I'm probably an interesting test case for both the BC Conservatives and the federal Conservatives. I do not like the incumbent governments because of their fiscal incontinence and mendacity, although I don't think the BC NDP can really hold a candle on the federal Liberals yet. However, I find the populist messaging and politics of both provincial and federal Conservative parties extremely off-putting. I look at Alberta, and see a populist-oriented right wing government doing some fairly stupid things. My fear is swapping out one set of incompetent political leaders for a different flavor of incompetent political leaders.
The Conservative parties might need to keep in mind that victories in upcoming elections isn't necessarily a whole-hearted embrace of their policies; it's also going to be a rejection of the incumbents. It's not going to be shocking if they decide to read their victories as a mandate to pursue their platforms with vigor (in politics, probably more surprising if they didn't.) However, I'd like to make the modest suggestion that they consider showing they can competently manage the basic functions of government before trying to attempt a radical overhaul of everything.
It is hard to believe that any Conservative Government anywhere in Canada would be more divisive and less competent than the current federal Liberal Government! The CPC bench is deeper than any other federal party & have won the popular vote in the last two elections - relax, there is some hope for Canada yet!
And today BC Conservative leader John Rustad proposed a tax credit to make rent and mortgage payments tax deductible in order to address housing affordability. So, basically an expensive subsidy that'll increase demand and exacerbate a problem driven by an inadequate supply of housing. Seeing is believing...
I think that there is more good than bad happening in AB. The problem is that the media is very pro-NDP. (Many of the things that are talking points on the news are provably false if you look into what is actually happening.)
The other side of the AB situation is the population grew by almost 5% last year in a single year - which is a level of growth that infrastructure takes time to catch up to. So there are some major problems that are simmering. (Some was inter-provincial migration, others were refugees and immigrants. The source is less important in this instance - because the key point is that hospitals and schools take years to be built and if you bring in 200k extra people and expect a system already at it's limit to be able to handle it - well, it's not going to be able to. But I actually think things are going ok all things considered.)
That being said - the UCP is much more populist in their campaigning. I don't know that their actual governing is all that populist in nature. (Though I'll admit to not really understanding how the term is used when it comes to politicians.) What I can say is that I've given very direct feedback to the UCP, and some of the things I've given feedback on have subsequently changed in how they're being messaged. I've contacted other ministry offices for specific reasons and had rapid and appropriate responses. So I feel like there is some effective management happening. But I know that the legacy media paints a very different picture.
I will admit to voting NDP in 2015 because I believed that if I voted conservative schools and healthcare would fail. I didn't want an NDP government, but I was also not happy with the way the province was being run. BUT - I had enough friends and family who were unemployed quickly after the NDP took office, and was deeply involved in a public school at the time in a volunteer role where I had awareness of budgets and staffing (chair of a school council), and I know that there were a lot of issues with NDP. In particular, NDP while campaigning on not cutting education, actually did cut education - but they cut funding to rural schools, while marginally increasing it to urban schools. (Not coincidentally where the bulk of their voters are.) In 2015, I had much the same opinion of the NDP that I had at the beginning of Trudeau's leadership period - "how bad can it be". Well, the answer was bad. Really bad.
That was the election that taught me to read party platform PDF documents - in their entirety, and not listen to legacy media for election information. I think we'd get quite different election outcomes if the legacy media spoke about actual policies rather than ran with the fear tactics and speculative headlines. Just my 2 cents.
(I'm not wedded to any party, I've voted for all of them (liberal, conservative, NDP, PPC) at various times and while I currently have memberships in both UCP and the federal conservatives just to have a voice in what policies become actioned, I won't claim I'll never vote for any of the other parties again. I think in a lot of ways I feel embarrassed about my 2015 vote though - the propaganda got me and I'm not sure I would've voted the way I had if I'd actually read the various party policy documents.)
You offer sensible comments and history of what happens when one simply accepts what the media says and the headlines of what are the promises / threats offered by parties.
I also want to listen to the various parties, some of which I approach with great cynicism but nevertheless it is important to hear what people say. After all, no individual is one hundred per cent correct one hundred per cent of the time - at least not in my experience. It really helps knowing the general philosophical thrust of a party but that is not at all enough as lack of specific, coherent policy can make a general philosophical thrust dangerous.
What I was praising in your previous comment was not simply UCP good, NDP not so good or anything like that. Instead, I was praising the idea that you were dealing with context and nuance. That is really important and we must admit that not all governments show well when you really examine context and nuance. The media just wants headlines and context and nuance are so often not considered, let alone reported upon.
I find it interesting that Pierre Poilievre and the federal Conservatives are promising to fire municipal gatekeepers and build houses, while John Rustad and the BC Conservatives are taking exactly the opposite approach. David Eby and the BC NDP are requiring municipalities to allow four-plexes and transit-oriented development; Rustad is promising to restore local control and reverse all of these decisions, including lifting provincial Airbnb restrictions.
I suppose one way for Poilievre to reconcile this is to say that he's just focused on the biggest cities (in BC: Vancouver, Burnaby, Surrey, and Richmond), and his plan was never to force smaller municipalities to loosen their restrictions. Problem is, when Covid hit and suddenly there were a lot more people working from home and wanting more space, it's like the housing shortage spilled over from Metro Vancouver to the rest of the province. Smaller centres like Nanaimo and Nelson are now more like suburbs of Vancouver, with prices and rents to match. We need to build more housing everywhere, not just in the biggest cities. Our pre-Covid housing stock no longer lines up with where people want to live and work.
Yeah it’s really unfortunate that the BC Conservatives aren’t holding onto at least some of the BC NDP’s approach on housing. I can understand triangulating (the Airbnb ban feels like something municipalities should decide for themselves) but 4-plexes and others don’t seem that way to me.
I don't think Poilievre wants to "fire" the gatekeepers - he just wants to do any with gatekeeping.
Let me unpack that.
What he wants is for the process of obtaining a permit to be streamlined, so that it takes hours or days, not months or years. If a bureaucracy cannot find any way to do that without firing a bunch of people, that isn't Poilievre's fault - rather it would be a clear indication that the bureaucracy in question was previously overstaffed.
...the blowback against Poilievre's proposed housing policy is that he is calling for explicitly tieing federal funding to tangible, measurable RESULTS.
Pretty obvious why this concept is anathema to unionised civil servants everywhere.
“The Conservative parties might need to keep in mind that victories in upcoming elections isn't necessarily a whole-hearted embrace of their policies; it’s also going to a rejection of the incumbents ”. Agreed. Great post. I’ve had the same concerns.
I want to know which of the candidates for office here in BC have strings on them because they have been given preference by the United Front Work Department, enabled by China.
BC already has a Belt and Road agreement, unique in Canada, facilitated by Christie Clark and minions like Teresa Wat. Are politicians going to seek votes via China and influence campaigns?
Voters need to know which politicians, federal, provincial or civic are wittingly compromised. Party preference for many might depend on which party best reassures the public that no foreign influence has infiltrated their ranks.
Has the Smith government made some mistakes? Sure, but the great bulk of their work has been first rate and in comparison with Notely's one term disaster it's been truly refreshing. Reasonableness and common sense and standing up to an Ottawa that's trying to kill an oil and gas industry that will be essential for Canada and the world for many years to come should not be waved off as a
some 'populous oriented right wing government' that is so mistakenly compared to Trump's MAGA.
Every party's got a few 'wing nuts' that too often get the headlines. Danielle Smith is not one and is working hard on behalf of Albertans. Here in Alberta the next election will be between her UPC and Nenshi's NDP, a guy who's policies were a fiscal and social disaster for Calgary and his acolyte replacement has become the least popular mayor in the last 30+ years. What I find extremely 'off-putting' is this the fear (implied or otherwise) that a populous oriented government is made up of right-wing extremists. It's the same mistake as when those on the right describe left-leaning politicians as a bunch of communists.
The UCP piss money into the wind like no tomorrow, but the cake is campaigning all over Canada to get people to move here then act all surprised when the all our institutions are falling apart around us. Yeah we’re gonna spend billions on education and new schools. Just you wait and see all the beautiful new Atco trailers we have for your kids. And how about the Eastern Slopes Coal Policy. They totally f$&@ed that file. And where did the Alberta Advantage go? I don’t hear that slogan said much anymore.
You'd have to be an absolute idiot of a politician to pretend that the BC drug scene is not a major problem. He's not getting that from Poilievre. He's getting that from the BC voters, most of whom are absolutely fed up with the rampant crime and filth. Even the NDP isn't campaigning on the stance they held a week ago. And while I appreciate the effort, I must say I hate commentary of which the whole point is to call someone So-and-So 2.0. But, continuing that game, does it make Eby PP 3.0 because he's copying Rustad's platform?
BC election is NOT a trial run for the federal Conservatives, not even close. I have lived long enough in BC to know that the BC politics in general is quite different from politics in ROC. The very strong factors that earned BC the nicknames of Lotusland and Lalaland are much weaker in ROC, and so have correspondingly smaller influence on politics in ROC.
To emphasize: BC election is NOT a trial run for the federal Conservatives, not even close.
Like a lot of Canada, the Conservatives have been winning in rural areas but the disproportionate expansion of the cities have left them out of power. A combination of Liberal screw ups, some of which are severe, has given them a chance. The drug problem and housing have given them a good platform but If they get in they are also difficult problems to tackle. Note that I exclude the carbon tax debacle which is not anywhere near the same impact and is largely misunderstood.
Rustad has chosen to go full NIMBY (if you’re gonna argue that “community control != NIMBY then you are terminally retarded and should be disenfranchised) so while the BCNDP a deserves to get tossed for its idiotic handling of crime and vagrancy, the BCCP has decided to go full retard on housing. Fun times.
There’s a large contingent of boomers that needs to immediately decamp for the great retirement home in the sky that is likely to show up with several moronic comments about muh community input and muh white picket fences/greedy developers etc that I just don’t have any time for. Housing is *the* major issue in Canada and the BCNDP’s only saving grace among their many fuckups.
I’ve lived in BC for 45 years. Rustad is no “Conservative.” It’s the only provincial party that would take him. David Eby’s “recent reversals on the carbon tax and involuntary care” could just be him answering calls from the electorate. I can’t disagree that it was handled clumsily, mind you.
I'm probably an interesting test case for both the BC Conservatives and the federal Conservatives. I do not like the incumbent governments because of their fiscal incontinence and mendacity, although I don't think the BC NDP can really hold a candle on the federal Liberals yet. However, I find the populist messaging and politics of both provincial and federal Conservative parties extremely off-putting. I look at Alberta, and see a populist-oriented right wing government doing some fairly stupid things. My fear is swapping out one set of incompetent political leaders for a different flavor of incompetent political leaders.
The Conservative parties might need to keep in mind that victories in upcoming elections isn't necessarily a whole-hearted embrace of their policies; it's also going to be a rejection of the incumbents. It's not going to be shocking if they decide to read their victories as a mandate to pursue their platforms with vigor (in politics, probably more surprising if they didn't.) However, I'd like to make the modest suggestion that they consider showing they can competently manage the basic functions of government before trying to attempt a radical overhaul of everything.
'Politicians and diapers should be changed often, and for the same reason.'
- Not Mark Twain (but accurate)
It is hard to believe that any Conservative Government anywhere in Canada would be more divisive and less competent than the current federal Liberal Government! The CPC bench is deeper than any other federal party & have won the popular vote in the last two elections - relax, there is some hope for Canada yet!
And today BC Conservative leader John Rustad proposed a tax credit to make rent and mortgage payments tax deductible in order to address housing affordability. So, basically an expensive subsidy that'll increase demand and exacerbate a problem driven by an inadequate supply of housing. Seeing is believing...
I think that there is more good than bad happening in AB. The problem is that the media is very pro-NDP. (Many of the things that are talking points on the news are provably false if you look into what is actually happening.)
The other side of the AB situation is the population grew by almost 5% last year in a single year - which is a level of growth that infrastructure takes time to catch up to. So there are some major problems that are simmering. (Some was inter-provincial migration, others were refugees and immigrants. The source is less important in this instance - because the key point is that hospitals and schools take years to be built and if you bring in 200k extra people and expect a system already at it's limit to be able to handle it - well, it's not going to be able to. But I actually think things are going ok all things considered.)
That being said - the UCP is much more populist in their campaigning. I don't know that their actual governing is all that populist in nature. (Though I'll admit to not really understanding how the term is used when it comes to politicians.) What I can say is that I've given very direct feedback to the UCP, and some of the things I've given feedback on have subsequently changed in how they're being messaged. I've contacted other ministry offices for specific reasons and had rapid and appropriate responses. So I feel like there is some effective management happening. But I know that the legacy media paints a very different picture.
Thank you, IS, for making the effort at providing context.
I will admit to voting NDP in 2015 because I believed that if I voted conservative schools and healthcare would fail. I didn't want an NDP government, but I was also not happy with the way the province was being run. BUT - I had enough friends and family who were unemployed quickly after the NDP took office, and was deeply involved in a public school at the time in a volunteer role where I had awareness of budgets and staffing (chair of a school council), and I know that there were a lot of issues with NDP. In particular, NDP while campaigning on not cutting education, actually did cut education - but they cut funding to rural schools, while marginally increasing it to urban schools. (Not coincidentally where the bulk of their voters are.) In 2015, I had much the same opinion of the NDP that I had at the beginning of Trudeau's leadership period - "how bad can it be". Well, the answer was bad. Really bad.
That was the election that taught me to read party platform PDF documents - in their entirety, and not listen to legacy media for election information. I think we'd get quite different election outcomes if the legacy media spoke about actual policies rather than ran with the fear tactics and speculative headlines. Just my 2 cents.
(I'm not wedded to any party, I've voted for all of them (liberal, conservative, NDP, PPC) at various times and while I currently have memberships in both UCP and the federal conservatives just to have a voice in what policies become actioned, I won't claim I'll never vote for any of the other parties again. I think in a lot of ways I feel embarrassed about my 2015 vote though - the propaganda got me and I'm not sure I would've voted the way I had if I'd actually read the various party policy documents.)
You offer sensible comments and history of what happens when one simply accepts what the media says and the headlines of what are the promises / threats offered by parties.
I also want to listen to the various parties, some of which I approach with great cynicism but nevertheless it is important to hear what people say. After all, no individual is one hundred per cent correct one hundred per cent of the time - at least not in my experience. It really helps knowing the general philosophical thrust of a party but that is not at all enough as lack of specific, coherent policy can make a general philosophical thrust dangerous.
What I was praising in your previous comment was not simply UCP good, NDP not so good or anything like that. Instead, I was praising the idea that you were dealing with context and nuance. That is really important and we must admit that not all governments show well when you really examine context and nuance. The media just wants headlines and context and nuance are so often not considered, let alone reported upon.
I find it interesting that Pierre Poilievre and the federal Conservatives are promising to fire municipal gatekeepers and build houses, while John Rustad and the BC Conservatives are taking exactly the opposite approach. David Eby and the BC NDP are requiring municipalities to allow four-plexes and transit-oriented development; Rustad is promising to restore local control and reverse all of these decisions, including lifting provincial Airbnb restrictions.
I suppose one way for Poilievre to reconcile this is to say that he's just focused on the biggest cities (in BC: Vancouver, Burnaby, Surrey, and Richmond), and his plan was never to force smaller municipalities to loosen their restrictions. Problem is, when Covid hit and suddenly there were a lot more people working from home and wanting more space, it's like the housing shortage spilled over from Metro Vancouver to the rest of the province. Smaller centres like Nanaimo and Nelson are now more like suburbs of Vancouver, with prices and rents to match. We need to build more housing everywhere, not just in the biggest cities. Our pre-Covid housing stock no longer lines up with where people want to live and work.
A story from the Globe from December 2020, when travel was still shut down: "Small towns in interior B.C. and Alberta face intense housing crunch." https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/british-columbia/article-small-towns-in-interior-bc-and-alberta-face-intense-housing-crunch/
Yeah it’s really unfortunate that the BC Conservatives aren’t holding onto at least some of the BC NDP’s approach on housing. I can understand triangulating (the Airbnb ban feels like something municipalities should decide for themselves) but 4-plexes and others don’t seem that way to me.
I don't think Poilievre wants to "fire" the gatekeepers - he just wants to do any with gatekeeping.
Let me unpack that.
What he wants is for the process of obtaining a permit to be streamlined, so that it takes hours or days, not months or years. If a bureaucracy cannot find any way to do that without firing a bunch of people, that isn't Poilievre's fault - rather it would be a clear indication that the bureaucracy in question was previously overstaffed.
...the blowback against Poilievre's proposed housing policy is that he is calling for explicitly tieing federal funding to tangible, measurable RESULTS.
Pretty obvious why this concept is anathema to unionised civil servants everywhere.
“The Conservative parties might need to keep in mind that victories in upcoming elections isn't necessarily a whole-hearted embrace of their policies; it’s also going to a rejection of the incumbents ”. Agreed. Great post. I’ve had the same concerns.
Except they will 100% NOT do that. Unfortunately.
Fingers crossed for a good, gaffe free Conservative campaign
I want to know which of the candidates for office here in BC have strings on them because they have been given preference by the United Front Work Department, enabled by China.
BC already has a Belt and Road agreement, unique in Canada, facilitated by Christie Clark and minions like Teresa Wat. Are politicians going to seek votes via China and influence campaigns?
Voters need to know which politicians, federal, provincial or civic are wittingly compromised. Party preference for many might depend on which party best reassures the public that no foreign influence has infiltrated their ranks.
Has the Smith government made some mistakes? Sure, but the great bulk of their work has been first rate and in comparison with Notely's one term disaster it's been truly refreshing. Reasonableness and common sense and standing up to an Ottawa that's trying to kill an oil and gas industry that will be essential for Canada and the world for many years to come should not be waved off as a
some 'populous oriented right wing government' that is so mistakenly compared to Trump's MAGA.
Every party's got a few 'wing nuts' that too often get the headlines. Danielle Smith is not one and is working hard on behalf of Albertans. Here in Alberta the next election will be between her UPC and Nenshi's NDP, a guy who's policies were a fiscal and social disaster for Calgary and his acolyte replacement has become the least popular mayor in the last 30+ years. What I find extremely 'off-putting' is this the fear (implied or otherwise) that a populous oriented government is made up of right-wing extremists. It's the same mistake as when those on the right describe left-leaning politicians as a bunch of communists.
The UCP piss money into the wind like no tomorrow, but the cake is campaigning all over Canada to get people to move here then act all surprised when the all our institutions are falling apart around us. Yeah we’re gonna spend billions on education and new schools. Just you wait and see all the beautiful new Atco trailers we have for your kids. And how about the Eastern Slopes Coal Policy. They totally f$&@ed that file. And where did the Alberta Advantage go? I don’t hear that slogan said much anymore.
Thank you, Robert, for providing context to the rabid assertions of those agin the UCP.
You'd have to be an absolute idiot of a politician to pretend that the BC drug scene is not a major problem. He's not getting that from Poilievre. He's getting that from the BC voters, most of whom are absolutely fed up with the rampant crime and filth. Even the NDP isn't campaigning on the stance they held a week ago. And while I appreciate the effort, I must say I hate commentary of which the whole point is to call someone So-and-So 2.0. But, continuing that game, does it make Eby PP 3.0 because he's copying Rustad's platform?
They’ve reversed a lot of the legalized drug stuff in Oregon.
They have to . Portland was
Essentially becoming lost to the apocalypse
BC election is NOT a trial run for the federal Conservatives, not even close. I have lived long enough in BC to know that the BC politics in general is quite different from politics in ROC. The very strong factors that earned BC the nicknames of Lotusland and Lalaland are much weaker in ROC, and so have correspondingly smaller influence on politics in ROC.
To emphasize: BC election is NOT a trial run for the federal Conservatives, not even close.
Like a lot of Canada, the Conservatives have been winning in rural areas but the disproportionate expansion of the cities have left them out of power. A combination of Liberal screw ups, some of which are severe, has given them a chance. The drug problem and housing have given them a good platform but If they get in they are also difficult problems to tackle. Note that I exclude the carbon tax debacle which is not anywhere near the same impact and is largely misunderstood.
Rustad has chosen to go full NIMBY (if you’re gonna argue that “community control != NIMBY then you are terminally retarded and should be disenfranchised) so while the BCNDP a deserves to get tossed for its idiotic handling of crime and vagrancy, the BCCP has decided to go full retard on housing. Fun times.
You said retarded . You must be some sort of bigot :)
The sentence in the brackets wins the first prize for clarity and directness.
There’s a large contingent of boomers that needs to immediately decamp for the great retirement home in the sky that is likely to show up with several moronic comments about muh community input and muh white picket fences/greedy developers etc that I just don’t have any time for. Housing is *the* major issue in Canada and the BCNDP’s only saving grace among their many fuckups.
If you feel we are going in the wrong direction, maybe it's time to change direction
I’ve lived in BC for 45 years. Rustad is no “Conservative.” It’s the only provincial party that would take him. David Eby’s “recent reversals on the carbon tax and involuntary care” could just be him answering calls from the electorate. I can’t disagree that it was handled clumsily, mind you.