Talk:Gordon Campbell (Canadian politician)

---

What about the addition of a list of key legislation or other types of change he has made to the province of BC?

Feel free. - Montréalais

the most major change is that he introduced fixed-term elections for BC, so that governments fall on schedule, and parties know when the election is, as in the USA. the next election slated for BC is in May 2005, exactly four years after the last one in May 2001.

Now included.

--- The drunk driving issue is not going away. It's the ONLY issue in BC now. A more complete treatment of this was required, and was available in the older versions. There was absolutely no reason to delete it, whatsoever, Two16 is editing articles he or she knows nothing about, an an ad hominen basis.

Please I meant to do know harm. I am the strongest advocate for free speech in the Wikipedia. This is no word of a lie.Lockdown Sv Rule .We seem very much alike so far. I have sworn eternal hostility againstover

And speaking of style that was the criteria that I used when looking at the article. The first paragraph was exactly the same:

Gordon Campbell is the current Premier of British Columbia. He is a member of the BC Liberal Party, which holds a majority in the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.

I removed every thing after that point. Of course it is important. You should set up a page of called "list of BC political scandals" that would be a hoot to write. NPOV is essential reading. That is the voice of encyclopedia writing. Its actually a branch of English Literature. Its a genre with its own styles and conventions: titles are standardized for the search engine, title are used bolded and used in the first sentence etc. There is still lots to do and you get the idea. This is so hot now because its news. Something like his father's alcoholism "needs" to be in the article; but it also needs to be handled with delicacy. Blurting it out as an unconected sentence in an article on the day the story hit the papers makes it look like you have an ax to grind. It reads like coverage from the Vancouver Sun.

His father was an alcoholic who committed suicide when Gordon was 13 years old.

On Thursday January 9th, 2003, Campbell was spotted by police in Maui, Hawaii speeding and weaving in a rental car. He admitted driving under the influence of alcohol, apologized to the people of Maui and British Columbia, and publicly swore off alcohol. However, despite his own rule that any cabinet minister under criminal investigation must resign, Campbell refused to resign. BC's most famous drunk isn't going anywhere and neither should this critically important information about his premiership.

Young Adults Educating Responsible Drinking and Mothers Against Drunk Driving is calling for his resignation, as is the official opposition BC New Democratic Party under its leader Joy McPhail

I would like to see some bullets:

• the markup looks like
• • and this

I would really like to see bc scandel list take shape. Find the style guide. It is a very good idea to fight for your rights. It is important to know how.

Lockdown Sv Rule User:Two16

I don't think 75% of the gordon campbell page should be about his drunk driving incident.

ok, only 50% - seriously this is the only thing anyone in Hawaii or Ontario or even Alberta or Washington state cares about, it's his prime claim to fame. BC readers of wikipedia can consult other sources to find out about Campbell. And why *shouldn't* wikipedia be a tabloid, in addition to its other functions?

Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with a strong NPOV policy. That is as opposite to a tabloid as you can get. With that said... The article still unbalanced by the fact that so much of it deals with the current alcohol issue. However, that will change in time as the article is added to so I don't see this as a big problem. --mav

(reply to the "ok, only 50%..." comment above) Fine, but once this whole thing is over with, I think it should be removed and trimmed down into a 3-line summary. Just like Clinton's page should not be 50% about the Monica Lewinsky stuff. Although I can understand that right during that time it should have had a lot of emphasis. And as a side note, there are plenty of politicians who have been caught for drinking and driving. Rene Levesque for example killed a homeless person while driving drunk (and drove away from the scene!), but that was 30 years ago, and I doubt that will EVER show up in his entry in this encyclopedia. Although I think it would deserve one line.

(reply to various) As a resident of BC, I would strongly dispute this entry's claim to NPOV--it reads more like a hagiography. I'm trying to figure out where to start balancing it...

No Contest to All Charges

The issue of whether Campbell pled guilty to drunk driving is subtle but politically significant. He did not plead guilty. Rather, he entered a plea, valid in Hawaii but not British Columbia, of "nolo contendre" or "no contest", which accepts the penalty without admitting guilt. This probably makes sense in terms of the precedent he made for other government officials, and for him personally in a legal sense. But at the time, there was more than a little criticism for not admitting guilt, while apologizing anyway.

POV label

It seems to me to be quite obviously POV, particularly the section labelled "Premier". Consider this, for instance:

"He apologized to the people of British Columbia (presumably for embarrassing them), later (probably under prompting) apologized to the people of Maui whom he had actually endangered."

I'm a moderately new user, so I'm not exactly sure what part of NPOV that violates, but it seems to violate NPOV for sure. The entire second half of the section is dedicated to slamming Campbell. Doesn't sound very neutral to me. TheProject 02:54, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is factual though, and this is an encyclopedia, thus it should be inlcuded. --Spinboy 06:02, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Seems to me that facts on both sides of the spectrum should be included, not just one viewpoint. There are arguments for and against Campbell, so taking only one side of the argument is irresponsible of Wikipedia. The part I quoted above also heavily biased assumptions (the "presumably for embarrasing them" part. I would like to know how the author came across this information?). TheProject 20:33, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Then include another viewpoint, so long as it's factual, and you can back it up. --Spinboy 20:53, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I removed the second to last paragraph because it was not NPOV, approval ratings in particular should be cited and any further commentary needs to be neutral. 207.23.96.10 21:18, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I would suggest, rather than destroying someone elses work, perhaps rewrite it in a manner you find acceptable? I restored the paragraph (not written by me), and a quick google search found the source. --24.68.33.96 07:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

DUI photo

The mugshot photo has been repeatedly removed from this article, in an apparent attempt to change the image of the Premier.

The DUI photo of Gordon Campbell is without a doubt, the most circulated, and recognisable photo of the gentleman.

Why is it repeatedly removed? This is like doing an article on logging, and showing a pristine forest.

I moved it lower in the article, next to the relevant paragraph about scandals. Is that a reasonable compromise? I also took out some of the more POV/political commentary. The article was reading more like an outlet for support/condemnation for the premier than an encyclopedia article.24.64.223.203 00:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

So where is the photo now? NeoThe1 05:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It disappeared because 208.181.56.253 replaced the usual page with something resembling a Campbell campaign release. If it happens again, feel free to revert it back. That said, some portions of the article are kind of POV (in both directions). Probably hopeless to get a consensus on a current politician, but I'll try to fix it a little bit. --Lanius 13:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I think actually it should be the one of him "smirking". This one was more talked about and Campbell himself commented on it. --JGGardiner 02:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

You needent ask twice!--Colle 02:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Current revert war and consensus

I've reviewed both disputed versions, and the one apparently favored by User:Infil00p seems on its face to be substantially more informative and neutral than the version apparently favored by User:LtCoolGuy. In particular, the LtCoolGuy version appears to be selectively omitting relevant information and appears even to be intentionally misleading in places (for example, changing Campbell's occupation to "teacher," assuming it's true that his volunteer teaching work was done before 1973 and that his more recent career was real estate). If there are actual facts in dispute then that's another issue. Either way, it should be possible to reach some consensus here on the talk page. --Saucepan 19:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The disputed edit has removed a lot of meaty biographical information including numerous places, dates, and actions. Generally, other editors will be suspicious of large-scale removal of factual information from a controversial article, especially if result is to bias the article in a certain direction. Such contributions are more likely to persist if you explain your thoughts here on the talk page and attempt to reach a consensus with the other editors. For example, you could point out specific facts which you dispute, or paragraphs that you consider biased. --Saucepan 01:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Some portions of the longer version look a little biased to me (e.g., the STV referendum paragraph), but it's much better than LtCoolGuy version. I think it does need more detail about Campbell's second term, and maybe photo radar, etc. His DUI arrest also probably deserves a little more space.

I've reverted User:Colle's edit because his example seems biased and cherry-picked (0.03%? Why choose this number?) and the math seems wrong. The savings for a $30,000-earner should be (8.4% - 6.05%) x $30,000 = $705, not "about $500." It's also misleading to say that the cuts resulted in "those earning more saving a higher percentage." It's true that, as a percentage of total income, the savings for upper tax brackets were greater than savings for lower tax brackets. It's also true that everyone's taxes went down by 25%, and that the proportions of tax received from each bracket remain the same. I like the version that lets readers see the before-and-after tax rates for themselves. --Lanius 05:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Please check the source given! It is customary to view the highest and lowest returns, and it is not pov in any way to do so. It would be pov to state the fact that lower income earners did not have a net-gain from the cut, due to corresponding cuts in services. Your math is also wrong, you need to reasearch BC income tax. The richer you are, the more tax brackets you pay in, the cuts effected all brackets differently, with the rich having the highest gain.--Colle 07:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

This disputed tag has been up for about a week now. Can we remove it now, or is there still a dispute about the neutrality of the article? --Saucepan 00:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with removing the "disputed" tag. The anonymous users who keep deleting the DUI photo don't seem interested in discussion, and my dispute with Colle isn't major. Colle seems to misunderstand the BC tax system, probably because the link he/she is relying on at Strategic Thoughts [1], while mostly correct, is quite confusingly written. I'll try to explain. This is going to get very boring.

BC has five tax brackets. They change each year with inflation, but in 2001 they were: $1 to $30,484; $30,484 to $60,969; $60,969 to $70,000; $70,000 to $85,000; and over $85,000. When the Liberals took office, the tax rates for these five brackets were: 8.4%; 11.9%; 16.7%; 18.7%; 19.7%. If my taxable income is $30,000, say, then I pay 8.4% of that in tax. But if I'm in a higher tax bracket then things get more complicated. With a taxable income of $150,000, I'd pay 8.4% on the first $30,484, 11.9% on the next $30,485 (which takes me up to $60,969), and so on, finally paying 19.7% on the $65,000 I earned that exceeds $85,000. With me so far?

After phase two of the Liberal tax cut, the new rates were: 6.05%; 9.15%; 11.7%; 13.7%; 14.7%. (All of these figures can be found here: [2].) As you can see, all of the rates were cut by about 25%. The cuts actually range from 23% to 30%, with the biggest cuts going to the 1st and 3rd brackets and the smallest going to the 2nd and 5th. But to simplify things let's suppose they're all 25% cuts. So if I'm in the lowest bracket my taxes go down 25%, period. What happens if I'm in the highest bracket?

Let's say that $A, $B, $C, $D, and $E are the amounts I'd pay in each bracket under the original NDP rates. The Liberals give me a tax cut in each bracket of 25%, so now I owe:

($A x 75%) + ($B x 75%) + ($C x 75%) + ($D x 75%) + ($E x 75%)

= ($A + $B + $C + $D + $E) x 75%

See? The wealthiest people's taxes are also going down by 25%. Everyone's getting more or less the same cut. Those earning more do not "save a higher percentage."

Now in the real world, of course, things are more complicated than this, because not all income is taxable. What happens when you factor in deductions and credits? These will be obviously be different for each taxpayer, but there's a handy chart here [3] (scroll to Table 2) that shows some average results for single taxpayers. These are the figures quoted by, for example, the CBC [4]. For someone with a gross income of $30,000: original tax of $1,536, tax reduction of $430, and thus a 28% tax cut. For someone with a gross income of $150,000: original tax of $20,604, tax reduction of $5,299, which means a 26% tax cut. About the same.

This is why the statistic about the richest 0.03% of taxpayers is mostly meaningless. If they got 14% of the tax cut, it's because they paid about 14% of the taxes, both before and after the cuts. (Of course, there were other genuine, substantive objections to the cuts, and they need to be mentioned in the article body: complaints that the BC tax code should become more progressive, complaints that the tax cuts were simply not affordable and led to service cuts.)

The edit by User:206.124.149.114 was very POV, but a few portions of it deserve inclusion. I'm putting them back in with a rewrite. --Lanius 14:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I hunted online but couldn't find any details about the salmon treaty mentioned by User:206.124.149.114, so I'm so far unconvinced that it's important.

Future project: there really ought to be something in this article about the Medical Services Plan fee increases. --Lanius 15:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

You have the general idea Lanuis, but you're still off. If I made $150 000, I would pay taxes in ALL tax brackets, as the article says. Therefore, I would get a much bigger proportion of the tax cut. I actually think the Strategic Thoughts (Robinhood analogy) is the best out there at explaining this! --Colle 20:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, the richest .03% of tax payers getting 14% of the tax cut is NOT "meaningless". A flat tax is not the natural stystem. If you have some specific issues with the article, please bring them up here. Maybe we can decide what is meaningfull togeather. --Colle 21:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I honestly don't know where to begin. I know that someone making $150,000 would pay taxes in five brackets. See above, where I talk about paying a total tax of "$A, $B, $C, $D, and $E"? Five brackets. British Columbia does not have a flat tax system, which means a system with only one tax bracket; look to Alberta if you want an example of that. This cut had nothing to do with flat taxes. Maybe if you could tell me in detail what you think is going on with the math I could help you out; right now, really, I have no idea.

The material I cut from the BC-STV paragraph seems insignificant to me, only serving to create a negative impression of Campbell. Much of it isn't even mentioned in the Wiki entry on the referendum itself. As for the bit about how he "led the 'Yes Team' in celebration" after the Olympic bid, I don't see the problem. Look at the article history; you'll notice that it originally read that Campbell "led British Columbians in celebration" or something of the sort, but was changed to more neutral wording.

Speaking of neutral wording: Campbell "claims," but his critics "counter"? Come on. And I do agree with User:206.124.149.114 that it seems excessive to speak of a "series" of scandals if we only mention three. --Lanius 07:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Good, it's clear that we now both understand the tax system! Nonetheless, I oppose your reversion. Please bring up specific issues here, rather than continue to revert the page. I believe if we cooperate we can see where we each are coming from. My biggest question is just Why? Anyways, here is why I think of the issues you have brought up so far.

• led the yes team in celebration. --that is a problem, because it is commentary on a publicity stunt, which is obviously not historically valuable. Not to mention "led" is pov, and "yes team" is not defined.
• .03% of tax payers getting 14% of the tax cut. I don't see how this is meaningless, because it best shows the change in the tax system. Looking at the top and bottom gains of anything is standard procedure.
• STV That entire section is valuable, including the critical sentance. This article is not about STV, but about how Gordon Campbell is related to it --It is understandable that there is some info here thats not in the STV article.
• A Series of scandals. Three is a series, saying "he had to deal with scandals" is awkward. Perhaps you do not like the word "series". Would "a number of scandals" be better?

--Colle 08:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Tax cut: Your proposed edit reads: "Because of the cumulative nature of the tax cut, with those earning more saving a higher percentage...." I've given statistics above showing that someone with a gross income of $30,000 is expected to receive a 28% tax cut, while someone with a gross income of $150,000 is expected to receive a 26% tax cut. Your edit is simply wrong.

.03% of tax payers, etc.: How does this show "the change in the tax system"? What change do you imagine has occurred? A tax cut of 25% for everyone does nothing to change the progressivity of the tax code -- i.e., the relative proportions of the revenue that the different income levels pay -- one way or another. I'll repeat myself: If those tax payers got 14% of the tax cut, it's because they paid about 14% of the taxes, both before and after the cuts. I don't see anything informative being conveyed by this statistic.

Led the Yes Team: Okay, fair enough. Deleted.

BC-STV: The Wiki article on the referendum gives several reasons for the lack of voter awareness. The effect of the proposed edit is to imply that Campbell's government is solely responsible. It's not obvious how much blame the Liberals deserve for the lack of televised debate, given that they took no official position on the STV issue and there were no unified groups representing either side in the referendum. If we include all this detail then we'd have to include pro-Campbell arguments, and really, it's simply not that important.

A series of scandals: Saying either "series of scandals" or "number of scandals" implies a large number, and that's not supported by what follows. And "He also had to deal with scandals, both personal and political" flows fine to my ears.

New Democratic Party: They don't need to be spelled out in full and linked in both the Biography and Government sections.

If you feel the need to edit the tax-cut paragraph again, I'd prefer that you provide some evidence for your changes. (That Conflict of Interest page doesn't say what you seem to imagine it says.) I'd also prefer that you not revert to a version with spelling errors, broken links to BC-STV and the BC Supreme Court, etc. --Lanius 11:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Pt 2

Lets look at the tax paragraph first.

1. My favoured version:

Campbell claimed that the tax cuts would stimulate the economy. Government critics countered, stating the cuts would do little to help those of average income; an individual making $30,000 annually had savings of about $500, whereas a person earning $150,000 per year had savings of about $5,800. The top 0.03% of taxpayers received 14.00% of the total tax cut.[5] Because of the cumulative nature of the tax cut, with those earning more saving a higher percentage, the tax cut was far different from the oppositions favored progressive approach to taxation. [6].

2. Your favoured version:

The reductions gave British Columbia (tied with Ontario) the lowest provincial income tax rates for people earning up to $60,000, thus fulfilling one of Campbell's campaign promises. He predicted that the tax cuts would stimulate the economy. Government critics, meanwhile, argued that the tax cut was too expensive and not sufficiently progressive, remarking that 53% of the cut fell to the 13% of taxpayers earning over $60,000[7].

Reverting to the second version removes the following facts:

1. Common criticism that the tax cuts, along side cuts in services would not help average income earners
2. Standard examples of tax cut in practice (two examples of both high and low returns)
3. How the tax cut was very controversial (it's not progressive, with the wealthy earning more proportionally).

The second version inserts questionable material.

1. Comaring tax cut to Ontario (not a problem, but needs citation)
2. 'Straw man' criticisms ..."too expensive" "not sufficiently progressive"
   1. The percentage "remark" is mild, critics would point out the stats in the first version (0.03%/14%)

I hope you see why I strongly oppose this part of your reversion. I suggest you see the strategicthoughts link to better understand how the tax cut was not devided up evenly. Not only did the rich bring in a larger total amount, but the tax cut gave them more proportionally. You must understand that a cut on the bottom tiers would benifit the rich just as much as the poor, this tax cut was on all the tiers. A person making $30,000 per year got a tax cut of $500 while a person making $150,000 per year got a tax cut of $5,800 - with 5 times more income the tax cut was almost 12 times greater.--Colle 00:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about the finer points of the wording can wait. You say that "those earning more sav[e] a higher percentage." The BC Ministry of Revenue says that a typical tax payer with a gross income of $30,000 is expected to receive a 28% tax cut, while someone with a gross income of $150,000 is expected to receive a 26% tax cut. Please explain the discrepancy. --Lanius 03:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Can you please stop reverting to your version. Have you taken a peak at the reference? [8]--Colle 04:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, the User:218.46.70.183 edit was mine; I forgot to log in.

Colle, you've just violated the three-revert rule. Please don't do that again. (Note that my 11:32 edit of yesterday incorporated your own "Yes Team" suggestion, among other changes.) --Lanius 06:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, here are the most serious problems with Colle's version of the tax paragraph:

"Campbell claimed... Government critics countered..." The POV is obvious, I trust.

"...an individual making $30,000 annually had savings of about $500..." This is taken from David Schreck's website [9], where he says that "a person making $30,000 per year got a tax cut of $500." Now, the cut in that bracket was from 8.4% tax to 6.05%, and (8.4% x $30,000) - (6.05% x $30,000) = $705, not $500, so either Schreck made an arithmetic error or he's factoring in some claims or deductions without specifying which. Either way, this is not a reliable source. The BC Ministry of Revenue gives figures for single tax payers making standard claims and deductions [10], and they do not agree with Schreck's: a $30,000 earner receives a cut of $430, not $500, and a $150,000 earner receives $5,299, not $5,800.

"Because of the cumulative nature of the tax cut, with those earning more saving a higher percentage, the tax cut was far different from the oppositions favored progressive approach to taxation." Okay, four problems here. The nitpick is that "oppositions" needs an apostrophe. The other three problems are more serious, and I'll take them one by one.

"...with those earning more saving a higher percentage..." A higher percentage of what? As this stands, it's meaningless. You can state the cuts as a percentage of the original tax, in which case the lowest bracket gets a 28% tax cut and the highest bracket gets a 25% tax cut, or you can state the cuts as a percentage of taxable income, in which case the lowest bracket gets a 2.35% cut and the highest bracket gets a 5% cut. Now, which description is the one that's normally used? Hint: Don't look behind Door #2. (If I slash taxes in the lowest bracket to absolutely nothing, would you describe that as a 6.05% tax cut?)

"Because of the cumulative nature of the tax cut..." Even if we assume you're talking about a percentage of taxable income, high earners don't save a higher percentage because of anything "cumulative" in the tax cut. The effect comes from the cut in the highest bracket; the cuts in the lower brackets are smaller as a percentage of income, and serve to drag the total cut (as a percentage of income) down, not up.

"...the tax cut was far different from the oppositions favored progressive approach to taxation." Okay, first let's note that this is stated as fact, not merely as the position of one side of the debate. This passage implies that the current BC tax code is not progressive, which is simply false as a matter of definition, but I'll put that down to clumsy wording. I'll assume the intended meaning is that the cut made the BC tax code less progressive.

Okay, so what evidence is offered? This sentence from David Schreck: "The result was that a person making $30,000 per year got a tax cut of $500 while a person making $150,000 per year got a tax cut of $5,800 - with 5 times more income the tax cut was almost 12 times greater." As I've explained above, Schreck's numbers are suspect, but let's see what happens with the official Ministry of Revenue data. A person making $30,000 gets a cut of $430, and a person making $150,000 gets a cut of $5,299 -- with 5 times more income, the cut is 12.3 times greater. Wow! Maybe Schreck has a point!

Hold on, though -- let's look at the Ministry figures for total tax. (We can't do this with Schreck's example, because he doesn't give the actual tax and doesn't explain the assumptions he made to calculate it.) Someone making $30,000 sees their taxes cut from $1,536 to $1,106, while someone making $150,000 sees their taxes cut from $20,604 to $15,305. $20,604 is 13.4 times $1,536. $15,305 is 13.8 times $1,106. The wealthy earner is paying a slightly higher proportion of the tax burden after the tax cut than before. It seems to me that a Campbell supporter can plausibly argue that the Liberal's income tax code is more progressive than the NDP's. At the very least, calling the tax cut "far different from ... progressive" is extremely POV.

More later. --Lanius 15:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

This is getting frustrating for me. You seem to have managed to convince yourself that you understand BC tax system to the extent you can teach others, and therefore myself (I actually pay income tax here, believe it or not), and everyone else must be wrong. Look at what you are doing! First of all David Schreck IS A FORMER BC MLA, and now is a respected political columnist. If it's your word against his, I'm sorry but he has the credentials. But it's not a matter of word, you are doing your own haphazard fuzzy math! --did you factor in how much initial income is not taxed? Even if I am not able to spot where you are going wrong in the future, it does not matter. You are not a tax professional, and wikipedia has a policy against origional research.--Colle 02:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

And secondly, it is far different from the progressive taxation poliices of the NDP --that is why it was controversial! "far different" is an understatment, not a point of view!

Actually, it's not my word against David Schreck's about the size of the tax cuts. It's Schreck's word against that of the tax economists at the BC Ministry of Small Business and Finance [11]. And the CBC [12]. And left-wing think tanks such as the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives [13]. All of these sources (and believe me, I could find more) use the $430 number as a typical tax cut, not Schreck's $500. As I'm sure you realise, I could spend five minutes browsing in Hansard and come up with a dozen inflated statements in favour of the tax cut from Liberals who are current BC MLAs (pardon me, who ARE CURRENT BC MLAS). That doesn't mean I can quote them here as fact. I have no idea why you harbour such an emotional attachment to that one web page.

I've sourced everything I've said here, and anyone with grade-eight math skills should be able to follow what I've said. If I've been unclear, please ask and I'll clarify. If I've made an error, please point it out. Your apparent religious faith that I must, somehow, be wrong is intriguing, but not a substitute for rational argument.

It is not POV to say that the Liberals' tax policies are different from the NDP's. It is extremely POV to say that the Liberals' tax policies are anti-progressive. And I notice that you have still offered no defence of your POV wording elsewhere. Suppose someone changed it, for example, to the following: "Government critics claimed that the tax cuts would do little to help those of average income. Campbell countered, stating that the tax cuts would stimulate the economy...." Can I assume that you would have no objection? --Lanius 14:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, it seems your error is in not recognizing variables other than ineptidude. Do you know the difference between net and gross earnings? This article refers to net earnings (as does the source), because it is in context of the money people are bringing home. Also, please don't play games, this is not fun for me at all. Ask me questions, put your position forward, don't say things such as "can I assume." or go into extended dialogue. Of course you assume wrong, critics criticise, governments govern.--Colle 22:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Updating Information

There is a comment made that "cuts" were made to "pay for the tax cut". That is simply not the case as spending by government increased year to year. Reductions in the amount of spending were made as the result of the $3.8-billion structural deficit as shown by the Report of the British Columbia Fiscal Review Panel. [14]

The section on the HEU strike was quite long given that the strike did not last longer than a handful of days. As well, the "15% wage cut" mentioned in older versions is incorrect. The legislation actually called for a 10% reduction in wages OR an 11% reduction in benefits. The union chose to reduce wages from these options. As well, the bill left the HEU employees among the highest paid in Canada, something that should be noted.

The "General Strike" was mostly conjecture, and was never officially sanctioned by the BC Federation of Labour. In fact, Jim Sinclair, President of the BC Federation of Labour, worked to ensure that never happened.

There was a comment in the article that Campbell's popularity suffered from his incident in Maui, but polls at the time showed his approval ratings actually went up. This can be clearly seen in polling by the Mustel Group from February 18, 2003 available online at http://www.mustelgroup.com/press_archive.htm. Given this information, leaving that comment in would be pure conjecture.

Finally, with respect to the claim "Many argue that during his first election as Liberal leader in 1996, British Columbians' unease with him helped the NDP hold onto enough of its seats from 1991 to win re-election, and keep Reform Party supporters from moving to the Liberals, which many claim helped the NDP to hold onto various seats in the Interior of the province.", there is no evidence or articles linked to back this up and is again conjecture that should be removed.

Boggle99 08:32, 9 February 2006

Your edits contradict. Apperently there was a "structural deficit," yet the tax cut came from somewhere other than the massive cuts in services. Regarding the general strike, I would argue that it was very monumental--A few days is a very long time. The "structural deficit" was an election lie: [15] [16] [17].--Colle 23:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Colle - thank you for your submission. Please note that your comments are only discussing two changes that were made of many under my edit, and as such your move to do a complete revert is unwarranted and not in keeping with the spirit of wikipedia. My attempt was made to try and clarify the facts surrounding this page as there seems to have been quite a lengthy discussion on it looking at the history. That's all we should be interested in here, the facts.

Addressing your concerns, firstly I wanted to tell you more about a structural deficit. A structural deficit as defined by wikipedia is "Structural deficit forms part of the public sector deficit. Structural deficit is not a result of a cyclical policy implemented by the government but is the deficit that exists when the economy is in equilibrium." [18]. What that means is that in an average year, a budget would leave revenues lower than expenditures. That is exactly the case in British Columbia Fiscal Review Panel Report [19] given the finances of the previous government. The previous government did indeed initially balance their books as your articles show, but it was done on a one-time accounting change and higher than expected oil and gas revenues. The previous government's own budget predicted deficits in to the future as such should they have been re-elected[20]. As such, that item needs not be changed.

Secondly, with respect to the General Strike issue, you state "I would argue that it was very monumental". My point lies precisely within those words. Wikipedia is meant for factual information, and while your comment would be appropriate in a blog as you feel strongly about this issue, it is not reflected by any citations whatsoever. Had a general strike occurred, it may be worthy of more of a reference - but it never happened.

I hope this addresses your issues of concern. I hope that this will put an end to this ongoing discussion so that a non-partisan version may prevail.

Boggle99 08:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I just spent ages working on the government section as you can see in the talk sections above. I don't think it is in the 'spirit of wikipedia' to march in, without prior discussion, and replace it with excerpts of Liberal press releases. Frankly, your edits don't hold water. I know what a structural deficit is, British Columbia didn't have one, as my sources show. The Liberals (at the time) SAID there was one, as your sources show. I think we should go with the facts. And no, the general strike does not belong in a blog... Look it up, it was a bigger deal than most of the stuff in this article. If you judged it by media coverage, we could write ten paragraphs more on it. In fact, I intend to write more about the recent teachers strike, which would of led to a rotating general strike. You can judge how important that is by media coverage as well. Wikipedia is not a outlet for partisanism, you might think it would be great to cut out all the negatives, and spin everything positivly for Gordon Campbell... But people can go to bcliberals.com for that. And lets say someone does manage to replace this article with a partisan version... wouldn't that just be begging the other side to come in and replace THAT with stuff such as this: [21]?--Colle 08:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

And also, back to what I brought up earlier. You say that there was a "structural deficit" and yet you also repeat the party statement that the tax cuts did NOT come from corresponding cuts in services. This was one of the typical contradictions made by the Liberals, how do you explain it?--Colle 08:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Colle, once again your statements are not backed up by facts or citations that dispute the changes that have been made. You have made one comment, and have removed all the factual changes that have been made. That is not in keeping with the spirit of wikipedia. Please note, I am not speaking for anyone, so I do not intend to "explain" anything as a partisan. I am simply trying to make this page factual. The citations in this current version speak for themselves, and I would hope you could respect that, or offer up some hard evidentiary documentation to the contrary without so much of a POV diatribe.

Boggle99 04:37, 12 February 2006 UTC)

Pt 2

Before Boggle's edit:

To pay for the tax cuts, the government reduced the staff complement in its ministries, cut programs and services, closed hospitals and schools, and announced a plan to eliminate one-third of all regulations then in force. The popularity of his government declined through late 2003 and early 2004. In spring 2003, surveys showed the Liberals trailing the NDP in public opinion for the first time since 1994.

In April/May 2004, Campbell narrowly avoided a General Strike after introducing Bill 37 in the provincial legislature. The Bill was intended to force striking hospital workers back on the job, while imposing a 15% retroactive wage rollback, layoffs, extension of the workweek, and outsourcing of union jobs. The passing of the bill led to immediate striking throughout BC, in both the public and private sectors. The BC Federation of Labour announced plans for a general strike, set to begin May 3, which would have included teachers, transit and ferry workers, mill, steel and forestry workers, garbage and city maintenance workers, as well as library, community and recreation centre employees.[22] On May 2, Justice Robert Bowman of the BC Supreme Court ruled that the healthcare unions were in contempt for continuing the withdrawal of services. Due to the threat of large fines, the hospital workers union signed a compromise with the BC Government and the strike was called off.

After Boggle's edit:

Campbell's government faced a structural deficit of $3.8 billion dollars upon assuming office [23], and the government had to restrain spending to reach a balanced budget. While some programs were reduced or eliminated, the funding levels for both health care and education were increased year to year [24].

As tough decisions were made, the popularity of his government declined through late 2003 and early 2004. In spring 2003, surveys showed the Liberals trailing the NDP in public opinion for the first time since 1994.

In April/May 2004, members of the Hospital Employees Union walked off the job after the BC Government introduced Bill 37 in the provincial legislature. The Bill was intended to allow striking hospital workers to go back on the job from an illegal strike position. In an attempt to get health care costs in check, the bill allowed for a 11% reduction in wages, or a 10% reduction in benefits for employees [25]. The bill left these employees among the highest paid in Canada [26]. The final decision which option to select was up to a discussion with the union. On May 2, Justice Robert Bowman of the BC Supreme Court ruled that the healthcare unions were in contempt for their continued strike. Due to the threat of large fines, the hospital workers union signed a compromise with the BC Government and the strike was called off.

Exactly WHY Boggle's edit won't FLY:

1. POV Language/Structure (Such as "Bill was intended to allow striking hospital workers to go back on the job")
2. Glossing over (Such as "While some programs were reduced or eliminated")
3. Factual Inaccuracies (Such as the entire first paragraph) THERE WAS NO STRUCTURAL DEFICIT! [27]
4. Speculation (Such as "in an attempt to get health care costs in check"

--Colle|File:Locatecolle.gif|Talk-- 07:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

I've flagged this article with the NPOV due to the wording on some of the labour disputes, there has been a bit of an edit war with both views leaning left of center which is a little too far left for Wikipedia. Tawker 05:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed a generalization. But I don't know what you mean about "left of center" --That section lays out the dry facts one after another.--Colle|File:Locatecolle.gif|Talk-- 05:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Changes as per Colle and the structural deficit

Colle, your comment regarding the wording regarding the bill affecting the HEU is valid, I have updated it as such.

With respect to the structural deficit, that is indeed a fact. The sources you are quoting do not meet the qualifications by wikipedia as "reliable and reputable sources". The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives received $200,000 from the previous government just 18 days before they left office for virtually no work received as verified by the BC auditor general [28]. The other sources are from "creative resistance", which is not a reputable news or journalistic agency. As well, your final source, "the Tyee", can best be described as "Alternative Media" and is not a credible news source accredited by the mainstream media. Please note though that these "sources" are not talking about a structural deficit, despite their incorrect usage of the term. There is no doubt the previous government had a surplus in their final year - but it was NOT sustainable in a revenue neutral position as even shown by legislation of the previous government. Former Finance Minister Paul Ramsey introduced a bill in the BC Legislature that was passed in to law that predicted a structural deficit in a revenue neutral position through 2004 [29]. When the previous government admits in legislation that there is a structural deficit, that should solve this issue unless there are credible academic studies showing otherwise. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Boggle99 (talk • contribs) .

Well, your sources can best be described as politically motivated... I do not agree with your wild assertion that CCPA is corrupt, it is well respected, and often cited in the media. I also have no reason to believe Tyee is anything other than credible independant journalism. --Colle|File:Locatecolle.gif|Talk-- 07:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Tuition costs

I still think it's important to note that BC tuition is still within Canadian norms, I think exclusing that fact presents a bit of a bias against Mr Campbell. As such, I have added it in. One cannot simply say that removing a tuition freeze is bad for students (which is what the argument says) without realizing that without higher tuitions it is harder for universities to attract top talent, cutbacks have occured that have harmed students education. Tawker 07:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree 100%, I think your edit may have been collatoral damage from Boggle's reversion.--Colle|File:Locatecolle.gif|Talk-- 07:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Update

I have made an update to the biography to reflect the fact that Campbell was re-elected in 2005. I have also removed the DUI image as it can be seen as a partisan political smear. HPD27 07:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

There was a already a discussion of this image above. Seeing as it was essentially your only edit, I'm putting it back in. -- TheMightyQuill 11:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Which comes first: Biography or Governmen t?

So, there seems to be some reverting going on over this issue. You guys wanna talk about it? Ujjal Dosanjh's biography comes before his political decisions. Is there a reason Gordon Campbell should be different? WikiMart? Mithridates? Anyone? -- TheMightyQuill 19:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

You're right, many well-written articles have the biography details before current commentary of government policies and controversies. I reverted the changes by Mithridates because the juxtaposition of the mugshot directly below the formal photograph is a smear that violates NPOV. I don't object to it appearing in the article, because it was a significant life event, but its placement in the article made it prejudicial.

I think this whole article needs a major re-write anyway (for another day, not today). It's very skimpy on his earlier career and some of the minutae clearly come from policy wonks with a strong POV one way or another. User: WikiMart

Small-c Conservative.

Although he is leader of a nominally liberal party, Campbell is better identified as a small-c conservative.

This seems to be going back and forth as well. I realise it's kind of commentary, but I don't think it's POV to point out that the title of his party and its platform are not consistant. I'd be willing to bet Campbell wouldn't claim to be liberal, at least not on the Canadian scale. -- TheMightyQuill 08:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Revert one way, then to the other...

To what extent (if any) these tax cuts contributed to BC's considerable economic growth in the ensuing years has been subject to debate. Coinciding with the tax cuts, the Campbell government reduced government spending by reducing the staff complement in its ministries and by reducing or eliminating support for programs and services.

This is why I reverted it back. There is a POV problem with this whole line. What it was before is just fine. :: Colin Keigher 18:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

3rd photo

I prefer the strike photo over the confused-campbell snapshot. Although the strike photo obviously reflects a "negative" response towards the Premier, one has to note that his Premeiership has been marked by an overall negative response. From recieving the largest mandate in BC's history, to almost losing the following election. I think a "positive" photo is needed, but the "negative" photos should not be eliminated based on the idea that there should be a 50/50 split between "positive" and "negative" etc. Myciconia 00:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

---

Myciconia it is clear from your comments that you do not understand the concept of NPOV, or that it also extends to context and graphics. Four photos is too much for this article, so looking for a picture of a ribbon-cutting and smiling children is ridiculous. Please stop trying to insert slanted context into encyclopedic articles. I am removing pic #3. WikiMart

Just to clarify, there is no Wikiedia policy about how many images are required to illustrate a subject. Four, eight or even 16 pictures would not be to much if they add to the quality of the article. -- No Guru 05:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I've read through the Neutral Point of View guidelines here, wikimart, have you? What I'm trying to do is illustrate the text within the article. NPOV is not about painting a 100% rosy picture half of the time. A strike photograph is prudent to this article, because under the Cambpell government the province has came close to a general strike on two occasions. There are many shades of grey here. The strike photo is NPOV in itself, there are other similar images with anti-Campbell slogans, etc. It doesn't spin the article to one viewpoint or the other, it just shows what happened. Thanks, Myciconia 06:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

---

Myciconia, since your other illustrious contributions to Wiki include Cuba and North Korea, I understand clearly your POV. You underline your POV by justifying it by saying that there is "an overall negative response" to Campbel's premiership. Proof positive you have a political agenda that does not belong here. WikiMart

I have heard from others that my contributions are welcome! I am offended by your hostile insinuations about my personal beliefs, and will return when this page at a later date. You sir, are taking advantage of wikipedias openess to bully in your clearly biased agenda. Don't tell me I have an agenda, I actually attempt to gain consensus, and follow wikipedia policy to the letter. Your rewrite of this page grinds so far against wikipedia policy, it is almost funny. You actually believe weasel sentances such as the one stating -however BC's gigantic economic gain is not debated-, is approprite. I am not going to revert your edits, as I do not enjoy working with you. however I am confident they will not last for long. Farewell, Myciconia 03:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

---

Myciconia, you're right I didn't adhere to Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy and I apologize. I've also reconsidered my view about the picture. Now that the article is reorganized I think it fits OK. So I put it back. Just call it my conversion on the road to Damascus. WikiM

Thanks, I'm going to try to reduce some of the new flowery language, and put a bigger scope on some selective examples. Myciconia 18:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)