I’ve noticed that writers are searching for a good metaphor to characterize the arguments of the No side: That it’s justifiable to vote no in order to punish TransLink.
Peter Ladner:
Focusing on a few faults while ignoring these performance results is like berating someone who consistently wins the biggest races on the continent because they have dirty shorts.
.
Selina Robinson, MLA
If you are unhappy about how the money manager (TransLink) is making decisions with your money, then you change money managers. It’s not a reason to stop investing in your future.
.
From Billb, regular commenter on the Sun’s e-edition:
No New Taxes. TransLink should budget and live within their means just like we have to.
So extend that metaphor: If the household car was no longer adequate, would you then conclude it makes sense to pay no more for a new car than what you already pay? Or do without a car? Or depend on a good-quality transit system?
Oh, wait …
Throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
Cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Making perfect the enemy of good
Here is a tongue in cheek motto for the No side… “‘Fuel’ your Anger, Vote NO!” 🙂