|
Post by Starsteward on Sept 15, 2014 10:24:38 GMT -8
BC 'Liberals', it seems, will never ever go back on fundamental changes that they have made to the coastal ferry system over the last 10+ years. To do so would be to admit that they had errored (i.e. 'screwed up'). This is true not just with the ferries but on so many other fronts as well. Some might say that their stubbornness trumps sound judgment. Which still begs the question, how did they win that last election? Any one of those things should have been a government ending scandal, and yet they are still there. The BC 'Liberals' were right in the NDP's cross-hairs during the last election as the 'Libs' were 10 points or so behind the NDP? All the pundits thought the 10 points was insurmountable, and should have been, except for one big NDP blunder orchestrated by now ex-NDP Leader Adrian Dix, who, bless his heart tried to run a positive, 'Mr. Nice Guy' campaign which produced the dramatic comeback by Ms. Clark that knocked the pundits for a loop as well. Things are never dull in BC Politics, and the last election was the cherry on TOP of the icing on the cake.
|
|
|
Post by Starsteward on Sept 15, 2014 11:02:15 GMT -8
Fair enough if you disagree about the effect of the figures, but I maintain that we reached a tipping point some time ago where a lot of discretionary tourist dollars were diverted out of the ferry system... and BC Ferries' own numbers seems to back that up. Travel is down, even for residents, and local economies have been impacted. You might think $280 is fine but $395 is not; traffic figures say otherwise. One of the biggest problems with BCF is the total unwillingness to understand the basic Econ 101 concepts of supply and demand. They seem shocked that by raising the price, they have reduced the demand for their services. Is there a single manager there who's taken a business class? There are many very creative things that could done to provide flexible fares based on demand and seasonality to increase revenue while maintaining baseline costs. In the early days of the forum there was a running thread called "Ferries Busy" where the members would track overloads, sailing waits, and extra managers discretion sailings (done with the crew on overtime to clear the loads - totally not cost effective). When was the last time we had a "Ferries Busy" thread? Are the ferries ever that busy anymore? When you had three-sailing waits, all day Friday/Sat/Sun in the summer, in both directions, on Route 1, service was underpriced. Now... its overpriced. How is BCF going to meet equilibrium? They could consider going to dynamic pricing. Want to ride the ferry on a Sunday afternoon with no reservation? 20% surcharge above the base tariff. Last summer, I took Route 1 westbound from Swartz Bay to Tsa on a Sunday night. I just missed the 2000 sailing (with a Coastal). She sailed full. I ended up on the 2100 (on a Spirit). We were less than half full. Could BCF entice some travelers to take the last sailing by offering it at a 10% discount off the base tariff, leaving more room for those willing to pay to travel at peak times? Wouldn't it be better to fill that Spirit up (even at a reduced tariff) rather than do the whole "sailings wait" thing with cars lined up all afternoon? These are just some examples of what BCF could do if they had any imagination or business acumen (not necessarily what they should do). When are they going to show a little imagination? 'northwersterner' raise some interesting fare pricing propositions, which 'could' be a positive move by BC Ferries. He is also aware that these positive moves he outlines are probably dead in the water, as BC Ferries ( and they aren't the only ones), seem to have either not taken or miserably failed Economic 101! In today's corporate world, only the economic bottom line, ie. 'profitabilty', the return for our shareholders is of any consequence! Heaven help any CEO/ COO who fails to dock the 'corporate ship' at the high water mark, the meeting or exceeding of stock analyst's 'expectations' or a particular companies profit 'forecast'. What we, the rank and file consumer end up with is a loss of jobs, and higher prices for goods and services purchased in the general marketplace. Cut costs!, anywhere possible is the corporate battle cry! I do not object to companies seeking methods of increasing 'efficiency' within their operations, however the swath that in many cases produces a more 'efficient' operational model for a company does so at a less than acceptable human cost.
|
|
|
Post by Political Incorrectness on Sept 15, 2014 12:50:54 GMT -8
One of the biggest problems with BCF is the total unwillingness to understand the basic Econ 101 concepts of supply and demand. They seem shocked that by raising the price, they have reduced the demand for their services. Is there a single manager there who's taken a business class? There are many very creative things that could done to provide flexible fares based on demand and seasonality to increase revenue while maintaining baseline costs. In the early days of the forum there was a running thread called "Ferries Busy" where the members would track overloads, sailing waits, and extra managers discretion sailings (done with the crew on overtime to clear the loads - totally not cost effective). When was the last time we had a "Ferries Busy" thread? Are the ferries ever that busy anymore? When you had three-sailing waits, all day Friday/Sat/Sun in the summer, in both directions, on Route 1, service was underpriced. Now... its overpriced. How is BCF going to meet equilibrium? They could consider going to dynamic pricing. Want to ride the ferry on a Sunday afternoon with no reservation? 20% surcharge above the base tariff. Last summer, I took Route 1 westbound from Swartz Bay to Tsa on a Sunday night. I just missed the 2000 sailing (with a Coastal). She sailed full. I ended up on the 2100 (on a Spirit). We were less than half full. Could BCF entice some travelers to take the last sailing by offering it at a 10% discount off the base tariff, leaving more room for those willing to pay to travel at peak times? Wouldn't it be better to fill that Spirit up (even at a reduced tariff) rather than do the whole "sailings wait" thing with cars lined up all afternoon? These are just some examples of what BCF could do if they had any imagination or business acumen (not necessarily what they should do). When are they going to show a little imagination? 'northwersterner' raise some interesting fare pricing propositions, which 'could' be a positive move by BC Ferries. He is also aware that these positive moves he outlines are probably dead in the water, as BC Ferries ( and they aren't the only ones), seem to have either not taken or miserably failed Economic 101! In today's corporate world, only the economic bottom line, ie. 'profitabilty', the return for our shareholders is of any consequence! Heaven help any CEO/ COO who fails to dock the 'corporate ship' at the high water mark, the meeting or exceeding of stock analyst's 'expectations' or a particular companies profit 'forecast'. What we, the rank and file consumer end up with is a loss of jobs, and higher prices for goods and services purchased in the general marketplace. Cut costs!, anywhere possible is the corporate battle cry! I do not object to companies seeking methods of increasing 'efficiency' within their operations, however the swath that in many cases produces a more 'efficient' operational model for a company does so at a less than acceptable human cost. Cutting costs exclusively is a penny-wise and pound foolish response to low ridership. What is found is when frequency gets cut, some people will simply forgo travelling. One issue that could come up is fare consistency with not having a base fare rate and unpredictability having to plan a trip. The fare structure should have a base fare and then work from there but I would worry about people becoming confused. 1) I do like the idea of charging more on Fridays and Sundays where there is demand for sailings. Washington State Ferries has a chart of sailings that will likely fill before sailing time, likely to wait one or more sailings, and likely to get on. I would look at items like that for the major routes where sailings that are not full are discounted 10-20%. Sailing times that are usually in the 2 sailing wait category, have a surcharge for peak travel. At the same time, discount sailings that are anticipated not to be full and could potentially fill with a 15-20% discount. 2) For lower demand sailings that will not have sailing waits, maybe change the reservation system to a deposit system for those sailings where it can be applied to your fare later in reward for booking early and taking space on an earlier sailing or have a lower fare offer for booking early. I would like to see something like this but I am not sure if more people would be enticed to sail earlier to avoid paying more. Either way, if you get enough people, more revenue and they may consider spending it on ancillary services. 3) Off-season fares need to be lowered. It is definitely okay to have a one boat wait on the weekends up until the last sailings, but when there have been two to three boat waits, that gets excessive and you know the fares are not high enough.
|
|
|
Post by northwesterner on Sept 15, 2014 13:09:33 GMT -8
I wouldn't worry too much about people being confused. There are many pricing structures (in transport) that use fluctuating fares. Cruise ships, airlines, and even Bolt Bus, use fluctuating fares.
In this case, however, it shouldn't be unlimited fluctuations but based on a base fare with discounts and surcharges based on expected business levels.
As you noted WSF (and BCF as well) have a pretty good idea of which sailings will fill, and which ones won't.
Years ago as an undergrad I took a senior-level econ class where we got elbows deep into price theory and price optimization. Too bad I don't remember more details.
But basically, with all the data BCF has, they can break this down to targeted revenue per quarter -> month -> week -> day -> and then set up some projections based on past numbers on how to price these trips. Then price them out; pricing should be set to incentivize choice travelers to sail on underutilized sailings and to discourage travel at the most popular times. Thus, by fluctuating your pricing you might just be able to spread the load out. For those that have to be home in Vancouver by 8PM, they can pay a 15% surchage to sail on the 5PM from SWB. For those that can be home by 11PM, they can sail on the 9PM at 15% discount off the base fare.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2014 13:31:36 GMT -8
I agree with Dan. Charging more for peak sailings would definitely spread out demand, though at BC Ferries, they should be looking charging less for lower demand sailings. The current system, of course, doesn't allow that kind of freedom.
|
|
|
Post by Political Incorrectness on Sept 15, 2014 13:50:49 GMT -8
I agree with Dan. Charging more for peak sailings would definitely spread out demand, though at BC Ferries, they should be looking charging less for lower demand sailings. The current system, of course, doesn't allow that kind of freedom. That would be the theory, but you are playing with the school of psychology where if it becomes too expensive or too frustrating, people may choose not to travel. Just like with a sudden fare reduction suddenly increases demand, a sudden peak increase may not have people change their behavior. If incentives are given for choosing a sailing outside of peaks that are not going to be full, then people would consider travelling.
|
|
|
Post by northwesterner on Sept 15, 2014 15:17:17 GMT -8
I agree with Dan. Charging more for peak sailings would definitely spread out demand, though at BC Ferries, they should be looking charging less for lower demand sailings. The current system, of course, doesn't allow that kind of freedom. That would be the theory, but you are playing with the school of psychology where if it becomes too expensive or too frustrating, people may choose not to travel. Just like with a sudden fare reduction suddenly increases demand, a sudden peak increase may not have people change their behavior. If incentives are given for choosing a sailing outside of peaks that are not going to be full, then people would consider travelling. An economist would say this is not psychology, just the application of the laws of economics to a real life setting.
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Sept 25, 2014 13:54:01 GMT -8
Because I was curious, I did a fare comparison today between a WSF route and a similar type BCF route. I did it mostly because I wanted to see just how much of a discrepancy there is in fares between the two systems for a similar length of crossing. And, I'm not sure if this is the correct place for talking about this, but there has been a lot of discussion around fares in this thread, and I couldn't find a better location to post this. So, at risk of adding fuel to the already heated debate of BC Ferries pricing out it's customers, here are the results of my findings:
The two routes I compared are Anacortes to Orcas for WSF, and Tsawwassen to Galiano (or any of the Southern Gulf Islands) for BC Ferries. Both routes are similar in many respects: the crossing times are about the same, and they are both island destinations served by a ferry from the mainland. Anacortes is kind of WSF's version of Tsawwassen, albeit quite a bit smaller and with a lot fewer amenities.
I figured the fares for a standard vehicle with driver and one adult passenger using the current peak season fares for WSF, and in the case of BC Ferries, regular weekend fares. I also figured for a round-trip.
WSF - Anacortes to Orcas (fares are round-trip, collected in Anacortes) vehicle & driver: $51.10 US passenger: $12.95 US TOTAL: $64.05 US
BC FERRIES - Tsawwassen to Southern Gulf Islands
Tsawwassen to Southern Gulf Islands - one way vehicle: $68.75 CDN driver: $18.70 CDN passenger: $18.70 CDN fuel surcharge: 3.4% TOTAL: $109.80 CDN
Southern Gulf Islands to Tsawwassen - one way vehicle: $38.25 CDN driver: $9.60 CDN passenger: $9.60 CDN fuel surcharge: 3.4% TOTAL: $59.40 CDN
GRAND TOTAL (for round trip): $169.20
So, basically, a similar journey on a BC Ferry to The Gulf Islands as compared to taking a ferry to the San Juan Islands costs you roughly $100 more. In this example, the discrepancy is $105.15. Now, we know Washington State Ferries are subsidized a lot more than BC Ferries, so that accounts for some of this, but, still, I can see why Gulf Islanders and other minor route communities are up in arms about the dramatic fare increases. Another interesting item to note, is how simple the fare structure is for WSF. I do appreciate that they lump car and driver together in their pricing, and of course, they don't tack on that fuel surcharge, or if they do, they include it in the base fare, instead of making their customers do the math.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,177
|
Post by Neil on Sept 26, 2014 14:56:57 GMT -8
Relating to Kahloke's post above... I posted a similar fare comparison a few years back, when I made my first trip to Orcas, and I included a couple other route comparisons as well. It's worthwhile to get the updated numbers; they're no more flattering now to BC Ferries.
In fairness to BC Ferries and (hurts to say this) the Liberal government, the two systems do have very different costs in operating. Although WSF and BCFC carry similar numbers of passengers, BCFC has much more 'passenger minutes' and 'passenger miles'. Yes, we have puddle jumps like the Denman and Hornby routes (not that we charge puddle jump rates for them), but on the whole, the vast bulk of customers are travelling on three routes that range from 95 to 120 minutes. There is also the Prince Rupert to Skidegate route, and the Inside Passage. Extremely high subsidies, for a fairly small number of patrons.
The government and BC Ferries point this sort of thing out ad nauseum, but it doesn't explain the results of the valid comparison between Anacortes/Orcas and Tsawwassen/Mayne, two routes of almost identical duration, both having one intermediate stop, and not wildly dissimilar sized vessels. Of course, the crewing levels are very different, and that has a bearing on fares, but it doesn't fully explain the disparity.
I doubt that I'm alone among residents of ferry dependent communities in being completely resigned to the fact that this government simply doesn't care about such comparisons. Ferry advisory committees have brought up such things before, as have opposition politicians. The Vancouver Sun's Stephen Hume, along with other reputable journalists, have presented compelling evidence, both anecdotal and cumulative, regarding the negative effects of high fares. Business organizations on the coast have also weighed in, and the Union of BC Municipalities presented a well researched study recently, which was completely blown off by transport minister Stone. The bottom line is, they don't care, and no amount of evidence is going to change the minds of Clark and her government. They simply don't care, and that is so frustrating, and it's two and a half years until the next election.
|
|
|
Post by Starsteward on Sept 27, 2014 7:46:37 GMT -8
Relating to Kahloke's post above... I posted a similar fare comparison a few years back, when I made my first trip to Orcas, and I included a couple other route comparisons as well. It's worthwhile to get the updated numbers; they're no more flattering now to BC Ferries.
In fairness to BC Ferries and (hurts to say this) the Liberal government, the two systems do have very different costs in operating. Although WSF and BCFC carry similar numbers of passengers, BCFC has much more 'passenger minutes' and 'passenger miles'. Yes, we have puddle jumps like the Denman and Hornby routes (not that we charge puddle jump rates for them), but on the whole, the vast bulk of customers are travelling on three routes that range from 95 to 120 minutes. There is also the Prince Rupert to Skidegate route, and the Inside Passage. Extremely high subsidies, for a fairly small number of patrons.
The government and BC Ferries point this sort of thing out ad nauseum, but it doesn't explain the results of the valid comparison between Anacortes/Orcas and Tsawwassen/Mayne, two routes of almost identical duration, both having one intermediate stop, and not wildly dissimilar sized vessels. Of course, the crewing levels are very different, and that has a bearing on fares, but it doesn't fully explain the disparity.
I doubt that I'm alone among residents of ferry dependent communities in being completely resigned to the fact that this government simply doesn't care about such comparisons. Ferry advisory committees have brought up such things before, as have opposition politicians. The Vancouver Sun's Stephen Hume, along with other reputable journalists, have presented compelling evidence, both anecdotal and cumulative, regarding the negative effects of high fares. Business organizations on the coast have also weighed in, and the Union of BC Municipalities presented a well researched study recently, which was completely blown off by transport minister Stone. The bottom line is, they don't care, and no amount of evidence is going to change the minds of Clark and her government. They simply don't care, and that is so frustrating, and it's two and a half years until the next election.
'Neil' you've scored a terrific 'bull's-eye' hit with this posting! The last paragraph sums up this provincial government's total lack of understanding, care, economics, or whatever other term one might find applicable to operating a ferry service that comes within a country mile of meeting the inter-related needs of all British Columbians. To quote the Premier: " Children and Families" eh?
|
|
Mill Bay
Voyager
Long Suffering Bosun
Posts: 2,886
|
Post by Mill Bay on Sept 29, 2014 16:13:33 GMT -8
I was just reviewing the action on the UCBM report that Neil first posted, and I found the response from the minister to be most illuminating. In particular, the minister claims the UBCM-issued report did not factor in the economic downturn, the Canadian dollar, or increased fuel prices as causes for the decline in traffic. The report's author stated clearly he took into account and corrected for all of these variables and the report was peer reviewed by two independent analysts. The letter that is being referred to that Todd Stone wrote to the UBCM can be found Here:
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,177
|
Post by Neil on Oct 19, 2014 13:46:46 GMT -8
Pertinent to the story regarding Transport Minister Todd Stone's reaction to the UBCM report on high ferry fares and service cuts, is this one from May, displaying the attitude of a different Transport Minister- the one for Scotland. Here's something you'd never catch our boy Todd saying:
Mr Brown said: "We promised to extend RET (reduced fares) to the remaining west coast and Clyde islands within the term of this parliament, so I'm delighted to announce it will go ahead in October 2015.
"We have already seen the positive impact of RET on other ferry routes around Scotland. This further roll out is expected to bring similar economic and tourism benefits."
But of course, our government knows better.
www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-27589051
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2014 14:45:47 GMT -8
Pertinent to the story regarding Transport Minister Todd Stone's reaction to the UBCM report on high ferry fares and service cuts, is this one from May, displaying the attitude of a different Transport Minister- the one for Scotland. Here's something you'd never catch our boy Todd saying:
Mr Brown said: "We promised to extend RET (reduced fares) to the remaining west coast and Clyde islands within the term of this parliament, so I'm delighted to announce it will go ahead in October 2015.
"We have already seen the positive impact of RET on other ferry routes around Scotland. This further roll out is expected to bring similar economic and tourism benefits."
But of course, our government knows better.
www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-27589051
Disclaimer: I believe BC Ferries as a whole should make a profit and it should not be wasting money. Correct me if I'm wrong, but BC Ferries has been in the red since the 1970's. It's not viable to continually grow the subsidy to a ferry corporation, which for more than three decades , has had financial woes. Fare affordability has been a hot commodity since nearly the creation of BC Ferries. This round of cuts did go too far for some communities. However, I'm confident that new technologies, flexible pricing, and other efficiencies will remedy the problem.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,177
|
Post by Neil on Oct 19, 2014 15:29:06 GMT -8
Correct me if I'm wrong, but BC Ferries has been in the red since the 1970's. It's not viable to continually grow the subsidy to a ferry corporation, which for more than three decades , has had financial woes. Fare affordability has been a hot commodity since nearly the creation of BC Ferries. This round of cuts did go too far for some communities. However, I'm confident that new technologies, flexible pricing, and other efficiencies will remedy the problem. Whew...for a moment you had me worried... and then I realized you were just satirizing Todd Stone's pronouncements.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2014 20:06:40 GMT -8
Correct me if I'm wrong, but BC Ferries has been in the red since the 1970's. It's not viable to continually grow the subsidy to a ferry corporation, which for more than three decades , has had financial woes. Fare affordability has been a hot commodity since nearly the creation of BC Ferries. This round of cuts did go too far for some communities. However, I'm confident that new technologies, flexible pricing, and other efficiencies will remedy the problem. Whew...for a moment you had me worried... and then I realized you were just satirizing Todd Stone's pronouncements. Fares have apparently gone up higher than inflation since 1976. What's not debatable, is that in BC, you can govern without the support of BCF dependant communities. Needless to say, it shows the importance of voting.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,177
|
Post by Neil on Oct 19, 2014 22:14:04 GMT -8
Whew...for a moment you had me worried... and then I realized you were just satirizing Todd Stone's pronouncements. Fares have apparently gone up higher than inflation since 1976. What's not debatable, is that in BC, you can govern without the support of BCF dependant communities. Needless to say, it shows the importance of voting. Not quite sure about your point here, as I'm not clear on the connection between the importance of voting, and the current government attitude toward BC Ferries. If you're suggesting- and forgive me if I've got it wrong- that there might have been a different ferry policy if more of the coast had voted Liberal, I would suggest that the result of more Liberal MLAs would simply have solidified the government's notion that they had a mandate to do whatever they pleased, ferry dependent communities be damned.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,177
|
Post by Neil on Oct 30, 2014 14:13:38 GMT -8
Here's a pointed criticism from someone who understands what high ferry fares end up doing.
"Higher ferry fares mean fewer passengers so the accountants will have to subtract paying customers from every new dollar. And at this rate, how long will it be before they abandon the routes where they don't make any money? How long before the provincial government abandons its responsibility to provide a public service to many of the people who depend on ferries to travel or ship their goods? Our transportation minister seems to have an insatiable appetite for funding highways if they require blacktop, and he seems perfectly at peace with providing free ferries on the inland lakes in B.C., but he doesn't seem to have the same affection for our maritime highway on the coast. Why don't they say that they're subsidizing people in Whistler by the massive expansion of the Sea to Sky Highway? I mean, I occasionally go up to Whistler, I suppose I benefit from that expansion of the highway, but the math they do suggests that only people who live at the end of one of these transportation routes are the people who are being subsidized. Why don't they do that- apply the same math to the highways they build, then maintain- that they do to the ferry routes? Am I subsidizing people, wealthy people, who can afford a second home in Whistler?"
The critic?
Christy Clark, talk show host on CKNW, six years ago.
That was then, and this is now.
(italicized quote from Stephen Hume column, Vancouver Sun, 03-10-14)
|
|
|
Post by compdude787 on Oct 30, 2014 20:46:25 GMT -8
Here's a pointed criticism from someone who understands what high ferry fares end up doing.
"Higher ferry fares mean fewer passengers so the accountants will have to subtract paying customers from every new dollar. And at this rate, how long will it be before they abandon the routes where they don't make any money? How long before the provincial government abandons its responsibility to provide a public service to many of the people who depend on ferries to travel or ship their goods? Our transportation minister seems to have an insatiable appetite for funding highways if they require blacktop, and he seems perfectly at peace with providing free ferries on the inland lakes in B.C., but he doesn't seem to have the same affection for our maritime highway on the coast. Why don't they say that they're subsidizing people in Whistler by the massive expansion of the Sea to Sky Highway? I mean, I occasionally go up to Whistler, I suppose I benefit from that expansion of the highway, but the math they do suggests that only people who live at the end of one of these transportation routes are the people who are being subsidized. Why don't they do that- apply the same math to the highways they build, then maintain- that they do to the ferry routes? Am I subsidizing people, wealthy people, who can afford a second home in Whistler?"
The critic?
Christy Clark, talk show host on CKNW, six years ago.
That was then, and this is now.
(italicized quote from Stephen Hume column, Vancouver Sun, 03-10-14) Wow, just lame. Total dishonesty! The pathetic thing is that what she said made so much sense, but what she's doing now makes zero sense now.
|
|
|
Post by Starsteward on Oct 31, 2014 6:40:08 GMT -8
Here's a pointed criticism from someone who understands what high ferry fares end up doing.
"Higher ferry fares mean fewer passengers so the accountants will have to subtract paying customers from every new dollar. And at this rate, how long will it be before they abandon the routes where they don't make any money? How long before the provincial government abandons its responsibility to provide a public service to many of the people who depend on ferries to travel or ship their goods? Our transportation minister seems to have an insatiable appetite for funding highways if they require blacktop, and he seems perfectly at peace with providing free ferries on the inland lakes in B.C., but he doesn't seem to have the same affection for our maritime highway on the coast. Why don't they say that they're subsidizing people in Whistler by the massive expansion of the Sea to Sky Highway? I mean, I occasionally go up to Whistler, I suppose I benefit from that expansion of the highway, but the math they do suggests that only people who live at the end of one of these transportation routes are the people who are being subsidized. Why don't they do that- apply the same math to the highways they build, then maintain- that they do to the ferry routes? Am I subsidizing people, wealthy people, who can afford a second home in Whistler?"
The critic?
Christy Clark, talk show host on CKNW, six years ago.
That was then, and this is now.
(italicized quote from Stephen Hume column, Vancouver Sun, 03-10-14) Wow, just lame. Total dishonesty! The pathetic thing is that what she said made so much sense, but what she's doing now makes zero sense now. I'm sure the research staff of all the opposition parties in the B.C. Legislature will dig up this little morsel of history and trot it out during the next provincial election. Sadly though, as a forum member has previously pointed out, it appears the BC Liberals can win elections without the support of voters affected by this government's total disdain for the transportation needs required by coastal communities'.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2014 15:44:59 GMT -8
As I've always said...."Ohhhh the hypoChristy"... Neil has just posted a prime example of what kind of Premier we have. Says all the right things to do win the election, when in reality once she's in the hotseat she'll say the complete opposite of what she ran with in the election. It's amazing what the Lieberals get away with, with the ovlivious general public. An ovlivious general public? Never heard of that before
|
|
|
Post by compdude787 on Nov 3, 2014 19:49:52 GMT -8
Wow, just lame. Total dishonesty! The pathetic thing is that what she said made so much sense, but what she's doing now makes zero sense now. I'm sure the research staff of all the opposition parties in the B.C. Legislature will dig up this little morsel of history and trot it out during the next provincial election. Sadly though, as a forum member has previously pointed out, it appears the BC Liberals can win elections without the support of voters affected by this government's total disdain for the transportation needs required by coastal communities'. Well, mainly it has to do with the opposition party nominating a "Mr. Nice Guy," someone offer alternate suggestions about the way things should be, but is too nice to the other side and doesn't do enough to make them look bad and just look like the idiots he thinks that they are.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,177
|
Post by Neil on Nov 3, 2014 22:44:15 GMT -8
I'm sure the research staff of all the opposition parties in the B.C. Legislature will dig up this little morsel of history and trot it out during the next provincial election. Sadly though, as a forum member has previously pointed out, it appears the BC Liberals can win elections without the support of voters affected by this government's total disdain for the transportation needs required by coastal communities'. Well, mainly it has to do with the opposition party nominating a "Mr. Nice Guy," someone offer alternate suggestions about the way things should be, but is too nice to the other side and doesn't do enough to make them look bad and just look like the idiots he thinks that they are. There's some truth in that, although Adrian Dix did offer policy proposals. In hindsight, where he failed was in not recognizing that even if you want to elevate political discourse and focus on what your positive proposals are, you also need to emphasize why you think people should not vote for your opponent. That doesn't need to be nasty or personal, but Christy Clark was running a fraudulent campaign based on completely unsupported prospects of mega bucks and mega jobs from an LNG industry that was purely theoretical, and the NDP did a dreadful job of countering that.
And they also could have done the basic research that Stephen Hume did in pointing out the hypocrisy in Christy's stance regarding BC Ferries.
All water under the hull now though, unfortunately. Had a chat with Hornby's FAC chair Tony Law recently where he remarked that unlike previous transport ministers, Todd Stone wasn't even interested in meeting. As Tony said, the government simply doesn't care about any evidence that might be presented that contradicts their view on ferries and coastal communities.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2014 22:46:26 GMT -8
I'm sure the research staff of all the opposition parties in the B.C. Legislature will dig up this little morsel of history and trot it out during the next provincial election. Sadly though, as a forum member has previously pointed out, it appears the BC Liberals can win elections without the support of voters affected by this government's total disdain for the transportation needs required by coastal communities'. Well, mainly it has to do with the opposition party nominating a "Mr. Nice Guy," someone offer alternate suggestions about the way things should be, but is too nice to the other side and doesn't do enough to make them look bad and just look like the idiots he thinks that they are. I agree with you 100%. The NDP has generally been the Second Place party over the years, and in my opinion is due to an election platform which is traditionally big on spending. Regardless, I'm confident that John Horgan is a better fit for the NDP. Anyways, I didn't mean to start talking about partisan politics here, so I'll digress. Cheers!
|
|
|
Post by Starsteward on Nov 4, 2014 7:32:16 GMT -8
Well, mainly it has to do with the opposition party nominating a "Mr. Nice Guy," someone offer alternate suggestions about the way things should be, but is too nice to the other side and doesn't do enough to make them look bad and just look like the idiots he thinks that they are. I agree with you 100%. The NDP has generally been the Second Place party over the years, and in my opinion is due to an election platform which is traditionally big on spending. Regardless, I'm confident that John Horgan is a better fit for the NDP. Anyways, I didn't mean to start talking about partisan politics here, so I'll digress. Cheers! Public policies influencing ferry/ marine transport in this province at ALL levels of government IS the battleground on which change(s) that are desperately needed must be fought.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Nov 4, 2014 9:40:16 GMT -8
Had a chat with Hornby's FAC chair Tony Law recently where he remarked that unlike previous transport ministers, Todd Stone wasn't even interested in meeting. As Tony said, the government simply doesn't care about any evidence that might be presented that contradicts their view on ferries and coastal communities. I remember a few years ago, when then Transport Minister Kevin "Cadillac" Falcon responded to a citizen concern by literally saying "Boo Hoo" in a mocking fashion. I thought that was crass and unempathetic then. It appears that Minister Stone has raised the bar, in that regard.
|
|