BC Political Discussion: Election 2024 & 43rd Parliament

[Migrant_Coconut]

Mainstreet's polls (the robotexts everybody deletes) are sponsored by the Cons and lean right as a result. There's only one polls that counts, and that's the one on Friday.

[Snow_Wolf]

Originally Posted by Bcasey25raptor

And Most of those polls show the NDP doing WAY Too well in the Interior which makes me question the entire reliability of the rest of their poll data.

I'm still panicking. Evil political parties and movements keep over performing globally from Trump to Brexit to Le Pen to Poilievre, and Now BC.

I am scared

"Evil" seems a little.... dramatic. Actually, very dramatic

[BaddieB]

Originally Posted by Bcasey25raptor

And Most of those polls show the NDP doing WAY Too well in the Interior which makes me question the entire reliability of the rest of their poll data.

Depends on how you define interior, but the NDP does have many seats in the interior/north, and even seats they don't have they do pretty well. The only seats that the Cons/BC Libs absolutely dominate are in the peace

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

"I see dead people." - John Rustad, 2024

I wouldn’t fault him on that. I can’t count how many people I see slumped over on the pavement when I walk anywhere downtown. Are they just drugged out of their mind or dying? Who knows and be honest, who bothers to check which it is any more.

[Tvisforme]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

...There's only one polls that counts, and that's the one on Friday.

Don't you mean Saturday?

[casper]

Originally Posted by NewfBC

"Surrey is home to nearly half of the children in British Columbia"

Is this true? Hmmmm...

Ron.

Conservatives don't do well with science and math. They have difficulty figuring out if someone is alive or dead.

Depending on your definition of children your either counting 0-14 or 0-19. Based on 2021 numbers,

There are 716,900 (0-14 year olds) in BC. Another 255,790 (15-19). Total of 972,690.

If we look at Surrey, it is 94,060 (0-14 year olds), and 34,980 (15-19). So 129,040.

Basically Surrey has around 13% of Children in BC.

While there may well be merits to building a second Children's Hospital. The Conservatives have real problems making decisions based on science and data. It is just a foreign concept.

[Burquitlaman]

Originally Posted by Tvisforme

Don't you mean Saturday?

Do you know if advanced polls get counted at the same time/earlier/later?

I love watching election day coverages lol. Can't wait. Got my vote in day 1. Go vote people. It takes 5 minutes.

[kja384]

I would support the new hospital. I remember when Adrian Dix said the funding disparity was so high between VCH and FH. He brought up how SoF had many more children who require less health care than the older population NoF. Then they go and build the new BC Children's Hospital in Vancouver while putting a cancer center in Cloverdale.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by kja384

I would support the new hospital. I remember when Adrian Dix said the funding disparity was so high between VCH and FH. He brought up how SoF had many more children who require less health care than the older population NoF. Then they go and build the new BC Children's Hospital in Vancouver while putting a cancer center in Cloverdale.

I can tell you for a fact many people treated at VCH hospitals live in the FH region. It goes the other way too, but not as much.

Having 2 HAs for the Lower Mainland, with somewhat arbitrary boundaries, doesn't make much sense.

[chowhou]

In general, children don't need hospitals all that much, at least not nearly as much as the elderly. The most important hospital time for you when you're young is from when you're roughly negative one to positive one years old; After that you're close to indestructible until you start to hit middle age. Then you're a medical liability for the next 40 years.

[kja384]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I can tell you for a fact many people treated at VCH hospitals live in the FH region. It goes the other way too, but not as much.

Having 2 HAs for the Lower Mainland, with somewhat arbitrary boundaries, doesn't make much sense.

Well yea, the point is that people should not have to travel that far for health care. It's basically a double standard where you expect people to travel from one area to another, but never the other way around despite similar populations.

This doctor brought up how mothers would have to be transported into Vancouver due to the lack of space, but never the other way around. Perhaps the most alarming is the lack of sufficient care for trauma related injuries.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by kja384

Well yea, the point is that people should not have to travel that far for health care. It's basically a double standard where you expect people to travel from one area to another, but never the other way around despite similar populations.

This doctor brought up how mothers would have to be transported into Vancouver due to the lack of space, but never the other way around. Perhaps the most alarming is the lack of sufficient care for trauma related injuries.

Yes and the next net new hospital is being built in Cloverdale. So they are addressing that demand.

Of course the whole system is undersized, but that's another matter.

[seamusmcduff]

How do they plan on staffing this hospital with all the cuts they're proposing? If only they had a costed platform to show that they could make it work...

[logicbomb]

Originally Posted by seamusmcduff

How do they plan on staffing this hospital with all the cuts they're proposing? If only they had a costed platform to show that they could make it work...

They released an appendix on "costing" which is a 6 page document with no real information of what's going to be cut or details about a new revenue stream aside from a pie-in-the-sky 5.4% growth rate. Huge tax cuts are proposed. They also left out the massive capital projects.

https://www.conservativebc.ca/ideas

It's funny because I know a lot of BC Con supporters are anti-immigration and hate Trudeau but I suspect the Cons will take a page out of Trudeau's approach by supporting measures to dramatically increase the population via migration to prop up the GDP. It's a stupid quick hack which decreases the GDP per capita and hinders the overall quality of life. BC Cons/Fed Cons/Fed Liberals all diverge in their social policies but their economic playbook is vastly similar.

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by logicbomb

They released an appendix on "costing" which is a 6 page document with no real information of what's going to be cut or details about a new revenue stream aside from a pie-in-the-sky 5.4% growth rate. Huge tax cuts are proposed. They also left out the massive capital projects.

https://www.conservativebc.ca/ideas

It's funny because I know a lot of BC Con supporters are anti-immigration and hate Trudeau but I suspect the Cons will take a page out of Trudeau's approach by supporting measures to dramatically increase the population via migration to prop up the GDP. It's a stupid quick hack which decreases the GDP per capita and hinders the overall quality of life. BC Cons/Fed Cons/Fed Liberals all diverge in their social policies but their economic playbook is vastly similar.

Do these people ever realize that tax-cuts are essentially a government expenditure?

They always try to predicate it on the expected growth in the economy to balance the books, but before that growth actually happens (and the question of whether it actually does based on those tax cuts is a debate for another day), the government loses revenue in the meantime which counts as an expenditure to balance the book.

It's just a stimulus (which they love to bash) by another name.

Suffice it to say, you can't have major capital projects while cutting governemnt revenue (tax cuts) at the same time, and not expect massive deficits to follow - with extensive service cuts, and cuts to social support systems and programs to follow them.

[logicbomb]

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

Do these people ever realize that tax-cuts are essentially a government expenditure?

They always try to predicate it on the expected growth in the economy to balance the books, but before that growth actually happens (and the question of whether it actually does based on those tax cuts is a debate for another day), the government loses revenue in the meantime which counts as an expenditure to balance the book.

It's just a stimulus (which they love to bash) by another name.

Suffice it to say, you can't have major capital projects while cutting governemnt revenue (tax cuts) at the same time, and not expect massive deficits to follow - with extensive service cuts, and cuts to social support systems and programs to follow them.

In theory you can sell off government owned assets to balance the budget.

This includes crown land, dams and BC Place. Get rid of ALR's and allow for zoning.

Transition health care to a private model. Start charging MSP immediately and ensure people are billed per hospital/doctor visits.

Dissolve ICBC and sell all ICBC owned land. Fully sell off BC Hydro. Ditto BC Housing. Etc...

Sell off provincially owned highways and/or add tolling.

Completely axe funding to social justice groups, NGO's and non-profits that rely on provincial funds.

Lay off government workers by the thousands. Mandate all public sector workers back into office to stimulate local economies.

Request the feds further open the doors to bring in more TFW's and immigrants. This would really boost up the economy and ensure wages remain supressed.

[mcj]

Originally Posted by logicbomb

In theory you can sell off government owned assets to balance the budget.

This includes crown land, dams and BC Place. Get rid of ALR's and allow for zoning.

Transition health care to a private model. Start charging MSP immediately and ensure people are billed per hospital/doctor visits.

Dissolve ICBC and sell all ICBC owned land. Fully sell off BC Hydro. Ditto BC Housing. Etc...

Sell off provincially owned highways and/or add tolling.

Completely axe funding to social justice groups, NGO's and non-profits that rely on provincial funds.

Lay off government workers by the thousands. Mandate all public sector workers back into office to stimulate local economies.

Request the feds further open the doors to bring in more TFW's and immigrants. This would really boost up the economy and ensure wages remain supressed.

In theory you can always sell assets to pay for your day to day budget, doesn't make it a good idea though.

Imagine selling your house so you can take a longer vacation this summer. Might make sense if you were going to die in the near future, but governments don't die and ultimately selling off public assets just makes future generations have to pay more and have less public wealth to benefit from.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by mcj

In theory you can always sell assets to pay for your day to day budget, doesn't make it a good idea though.

Imagine selling your house so you can take a longer vacation this summer. Might make sense if you were going to die in the near future, but governments don't die and ultimately selling off public assets just makes future generations have to pay more and have less public wealth to benefit from.

I think it's more complicated than that. The Government makes money when the economy does well and GDP is increased. If they are sitting on an asset they aren't using, it can make sense to sell it for an immediate benefit and then when the buyer uses it, Government will benefit again.

Selling assets to pay for operational expenses might not be a good idea, but if they take that money an invest in infrastructure it can be good.

[logicbomb]

Originally Posted by mcj

In theory you can always sell assets to pay for your day to day budget, doesn't make it a good idea though.

Imagine selling your house so you can take a longer vacation this summer. Might make sense if you were going to die in the near future, but governments don't die and ultimately selling off public assets just makes future generations have to pay more and have less public wealth to benefit from.

Political parties do not give a 🞵🞵🞵🞵 about any long-term implications when it comes to their decisions.

It's really about getting into power and pleasing their donors/shareholders. Look at how badly Justin Trudeau has fucked over an entire generation via immigration to prop up the GDP.

The more I read about the BC Conservative candidates, the more I realize they are grifters and will likely go against the interest of British Columbians.

The BC Liberals did it right in the early 2000s (minus BC Rail) when it came to reinvesting provincial assets. I have zero face in the Cons though.

[mcj]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I think it's more complicated than that. The Government makes money when the economy does well and GDP is increased. If they are sitting on an asset they aren't using, it can make sense to sell it for an immediate benefit and then when the buyer uses it, Government will benefit again.

Selling assets to pay for operational expenses might not be a good idea, but if they take that money an invest in infrastructure it can be good.

In theory that's how it should work, and if it truly worked that way I would have some confidence in the government to pick and choose which assets to sell. In practice selloffs tend to be politically motivated and have little to no regard for any future consequences/benefits. Look at any of the provincial assets sold off by the BC Liberals, or the assets sold off by the governments of the 1980s, how many have actually been beneficial to the wider public in the long run?