BC Election issues

[maryjane48]

answer is yes for back east . and for dow south . might as well cash in from the yanks before the oilsands are a forggoten adventure that came to late. its not worth a disaster when the transition is going to faster than most think . elon musk isnt going around installing super charges based only on tesla car sales . plus china is going green faster than north america . the oil world is unsastainable and cant last .

[Hurtlander]

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 .

One way or another, oil will get to market either by truck, train, or pipeline; the pipeline is safer than tanker truck accidents or two mile long tanker trains ending up in a river or derailing and burning in urban areas..yes KM does have a poor safety record in the States, but their record in Canada has been good. KM pipeline runs right through my town, I witness first hand the preventive maintenance and safety precautions carried out by the KM employees.

ETA: the Burnaby oil spill happened because someone was digging without first checking the underground maps. That simply won't happen on the main pipeline right-of-way.

[hobbyguy]

Actually Merry, I prefer the Green party platform planks for both the daycare situation and the senior care issues.

The daycare platform from the Greens is based on choice, and includes early childhood education which I believe is a really good thing.

Up until 3 years old, parents have some choice. They can work, or not, depending on their individual situation. Option a) free daycare. Option b) one parent stays home and looks after the kid(s) -and receives a $500/month stipend. By the time you figure what it costs people to commute to work, buy work clothes etc. the $500/moth is worth a lot more - again depending on situation.

3-4 year olds would then go on to early childhood education. This has been shown to be a big benefit in reducing the disparities among children when they start the "instructional" phase of education. Kids who are not ready for the instructional phase fall behind early, and can have trouble catching up. Early childhood education has been shown to help avoid that problem.

The Green platform on senior care hits on two key issues: firstly improving access to home care. Many seniors want to live in their own homes for as long as possible - and improved home care enables that, and at a cost lower than institutionalized care. Secondly, improving the availability and quality of care homes when they become necessary.

To me, those are much better policy planks from the Green party than either of the other parties. They make sense in the real world, and I believe will address more of the issues than either other party is looking at.

[Merry]

As someone who supports the idea of helping young mothers who have to return to work, I wouldn't object to either the NDP's or the Green's plan when it comes to daycare (with the caveat that I would prefer to see the subsidy 'geared to income" rather than be the same for everybody). But that said, it still seems strange that many of those Liberals who have spoken out very strongly against the NDP's idea, claiming it to be unaffordable and therefore totally irresponsible, are now citing the Green's idea as being acceptable to them.

And the NDP did come out last week as also being in favour of more funding for Home Care. I was just surprised it wasn't in their original Platform.

But frankly, the number of times Liberal supporters have praised the Green's on this forum, does indeed seem to suggest that what most of them are doing is hoping to "split the vote" so the NDP won't win. But if undecided voters take the time to actually read the Green's Platform I think they'll find, as I did, that there are some troubling suggestions in there. Higher Property Transfer Taxes, plus a new Property Transfer Tax when transferring to a relative, and a capital gains tax on your principal residence (subject to a lifetime exemption). All of which are TERRIBLE ideas. The last thing this Province needs are new Provincial taxes on the cost of home ownership; houses are expensive enough.

[flamingfingers]

hobbyguy wrote:

Actually Merry, I prefer the Green party platform planks for both the daycare situation and the senior care issues.

So you also support the Greens totally shutting down Site C? Strange....

[maryjane48]

choice is clear

bc greens = no site c

ndp is committed to use the bcuc as was intended .

[Merry]

This was taken from a very interesting article:

Prior to the last provincial election in 2013, the Business Council of British Columbia released a study called "A Decade by Decade Review of British Columbia's Economic Performance." It compared the economic indicators of the three decades governed respectively by the Social Credit Party, the NDP and the B.C. Liberals. The result is that by certain measures the NDP of the '90s actually had the best economic performance.

Here are the conclusions of the study:

GDP growth: The Social Credit decade had an average growth rate of 2.12 per cent, the Liberals 2.36 per cent and the NDP 2.72 per cent. The NDP decade is the best of the three.

Job creation: Under the Liberals jobs grew by 1.58 per cent, under the Social Credit Party 1.91 per cent and under the NDP by 2.17 per cent. The NDP decade also had better performance.

Unemployment: Social Credit had an average rate of 11.48 per cent, NDP 8.87 per cent and the Liberals 6.63 per cent. The Liberals scored.

Business investment (non-private residential investment): As regards non-private residential investment, the Social Credit growth was 0.81 per cent, NDP got three per cent and the Liberals had 5.53 per cent.

Export: B.C.'s exports remained generally unchanged over the past three decades, fluctuating between 42 and 43 per cent of the GDP. However, the study notes that the NDP's decade in power had the strongest export performance, whereas the Liberals' had the weakest.

“The Liberals' so-called "Lost Decade" is contrary to the facts.

For the above five economic indicators, the NDP's governing decade recorded the best performance on three counts: economic growth, job creation and (arguably) exports, whereas the Liberals were better in business investment (non-private residential investment) and unemployment.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/gabriel-yi ... h+Columbia

[Jflem1983]

Communist Huff po in favor of communism who could have guessed

[maryjane48]

lol of course the lost decade is a fantasy . itnever happened . i lived in bc my whole life . the 90s were actualy a fun decade for me and my family
. steady work money rolling in

[maryjane48]

online media storys about advanced polling in the comments sections easily 70 percent said they have voted ndp


im going to guess most people saw the clear choice and made it

[Urbane]

^^ That's been posted on here quite a few time previously. One element missing there is what was happening in all the other provinces. At the end of the 1990's BC was last in in Canada when it came to private sector job creation, and BC had the highest unemployment of all the western provinces.

Real disposable income dropped and BC's credit rating was lowered twice. The province ran eight consecutive deficit budgets before finally balancing the books, with a modest surplus, in the government's final year. That modest surplus in the final year is what NDP'ers talk about on here when they say that the NDP left a surplus for the Liberals.

Forget eight consecutive deficits and just remember the one surplus budget. Again, you need to look at all of Canada to get a true picture and in that regard the 1990's NDP government was a dismal failure. 77-2 should tell us something.

[maryjane48]

^^ That's been posted on here quite a few time previously. One element missing there is what was happening in all the other provinces. At the end of the 1990's BC was last in in Canada when it came to private sector job creation, and BC had the highest unemployment of all the western provinces.

Real disposable income dropped and BC's credit rating was lowered twice. The province ran eight consecutive deficit budgets before finally balancing the books, with a modest surplus, in the government's final year. That modest surplus in the final year is what NDP'ers talk about on here when they say that the NDP left a surplus for the Liberals.

Forget eight consecutive deficits and just remember the one surplus budget. Again, you need to look at all of Canada to get a true picture and in that regard the 1990's NDP government was a dismal failure. 77-2 should tell us something.

while you were out living in rest of canada ,the rest of us were doing fine .


but if you must bring up the rest of canada then this is the link you want to read as it lays out the facts as they are

http://www.vancouversun.com/touch/opini ... story.html

[Urbane]

^^ From your article:

The business council economists do compare how B.C. performed versus the rest of the country. On that basis, even though growth was slower under the Liberals than under the NDP, B.C. was outpacing the rest of the country. In the ‘90s, a period of high growth in Canada and the U.S., B.C. was falling slowly behind.

One can spin stats out from there but the point is that you have to look at what was going on in the rest of the country and then make a fair comparison. When you do that the 1990's in BC don't look very good. Again, MJ, the NDP was thumped in the election, winning only two seats out of 79. The voters had their say and they weren't congratulating the NDP on a job well done.

[BeingHuman]

^^ That's been posted on here quite a few time previously. One element missing there is what was happening in all the other provinces. At the end of the 1990's BC was last in in Canada when it came to private sector job creation, and BC had the highest unemployment of all the western provinces.

Real disposable income dropped and BC's credit rating was lowered twice. The province ran eight consecutive deficit budgets before finally balancing the books, with a modest surplus, in the government's final year. That modest surplus in the final year is what NDP'ers talk about on here when they say that the NDP left a surplus for the Liberals.

Forget eight consecutive deficits and just remember the one surplus budget. Again, you need to look at all of Canada to get a true picture and in that regard the 1990's NDP government was a dismal failure. 77-2 should tell us something.

The BC Liberal have been a disaster for BC!!! The BC Liberals have made British Columbians poorer on average than the rest of Canada.

"B.C. lagged almost all other provinces in 2013 in terms of wage increases. The average wage increase for B.C. between November 2012 and November 2013 was 1.7% – below the Canadian average of 2.5% and well below Saskatchewan, which led Canada in terms of wage increases with a 4.7% increase."

https://www.biv.com/article/2014/2/bc-l ... statistic/


What really is disheartening is that BC's wage income growth actually became the worst in Canada in 2015. When we say the jobs being created in BC are part-time, low wage, jobs we have the sources to back that statement of fact up!!!

http://www.vancouversun.com/business/in ... story.html

[maryjane48]

just like clarks going get whooped . change is always good when things get stale . but that doesnt mean the lost decade fantasy needs to be put forth when its a lie . i lived here my whole life . thats my proof .