. | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 20 March 2004 04:18 AM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Let's not forget it's also only balanced because of a $1 billion asset sell-off, as in BC Rail. Lose the BC Rail sale and you'd suddenly be looking at a big hole; nothing like the deficits they've had, but nothing like balanced either.
From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 20 March 2004 04:38 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
.. and the BC Rail sale is still held up pending federal approval, and with strong intimations that the bidding process was tainted, and that government officials personally benefitted from the privatization, I think it's gonna be pretty much dead.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
cottonwood
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4839

posted 20 March 2004 11:53 AM      Profile for cottonwood     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I've been curious about this sale and its effect on the budget. If they sell $1billion worth of assets for $1billion does that really have a $1billion positive effect on the budget? Do assets lost or gained not figure into the budget somehow? Conversely, if they just sold $1.5billion worth of assets for an effect $750million (if they're lucky, after tax concessions) shouldn't that be recorded as a significant net loss on the budget? Is the budget based solely on "cash" with no consideration given to assets?
From: British Columbia | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 20 March 2004 12:28 PM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The budget is income and expenditures, as I understand it. Assets don't come into the picture, unless, of course, you sell them off.

edited to add: Man, I hope the deal is dead, dead, dead. Not only would it save a valuable public asset, but it would blow a huge hole in the "balanced" budget. Good-bye to that last slim shred of fiscal responsibility, or, at least, the appearance of such.

[ 20 March 2004: Message edited by: Jacob Two-Two ]


From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 20 March 2004 01:19 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm just peeking at the 2004 budget now, and it doesn't look like there's a statement of assets and liabilities.

Incidentally, Walter Stewart, in Dismantling the State: Downsizing to Disaster, notes that public assets, federally, are carried on the books at $1 nominal value, which is partly why privatizations often "look good" even if they're sold below what they "should" be. If a true statement of assets and liabilities had to be given out with each budget, I would suspect that the feds would be a lot less eager to sell off everything.

[ 20 March 2004: Message edited by: DrConway ]


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 20 March 2004 01:45 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
If nothing else, the thread reminds us that Gordon Campbell, Ernie Eves, and Preston Manning have all had their turn in the hot seat, superficial-looks-wise.


Don't forget how Joe Clark failed largely because he had a weak chin.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Lefty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3697

posted 20 March 2004 03:27 PM      Profile for West Coast Lefty     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I've been curious about this sale and its effect on the budget. If they sell $1billion worth of assets for $1billion does that really have a $1billion positive effect on the budget? Do assets lost or gained not figure into the budget somehow? Conversely, if they just sold $1.5billion worth of assets for an effect $750million (if they're lucky, after tax concessions) shouldn't that be recorded as a significant net loss on the budget? Is the budget based solely on "cash" with no consideration given to assets?

Steve, my understanding is that the BC Rail sale would reduce the overall provincial debt on the capital side, but it won't effect the "balanced budget" per se, in other words, the budget would still balance even if the BC Rail deal is cancelled. Their surplus is only about $200 million and even Gordo and Collins wouldn't be crazy enough to stake so much on a deal that requires federal approval. I'm no financial expert though, so I could be totally wrong about this (believe it or not! ).


From: Victoria, B.C. | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Kevin
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3645

posted 20 March 2004 11:11 PM      Profile for Kevin   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I believe the only reason the budget is balanced is because they changed a certain way of accounting. (I think this was referred to as the SUCH sector).

I've also heard that if the NDP had made this change as well, some of the "fudge-it" budgets would have been balanced.


From: Simon Fraser University | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 16 July 2004 03:51 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Bleah.

quote:
The B.C. New Democrats want to shed their confrontational past and form an unprecedented partnership with the province's business community, leader Carole James said Thursday in an address to some of her party's toughest critics.

Since when did the NDP get anywhere trying to appease the rabid dogs in the business sector? They're like sharks. Once they smell blood they won't quit till you've either gotten out of the water or you've been chomped up to death.

quote:
For example, James was asked if an NDP government would "act as an organizer for the trade-union movement" by requiring union-scale wages for workers on all government-financed projects.

This is bullshit. The United States even has a law that effectively mandates the union wage on all federally-funded infrastructure projects. It's called the Davis-Bacon Act, and mandates the "prevailing wage" in a locality. This translates into the union wage, by and large.

So there. Even the "business friendly" United States has better labor laws in some respects than BC. Carole James should have said damn right we'll mandate the union wage, and look, the USA does it too, so the business community can just go jump in a lake.

The NDP has a constituency: Workers. Trying to soft-pedal that support for the will-o-the-wisp of business support that's better than a kilometer-wide, centimeter-deep basis is foolish.

Commander U! tried that and for his pains he saw the NDP get squashed down to two seats. He didn't even try to defend the NDP's basic philosophy. Glen Clark did that in 1996 and he snatched victory from the jaws of defeat, or are people so willing to forget because of the hatchet job done on Clark in the 1990s? (And lest people forget, he wasn't even convicted! Court found him not guilty, and the "fudge-it budget" court trial resulted in a favorable verdict. So fa! fa! fa! to all the critics. )

Carole James should be defending the NDP's basic philosophy, not engaging in foolosophy.

[ 16 July 2004: Message edited by: DrConway ]


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
faith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4348

posted 16 July 2004 04:26 PM      Profile for faith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I completely agree that appeasing the Phil Hochstein crowd is a waste of time , energy , and is far too costly in the self esteem of the NDs.
No matter what Carole James says , what policy she comes up with it will NEVER be enough. Clark and Harcourt governments reduced small business taxes, cut welfare rolls, reduced strife in the labour market by getting province wide labour agreements in some sectors and it was ridiculed.
The media went after Harcourt like a pack of wild dogs after a wounded buffalo when they knew he was guilty of nothing, the knives will be out for James and the NDP and they need to start on a media strategy now.
The working public appreciate a passionate advocate, a good manager, and a down to earth world view. Carole James can fill that roll by concentrating on the people that will actually cast a ballot for the NDP and that leaves out the Vancouver Club members.

From: vancouver | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
faith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4348

posted 16 July 2004 04:29 PM      Profile for faith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 

[ 19 July 2004: Message edited by: faith ]


From: vancouver | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 16 July 2004 06:08 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I don't think that Carol James has any expectation that the BC business elite is going to endorse the NDP. That is not what this is all about.

The fact is that many, many people in BC are pissed off at Gordon Campbell and the BC Liberals. They are not being drawn to the NDP per se. The NDP is simply NOT the Liberals.

I think that if the NDP is going to win the next election, it has to be seen as a moderate centre-left alternative to the BC Liberals. Part of that means defusing the impression that the NDP is "anti-business". In other words, this is not about the NDP getting actual endorsements and votes from the business community. This is about sending a message to mainstream voters that the NDP is willing to engage in dialogue with the business community and that electing Carol James will not mean a crisis atmospehere of constant confrontation between the government and business. People need to see the NDP at least making the effort to talk to business as a stakeholder in the province.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Dagmar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5444

posted 19 July 2004 01:25 AM      Profile for Dagmar   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
The Liberal Party of Canada beckons www.liberal.ca

Right back at you, Stock. Your comments in this thread are in stark contrast to your comments on the "NDP Cozies Up to Business" thread. Will the real Stockholm Day please stand up?

[ 19 July 2004: Message edited by: Dagmar ]


From: Santa looks a lot like Daggy! | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Vansterdam Kid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5474

posted 19 July 2004 02:23 AM      Profile for Vansterdam Kid   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 

[ 19 July 2004: Message edited by: Davidbcalec ]


From: bleh.... | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca