- Ms Kaye is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Mary Carlisle is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Prem Gill is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Nancy Flight is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Justin Everett is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- John Westover is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Nora Etches is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Edward Henderson is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Bharadwaj Chandramouli is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Dean Chatterson is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Marius Scurtescu is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Robert Parkes is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- James Murton is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Susan Doyle is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Vincent Strgar is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Helen Spiegelman is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Subir Guin is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Kimball Finigan is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Joanne Manley is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- David Leach is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
BC's Economy: Whose Was Best?
Socreds. NDP. Libs. Who oversaw the strongest economy? (Hint, not Gordon Campbell).
For each era, GDP growth for BC and Canada. Graphic by Alex Grunenfelder.
The provincial economy, to no one's surprise, has become a defining issue in the early days of B.C.'s 39th general election campaign.
"Under Gordon Campbell's watch, B.C. has seen unprecedented job losses -- 22,000 last month alone, the worst net job loss in Canada," charged Carole James as she kicked off the New Democratic Party campaign. "And we've lost almost 80,000 jobs since Campbell announced his economic plan last fall."
For his part, Gordon Campbell opened the BC Liberal effort by drawing a stark choice for voters on May 12: "British Columbians will decide whether to re-elect a government that is leading B.C. forward or whether they are prepared to let the NDP take B.C. back to the failed policies of the 1990s."
Is either of those allegations true? Did B.C. suffer grievous harm from NDP policies in the 1990s? Have BC Liberal policies caused thousands of British Columbians to lose their jobs in the current recession?
Just the facts
It shouldn't be too difficult to perform an objective analysis of the province's economic performance under both the New Democrats and BC Liberals over the last couple of decades. Probably the easiest way is to examine the growth of B.C.'s economy (as measured by gross domestic product) and compare it to that of Canada as a whole over the same period.
The above chart shows the annual increases in real GDP (in chained 2002 dollars) for both British Columbia and Canada from 1981 to 2007. The data is generated by Statistics Canada (see Table 3, here) and reproduced for our province by BC Stats here.
Because Statistics Canada's data go only to 2007, estimates of GDP growth for 2008-10 were obtained from economic analyses by the Royal Bank of Canada. (See page two, here) The commercial bank estimates that B.C.'s chain-weighted GDP increased by a slim 0.6 per cent in 2008, but forecasts a decline of 1.5 per cent in the current year, followed by an increase of 2.9 per cent in 2010.
(Other banks and organizations have published different estimates and forecasts of B.C.'s GDP growth, from 2008 through 2010. BMO Capital Markets, for example, is much more pessimistic than the Royal, putting B.C.'s GDP decline this year at 2.4 per cent, and the 2010 recovery at just 1.9 per cent.)
Declines, then and now
Let's start with a few general observations. Thankfully, economic contractions have been relatively rare in Canada over most of the last century, with just nine years of decline since 1926 (when the then-Dominion Bureau of Statistics began tabulating economic growth).
Three of those years (1930, 1931 and 1932) were at the beginning of the Great Depression, and two more (1945 and 1946) occurred when armament production ramped down at the conclusion of the Second World War. Canada's economy also fell slightly for similar reasons in 1954, at the end of the Korean War.
The other three instances of economic decline in Canada are captured in the chart above. In 1982, the national economy shrank by 2.9 per cent; a decade later, in 1991, it retreated by 2.1 per cent.
In the current year, 2009, the Royal Bank believes Canada's GDP will fall by 1.5 per cent.
BC's imperfect mirror of Canada
The chart also shows that B.C.'s rate of economic growth generally adheres to that of Canada as a whole. That is, when the nation's economy expands, so does that of our province. And when Canada's economy weakens, British Columbia's does as well.
This should not be surprising. After all, to a large extent the economic well-being of Canada and most of her provinces -- and especially B.C. -- relies on the development of natural resources. When world-wide commodity prices rise, our nation prospers. Conversely, when global demand for our natural resources weakens, our national and provincial economies do less well.
Of course, as the chart above also illustrates, B.C. does not follow in exact lock-step with the national economy. For example, it is evident that the 1982 recession was nearly three times as severe in our province -- where the economy contracted by more than six percent -- than it was for Canada as a whole.
Then, a decade later, B.C. avoided the worst effects of the painful and lengthy recession that struck much of Canada and the United States. Although the overall Canadian economy fell by more than two per cent in 1991, B.C. managed to stay in positive territory, albeit by a minuscule 0.2 per cent.
Today, it is evident that Canada and B.C. are simultaneously enduring a distressing economic downturn. The precise depth and duration of this contraction will not be known for at least a couple of years, however.
So, let's go back over the last few decades and dig just a little deeper into the numbers, because there is a fascinating story of B.C.'s economic performance under three different governing parties.
1982-1991: SOCIAL CREDIT'S LAST DECADE IN POWER
As the chart above clearly illustrates, B.C.'s economy during the Socreds' final decade in office was marked by dramatic, tumultuous swings. In 1982, real GDP plunged by an incredible 6.1 per cent (which presaged Bill Bennett's historic "Restraint" program); three years later, in 1985, it exploded upward by an equally stunning 6.9 per cent.
The following year it again plunged to a picayune 0.2 per cent, but in 1987 and 1988 it skyrocketed to 6.1 per cent and 5.8 per cent respectively. Three years later, however, in 1991, economic growth crashed once again to just 0.2 per cent.
To reiterate a point made earlier, B.C.'s wild economic performance was not unlike that of Canada's over the same period. But, as the chart above shows, our province's highs and lows were more exaggerated than those of the nation as a whole.
One explanation for weak economic growth over the period is that the early 1980s marked the beginning of a two-decade-long decline in global commodity prices. (See chart on page four of the latest ScotiaBank Commodity Price Index Report, here.) Growth in B.C.'s resource sector fluctuated along a downward trajectory, as forest production (notably lumber and pulp) stagnated and mining activity went into a long, slow slide.
But at the same time, B.C. was the beneficiary of an extraordinary population boom, created largely by inter-provincial and international in-migration. It lasted roughly from just after Expo '86 to the transfer of Hong Kong to the People's Republic of China in 1997. And when it had ended, B.C. had added close to 1 million people -- the population grew from 3 million to 3.95 million -- in a single decade.
As a consequence of the population boom, the province embarked on a massive construction boom -- houses, schools, hospitals, roads and more -- which acted to offset weakness in the natural-resource sector.
THE 1990s: BC UNDER THE NDP
In comparison to its wild performance with Social Credit in the 1980s, B.C.'s economy in the 1990s under New Democratic Party government was, well, bland. The NDP recorded two years of four per cent-plus growth (4.5 per cent in 1993, at the beginning of their decade in office, and 4.6 per cent in 2000, at the end), and just a single year under two percent (1.3 per cent in 1998). All of the remaining years were between two and four per cent.
Surprisingly -- in light of criticism fostered by B.C.'s business community, and perpetuated by Gordon Campbell's BC Liberals -- not once during the New Democrats' tenure did British Columbia record negative economic growth. That's in contrast to the sharp downturn in 1982 with Social Credit, and the current recession under the BC Liberals.
How, then, to explain the perception that the 1990s was a period of economic decline, a so-called "dismal decade"?
Look again at the chart above and note that B.C.'s annual economic growth, from 1987 through 1993, and then again in 1996, exceeded that of Canada as a whole. But in 1994 and 1995, and then again from 1997 until 2001, the B.C. economy under-performed Canada's. It is that latter period, the last four years of New Democratic Party government, that NDP critics point to as proof of their alleged incompetence and mismanagement.
Let's remember two key points about B.C.'s economy during the 1980s and 1990s. First, both decades were marked by a decline in global commodity prices, from which B.C. arguably suffered more than most other Canadian provinces.
Second, B.C. had that historic population boom from 1987 to 1997. Because Canada's economy was much weaker than B.C.'s over the period, thousands of workers from across the country moved to the Pacific province in search of employment.
Global migrants boosted economy
In 1986, the year of Expo, B.C. had a net loss from inter-provincial migration (minus 772 people). But the next year saw the beginning of remarkable in-migration from other provinces: 16,600 in 1987; 25,800 in 1988; 35,700 in 1989; 40,100 in 1990; and 34,600 in 1991.
The waves of inter-provincial in-migration to B.C. continued after the New Democrats had replaced the Socreds in Victoria: 39,600 in 1992; 37,600 in 1993; 34,500 in 1994; 23,400 in 1995; and 17,500 in 1996. (Source: B.C. Stats for 1971-1990, here -- and for 1990-2008, here)
Then, after B.C. had recorded a net gain of more than 300,000 Canadians in the space of a single decade, the tidal wave of inter-provincial in-migration finally ebbed. In fact, as other provincial economies rebounded from the downturn of the early '90s, it briefly went into reverse. Between 1998 and 2002, B.C.'s net inter-provincial loss was about 56,000.
And yet, despite the net out-flow of inter-provincial migrants, B.C.'s economy continued to show positive growth. How is that so?
In part the answer is international in-migration. From 1987 until 1997, B.C. had a net gain of 675,000 international immigrants -- an average of more than 61,000 per year. The number dipped to 6,900 in 1998, but then quickly resumed its upward trajectory. (Interestingly, although housing starts in the province fell from more than 29,000 to just 14,400 between 1997 and 2000, non-residential building permits remained steady and over-all capital investment held at about $20 billion annually.)
Still, the public perceived that the NDP government had mismanaged the B.C. economy (as well as the province's finances) and in May 2001 the New Democrats were soundly defeated by Campbell's Liberals.
THE EARLY 2000s AND THE BC LIBERALS
A striking feature of the chart above shows that both the New Democrats in 1991 and the BC Liberals in 2001 "inherited" a relatively weak provincial economy when they first took office. Yet it's difficult to blame either of their predecessors -- Social Credit in the first instance; the NDP in the second -- for the circumstance.
That's because in 1991, as both the Canadian and American economies fell into a deep recession, B.C. maintained weak, but positive economic growth. When the New Democrats were sworn into office in November 1991, the province arguably had already started its recovery, albeit from a very low point.
And in 2000, the New Democrats' last full year in office, B.C. recorded economic growth of 4.6 per cent. By the time Gordon Campbell's BC Liberals took the reins of government in May 2001, the U.S. was in the early stages of a recession, and then on September 11, terrorist attacks in New York City, Pennsylvania and Washington, D.C. rocked an already shaky American economy. The economies of Canada and B.C. also weakened, but remained in positive territory and rebounded in 2002.
Riding the global commodity boom
Unexpectedly, the BC Liberal government became the beneficiary of one of the most remarkable commodity booms in world history. The two-decade-long decline in real commodity prices ended suddenly in 2001, and global demand for energy, base metals and agricultural products shot skyward. B.C.'s economy, after trailing Canada's from 1997 to 2001, once again out-performed that of the nation as a whole.
Yet, in historic terms, B.C.'s economic growth remained relatively modest -- the best years under Campbell's Liberals, 2005 and 2006, had growth of 4.4 per cent. That's about equal to the NDP's best years (in 1993 and 2000), but well under the Socreds' highs of five and six percent (in 1985, 1987 and 1988).
Why didn't B.C. do better? Probably the biggest reason is that the forest-products sector -- our province's largest industry -- did not fully participate in the global commodity boom. Forestry and logging jobs, for example, fell from 36,000 to 24,000 between 2000 and 2007, while wood-products and paper-manufacturing employment slipped from 64,000 to 60,000 over the same period.
Moreover, while inter-provincial in-migration turned positive again from 2003 to 2008, the average was just 7,500 per year, a mere fraction of the numbers recorded after Expo '86. Housing starts in our province have recovered from their lows of the late 1990s, but in the mid-30,000s annually, remain well short of the 40,000-plus homes built in 1981, 1992 and 1993.
And, as last occurred a quarter-century ago in the early 1980s, B.C. in 2009 has followed the U.S. and Canada into a severe economic contraction. Its depth and duration are, at the present time, unknown.
Growth was biggest under NDP
So, is Carole James correct to blame Gordon Campbell for the loss of tens of thousands of jobs? It's a heckuva stretch. After all, the current global downturn has caused millions of jobs across the industrialized world to be lost. And, as the chart above illustrates, B.C.'s economy largely adheres to that of Canada as a whole.
Is Gordon Campbell right when he says that NDP economic policies failed B.C. in the 1990s? Hardly. In terms of GDP growth, the province out-performed the nation in three years, and trailed in six others, but every year recorded positive, albeit modest, increases.
And, finally -- it seems to be a big issue for some Tyee readers -- let's compare GDP growth over the last three decades. Under the Social Credit government, B.C.'s economy expanded from 1982 to 1991 by an average of 1.9 per cent annually. (The low number is largely a result of 1982's devastating decline of 6.1 per cent.)
From 1992 through to 2000, during the New Democrats' nine full years in power (which excludes the last two months of 1991, and the first four months of 2001), B.C.'s GDP grew by an annual average of three per cent.
Under Gordon Campbell's BC Liberals, provincial GDP from 2001 through 2008 rose by an annual average of 2.8 per cent. However, if we include the Royal Bank's estimates for 2009 and 2010, that number slips to 2.4 per cent.
Related Tyee stories:
- Campbell Misled Public on NDP Finances
In 2001 the incoming premier called NDP finances "worse than we anticipated." His briefing binders, gained by The Tyee through an FOI, told him the opposite. - Gordon Campbell, Financial Genius?
Lib rollercoaster ride ends up where it started. - The Fluke that Made BC Boom
Historic surge in commodity prices enriches. BC Libs take credit.
![[Tyee]](http://thetyee.cachefly.net/ui/img/ico_fishie.png){kind=small}
- BC snuffs out AirCare test program
- AFN national chief Shawn Atleo to launch re-election bid
- Citizens group releases video to fight undead Bill C-30
- Conservative MP says he might vote against budget, then 'clarifies' his position
- Genetically modified plants won't take root with councillors in Richmond, BC
- Hundreds at Vancouver rally to support Quebec students
- Could Fort Mac become an eco-tourist hotspot?
- Rick Hansen's Man in Motion anniversary tour concludes in Vancouver
- The Gem of Canadian Science that Harper Killed
- Who Mowed Down the Premier?
- Canada's Economy, Deconstructed (by a 12 year-old)
- Death in Remand: a Tyee Inquiry
- Now Is the Time to Talk up Big Ideas
- Sexism Tinges Criticism of Teachers' Job Action
- Bill C-38: the Environmental Destruction Act
- Death In Remand: 'A Gut Feeling'
- Bias in BC's Pesticide Decision? Follow the Bouncing Verbs
- The Ethics of Addiction Studies
- The Gem of Canadian Science that Harper Killed
- Sexism Tinges Criticism of Teachers' Job Action
- Now Is the Time to Talk up Big Ideas
- The Ethics of Addiction Studies
- Bill C-38: the Environmental Destruction Act
- Alberta Fills Pipes with Corrosive Denial
- Bias in BC's Pesticide Decision? Follow the Bouncing Verbs
- How Our Immune Systems Exaggerate Fear
- BC biotech company seeks approval for GM apple
- What's Behind BC's Doors?
- The Ethics of Addiction Studies
- What's Behind BC's Doors?
- The Gem of Canadian Science that Harper Killed
- Sexism Tinges Criticism of Teachers' Job Action
- Should You Run from that Medical Test?
- 'The Dictator'
- Death in Remand: Stacked Deck
- 'Moonrise Kingdom'
- From Financial Advisor to Occupier
- Seven Goals to Build the Conservative 'Dream'
- Double lung recipient dances on Ellen show
- ISS astronauts grab DragonX space capsule by the tail with Canada Arm
- Metro Vancouver gas prices peak at record levels
- Ottawa posts $9-billion deficit in March despite pledge to avoid spending spree
- BC phases out AirCare to focus on fighting bigger vehicle emissions
- Tsunami senors to be dropped into deep sea off of Vancouver Island
- Student groups file court challenge against Quebec protest law
- ...while on the streets, pirates and ninjas put aside mutual animosity to join student protests
85
Login or register to post comments
Frank
3 years ago
Will
Any chance of the CKNW's, Georgia Straight's, Vancouver Sun and Province's of the world hearing about this?
Its okay, I already know the answer.
Skywalker
3 years ago
Thanks Will
A excellent piece.
Gary
3 years ago
I've said it before
Campbell is incapable of telling the truth in any circumstance.
Great work Will & Tyee.
SharingIsGood
3 years ago
We must not forget
Much of the so-called economic growth "created" by the Liberals was at the expense of selling off assets and through increasing the activities that are environmentally irresponsible: fish farms, IPP, vastly increasing the shipping of whole old growth fir logs while allowing our mills to close, land removed from the ALRs and TLRs, increased gas well flaring, etc. etc. etc. We also have a huge number of future obligations that are, in essence, debt.
Campbell doesn't have a fudget budget;
his economic policies are just plain thievery from future generations as far as anyone with even half a bit of common sense can see. Mind you, the person with common sense has to be given all the facts to be able to make good choices; and our main stream media doesn't give all the facts. Our main stream media receives lots of government contracts and it pays for those contracts with large donations to the Liberal coffers. Further, our main stream media kowtows to their big business advertizers and stock-holders and their cheif propaganda engine, The Fraser Institute.
We know that the Bush economic policies are what brought the United States and the world to our current state. The Fraser Institue by and large has been pushing for a George Bush style Canada and BC. The reason for this current economic collapse is not that the little guy was doing so many things wrongly. It was that those on top of the economic heap were greedy and allowed to deregulate the system. They were following the Ayn Rand/Ronald Reagan/ George Bush/Brian Mulroney/Fraser Institute/Gordon Campbell method. It was only a matter of time before there was a big collapse. Their method has been falsely based upon perpetual growth within a finite system.
Campbellwearsatutu
3 years ago
Will Mcmartin......
Take the Sean Leslie challenge
Fiat lux
3 years ago
The GDP is a fraudulent
The GDP is a fraudulent measure of an economy. Since the FTA, NAFTA and the WTO have destroyed the productive sectors, Canada and BC survive on the sale of property and capital, and call it "income", the most idiotic and self destructive form of economic theory.
We have an economy of a factory that fires the production workers, but increases the office and janitorial staff and pays them from the sale of stock on the shelves, infrastructure and property.
Anybody can live high on the hog from the sale of house, or land, until the money runs out, but what then?
Our economy is now controlled from abroad by the multinational corporate mafia, who're taking over with the imaginary power of worthless US dollars, created from the air by a bankrupt economy, taking us for a ride and enslaving us with the help of ideologically warped and brainwashed politicians pimping for post politics directorships.
Economies set up for exports are suicidal and bound to collapse sooner, or later, as the Chinese will also find out one day.
The only solution for sustainable,
"green" and sound economies is self sufficient local production to the highest possible degree, with exports and imports restricted to genuine trade between societies for resources not available at home.
Even if we'd go back to the genuine growth of the Canadian economy of the 50s and 60s, with small scale manufacturing springing up and producing the necessary goods, as we had it then, we'd be far better off, than basing our system on worthless GDP etc. figures that account an and everything as beneficial. E.g. the GDP of Manitoba will jump after the present floods, without any deduction for losses and the most polluting industries are racking up the best "growth" figures.
Ed Deak.
Luke Skywalker Redux
3 years ago
Good Article... But...
The Globe and Mail did a similar exercise a few days ago:
Economy:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20090418.BCELECTION18ART2101/TPStory/National
Real Per Capita GDP Growth 1992 - 2000
Nfld: 33.6%
SK: 27.3%
AB: 27%
ON: 24.2%
PQ: 22.3%
NB: 21.6%
PEI: 18.6%
MB: 17.5%
NS: 16.2%
BC: 5.3%
[Source: Statistics Canada, Provincial Economic Accounts, February, 2000.)
Disposable Income Per Capita:
[Chained to 2002 Dollars]
1991: $21,212
2001: $21,449 (+.01% over 10 years)
2007: $25,282 (+15.2% over 6 years)
http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/data/bus_stat/bcea/tab1.asp
Public Opinion:
Mustel's voter "Top Issues of Concern" from 1992 to 2000 were consistently both the Economy (often exceeding 40%) and the NDP Government (often approaching 30%.)
Both the Economy and Government became marginal voter "Top Issues of Concern" post-2001.
Only post-October, 2008 has the Economy reached "Top Issue of Concern" levels that has not been seen since the NDP government of the 1990's.
Government Finances:
Total Debt:
March 31, 1991: $17.3 billion
March 31, 2001: $33.8 billion (+95%)
March 31, 2008: $34.6 billion (+2%)
http://www.fin.gov.bc.ca/OCG/cfa/PA/00-01/PA%202001%20Debt.pdf
http://www.fin.gov.bc.ca/OCG/pa/07_08/PA_2008_ProvDebt.pdf
Digging deeper, a slightly different picture emerges.
Frank
3 years ago
Luke's spin
Of course he and the Globe are not including 2008 and 2009 in their spin.
Frank
3 years ago
Debt
Add $55 billion in future obligations to the Liberal debt figures.
A gov't cannot privatize public companies and build projects via P3's and therefore not count the debt incurred. Its still there.
Cynic
3 years ago
And the "economic
And the "economic performance" of the various political parties is a byproduct of, a function of, a derivative of, the debt-based money system. It's all smoke and mirrors. We are all in thrall to the warp and weft, the boom and bust, the "business cycle", the "tough economic times", as if they're some naturally re-occuring phenomenon. Give it up, people. We're being conned.
And when the war against the elite is finally won and humanity transcends money, what will they say of our time? Pretty pathetic.
Luke Skywalker Redux
3 years ago
Frank...
I won't include what hasn't happened yet and the downturn happened ~ 6 months ago.
And that's spin? :)
SharingIsGood
3 years ago
Luke and jstog
Luke and Jstog seem to be the only posters in the comments at The Tyee who know how to format and cut & paste into the comments boxes.
I wonder, where do a couple of guys that always seem to have Liberal/Fraser Institue information, get taught that very same skill?
I wonder, will they share that skill by telling the rest of us what they do and where they learnt it?
Funny how Luke just posted information that Ed Deak had shown was meaningless 41 minutes before his posts. Liberal GDP growth is foolish BS; it is meaningless because they have sold assets and deferred paying for property we do not even own to boost those figures. What is it with you guys, Luke? Is it the mantra that if you tell a lie often and convincingly enough (in fully formatted colour graphics) people will believe you? I think that you may have even deluded yourself, Luke.
Frank
3 years ago
Use the stats Luke
"I won't include what hasn't happened yet and the downturn happened ~ 6 months ago."
It has happened, the job losses have already occurred. More are predicted but just counting what we already know is quite possible.
G West
3 years ago
Same old same old luke
You're still phoning it in and posting nothing but selective data and useless polls.
The fact of the matter is, whether you like it or not, the Campbell record is in tatters; the treasury is bare; total debt of all kinds is higher than it has ever been and revenues are falling so precipitately (in BC more so than any other province) that we will be swimming in red ink for at least the next decade.
The emperor isn't only a liar and a convicted criminal, his management ability is nothing but a tissue of lies.
In less than 8 years Gordon Campbell has practically bankrupted the province - the credit agencies, as you well know, are again looking at BC's credit rating.
With a finance minister who’s total stimulus package consists of two weeks of silly games, what else would anyone expect.
Luke Skywalker Redux
3 years ago
SIG and Frank...
Alright... let's all vote NDP and we will all live happily ever after.
The NDP's "Take Back Your BC" [to the 1990's] slogan must sound great to you guys.
Majority BC public opinion is not that delusional though. ;)
G West
3 years ago
Sharing
The PAB has special classes for them...they are very popular for those who can't actually use the english language to express complex ideas and encapsulate data....
G West
3 years ago
Oh yes it is
Anyone foolish enough to vote for Gordon Campbell, who doesn't earn more than 100G per annum is, frankly, stupid.
And there are a lot of those folks, sadly, around every election day.
By the way, how many times is it necessary to demonstrate to you that the use of the word 'majority' is a purblind lie. The CEO has never had anything more than a plurality of voters supporting him - even at the best of times the majority of British Columbians did not vote for the thug.
SharingIsGood
3 years ago
Luke said
"Digging deeper, a slightly different picture emerges." When one digs deeper in a pile of Liber feces, one still finds the same old stinky Ayn Rand/Fraser Institue objectivist feces.
G West
3 years ago
And anyone
And anyone who makes more than 100G per annum and votes for Gordon Campbell is a self-absorbed narcissist who cares more about pleasure than he or she does about the fate of the society and the community in which one lives.
Ps. My friend, I saw your comment about bootlicks on another thread…I think it was unfair to bootlicks
SharingIsGood
3 years ago
GWest and erratum
I wonder if the PAB would hire me, I hear they pay people more than they are worth?
"Liber" = Liberal: I guess I get kind of shakey at the computer just thinking about how Campbell has ruined so much of this beautiful province, and what he hasn't ruined he has sold off for proverbial pieces of silver (US dollars).
Campbellwearsatutu
3 years ago
BC debt is...........
50 billion dollars by 2010,and that is not counting the 55 billion in energy purchases and P3s......
As for Jstog,he and Luke were always one in the same person..........
I personaly prefered Jstog,Jstog had a personality,attitude and a soft side,Luke is just rude,crude and black and white
frenchy mcswede
3 years ago
Yes, that's right, frank, 2007-8
are not included, as they must be in any fair evaluation, as no excuses whatsoever were granted by the mainstream media in the nineties to the ndp, despite the asian meltdown, and the meltdown in commodity prices. What mcmartin's astute summoning up the incredible wasted luck of the liberals during this decade is that despite three years of record revenue the bc liberals have absolutely nothing to show for their good luck. They also had the incredible good luck, or perhaps the benefit of the sleaziness of the federal liberals who gave them at least 2 years of record equalization payments. And as we all know, the liberals have not financed health, education or social services properly for 8 years YET THEY ARE BROKE!!! Even after selling teresen gas and bc rail they are poised to run deficits 5 years out of 9, or 6 out of 9 if reelected, if 2005, the year they sold bc rail to "balance" the budget is counted.
And what DO we have to show for 8 years of campbell? We have a convention center 400 million over budget when they couln't even fill the already existing one, at a time of record homelessness, we have german built ferries which seem to spend most of their time in dock, perhaps being repaired like the new german ferry at swartz bay on the island that runs but two days a week, we have a new skytrain over budget and underfunded by any possible ridership, and, oh yes, we have up to 100 billion in taxpayer obligations for substandard services in P3 projects...
It is not hard to see that the "liberals" have nothing valuable whatsoever to show for the incredible good luck of the commodities boom and in more ways than it's easy to count, they are the most disatrous bc economic managers EVER...
Frank
3 years ago
Luke
"Alright... let's all vote NDP and we will all live happily ever after."
At least we'd have a fighting chance.
"The NDP's "Take Back Your BC" [to the 1990's] slogan must sound great to you guys."
It does.
"Majority BC public opinion is not that delusional though"
They're delusional enough to vote Liberal thinking this time it'll be different.
frenchy mcswede
3 years ago
Damn! How could I forget
30 years of olympic debt, to pay for the party for campbell's friends and owners?...which makes a kind of twisted sense, as thet are absolutely the only ones with anything to celebrate.
jimmy_laroux
3 years ago
@ Luke Skywalker
So really, why have you changed your handle? You were kicked off, right? Why?
BC's real GDP per capita (2002 dollars) in 1992 was 30,047 $, and it was 32,823 $ in 2000. This is an increase of 9.25%, NOT 5.3%.
http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/data/bus_stat/bcea/tab1.asp
As for the rest of you numbers, well, can they really be trusted?
jimmy_laroux
3 years ago
@ Luke Skywalker
Up to your old tricks, eh? You're comparing apples to oranges here. You neglect to consider P3s/PFIs in the tally of BC’s debt. Billions of dollars of infrastructure debt is hidden in P3s.
Vaughan Palmer recently brought up the topic of this hidden debt (rebranded as "contractual obligations") in one of his recent columns.
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Liberals+have+locked+billions+long+term+contracts/1521643/story.html
I might add that, even with the Finance Ministry’s unreasonably optimistic growth forecasts, they’re still predicting that the total provincial debt will rise by 13 billion dollars over 4 years. Their predictions of the total debt (in millions of dollars) over the next four fiscal years:
2007/08 -- 34,627
2008/09 -- 37,487
2009/10 -- 40,471
2010/11 -- 44,203
2011/12 -- 47,215
http://www.bcbudget.gov.bc.ca/2009/bfp/2009_Budget_Fiscal_Plan.pdf
This of course this does not include debt hidden in P3s.
jimmy_laroux
3 years ago
Fooling the taxpayer?
Regarding debt and Public Private Partnerships...
Emphasis mine.
http://cdl.niedersachsen.de/blob/images/C13573238_L20.pdf
jimmy_laroux
3 years ago
Provincial Debt Forecast
I forgot to add that the debt projections made by the Ministry of Finance in their 2009 budget do not include the cost of the 2.4 billion dollar Port Mann Bridge:
http://www.bcbudget.gov.bc.ca/2009/bfp/2009_Budget_Fiscal_Plan.pdf
So, with extremely optimistic growth forecasts, the total provincial debt will rise by 15.5 billion dollars over 4 years according to the Ministry of Finance.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20090418.BCELECTIONLIBS18ART2128/TPStory/National
alive
3 years ago
What happened in the USA?
The Japanese meltdown caused a slowdown here in BC; more so than any other province because we do more trade in that direction.
The neocons have replayed that slowdown so many times, that I would like to know, if the USA did not experience a similar fate, where the westcoast states were hurt more so than any middle or eastern states?
If that is so, then the NDP ought to use such statistics to make the voters understand it was not a fault of a local government, just as todays crisis is caused by external forces (mostly).
Fiat lux
3 years ago
The real meaning of PPP
The real meaning of PPP is"
Plundering the Public Purse.
Just another gimmick to defraud the public.
PPPs all cost more, by the taxpayers having to pay interests on the already higher interests the government could borrow for, plus the profits for the elite.
In any case, the establishment of the Bank of Canada was for the purpose of interest free loans to various levels of governments.
So, what happened? Why do governments have to borrow the same money the banks borrow from the governments who are the only legal owners of money ?
Ed Deak.
Campbellwearsatutu
3 years ago
Great stuff Jimmy
I didn`t have the patience to beat up Luke`s numbers,I tend to just float over anything he posts,as usual,it`s all bullshit........
Cheers-Eyes Wide Open
oeanda
3 years ago
I just want to say...
This article and the comments in it are outstanding.
This is what media and public participation are all about.
Skywalker
3 years ago
Luke's quite a kidder isn't he.
Yesterday when I posted my thank you to Will McMartin I did think about how Luke and R/Man and Wilf were going to respond to the facts as presented. You can always count on Luke and sure enough here it is in the cut and paste format. Unfortunately his is like looking at an abstract painting. You have to step back, squint your eyes and then maybe you will see the "art" of it.
McMartin's piece, and I have read it a few times now, still wins hands down. Just the facts and Luke desperate attempt at obfuscation doesn't even come close to doing what he always hopes it will.
realisticman
3 years ago
A Couple of Weeks ago
When this was discussed, a prominent NDP supporter suggested that the federal Liberals were partly responsible for the BC growth, due to their largess toward BC when in power.
1992 1,617.2 (000's). % unemployment rate 10.1
1993 1,668.0 9.7
1994 1,743.2 9.1
1995 1,785.6 8.5
1996 1,816.4 8.7
1997 1,860.5 8.4
1998 1,858.4 8.8
1999 1,894.4 8.3
2000 1,931.3 7.1
--------------------
NDP years. Extra jobs created between '92 & 2000, 314,100
Average Unemployment rate 8.74%
2001 1,921.6 7.7
2002 1,965.0 8.5
2003 2,014.7 8.0
2004 2,062.7 7.2
2005 2,130.5 5.9
2006 2,195.5 4.8
2007 2,266.3 4.2
2008 2,314.3 4.6
-------------
Liberal years. Extra jobs created 392,700. 78,000 more than created during the NDP years.
Average Unemployment rate 6.36%
Therefore a 2.38% worse Average Unemployment rate was experienced under the NDP.
NOTICE too in the graph at the top that the steep decline during the end of the NDP reign was reversed when the Liberals came to govern. WHEREAS, even now, when we are experiencing and feeling the effects of a worldwide economic decline, the BC economy in the graph has not yet gone down to the point it did under the NDP in 2000. The drop at the end is pure speculation and should be shown as a broken line, as in all normal graphs.
Frank
3 years ago
r/man
You're fudging the numbers in favour of the Libs. For example you're not counting the jobs lost this year.
The NDP also inherited a massive unemployment problem when they took over from the Socreds whereas the BC Liberals inherited a relatively good position.
From the CCPA and Bill Tielmann :
"During the NDP's decade, employment grew by 22 per cent, or 344,100 jobs. Between 2001 and 2008, the B.C. Liberals have seen 20 per cent growth, or 392,700 jobs, for a lower percentage increase.
But wait! From January through March, B.C. has lost a staggering 63,000 jobs --
Overall, Statistics Canada says B.C. lost 69,000 jobs since October 2008, a three per cent drop.
That means B.C. Liberal job growth is actually only 323,700 jobs from 2001 to April 2009 -- far less than the NDP."
Frank
3 years ago
Liberal debt
When you add the $55 billion of debt that the Liberals moved off-book to the visible debt its easy to see why Jeffrey Simpson said today :
"A mantra of conservative parties is that deficits are bad, but the way they govern invariably produces deficits, or at least weakens the fiscal position of the government.
...
Deficits of the kind conservative parties left in Saskatchewan, Ontario and Ottawa (Alberta was the exception because of energy royalties) also suggest that deficits and conservatives go together, rhetoric notwithstanding."
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20090424.COSIMP24ART1952/TPStory/National
Campbell is just doing what conservative parties do naturally.
Luke Skywalker Redux
3 years ago
Yo Jimmy....
Better check out Statistics Canada, Provincial Economic Accounts, February, 2000.
And BC Public Accounts regarding the 1991, 2001, and 2008 debt summaries for their respective fiscal years is comparing "apples to apples".
But I digress.
realisticman
3 years ago
FRANK
I didn't fudge anything. I didn't include this year because it's only just begun!
Tielmann and CCPA stats are blatantly and proudly coming from a source that is ecstatically vociferous in their opposition to the Liberals. A wee bit biased for me.
I'm sure the statistics can be twisted, contorted and 'seasonally adjusted' (which they do, I don't fully understand that) and they can look anyway anyone cares to want to make them look. My figures are from BC Stats and I'll accept them unless someone can prove to me that the BC Stats office in Victoria has been overrun by lying' and cheatin' nasties.
G West
3 years ago
Right on Frank
And lying about it to boot - another distinctly neocon character trait.
Frank
3 years ago
r/man
The CCPA got their numbers from BC Stats too.
Skywalker
3 years ago
R/Man
I'm glad to see you admit "I'm sure the statistics can be twisted" As to "I didn't fudge anything. I didn't include this year because it's only just begun!", you are joking right? I think I'll take Will McMartin's analysis as he backs it up with facts.
Frank
3 years ago
unemployment
On an absolute basis the Liberals created less jobs.
As a percentage they created less jobs.
On a per capita basis they created less jobs.
SharingIsGood
3 years ago
economy and jobs are 1/2 the issue
The other issue is declining incomes for average BC citizens.
From: Derrick Penner, Vancouver Sun
Published: Friday, May 02, 2008
B.C. hit by sharpest wage decline in Canada
We have less purchasing power now than we did in 1981, figures from 2006 census show
British Columbians have less spending power than they did 25 years ago, 2006 census data reveals, but there is no single reason.
A shift away from industrial employment and towards service-sector jobs, the proportion of new immigrants in the workforce and rising interprovincial population migration all contributed.
B.C.'s median wage -- the level at which half the work force earns more and half earns less -- dropped by just over 11 per cent over 25 years to stand at $42,230 in 2005, the sharpest drop of all provinces, according to inflation-adjusted census data released Thursday by Statistics Canada.
The inflation-adjusted median wage in 1980 was $47,605.
B.C. and Quebec were the only provinces to record declining median incomes between 2000 and 2005, with B.C. wages shrinking the most.
This is what Campbell has brought us. Not even the Campbell-loving Vancouver Sun could find a way to cover this up - like it so often does for Campbell - like a cat in a litter box.
realisticman
3 years ago
Sharing
I guess you don't believe this:
Disposable Income Per Capita - BC:
[Chained to 2002 Dollars]
1991: $21,212
2001: $21,449 (+.01% over 10 years)
2007: $25,282 (+15.2% over 6 years)
*************
G West
"...lying about it to boot"
How can you possibly imagine that when I'm copying from the same stats that you compliment Frank for quoting?
Is this what they call 'negative campaigning'?
Frank
3 years ago
Median earnings plummet in B.C.
"Over this five-year period between 2000 and 2005, B.C. and Quebec were the only two provinces to record a decline. In B.C., a province that experienced higher-than-average employment growth, median earnings for individuals fell 3.4% between 2000 and 2005. Median earnings in Quebec fell by 0.3%."
http://www2.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=f3bc45da-1a34-4836-829d-967c2cceb1a6&k=65123
During Campbell's first term median earnings didn't plummet anywhere else in Canada, just in BC.
Name
3 years ago
A picture is worth...
That graph tells me, quite simply, that we delude ourselves about our importance if we think any BC leader has or has ever had the slightest power over "the economy."
We're miners and hewers of wood, people. When the world economy is ticking along and people need wood, oil, water, gas, etc, we make money. And whichever schmuck Premier happens to be sitting on the geyser when it goes off claims credit for it.
Same when global or Asian markets fall, as they did in 1982, 1992, 1995, 1999/2000 and 2008- and our economy goes down the tank. And the schmuck premier who lands back down on his derriere is a sitting duck for political rivals.
realisticman
3 years ago
Name
Has got the right idea.
"if we think any BC leader has or has ever had the slightest power over "the economy."
Would Carole James find jobs in the forests by forcing Californians to start buying houses again?
By the way Frank, I know you faithfully read the Vancouver Sun daily and quote it to us but I prefer to derive my facts from the official unbiased department of 'BC Stats'.
Frank
3 years ago
r/man
"but I prefer to derive my facts from the official unbiased department of 'BC Stats'"
Unless of course the CCPA, Bill Tielmann, Will McMartin or me quote them. They're only unbiased apparently if you quote them.
Frank
3 years ago
Vancouver Sun
If you had read the article you'd have seen their data came from the last Census.
G West
3 years ago
R/Man
You need to read more carefully - I'm not accusing you of lying - I'm saying it's second nature for your heroes.
BTW, Are you taking issue with WIll McMartin's figures?
Cause I think you'll find he's a 'liberal' himself.
What most neocon supporters (which is what I call you) do is parrot half eaten and largely misapplied statistics.
There is simply no question about the fact that a lot of the jobs the CEO brags about are part-time positions held by folks - a lot of them women heads of families (not that you care) who need two jobs to support their families.
Even stats Canada's statistics take no cognizance of those facts - perhaps you're not aware of this. We'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
By the way, a lot of poor people work as hard or harder than your so-called 'successful' people - you know the folks you always revert to.
By the way, why didn't you react to the great news from Ireland?
SharingIsGood
3 years ago
r/man
Realisticman,
You used this quote:
"I guess you don't believe this:
Disposable Income Per Capita - BC:
[Chained to 2002 Dollars]
1991: $21,212
2001: $21,449 (+.01% over 10 years)
2007: $25,282 (+15.2% over 6 years)"
I do believe that the above figures relate to Campbell's helping his friends, the rich, get richer. I have never denied that the people in the top 10% income bracket in BC have made out like bandits during Campbell's reign. And, the higher up you go within that bracket, the higher the rate of increase in income. In other words, the wealthy SOBs have gotten richer at the expense of just about everyone else while Campbell has been in charge. User fee increases, reductions in service and other hidden taxes have also made it more difficult for the median family.
jimmy_laroux
3 years ago
@ Luke Skywalker
I've posted the BC Stats numbers that prove you wrong. But anyway, why don't you post a link from Statistics Canada, then? You can't, can you?
You're lying again. I've posted plenty of links above proving this. Did you read the academic paper I linked to above, written by two researchers at UBC? I guess not. Well, it points out that
I'll post the link again for you:
http://cdl.niedersachsen.de/blob/images/C13573238_L20.pdf
Conclusion: P3s are financially equivalent to debt.
Skywalker
3 years ago
Did I hear R/Man right?
R/Man said "Name has got the right idea." and he quoted Name "if we think any BC leader has or has ever had the slightest power over "the economy." Now could we stop hearing from him about how bad the NDP were in the 90's. If campbell can use the world economy as an excuse then so can the NDP. Do you think they will ever concede that point? I wonder.
frenchy mcswede
3 years ago
It is
probably worth repeating at this point that it has also being documented in canwest press itself that not one new manufacturing ie, factory, or finished product job, has been created under the liberals (vaughn palmer july 08) and that median incomes have been falling for 5 years (craig mcinnes -article reposted about a month ago by frank.) However these rare and one time admissions never seem to come up at election time in any canwest newspaper.
jimmy_laroux
3 years ago
More BC Debt
BC's debt also decreased as a result of the sell-off/privatisation of several key BC crown corporations, namely BC Rail and BC Ferries.
The provincial government got "$1 billion in cash" from CN for BC Rail. In addition, BC Rail debt disappeared from the provincial ledger. However, according to Vaughan Palmer...
http://www.vancouversun.com/columnists/Rail+time+bomb+still+ticking+taxpayers/1517685/story.html
As for BC Ferries, it now has a 1.2 billion dollar debt not on the BC government books. BC Ferries debt at the end of the 1990s was 1.3 billion, all of which was counted in BC’s total debt.
jimmy_laroux
3 years ago
@ Skywalker
You are absolutely right. Liberals want to have their cake and eat it too. BC's economy since 2002 has been floating atop a massive debt bubble. As long as commodities prices are booming and real estate is bubbling, the Liberals take credit. But when commodities prices drop and the real estate bubble pops (which it had already begun to do last summer, several months before the Lehman Brothers collapse), they sing a very different tune.
Luke Skywalker Redux
3 years ago
BC Stats Own 1990's Analysis...
October, 1991 and the NDP is elected to government during a minor recessionary interest rate spike.
1992 and 1993 are not too shabby economically but the writing was already on the wall with Glen Clark's April, 1993 "working class" warfare budget.
From 1994 and thereafter through to 2001 the private sector suffered heavily. I know, I was there. I assume most posters on here receive their bread and butter from the public sector.
Even BC Stats November, 2001 own analysis has a different take from Will's analysis herein:
http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/pubs/bcbi/bcbi0111.PDF
And then we have BC's population analysis from the Canadian Public Policy Review of April, 2001:
http://www.ica.bc.ca/pdf/pprapr2001.pdf
It's no wonder that the BC public confirmed that the BC economy and the BC government were "Top of the Mind Issues" during the 1990's, which bears repeating again:
Anyone here who believes that the 1990's ware BC's economic glory years deserve to have that same economy thrust upon themselves personally in the future. Really.
Skywalker
3 years ago
Sure Luke, keep trying to obfuscate.
Now that you have posted this copy and paste show a second time, I should copy and paste the posts that followed it. I think Luke it wasn't very effective the first time because you excluded 2008 and the first quarter of 2009. 2009 will be the liberals fudgit budget as the real figures will come out right after the election - whoever wins. In terms of credibility McMartin's dwarfs yours.
The may not have been glory years but neither was the liberal era. The latter was just another smoke and mirrors show.
Luke Skywalker Redux
3 years ago
Skywalker...
And the findings of BC Statistics and the Canadian Publc Policy Review and Mustel dwarf's everyone else.
"The evidence as a whole" from publications ~8 years ago. The then "fresh evidence" so to speak.
N'est pas? ;)
Frank
3 years ago
Redux logic
"It's no wonder that the BC public confirmed that the BC economy and the BC government were "Top of the Mind Issues" during the 1990's, which bears repeating again:"
The only reason people then and now thought the 1990's were bad is because the media told them so on an hourly basis.
The stats show quite clearly the NDP outperformed the Socreds before them and the Liberals after them.
GDP was higher, jobs were more plentiful and population growth was better.
I understand though why you are determined to prove the numbers are wrong and that everyone was unemployed in the 1990s.
"Anyone here who believes that the 1990's ware BC's economic glory years deserve to have that same economy thrust upon themselves personally in the future. Really."
And anyone who thinks the disadvantaged are better off now should be forced to join them.
Frank
3 years ago
Liberal economics...
Hey look, a flying pig!
Going to be some tough times ahead for our limo-driven premier.
Commodities aren't doing so hot, federal gov't largesse will start to drop off, the Olympic hangover and all those payments to the P3's will have to be paid...
Yep, good times a coming.
jimmy_laroux
3 years ago
@ Luke Skywalker
Indeed, and they spell out the reasons for this in the paper. Did you not read it?
http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/pubs/bcbi/bcbi0111.PDF
It’s really very simple. BC’s economic fortunes are entwined with global demand for its resources. When commodity prices are high, BC’s economy grows quickly.
http://thetyee.ca/Views/2006/11/15/Boom/
http://www.bcbusinessonline.ca/bcb/top100co/2007/2007/07/01/mineral-explosion
http://www.bcbusinessonline.ca/node/3322
When commodities prices drop, BC’s economy suffers.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2008/11/26/bc-mining-layoffs.html
http://www.vancouversun.com/Mining+industry+says+bracing+chill/1221521/story.html
http://www.vancouversun.com/business/technology/engineers+struggle+find+mining+jobs/1376841/story.html
http://www.vancouversun.com/Business/Office+vacancy+rate+jumps+cent/1408562/story.html
The Liberals want to take credit for strong economic growth due to high demand for BC’s resources over the last seven years. Of course, they curse the very same global economy now that the value of BC's resources have plummeted. To be fair, any other party would try to do the same thing.
In the near future, BC's economy will be far worse off than it ever was in the nineties. It's already started...
http://www.vancouversun.com/business/fp/leads+jobs+lost+across+Canada+March/1481892/story.html
jimmy_laroux
3 years ago
@ Luke Skywalker
Oops! That’s the CA Public Policy Review, NOT the Canadian Public Policy Review, that you quote. An honest mistake, no doubt :)
As BC’s economy waned in the late nineties, some people moved out the province. It’s interesting to note, however, that BC’s population grew much faster under the NDP than it has under the Liberals.
Between 2006 and 2001, BC grew by 5.3%.
Between 2001 and 1996, BC grew by 4.9%.
Between 1991 and 1996, BC grew by 13.5%.
http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/data/cen06/c2006bc.asp
Similarly, Vancouver’s population grew much faster in the early nineties that it has since, and the growth in the late nineties is not terribly off the current growth.
http://cuer.sauder.ubc.ca/cma/data/Population/population-pctgrowth-vancouver.pdf
Would you say this strong population growth is a sign of a strong economy, or a weak one?
jimmy_laroux
3 years ago
@ Luke Skywalker
Haha! Good one! You are true to form :)
Seriously, though, why did you get kicked off before?
Luke Skywalker Redux
3 years ago
Frank...
The 1990's NDP highest GDP was in 2000 at 4.6%.
Yet, according to the Canadian Public Policy Review of April, 2001, BC'ers continued to flee BC.
Now why was that?
Perhaps BC had the highest tax regime in North America aside from Quebec?
Do you even understand the consequences to the private sector of same?
Was that GDP growth more likely as a result of the public sector?
Did you even know that BC was in last place in terms of Private Sector Employment Growth between 1992 and 2000 in Canada?
AB - 18.0%
NS - 17.5%
PEI - 16.0%
ON - 14.9%
PQ - 12.2%
Nfld - 12.0%
NB - 10.9%
MB - 8.8%
SK - 7.1%
BC - 5.2%
[Source: Statistics Canada]
Just like my previous Stats Can link attempt, this link is broken. Ergo, you certainly have the prerogative to disregard the foregoing.
Are you even aware that Stats Can changed their Real GDP measurement in May, 2001 to the chain Fisher index as the official measure of real expenditure-based GDP, which resulted in lower GDP figures from their previous figures?
http://www.fin.gc.ca/ec2001/ec01a1-eng.asp
Do you even really believe some of your own written comments? ;)
Frank
3 years ago
Gene Kiniski?
I haven't seen this much blood since the old All-Star wrestling.
Luke Skywalker Redux
3 years ago
Jimmy...
You're certainly not employed in the private sector.
Seriously, whereabouts are you employed in the public sector???
How about it?
I already know the answer. ;)
Frank
3 years ago
Cue the music
"Yet, according to the Canadian Public Policy Review of April, 2001, BC'ers continued to flee BC.
Now why was that?"
Because there were so many of us moving here the province was getting full?
"Do you even understand the consequences to the private sector of same?"
Between the two of us, why is it I'm the only one that understands that when the NDP's two terms were up unemployment was much lower than when they started but the Liberals will see unemployment much higher than when they started?
Frank
3 years ago
jimmy
"Seriously, though, why did you get kicked off before?"
I think he had a spat with the always amiable CampbellWearsATutu.
Luke Skywalker Redux
3 years ago
Frank...
Did you not read my previous post:
And that was in reference to 2000. Go figure.
And now "Yo Jimmy" is postin' usual stuff that is.... well... kinda out there. :D
Frank
3 years ago
Luke
"Did you not read my previous post:"
Why would I not read your posts? You're so adorable when you want attention.
Are you one of the 3 million Canadians that claims to have actually seen a UFO?
jimmy_laroux
3 years ago
@ Luke Skywalker
Oh really, why do you think that?
I would delighted to hear your guess :)
Where do you work?
Is this true?
The facts must be very hard for you to face. I understand. And a job like yours is not easy. You do the best you can with what you've got. However, I often wonder whether you really even believe some of your own written comments.
Luke Skywalker Redux
3 years ago
"Yo Jimmy" and Frank
Guys, you are now engaging in REALLY silly comments. Quite entertaining though. :D
At least enjoy the rest of your evening. :)
Frank
3 years ago
Luke
"Guys, you are now engaging in REALLY silly comments."
I don't like to be rough on a guy suffering from delusions.
"Quite entertaining though. :D"
Thank you, you do need to lighten up.
"At least enjoy the rest of your evening. :)"
And you too of course.
jimmy_laroux
3 years ago
@ Luke Skywalker
Aw, poor guy. Don't feel bad. Just don't lose your temper. It would be a shame if you got banned again. I'd miss you.
No guess about where I work? I was looking forward to that. You seemed so sure about it in your post above. You even added that little winking emoticon.
jimorsheryl
3 years ago
Only Part of Story
What the graphs fail to show is whether or not the NDP governance had anything to do with what the economy was actually doing. Was their level of spending and taxation sustainable had they remained in power for another term? Why were they ousted anyway?? Remember??? What do you think has changed? Another comparison needed is the levels of taxation during a parties time of governing.
As a general policy, the Liberals or any free enterprise party will make doing business attractive here. That is however where jobs come from.
The NDP on the other hand think everyone should work for the government, forgetting of course government has no money of it's own.
The comparison graphs, like most comparisons mean almost nothing, as forces are at work controlling the national and global economy that no provincial government can control anyway.
How deeply a party wants to put their hand into YOUR pocket is a more compelling reason you decide who to vote for.
Frank
3 years ago
jimorsheryl
"Was their level of spending and taxation sustainable had they remained in power for another term?"
The NDP were protecting programs from undergoing the same cuts they were dealing with in the other provinces (remember Ralph Klein and Mike Harris) due to cuts in transfer payments from the federal government who were being applauded for reducing the deficit from $40 billion to a surplus.
Once those transfers returned, and commodities rose and the housing bubble began, as they did in Campbell's first term the NDP would have enjoyed a much easier financial scenario.
We're seeing right now how Campbell deals with adversity and its not pretty. We in BC are losing jobs faster than any part of Canada, our GDP is falling like a rock and in spite of the boom times Campbell did not pay down the debt and has instead rang up almost 60 billion more. We are on the hook for those payments to the P3s, they're guaranteed in the contracts.
So to use your words, has Campbell's policies been sustainable? No.
SharingIsGood
3 years ago
the final chapter of the story
jimorsheryl said:
"How deeply a party wants to put their hand into YOUR pocket is a more compelling reason you decide who to vote for."
Never mind the costly multibillion-dollar 17-day party put on for the benefit of elite atheletes and the IOC royalty is taking money out of your pocket.
Forget that Campbell has reduced the median wage, introduced the training wage and has held the minimum wage to an impossibly low $8 for 8 years all the while boosting his own salary and giving himself a huge retiement package. Don't even whisper about Campbell's night time Maui-partner and "cheif of staff" getting her wage increased to well over $300,000 per year to be able to have her hanging around his office.
Just ignor the hidden taxes for average people that one finds in increased user fees and reductions of necessary services.
Don't worry that we have lost our railway and most of our gas and electric companies.
It is not a problem that homelessness, child poverty, gambling, drinking, drug-taking and violence have grown by great amounts in most communities - even small ones!
As the Liberals have incurred a huge amount of P3 and other future debt (possibly $55 billion) and have put us on the hook for paying 5 times our current rate for IPP electricity we will not even need, the Liberals have made sure that the government will be digging more deeply into everyone's pocket for the next 2 generations.
SharingIsGood
3 years ago
Frank's thunder
I guess you were posting while I was eating my corn flakes and pecking out mine. Though your post clearly makes some of mine redundant, I believe your post to make a good segueway. After all, could anyone begin (even in 10 posts) to list the travesties that Campbell and his bootlicks have foisted upon the good people of BC.
SIG
Frank
3 years ago
Sharing
"After all, could anyone begin (even in 10 posts) to list the travesties that Campbell and his bootlicks have foisted upon the good people of BC."
In a word, no.
But people find ways to vote Liberal. As I always say the NDP has to be perfect, the Libs just need to show up.
brg61
3 years ago
Moderarte growth...
Wild swings in gdp damage our province in
the eyes of long term investors while
attracting speculators. Slower, but
steady growth should be every government's
goal.
Isn't it easier to lay out expenditures
when revenues are stable year to year?
The consequence of the deep and prolonged
current recession will likely be an end
to the "bubbles" that over heat economic
growth.
Boring but stable growth is better than
what we have today.
Campbellwearsatutu
3 years ago
desperate Liberals
The internal polling showing Bennett in big trouble in Kooteney east riding is confirmed with this Desperate act(illegal act)---
Its called bribery,now would a party up by 17 points have to do that?
http://www.vancouversun.com/Liberal+minister+Bennett+cancels+free+beer+voters/1534940/story.html
Here it the latest accurate poll
http://www.robbinssceresearch.com/polls/poll_582.html
Doug.16
3 years ago
Policy Lag
Ignore at least the first year or two when a new party forms the government because it takes so long for new government policies to translate into real impact on the economy. In the info age the gap is shrinking, but year one still doesn't count.
Rod Smelser
3 years ago
Totally Unbelievable
Luke Skywalker Redux
You're certainly not employed in the private sector.
Seriously, whereabouts are you employed in the public sector???
This from a guy who refuses to identify himself. Totally unbelievable.
Rod Smelser
3 years ago
Universityof Calgary
The University of Calgary has been a source of intellectual inspiration for conservatives since the late 1980s and early 1990s, the years of the Manning insurgency. They have continued to provide scholarly support to the right, and it's hardly all Tom Flanagan, there are dozens and dozens of conservative professors there in all the social sciences.
Some of their economics pupils came to BC and have gone to work for the BC provincial public service and its agencies, and for the federal government as well. To a large degree these conservative economists have been a steady source of commentary and supporting statistical profiles that sustain the "NDP wrecked the economy" mantra.