10% is a little high

146 million to audit 1.6 billion in contracts? next thing you khnow we will be spending 14 million to audit the auditors!-----------10% seems a little high, I would like to hear from some accountants on what percentage audits should cost

Clarification

The story did not say what the audit cost, nor do I know what it cost. I can tell you the entire budget for the Auditor General's office this year is $15.25 million.

A few more questions about conflicts, payoffs

What about Ken Dobell--on board at the over-budget Convention Centre? Still doing who knows what for the City of Vancouver and the Premier? The pay-offs to the old boys network at Translink? The fact that the border crossing at Peace Arch is behind schedule and beyond budget?
Larry Bell running the Canada Line while still on the Board of Ron Toigo's Shato Holdings (White Spot, Vancouver Giants and soon to be golf course expansion and 435 homes in Tsawwassen) Shato Holdings site says they paid Ted Hughes for an opinion and he said no conflict. Which tells us how old Ted much be!
Then there are those friends on the Ferry Board who voted themselves a 60% pay increase. This is our money,folks, and we are being robbed, left, right and centre.
Ouch!

I stand corrected

sorry my eyes are still blurry----I look at all those zeros and my eyes fail! but I am getting sick and tired of everthing being outsourced---as with, ferries--transit--seniors care---health care--billing---bc hydro---highways and bridges,etc etc etc ----and if we are going to outsource everthing,whats the point in having ministers?--- abbott--falcon--ida chong--bell --shirly bond etc etc etc and the dozens of staff to go with them! just outsource everything including the premier! all we need is a board of experts and a GIANT CHECKBOOK

Great article, Tyee!

Great article, Tyee!

Isn't it great. The citizens

Isn't it great. The citizens of BCc hired Gordo and friends to straighten out government.

The citizens did this not once but twice.

If the polls are correct, Gordo will be heading for another term. The safeguards don't work, projects are mishandled and the voters line up to support the seemingly corrupt gang.
Questions about accountabilty are ignored and we the folks paying the bills snooze along

the ipsos reid poll was custom ordered by canwest global

google up ( canwest global and ipsos reid partnership) just google that whole sentence. canwest global better known as liberal tv. heres a quote from the news release of the canwest global ipsos reid partnership. " with this new partnership canwest global media experts get SPECIAL access to ipsos reid pollsters" --------------NIK NANOS OF NANOS POLLING states bc is the hardest province to poll, you can get any result you want, if you want liberals ahead poll the north shore --if you want ndp poll vancouver island.---------------google up( sce research ) glen robbins has a bunch of BC polls-------also if you look at the last ipsos reid -the detailed tables ,read them carefully----the poll group was 800 people, and the largest percentage of the 800 people in that poll were 90.000.00 a year income or more---and they were 54% for liberals----the smallest percentage of the 800 in that poll were 40.000.00 a year --and they were big for the ndp------but if you switched them around and had more 40.000.00 and less 90.000.00 a year income the ndp would be neck and neck or slightly ahead of the bc liberals

Robbins Research polls

are mainly paid for by a Conservative (an ambitious guy with political aspirations.) Are also highly suspect as early last summer he predicted Gordo would be gone by the end of the summer.

The online Angus Reid poll here at the tyee is running 72% against duh Prem--but maybe that's because tyee readers are better informed than most folks.

the last 4 ipsos reid poll have been clones

who haven`t the liberals pissed off-ferry riders-hydro users-seniors-environuts-medical people -educators-I could go on but you get the point,people know who to blame-not boards of experts,or trustees,or local authorities----gordo (gargler) campbell-------------robbins was right on the mark on the last election---------a mustel poll just before the last federal bi-election stated that federal liberals were surging in bc,up 7 points--look what happened in quadra (a liberal stronghold)-------and since the 2005 provincial the last 4 ipsos reid polls have been clones--liberals 45% 46% 47% 46% ------with olympis spending,starter wages,oil and gas subsidies,booster seats,school closing,fuding cuts,health nightmare,seniors care, child care, ken dobell, bc rail,wally oppals brother,ICBC,gas tax,hydro rates,bus rates,boards of directors pay,gateway ,tolls,port expansion, burns bog,pitt river,eagle ridge bluff,money and land to musqueam and other bands,cambie business over cut and cover, john les,run of river, SALMON----FISH FARMS--FOR GOD SAKE THE BC LIBERALS ARE KILLING YOUR AND MY SALMON---de-railments killing rivers--homelessness, mental health----I could go on forever,------------so with all those bc liberal failiings to believe that every ipsos reid poll is a clone (gimme a break)------------gordon( king of theives )campbell is FINISHED and so is his party!---------I almost want the gargler to win his riding ((point grey,which he`s now hated in) and have him sit as opposition leader as the ndp expose his crime one by one

Brian Gough... #1

Ya mean Robbins SCE (who most, knowledgeable in these matters, consider to be a rogue) with these um... reasonable statements????:

http://www.robbinssceresearch.com/polls/poll_437.html

http://www.robbinssceresearch.com/polls/poll_484.html

I know that the poster G West has previously agreed with your sentiments, but I digress...

Nanos Research only conducts federal polls and Ontario provincial polls. The BC sample in their federal polls is 140 (really irrelevant- small sampling size for their federal polls).

Brian, the Vancouver Quadra by-election was held on March 17, 2008. The only federal Mustel polls released were during October, 2007 (5 months before that) and 5 weeks after the Vancouver Quadra by-election (April 24,2008).

Check for yourself:

http://www.mustelgroup.com/pdf/20080424.pdf

BTW, I have previously posted Mustel's opinion polling accuracy and ya can't do better than that, but here again:

http://www.mustelgroup.com/accuracy.asp

The last Ipsos poll of March 18, 2008 was as follows:

Liberal - 46%
New Democrat - 34%
Green - 16%
Other - 4%

http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=3857

Brian Gough... #2

And you will notice in that Ipsos press release that they refer to household income.

If ya read the detailed tables carefully, again relating to household income
you will note as follows:

<$40,000 house hold income: 160
$40,000 - $80,000 household income: 222
>$80,000 household income: 181

http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/client/act_dsp_pdf.cfm?name=mr080318-2tables.pdf&id=3857

Two spouses each earning $10/hr, working 8 hrs/day and 52 weeks/yr would have a household income of $41,600 and would fit into that second category.

Mustel released a BC public opinion poll after the last Ipsos poll (which had a 12% spread), with a much larger 18% spread:

http://www.mustelgroup.com/voter_intention.html

But I did find a previous BC Mustel poll from July, 2004 and I have no doubt about its accuracy:

NDP - 45%
Liberal - 33%
Green - 14%
Reform - 3%
Social Credit - 3%
Other - 2%

http://www.mustelgroup.com/pr/20040708.ht

Do I Agree that Ipsos-Reid uses unrepresentative sample?

You bet I do Luke - and I pointed out in detail why.

Any polling firm that crows about its strategic alliance(s) with the Can West Global crowd is highly suspect to start with.

Anyone who suggests those poll results are anything but speculative nonsense hasn't looked at the actual make-up of the British Columbia electorate and compared it with the real demographics of the population either.

On another point, I welcome discussion of what I post here at Tyee, I do not appreciate being dragged into discussions in which I've had no involvement and don't wish to be engaged.

This material is old hat, it has little or nothing to do with the topic under discussion and it serves only to obfuscate and avoid the actual issue Andrew MacLeod is addressing.

That is, whether or not the Campbell Government's approach to selling off and contracting out the business of governing and serving the citizens is adding value or not.

The Auditor-General seems to think there's some doubt; I suspect he's not the only one - despite the efforts of certain strong financial supporters of the current government to give voters a different impression.

I always invite respectful comments to my posts here at Tyee.

G West

luke you got too much time on your hand

it does not say HOUSEHOLD INCOME--when they ask about income its one persons income!---but my point is made ---if there was more people polled in the lower income bracket and less in the higher income bracket -you could flip those numbers-----------------I have been running an unofficial poll myself----on poker stars,in the evening when I play (play money) you can see where people are from--maple ridge, victoria-fernie --abbotsford etc etc-------when I locate players from bc --I always ask them who are you going to vote for in the next provincial election! present count is-------79 ndp----13 liberal----10 green----17 get lost--not exactly scientific but those are my results----theres a lot of angry people out there, I won`t repeat what the majority of them say about the garler campbell

Brian Gough...

Ipsos Press Release:

whatever

I haven`t read the PRESS RELEASE --but in the detailed tables it merely mentions income---NOT HOUSEHOLD INCOME ---luke skywalker you are stubborn, but I will remind you that canwest global is a liberal backer, and thats not in dispute. check the bc liberal party contribution list and you will see that canwest global donated 50.000.00 dollars to the bc liberals campaign before the last election.----the canwest global ipsos reid partnership press release states and I quote--" with this new partnership canwest global media experts get SPECIAL access to ipsos reid pollsters" and considering that the last ipsos reid poll was done for canwest global speaks volumes--and if that isn`t a complete conflict of interest I don`t know what is!!! you get what you pay for. anyways it doesn`t matter,bcers are not going to vote liberal merely because the polls state the liberals are leading.------and mark my words luke skywalker you are going to see many incumbent liberals not running in the next election, because they see the writing on the wall

I`m waiting

dispute those claims[INFLAMMATORY COMMENT REMOVED. -MODERATOR.]

ipsos reid

Ipsos Reid lists "Reputation & Risk Management" first in terms of their areas of expertise. They are a marketing firm that uses polls to inform their clients about what public opinion (potential customers) has to say about the clients and their products/decisions.

Here is the list of what they do as found today on one of their webpages:

http://www.ipsos-pa.com/

The following link helps one see more clearly what "reputation and risk mangement[marketing] " is about:
http://www.ipsos-pa.com/expertise/reprisk/

Bold text editorializing by me. SIG

Those who want to believe what they find in public opinion polls must remember that opinion polls are sponsored by someone willing to pay for the results. The people who want those results often have an agenda. The people who have paid for and publish those results, often publish the results if they believe it will be helpful for their cause. Sometimes they pay for a poll to be specifically designed and specifically administered so that it will show a certain desired result. Unwanted results generally stay in-house.
One can presume that this type of activity would fall under what one would consider reputation and risk management. After all, that is why public relations and marketing firms are in business.

I wonder if Ipsos has studied whether or not the media monitors nursing at the public breast are providing a service that truly is working for Campbell Inc.? From my standpoint, the media monitors serve only to make me work harder to throw the bums out!

SharingIsGood....

I don't wanna beat a dead horse to death, but the BC public opinion polls published by both Mustel and Ipsos over the past ~15 years (each several times/yr.) are not sponsored by anyone, anybody, nada.

Usually, Ipsos and Mustel issue press releases and the media can do with same as they so choose.

These companies conduct BC opinion polls as a public interest matter and obviously to keep their name and reputation in the media spotlight.

In fact, regarding the latest Mustel polls, no media release was issued and the results were not published in the media.

Everyone has the perogative to believe or disbelieve these results. It's as simple as that.

the poll was conducted for canwest global

bullshit luke skywalker----ipsos reid polling can`t survive on hot air---canwest PAID FOR THE POLL----back up your statements---someone is always paying for polls---either CPAC or cbc or a political party ---or in the case of the last ipsos poll ---canwest global ---even on the news the media said the latest ipsos reid poll conducted for canwest global---and your pretty good at disproving stuff then do it!MAKE ME A LIAR LUKE-----

Oh Brian...

You do understand that there is a difference between Canadian national polls by Ipsos, usually conducted on a weekly basis, as opposed to 3 or 4 annual BC provincial polls conducted by Ipsos that are unsponsored?

BTW, Ipsos has much more favourable numbers for the New Democrats than Mustel.

Of course, Ipsos is the pollster of record for "Global News National and the National Post".

http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/canwest/

That's akin to Stategic Counsel operating as the pollster of record for CTV National News.

It's always been like that... for at least a decade or two.

It seems to me that you have more of a problem with Global National News/The National Post than with the polling firms Ipsos or Strategic Counsel, for that matter.

Frankly, I've never bought into the conspiracy theory of a second man on the grassy knoll in Dallas myself. :)

Luke

You know, of all the conspiracy theories out there, I have to say this is one I have more faith in than the official explanation.

I heard on that radio show out of Winnipeg one night that there's a bookstore where all the books are devoted to this subject :-)

And let's face it, the USA in the early '60's was not exactly a country where shootings didn't take place :-)

like Hitler and Mussolini

The two have a partnership:
"Global News And Canwest News Service Select Ipsos Reid As Pollster Of Record
Partnership Provides Canwest Mediaworks With Access To National Polling Capabilities And In-Depth Research"
http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=2838

Canwest/Global has a partnership with the Marketing firm Isos-Reid and Canwest is the #1 cheerleader for Campbell Inc.

mustel group

The Mustel Group is also a Marketing firm:

http://www.mustelgroup.com/about.asp

Bold emphasis mine, SIG

So, recognising that these polling companies are in the marketing business and that big business is normally the one paying for results, I believe it prudent for the reader of their polls to take into account the business plans of the corporate entities hiring them and publishing their results.

SharingIsGood....

SIG, ya do know the difference between a marketing firm and a market research firm?????

Mustel Group has been a leading marketing and public opinion research firm in western Canada for more than 25 years.

These guys, along with Ipsos, Strategic Counsel, Harris Decima, Angus Reid Strategies, Leger, CROP et al don't market anything!

monitor Luke hung-up on semantics

Whether they are actually marketing a "product [or image]" or telling their clients how, they are all part of Marketing, Luke.
The following comes from Ipso-Reid web pages (Bold added for emphasis - SIG):

http://www.ipsos-na.com/marketing/

and:

http://www.ipsos.ca/prod/loyalty/NewEra.cfm

I wish to apologize to readers for movement away from the wonderful article that reveals what poor managers the Liberals are with our money/our province - yet again!

keith baldrey and palmer are just as bad

friday on the bill good show cknw98 (april 25 -9am to 10 am segment) the cutting ledge----I told palmer -good -and baldrey the real reason were gonna spend over a billion on smart meters---none of them could dispute my claims,---check it out on the cknw audio vault, my call was at 9.45 am ----palmer has no math skills---baldrey was claiming don`t worry about hydro rates were still cheap compared the california!--they couldn`t deny my premium billing claim between 4pm and 10 pm----palmer stated that with these meters we will get discount power at 2 in the morning-and premium charge in day and early evening--and none could deny the boondoggle it will be to hack into a million walls with meters--------but earlier in the broadcast that sell -out palmer stated the liberals have never ever been as popular as they are now 16 point lead---even ipsos reid was only 12 points-----MORE PROPAGANDA--LISTEN TO THEM AND HEAR THEM FLOP

Quote:hung-up on

Let me give ya an example:

A real estate development company may hire a market research firm to determine their market demographics, age-group, income-bracket, etc.

However, that same real estate development company will then hire a marketing firm to sell those properties to that same overall group identifed by the market research firm.

Semantics???

It seems that your definition of marketing is akin to that of vegetables.

However, potatoes and carrots are two completely separate entities. Most people are able to tell the difference. :)

read the whole thing, luke

Luke, you need to read the quotes from Ipsos Reid in my posting. Don't take a snippet out of context then try to divert the readers of the article away from the main point of the article by getting moot. The main point is that the Liberals really do a bad job of managing our public resources. They make bad choices, and they give big contracts to their friends.

Further to your pulling things out of context, you need to go to the Ipsos-Reid website links I provided, and explore. You can see that they market themselves as experts in telling their clients how to market whatever it is they are trying to sell. Especially noteworthy is the fact that marketing gambling is one of their specialties.

I give you credit for persistence, Luke. Whatever you may get in remuneration as a monitor, it could never be enough. Note that when one sells his or her soul, there is nothing left but an empty carcass that can never find true joy or satisfaction. I consider most university trained marketers/marketing psychologists and their accomplices to be highly trained empty carcasses. I have found most marketers to be shallow people with low morals.

SIG...

SIG, perhaps you do not understand or comprehend what you are reading or, for that matter, perhaps do not understand market research or public opinion research.

Ipsos is highly regarded around the world for their expertise in that regard yet ya seem hell bent on critizing both Ipsos and Mustel, for that matter.

It just does not make any sense.

Perhaps ya also have the same opinion of Statistics Canada, which is the federal information/research arm.

In same vein and regarding BC, Statistics Canada prepared an economic article subtitled The 1990's - A Lost Decade

It's quite an interesting read.

http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/11-010-XIB/00506/feature.htm

StatsCan?

VERY interesting. I myself was most interested in the following statement :

Why did that "period" start at 1984? After all, there was no change in gov't that year and the period its being compared against was an entire decade, so why not compare the entire 1980's againstthe entire 1990's?

Obviously because that would mean including Bill Bennett's "made-in-BC" recession. And that would mean that you'd have to include some bad numbers and the following statement

would no longer be true. I think its too bad the "Canadian Economic Observer" wanted to play politics and take a run at the NDP because their bias hurts their credibility.

Here's another quote that again demonstrates a particular bias being pushed.

Actually the BC economy began to recover after the Asian crises (an event not mentioned by the Observer). Don't believe me? Let's look at what BC Stats says about the period that the Canadian Economic Observer is looking at.

1982 -6.1
1983 0.6
1984 0.8
1985 6.9
1986 0.2
1987 6.2
1988 5.8
1989 3.3
1990 1.4
1991 0.2
1992 2.6
1993 4.5
1994 2.8
1995 2.4
1996 2.5
1997 3.2
1998 1.3
1999 3.2
2000 4.6
2001 0.6
2002 3.6
2003 2.3
2004 3.7
2005 4.5
2006 3.3

Guess we know why the Canadian Economic Observer didn't want to include the 1982-1984 years eh?

1990 and 1991 don't look so good either yet the NDP only came into power very late in 1991 (the election was October 17th).

Also of interest to people such as the Canadian Economic Observer might be the fact that the economy was recovering from the Asian Crises for two years before Gordon Campbell was even elected, at which point growth actually fell in the first year under the Liberals.

Clearly The Cdn Ec Obs is lying. A strong statement I realize but the numbers speak for themselves.

...cont

The Observer also goes on to talk about housing taking off under the Libs without once mentioning the difference in interest rates between the two decades. And I should add for those ignorant of how Canada works, no, the BC NDP did not ever control interest rates here.

The Observer also fails to mention Fed money drying up in the 1990's as the federal Libs took on the deficit while the BC Libs have had no such issues to deal with.

Finally let's recall that gov't services in the "lost decade" were actually run better and produced better results than under the Liberals in this decade. The NDP may not know how to "run a lemonade stand" but they sure do know how to run gov't services, something the Socreds and Libs have for decades failed to learn.

Thanks Frank

I was about to make some of the same observations.

Some further observations that were not made by the Observer:

Part of the increases that have come about in the corpoate sector of the BC economy has come through selling off/developing the futures (forests, rivers, farmland) of young British Columbians and destroying the environment.

* The Liberals have allowed for the export of whole logs from old-growth forests.

*They removed the NDP placed moratorium on fish farms though the farms have proven to kill wild stock here and in other parts of the world where salmon have been farmed. Feeder fish for wild species are also decimated in capturing and creating feed for pen-raised fish. Finally, spinal cord and brain material from cattle have been used as feed for pen-raised salmon, without due dilligence to possible cross-over of BSE prions into the fish proteins.

* World commodity prices have never been higher, and the government has given away resources at prices beneath the income that value-added processes would create. This means that less wealth has been able to stay in the province for every pound of ore shipped. It also means that manufacturing processes and businesses (like wind generator, micro-hydro generator and solar panel production) that could have been locating here, have instead located in China, Singapore and the like.

* Some of the claims to increased GDP are just smoke and mirrors. Even though there has been increased construction, the actual homes being created have often not been green. Many of the Condos etc. that have been built have been purchased by speculators; therefore putting regular BC citizens out of a place to live. Developers make some money, but workers can't afford to buy.

* The increase in homelessness has gotten so bad that we now have homeless people living under bridges in small towns. These people are certainly not feeling the boom, the economic love.

* The wealth that has stayed in BC has primarily gone to the richest 10% - many of the people in the middle and on the bottom are worse off.

* There is little infrastructure planning and construction taking place to cover the health care needs of the future. They have been selling off schools as well. With population increasing now that the end of the ebb of the boom's echo has come and gone, we will need more schools again.

* The Libs have been selling public assets at bargain-basement prices - no wonder some people are making money. The corporate buddies of the government own what everyone used to own, and they get to make money off of it.

* BC Baby-boom retirees who have begun coming of age during this century still spend money, and their retirement opens jobs for workers at a pace faster than the incoming work-force can fill.

Piling On... 15 yards

From 1982 to 1991 under Social Credit,
average growth was 1.93%

From 1992 to 2000 under the NDP, average growth was 2.51%

From 2001 to 2006 under the BC Liberals, average growth was 3.0%

If we combine the Socred and Liberal records (and why not? they're the same voters and include many of the same people) we find that their average growth rate is just 2.33% which is actually less than the NDP's 2.51%.

"Lost decade" indeed :-)

Looks to me like the NDP did pretty well compared to the Socreds and Libs. Too bad the Observer doesn't have anyone working there unbiased enough to tell the whole story.

As you were ladies and gentlemen.

SharingIsGood

Quite true, your analysis is much appreciated.

Looking simply at GDP numbers really does ignore the real story.

Luke's dead horse

As quoted in my postings above, what part of: "translating business implications into superior marketing strategy that leads to actionable recommendations for building your business." does not sound like it would fall into an Ipsos-Reid client's marketing budget?

Give us all a break, Luke. The horse you are riding and beating is dead. You will have to dismount if you want to catch up with reality.

Your attempting to discredit my ability to comprehend what I read and post is a weak and foolish attack on me, the messenger. Weak debators often employ this technique when truths are too strong for them to face head-on. There you go again!

BTW: There is nothing wrong with my reading comprehension. Now that you have called it into question, I scored in the upper first percentile in reading comprehension, mathematics, logic and visual spacial awareness on every one of several IQ and achievement tests I was given as a youth. I was the top student in my class in most of my graduate courses in a highly-respected, highly competitive program. I can read, Luke.

I think perhaps you choose to refuse to comprehend what you read. Is that what they pay media monitors to do?

the ndp also left a surplus

economics 101---with alberta`s oil money any ruling goverment looks good--klein was no genious--saskatewan is booming--east coast oil is hot --even the in-ept federal gov has done well in the last decade!----whats really sad is the fact that when we had great provincial revenue these last few years its been squandered, with experts well aware of the age demograhics ,the bc liberals have our parents, the time to ramp up health services was the last 7 years----but they did the reverse--the garler has blood on his hands-----so what do we have to show for our temporary boom--nothing---a sinking speed skating oval( future gaming house) a slightly better road to a ski slope, a ski jump, a new sky train to the airport that will do nothing to relieve traffic and will run a yearly 25 millon deficit,more provincial debt now than what we had in 2001----ruined corrections-gutted social services--and soon to be found out 5 billion in olympic debt! ---------and luke skywalker I am still waiting for you to dispute the canwest global contribution of 50.000.00 to bc liberals

Reality Check...

The years 1980 and 1981 were economically booming in BC.

Only in 1982 and 1983, interest rates peaked at 20% and the fallout from that was obvious.

Nevertheless the period 1985 - 1990 saw BC's greatest level of sustained economic growth (greater than over the past five years, which hasn't been seen since).

From the BC Central Credit Union:

http://www.cucbc.com/displayjob.php?sp=35&type=SB&jid=2

During the early 1990's, personal taxes of all levels were hiked as well as corporate taxes. Not exactly conducive to an economic friendly environment.

And there was the subsequent fall-out from that negative consumer confidence/ business environment.

By late 1993, the BC real estate market tanked and continued to be flat and fall through the 1990's. Unemployment jumped to 9.7% in 1993.

Consumer confidence slumped along with contruction, major household purchases, etc. ... consumer spending overall was at low ebbs during the 1990's and so were government approval ratings.

The Bank of Canada's prime rate was 4.75% in 1996 but that did not spur consumer confidence or consumer spending.

Tha Bank of Canada's prime rate was higher at 6%, peaking at 6.25%, during 2006 and 2007 but that did not dampen consumer confidence.

Why? Continued consumer confidence and employment security.

http://www.fin.gov.bc.ca/PT/bcm/ref/cibcHistoricalPrime.pdf

The 1990's were a lost decade indeed.

Contrast that to the ~$13 billion in cumulative provincial surpluses over the past five years, record low unemployment rates ~4.1%, record high employment rates, record high provincial credit ratings, etc., etc.

Most people are content and aren't complaining.

Luke

I agree, interest rates make a big difference. The Liberals have enjoyed very low rates.

In between two down periods. One severe down period. And both on the Socred watch. If the Socreds are going to take credit for the upturn that happened while they were in power they should also take ownership of the downturns.

Now as you point out, interest rates were high earlier in their regime so of course there would be a lot of pent-up growth once rates returned to a normal level. It was that more than any Socred policies that caused that boom.

That's an ideological statement my friend, it depends on what the taxes are spent on.

The data shows the economy over the period of the NDP outperformed the economy over the reign of the Socreds. That's because the NDP did not put the tax dollars into a hole in the ground. Investment of tax dollars into health, education and people paid dividends and the data shows the BC economy was fine during the 90's. Right-wing "chicken littles" disagree both then and now but I wouldn't expect them to say anything different.

Government approval ratings are always low when the NDP are in power because the majority of people hate us. Surely you're not suggesting that there's a level playing field and Socreds will happily applaud the NDP fairly? Would never happen.

Luke ...cont

Cherry picking. I can do that too. Look at the numbers from BC Stats. The economy grew faster in the last year of the NDP than they did under any of the Liberal years. Why? Bad Liberal management of government finances and the provincial economy. Tax dollars have been wasted by the Campbell government and in spite of them nearing the end of their second term they have yet to grasp how to manage health, education and social services.

And in the 1990's I didn't hear many complaints from left-wingers either. So it comes as no surprise that most right-wingers now are happy.

But if the NDP were in power right now you'd hear nothing but venom directed at them for screwing up the forest sector, wasting money on the Olympics and transit that no one will use, letting healthcare fall apart etc etc.

I expect the people of BC to blame everything in the world on the NDP and so far they've never let me down.

Luke

From the Toronto Star yesterday :

OTTAWA–A new poll suggests economic fears and a lack of optimism are problems for Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Conservatives.

Fifty-six per cent of respondents to The Canadian Press-Harris-Decima survey said they were worried about a recession, and 55 per cent said they didn't feel Harper offered much optimism or inspiration.

Slightly over 50 per cent said they felt the Tories don't care about the same issues they do.

Harris-Decima president Bruce Anderson says the results indicate that if Harper hopes to fashion a majority, or even hang on to the votes he won in the last election, he'll need to offer a more optimistic outlook and start looking at issues of most concern to voters.

Just over 1,000 people were polled by telephone in the omnibus survey conducted between April 17 and April 21.

The results are considered accurate to within 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

Luke

At least federally it would appear "most" people aren't happy. I will happily declare however that of that 55%, few voted Conservative.

luke skywalker--what about the 50.000.00 donation to bc liberac

what about a higher provincial debt now than we had in 2001--what about not selling bc rail--wheres those 5000 long term beds- I quote campbell " no more golden parachute pensions--the most honest transparent goverment ever" ---when I watch the legislature channel the gargler campbell and his chamber of horror have one stock answere to any questions and I quote " we can`t answere that question because its before the courts"---------------I recomend any students who may be reading these post to aspire to be a special prosecutor because as long as gordon(the gargler) campbell is running the show there will be plenty of work!

you are right brian

You are absolutely right to expect an answer, Brian - but don't hold your breath. Luke is very good at coming in and, through misinformation and half-truths, criticizing what others say. When those others show him the error of his thinking, he either ignors it, or he avoids responding. I suspect that you come here of your own volition, Brian. That means you have altruistically invested your personal time and energy to try and help others learn from what you know. You are here for noble reasons. When Luke attacks your words, he is attacking your personhood. Sometimes he actually attacks the qualities of the person.

It appears Luke is a paid media monitor; after all, he has been asked a number of times and he has never denied it. At his fingertips are reams of irrelevant words and reports to post. Orwell's Ministry of Truth is in full swing under Campbell Incorporated's tutelage. What a horrible thing it must be to look in the morning mirror and say to oneself, "I am a media monitor; I make my living representing Gordon Campbell!" If reincarnation were real, I could think of returning as nothing more low than a Quisling for Campbell.

Frank...

That's an ideological statement my friend, it depends on what the taxes are spent on.

A high tax regime and a lower tax regime do affect consumer confidence. I would categorize my previous statement as more in tune with public opinion than ideology.

For example, a June 2001 Mustel survey had the following results:

1. A majority of BC residents feel the tax cut is fair to all BC residents. [Even lower income earners tend to agree]: Fair: 62% (Unfair: 27%)

2. A good majority of BC residents are confident the economy will improve under the BC Liberals : 71%

http://www.mustelgroup.com/pr/20010622.htm

Puting aside GDP figures, unemployment was high and consumer confidence was low for most of the 1990's. Housing prices, an important indicator of economic health, stagnated during 1994 and thereafter.

As for the BC health budget, in 2001 it was set at $10.5 billion and in 2008 we are now at $13.765 billion for the fiscal year... around 30% higher.

The same BC bureacracy manages the health care budget and funding allocations or education for that matter.

The same media cries about hospital bed shortages, etc. were also heard throughout the 1980's and 1990's. The more things change the more things stay the same.

I wouldn't agree with that. I was relieved when Harcourt took office in 1991 (just like everyone else) to get rid of that right-wing so-con Vander Zalm and his successor Rita Johnston.

The BC NDP has two wings: the moderate small "l" liberal wing represented by Harcourt, Miller, and Dosanjh and the left wing.

The problem was some of the hypocracy that many bought into during 1991 that was later exposed... including "No more jobs for friends and insiders" "We won't spend money we don't have" etc.

That came to a climax circa 1993 when Finance Minister Clark attempted to impose a capital tax upon mostly senior's homes in Vancouver valued over $500,000 and alot of other social engineering. And the NDP slid downwards poll-wise thereafter.

I care about the future for all

yes I know hes a monitor---I do enjoy getting the best of him--yes and when he can`t deny an accustion he becomes silent--I do what I can to de-throne the gargler campbell----keith baldrey and vaughn palmer are two of my favorite targets, listen every friday between 9am and 10 am on cknw ---I will continue to be one of campbells biggest thorns -chew them up and spit them out!

Frank...

A Mustel poll from June, 1999 (two years prior to the 2001 election) provides some interesting insights:

Liberal - 53%
NDP - 18%
Reform - 18%

A strong majority of BC residents feel that over the past month,
the NDP’s performance on healthcare has not improved.

BC residents are even less impressed when it comes to NDP’s performance
over the past month “creating jobs”, “managing government spending” and
“stimulating the economy”.

http://www.mustelgroup.com/pdf/pressrelease/June99.pdf

But that's simple politics and it's always been like that. The current government is also facing the same criticisms.

That was in the context of the recent Ipsos BC poll with the government having an overall approval rating of 51% and a disapproval rating of 43%.

yes your right luke skywalker they did lower taxes

but its an illusion----with user fees-seperate billings--new tax regimes--7% pst--some items 7.5%pst--seperate water tax--new authorities-with billing power--enviroment fees that go into general revenue--user fees up---msp premiums up 50%--Icbc fees up, 50dollar other driver fee--big surplus at icbc and rates keep rising!--every family in bc knows that their getting taxed to death!--luke skywalker---" what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to decieve"

Yep...

And every family knows that a new NDP government will lower taxes for all! :)

Luke

I disagree, because you can have low tax regimes where there's no consumer confidence at all and high tax regimes where everyone is quite happy.

You can say all the turtles of the world agree too but its still ideology and opinion and ideology aren't facts.

$10 says the 27% were mostly made up of people that didn't vote Liberal and the 62% were mostly made up of people that did.

Ditto to what I said above. And again, the opinion of a public that wants to believe the world is only run well when their party is in power does not turn their ideology into a fact.

Yet GDP, a figure that the Right likes to use (as opposed to health and educational outcomes) did better under the NDP than under the Socreds. So if the 90's were a "lost" decade the 80's must have been downright unliveable.

As for the BC Health Budget? No one mentioned it Luke. Outcomes have declined which proves that the Libs can't get the same results as the NDP by spending more money. Probably because they're just not good at it.

Actually there were more cries in the 90's. But Liberal supporters don't complain as much when its their party in power.

Then you were the only one Luke, and good on ya.

Luke cont

Actually I think the NDP did great in the 90's in the face of the cuts to federal transfers. And I say that having lived in Sask and Alberta too.

Liberal - 53%
NDP - 18%
Reform - 18%

You forgot to say what the "insight" was. The only thing I glean from that poll is proof of my view that we live in a very ideologically divided province and there's a lot more right-wingers than left-wingers. Which isn't exactly a new insight for me.

Well old Bill Good and Rafe Mair did blame the problems of the world on the NDP. Even federal cuts to health were lauded here as proof Paul Martin was the saviour of Canada and that Glen Clark was failing on health care. A very warped view of the world but again, one that I'm used to seeing from our media.

And once again, as my numbers show, the NDP did better than the Socreds and quite well even compared to the Liberals now yet they were attacked by the business and media communities constantly. So of course people's vies would be warped by that.

Not from the media. They save their real attacks for the NDP which is why we're similar to a one party state like Mexico was under the PRI.

You didn't state the context, but that poll backs up what I said above.

Polls

Remember Luke, even when the NDP won the 3 elections they did, the combined vote of the Right-wing parties was still higher.

It should not be a surprise to you then that the NDP trailed in polls in any year whether in power or not.

I will boldy predict that next year the NDP will still be trailing, and in the year after that. And in 10 years from now.

And since most people vote the same as their parents I will even go out on a limb and say that when Mustel does their poll in 2025 or 2045 they will find the NDP still trailing in popularity.

The only chance the NDP has if the Greens continue to take right-wing support from Campbell's PRI/Socred party,

And as sure as night follows day

I will add that if the Liberals are in power the people of BC will declare the province to be "well-run" even if we're in a depression.

Polls....

The NDP did have a lead in the polls provincially during 1982 and into the '83 provincial election and from around late '84 to the late '86 election.

The reasons: '82 mini-depression and '84 restraint program and protests.

Again from around early '88 until the fall, 1991 election.

Anectotal evidence:

Four by-elections in '88 and '89 in ridings that never elected an NDP MLA but did so this time:

Boundary-Similkameen - June, 1988
Point Grey - March, 1989
Cariboo - Sept., 1989
Oka Bay Gordon Head - Dec., 1989

The reason: right wing so-con Vander Zalm.

Again the NDP led during 2004 with a 12% lead at one point.

The reason: The cutbacks in Campbell's first term.

The moral of the story: If the government takes a middle-of-the road position (as opposed to more extremist positions), they are not likely to be defeated.

Case in point: Manitoba's New Democrat Gary Doer with his 3 successive election victories and still continues to ride high in the polls.

Luke

Where's the links to those polls?

and earlier you said

The NDP still didn't get even 50% support. So when you say "everyone else" you are still referring to less than half the population.

Not true because "middle of the road" is a meaningless term. What you mean to say when you use it is that if the NDP were as right-wing as the Socred voters that make up this province they would get more support. Because in the BC context "middle of the road" is right-wing.

The last time I checked Manitobans don't vote in BC elections. They have their own political history and nothing there applies here. Just as the history of the NDP in Saskatchewan has no relevance here.

Luke

This is not a discussion you can "win" or even "Place" or "Show" Luke. I suggest that instead of beating a dead horse you just come out with what it is you want to say and we'll debate that instead.

Because if you're intent on somehow claiming that the voters of BC are as inclined to vote NDP as they are to vote Socred/Liberal and that they only vote Socred/Liberal all the time because the NDP are "extremists" you're just going to be banging your head against a wall. The evidence is against you.

Is there anything you'd rather move on to?

Luke

In the last election I said that the NDP has to be perfect to win whereeas the Socreds just have to show up sober.

Mustel polls showing the NDP trailing do not go against me, rather they support my position which is that politics in BC is almost as bad as in Alberta or Mexico. Meaning, we're a one party state where other parties exist only for show.

No matter what the NDP does the business and media communities and the numerous supporters of the Socred/Liberals will paint it as being akin to slavery and one step from forcing us all to become Bolsheviks.

Due to the electoral flukes that allowed the NDP to form a government, and they were flukes, it is necessary to make false claims such as "lost decade" and to make sure people come to believe those claims so as to ensure it doesn't happen again.

In my opinion the media here are closely tied to the Socred/Libs. They donate to the party, they don't criticise the party, they blame the problems of BC on the NDP opposition, not the government and their social circles tend to be made up of government supporters among the business community. In other words, our media is very much pro-status quo.

Frank...

Nothing archived prior to 1999, but the April through August, 04 Mustel polls should suffice:

http://www.mustelgroup.com/pr/20040818.htm

The NDP still didn't get even 50% support. So when you say "everyone else" you are still referring to less than half the population.

If you remember the dynamics of that 1991 election going in...

A tired, 16-old gov't that had gone right-wing under Vander Zalm's helm (him imposing his so-con beliefs vis-a-vis abortion, scandals, resignations, etc) and with his so-con successor Rita Johnson, moderate Mike Harcourt was a slam dunk for the New Democrats.

The electorate was socially averse to right-wing so-con philosophy and the Socreds surrendered the middle ground to Harcourt.

Then the leader's debate and Gordon Wilson's "See, this is why nothing ever gets accomplished in the BC legislature" comment that re-wrote BC's history books.

While people were not comfortable with the Socreds any longer, there was also some discomfort with the NDP.

I recall reading about party strategists from all sides who subsequently stated that had the writ period extended another 7 - 10 days, the momentum would likely have seen a Gordon Wilson Liberal gov't.

Final result:

Socred - 24%
Liberal - 33%
NDP - 41%

Middle-of-The-Road is very meaningful, IMHO and is NOT right wing but refers to soft centre-left, centre, and soft centre-right voters. I'm sure that Harcourt, Dan Miller, and Carole Taylor would all describe themselves as middle of the road.

That's where the largest pool of voters are.

During the 1960's the NDP typically received 28% - 33% of the vote, the middle-of the road Liberals always received 20% of the vote, and the Socreds always received 40% - 45% of the vote.

Maybe 10% of that NDP vote, the 20% Liberal vote, and maybe 25% of the Socred vote was middle-of-the-road. Just my guestimation. Many BC NDPer's vote Liberal federally.

But the MB/SK New Dems are very moderate and small "l" liberal in governance, really orange "L"iberal parties.

They don't have as large a "left-wing" in their respective parties as the BC NDP does, although the BC NDP attempts to be centrist to woo the centrist swing voter.

Luke

I recall reading about party strategists from all sides who subsequently stated that had the writ period extended another 7 - 10 days, the momentum would likely have seen a Gordon Wilson Liberal gov't.

Final result:

Socred - 24%
Liberal - 33%
NDP - 41%

Again, this is exactly what I'm saying. Even though there had been only the 3 year Barrett government 16 years previously the people of BC were not at all relieved to elect Harcourt, as you had suggested. He only got 41%.

Seriously? Everyone in BC claims they're "middle of the road" and that it is the other guy that is the extremist. Trying to appeal to the mythical "middle of the road" voter is a total waste of time because everybody claims to be such.

In my view "middle of the road" is where you find the middle point among voters. Where you would get 50% support for each side. And since at that point we find people that have never voted left-wing in their lives I stand by my assertion that the middle voter in BC is right-wing and that if you want their support you have to espouse right-wing policies. But by all means feel free to provide an "alternative" view.

What makes you say that? Have you ever been a member of the NDP in Saskatoon? I have. I wouldn't call us Liberals at all.

Having been in both I disagree strongly. I found the NDP party in Sask to be more left-wing than the NDP here in BC when it comes to actual policy.

Luke contd

In Sask the people of the urban centres are more left-wing than they are in BC. Therefore "middle of the road" as you call it is more on the Left than it is here. The Right-wing there is pretty obnoxious but not as looney as I find it is here. Their speeches are full of fire and brimstone for the Socialists but they sure seem to like those NDP policies once elected.

And of course nothing says "financial mismanagement" more than a Sask Conservative :-)

More Luke

By the way, I have to ask. what makes the NDP so extreme in your view compared to the Sask NDP or the BC Libs?

Frank...

In my view, the middle of the road in BC is exactly the same as anywhere else in Canada. But you are correct in the sense that the centre-right/right is larger in BC as opposed to the centre-left/left, but that still shouldn't skew the typical centrist voter.

That said, there are "natural governing" parties such as the Liberals federally, the Liberals in BC, the PC's in Alberta, the NDP in SK, and now the NDP in Manitoba.

The NDP in Manitoba has usurped the middle ground in governance and Doer is not exactly your stereotypical New Democrat... pro-Iraq war, full elimination of small business tax by 2010, no anti-scab legislation, etc. Good moderate governance that does not piss many people off, so to speak.

And the Devine PC's deserved what they got.

What makes you say that? Have you ever been a member of the NDP in Saskatoon? I have. I wouldn't call us Liberals at all

.

That was in reference to governance and the public's view of such governance as opposed to internal party policy and discussion.

Remember that governments defeat themselves and that's how the NDP attained BC power in '72, '91 while the '96 re-election was a bit of a fluke.

That said as much as I dislike Campbell (yes), I don't think James is premier material.

If the BC New Democrats had a likeable, moderate Gary Doer at the helm, provided good management in governance, steared away from social engineering policies and steered a middle course, the BC NDP could hold power for three successive elections. I don't doubt that.

But I don't see any quasi-Carole Taylors or Gary Doers in the offing. They are both of the federal Liberal mold.

Joe Friday slant on polls

Just the facts, please.

Let's get the discussion back to the very good article written by Andrew MacLeod. Public opinion polls (whether for or against) are based on opinion - what people believe to be true. Polls are not facts, they do little to actually inform about performance.

Since we have a very biased mainstream media, the facts are generally put to the electorate in a very biased manner. Some facts are hidden. Other facts (that are just too incredibly hot to ignor) are often lightly brushed over in the Friday afternoon news broadcast (well into the show and often hedging in on dinnertime) buried on page 11 of the weekend papers and totally ignorred by Monday morning. Carefully and tastefully worded letters to the editors calling this government to task about those facts rarely seem to make it in the Letters to the Editor section. I know of many timely, thoughtful letters that have been written and submitted but never chosen to be published. The mainstream media are Liberal friendly, they are cheerleaders for the Liberals.

The Liberals have proven to be very good at rhetoric, twisting half-truths, and not talking about things at all while they are before the courts. We must also remember that they have seriously reduced question period in the Legislature too. Not that it matters: they don't anwser the questions anyhow. Further, they hire well over 100 media monitors to work at shaping public opinion about what a great job Campbell Inc. are doing. And, finally, they base how well they are doing according to public opinion! What a crock!

The BC mainstream media must have been overjoyed to have the horror story in Merritt to publish nonstop while recent revelations of The Legislature largely went unreported. When watching the mainstream media, I have often had the feeling I have been to a Liberal pep-rally. The only thing Bill Good and Keith Baldry lack are tights and pom poms (just close your eyes and visualize for full effect).

So, enough rhetoric, lies and half-truths. Let's have some facts in this time of economic prosperity:
1. Homelessness is the highest it has been since the Great Depression.
2. The wealthy have a much bigger slice of the pie than they have ever enjoyed.
3. Gambling, alcohol addiction, and drug addiction have risen.
4. Children in care problems have risen.
5. The "most open, transparent, and accountable government" has reduced question period and refuses to talk about huge problems with their governance.
6. The government has sold off public resources that the public did not give them a mandate to do.
7. Convention centre over-runs make the fast cats look like a bargain.

Luke

Thank you, but I don't see the NDP hitting 50% in the link you provided.

Perhaps what you mean is that sometimes the NDP reaches into the 40%+ range and is ahead of the dominant right-wing party?

Not quite the same as saying a majority of BC people support the NDP which as far as I know has never happened.

By the way I found it funny that even when 58% of the people disapproved of Campbell his approval rating was still higher than the NDP's :-)

Trust me Luke, BC is a very right-wing province. Please just let me know why its important to you to say otherwise.

grassy knoll

luke skywalker--I found it amusing in the legislature today health destroyer abbott used the phrase and I quote " I don`t believe the theory of the other shooter on the grassy knoll" --------so either abbott has been reading your posts luke skywalker, or reading the tyee or could it be that the grassy knoll line is a liberal catch phrase and considering your a liberal media monitor you would be quite familiar with it.------a little to coincidental to me..........and what about the 50.000.00 dollar contribution from canwest global to the bc liberal party...hmmm...I`m waiting

Woahhh Frank...

Woahhh... I have always stated here that the BC New Democrats are neo-liberal in governance. I never have stated that they are extreme!

Former NDP premiers Harcourt, Dan Miller, and Ujjal Dosanjh are really federal Liberals, nothing extreme there at all. They make Campbell look extreme!

All parties have their looney elements.

It's all about governance...

Bennett's Socreds went extreme in '83/'84 ... almost gone.

Vander Zalm's Socreds went extreme... gone..

Campbell's Liberals went extreme in their first term... almost gone!

Harcourt's NDP started to vear off into social engineering experiments... almost gone!

Throw in all of the scandals that these administrations were involved in and it all adds up.

I've always had the impression that the SK and MB NDP remained in power through moderate governance... not delving too much into social engineering experiments or pissing off the business community, etc.

Luke

It doesn't sound like I'd support Doer. The world is full of right-wingers that espouse those 3 policies you mentioned and since I'm anti-Iraq, pro-business taxes and anti-scab why would I support him? After all, unlike you, I don't consider the advocacy of such things to be "middle ground".

I didn't say it was internal. Sask is just more left-wing. At least historically. And by that I mean I would have been considered to be "middle of the road" as you put it in Saskatoon but not here.

Yet you have no evidence to support this personal view. But by all means believe it if you wish. I prefer building my view based on the evidence available which suggests that the NDP could run Jesus Christ as their leader and still not hit 47%.

Luke

I would say the Sask business community has always been very anti-NDP.

The thing is people there support things like public schooling, universal healthcare, help for the poor, good social services and a willingness to be taxed to pay for it more than the "middle of the road" does here.

You used the term "social engineering" and clearly if the Sask NDP were elected in BC they would be accused of such. There they aren't. Just as Liberal attacks on the poor here or on public services or giving tax breaks to the "rich" aren't called social engineering here.

Frank...

Perhaps I was thinking of the Romanow administration and it's attempt to get the provincial finances in order, closing rural hospitals, etc. after the spend-thrift and scandal prone Devince PC's were booted out.

I guess I can now see why you would prefer a new Left Party inconjunction with the NDP and STV. :)

Luke

Former NDP premiers Harcourt, Dan Miller, and Ujjal Dosanjh are really federal Liberals, nothing extreme there at all. They make Campbell look extreme!

I agree (and would add Carole James), and I'm sure you realize that that says a lot about the "middle of the road" voter in BC who still support Campbell over the NDP.

The people of BC prefer extreme types like Campbell over moderates like Harcourt as long as they are on the Right.

I still don't see how such evidence can illustrate anything except the right-wingness of the people of BC.

Luke

Yes, Campbell's spending without getting results would not go over well there. Here, people love it.

Luke

That's a big subject but yes. I am adamantly against "big-tent" parties controlling the landscape as they do under first-past-the-post systems. What happens is that the only viewpoints that are up for discussion and possible implementation are those espoused by the narrow band of people lying between the two dominant parties.

The needs and wishes of all others are ignored and thus you get apathy and disfunction.

SharingIsGood

In the days prior to Conrad Black and the Aspers this wasn't the case to the extent it is now. The publishers have clearly moved the papers to the Right and lost many Lefty readers in the process. They should lose all of them.

This province needs balance in the media.

Frank...

I still don't see how such evidence can illustrate anything except the right-wingness of the people of BC.

As I've said before, I personally don't like Campbell. I think many people on all sides of the political spectrum would agree.

That said, he's more of a "blue" liberal as opposed to a lot of the social conservative elements that are in the federal Conservative Party al la Vander Zalm. Now there's extreme!

OTOH, Harcourt was a "red' liberal and was quite likeable but had to keep the various elements within the NDP in check while in power.

And no, main street BC is not "right-wing" but rather centre-right. That's why the most affluent areas on Vancouver's west side vote Liberal federally... "socially liberal, fiscally conservative".

"Right wing" is more apropos for the Fraser Valley and areas of BC's interior.

You seemingly come from the "left-wing" within the NDP and from that perspective, yes, I can see how you may see Campbell and his party as "right wing and extreme".

quote of the day - Frank

You are so right about the province being right wing, Frank - and it becomes moreso with every Alberta retiree moving to the promised land. Though the electorate often seems to vote based on faith more than fact, your quote still rings so very true:

So sad, but so true.

THE GARGLER IS A LIAR

all goverments get arrogant at some time--the ndp deserved the dethroning they got in 2001----and if the gargler campbell kept his promises that would be something else---but he lied,hid,broke the law (chug chug chug ) bcgeu handed him a 78 million dollar headache----ndp 2001 2 seats----2005 33 seats-------2009 ndp 55 seats--liberals 30 seats--the gargler campbell is not liberal,or conservative, he`s corporate --and thats fine too if bcers were the shareholders, were not,there are no shareholders---just company coffers and that will be his demise---the straw that will break campbells back is 300 million plus for a roof for that tired old bc place--everyone knows bc place sucks,its a dinosaur --and people are now thinking about gas taxes and a 20 dollar toll to cross the bridge twice a day! 15.000.00 a year or more to go to work and back! some bcers are a little slow to wake up --their not hitting that snooze button anymore

Luke

That's not what is suggested in the Mustel poll you linked to.

http://www.mustelgroup.com/pr/20040818.htm

Now let's recall that that poll was from April '04. Although the cuts hurt some people his approval rating is still higher than James and the NDP numbers still can't hit 50%. As my good friend Elliot said after the last election, the Liberals were able to be extreme and still win because people hate the opposition.

Its not a luxury the NDP have where no matter how hard they try to court what you call the "centre-right" they are villified for the smallest things. Even if one were to muse about making the tax system more progressive people would declare the NDP was calling for class warfare and blood in the streets.

They were elected remember. And I think it takes extremists to vote for extremists. I'm also disappointed to see the Libs justify what the Cons do because they chase after many of the same voters.

Is there anything particularly "lefty" you find about him? Or do you see him as pretty much a Liberal?

Tom-A-to, tom-a-to. Whether you call them Right-wing or Centre-Right they still vote for whoever the Socred/Libs run. And I consider the Fraser Valley and the Interior to be part of "Main Street".

Well of course. I don't see anything left-wing from him. All of his policies are what I call right-wing. To be seen as a centrist I would expect to see a mix of policies, but I don't. Why would you not consider Campbell to be as extreme as the federal Cons?

SharingIsGood

Thank you.

Excellent point. Its something I wanted to bring up earlier but felt I would be going off on a tangent.

In Saskatchewan pretty much everyone was born and raised there. Or so it felt. I moved there from BC and people there thought it strange someone would move To Saskatchewan.

Its different from here where so many people seem to be from somewhere else. If Skookum1 was around I'd ask him about it but it seems to me that so much of BC's right-wingness is imported from next door or somewhere else.

Now perhaps its just me but I sense there is less of a sense here of "We" and more of a "us" and "them". That could be due to immigration from the rest of Canada and outside Canada. Far more immigration here than in Saskatchewan.

In Saskatchewan I think the attitudes toward community, even from among Devine Conservatives springs from a sense that although you disagree politically both sides have more of a sense of being parts of a whole and that people should not be left behind. The province does tend to rally around things regardless of political differences, which isn't to diminish those differences.

Then again I think its shameful to see so many anti-native attitudes there. Abundant racism yet stronger communities and less concern that someone might take advantage of a generous system..

I just don't get the same feeling in Alberta or BC.

Frank...

Hypothetically speaking, let's say that the current premier of BC was New Democrat Gary Doer:

- ~$13 billion in cumulative budget surpluses over the past 5 years;

- record low unemployment rates of ~4.1%;

- record high employemnt rates;

- best credit ratings in Canada in conjunction with Alberta and the federal gov't;

- huge spending on infrastructure: highways, transit, hospitals;

- lowest provincial income tax rate under $80,000 in Canada;

- increased spending on health, education, social services;

Of course there would still be a host of problems... homelessness and other social issues...

But from the overall view of the electorate, things really aren't that bad... what's not to like?

Would the electorate re-elect New Democrat Gary Doer?

Of course they would, likely with a 50% margin.

The Retiring Boomer Generation...

It's also Ontarioans but many from there are small "l" liberal.

The Comox Valley on Vancouver Island seems to have the latest infestation of Albertans, with twice daily flights from Calgary and once daily from Edmonton by WestJet.

Alberta has apparently replaced the Lower Mainland as the second biggest purchasers of real estate in the Comox Valley.

http://www.pratten-financial.com/index.php?pageid=14&articleid=8

But really, if one retires where else is the most lucrative place to live in Canada but BC?

It's the health care system that will suffer in the end.

Luke

Of course they would, likely with a 50% margin.

The NDP led by Doer would never have been elected here in the first place but even if he had in a 1996-like fluke the above would not be enough to get re-elected against an undivided right-wing. There are simply too many problems which would if the NDP were in power would be on the news all the time and laid at the feet of the NDP.

In fact I bet Doer's term would also be labelled "lost decade" or something similar.

Even close? Based on the electoral history here, no chance.

The Mustel polls you yourself have brought up back me up. The province is polarized in favour of the Right, the NDP cannot win if the Right remains undivided.

On the other hand if Doer ran for the Socred/Libs he'd win even if his wife moved out of the home and he was caught driving drunk in Hawaii.

Luke

How the NDP would be treated if it were in gov't now.

Yet the overall debt is rising. Proof that the NDP can't manage finances even in a booming economy.

Due to retiring baby boomers. What the number demonstrates is the inability of the NDP to attract workers to our province in numbers big enough to offset the retirees.

Even the kids have to work when the NDP is in power since owning a home is no longer affordable under Socialism.

Riding on Alberta's coattails.

A huge waste of taxpayer dollars. We don't own the asset and then have to pay tolls and fees to use it.

But not the lowest for high income earners. Typical NDP social engineering.

Yet all those services are in decline. All that tax money going down the drain due to NDP mismanagement.

Which would be mentioned every day.

Luke

Although you didn't answer your point is clearly that you feel the NDP is shut out of power only because they don't have good policies and good people and that the Libs do.

We disagree Luke.

Cutting to the chase

So you say you don't like Campbell even though you're considered to be a defender of his policies on here, not fair?

And you say you were happy to see the NDP elected in 1991?

So clearly you're a person who's mind can be changed? Possibly even, a "swing" voter given the right circumstances?

And this leads you to believe that what might motivate you to vote NDP will motivate large numbers of others?

The thing is Luke, you're projecting your own beliefs on the population at large without any evidence that they think like you do. I on the other hand am absolutely sure that most people vehemently disagree with me :-)

I can only suggest you look at your own links to Mustel polls.

What does this statement actually mean?

But really, if one retires where else is the most lucrative place to live in Canada but BC?

It might be an attractive place to retire - but lucrative?

Surely not. The only people for whom retirement is 'lucrative' are the blood suckers setting up 'retirement' homes and gated communities to 'cater' to their 'clientele'.

Otherwise known as citizens.

In fact, from the point of view of ordinary working families and ordinary retirees I'd say it's just the opposite.

I always invite respectful comments to my posts at Tyee.

G West

Cutting to the Chase...

Was happy to see Harcourt elected in 1991 to clean house and the so-con philosophy wiped off and out the doormat. BTW, family even voted for him in 1980 in Vancouver to get rid of Volrich and ummmm... Vander Zalm candidacy in 1982. :)

Don't like Campbell, not necessarily happy with all of the Liberal's policies, but certainly am in the "What's Not To Like" category with reasons listed in my previous post.

Like I said, if a Gary Doer or a Carole Taylor led the New Democrats, I'm sure the NDP numbers will both "greater" and more "solid". And yes, I'm a swing voter when someone deserves to be booted out and someone else deserves to replace 'em.

Always a pleasure having an intelligent convo with ya about opinions and enjoy your sense of humour.

BTW, that I'm Kevin Falcon, a media monitor...?

Nada, just a political junkie who knows no one else who cares or has an interest in either politics or public policy!:)

Ohhh Geee West....

Lucrative... poor choise of words. Yep, attractive is the better choice. Congrats!

Frank... One Last Point....

Which I wish to re-iterate:

The BC New Democrats are neo-liberal v. their somewhat more left federal NDP counterparts.

The more left a party treads, the more it begins to lose that crucial "middle-of-the-road" vote.

Case in point: Both the recent BC provincial and federal voting intentions by Mustel.

BC Provincial: NDP - 31%

BC Federal: NDP - 22%

That's almost a third of the provincial BC NDP vote that has abandoned the federal NDP due to its more leftward drift.

Frank

I'm curious about your statement that the average BC voter leans to the Right.

If this was so, he/she would accede to the forest industry's claim to ownership of our forests.

We would praise Campbell's privatisation of Healthcare.

We would praise Campbell's alienation of ALR lands.

We would be supporting fish farming.

We would be DEMANDING RoRs.

So I'd like to ask...."When has your claim been put to the test?

Did Barret, Harcourt or Clark run on a readily identifiable SOCIALIST vs FASCIST platform?

Or did they, as I recall, try to soft-peddle a middle-of-the-road agenda?

Don't think so

BC New Democrats are neo-liberal

They may be a lot of things but they're not neo-liberal.

The main points of Neoliberalism are as follows:

The main points of neo-liberalism include:

1. THE RULE OF THE MARKET. Liberating "free" enterprise or private enterprise from any bonds imposed by the government (the state) no matter how much social damage this causes. Greater openness to international trade and investment, as in NAFTA, TILMA, etc. Seeking to reduce real wages by destroying workers and eliminating workers' rights that had been won over many years of struggle. Eliminating price controls. All in all, total freedom of movement for capital, goods and services.

2. CUTTING PUBLIC EXPENDITURE FOR SOCIAL SERVICES like education and health care. REDUCING THE SAFETY-NET FOR THE POOR, and even spending on the maintenance of roads, bridges, water supply -- again in the name of reducing government's role. But, government subsidies and tax benefits for business are and always will be just fine.

3. DEREGULATION. Reduce government regulation of anything and everything that could diminish profits, including protecting the environment and safety on the job.

4. PRIVATIZATION. Selling state-owned enterprises, goods and services to private investors. This includes banks, key industries, railroads (BC RAIL), highways, electricity (RUN of RIVER), schools, hospitals and even fresh water. Although this is meant to be done in the name of efficiency, it has mainly has the effect of concentrating wealth even more in fewer hands and making the public pay even more for its needs.

5. ELIMINATING THE CONCEPT OF "THE PUBLIC GOOD" or "COMMUNITY" and replacing it with "individual responsibility." Pressuring the poorest people in a society to find solutions to their lack of health care, education and social security all by themselves -- then blaming them, if they fail, as "lazy."

Now, does that describe the BC NDP?

They are - and sadly are not - a lot of things. But they are NOT Neoliberals.

I always invite respectful comments to my posts at Tyee.

G West

Luke

Thanks Luke, I always enjoy these little dust-ups :-)

Yes, and I suppose its no surprise I feel more inclined toward the federal NDP. Would have preferred Blaikie but Layton is alright.

Nope. Remember what I said about the Greens and the Cdn Alliance? The more they play to their base the better their support. Nobody thought the problem with Mulroney was that he wasn't right-wing enough. Yet that is what the Alliance proved by getting elected.

In my opinion its the same with the NDP both federally and provincially. When they try to pander to the Liberal voters they lose much of their base and are worse off.

The NDP was stronger on election days back in the old days of the Socred-Bennetts before they began moving to the Right with leaders like Harcourt and James. And that was even at a time where there were both Socred and Liberal parties. Your analysis, while both sincere and eloquently put does not explain that drop unless I was to believe Barrett was more of a centrist than Harcourt and James. Which of course I would find to be a bit of a stretch.

Again, I go back to what I said about apathy. Many NDP voters from back then have abandoned the party because they're not interested in a slightly-to-the-Left version of the Socreds. They don't show up in polls because they've turned their backs.

BC Provincial: NDP - 31%
BC Federal: NDP - 22%

That's almost a third of the provincial BC NDP vote that has abandoned the federal NDP due to its more leftward drift.

The federal NDP has drifted Left since the days of Douglas, Lewis and Broadbent? I don't think so. Alexa and Audrey were "kinder, gentler, centrist" type faces and we were decimated under their leadership.

And the reason is Left-wing voters didn't have anyone to vote for so they stayed home.

The problem with your Mustel poll is two-fold. First, you can't draw hard conclusions between provincial and federal. Different situations.

Secondly, there's no trend shown in a snapshot.

What I think your poll does show is that if the federal Liberals disappeared the federal NDP support in BC would rise to 31% which is not the point you're trying to make.

ME2

So I'd like to ask...."When has your claim been put to the test?

My tongue-in-cheek answer would be "on election day". I agree that many people probably disagree with the Right on the issues you listed. (Although many people also support much of what you listed)

But they don't disagree enough to vote for those things. They will instead vote Right-wing and then complain.

An agenda that failed in terms of trying to capture the majority of voters. Their popular vote figures in some cases actually fell but they won anyway. The NDP has been chasing the "middle of the road" ever since I can remember. Both provincially and federally. And what has been the result?

If the NDP wants to get elected without needing a fluke they would first have to get rid of the name and re-brand themselves. The name "NDP" is synonomous with Bolshevik in the heads of too many simple-minded BCers. Which is why 55% of the province wouldn't vote for the NDP banner even under threat of torture.

Campbell

Just for the sake of argument, what if Campbell switched sides and ran for the NDP next election? Would the NDP win?

After all, most people believe Campbell will win the next election, why not under an NDP banner?

I assume Luke you would say he would since it would be a clear sign the Left within the NDP was dead and the NDP was now a Right-wing party?

Personally I think the NDP would be wiped out with Campbell as leader. Regardless of the fact that Mustel polls would say otherwise.

Frank...

Initially a left-wing populist, after his defeat in 1975, with 39% of the popular vote, Barrett moved to the right to increase the party's popular vote.

Some Evidence:

1. Started to wear blue-stripe business suits;

2. Proudly proclaimed that he was a "fiscal conservative;

3. Received a lot of media attention courting big business and attending Chambers of Commerce luncheons as a guest speaker;

4. Had the support of former Socred cabinet minister Ralph Loffmark in the 1979 provincial election, who described Barrett as another WAC Bennett visionary;

5. Started to recruit small "l" liberal candidates such as Howard Dack in the Kamloops by-election;

Result: 1979 - 46%; 1983 - 45%

Remember that Liberal vote of 20% that they received in each election during the 1960's when the NDP garnered at most 33%?

Obviously 13% of that Liberal vote went to the neo-liberal NDP by the time of the 1979 election! (The Liberal party was moribund after 1975.)

Perhaps I should rephrase myself... the federal NDP is to the left of the BC NDP, or the SK and MB NDP for that matter.

I assume Luke you would say he would since it would be a clear sign the Left within the NDP was dead and the NDP was now a Right-wing party?

Personally I think the NDP would be wiped out with Campbell as leader

Of course the NDP would be decimated. Campbell has high disapproval ratings. His party wins inspite of him.

Even with the recent PC landslide in Alberta, Ed Stelmach had approval ratings of only 19% in an Angus Reid Strategies poll but the PCs won in spite of Stelmach.

Now if the BC NDP ran Carole Taylor (not James), or Gary Doer (if he was a BC politician), against Campbell that would be a very competitive election.

Luke

As did Tommy Douglas, Allan Blakeney, Roy Romanow and Lorne Calvert. I've always maintained that the NDP aren't the "big spenders" or the ones playing up the latest craze in financial tricks.

Barrett was able to keep much of his left-wing support because he had "walked the walk" so to speak. A new leader wouldn't have the same trust factor as James proves.

That's because the federal Liberals exist. In Sask and BC there is no middle party any more. And please note the reason why middle parties have been wiped out in BC, Sask and Man.

In the Mustel poll you linked to earlier James' approval ratings were lower than Campbell's, and that was in 2004 after the cuts. Ergo, the NDP should do better with Campbell as their leader instead of James. That is according to Mustel polls.

Because he wasn't right-wing enough. I don't see the Calgary Sun complaining that Ed is too far to the Right in their opinion.

A Carole Taylor led NDP running against the Campbell Liberals would be decimated.

We on the Left strongly dislike Taylor and would not vote NDP. Therefore the NDP would somehow have to draw huge support from people that hate the NDP. I would bet the NDP would come out with a worse result than they did with Dosanjh.

Frank...

In my mind, fiscal conservative infers keeping within one's means and not raising taxes to go beyond one's means. James, during the 2005 election, stated that the NDP would not undo the Campbell tax cuts.

OTOH at the federal level, the NDP wants to raise taxes on corporations and higher income earners to provide more funds for program spending. Irrespective of the ideology behind that, I wouldn't call that fiscally conservative but rather more fiscally liberal.

As for Barrett, he certainly had passion and was a motivating orator for a politician. Haven't seen that since (well Clark during the 1996 election to a degree).

Typically, a premier, as in Campbell, has a high recognition factor, unlike an opposition leader. That's why Campbell regularly has such high disapproval ratings and James has such high "no opinion" ratings.

Over the past few years, the Liberal's "overall approval" ratings as well as "party preference" ratings have been higher than Campbell's own personal approval rating.

Really, both leaders are duds in my opinion.

http://www.mustelgroup.com/bc_premier.html

http://www.mustelgroup.com/bc_opp_leader.html

Ed Stelmach was a right-wing hick farmer from rural Alberta. Right-wing rural Alberta approved of him but he was not very well liked at all in the moderate urban centres, esp. Calgary.

There were numerous articles about that fact and the potential for the Liberals to sweep Calgary in the last AB election, but the PC party brand still prevailed.

As for Taylor, she probably has the highest approval ratings of any BC provincial politician, but you're right... she's a "blue" liberal as opposed to a "red" liberal such as Harcourt, Miller, or Dosanjh and that would be a tough fit for the left-wing of the NDP.

Luke

I see it as not borrowing heavily so that you're at the mercy of banks and the investor class and then you're forced to implement their agenda and not your own. Masters of your own house etc. Which isn't the same thing as what you defined it as because in my mind you need to decide what society should provide and then set your tax rates, not vice versa.

I disagree. There is no particular tax rate that defines one as liberal, socialist or conservative. You tax at the rate you have to to provide what you think you require.

Then Mustel is no help.

Yet James is close to your ideal "Doer" or "Taylor" type. She's certainly not much of a Lefty. Based on what you've said here I would assume you'd be a big fan of hers.

There were numerous articles about that fact and the potential for the Liberals to sweep Calgary in the last AB election, but the PC party brand still prevailed.

Because the PC party is more right-wing than Stelmach is. So although people were unsure about Ed, they trusted the brand to be as right-wing as ever.

There have been numerous articles declaring Ed to be a big spender, more of a "Liberal type" etc. And again, those articles are coming out of the Calgary media. I've read them.

NDPers have already had the opportunity to vote for Carole and Gordon. If that was what they wanted they wouldn't be NDPers, they'd be Liberals. I see no reason to have two Liberal parties.

Alberta Revisited

One thing I wanted to add, the turnout for the election in Alberta was so bad that I think neither of us should be too willing to make too much of the result.

Stelmach was elected with the support of around 20%+ of the eligible voters.

The only thing that can be inferred from that election is that when it comes to provincial politics, the people of Alberta have, for the most part, lost interest or given up.

So Frank...

Doer and Taylor... yes. James? Ugh, that "dumb and dumber" comment about twinning the Port Mann bridge was well, um, dumb. And listening to her on TV is akin to hearing ones fingernails scratch a chalkboard.

Same trend in BC. Back in the heyday, during the 1983 election, when BC politics was still a blood sport, turnout was ~70%.

In 2005, that dwindled to ~55% ... as I stated earlier I know of no one that has an interest in politics these days. :(

So Frank, hypothetically speaking, the NDP wins the May, 2009 election. What things would REALLY change under their governance?

1. Highway construction? Amount would likely still stay the same;

2. Increased corporate or personal taxation? The NDP have learnt during Harcourt from the '90's and James stated in 2005 that rates would remain the same;

3. R-o-Rs or IPPs? IIRC ~11 IPPs were built prior to 2001 and will continue to be built; R-o-R's will still be built, but maybe just under BC Hydro's guise;

4. Homelessness? Would still exist and I don't think that they would be able to do much more tthan the current term Libs are doing financially;

5. P3's? Probably would still be built for highway construction due to the smaller provincial capital input (remember that the NDP created the BC Transporation Authority to offload or off-book these expenditures);

6. BC Ferries? Maybe a Crown corp. again, but then another political football;

7. Return private government contracts to the public sector? Hmmmm, doubtful, privatized highway maintenance still remained under the NDP's 10-year tenure;

So what do you REALLY think about the next NDP governance?

Remember, the NDP wants to stay in power for more than just one term as is every political party's inclination.

Luke

But those things are not quite fair to reject her over. It would be akin to me rejecting Taylor because of that constant smirk.

I know, I've made the same point in the STV discussions. Politics itself has to become important again to people or what's the point of democracy?

I would expect BC Hydro to take the reins again and the people of BC would reap the benefits and not private producers making a profit off a public resource.

Homelessness got a lot worse under the Libs. I would expect it to be greatly reduced under the NDP. By "greatly" I mean by more than 50%.

I would expect the heydey of P3's to come to an end.

Good

I would expect the trend toward privatization to be reversed.

Which is why I'm arguing with you. I don't see the NDP under James as being that left-wing, I think you've already got your Gary Doer party but can't get past James personality.

I'll vote NDP because there'll be things they will do better, even under James. Like what I listed above, and not picking fights with labour, not declaring a class war on the poor. Perhaps putting people interested in delivering better health care back in charge of the system. Not declaring you want people to use transit and then increasing the fares...

So there are things I will like better but will still not add up to a "worker's paradise".

she will at least save the salmon

luke skywalker and frank---are you two clowns wearing bibs? I have never heard so much dribble! -------she will change things ----but as most bcers are oblivious to the fact that many (criminal) things gordon (the gargler)campbell has done are locked in for decades!---and she will most certainly restore respect ---- and not keep sticking it up our ### --and enjoying it all the way---what about that 50.000.00 dollar contribution from canwest global to the bc liberal party!---do me a favour luke skywalker conform it or deny it---if you do neither then it is confirmed

brian gough

Sorry brian but you're going to have to be more specific.

If she plans on doing so she hasn't told us much about that yet.

Frank...

You are correct, in governance the NDP would be a neo-Liberal party.

But one thing about BC politics, governments aren't elected in, they are always booted out.

And I don't see that "time for a change" with the current government and neither do I see James and the NDP as a "government in waiting". It's certainly not reflected in public opinion polls.

1. Transit fares... good point.

2. The health care system? Doesn't matter what government is in charge you will still see the same increased spending, pressures, and results. Always been like that.

3. Class War on the Poor? Frankly, I don't buy into that and I believe government social assistance has increased since 2005. Placing the mentally challenged in housing akin to a modern day Riverview would be better for their own welfare. De-institutionalization was a big problem.

4. Not picking fights with labour... well I agree with ya there, the 1983/84 Bennett years and the 2002/03 Campbell years is a case in point.

That said, that climate has changed and even union households back the Liberals over the NDP, going back at least two years in an Ipsos poll:

http://www.marketwire.com/mw/release.do?id=601000&k=

And based upon today's simlar overall party preferences I don't think those results have changed much.

OK I'll bite. Would you have preferred to live under a neo-con CDU or neo-lib SPD federal administration in West Germany, and under a neo-con CSU government in Bavaria during 1990 (or whenever, including wearing your standard issue lederhosen :))

Or would you have preferred life in the worker's paradise of the German Democratic Republic, living in a... um commieblock, driving a lawnmower-engined Trabant, under the constant watch of the Stasi? :)

Respectfully, this is just nonsense.

"....the NDP would be a neo-Liberal party"

It's simply not possible to have a discussion with someone who refuses to acknowledge he or she is blowing smoke instead of actually dealing with the subject at hand.

The British Columbia Neo-liberal party is the Campbell party - its record and the philosophy of its CEO Premier fits precisely the terms I spelled out here a few hours ago.

Anyone who'd reject a political leader on the basis you've described above is simply treading water. Whether you 'like' the sound of her voice is about the biggest red herring I've ever seen advanced on this website. And then to add a reference to a Trabant and the GDR…such desperation!

Ignore reality if you like, but don't expect anyone to take seriously anything else you might have to say on the subject. For example, today in the Legislature they are debate on a piece of legislation called Bill 21.

You really ought to have a look at it. And then tell me why the multi-million dollar 'conversation on health' amounted to nothing more than such a joke. And you really should listen to Mary Polack’s defence of it for the government.

I always invite respectful comments to my posts at Tyee.

G West

Luke

As GWest said, (and to quote The Princess Bride), I don't think that word means what you think it means.

If you mean, an NDP gov't would still run a capitalist economy where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, then yes.

No it hasn't. The health system has never been perfect but it has been run better for less money.

Social Assistance is not at all where it needs to be, especially in light of the inflationary pressures on housing and food. Wages for non-skilled workers are too low compared to post WW2 history and things like a "training wage" are a slap in the face.

I'll let you find the poll, but I've been saying on here for years that union members have been supporting the Right for decades. Yet the Right still insists on declaring war on them (such as the HEU) for ideological reasons.

I don't have to go to East Germany to find a failed economic system. I live in one. Homelessness by itself is proof the system doesn't work.

I don't know your personal view but it seems to me that homelessness is now considered to be part of the natural order of things. It wasn't always so in Canada.

The inequality gap between rich and poor is growing, which again should be proof of the failure of this system.

The destruction of the environment, the dirtying of air and water, the number of species extinct or on the endangered list, these are not issues that are going to go away.

As Canis Latranis might say, the Left's continued existence is due to the failures of our warped economic and social system.

Capitalism is a system that has been writing bad cheques but at some point the way it has warped society and people's views of right and wrong will come home to roost. I doubt it'll even last longer than feudalism did.

Frank...

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

If you mean, an NDP gov't would still run a capitalist economy where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, then yes.

Most governments operate/govern from the middle, typically neo-liberal, while their respective parties have neo-conservative or neo-socialist wings.

Just the way I have always seen things.

I also see middle-income households occupying a large part of the economic spectrum and I also refer to the North American economic system as a market economy as opposed to a social market economy in Germany or, for that matter, the term capitalism.

FWIW, I have never bought into the "rich" v. "poor" debate personally even though I've heard the phraseology over the past two + decades.

You are right though, the typical post-WW2 worker could purchase a single family dwelling through to ~early 1980's, but pressures on housing prices have diminished the quality of life for many.

I don't know your personal view but it seems to me that homelessness is now considered to be part of the natural order of things. It wasn't always so in Canada.

The East German model was stated "tongue-in-cheek". How could I resist with the "worker's paradise" statement! :)

That said, yeah, the homeless issue seems
to be out in the forefront everywhere now, while that wasn't the case 10 years ago.

Perhaps neglect from the Libs between 2001 - 2005?? I dunno, from media reports the BC government appears to be plying funds into the problem... perhaps too little too late?

As my pop used to say "We all know the problem, but what's the solution"?

Frank: Quote:How the NDP

Frank:

Haha, that was a good post :)

Coming home to roost

Liked The Princess Bride quote a lot but the above one of your own was even better. It's an exceptionally good point - how capitalism has warped the meaning of right and wrong. Perversely and subliminally price-tagged the meaning of right and wrong in ways that daily erode our humanity away.

A really important insight of yours, Frank, that is worth pondering over.

jimmy and lynn

Thanks jimmy_laroux and you too lynn :-)

That's exactly how I see it. Capitalism has placed the marketplace on a high pedestal and the price in the market is supposed to always be good. I think it's ludicrous to believe forests have no value unless they're cut down, rivers have no value unless all they have dams every 100 miles, oceans have no value unless everything alive in them is processed and canned. Even children are considered to be a liability on society until they're making money either legally or what's really sick and twisted, illegally.

To be honest I'm tired of using right-wing stats like yearly GDP figures in discussions. Because I don't believe in the importance of those numbers I quote anyway. I'd like to see an economic system that values the things necessary for our continued existence instead of considering them to be liabilities.

Luke

The problem I have with "neo-liberal" is its what the Europeans call people like Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. And I may disagree with Carol James here and there but I don't consider her to be in the same box as them.

As for "most" governments, who exactly are we talking about? Harper? Martin? The Bennetts? Clark? Devine? Mike Harris? Bush?

Because I see a lot of people I wouldn't consider to be in "the middle" at all. And many others like Blair, Chretien, Campbell etc make me think I must be really extreme if they're "the middle".

There's a lot of pressures on that group that was built up in the post-war period. They're not the huge bulwark against chaos they used to be. And I would imagine most of them feel they're losing ground.

Okay, but I'm sure you agree they exist. And they both are tending to get a little bigger so I think its a good idea we all discuss why that is.

I don't think they're interested in solving the problem. I think they just want to be seen as not endorsing it. Throw a few bucks at the issue and let people get used to it and pretty soon people won't even bat an eye when they see them on the street.

To again quote Canis, the solution is for the people creating the problems to get out of the way.

Frank: Other than hefty

Frank:

Other than hefty public spending on infrastructure, I'd say that the BC Liberals are definitely neo-liberal. The label I've most often heard for Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, etc., is "neo-conservative".

In regards to Luke Skywalker's comments, neither Carol James, nor the NDP, could be described as neo-liberal. As for "neo-socialist", I think he just made that term up.

Frank...

Because I see a lot of people I wouldn't consider to be in "the middle" at all. And many others like Blair, Chretien, Campbell etc make me think I must be really extreme if they're "the middle".

I'm using neo-liberal in the context of the middle, not in terms of someone's classification of Rumsfeld or Wolfowitz. Clearly not neo-liberal from my perspective.

While not a fan, Chretien is someone who would be considered a "red" liberal akin to Harcourt as opposed to Martin who was a "blue" liberal akin to Carole Taylor.

In that same vein, Blair propogated the Middle Way for the British Labour Party and the party has enjoyed a long period of success in government.

Contrast Blair to Michael Foot's leadership (socialist Labour), which was abysmal at the polls in the early '80's. Even resulted in Labour MP's forming the breakaway Social Democratic Party.

And then there was former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, from the left class of '68, who also espoused the "middle way" (or middle of the road).

Sure, everybody experiences pressures in their everyday lives. Part of it is due to the consumer society with everyone wanting to keep up with the Jonses. It ain't the simple '50's.

Definitely, but I don't hate or envy someone who has wealth and I don't frown upon lower income groups. Take the cost of housing out of the equation here in BC, and a good portion of lower income groups would be enjoying a better quality of life.

Why is that that BC housing costs are the highest in Canada? Finite land resources combined with a very attractive place to live.

I don't think anyone wants to see the homeless on the street. People feel embarrassed. I understand that the tourism industry in both Vancouver and Victoria receive numerous complaints about the homeless in their respective downtown cores.

From that perspective nobody gains anything and from the print media I understand that considerable financial resources are flowing towards dealing with the matter.

Frank - Epilogue!

While no one I encounter has any real interest in politics, everyone I am familiar with agrees philosphically with the general concept of:

1. Government providing the environment for a robust economy, a lower tax regime, resulting in low unemployment/high employment, many economic/employment opportunities, and obviously the government receiving a financial windfall within its coffers as a result; (centre-right)

2. Government thereby having the financial resources to provide the social services, health, education, and infrastrucure to improve society as a whole; (centre-left)

That's what most people really care about.

Frank, man this has been quite the ride... Last word is yours! :)

sorry

You can't just call things whatever you please Luke: Your 'idea' of neo liberal is meaningless and reductive.

The standard definition of Neo liberal is the one I gave you hours ago.

The only wrinkle is for some reason that isn't clear, the aberration is called 'neo conservative' in North America.

Your definition of what works - hasn't worked and the increasing disconnect between the wealthy and the poor (not to mention the middle class) is the sad evidence of the last 30 odd years.

A total failure by any rational yardstick. IT hasn't worked and it never will.

Last word to Canis: 'THE SOLUTION IS FOR THE PEOPLE CREATING THE PROBLEMS TO GET OUT OF THE WAY.'

On that point I have no quibbles.

I always invite respectful comments to my posts at Tyee.

G West

Oh Geeee West...

Careful what ya wish for, you might not like the end result.

http://www.publiceyeonline.com/archives/002353.html

Luke

On the "middle" thing, we've been over it and over it but although I've heard your definitions and examples it still comes across to me as "new and improved". Everyone claims it but those that do don't actually deliver it for the simple reason its a myth.

Essentially, everyone, Blair, Shroeder, Bush, (you) et al, is free to declare the middle to be whatever they want and in so doing try to convince people that their ideology isn't extreme and instead its the other guy that isn't mainstream.

Its nothing more than a political tactic and should be treated as such. Don't take the labelling of other people's views as not being "middle" or "mainstream" seriously.

Its more than that. People that are living cheque to cheque, having trouble paying the rent, keeping the car gassed up and the kids fed think of themselves as average, ie. "middle class" even though owning actual property is out of reach barring an inheritance.

Wealth disparity may not be something you think about yourself but its not something to build stability on. Over the long term you can't have parallel societies of rich and poor and not expect growing conflict. Personally I have a problem with someone declaring they require 1,000 times or more of the resources someone else should be allotted.

You can't take the cost of housing out of the equation. Shelter is a basic need. Regardless, I'm hesitant to believe people on low incomes are enjoying a better quality of life than in the recent past.

Why are prices rising faster in Saskatoon then where the city is surrounded by flat land with fields? Land is practically infinite there yet they're also worried about the ability of people to afford a home.

Luke 2

There's an easy way to fix that. But "the powers that be" believe people enjoy camping outdoors and are equivalent to pests.

I forget the exact numbers being spent on the homeless, feel free to google it, but its a drop in the bucket compared to the spending on the 2 week party in 2 years. Plus there's the fact that money they claim is being "spent on the homeless" is actually being spent on paying other people to control, hide or talk about the homeless.

If the Libs were as serious about getting rid of the homeless problem as they are about supporting the Olympics there wouldn't be a homeless problem.

Its the parameters of the debate they've been exposed to. They know the world is what it is and their aim is simply to live within those rules because the penalties for not doing so are pretty extreme.

I would imagine most people don't give much thought to whether we could just make up a better system the same way we made up this one. Even if they were inclined to do so, why bother, it would just be day dreaming because they know they're powerless to effect change. Ignoring the system, being apathetic when it comes even to voting, does not mean happy and fulfilled.

Frank... One Last Point....

Can't help myself!

Perhaps, ya didn't understand my earlier comment but I meant to state that if housing costs were alot lower here in Canada's (if not North America's) most expensive jurisdiction, less income from lower and middle income households would be required for shelter.

That's typical of an emerging boom town... relatively little being built, huge inflow of population, relatively little product available and boom.. prices shoot up.

But nowhere near BC's astronomic prices.

It takes considerable time to assemble land for a subdivision, get a development permit, put in the services, and build houses.

I bet developers from western Canada are flocking there to take advantage of the situation.

As you stated, land is abundant and the land prices only factor into a smaller portion of the overall house prices. Eventually, eneough supply will come online to flaten out or reduce Saskatoon prices.

In one respect, it's too bad that the agricultural land in Metro Vancouver wasn't simple glacial gravel deposits.

Otherwise, Delta, Richmond, Surrey, and Langley would have abundant land supply for new development, which would permit lower land prices factored into the final cost of housing.

Ergo, much lower housing costs.

best quotes from Luke

"Was happy to see Harcourt elected in 1991 to clean house and the so-con philosophy wiped off and out the doormat."

"Don't like Campbell, not necessarily happy with all of the Liberal's policies..."

"I'm a swing voter when someone deserves to be booted out and someone else deserves to replace 'em."

"BTW, that I'm Kevin Falcon, a media monitor...?

Nada, just a political junkie who knows no one else who cares or has an interest in either politics or public policy!:)"

Your statements give me hope, Luke.

Your patience gives me even greater hope, Frank. Helping a person admit that his beliefs are not as selfish as first appears is a valuable skill. You did it through using an analytic/dialogical process.

My hope is that the right-winged (right-brained) people can learn to think more creatively. The right-brained people, the people rewarded most by schools and business, have forgotten that they are interconnected with this universe. They are reductionists, believing that nature exists for them to divide up as best they can for personal goals. Many right-brain thinkers have forgotten that their individual actions always influence the whole; and in the end, they either improve their world or reduce it.

Hoarding is bad, sharing is a good.