BC Election issues

[maryjane48]

i dont have to factor in anything . i see the working poor everyday . you should try leaving ritish properties once an awhile. might learn something usefull

[Gone_Fishin]

When pre-tax poverty rates were as high as 19% in census year of 1996, 9.0% of the population, or 348,992
needed social assistance, of whom 126,910 were children.

Since then welfare caseloads decreased, dropping sharply after the 2002 Employment and Assistance Act
was introduced, from 249,313 in 2001 to 178, 621 in August 2003 or 4.2% of the B.C. population.

Fewer children are supported in 2003 than in 1990: 53,296 versus 78,997.


http://www.vancourier.com/news/challeng ... z2YgD52yR2

[Merry]

I just took a few minutes to quickly glance through the NDP platform, and here are my thoughts on some of what I read.
As there's a lot of stuff to cover, which will take time, I'm going to work my way through the platform one point at a time, one point to one post (because a single post would be too long if I tried to deal with the entire platform all at once). Besides which, by splitting it up, it makes it easier for posters to discuss each individual point.

1. Eliminate bridge tolls in Greater Vancouver - The NDP are right on this one.

Although, on the surface, this doesn't really affect us in the Okanagan much (because we don't live in that area) I do understand the argument that tolling a couple of new bridges leads to increased traffic congestion on the older, untolled bridges. So, in the interest of better traffic flow, there is an argument to be made that it's unwise to toll those 2 new bridges. Besides which, we already pay taxes to cover the cost of such infrastructure, so people shouldn't be charged an extra tax to use stuff they've already paid for.

If the Liberals have used taxation money that SHOULD have been spent on roads and bridges to pay for something other than roads or bridges, then they should come clean and tell us what they spent it on.

All too often taxpayers money is spent on frivolous items (like MLA pensions, wages and benefits), while the Public are sold a "bill of goods" that we need to pay more taxes to cover essentials (like roads and bridges). And people go along with the idea, because we know we must have the "essentials". BUT, if politicians spent the money on the "essentials" first, and then asked us to pay more taxes for the frivolous items, we'd all be a lot more resistant.

As this issue of paying for "wants" and then demanding new or higher taxes and/or fees for "needs" extends beyond paying to use bridges in the lower mainland, I think it's an issue we all should be interested in.

[Merry]

The second point in the NDP platform concerns banning "big money" in politics - namely union, corporate, foreign and excessively large individual donations.

While I happen to agree with this particular point, it has been discussed to death earlier in this thread, as well as in other threads, so I'm not going to get into it again.

The third point in the NDP platform is "Better Senior Care" and on this one I think they are "partly" right.

The reason I say "partly" is because while it's been well documented that far too many of our senior care homes are understaffed, I do worry that union influence on the NDP could result in the opposite situation (overstaffed and overpaid). I also worry that far too much attention will be given to institutional senior care, and not enough to home care.

As a senior who is fast approaching the age when I might one day need some kind of "care" I know that the last thing I want is to end up in a seniors care facility, and would much prefer being able to remain in my own home as long as possible. I did read in the paper last week that all three Party's, when pressed, committed to enhancing funding for senior home care, but I find it troubling that it wasn't initially in the actual platform of any of them.

[Merry]

The fourth point in the NDP platform is to eliminate MSP fees, which I agree with because I see it as a "regressive" tax.

But again, as this has been discussed in depth earlier in the thread, I'm going to leave it at that.

The fifth point in the NDP platform is the issue of $10 a day daycare.

We do need more affordable daycare spaces because looming boomer retirements make it necessary to increase the size of our workforce, and getting mothers back to work is one component needed to achieve that (increased immigration is the other). And the current shortage of suitable day care is making it possible for some daycares to charge exorbitant rates, which many families can't afford. BUT, that said, I don't like the idea of a flat rate, and would prefer to see a graduated rate based on ability to pay.

Many worry whether or not taxpayers can afford to fund reasonable daycare rates, but I would argue that we can't afford not to if we want to maintain a workforce sufficient to our economic requirements. And, to John Horgan's credit, he has said that the subsidy will be phased in over several years.

[Merry]

The sixth point in the NDP platform is to provide more funding for Public Transit, which I assume mainly means Public Transit in the lower mainland. And, given the congestion on both roads and transit in that area, I suspect additional funding to relieve it would be welcome. So I can't think of a good reason to be opposed to this particular proposal.

But now I have to turn to the parts of the NDP platform that I don't agree with.

The first one is Site C which I think should be allowed to proceed. I believe this Province will continue to grow, and that electricity demands will grow right along with it, and I see hydro electric power as being the cleanest and most viable alternative to provide needed power for future generations. That doesn't mean I'm opposed to things like wind and solar; they too have a role to play. I just don't believe that they alone will be able to provide the amount of power future generations are going to need.

Large wind farms are unsightly, noisy and kill a lot of birds. So they are not without problems. And many of todays solar panels are made in places like China, where the environmental pollution generated in the manufacturing process often outweighs the perceived benefits of the panels themselves. Plus, not all roofs are built to support extremely heavy solar panels, and building homes with built in solar panels will increase the cost of an already unaffordable asset.

I don't know much about geothermal options, so can't comment. But I still doubt they will provide all the power a much larger population size will be demanding 30 years from now.

[maryjane48]

The second point in the NDP platform concerns banning "big money" in politics - namely union, corporate, foreign and excessively large individual donations.

While I happen to agree with this particular point, it has been discussed to death earlier in this thread, as well as in other threads, so I'm not going to get into it again.

The third point in the NDP platform is "Better Senior Care" and on this one I think they are "partly" right.

The reason I say "partly" is because while it's been well documented that far too many of our senior care homes are understaffed, I do worry that union influence on the NDP could result in the opposite situation (overstaffed and overpaid). I also worry that far too much attention will be given to institutional senior care, and not enough to home care.

As a senior who is fast approaching the age when I might one day need some kind of "care" I know that the last thing I want is to end up in a seniors care facility, and would much prefer being able to remain in my own home as long as possible. I did read in the paper last week that all three Party's, when pressed, committed to enhancing funding for senior home care, but I find it troubling that it wasn't initially in the actual platform of any of them.

the choice if your right will be bclibs =understaffed which in turn leads to lack of care.

ndp = over staffed a abundance of care . i know what granny prefers .

[BeingHuman]

When pre-tax poverty rates were as high as 19% in census year of 1996, 9.0% of the population, or 348,992
needed social assistance, of whom 126,910 were children.

Since then welfare caseloads decreased, dropping sharply after the 2002 Employment and Assistance Act
was introduced, from 249,313 in 2001 to 178, 621 in August 2003 or 4.2% of the B.C. population.

Fewer children are supported in 2003 than in 1990: 53,296 versus 78,997.


http://www.vancourier.com/news/challeng ... z2YgD52yR2

Correspondingly, the homeless rate in Vancouver, and across BC, rose between 2005 to 2017. The 2002 Employment and Assistance Act, introduced by the BC Liberals, made it harder for people in need to qualify for, and collect, social assistance. More British Columbians became homeless as a result... apparently this is something Do not make it personal and the rest of his Lib-Con ilk seem to be proud of.

http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news ... er-streets

[Merry]

My final comment on the NDP platform is their opposition to the Kinder Morgan pipeline, which I disagree with.

That pipeline is merely a twinning of a pipeline that already exists, so a lot of the "handwringing" by locals doesn't ring true to me. I suspect that most of the opposition is from environmentalists who are against pipelines in general, because they hope that if they block Alberta's means of transporting their oil it will eventually lead to the demise of the oil sands.

But I would argue that it is the price of oil, if it drops low enough, that will eventually lead to the demise of the oil sands. And, in the meantime, as long as there is money to be made, the oil producers will find a way to get their oil to market. So, if they can't do it via pipeline, they'll do it by rail. Which is a much less environmentally sound method than using pipelines.

So the blind opposition to pipelines is, IMO, harming rather than helping our environment.

[maryjane48]

blind ? huh? google burnaby oil spill and let the images of the animals covered in oil burn into your memery . with twinning the danger is twice as much . plus kinder morgan has a terrible record .

[lasnomadas]

And it's 'tripling', not 'twinning'. The amount of bitumen being shipped out of Burrard Inlet will be three times what it is at present. Diluted bitumen spills on land are bad, but ocean spills are far worse. Despite all the assurance we hear about this 'world-class oil spill response', there have been recent spills far less toxic in and around Vancouver Island waters that never will be 'cleaned up'.

[fluffy]

i dont have to factor in anything . i see the working poor everyday . you should try leaving ritish properties once an awhile. might learn something usefull

So exactly how do you see the NDP making things better for rank & file British Columbians?

[rustled]

The second point in the NDP platform concerns banning "big money" in politics - namely union, corporate, foreign and excessively large individual donations.

While I happen to agree with this particular point, it has been discussed to death earlier in this thread, as well as in other threads, so I'm not going to get into it again.

The third point in the NDP platform is "Better Senior Care" and on this one I think they are "partly" right.

The reason I say "partly" is because while it's been well documented that far too many of our senior care homes are understaffed, I do worry that union influence on the NDP could result in the opposite situation (overstaffed and overpaid). I also worry that far too much attention will be given to institutional senior care, and not enough to home care.

As a senior who is fast approaching the age when I might one day need some kind of "care" I know that the last thing I want is to end up in a seniors care facility, and would much prefer being able to remain in my own home as long as possible. I did read in the paper last week that all three Party's, when pressed, committed to enhancing funding for senior home care, but I find it troubling that it wasn't initially in the actual platform of any of them.

I've enjoyed your thoughtful analysis, Merry.
This is what I see with daycare, too, with policies that promote the earlier and earlier institutionalization of our children at higher cost, making it increasingly difficult for parents of toddlers and younger school-aged children to choose anything other than full-time daytime employment for both parents.

IMO, embracing an economy that's predicated on getting as many adults as possible into the workforce where we can pay taxes has come at quite a social cost.

[Merry]

Can either of you (lasnomadas & maryjane) truthfully say you could support ANY pipeline? Even one that went east or south rather than toward Burrard inlet?

I suspect the answer is no, and therein lies the problem. Because Alberta has to get it's oil to market somehow, and rail is not a good option.

[maryjane48]

Those are questions worth pondering given the latest update on the Crown Corporation’s fiscal situation. A few months back in this space, I pointed out ICBC was once again being used as a political football by the B.C. Liberal government and it now appears the air has been rapidly squeezed out of the ball.


What was supposed to be a $95-million contribution from ICBC back to government this fiscal year has turned into a loss of almost $400 million. And what were supposed to be profits over the next few years are now expected to turn into major annual losses.


http://globalnews.ca/news/3288929/baldr ... ate-hikes/



written by the guy that the bclib supporters love none other than mr bawldry or however you spell it haha