BC Budget

[Wetcoaster]

Why is it up to me to do your homework for you... Your facts are laughable not for what they say but for what you willfully leave out.

[inane]

And yet you have nothing in response.

[Wetcoaster]

Response to what. This isn't a competition. If you have something to add about the liberal budget, go for it.

[inane]

You keep complaining about the content of my posts but you have proved incapable of answering the specific matters set out therein.

[inane]

Vaughn Palmer: It’s time for the B.C. Liberals to stop making major commitments for the future

http://www.vancouversun.com/business/bc2035/Vaughn+Palmer+time+Liberals+stop+making+major+commitments/8020488/story.html

VICTORIA — Premier Christy Clark’s media availability in her Victoria office Tuesday began with a question about whether the B.C. Liberals were exploring a 10-year deal with nurses a mere 11 weeks ahead of an election in which her government might be driven from office.

Yes they were.

“We are in very early stages in talking about that,” Clark told reporters. “Just like we want to find an agreement with teachers for a 10-year deal, we want see if we can find an agreement with nurses for a 10-year deal.

“Labour peace is good for patients,” the premier continued. “The idea was (to start) working with the nurses’ union as I do think there could be an appetite there.”

All very exploratory, Clark emphasized. All very hush-hush too. The Liberals even kept the CEOs of the six provincial health authorities out of the loop, which prompted a strong letter of protest once they caught wind of what was up through other channels.

“We are informed that officials from the (government) are in the process of developing a new collective agreement with the nurses’ union which would have an extended term of up to 10 years,” they wrote in a letter that was obtained by my colleague Jonathan Fowlie and published Tuesday in The Vancouver Sun.

They went on to complain — “we are alarmed” — about provisions that would preclude the six authorities from sharing in any improvements in efficiency in the system and would lock in the terms for 10 years with no opening to renegotiate.

“This may deny us the ability to respond to the needs of the system, new technology, different care delivery models and service innovations,” they wrote.

“We have also learned that binding arbitration may be the mechanism which would resolve periodic re-openers under the agreement.”

And all this at a time when the federal and provincial governments are both capping the share of dollars allocated to health care.

“Our concern is that we are charged with managing health care in the province in a constrained financial environment,” wrote the six CEOs. “Any benefits which may arise from any health system redesign should be applied to the cost of providing care ... It would also be irresponsible to allow a third party to determine compensation under the agreement.”

In defence, Clark reiterated that the talks were only of an exploratory nature, and “if there’s any interest in it, we’ll approach the health authorities and get their input into the negotiation on it.”

Never mind that the nurses appeared disinterested. Did she even have a mandate to pursue a 10-year deal on any terms this close to an election?

“Nobody was asking me that question six months ago,” she replied. “ I’m focused on governing as I have been for the last two years. As the premier, it is my job to make sure we continue to govern every single day, so that’s what I’m doing.”

But hers is a bit of a lame duck government, is it not?

“That’s a rhetorical question, is it not?”

Seriously, how could she presume to lock the government into a 10-year deal, this close to an election she might lose?

“At what point does a government stop governing? At what point does a government decide that all you are going to do is campaign? The mandate is until May 14 and obviously there is a writ period before that.

“We are going to continue to govern,” she told reporters. “Unless one of you knows that there’s a date at which the government needs to stop governing — and maybe I can wait for you guys to let me know when that is, because I haven’t seen that in legislation anywhere.”

Skip asking the press gallery when the mandate runs out. Here’s an opinion, well expressed on the floor of the legislature a dozen years ago, as another government was on its last legs.

“Let me be clear: This government has no mandate to govern. This government is illegitimate in the eyes of the public today. They have no moral right to govern. This government has no mandate to pass legislation, no mandate to make appointments, no mandate to pass a budget.

“So I want to be clear that following an election, should the Opposition be elected to government, we reserve the right to suspend legislation so it can be properly reviewed, to amend legislation or to repeal it. We reserve the right to dismiss any new appointments that this government makes, because this government’s regime is over.”

The author of that March 19, 2001 quasi-stop-work-order for the then New Democratic Party government? Fellow named Gordon Campbell, then the leader of an Opposition caucus of B.C. Liberals that included a rookie MLA named Christy Clark. Both would be elected to government in a matter of weeks.

As it was then with an NDP government down in the polls and running out the clock, so it should be today with the Liberals.

A government in this much trouble, mere weeks from an election, has a mandate to go through the motions — maintain programs, deal with emergencies, and make the best possible pitch to the electorate. But pursuit of deals stretching years beyond election day is the height of presumption.

[DonLever]

The latest Angus Reid poll shows that people aren't buying that truck load of garbage Mike Dejong was trying to pass off as a "balanced" budget.

It's not surprising though. The BC liberals have ZERO credibility left.

[ThaBestPlaceOnEarth]

Christy Clark:

"I’m focused on governing as I have been for the last two years."

[Gurn]

http://thetyee.ca/Views/2009/04/23/BCEcon/

"

From 1992 through to 2000, during the New Democrats' nine full years in power (which excludes the last two months of 1991, and the first four months of 2001), B.C.'s GDP grew by an annual average of three per cent.

Under Gordon Campbell's BC Liberals, provincial GDP from 2001 through 2008 rose by an annual average of 2.8 per cent. However, if we include the Royal Bank's estimates for 2009 and 2010, that number slips to 2.4 per cent."

My linky says something different than your linky. Cue Earl Scruggs "Dueling Banjos".

This province has been poorly run since WAC Bennett days, IMO.

[Langdon Algur]

Christy Clark:

I'm not sure I understood this statement quite the way she intended it

Seriously, two years of nothing, and now they come out with a whole laundry list of pie-in-the-sky ideas that someone in marketing thought would sell, it's preposterous. And these ads they're running, who do they think they're fooling? I'm supposed to believe that every government in the western hemisphere has collapsed, but the Liberals have saved BC? That they're the only thing stopping the invading army of spooky black monoliths? Do they think we don't understand that when they say "low taxes" in that grammatically incorrect statement, it's because they aren't able to say "lowering taxes" because they're actually raising taxes, but "low taxes" is a subjective and meaningless phrase, so they're able to use that?

The Devil Himself could run against "Today's B.C. Liberals" and I would probably not vote in that election, but if I no choice it would be the Devil.

[Gross-Misconduct]

yup the Liberials have saved BC by running a decifict 3 out of 4 years. Thankfully our tax payer dollars paid for an Ad telling us how how great our gov't is, otherwise I might think they were the worst gov't this province has ever seen.