BC Lags Behind Other Provinces in Life Satisfaction

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by rubecube

The Greens support a better expansion of safe supply. If they can force the NDP into agreeing to make that program better in a minority government, it'll save lives.

Are they doing anything besides this? I'm getting pretty burnt out on this stance.

"We'll happily do nothing else and let more and more people continue to live in abject misery, but at least we'll let them do it in a safe warm environment and make sure they live a bit longer".

No one seems to be actually proposing anything that is going to reverse the trends on addiction and homelessness. Like, try SOMETHING.

Maybe the BC Greens are proposing many more things, I'm ignorant. Just in general, this is the trend I'm seeing across the board, however.

[Blaster86]

The first step to stopping addiction is taking care of addiction. These people getting hot shots and bad drugs is a massive tax on the system and you can't help them if they all die.

But it doesn't matter as the issue is currently political poison and won't get touched in a meaningful way for another ten years at least. We're going to go back to trying to hide the problem rather than trying to fix it and normies and nimbys will be happy with that since if they can't see it, it's not happening.

Addiction, homelessness and drug issues aren't that much worse than they were. The issues that are up are over doses and that we can see it happening.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by blender

^^^

StreetPharm, you may well be right, but even so, there are a lot of people who support the Conservatives, and while many of us would presumably prefer they were swept aside convincingly yesterday, we all know that wasn't going to happen. Rustad is full of rhetoric, but that party has lots of career politicians in prominent roles that know how to work within the system. I guess we will see.

I hate to keep being Debbie Downer, but Rustad had few friends in the Liberal party due to his abrasive style, hence his defection to the Conservatives. The conservatives only took 3 United MLAs with them and the Conservatives held zero seats going in so there will be almost exclusively first time MLAs in Victoria for the Conservatives. I'm definitely not holding out much hope there. This was a protest vote and the Conservatives' mandate is to protest and that's about it.

Now, here's how I see the fallout

1) NDP will find it more difficult to govern as the Greens wield more power now than when they did when they shared power in the 2017-2020 legislature. There was at least some concessions from the Liberals when important stuff needed to be done.

2) The Greens having power means overall less will get done because you need to convince two groups to get things passed. For example, we've been discussing pharmacare's dispensing fee to pharmacies and there's been no increase since 2011 and desperately needs to change. The previous government acknowledged that need and was ready to at least have a discussion. Now any discussion will necessarily include Green party representation which has zero knowledge or familiarity with the subject and the history of how we got here. Things are now quite a bit more difficult.

3) If economic conditions improve you may see an election in 2027

[Locke]

Oh BC...

If its that close, hilariously, the Party that almost nobody voted for holds the most power.

What a time to be alive!

[Blaster86]

100,000 people is not "Almost nobody"

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

100,000 people is not "Almost nobody"

Its less than 2% of the population of BC.

So...while not 'Nobody' its pretty close, ergo 'Almost' nobody.

[Blaster86]

It was closer to 10% of the actual voters.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by opendoor

People can have all the mature public discourse they want. But if extremism isn't a deal breaker and they'll still happily vote for people who espouse crazy, fanatical views, then you're naturally going to get extremists.

People voted for them because a moderate, centrist option wasn't available.

People have made it repeatedly clear that things like public safety and drugs in the community are an issue to them and the NDP has ignored them to pander to progressives.

Low and behold, only the far right party opened an ear to them and they won seats, particularly in places like Richmond & Surrey where Chinese and Indo-Canadian demographics are large.

Offer nothing but the extremes and some will vote for the extreme you don't like.

[Blaster86]

The above post is sort of the nutshell for this election. It misrepresents what happened, but gave the conspiracy theory touting nut job party a bat to swing in an election year. And they swung it. They got to paint the very VERY center of the aisle NDP as "left wing extremists" and people believed it because they tried something that didn't work.

NDP put forth something that has worked else where in the world as a means to remove the stigma of drug addiction and begin a path to rehabilitation and in the long run create a better situation for everyone, not just addicts. It didn't work. In part, it didn't work because the municipalities fought it tooth and nail. In part it didn't work because the people in these cities are very NIMBY by nature. We know there's a drug problem but we don't want to "know" there's a drug problem. We want to be able to pretend it's not there. Open use prevented that from happening.

The BCC didn't actually make any promises to fix the actual issue. They just promised to push it back into the closet so we didn't have to see it anymore. We want these people to die out of sight.

I am legitimately sad it didn't work for the people who are suffering every day in British Columbia. I am legitimately sad it was the noose around an otherwise fantastic government's neck. In my 38 years in BC, we have not had a more effective and productive government that worked towards the betterment of the people in BC.

I think the worst thing that could happen for BC right now is a BCC majority. The only silver lining I have in that situation is that a BCC majority is also the worst thing that could happen to the BCC, who very clearly have no plan going forward if they were to win. They would simply follow the blue print of Alberta under Danielle Smith and Saskatchewan under Scott Moe, which a majority of the BC population has no stomach for, and be out of power immediately next election.

The concern is that it's very easy to destroy, and very hard to rebuild. They would do a lot of damage in those four years. Probably even more than the Liberals did in close to 20.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

People voted for them because a moderate, centrist option wasn't available.

The NDP is extremely moderate and moved right with their election platform.

People have made it repeatedly clear that things like public safety and drugs in the community are an issue to them and the NDP has ignored them to pander to progressives.

Low and behold, only the far right party opened an ear to them and they won seats, particularly in places like Richmond & Surrey where Chinese and Indo-Canadian demographics are large.

Those are not issues that are unique to BC. And unlike most BC governments, the NDP has shown that they will change their approach in the face of new evidence, which they were already in the process of doing well before the election. And as Blaster pointed out above, the Conservatives had no real plan to tackle these issues, because a government can only do so much. You can't criminalize homelessness, and a war on drugs would be an unmitigated disaster just like it has been every other time.

Not to mention, the people that actually live in the cities that are painted as crime infested hellholes resoundingly supported the NDP. Basically, some people (most of whom don't live or work in the cities) have been whipped into a frenzy over the last few years and were willing to look past extremism to satiate their desire to make poor people and drug addicts disappear.

Offer nothing but the extremes and some will vote for the extreme you don't like.

No, it was a moderate party vs a solidly right wing one with extremist elements. Anyone trying to paint this as two sides of the same coin either has a deep misunderstanding of politics or is exceedingly disingenuous.

[FlamesAddiction]

I read that one of the Conservative MLAs from Kelowna I think, insinuated that they may form a government with support of the Green Party if it's close enough.

I don't know if that is wishful thinking or if there were already behind the scene discussions. Seems like a weird combo.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I read that one of the Conservative MLAs from Kelowna I think, insinuated that they may form a government with support of the Green Party if it's close enough.

I don't know if that is wishful thinking or if there were already behind the scene discussions. Seems like a weird combo.

There would be open revolt in the Green Party if that happened. Would basically sewer the party in any future elections, too.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by opendoor

The NDP is extremely moderate and moved right with their election platform.

They moved back right as they saw Conservative momentum growing and knew they'd alienated too many voters.

Those are not issues that are unique to BC. And unlike most BC governments, the NDP has shown that they will change their approach in the face of new evidence, which they were already in the process of doing well before the election. And as Blaster pointed out above, the Conservatives had no real plan to tackle these issues, because a government can only do so much. You can't criminalize homelessness, and a war on drugs would be an unmitigated disaster just like it has been every other time.

I agree with this and it's one thing I like about Eby. It's rare for a politician to admit wrong and change course, but it came too late evidently.

Not to mention, the people that actually live in the cities that are painted as crime infested hellholes resoundingly supported the NDP. Basically, some people (most of whom don't live or work in the cities) have been whipped into a frenzy over the last few years and were willing to look past extremism to satiate their desire to make poor people and drug addicts disappear.

Richmond and Surrey mainly saw a loss of NDP support and cultures there are harder on their drug & crime stances as I mentioned.
This would always be a big issue with those communities and even the NDP started to understand this will be a challenge for them.
The bulk of Conservative wins came outside of the cities.
They likely have different reasons for their votes than being whipped into a frenzy about Vancouver's homeless.

No, it was a moderate party vs a solidly right wing one with extremist elements. Anyone trying to paint this as two sides of the same coin either has a deep misunderstanding of politics or is exceedingly disingenuous.

Legalizing illicit drug use in public spaces is about as far from moderate one could imagine.
They reversed it because the political writing was on the wall, but let's not pretend it's moderate.

Aren't the same poster who said people's concerns about random violence aren't valid because overall violent crime rates are down?
Talk about disingenuous.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Aren't the same poster who said people's concerns about random violence aren't valid because overall violent crime rates are down?
Talk about disingenuous.

That's a great example of people's impressions not matching reality. By the numbers in the article you provided, random violent attacks in Vancouver in 2023 were down by 65% compared to 2019. But you still bring it up as if it's an escalating problem that needs to be solved.

And a lot of peoples' impressions about drugs and crime are like that. Media, politicians, etc. create a narrative, often using cherry picked or misleading data, and it just sticks in peoples' minds. So even when evidence is presented to the contrary (as I did earlier in this thread when you brought this very thing up), the impression remains.

Crime rates in Vancouver are near 60-year lows and 1/2 what they were 20 years ago, yet if you asked the average Conservative voter, they'd say it's out of control.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I read that one of the Conservative MLAs from Kelowna I think, insinuated that they may form a government with support of the Green Party if it's close enough.

I don't know if that is wishful thinking or if there were already behind the scene discussions. Seems like a weird combo.

Well, Greens do sort of have a reputation as being conservatives who care about the environment. And their last leader (Andrew Weaver) endorsed the BC Conservative party for this election. But still, that seems like a big stretch to me.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Aren't the same poster who said people's concerns about random violence aren't valid because overall violent crime rates are down?

People and businesses aren't bothering to report crimes anymore when everybody knows it won't amount to anything. If people committing crimes even happen to be caught everybody knows they'll just quickly be released.

Heck, that tourist that got punched in the head and stomped repeatedly just the other day in Vancouver was attacked by a guy who was released after ambushing 4 different people across two years - he only got 1 day of jail for the multiple assaults. He'll be back for more I'm sure. Maybe something happens to you if you hack off a hand or somebody's head. Otherwise you'll be out in short order.

The disorder that society just accepts now wouldn't be tolerated even just a few years ago. The open drug use, property theft, assaults, defecation on playgrounds and property, etc. never gets reported any more.

EDIT:

And then the people that do try call the police can't even get through to them that they have to abandon the call. Like literally tens of thousands of calls every year. No wonder reported crime is "down".

https://www.vancouverisawesome.com/l...n-2022-6693393

https://globalnews.ca/news/8782829/v...ls-unanswered/

https://www.vancouverisawesome.com/l...-ecomm-7681417

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by chemgear

People and businesses aren't bothering to report crimes anymore when everybody knows it won't amount to anything. If people committing crimes even happen to be caught everybody knows they'll just quickly be released.

Heck, that tourist that got punched in the head and stomped repeatedly just the other day in Vancouver was attacked by a guy who was released after ambushing 4 different people across two years - he only got 1 day of jail for the multiple assaults. He'll be back for more I'm sure. Maybe something happens to you if you hack off a hand or somebody's head. Otherwise you'll be out in short order.

I'm sure you have solid evidence demonstrating a trend of a reduction in the rate of crime reporting? Because the evidence I've seen shows that crime reporting rates are pretty flat. And where it does change, it tends to correlate with the number of police officers (cities with reductions in officer levels see reduced reporting rates and cities with increases in officers see higher rates). Vancouver has beefed up its police force in recent years, so that would suggest that reporting rates would not have declined.

And of course, you can look at crimes that virtually never go unreported, like culpable homicide, and see the significant decline over the decades. Here's the murder rate per 100K Vancouver residents over the last 40 years:

1984-1993: 6.07
1994-2003: 4.26
2004-2013: 2.78
2014-2023: 2.23

Given that the decline in the murder rate correlates with the decline in reported violent crime, that would suggest that it's not an artifact of reporting rates.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by opendoor

That's a great example of people's impressions not matching reality. By the numbers in the article you provided, random violent attacks in Vancouver in 2023 were down by 65% compared to 2019. But you still bring it up as if it's an escalating problem that needs to be solved.

And a lot of peoples' impressions about drugs and crime are like that. Media, politicians, etc. create a narrative, often using cherry picked or misleading data, and it just sticks in peoples' minds. So even when evidence is presented to the contrary (as I did earlier in this thread when you brought this very thing up), the impression remains.

Crime rates in Vancouver are near 60-year lows and 1/2 what they were 20 years ago, yet if you asked the average Conservative voter, they'd say it's out of control.

The Youth detention center I used to work at that had 150 kids in it plus 3 feeder camps up in the valley with another 100 kids has currently closed all the feeder camps and has about 30 kids in it, youth crime has almost ceased to exist in Vancouver

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

The Youth detention center I used to work at that had 150 kids in it plus 3 feeder camps up in the valley with another 100 kids has currently closed all the feeder camps and has about 30 kids in it, youth crime has almost ceased to exist in Vancouver

Another great data point. Of course, I'm sure someone will respond and say "that's because they're just letting them out as soon as they're arrested," even though data also shows that remand detention rates are about 4x higher than in the '80s and nearly double what they were 20 years ago.

And that's a rate based on the overall population. So given the lower crime rates now compared to the '80s, '90s, and '00s, the increase in the % of those charged who are held in remand is even higher than those numbers would suggest.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

In part it didn't work because the people in these cities are very NIMBY by nature. We know there's a drug problem but we don't want to "know" there's a drug problem. We want to be able to pretend it's not there. Open use prevented that from happening.

This notion that most people living in, commuting to, or running businesses in urban areas were just going to become benignly tolerant of open drug use and its associated disorder is beyond naive. The people you call NIMBYs are mostly just regular working people - usually women - who don’t feel safe in public spaces that feel that lawless and scummy.

There’s nowhere in the world where people tolerate that kind of behaviour in their public spaces. Which is why the cities that experimented with decriminalizing open use - among the most liberal cities in the world - are all reversing course.

If you support urban densification and public transit, while simultaneously tolerating open drug use, you’re completely out to lunch. Those two policies are mutually exclusive.