Two Caroles
OK, I admit it: I was almost certainly wrong when I explained, a year ago last September, why Carole Taylor would be the first elected female Premier of BC.But I couldn't have known then that she would get that irresistible Simon Fraser University Chancellorship offer or that the BCLiberal brand would become tarnished almost beyond recognition. So it's not really my fault.
However, I still think I'm correct in saying that Carole James won't be the next Premier, whether that Premier is female or not. Last year's argument is merely butressed by the way she bounced Bob Simpson out of Caucus, without either consulting the Caucus or confronting the legitimate issues he had raised. And then, by way of cementing our impression that she's tone-deaf politically, accusing him of once having been a Liberal.
As if we don't want ex-Liberals in our camp!
As if Carole James is convincing as a tough guy.
I don't know if it's Carole, or her advisors, but either way I haven't changed my mind: we're probably not going to be government with her as our spokesman.
Harmonized Sales Tax
I don't get it.
With what would they replace the HST? Or do they imagine that the social programs we desperately need to rebuild in this province won't need to be financed?
I know the HST is not a very equitable tax, and I agree that the way it was implemented was underhanded, perhaps even dishonest. However, western-European countries with far more equity and far better social programs than ours manage with their own versions of the value-added tax, all at a much higher rate than the HST. We could do much worse; we could become California.
The BCNDP cannot afford to become the "no tax" party, and we need to be honest about the HST.
Imagine for a minute that the HST is rejected next September. Does that give the Liberals the tools to sell off crown assets like BC Hydro and ICBC? Does that give them carte blanche to to start disassembling public health care and public education? Do they raise personal income taxes enough to cover the loss?
I'm pretty sure they wouldn't take the opportunity to raise corporate income taxes!
And what could we do if we became government shortly after such a vote? Pass the hat?
No, we'd better hope the HST passes the referendum, and we'd better say so publicly. Because if it does, and we haven't, the Liberals will have won, and so will their chances in the next election.
Recall
He wasn't successful, but his campaign created a lot of heat for, and sucked up a lot of resources of, sitting NDP members. It also kept attention away from the Opposition of the day, led by a guy called Gordon Campbell.
I've always believed we were against recall. I thought that's one of the reasons the Mike Harcourt government (obliged by a legacy of the Bill VanderZalm government) made it so hard to clear the hurdles.
In a representative government style of democracy, the kind we have, you don't want your MLA to be constantly looking over his or her shoulder, worrying where the next threat is coming from, unable to commit to anything the least bit controversial.
That's what elections are for.
4 comments:
That's true; however if you lie to get re-elected, which many people believe Gordo and gang did re: the HST and the size of the budget deficit, then all bets are off and you should have a re-do of the election. I have no problem with recalling liars. They should not be rewarded by being allowed to complete their term. All the Libs have to do is prove to me that they weren't lying; and to date, they haven't been able to do that, nor do they seem too concerned about it.
Unfortunately Cherylb the consequence of recall and defeating the HST will negatively impact governance of the province. All politicians lie, suck it up and roll over them at he next election with a realistic platform of social democracy which is what your party should be all about.
I AGREE!
It is passing strange that Bill Van der Zalm is of the view that an MLA should be removed from office if he or she does not vote in accordance with what a poll states, regardless of his or her belief. It seems that only Bill Van der Zalm is the only person in office who is entitled to have views (as an example, against therapeutic abortions) and act on it once in office. If one were to accept Mr. Van der Zalm's view of democracy it would not be necessary for the legislature to meet except in the formalistic sense of voting what the latest poll shows that either (a) the people of British Columbia want or (b) the people in an MLA's riding want. As there are no polls as to (a), so far as I am aware, that would mean that voting would be on the basis of (b), and there would then be no (in the case of the HST as an example) no need for a survey of constituent views as a ground for removing an MLA for not representing those views.
I AGREE!
It is passing strange that Bill Van der Zalm is of the view that an MLA should be removed from office if he or she does not vote in accordance with what a poll states, regardless of his or her belief. It seems that Bill Van der Zalm is the only person in office who is entitled to have views (as an example, against therapeutic abortions) and act on it once in office. If one were to accept Mr. Van der Zalm's view of democracy it would not be necessary for the legislature to meet except in the formalistic sense of voting what the latest poll shows that either (a) the people of British Columbia want or (b) the people in an MLA's riding want. As there are no polls as to (a) on the HST, so far as I am aware, that would mean that voting would be on the basis of (b), and there would then be no (in the case of the HST as an example) need for a survey of constituent views as a ground for removing an MLA for not representing those views. And yet that is precisely the stated ground for removing individual MLAs. It could be (although it is unlikely) that in some of those ridings in which MLAs are targetted for removal, that their constituents approve of the HST. I doubt if it actually matters to those who are engaged in recall campaigns, despite what they say.
Post a Comment