# It's official!



## alym (Apr 21, 2010)

Gordon Campbell refuses to be premier of a province with such strict drinking and driving laws.


----------



## effox (Apr 21, 2010)

What sources, I could only find tweets and what not.

The laws are ridiculous, why go after people trying to be responsible drivers any ways. What a goofy lot.


----------



## 2wheelsx2 (Apr 21, 2010)

I think he means this: Gordon Campbell resigns - The Globe and Mail


----------



## roadrunner (Apr 25, 2010)

he got what he wanted - have his face plastered all over olympics with our money.


----------



## snow (Apr 21, 2010)

roadrunner said:


> he got what he wanted - have his face plastered all over olympics with our money.


here, here.....glad he is out. Who will be in charge though until they have the next leaders metting or election?


----------



## katienaha (May 9, 2010)

just in time. he bribed us with an HST tax credit, cut medical, sold our railway, cut arts funding.. (again with the bribe of about 200 a year... not worth it...) and high tails it out of here with his tail between his legs. 

i hope the next person elected fixes his mistakes.


----------



## Morainy (Apr 21, 2010)

I hadn't heard this. Thanks for posting.


----------



## roadrunner (Apr 25, 2010)

I would say few years too late .... but what now? Every time I go voting I feel like I'm going to the movies (dumb and dumber, aliens vs predators, anywhere but here.. )


----------



## summit (Aug 22, 2010)

roadrunner said:


> I would say few years too late .... but what now? Every time I go voting I feel like I'm going to the movies (dumb and dumber, aliens vs predators, anywhere but here.. )


exactly, he is gone, but now who do we turn to? No real good options in my opinion, we need a third provincial party in BC quickly, other 2 are getting stale.


----------



## slipstream (Apr 25, 2010)

We have only one other party in BC that MIGHT have a chance of gaining power, and that would be the conservatives.

Also, one thing I noticed about a LOT of BC people, while most of us know a lot about hockey, a lot of us know nothing about politics or running a province. people like to assume that the government HAS to do what the people want. If that were the case, we would be bankrupt and no longer function as a 1st world country. 

Campbell has done a GREAT job in running this province. Other than the HST, he has been one of the best premiers we have had. 

I will leave it at that and not go into details arguing about it. Im just sorry to see him go. But the HST could go with him, im indifferent towards it.


----------



## roadrunner (Apr 25, 2010)

I think you misspelled word ruining ......


----------



## tony1928 (Apr 22, 2010)

I agree with Slipstream. I think the way the HST was rolled out was one ginormous cluster-you-know-what. A huge lapse of judgement on the Liberals part. I don't object to the HST at all, just how it was all brought to light and implemented. 

Campbell and his government has done a very good job of getting BC to where it is today. That being said, the fact that there is no viable alternative to the Liberals hurts the political process as they don't have that other party that will keep them in check.


----------



## summit (Aug 22, 2010)

slipstream said:


> We have only one other party in BC that MIGHT have a chance of gaining power, and that would be the conservatives.
> 
> Also, one thing I noticed about a LOT of BC people, while most of us know a lot about hockey, a lot of us know nothing about politics or running a province. people like to assume that the government HAS to do what the people want. If that were the case, we would be bankrupt and no longer function as a 1st world country.
> 
> ...


Fully agree, I didnt mind him at all. I know I am in the minority.


----------



## neven (May 15, 2010)

Whether he ran the province efficiently or not, he has repeatedly violated the trust of the voters who voted him in and cashed in significantly on the inability of Carol james to lead the opposition. He violated more than his voter's trust though, he has violated the charter of rights on numerous occasions. People seem to forget about bill 29, a bill in which canada's highest court has ruled it is unconstitional. (Linky here). Other Reasons have been stated already here. But i feel the comment that he is the greatest premier really doesn't fit him at all, he just was someone who took advantage of a boom of prosperity in the province.

For those who supported Bill 29, might i ask why? or is it simply because it was a liberal piece of legislation? Contrary to what people believe, it is not the union workers who are too high paid, its the few people at the top who take in much more than they deserve for the work they do. Take a look at the top civil servants, they aren't paid that much because of a union, they just know the right people.

On top of that gordo has insured BC has one of the largest wage gaps in the nation. Instead of increasing the minimum wage like many, he introduced the student minimum wage to further exploit young workers. Now i dont believe someone untrained/certified should make as much as someone who put the time and effort to school in their craft, i do believe they should have a chance to atleast make a living on 1 full time job. Looking at the job market all i see is mostly minimum wage positions part time only.

So only in the sense of a business owner can cambell be seen as the greatest premier. Why? because he allows them to put more money in their pocket.


----------



## Aquaman (Apr 21, 2010)

neven said:


> Whether he ran the province efficiently or not, he has repeatedly violated the trust of the voters who voted him in and cashed in significantly on the inability of Carol james to lead the opposition. He violated more than his voter's trust though, he has violated the charter of rights on numerous occasions. People seem to forget about bill 29, a bill in which canada's highest court has ruled it is unconstitional. (Linky here). Other Reasons have been stated already here. But i feel the comment that he is the greatest premier really doesn't fit him at all, he just was someone who took advantage of a boom of prosperity in the province.
> 
> For those who supported Bill 29, might i ask why? or is it simply because it was a liberal piece of legislation? Contrary to what people believe, it is not the union workers who are too high paid, its the few people at the top who take in much more than they deserve for the work they do. Take a look at the top civil servants, they aren't paid that much because of a union, they just know the right people.
> 
> ...


Couldn't agree more .



slipstream said:


> We have only one other party in BC that MIGHT have a chance of gaining power, and that would be the conservatives.
> 
> Also, one thing I noticed about a LOT of BC people, while most of us know a lot about hockey, a lot of us know nothing about politics or running a province. people like to assume that the government HAS to do what the people want. If that were the case, we would be bankrupt and no longer function as a 1st world country.
> 
> ...


Couldn't agree less...Nice guy if you were looking to buy a railroad....and not have to maintain it...


----------



## snow (Apr 21, 2010)

Time to vote for the green party!


----------



## neven (May 15, 2010)

To be honest it isn't the party's that are an issue here, its the voter turn out and the unwillingless for BC citizens to place their vote where their values are, even if its a grassroots, independant they are voting for. They just prefer to follow the media hype and only vote to remove someone rather than think about their vote.

Also people dont know how the liberal party is locally, There are 3 factions vying for control of the party, one is more conservative, ie campbell and the majority of his caucus, then there are the more center based true liberals, and finally the slightly left who do not quite go as far as NDP.


----------



## TomC (Apr 21, 2010)

neven said:


> So only in the sense of a business owner can cambell be seen as the greatest premier. Why? because he allows them to put more money in their pocket.


 Absolutely.


----------



## Rayne (Jul 12, 2010)

slipstream said:


> Campbell has done a GREAT job in running this province. Other than the HST, he has been one of the best premiers we have had.


Gotta say, I kinda agree with you there. Up until the HST I thought he did a pretty good job. It's going to be interesting to see who comes out of the leadership convention.. and even more interesting when elections come around again.


----------



## neven (May 15, 2010)

i'm curious to see what policies were great? quite a few supporters keep saying he was decent, but they never say why? Im not out to attack his supporters and try to poke holes in what they say, i just want to know the basis of their personal opinion on him. I love political talks, and its obvious im left biased do to my line of work and upbringing


----------



## roadrunner (Apr 25, 2010)

Everyone knows olympics don't make money so why did we have them? That money should have been spent somewhere where they are long due like schools, hospitals ..... 
I wish I was one those people that could take advantage of it and fill my pockets with your tax money too..... and unless there is a beer party in next election, I'm not even gonna bother vote!


----------



## Rayne (Jul 12, 2010)

neven said:


> i'm curious to see what policies were great? quite a few supporters keep saying he was decent, but they never say why? Im not out to attack his supporters and try to poke holes in what they say, i just want to know the basis of their personal opinion on him. I love political talks, and its obvious im left biased do to my line of work and upbringing


The reasons I say that I think he did a pretty good job is because of our economy over the past 10 years that he's been in office. BC lead the country in new job creations and had the lowest unemployement record in 30 years during his term. He also cut personal income tax across the board in his term. Seems to me that he had an agenda to fix the economy that was broke by the previous government and that's what he stuck to. Did other things suffer because of that agenda? Sure, I guess. Something had to give somewhere.

I'm not going to claim to be an expert in political debate by any means. To be honest I'm not a huge fan of politics. It always seems that there is never going to be a "right choice". Just the lesser of the two evils. Every party is going to screw up on some things and get some others things right. And whats right to one person most likely wont be right to another.


----------



## neven (May 15, 2010)

Then explain why the economy did so well, and the employment so great, when bc fell into the highest child poverty rate in the country and how he has never addressed this issue? The world was on an economic upturn and he failed to keep his policy up to date, balancing services with raw income to the social elite. Im not saying throw money into welfare, as i do not agree with the current system as it is, but there are many more programs available throughout the country that help the children directly.

Take the pathways to success program that's spreading across the nation? Where is it here? it's been proven to increase graduation rates, and said to be the reason of reduced crime rates from youth, as it helps provide children in school with a more stable learning environment. If the parents can't afford food, they ensure the kid gets a meal at school so they don't suffer, if they need a more direct learning approach, they give it.

As for local job creation, weren't the bulk of these job wages totaling below the cost of living. The olympics gave a couple years of job creation in the higher paying fields, but these were mostly skilled labour and they would have a job elsewhere anyways at that wage. The new jobs were mostly in the services field, related to retail or customer service. On top of that, what percentage of these jobs were part time? Many employers are have a majority of part time workers, working just under the threshold of full time so they can skip out on benefits. When i worked for Sears, there were 4 full time positions and about 20 part timers, Every year atleast half the part timers worked full time hours, and the company had them sign a waiver saying they weren't full time, just to skip the benefits they'd have to pay otherwise.

Then there is the gutting of our labour code, and further more the rights of bargaining units. With the labour code, he made is so collective agreements replaced it rather than add on the labour code like before. Reason for this was certain parties (ie CLAC) had language on diminishing overtime in their agreement, the more hours you work, the less you make an hour. This was in direct violation to the labour code, so our govt changed the code to allow it to work. What this did was make the other collective agreements have huge holes in their language open to be exploited, causing backlog in future negotiations. Right now it looks like it will be at least 2 years before i get a new contract, since mine expired in may (means no raises or retroactivity through that time).


----------

