theleftcoast.ca

I have been sitting on this guest post (for no particular reason) from our frequent contributor, William Perry for more than a few days and seeing as it is a look into 2012, I thought it best to get it published sooner rather than later.

As always, I do not necessarily agree or disagree with the ideas expressed by guest posts. I simply post them for the sake of discussion.

Dear Editor: BC Politics has been taken over by kooks 

The Year of the Crazies

It’s that time of year when wags and pundits are supposed to gaze into their crystal ball and declare what the coming year holds. I don’t have a crystal ball. Never claimed to. But I don’t need one to tell you that 2012 is going to be a year of hard, mean politics in a province that is famous for bare-knuckled antics and shameful tactics.

Since the BC Liberals made themselves into a party in 1903, they have achieved much. Not a perfect record by any stretch of the imagination, still have been the power for the last ten years.

In contrast, the NDP, with that left-wing tilt has finally led the party to the logical and inevitable terminus, to the very brink of its own sanity. This year it looks like the grand old socialist party has finally stepped over that brink, and BC has led the parade all the way.

The late William F. Buckley Jr. said he had spent his life separating the kooks from the conservatives. Today, every political party has been taken over by the kooks, driven by the hype and hysteria of the ‘Me’ parties, and the psychotic intransigence of the no-tax pledge and personified by the likes of Adrian Dix and Christy Clark – who represent opposite polls of likeable.

In recent years, BC Liberals have demonstrated their true loyalties, fighting to remove environmental regulations, and those hindrances of economic prosperity. On the other side of the Leg, the NDP call themselves the party of personal freedom, and they show their love by opposing legislation to protect the right of BCers to use obsolete incandescent light bulbs, but they would not amend their own Constitution to empower the right women to take the reins of leadership.

The circus of wannabe premier candidates has been crisscrossing the province in an interminable series of town hall discussions, although they do all the talking, where we have seen the party faithful applaud Adrian Dix’s record vintage 4 o’clock.

The most recent of polls show the current premier/former talk show host leading the field of likeables. In the party preference the NDP is ahead for now. Let me say that again: For Now!

With a tooted victory bringing Federal shipbuilding to BC, Clark’s image will most certainly be deliberated in all regions of the province. Dix being on the anti-HST winning team is yet to yield it’s final approval ratings.

The possibilities are endless to whom will carrying the BC flag in next election’s victory speech, but the prospect has made the New Democrats absolutely giddy. They love the thought of victory so much that they intend to cross the straight by foot. This, of course, will lead to outraged squealing and squirting by aggrieved Liberals, demanding strict party registration in future elections.

Oh, where will it end? Where will it end?

The other political story to watch next year involves the BC Conservative Party and the BC First Party. It is hard to imagine how either can run afoul given the competition: Christy Clark’s mishandling of “fill in the blank”, and Adrian Dix’s dredging [pot kettle black] may prove to be an epic fiasco for both parties.

Will we see the Leg be better behaved and functional in 2012? I personally doubt it.

But, by all means, Stay tuned.

We are pleased to post the following letter that was submitted by one of our loyal followers, Bryan Llewellyn. As always, you are welcome to submit letters and we will publish the ones we see fit to post. And, we do not necessarily agree with each letter that is submitted or posted. For what it is worth…

Now the imposition of the HST has been rejected by the people of BC, many of its supporters and supporters of the provincial Liberal government are blaming the voters who rejected this tax, saying they are responsible for BC being required to repay $1.9 billion which the federal government paid as an inducement to impose the tax. In additon, they claim, the same voters are responsible for another $1.1 billion shortfall in provincial revenue which will either a) cause a huge budget deficit, or b) require “belt tightening” to reduce the cost of social programs, or c) both.

Really, this is self serving fear mongering. Lets take the $1.9 billion. This was paid by the federal government as an inducement to introduce the HST. Why would the federal government want to do that? Quite obviously, it was because they could increase tax revenues by more than that amount. What would be the point otherwise? My question, then, is how much more money has the federal government taken from BC as a consequence of the introduction of the HST? How much will it be by the date targeted for its removal? Is it more than $1.9 billion? I bet it is.

Here’s the thing, though. We are being told that the federal government will want the money back because the province cancelled the HST, and we have no choice but to return it. If the HST is cancelled, then surely the federal government has no right to keep the increased tax revenue from its introduction, do they? If we must pay back the $1.9 billion, then surely they must pay us back the increased taxes they raised from the cancelled tax, must they not? Perhaps the proponents of the HST are expecting the people of BC to continue paying taxes which the federal government now has no right to collect, since the agreement has been overruled by the people and cancelled. Otherwise, we will be in a position where the federal government is both keeping the returned inducement and keeping the revenue from a now, unauthorised tax. It should be one or the other, surely?

Let’s take the $1.1 billion “shortfall” in revenue. This does not come into effect until after the HST stops being collected. Until then, a year and a half in the future, the HST will contine to generate an excess of revenue. That revenue can be used to pay this $1.1 billion shortfall, if there really is such as shortfall. Even if it is the case, we are being assured that we will return to the old system. That old system did not include the tax breaks given to corporations and businesses, so that portion of the HST revenue stream should now go to provincial revenues, being augmented with a return to taxation levels from those businesses that existed before the HST was imposed. I presume that when Premier Clarke proudly proclaims a return to the old system that it will be a complete return, and that she will not engage in any jiggery pokery to give exemptions to her Liberal Party supporters among the business community.

Even if I am wrong and the money has to be returned, and there is a shortfall in revenue, I take exception to the statement made by HST proponents that the people of BC are to blame for that fiasco. The people are not to blame. Gordon Campbell, Kevin Falcon, the Liberal Party caucus and Premier Clarke are to blame. This situation arose as a consequence of those people treating the voters with gross contempt, believing they could do anything they wanted and the sheep would bleat, then go lie down and shut up. Well, the sheep turned out to be wolves.

Those Liberal leaders who made this agreement must take responsibility for the consequences of their contemptuous and contemptible action. When the $1.9 billion was first offered, can’t you just see them drooling over it as a way out of their financial mismanagement of this province. In addition, Premier Clarke tried her best to keep the HST instead of bowing to the will of the voters, as she should have, and she is responsible for authorising and condoning the distorted funding which was used in an attempt to sway voters.

The provincial Liberal Party has a well established penchant for deflecting blame for its incompetence onto other people and other groups, particularly the NDP, but in this case responsibility falls squarely on their heads. These billions of dollars, basically thrown in the sewer for partisan policy reasons are a stain on the Liberal Party. When coupled with other fiascoes, such as BC Rail, overpriced run of river electricity projects, gas guzzling foreign ferries which lay idle, overpriced outsourcing of services and so on, the Liberal Party may well be responsible for wasting more of this province’s money than any other government in our history. It should also be noted that they have done this while racking up the two largest deficits in the province’s history and, reading between the lines, may be on their way to a third.

The following letter is from our frequent contributor, William Perry. I have to say that more often than not I disagree with Perry, however, today he has expressed some of my thoughts very well.

Jack Layton and Stacey

Jack Layton demonstrated his political skill in taking advantage of the opportunity provided by the Liberals and Bloc. He developed his party into a mass movement and used a combination of his popular support and behind-the-scenes intrigue to propel himself into the official opposition. Furthermore, he raised the profile of national socialism, showed how a modern “civilized” country could behave, and created a virtual certainty that he would be misjudged by opponents. His shoes will not be easily filled.

Rest in Peace Mr Layton. You will be missed.

Letter from ou frequent contributor, William Perry.

EMOTION ASIDE, This is where I am coming from:

The NDP is a party made of varied and arguably strange components, but in essence can be broken down to two major factions, the radicals and the pragmatists. These factions are personified by Layton’s two deputy leaders, Libby Davies and Thomas Mulcair.

At the heart of it all, has always been a reluctance by the New Democrats to look hard at it’s direction and how the party defines itself, specifically the Branding around one personality – Jack’s. With Jack Layton’s health challenges, it highlights the need to expand that leadership base.

You may not agree with me on 99.96 percent of the issues, however as a long time NDPer (42 years and counting), I think it’s a case of the power struggles going on in the party, and an opportunity to “fix it”. I just think that there are a few folks who have been in politics a long time, who want the power and will likely not care how reckless they will become to get it.

In this regard, the New Democratic Party is vulnerable.

Today’s post comes from the William Perry letter to the editor file. As I have previously stated, I do not necessarily agree with the ideas expressed in letters to the editor.

Response to: Kimberly Proctor’s dad calls for death penalty for daughter’s killers

Dear Editor: Death penalty changes may fit

Responsible changes could bring back the death penalty in memory of slain youth Kimberly Proctor. Her atrocious murder points out that we need to send a clear and unambiguous message to anyone considering such an act that we would punish that person to the harshest punishment possible.

The government must develop language which sets clear parameters for the use of the death penalty within those categories that deserve it.

As

The following letter does NOT represent the views of our editorial team. However, it is the first reaction we have received so we run it this morning. As you may know, you can comment (even anonymously) on any post or send us your letter. Click the About the Left Coast tab for more info.

Dear Editor: Sad Day for NDP

After so many weeks of campaigning, this is what the NDP comes up with?

This is the problem with leadership races of parties that have been in opposition so long, there is no distinction between them and the criticism they hurl at the government. This was a chance to be inward looking. The choice of Dix shows that the NDP is unwilling to acknowledge the faults of their own party since they are part of the problem. The result: status quo and complacency, where change only means a new leader, not a new vision. Sad day to be NDP.

William Perry, Victoria ( NDP since 1969)

A follow-up from the William Perry files on why he is no longer voting NDP in federal elections;

Dear Editor: NDP Strategic Voting

NDP has done a Fair job representing us. Good, I say, but this time I’m voting Liberal. Why? Glad you asked. Vote Splitting.

Liberal and NDP are closer than most want to believe. Every time we vote NDP we split the vote and put the Conservatives in power. It is a nice fantasy to have a NDP government, but in reality, it will never happen.

Liberals will bring down the deficit, cut the spending on needless initiatives like more prisons, and on wasteful projects like the F35s.

I have voted NDP for over almost 42 years. But now is time to vote beyond my party and think of what is really achievable and what the end result would be, and after the election, push for a uniting of the centre to left creating on ‘People’s Party’. I dare say we would likely never see a Conservative government again.

–

From the William Perry files…

Dear Editor: Federal Politics: You know it’s time to change the channel when…

S*ck and tired of the election that just started today?

Many Canadians, at some time in their lives, change political party affiliations. You may, for example, identify with a different political party because of a change in their views. In some cases, it may be necessary to change parties in order to vote at a time where you don’t see things as broken – like now. Fortunately, changing your political party is as easy as registering to vote.

For me after supporting the NDP for over 40 years worth of elections, I think it is time for a change.

Check your voter registration card carefully to ensure the stated party affiliation is consistent with your wishes. If your political party is in error, easy, vote.

Level Of Difficulty: 0

From our frequent contributor, Mr William Perry

Volatile America

The horrific shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and the death of six others, underscores the volatility that exists in the United States, and that they are anything but united. Two thirds of the world’s people live in less crime ridden nations than Americans. In the early nineteenth century they became the most homicidal country in the Western world and still hold that title.

Americans live in an incredibly violent country. Add the volatile politics. Words can create a life of their own and take us to places we would not choose to go. It’s not all about winning but how we treat the losers. Inclusion is the way to satisfy a multicultural nation – we haven’t figured that out in Canada either. That should say something for our political leaders.

In any case it’s up to EVERYONE, with the emphasis on parents, to teach our children to treat everyone equally and not disparage others because of race, religion or political views. We can all do a better job of teaching our children how to behave toward others, and it’s in our best interest to do so.

From our frequent contributor, Mr William Perry

A review is needed, including the attitude towards depression and suicide, and patient safety. Clearly the young girl’s safety system administered by the province through VIHA failed to recognize the risk for suicide.

MLA Kash Heed’s comments are guided by his agenda to amalgamate policing, and he does not know the details of the case, so therefore should hold his tongue. This is not a time for political ambition.

I think there are decades of evidence, documented and untold accounts to show that the mental health services are not as effective as they might be. There have always been a wide range of issues starting with attitudes and behaviours among the wider community, but now MUST include all professionals in policing and emergency services. Any review must include an expanded ‘viewpoint’ not just that of practitioners across the mental health system.

In 1989 I had a daughter commit suicide shorty after her mother, my wife died. None of the services recognized the risk after accepting one practitioner’s diagnosis of depression. I failed my daughter, not only as her primary safety system, but also as a policing professional, who was unable to look beyond my own grief and attitude toward mental illness. My attitude eventually changed.

At the end of the day the focus must be on safeguarding patients and how to improve mental health care system. The procedures with High-risk youth. have to change, as do attitudes about mental illness. In that regard EVERYONE has a shared responsibility.