Kevin Falcon Roundtable
Despite having most of my attention focused on the federal scene, I still remain active within the BC Liberals. However, since we have a majority government provincially and all the major changes that helped take BC from last to first were made in the first term, it has rather been quiet on the provincial scene. It was interesting to meet with Kevin Falcon and hear about the government's plans on transportation as well as other issues. He is generally one of the more conservative members of the BC Liberals, but I would still argue a strong minister. After all I was a former Progressive Conservative so I have no problem working with libertarian oriented conservatives, it is the social conservatives I have problems with.
My question was on the Patullo Bridge, when would the government would put a median to help prevent the high number of fatal accidents on the bridge. As it turns out, it is under Translink's jurisdiction (one of the many dumb things the NDP did when in power in BC). Another issue discussed was the Port Mann Bridge. The government is considering tolling it since the cost of twinning it would be too high, which require either raising taxes or going into deficit, something the government doesn't want to do. I suspected many would oppose it, but apparently 56% support the idea. I personally support tolling bridges and upgraded roads. As much as a pain in the neck it would be for me, hopefully it would cut down on the number of people using cars, which would be good for our environment. Finally there was a question on the government abandoning its earlier conservative positions. He argued that many of the earlier decisions were made in order to turn around the finances and economy in BC and now that this has been done, we can afford to invest that money in the future of the province. He argued that the party has not moved to the left. I would argue it has taken a more centrist approach, but this has been due to the fact that we can now do so. The NDP swung the province so far to the left that we had to adopt a right wing fiscal agenda, much like the federal Liberals did in the early 90s to turn things around. Now that we have healthy surpluses, we can afford to invest in education, health care, and infrastructure.
My question was on the Patullo Bridge, when would the government would put a median to help prevent the high number of fatal accidents on the bridge. As it turns out, it is under Translink's jurisdiction (one of the many dumb things the NDP did when in power in BC). Another issue discussed was the Port Mann Bridge. The government is considering tolling it since the cost of twinning it would be too high, which require either raising taxes or going into deficit, something the government doesn't want to do. I suspected many would oppose it, but apparently 56% support the idea. I personally support tolling bridges and upgraded roads. As much as a pain in the neck it would be for me, hopefully it would cut down on the number of people using cars, which would be good for our environment. Finally there was a question on the government abandoning its earlier conservative positions. He argued that many of the earlier decisions were made in order to turn around the finances and economy in BC and now that this has been done, we can afford to invest that money in the future of the province. He argued that the party has not moved to the left. I would argue it has taken a more centrist approach, but this has been due to the fact that we can now do so. The NDP swung the province so far to the left that we had to adopt a right wing fiscal agenda, much like the federal Liberals did in the early 90s to turn things around. Now that we have healthy surpluses, we can afford to invest in education, health care, and infrastructure.
posted by Monkey Loves to Fight at 11:00 PM
8 Comments:
its hypocritical tho of Falcon to imply the necessity of tolls on the Port Mann and possibly Haney-Langley crossing while providing free unfettered travel on the renovated highway to Whistler... If its true this is to be the 'greenest Olympics ever' (HarHarHar!) then why not create a sustainable need for transit to the village, and tolling the highway even at a minimum means to help recoup some of the cost? The rail-bed is still there, right? Buses could travel that road, right? Or is it just for mercedes and beemers? We're only seeing the tip of the shadow of cost overruns on this wonderful Winter wunderland, so to see the campbel team actually be consistent would be a great start.
-- oh and how soon do we see your endorsement for Martin's replacement? Curious people want to know...
I think the issue here is cost. And yes I would be all for tolling the Whistler highway as well. Although building a bridge costs a lot more than upgrading a highway I suspect is the main reason. I also agree there should be better access for transit too.
oh and how soon do we see your endorsement for Martin's replacement? Curious people want to know...
Probably after the next two debates, so sometime shortly after June 17th.
Nice to see you at the SFU BCYL event Miles.
So, you'll be endorsing Hedy Fry on June 17th... or Joe Volpe?
Nice to see you at the SFU BCYL event Miles.
Glad you could come out. I am hoping you will at least return to the BC Liberals. Maybe after living in downtown Vancouver long enough the more liberal environment will persuade you to suppor the Liberals federally after growing up in the Fraser Valley, which is a very conservative area.
So, you'll be endorsing Hedy Fry on June 17th... or Joe Volpe?
Neither. My choices in alphabetical order are between Maurizio Bevilacqua, Scott Brison, Stephane Dion, Michael Ignatieff, and Gerard Kennedy
Sorry Miles... I'm Totally Tory. Barring there being a Tory on the ballot, I'd vote Green before Liberal. I'd rather move out of town thant humiliate myself by voting for Hedy Fry. Since you voted for Hedy Fry during the recent federal election, I thought you'd be leaning towards supporting her for the Liberal leadership. :)
You stated, I have no problem working with libertarian oriented conservatives, it is the social conservatives I have problems with.
That doesn't make sense to me, sense Langley's two BC Liberal MLAs, Rich Coleman and Mary Polak, are pretty socially conservative.
But alas, I guess principles can be set aside for power. ;)
I'd rather move out of town thant humiliate myself by voting for Hedy Fry
I am not talking about Hedy Fry per se, but rather the Liberal Party as a whole. She won't be Liberal MP forever, she is already in her mid 60s so the chances are another Liberal MP will eventually replace her. Suppose Christy Clark or even Lorne Mayencourt was the Liberal candidate, would that make a difference Ryan.
Since you voted for Hedy Fry during the recent federal election, I thought you'd be leaning towards supporting her for the Liberal leadership.
I would have voted Liberal in pretty much every riding in Canada. I would have voted for any of the other seven candidates who hold federal seats if they were the candidate in my riding. I voted for Hedy Fry, not because I liked her, but because I wanted Paul Martin to remain as prime-minister.
That doesn't make sense to me, sense Langley's two BC Liberal MLAs, Rich Coleman and Mary Polak, are pretty socially conservative
They haven't ever talked about promoting a socially conservative agenda since being elected. Also having a few social conservatives is different than the party being dominated by them. I don't like so-cons like Paul Szabo, Tom Wappel, and Dan McTeague, but there is a difference between having a few vs. the majority of the party.
One question to you Miles...
How can you support the Liberal party of Canada when they also have social conservatives who voted against the same-sex marriage?
One question to you Miles...
How can you support the Liberal party of Canada when they also have social conservatives who voted against the same-sex marriage?
The official policy of the Conservatives is to oppose same-sex marriage, while the official policy of the Liberals is to support it. Also it is one thing to have a few opponents, it is quite another thing to have over 90% of your caucus oppose it.
Post a Comment
<< Home