babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » from far and wide   » bc, alberta, saskatchewan   » BC NDP will get whacked in the upcoming May, 2009 election

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: BC NDP will get whacked in the upcoming May, 2009 election
NorthReport
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15337

posted 30 October 2008 08:57 PM      Profile for NorthReport     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
which is unfortunate.

Unless there is a major change in the NDP's approach to politics in BC that is.

The by-elections mean dick, as the opposition always win the by-elections in BC, or at least have for a very long time.

And also in spite of the latest interesting research surrounding the drawbacks to the current carbon tax.

Carbon Tax Whacks the Poor, Later
Three years out, wealthy take smaller hit than low income BCers: study.


http://www.thetyee.ca/News/2008/10/30/CarbonTax/?utm_source=daily&utm_me dium=email&utm_campaign=301008

[ 30 October 2008: Message edited by: NorthReport ]


From: From sea to sea to sea | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
TCD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9061

posted 30 October 2008 09:29 PM      Profile for TCD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hmmm.

Here's what I've observed.

The BCNDP was sitting about ten points behind in the polls this Spring when Campbell introduced his carbon tax. The NDP opposed it and everyone said they were doomed. They went up in the polls.

Then Gregor Robinson quit and everyone said the NDP was doomed because Vancouverites loved the carbon tax and Campbell had superstar candidates for the by-election. They won the by-elections.

So why are they doomed now?


From: Toronto | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 30 October 2008 10:07 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Carbon tax is coming, and anyone who has a serious grasp of environmental issues, knows that a direct tax on polution is probably the only effective market based mechanism for dealing with the issue. Some people seem to think they can get away with having their cake and eating it too, but the fact is the only ways to actually confront the growing climate change problems are going to have an economic impact, one way or the other.

Of course, in a neo-liberal capitalist context this is going to arranged so that it hits the most marginalized first, but if you are serious about the environment the reality is clear. Our present standard of living can not be supported by this planet. Anyone who is trying to make it sound like it can be done, is willful blind or lying.

The Federal NDP's support for the "Bait and Switch" environmental program of Carbon Credits, amounted to so much green coloured packaging, and it did nothing for the NDP at all, other give them the opportunity to say they had an "environment plan." Poll results prove this conclusively, since the NDP did not increase it share of the popular vote.

People in Vancouver are probably more environmentally concious than the majority Canadians. Greenpeace was founded there for example. One can expect that they are well aware of the superiority of directly taxing poluters as a means curbing the increase of CO2 and the flaws in the Carbon Credits system, so overall, BCNDP will probably benefit in the long run.

Cap and trade DID NOT get the Federal NDP an increase in vote share in the last federal election. Therefore there is no reason to be wedded to it.

[ 30 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
NorthReport
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15337

posted 30 October 2008 10:37 PM      Profile for NorthReport     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The BC NDP are on the wrong side of the following issues:

The environment

First Nations

Agricultural land reserve

Electoral Reform

And tell us BC NDPers, what are your plans for the Labour Relations Board the day after you are elected? Campbell and the right wing sure had a plan when they got elected? Does the BC NDP even have a plan?


From: From sea to sea to sea | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 30 October 2008 10:38 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
An Exhausting War on Emissions Norway's Efforts to Contain Greenhouse Gases Move Forward -- and Backfire

quote:
In 1991, Norway became one of the first countries in the world to impose a stiff tax on harmful greenhouse gas emissions. Since then, the country's emissions should have dropped. Instead, they have risen by 15%.

Although the tax forced Norway's oil and gas sector to become among the greenest in the world, soaring energy prices led to a boom in offshore production, which in turn boosted overall emissions. So did drivers. Norwegians, who already pay nearly $10 a gallon, took the tax in stride, buying more cars and driving them more. And numerous industries won exemptions from the tax, carrying on unchanged.


Variables for fluctuating prices for carbon seem to have been a factor. Even with a tax that has priced carbon for fifteen years at twice the price in EU ETS markets, Norway's CO2 emissions have risen significantly. Federal Liberals should probably compare Canada's energy/fossil fuel exporting economy with that of Norway and not Sweden. Canada is said to produce 2% of global GHG emissions. The USA, our neighbors and largest importer of Canadian fossil fuels, produces somewhere around 22% of global GHG emissions.

The Problem:
USA(massive consumer of carbon)<<-->>Canada(massive supplier of carbon)


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 30 October 2008 11:06 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
And numerous industries won exemptions from the tax, carrying on unchanged.

As does "cap and trade". Cap and trade merely sytemitizes the exemptions as a pseudo-commodities market, and shifts the burden to the have-nots in the rest of the world. Does we really need to turn the environment into a commodity in order to save it?

In anycase, rather than talking points discussions based in defending "cap and trade" against "carbon tax" you should really be thinking about possible other ways of framing the issue, so that you can create effective means of controlling CO2 emmission, and doing something to shift the burden onto those who most benefit from the expensive luxury lifestyles that a huge amount of our waste products are aimed at sustaining.

Hint: Move away from dubious market mechanisms as the primary lever of controlling co2 emissions. Even politically, "cap and trade" really did not do anything for the NDP. Therefore, there is no reason to be wedded to it, nor is it necessarily the case that carbon tax will sell any better, for the reasons it has been pointed out.

[ 30 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Centrist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5422

posted 30 October 2008 11:21 PM      Profile for Centrist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
NorthReport:

quote:
BC NDP will get whacked in the upcoming May, 2009 elction

I don't get you.

During the federal election you were described by someone as an NDP version of Marg Bedore (the NDP cheerleading was a bit excessive and unreasonable), yet you now seem to be the anti-thesis of same here in BC.

What gives?


From: BC | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 30 October 2008 11:23 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

As does "cap and trade". Cap and trade merely sytemitizes the exemptions as a pseudo-commodities market. Does we really need to turn the evironment into a commodity in order to save it?


A carbon tax does exactly that - treats the environment as a secondary benefactor of a tax gimick which may or may not have any positive effect. No one knows, because ~"a carbon tax has never been used before to solve an air pollution problem" - Fred Krupp, Environmental Defense Fund(U.S.), whereas a cap and trade system has been successful in North America to reduce SO2 emissions causing acid rain.

The problem is that capitalists and government do not account for the environment or social costs when doing capital budgeting. Marx to Polanyi said that to neglect to do so is very unscientific. We need a full accounting of the economy which necessarily must include the environment as well as what Canadian William Krehm termed the "social lien."

quote:
.Hint: Move away from dubious market mechanisms as the primary lever of controlling co2 emissions.

[ 30 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]


A legal cap has nothing to do with free markets and everything to do with placing the onus for enforcing it on democratically-elected governments not Exxon-Imperial and friends of the two old line parties. Ultimately, how effective either carbon tax or cap&trade is to be depends on governments taking a pro-active role for the sake of an improving environment. Canada's CO2 emissions did only one thing with Liberals in power for twelve years, and while neglecting the existing carbon tax in place on home heating fuel, 4%, and gasoline at 10 cents a litre, and that was increase every year the Liberals were in government.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 30 October 2008 11:31 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
What does any of that have to do with trying to rethink the paradigm beyond talking points?
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 30 October 2008 11:38 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I dunno, but I'll say it again. A legal limit on how much carbon can be dumped into the air has nothing to do with free markets and everything to do with government intervention and enforcement. This is why the Liberals want no part of cap and trade - they would be responsible for enforcing something by way of visible hand policy if elected to power. Those guys sold our environment to American ownership and control. I can imagine a dozen ways in which a ruling Liberal government would continue to allow corporate USA to dictate Canada's national energy policy, like NAFTA, like SPP, deep integration, "TILMA" etc etc
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 30 October 2008 11:51 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Really lost you there didn't I. What part of no talking points is hard to get.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 31 October 2008 06:23 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
The Federal NDP's support for the "Bait and Switch" environmental program of Carbon Credits, amounted to so much green coloured packaging, and it did nothing for the NDP at all, other give them the opportunity to say they had an "environment plan."

Its common knowledge that the Liberal carbon tax was a disaster for them - esp. in rural and remote areas. By opposing the carbon tax, the NDP was able to feast on the Liberal carcass and win a scad of new seats across northern Ontario and made big popular vote gains in the Atlantic provinces and in industrail towns in Ontario. If (God forbid), the NDP had adopted the so-called green party's strategy of "me-too" with the Dion tax grab plan - we probably would have been reduced to 10 seats.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
munroe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14227

posted 31 October 2008 06:44 AM      Profile for munroe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Far from predicting the NDP will get "whacked" next May, there appears to be a decent chance they will form the next government. Campbell has made serious errors and wreaks of arrogance. Further, large parts of the economy have or appear to be tanking. Top of the list - forestry. I also do not agree the NDP is on the wrong side of issues such as aboriginal rights and the ALR. The one glitch was the nasty little trap cynically set by Gordo in Tswwassen.

Closer to the election, I have no doubt you will hear about mending some of the problems with the Labour Code. I hope so anyway.


From: Port Moody, B.C. | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged
madmax
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15139

posted 31 October 2008 08:42 AM      Profile for madmax   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Carbon tax is coming, and anyone who has a serious grasp of environmental issues, knows that a direct tax on polution is probably the only effective market based mechanism for dealing with the issue.

A hard cap is coming if you want to deal with emmissions. A tax does nothing.

The BC NDP will not win or lose the election on their environmental platform.

Its the economy.....

The NDP will have to convince BC voters that they can be trusted to manage the province finances.


From: Ontario | Registered: Apr 2008  |  IP: Logged
ghoris
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4152

posted 31 October 2008 09:32 AM      Profile for ghoris     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
madmax hits the nail on the head. I know it's unpopular to say this among progressives, but the environment is not, and never has been, a 'kitchen table' issue that will swing a lot of votes. Canadians fret about the environment and tell pollsters they're worried about the environment when the economy is doing well and there's nothing else to worry about. I well remember the 'Earth Day' crazes in the mid- to late-80s, when recycling was suddenly in vogue, everyone was terrified of acid rain and the hole in the ozone layer, and suddenly governments couldn't ban CFCs fast enough. Today's "climate change" was the 1980s' "greenhouse effect". Then the 1990s recession hit, and (surprise, surprise) suddenly nobody cared about the environment anymore. When people sit down at their kitchen tables after they've put the kids to bed, they worry about their jobs, taxes, paying the bills, paying for Grandma's medication, paying for university, etc. Those are the kinds of issues that motivate people to vote - not endless estoeric debates about cap-and-trade vs. carbon tax.

The plus side of these periodic 'flare-ups' of environmentalism is that they are good for raising general awareness of environmental issues among the public, and often leave at least a bit of a concrete legacy. Thanks to the ozone layer/greenhouse effect discussions of the 1980s, CFCs were banned and municipal curbside recycling programs are the norm.

All this is by way of saying - let's not kid ourselves that the NDP is going to stand or fall on its environmental platform in the next election. There is a golden opportunity for the NDP to tarnish Campbell's image as a good economic manager as things continue to go south, but people also need to be convinced that the NDP won't drive the economy into the ditch if elected. Rightly or wrongly, that is the widespread public perception (ie that the NDP are incompetent economic managers) that needs to be overcome.


From: Vancouver | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mojoroad1
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15404

posted 31 October 2008 11:25 AM      Profile for Mojoroad1     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
VICTORIA — Premier Gordon Campbell is expected to warn B.C. Liberal Party members at a weekend convention that two Vancouver by-election losses should be seen as an ominous sign to get ready for a spring election.

While the two New Democrat victories in Vancouver ridings on Wednesday night don't dramatically change the balance of power in the legislature, political experts said yesterday that change may be in the wind.


Full article


From: Muskoka | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 31 October 2008 11:34 AM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
And the key to winning is to continue to hammer away on the mismanagement and possible corruption that the Gordo Liberals have brought to our province. Pretty much any project the government is involved with is going over budget and in huge numbers. The convention centre is a prime example. Then there is the BC Rail fiasco that will likely be in the courts early next year before the election.

On the environment, CCPA's report clearly shows that using the Campbell plan for carbon taxes will mean the poorest people in BC will pay to save the planet and the rich will make money.

Those are the kinds of fiscal issues that need to be put front and centre again and again prior to next May. Given our MSM it will likely take a concerted letter to the editor writing campaign to keep the issues from being buried or not reported on at all.


From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
keglerdave
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5839

posted 01 November 2008 08:05 AM      Profile for keglerdave     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
There are alot of problems within the BCNDP right now. Some are self inflicted, some are as a result of the downturn in the economy, and some are just plain circumstancial. People point to Carole James and are now pulling out the knives and sharpening them up for post May 2009. She's the leader and will be held accountable for what happens on election day, no doubt, but most of what's going to cause the negative results in 2009 are not of her own doing.

They are the result of individuals (eg Sue Hammell) pursuing personal ideologies and beliefs at the expense of the greater good, and finding sympathetic ears to listen to them in the backrooms of the party (see provincial office). Let's be honest... the BCNDP doesn't truly represent "labour" any more. If you talk to the average union person in BC, who's not public sector (and believe it or not, they do exist) you will find increasingly that there is a HUGE disconnect between them and the BCNDP, on a wide variety of issues.

Perhaps the leaders of their unions (see BCFED)are full pullers for the party (some of them), but the rank and filers themselves... I think that its a fallacy that they blindly vote the way the union tells them too. More and more "union families" are middle to upper middle income earners. And more and more of those people are becoming more and more conservative in their viewpoints. Its not necessarily their fault, because as is apt to happen in society, they sometimes forget where those good wages and benefits come from, and what it took to get them.

Strategically, the party is constipated. They let Jim Sinclair lead out ahead of them, time and time and time again. On the economy, on worker's safety issues, on social issues, on just about everything, Sinclair is ahead of the BCNDP in the media. When they were reduced to 2 MLAs, and shafted by Campbell, no doubt Sinclair came along and called himself and the BCFED the "unofficial" opposition, and he is to be congratulated for doing that when it was needed, and helping to rebuild the party to a credible opposition.

The problem is however, he never did what other leaders would have done, which was to take the thank yous and the way to gos, and to melt back into the background and allow the party to continue its momentum towards beating Campbell in 2009. The Fed has their issues, like minimum wage and the like, but the BCNDP is MORE than just the BCFED, and to get elected, has to resonate with the general populace, and this includes (hold your ears and close your eyes).... business. Campbell's mistake in 2001 was he went waaayyyy to the right. In 2005 he got smacked for it, but still won. Afterwards, he moved begrugingly somewhat, to the centre again, but has now once again, started that abdication of the centre, to which most voters and citizens actually ascribe to.

At the NDP convention in 2007, a special interest group within the party, hijacked that convention, and pushed through an equity mandate, that in all respects DOES NOT resonate with the people of BC. They'll point to Jenn McGinn and say they succeeded. Not necessarily true, though, as it was a by election, and historically, govts of all stripes in BC don't do well at all, not too mention the pitiful turnout numbers etc etc.

At that convention there was lip service paid to the economy and how to work with business people on improving all our lives. And in terms of setting up substantive policies that you can go public with and campaign on, most of those were shelved on the agenda to be dealt with at Provincial Council. So for example, while increasing the minimum wage got a long hearing with lots of pro speakers and no con speakers, and passed, the corresponding proposal to cut the small business tax by 1 percent, was not debated, and left to be decided at the Provincial Council.

A chance to resonate with a group looking for help and workable solutions.... gone. A chance to work at shedding the view that the BCNDP are anti business, and know nothing except to increase taxes... gone.

The equity mandate, all I'll say is that no one truly knows in the BCNDP just how much resources and cash has gone to prop up this thing. But I'll say this, using members money, whether they support or are against the equity mandate to hire organizers specifically for the Joy's List thing, that's highly offputting. Enough said.

Some of whats led to where the BCNDP is know isn't of their own doing, however. Campbell scrapping the fall sitting (and having to bring it back, long after the civic elections have passed and just before the "gag law" takes effect) was strategically smart at the time. Why would he subject himself to question period given all the crap he's caused? Before people set their hair on fire, I'm talking straight strategy. Of course its not the honourable thing to do, but strategically less than a year out from an election, it was a way to try and reduce the amount of hits you would take.

With the downturn in the economy, the BCNDP absolutely needs to come up with viable solutions, and ideas. And somehow, overcome that perception that when the BCNDP are in power, economic ruin isn't far behind. Can it be done in 7 months? Realistically... no. But what ticks me off is the fact that they had 19 months to do it, not 7. And literally threw the opportunity away. And its truly sad as well. With the right long term strategy and planning, I believe that the BCNDP had a solid chance to form government in 2009.

Unfortunately, those planners and strategists for the most part have had their heads up their asses and have screwed over the party. And they're still there. Sad.


From: New Westminster BC | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 01 November 2008 08:51 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm trying to understand how it is that the day after the BC NDP surprises everyone by winning two byelections in precisely the kinds of upper income urban seats that were supposed to aghast over the axe the tax campaign (not to mention the Liberals running very very high profile candidates in each and breaking the bank on spending) and with polls showing the BCNDP could easily win the next election and with all signs pointing to the nuisance of the BC Green party being annhilated - we are supposed to be so pessimistic.

Seems to me like there is a lot to cheer about - and Carol James may disappoint a lot of here enemies WITHIN the NDP who would rather lose the election than win under a leader they don't like.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 01 November 2008 10:36 AM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Jeez, keglerdave, you had to bring up the "equity" mandate again?

Isn't it enough that white men can get(and undoubtably will get)three-fourths of the NDP nominations?

Let that one go already, willya?


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Jerry West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1545

posted 01 November 2008 02:46 PM      Profile for Jerry West   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Carbon tax is coming, and anyone who has a serious grasp of environmental issues, knows that a direct tax on polution is probably the only effective market based mechanism for dealing with the issue.

Therein lies the fallacy. The truth is, there is no reasonable market based mechanism for dealing with the issue. The debate over various market mechanisms is a diversion that leads away from actually doing something positive for the environment.

Hard caps on emissions, limits on extraction of carbon minerals, and rationing to ensure some degree of fairness are what is required.


From: Gold River, BC | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Politics101
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8962

posted 01 November 2008 05:41 PM      Profile for Politics101   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Stockholm - the NDP only picked up one seat in the by-election as they held the other one.

Burrard has a history of being NDP and went Liberal in the 2001 sweep where any one would have won for the Liberals. In 2005 if the NDP had run anyone other than Tim Stevenson they would have won the seat.

Whether it is a factor or not Burrard has been represented by a gay person since Tim won the riding in 1991 and then Lorne and now Spencer - whether if the Liberal had run a gay in the by-election would have changed the result I don't know.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 01 November 2008 06:01 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Fairview may have been a "hold" for the NDP, but keep in mind this a riding that has almost always gone Socred or Liberal all through its history (in various incarnations). It even went Liberal in 1996 when the NDP was re-elected. The NDP won it very narrowly in 2005 with a very strong candidate Gregor Robertson. This time, the Liberals ran a very high profile candidate and the NDP candidate was a relative unknown.

Anyways, my only point is that it seems a bit odd for someone to start screaming "the sky is falling" regarding the BC NDP the day after winning two byelections and at a time when they are leading the polls.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
keglerdave
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5839

posted 01 November 2008 06:44 PM      Profile for keglerdave     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Jeez Ken, aren't we all supposed to be out supporting and singing about how enlightened we are because we in the BCNDP have an equity mandate? Isn't that what Sue Hammell and Angie Schirra want all the good little NDP'ers to be doing. Let it go already??? I was merely pointing out that the fact that member's dues monies have gone forward to pay for organizers and party hacks to push forward the mandate. Has anyone noticed how bloated the provincial office has become lately? Please don't forget that 50% of what you give to a provincial NDP executive goes straight into the provincial office coffers, and straight into those "strategists" salaries.

Everyone's talking like the by elections were some kind of "upset" or unpredicted win. History does not back that up. Not too mention the pitiful turn out for both by elections. Sorry if some of us don't wear rose coloured glasses and think that anything with the provincial ND*P symbol on it is all great and glorious. And what about the Axe The Tax thing? Just what would the BCNDP do if they were in power, with regards to climate change? There's been a deafening silence on what would really happen in that case, other than the talk about cap and trade.

How does one in a downward economy, with declining revenue, maintain the tax cuts given by the Campbell Fiberals, while cutting the "carbon tax"? If the answer is that you tax "at source" those costs will be passed down through the line to the consumer, so that's not really the answer. I bet you anything that somewhere deep in the catacombs at BCNDP HQ, there was a plan to introduce a carbon tax and that the BC Fiberals beat the BCNDP to the punch. And now all you're getting from the talking heads at HQ is SPIN SPIN SPIN, while they try and come up with something else. Here's an idea, why not turn the economic strategy planning over to the people who really pull the strings in the BCNDP, Sinclair, Schirra and Hammell.

More and more the BCNDP is alienating average BC'ers by pandering to special interest groups, at the expense of those who are truly taking it from 8 years of Campbell mismanagement.

If the party is doing so great, how come no comeback to Colleen Hansen's baldfaced lies about how great the Fiberals have been from Day 1. Everyone seems to have forgotten how Gang Campbell there racked up 3 consecutive massive deficits, including 2 record back to back deficits in his first 3 years in office. All the while giving everyone a huge 25% tax break, and then gutting the crap out of complimentary medicine (physio, massage, chiro, homeopathic) and introducing massive increases to MSP premiums, and nickel and diming everyone to death. What took the BCNDP 10 years to do (add 7 billion to the provincial debt) took the Fiberals only 3, not too mention selling off of crown assets etc. Is anyone talking about that??? Nope. Not a single phone call calling Hansen on his bullshit on the open line.

We're all sitting here celebrating 2 so called tremendous victories in 2 by elections. Wanting to hear how great a job the party is doing. Up and down the party, its a joke. In my riding, there has been NOTHING done to support the MLA in the last god knows how long. I got involved, and did my best, but quickly realized.. its the BCNDP way. Sit around and wait for some miracle to happen that's going to drop a tonne of cash into your coffers out of nowhere. But then again, when provincial office poaches 50% of what you raise, why go through the effort. And contrary to some of the lurkers around here who like to sit and tsk tsk whenever people like me criticize, I criticize because frankly I AM INVOLVED, I do roll up my sleeves and do the work, and do fight for what I believe in. That gives me the right I believe to present my views and ideas, and arguments as well.


From: New Westminster BC | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
TCD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9061

posted 01 November 2008 07:01 PM      Profile for TCD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NorthReport:
The BC NDP are on the wrong side of the following issues:

The environment

First Nations

Agricultural land reserve

Electoral Reform

And tell us BC NDPers, what are your plans for the Labour Relations Board the day after you are elected? Campbell and the right wing sure had a plan when they got elected? Does the BC NDP even have a plan?


Not sure I see the doom and gloom.

A recent poll indicates that Carole James is far more trusted on the environment than Campbell - despite her opposition to the carbon tax.

I'm not sure what the "wrong side" of the ALR would be given that most people don't know what it is.

Etc.

I understand that you don't LIKE Carole James but I don't see the argument that she's in trouble holding much water.

[ 01 November 2008: Message edited by: TCD ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Aristotleded24
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9327

posted 01 November 2008 07:59 PM      Profile for Aristotleded24   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by keglerdave:
Not too mention the pitiful turn out for both by elections.

Turnout in a by-election is always low.


From: Winnipeg | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
madmax
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15139

posted 02 November 2008 08:08 AM      Profile for madmax   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Campbell has come out swinging against the NDP. They fully intend to fight this on the economy.

quote:
Campbell slams NDP, offers more economic measures at Liberal convention
16 hours ago

WHISTLER, B.C. — B.C.'s Opposition New Democrats were Premier Gordon Campbell's frequent targets during a 50-minute keynote address to 1,050 delegates at the BC Liberal's biennial convention Saturday.

The gathering was held at the posh Chateau Whistler hotel this weekend.

Still smarting from two Vancouver byelection losses Wednesday, Campbell made it clear the campaign leading up to the province's May 12 general election is in full swing.

"So warn your children, warn your friends!" he counselled. "If the NDP's knockin' on your door, don't answer."

Campbell predicted a New Democrat government would take more and more away from ordinary British Columbians.



From: Ontario | Registered: Apr 2008  |  IP: Logged
brookmere
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9693

posted 02 November 2008 10:24 AM      Profile for brookmere     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The BC economy has been in a bubble driven by inflated house prices and excessive consumer debt since 2001, exactly like the US, and will suffer the same consequences.

The problem is that at no time has the NDP ever pointed this out. Has any NDP MLA ever said that BC house prices were too high and that a real estate crash, which is now underway with a speed and ferocity which will make the US bust look tepid, was inevitable? Only Gregor Robertson has even touched on the issue and that was after he had left his seat to run for mayor.

Thus Campbell will be able to blame BC's problems on the mess south of the border, when in fact BC is in the same mess for the same reasons.

Had the NDP been forthright earlier about the unsustainability of this bubble, at least it could say "we told you so".

[ 02 November 2008: Message edited by: brookmere ]


From: BC (sort of) | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 02 November 2008 11:24 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
What exactly can a provincial government do to stop a housing bubble in the first place. Its not as if they could have ordered the banks to raise interest rates to cool down the housing market.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 02 November 2008 12:07 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by brookmere:

Had the NDP been forthright earlier about the unsustainability of this bubble, at least it could say "we told you so".

The NDP has recommended a national housing strategy, the likes of which the federal Liberals shit-canned, for a number of years now. NeoLiberal voodoo of the day required that the Liberals make many more Canadians reliant on markets for housing. "Free markets fail" - Duncan Cameron

[ 02 November 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
brookmere
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9693

posted 02 November 2008 06:03 PM      Profile for brookmere     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
What exactly can a provincial government do to stop a housing bubble in the first place.

Is that supposed to be a joke, Stockholm?

If the provincial government levied a 100% tax on speculative gains on RE there would be no housing bubbles, ever, because nobody would be able to make any profit from flipping.

How simple can you get.


From: BC (sort of) | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
mybabble
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15302

posted 06 November 2008 01:51 PM      Profile for mybabble     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Wishful thinking I call it as the election is away off and much will unfold especially for those living in BC. I see Carol James as the next premier of the province of BC and none to late as Mr. Campbell leaves BC'S economy in shambles. Here is a man who is pushing for deregulation of the tar sands something so bad for our environment yet its the same guy who pushed the Carbon Tax which is causing burdens to low income and future job losses and hardships. I wonder what will happen once Obama and Harper get together to discuss global warming? Obama is against the tar sands operations and therefore could but a damper on Canada's economy and especially BC as province receive Billions for its involvement. Its good news for the enviroment but not so good for the economy as this is the money used to get your tax cuts, Oil that is.
From: vanouver | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
mybabble
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15302

posted 06 November 2008 01:58 PM      Profile for mybabble     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
And about nobody buying if you had regulations on speculative buying well its what bought the American market down as people were placed in homes they were unable to afford and as prices increased homeowners could not manage. It gotta happen here because of all the speculation, its a given.
From: vanouver | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 06 November 2008 02:09 PM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Unfortunately the next battle will be over drilling in the Hecate Strait something that BC Liberals and the federal Conservatives are starting to push for. We will see how Obama deals with that issue since I think he is oposed to off shore drilling in Alaska i.e. Hecate Straight
From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
mybabble
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15302

posted 06 November 2008 02:14 PM      Profile for mybabble     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
And whay you mean is who would make a killing off unsuspecting homeowners? There is a great deal of money in land development without taking new homeowners to the cleaners while making owing or renting a home almost impossible for many. Regulations will need to be put into place as to prevent massive foreclosures but I guess we will just take a wait and see attitude. I'm used to being right.
From: vanouver | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
brookmere
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9693

posted 07 November 2008 05:29 AM      Profile for brookmere     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The reason there are so many foreclosures and the US, and will be in BC soon, is that people bought houses for ridiculous prices they couldn't afford.

Affordable housing means housing at prices that make sense. The NDP has not advocated any policies to combat inflated house prices, which are the real problem. Or even warned people that BC's absurd house prices were going to crash just like in the US.

The real estate crash which is already under way in BC is not the problem, but the solution to the problem. High house prices are bad for everyone except the parasites in the RE and banking industries.


From: BC (sort of) | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 07 November 2008 03:46 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
The real estate crash which is already under way in BC is not the problem, but the solution to the problem.

Tell that to people who now have negative equity in their homes or people who took out loans based on the value of their houses and are now facing foreclosure.

I don't think the NDP will gain very much by expressing joy at a crash in real estate prices that is causing a lot of ordinary working people to get pulled under water by the undertow.

That is like saying that you are cheering for an economic depression because higher unemployment and less economic activity will mean less greenhouse gas emissions!


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Aristotleded24
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9327

posted 08 November 2008 07:10 PM      Profile for Aristotleded24   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
Tell that to people who now have negative equity in their homes or people who took out loans based on the value of their houses and are now facing foreclosure.

I think brookmere does make a valid point. While the disruption that a housing market crash will cause isn't something to celebrate, there is a real problem. So many middle-class Canadians have bought into the idea that they can make money by going into real estate. The problem is while housing prices generally go up, nothing is guaranteed. The main reason to buy a house is so you have a place to live, and if you buy a place you intend to inhabit long term (which is the only time it makes sense to buy a house) you should be okay. Put succinctly, a house is a home, not an investment.

ETA: Having said that, like you, I'd like to know what, if any, role the provincial government can play in the real estate boom.

[ 08 November 2008: Message edited by: Aristotleded24 ]


From: Winnipeg | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 08 November 2008 10:00 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
@Aristotle:

I like to tell the parable of how when I was a child, I innocently believed that Mommies and Daddies bought houses for families to live in, not so they could get rich.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 09 November 2008 08:15 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
People also don't buy houses to get poor and if you bought a single family home at the peak of the market and now its worth 30% less than what you paid for it - and maybe you need to movce and have no choice but to sell or maybe you took out a loan on the value of the house and now the bank wants its money back its.

I realize that some people might feel some weird "schadenfreude" over crashing real estate values and think stereotypically that it only affects a few land speculators and people who flip houses or the fun of it - but in reality it is affecting a lot of ordinary people as well.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 09 November 2008 08:34 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Tough. I'm a renter and one of the things that's just been killing me is that the inflationary rise in land prices is driving up property taxes and with it, the amount of my rent. I'm lucky the BC Fiberal version of the Residential Tenancy Act still limits rent increases to the inflation rate plus around 2%, or otherwise I'd be sunk.

With any luck this recent implosion in the housing market will cause rents to drop as property taxes also drop (though some places will just increase the mill rate instead, but that can't be helped).

I have little sympathy for people who got dollar signs in their eyes and had the thought in the back of their head that they could claim to have a nice fancy house, even if they intended to purchase that house to live in it, not speculate.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 09 November 2008 09:05 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Property taxes won't drop at all. They have nothing to do with property values since if property values all go up, the mill rate goes down and if property values go down, the mill rate goes up - municipal governments still need the same amount of revenue.

If you think that just because property values in Vancouver have gone down 20% - the City of Vancouver is going to leave the mill rate the same and just absorb a 20% drop in its revenue base - then you need to get your head examined.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca