June 23, 2017

Shocking Robbery

Persons unknown have purloined some of the NDP’s most treasured property — their platform.  It may be hard to fence this stuff, since almost everyone knows where it came from and who it belongs to.  Smart operators should sit on it for a while before trying to sell the material in the media marketplace.

NDP.BreakinBC NDP Leader John Horgan, who delivered a press conference the following morning, had this to say: “Last night, unknown individuals broke into the BC NDP head office and stole most of our election platform.”
Obviously distraught, Horgan explained that nothing else of value was taken, but that the theft had left him feeling gutted: “That someone could so callously steal this platform that so many of our best people worked so hard on, well, it really undermines your faith in things, you know? Who could have done this?” asked Horgan, shaking his head solemnly.

Thanks to Geekman.ca for this fast-breaking story lead.
Clues are available to those who receive electronic messages from the world around them.  Like THIS ONE (thanks to David Moscrop in Macleans.ca).

 There’s an old joke, often attributed to Groucho Marx, that I spent the better part of Thursday thinking about after British Columbia’s premier, Christy Clark, presented her doomed government’s speech from the throne. The comedian is said to have quipped: “These are my principles. And if you don’t like them, I have others.”

Posted in

Support

If you love this region and have a view to its future please subscribe, donate, or become a Patron.

Share on

Comments

  1. Perhaps a little more theft is in order. This time the smiley bandit should scarf the NDP policy on the Kinder Morgan pipeline and make it three for three for unanimous party rejection.

    1. KM has been approved federally, is merely an expansion of an already existing safe pipeline and is vital for Canada’s federal and W-Canada’s provincial tax revenue. If you cancel this pipeline you must in the same token also acknowledge where you will cut spending, such as hospitals, transit, roads, RCMP, universities, schools, .. there are consequences of you kill the golden goose.

      1. Items to cut:
        Monster bridge ‘n freeway
        Site C dam
        Public LNG infrastructure
        Subsidies to private industry
        Public services and infrastructure that underpin private transport
        Lower royalty returns on the extraction of public resources
        That’s a cool $100 billion right there, enough to pay down the BC debt with lots of change left over.

      2. KM will create ~50 permanent jobs at Westridge Terminal. I predict the majority of the 2,300 construction workers, materials, equipment fabrication and project management activity will originate from outside of the province. There is no market for heavy oil in Asia. It’s a pipe dream, just like Christ’s beloved LNG that was outcompeted by US LNG exports that left everyone else gulping their methane contrails.
        An average tech company located in the Mount Pleasant Rise will provide permanent employment for 6 times more people than KM. Companies that develop, commercialize and patent intellectual property create enormous wealth far beyond Big Oil. Renewables, as has been reiterated ad infinitum here, are now outcompeting fossil fuels and provide orders of magnitude more employment and tax revenue.
        One moderate dilbit spill in Burrard Inlet will kill the cruise ship tourist industry which again is worth far more to the BC economy than KM could ever be. This is an Alberta project that would transfer risk to BC while profits are made in Edmonton and especially Houston. BC has a more diverse and thus more mature economy than Alberta, and that should be lauded.
        If you think KM is the future then you need to recalibrate your understanding of today’s economics.

        1. A boat with double hull, two modern NAV systems on board, a local trained pilot on board and tug boats around will not spill or run aground like the fear mongerers are always happy to predict.
          Oil is a modern necessity.. The pixie dust to replace it doesn’t exist. As we can see, politicians aren’t even willing to introduce road tolls, but killing KM is high on their agenda ? Doesn’t that sound hypocritical to you too ?
          Canada is such a wealthy nation due to its abundant resources, among other things oil, gas, water, forests, land for agriculture, potash, uranium etc. Only downtown Vancouverites can do without a car or natural gas, the rest of the country cannot. If we do not export oil, someone else will. Canada is expected to grow oil production about 30%, from around 4M barrel per day today to sell over 5 in about 20 years. 5M times $50 = $250M per day .. times 365 days = 100B give or take in a year. That is a lot of revenue propelling the country, and not easily replaceable with anything else.

        2. Rather than pulling up the national GDP table for the umpteenth time, I’ll make it easy for you once again. ALL natural resources add up to 20% of the Canadian economy. And fossil fuels generate just 8%.of Canada’s wealth.

        3. Oil spill consultants say there is no guarantee even with double hull tankers. Even if they are perfect, there is always human error. The potential for a catastrophic oil spill from a double hull tanker is real, and the consequences could be just as damaging as major oil spills form single hull carriers. A generally accepted risk reduction is not risk elimination. From Alaska based oil spill consultants Nuka research:
          7 Conclusions
          Despite documented issues with double hull tanker design, construction, operations, and maintenance, the double hull is generally accepted to provide a reduction in overall spill risk compared to single hull tankers. However, double hulls do not guarantee that no oil will be spilled. The potential for a catastrophic oil spill from a double hull tanker is real, and the consequences could be just as damaging as major oil spills from single hull carriers.
          Problems with double hull tanker design, construction, operation and maintenance have been well documented over the last thirty years. One organization has characterized the current situation as a crisis, citing the “urgent need to enhance port-State control measures to ensure that sub-standard double-hull tonnage is not overlooked in the current push to tackle sub-standard single-hull tankers.” (Seas at Risk, 2009)
          Recommendations for improving double hull tanker safety include greater redundancy in new builds, mandatory minimum standards for the construction and repair of vessels, and stricter standards, oversight, and enforcement by port states
          31
          801.431.091216.DblHullTnker.pdf
          Review of Double Hull Tanker Oil Spill Prevention Considerations
          and classification societies. While significant efforts to address most of these issues are ongoing, none of these can be achieved overnight. Even if all of the problems with double hull vessel design are remedied in new vessel construction and operation, there are still a significant number of double hull tankers already in operation that are vulnerable to future failures and mishaps. Programs and policies must also be developed and implemented to ensure that the mariners who operate these highly complex vessels have the training and abilities necessary to ensure safe operations.
          Double hulls are a key component of the oil spill prevention system, but they are not the only component. The only way to safeguard against the potential for future oil spills from double hull tankers is to create and maintain an effective prevention system that provides multi-layered against oil spills and accidents, including engineering and human factor components.
          8 References

        4. And the grave of Beyer credibility gets dug quite a bit deeper after a google search of Gwyn Morgan reveals his modest biases as the ex CEO of Encana Corp, his involvement with SNC Lavalin, (see bribery scandal) his close relationship with Christy Clark, his membership on the board of the Fraser Institute. What would you say to a proposal on setting civil service compensation by Irene Lanzinger? This is one of several on page one of a google search.
          http://www.progressive-economics.ca/2014/01/21/the-relentlessly-hypocritical-gwyn-morgan/

        5. Gwyn Morgan was indeed a highly respected CEO of one of Canada’s largest firms namely Canada’s largest energy firm, Encana, for many years. He too argues correctly that public sector benefits incl pensions are unsustainable in your linked article. If we continue the path led by ON, and now AB in BC we will also end up like Illinois, with a bankrupt province due to excessive spending, specifically public sector salaries and pensions bankrupting the state. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2017/06/05/illinois-credit-downgrade-proves-public-pensions-should-be-outlawed/ Prudent spending is in order so we can finance important projects. like public transit, homelessness or bridges. To finance that we need not only product spending but also massive venue that only a well oiled industrial machine can provide. I expect BC to follow IL path now into unsustainable spending and assuage on industry, ie collapse of revenue and increase in spending leaving a gaping debt hole as we have seen in ON, then in AB and in other US states like IL.

        6. Beyernomics is a comical thing.
          Hospitals, schools and police (not to mention paramedics and fire fighters) are funded through provincial and municipal budgets. The province and BC municipalities receive microscopic funding — if that — through fossil fuel revenue.
          BC’s GDP led the nation in growth specifically because it is NOT shackled by over-dependence on fossil fuels and the bargain basement world oil prices of the last three years.

        7. Then again, Beyernomics is not funny.
          Outlawing public pensions means that some of the most important, large conglomerate funds that invest in the private sector will be removed. Billions of multiplier effect dollars will evaporate, and the private sector that benefits from public employee spending (grocery stores, mortgage lenders, retail ….) will sink. Tens of thousands of firefighters, police, paramedics, sewer workers, coast guard, military personnel, building inspectors, development planning processors, and so forth will leave because the risks (especially for emergency and health service providers) will outweigh the benefits. Then and only then will Thomas’s assertion that schools, hospitals and police services will be eroded or cease will come to pass, not because some fictitious fat petroleum line item is being denied on a budget sheet.
          The municipal pension plan pays out over 80% of its benefits from the profits earned on investments in the private sector, not from tax revenue. The CPP and all other public pensions are in a similar scenario. Too bad most of our senior governments are not as well managed.
          Too bad Thomas doesn’t understand any of this. A dollar invested in — or removed from — the economy isn’t public or private. It’s just a piece of currency.

  2. Perhaps a more stable coalition between the two largest parties is in order ? Germany did that the last eight years, in a collation between right of center CDU/CSU and left of Center SPD. Why not here in BC ? More stable. Centrist. Boring. Good for the economy, jobs, taxation and growth. Predictable.

    1. Because in Europe right and left do not translate in the same way they do here.
      In Europe, “right” doesn’t equate with raping the environment for short term profit.
      In Europe right and left can find common ground. That’s not possible here.

    1. The promise was for no more unfair bridge tolls. A rational and fair tolling policy would make a lot of sense.

      1. What is not fair is applying a toll to one bridge, and not the alternate route a few km away. Not only is it not fair, it is not efficient, as it incents the wrong behaviours, like driving further to avoid a toll charge.. A smaller dollar amount, applied over more routes, with equitable charges for route A and route B, if they represent driver alternative choices, would make sense. Also, time of day surcharges to incent off peak travel should be considered.

      2. Only make a lot of sense to the crazy politician that would suggest it.
        The poor wouldn’t pay because they would get rebates.
        The rich wouldn’t care and drive anyway.
        The commercial drivers would all just increase their charges or their companies would increase theirs, so many things would just increase in cost for all – both rich and poor.
        The middle class might get hit.
        No politician is going to touch it, since it is said that Surrey and the tolls was the deciding factor in the election.

        1. All the while pretending to care about the environment.
          Of course tolls have an impact on behavior if high enough, say $20/crossing or $10 in rush hour and $5 otherwise.
          To increase public transit and increase traffic flow on roads we need more public transit AND tolled roads/bridges/tunnels .. a carrot AND a stick .. but politicians do not govern anymore .. they just appease the voters and kick the can down the road

        2. If tolling increases the cost of goods it also raises revenues and reduces taxes by the same amount.
          X = X.
          It’s up to government to decide to reduce one tax when applying another – or not. But that has nothing to do with the source be it income, or transportation or anything else.
          Tolls (more accurately, congestion pricing) do reduce congestion and “crazy politicians” have been successful at implementing them without significant long term push back.
          But fake plumbers with fake names who spend all day ranting on blogs won’t be convinced.

        1. What is your explanation for the reduction in traffic over the Port Mann after tolls were implemented? Just a coincidence?

        2. Everyone seems agreed that the traffic shifted to the New Westminster bridge and the Alex Fraser Bridge that are both toll-free.
          Incidentally, this led to the NDP winning campaign promise to eliminate all tolls.
          As I said above; only the middle class would , temporarily, reduce travel by vehicle.

        3. “incidentally, this led to the NDP winning campaign promise to eliminate all unfair tolls”
          Fixed it for you.

        4. Thank you. And; the NDP Platform goes on to tell us: “Getting rid of tolls will improve use of these major bridges, reduce congestion in other areas and help many commuters get to and from work faster and safer.”
          I thought you would have known that.

        5. If you are going to quote the NDP platform, why do you keep taking snippets of it without the context? Come on, Be Good, Johnny.
          In a section of their platform entitled “Eliminating Unfair Bridge Tolls” is this section:
          “John Horgan and the BC NDP will eliminate tolls on the Port Mann and the Golden Ears bridges.
          Getting rid of tolls will improve use of these major bridges, reduce congestion in other areas and help many commuters get to and from work faster and safer. We will work with mayors to develop lasting, effective and fair solutions to Metro Vancouver’s transportation needs that increase the use of public transit, and reduce vehicle trips overall.”
          I like that part about working with mayors to develop solutions. You know the Mayor’s direction on this, right?
          Now look at the BC Green platform:
          “A B.C. Green government will use tools such as mobility pricing to manage congestion and generate funds for public transportation upgrades. ”
          Lots of room for agreement there. Your proposition that mobility pricing is dead is very strange.

  3. There can be no doubt that the Green government, assisted by the NDP, will easily convince all the good citizens of Surrey that sealed the deal for the NDP, that driving just a few inches is going to cost money; especially the transport and taxi drivers that voted for no tolls.
    You could say that 80% of Surrey voters did not vote Green but the Greens did get around 20% of the vote in Surrey. Let’s see if Horgan can swing it. Congestion road pricing for a subway to Kitsilano. Cough up Surrey. You too Langley.

    1. The promise to work with the Metro mayors and TransLink caused a rise in NDP + Green votes. Working against the Metro mayors — to the point of even ridiculing them — caused a near-wipeout of the BC Libs in the big city. There fate was sealed by a worn out pattern well before one late campaign promise landed about tolls.
      The lesson: Stop messing with the Metro and work toward improving the lives of half the provincial population.

Subscribe to Viewpoint Vancouver

Get breaking news and fresh views, direct to your inbox.

Join 7,303 other subscribers

Show your Support

Check our Patreon page for stylish coffee mugs, private city tours, and more – or, make a one-time or recurring donation. Thank you for helping shape this place we love.

Popular Articles

See All

All Articles