Skip to main content

“I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.” ~~ John G. Diefenbaker

THE OLD GUY said it best; "The public should not be required to subsidize any party, or individual candidate"



Very late Saturday evening ... well actually it was VERY EARLY Sunday morning, I decided to pen the piece, "He was right ... he still is ... and yet the BC Liberals choose to take this money anyway. I hope they choke on it".

 

It has generated several comments, sadly some come as personal only, and the individual writing them cannot be identified for reasons it could cause them problems.  Regardless, here is an interesting dialogue I've had over the past day and a half, with one of my acquaintances in BC politics


I'd share your outrage but in this case it's transitional to zero subsidies so in the big scheme of things it's not a major issue.  Lots of other issues are more important, like electing the Tory guy in Kelowna!

Sorry __ xyz __ but I have to strongly disagree.  They can spend their own money on whatever they want, but taxpayers should not have to subsidize the Liberals, NDP, and Greens.  And as I mentioned, what about anyone running as an independent?  Is it democratic that they be shut out from this money?  Transitional or not, it is not right.

You are of course welcome to your own opinions but also you should be aware that all political donations also are tax-deductible up to a certain level. (YES I knew, and was aware of, that)

BC Legislature in Victoria (image from BC Liberal caucus)
IMO it doesn't help BC Conservatives' electoral hopes for you to be ranting against electoral reform when most people want it regardless of the details of how it is done.

Choose your fights wisely and learn when to stay strategically quiet, IMO.

Now here is where it gets interesting ... apparently this individual was NOT AWARE of the amount taxpayers were dishing out thanks to the BC NDP government:

When I saw the cost numbers last night, in someone else's writing, I was shocked at the bite, so I'll walk back my position a bit.

The Liberals were grossly abusing the old system but the transition to a new one is iffy and now (Todd) Stone says he won't take the taxpayers money anyway if he wins so it's a mess.

Let me be clear, if you have not been aware of this previously
... 
Commentaries posted on my blog site, "Thoughts on BC Politics and More", are personal reflections, and do not necessarily represent the viewpoints of the BC Conservative Party. I write as a small 'c' conservative, and though at times I will agree with the ideas of another political party, my allegiances are with the BC Conservatives.

That is why, as a Conservative, I totally rejected a commentary from Pierre on a re-posting of my commentary on the Armchair Mayors website:

The conservatives would not give the money to a social cause…because every time a conservative gets a change at governing, it does not give money to social cause.  When it does, it's for half-hearted, poorly conceived and ineffective programs.
Conservatives protect the interests of the rich and powerful.

My response to Pierre?
You ARE NOT a conservative Pierre, and you do not speak for them; and especially not me.

Protecting the rights if the rich and powerful? That could be said of any cold-hearted individuals – IN ANY PARTY.  Regardless of party however, it will never (I hope) speak for the majority of elected officials or members.

Conservatives, myself among then, want the best for society as a whole. Not a handout though; instead we should ensure we offer a hand-up

The Old Guy, again in the Armchair Mayor's website, probably summed it up best when he simply said:
The public should not be required to subsidize any party or individual candidate; however, if the organized parties are entitled, independent and non-aligned candidates should also be entitled. It's easier and far less complicated to not provide subsidies to any of them.

I'll wrap up by simply stating, anything that used taxpayer finances, should always be expended with these three thoughts in mind;

1) "Is this a wise use of taxpayer money?"

2) "Is there a better way we can do this"

3)  And finally, "Whose best interests does this serve?"

Judging by lower and lower voter turn-outs for elections, at all levels of government, I think we can safely assume (without making an Ass of You and Me) what the answers are to these questions are.

In Kamloops., I'm Alan Forseth.  Got a comment to make?  This is your chance to share it now.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

FORSETH -- Given the noted infractions of this agreement with OneBC leader Dallas Brodie, I request the Party immediate suspend the leadership campaign of Yuri Fulmer

I have personally emailed the following to the Board and Administration of the Conservative Party of BC:   TODAY (03/30) Yuri Fulmer, a candidate for the leadership of the Conservative Party of BC, made a pact with ONEBC leader Dallas Broldie, that if he is elected will commit the Conservative Party to the following. Specifically, the pact states : This Memorandum of Understanding outlines the definitive electoral and governing alliance that will be executed upon Yuri Fulmer’s election as Leader of the Conservative Party of British Columbia OneBC Party commits to not nominating or authorizing candidates in 88 of British Columbia’s 93 electoral districts. In exchange, the Conservative Party of BC, under the leadership of Yuri Fulmer, commits to not nominating or authorizing candidates in five (5) specific electoral districts . OneBC will be the sole standard-bearer for the right in those five districts. The specific ridings will be determined through mutual negotiation and fin...

Delays to the replacement of the Red Bridge? Kamloops North Thompson MLA Ward Stamer says they are, “Totally Unacceptable.”

I think it’s totally unacceptable that on one hand the Ministry of Transportation and Transit (MoTT) is saying they’re going to be responsible for putting together multiple replacement options with public engagement, and then in the same breath they're saying, ‘Oh, and by the way, we're going to start our geotechnical environmental and archaeological site assessments on both sides of the river, possibly beginning this summer.’ According to Stamer, that should already have been done. “Obviously, we're pretty sure it will be in the same location because there's really no other place to put it. So, if you're going to put in a bridge, you think that at least you'd be doing the archaeological assessments first off”, stated Stamer.   “If it's determined it has to be a free-span bridge, and it can't have anything or very minimal impact in the riverbed, they should already be determining that. It would help in the design, wouldn't it?” Stamer indicated...

Your government has a gambling problem (Troy Media)

Provinces call it “revenue,” but it looks a lot like exploitation of the marginalized The odds of winning Lotto Max are about 1 in 33 million. You’re statistically more likely to be struck by lightning than to win it. But your government is betting that statistics won’t hold you back; they’re counting on it. Across Canada, provincial governments not only regulate gambling, they also maintain a monopoly on lottery and gaming by owning and operating the entire legal market. That means every scratch card is government-issued, gambling odds are government-set, casino ads are government-funded and lottery billboards are government-paid. And these are not incidental government activities. They generate significant revenues that governments have powerful incentives to expand, not constrain. It would be one thing for our governments to encourage us to engage in healthy activities. We can quibble about whether the government should be trying to convince us to be more active or eat more vegetabl...

Labels

Show more