Dear Editor;
Politics can be confusing at times, the difference between the definitions for parties can become blurred. For example, our BC Liberals fit better on the Conservative right wing of the scale.
At that end, everything is full speed ahead, and don't give two hoots for those unfortunate people on the bottom rungs of society, just so long as we preserve wealth for the wealthy.
But then if you look at a definition of a conservative, it is to keep from injury, decay, loss, destruction or from premature use or consumption, hmmm.
It would seem the political use of Conservative is not really correct, who's not so fast. The definition of conservative is naturally opposed to change, especially hasty change in political, religious or civil institutions and opposed to radical reform, confused yet?
This means that what they are really trying to conserve or preserve is as stated earlier, wealth for the wealthy.
This wealth is supposed to be the tide that raises all boats, but there must be a dam somewhere, because it sure is a damn uneven tide.
Canada now has the lowest Corporate Tax rate of the forum G7 Nations that include the US, this creates a favourable climate for investment in this corporatists outlook. Some investment is good, profit is not automatically bad, but almost never throughout history have large companies and corporations paid a decent wage voluntarily.
Henry Ford was the only exception I know of who almost 100 years ago paid his factory workers double the wage of that time. Nowadays the CEOs just pad up their measly 25 million plus or minus annual salary, meanwhile you make up the tax shortage.
Jim Hodge
Princeton, BC