Jimmy McGill

Provincial Election Thread

CDC Votes!  

216 members have voted

  1. 1. Who are you voting for in the upcoming BC election?

    • Green
      36
    • Liberal
      47
    • NDP
      44
    • Undecided
      41
  2. 2. If Undecided, which parties are you still considering?

    • Green
      37
    • Liberal
      35
    • NDP
      37
    • Other
      18
    • None my decision is made.
      77


Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, johngould21 said:
3 minutes ago, S'all Good Man said:

its nothing to celebrate. There's nothing else on the horizon for jobs up north. 

Delete pls - Mis-quote

Edited by Ronaldoescobar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said:

Pretty much Christy Clark's tenure in a nutshell. Too bad her and her cabinet couldn't be held liable in court for mismanagement.

with LNG lost, ICBC and whatever the inevitable 3rd disaster is I just don't see how the Lib's can have any chance unless the party is completely rebuilt, including re-branding. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, S'all Good Man said:

with LNG lost, ICBC and whatever the inevitable 3rd disaster is I just don't see how the Lib's can have any chance unless the party is completely rebuilt, including re-branding. 

They will call themselves Socreds, or having taken the party named Liberal from Gordon Wilson maybe they take his old Progressive Democratic Alliance( PDA).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, gurn said:

They will call themselves Socreds, or having taken the party named Liberal from Gordon Wilson maybe they take his old Progressive Democratic Alliance( PDA).

I think they'll go with "PC". If they can get someone like Diane Watts to lead it I think they'd have a very good chance at a slim majority. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, S'all Good Man said:

with LNG lost, ICBC and whatever the inevitable 3rd disaster is I just don't see how the Lib's can have any chance unless the party is completely rebuilt, including re-branding. 

You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.   Heh, CC .....

 

Famous AB Lincoln quote...  Deception isn't easy ....

Edited by kingofsurrey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, S'all Good Man said:

its nothing to celebrate. There's nothing else on the horizon for jobs up north. 

Should make king of Surrey happy he thinks tourism jobs can buy you a house in the lower mainland.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, S'all Good Man said:

its nothing to celebrate. There's nothing else on the horizon for jobs up north. 

Who's celebrating?

 

The libs had 16 years to develop up north and didn't.  There was 2 very development friendly government in power over 6 years to get this plant running and it didn't happen.

 

I am enjoying how everyone is claiming this is an NDP/Green failure but not once do they look at the actual markets or reasons behind the pulling out.

 

This also in effect makes Site C a worthless expenditure

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, S'all Good Man said:

Devine actually left SK with the base for the oil boom its been enjoying... but hey why let that get in the way :P

Grant Devine brought in royality vacations for just under 2 years in 85 for new wells , and for the same period a 30% tax break on older wells royalties. This also cost the province over 50 million.

The currentl oil boom is nearly entirely due to bakken oil formation. Yes there is oil development all over the province but the majority of oil being exploited now is in that area.

The Grant Devine tax payer funded gifts to oil had ended before the exploration began.

 

If you feel the need to credit Grant Devine then you would have to have given the ndp most of the credit as they were in power when the Bakken began. 

Edited by iwtl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, iwtl said:

Grant Devine brought in royality vacations for just under 2 years in 85 for new wells , and for the same period a 30% tax break on older wells royalties. This also cost the province over 50 million.

The currentl oil boom is nearly entirely due to bakken oil formation. Yes there is oil development all over the province but the majority of oil being exploited now is in that area.

The Grant Devine tax payer funded gifts to oil had ended before the exploration began.

 

If you feel the need to credit Grant Devine then you would have to have given the ndp most of the credit as they were in power when the Bakken began. 

and a dam. and a heavy oil upgrader, both of which the NDP fought 

 

I needed to leave SK thanks to the dipper lack of investment and anti-business stance back then, so please spare me the NDP credit for those years unless you lived the consequences 

 

Edited by S'all Good Man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Warhippy said:

Who's celebrating?

 

The libs had 16 years to develop up north and didn't.  There was 2 very development friendly government in power over 6 years to get this plant running and it didn't happen.

 

I am enjoying how everyone is claiming this is an NDP/Green failure but not once do they look at the actual markets or reasons behind the pulling out.

 

This also in effect makes Site C a worthless expenditure

pretty much the Greens. Horgan would have loved the revenue I'm sure. But yup, Site C is going to be very interesting to justify now... I do think Horgan would be happy to do that one as well but I don't know that the economics make sense anymore. 

 

All Clark did was set the table for it and market conditions killed it, its not the Libs or NDPs "fault" and Petronas is still doing some business up north. 

Edited by S'all Good Man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, kingofsurrey said:

You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.   Heh, CC .....

 

Famous AB Lincoln quote...  Deception isn't easy ....

if its a real re-tooling its not deception 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Violator said:

Should make king of Surrey happy he thinks tourism jobs can buy you a house in the lower mainland.

Actually King thinks he and the rest of BC are tired of being lied to  / manipulated by corrupt politicians only concerned about getting re-elected.

Maybe you are OK with that type of behavior.  I find it morally offensive.....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said:

Actually King thinks he and the rest of BC are tired of being lied to  / manipulated by corrupt politicians only concerned about getting re-elected.

Maybe you are OK with that type of behavior.  I find it morally offensive.....

 

What are you talking about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, S'all Good Man said:

pretty much the Greens. Horgan would have loved the revenue I'm sure. But yup, Site C is going to be very interesting to justify now... I do think Horgan would be happy to do that one as well but I don't know that the economics make sense anymore. 

 

All Clark did was set the table for it and market conditions killed it, its not the Libs or NDPs "fault" and Petronas is still doing some business up north. 

Most of us who actually live in the area affected by Petronas' decision (that seems to be widely celebrated here for some reason) expected that LNG would not get off the ground for quite some time, if at all. There has been a worldwide glut for quite a while and the price had bottomed out. The only real hope was that a company as big as Petronas would take the long view and decide to take losses for a decade of so, while banking on future revenues making the venture ultimately profitable.

 

Obviously, they didn't see it that way.

 

However, one thing that this area has and will never lose is a naturally deep harbor, (both in PR and Port Edward) that is much closer to Asian markets than any other Pacific port. If and when LNG becomes a viable enterprise, we'll still be here and much of the legwork will already have been done.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

Most of us who actually live in the area affected by Petronas' decision (that seems to be widely celebrated here for some reason) expected that LNG would not get off the ground for quite some time, if at all. There has been a worldwide glut for quite a while and the price had bottomed out. The only real hope was that a company as big as Petronas would take the long view and decide to take losses for a decade of so, while banking on future revenues making the venture ultimately profitable.

 

Obviously, they didn't see it that way.

 

However, one thing that this area has and will never lose is a naturally deep harbor, (both in PR and Port Edward) that is much closer to Asian markets than any other Pacific port. If and when LNG becomes a viable enterprise, we'll still be here and much of the legwork will already have been done.

The anti-business thing in BC really bugs me, everything seems to be "Hell-no BC!" no matter what the project is, in some circles anyway. And I've got people here telling me the Roy Romanow years in SK were good ones too... :picard: but thats for another thread. 

 

I don't know how big the remaining Petronas activity is, but its in the billions and you're right the port isn't going anywhere, so the base is there if anything changes but it may need to be a technological one for cheaper extraction and shipping vs. waiting for prices to go up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, S'all Good Man said:

and a dam. and a heavy oil upgrader, both of which the NDP fought 

 

I needed to leave SK thanks to the dipper lack of investment and anti-business stance back then, so please spare me the NDP credit for those years unless you lived the consequences 

 

I left Saskatchewan in the 80's under Grant Devine as all the decent jobs in our town were filled by out of province workers - it was near impossible to get a job in the oil patch, or major construction back then. It seemed like 1/2 of all recruit  courses through Cornwallis were filled with Newfie's and Saskatchewan boys. The 2 hardest hit provinces. How a business friendly government is seen depends on where you are in the spectrum of employment.  I am sure small business enjoyed the PC's and many at the top. I know that with Canada's version of affirmative action, a recession, out of province workers , among other factors ....... there were a lot of farm boys joining the Reg force to get an education and a job. There were so many of us that they had wait times of up to 18 months after being accepted before you left for basic.

 

It wasn't until late 90's that it boomed and local kids could get great jobs right out of High-school - working in the patch. Neither the NDP or PC or Saskatchewan party can take credit for the bakken oil discovery and the invention of horizontal wells, and fracking.

There has been good done by all parties ...... And bad.

 

The only thing the parties can lay claim to is how they spent the royalties ( and that's another whole issue).

 

And lastly - stop... really ... stop with the theatrics. Feel free to disagree. It can be done with a simple - I disagree.

The whole point of my original comments were in relation to the scandal that came to light after he left office. Grant Devine was never implicated or accused but over 10 of his ministers were ( expense related ) and went before judges with some serving time. Right or wrong he wore it as evident by the federal Tories deeming him to be an undesirable candidate when he ran federally a decade ago.

 

 

Edited by iwtl
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, S'all Good Man said:

pretty much the Greens. Horgan would have loved the revenue I'm sure. But yup, Site C is going to be very interesting to justify now... I do think Horgan would be happy to do that one as well but I don't know that the economics make sense anymore. 

 

All Clark did was set the table for it and market conditions killed it, its not the Libs or NDPs "fault" and Petronas is still doing some business up north. 

Clarks agreement with Petronas if I recall had them paying back the agreed upon amount of subsidies/tax breaks meaning very little to 0 net profit for BC outside of jobs.

 

It was a very very bad deal to begin with.  Clark lied to everyone about the benefits of this.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, iwtl said:

I left Saskatchewan in the 80's under Grant Devine as all the decent jobs in our town were filled by out of province workers - it was near impossible to get a job in the oil patch, or major construction back then. It seemed like 1/2 of all recruit  courses through Cornwallis were filled with Newfie's and Saskatchewan boys. The 2 hardest hit provinces. How a business friendly government is seen depends on where you are in the spectrum of employment.  I am sure small business enjoyed the PC's and many at the top. I know that with Canada's version of affirmative action, a recession, out of province workers , among other factors ....... there were a lot of farm boys joining the Reg force to get an education and a job. There were so many of us that they had wait times of up to 18 months after being accepted before you left for basic.

 

It wasn't until late 90's that it boomed and local kids could get great jobs right out of High-school - working in the patch. Neither the NDP or PC or Saskatchewan party can take credit for the bakken oil discovery and the invention of horizontal wells, and fracking.

There has been good done by all parties ...... And bad.

 

The only thing the parties can lay claim to is how they spent the royalties ( and that's another whole issue).

 

And lastly - stop... really ... stop with the theatrics. Feel free to disagree. It can be done with a simple - I disagree.

The whole point of my original comments were in relation to the scandal that came to light after he left office. Grant Devine was never implicated or accused but over 10 of his ministers were ( expense related ) and went before judges with some serving time. Right or wrong he wore it as evident by the federal Tories deeming him to be an undesirable candidate when he ran federally a decade ago.

 

 

I'm VERY familiar with the issues of Devine and his magical mystery tour between the NDP.  When people speak ill of Blakeney or Romanow yet somehow prop him up it's insanity to me.  The type of people that prop up Wall and his hidden budgets and mutliple sets of books as well as sell offs of major crown corps (something devine was very involved in as well)

 

People continue to ignore or forget the issues across the entire country from 1990 to 2000 with the new NAFTA agreement basically changing the entire agricultural, manufacturing and economic landscape in canada and then blame that on provincial governance as though somehow they are or were at fault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, iwtl said:

I left Saskatchewan in the 80's under Grant Devine as all the decent jobs in our town were filled by out of province workers - it was near impossible to get a job in the oil patch, or major construction back then. It seemed like 1/2 of all recruit  courses through Cornwallis were filled with Newfie's and Saskatchewan boys. The 2 hardest hit provinces. How a business friendly government is seen depends on where you are in the spectrum of employment.  I am sure small business enjoyed the PC's and many at the top. I know that with Canada's version of affirmative action, a recession, out of province workers , among other factors ....... there were a lot of farm boys joining the Reg force to get an education and a job. There were so many of us that they had wait times of up to 18 months after being accepted before you left for basic.

 

It wasn't until late 90's that it boomed and local kids could get great jobs right out of High-school - working in the patch. Neither the NDP or PC or Saskatchewan party can take credit for the bakken oil discovery and the invention of horizontal wells, and fracking.

There has been good done by all parties ...... And bad.

 

The only thing the parties can lay claim to is how they spent the royalties ( and that's another whole issue).

 

And lastly - stop... really ... stop with the theatrics. Feel free to disagree. It can be done with a simple - I disagree.

The whole point of my original comments were in relation to the scandal that came to light after he left office. Grant Devine was never implicated or accused but over 10 of his ministers were ( expense related ) and went before judges with some serving time. Right or wrong he wore it as evident by the federal Tories deeming him to be an undesirable candidate when he ran federally a decade ago.

 

 

ok champ. I disagree. Anyone that couldn't get a job under a non-NDP gov't should have left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

Clarks agreement with Petronas if I recall had them paying back the agreed upon amount of subsidies/tax breaks meaning very little to 0 net profit for BC outside of jobs.

 

It was a very very bad deal to begin with.  Clark lied to everyone about the benefits of this.

I don't recall the actual agreement ever being made public, but I have no doubt she took some liberties with the claims, I don't think anyone really took her seriously on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.