BC Election - May 9th, 2017

[d_phaneuf]

the one thing about such a close election means we won't have the amazing election night tv like last time

CBC mostly, but also global and CTV planned heavy for an ndp coronation because of the polls

Which ended up turning in to unintentional comedy tv because you had a bunch of ndp cheerleaders look like they wanted to be anywhere else in the world. I think half of them were either punch drunk depressed or actual drunk

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Pick your poison. Tax cuts for the wealthy that we can't afford or social services we can't afford. The NDP pretty much bought my vote when they said they'd eliminate interest on student loans because I can't think of a single reason why I would vote for the Liberals.

The NDP scare me more than crooked liberals. This is so reminiscent of the NDP win in Alberta. How did that pan out?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

The NDP scare me more than crooked liberals. This is so reminiscent of the NDP win in Alberta. How did that pan out?

Probably largely the same as it would have had the Conservatives or WRP been elected, just a different set of people getting screwed. Kind of tired of seeing students, seniors, and the poor taking it on the chin so the people at the top can continue to line their pockets.

[peter12]

I voted Green. Mainly as a throwaway vote, I guess.

[Mike F]

A minority gov't with the Liberals forced to work with another party may be the best outcome to cheer for short term... Moderate the excesses of either side.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Probably largely the same as it would have had the Conservatives or WRP been elected, just a different set of people getting screwed.

This just confirms for me that you really weren't getting what I meant by "total disaster" earlier. This is absolutely not the case. There are policies that benefit a segment of the electorate at the expense of others. Then there are policies that are wholly destabilizing. This is shortsighted.

Originally Posted by Mike F

A minority gov't with the Liberals forced to work with another party may be the best outcome to cheer for short term... Moderate the excesses of either side.

BC's effectively a two party system, so this can't really happen... moreover, if it did, the kingmaking party would be the Greens, and having them hold the government hostage has the potential to be even worse.

There's no good outcome, only "bad" and "lasting damage to the Province bad".

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

Still no clue who to vote for. I don't want to even vote this time around. I just feel like I should.

Same here.
I'm actually leaning towards not voting, which I can't believe I'm saying.
I think I've voted at every opportunity I could since I was 18 but I have no desire to support anyone right now.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

The NDP scare me more than crooked liberals. This is so reminiscent of the NDP win in Alberta. How did that pan out?

Really not the same thing though.
As an Albertan who moved to BC 10 years ago, the whole spectrum here is far left compared to Alberta.
BC NDP's and AB NDP's are very different. I would argue that the BC Libs are actually further "left" than the AB NDP in most ways.

[Drak]

I ticked NDP this time around.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Really not the same thing though.
As an Albertan who moved to BC 10 years ago, the whole spectrum here is far left compared to Alberta.
BC NDP's and AB NDP's are very different. I would argue that the BC Libs are actually further "left" than the AB NDP in most ways.

That's probably an exaggeration, but I meant it more as this election being destructive establishment votes vs protest votes for free spending promises from the other party. I want what the liberals should be, not who they are

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

This just confirms for me that you really weren't getting what I meant by "total disaster" earlier. This is absolutely not the case. There are policies that benefit a segment of the electorate at the expense of others. Then there are policies that are wholly destabilizing. This is shortsighted.

Like say closing down mental health facilities and cutting social services in order to give tax breaks to the wealthy, subsequently resulting in a legacy of poverty and addiction, the likes of which are generally unheard of in first world countries? That type of shortsighted? Saying the Liberals haven't been a total disaster for the province in numerous ways indicates your primary concerns are economic outcomes.

[simmer2]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Like say closing down mental health facilities and cutting social services in order to give tax breaks to the wealthy, subsequently resulting in a legacy of poverty and addiction, the likes of which are generally unheard of in first world countries? That type of shortsighted? Saying the Liberals haven't been a total disaster for the province in numerous ways indicates your primary concerns are economic outcomes.

The only way social services exist is due to the 'wealthy' which typically means business owners, producing and taking immense risk with their money.

If only the left realized they need the 'wealthy' to provide social services.

I cant stand BC politics.

[jammies]

If only the "right" understood that it costs less and produces more in the long run to alleviate poverty, ill health and addiction.

Sent from my ASUS_Z00AD using Tapatalk

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by simmer2

The only way social services exist is due to the 'wealthy' which typically means business owners, producing and taking immense risk with their money.

If only the left realized they need the 'wealthy' to provide social services.

I cant stand BC politics.

So are yo arguing that closing mental health facilities and forcing the mentally ill onto the streets was good policy then, or was this just really weak ad hominem?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Like say closing down mental health facilities and cutting social services in order to give tax breaks to the wealthy, subsequently resulting in a legacy of poverty and addiction, the likes of which are generally unheard of in first world countries? That type of shortsighted?

No. Not that type of shortsighted. The type of shortsighted that assumes that things will continue more or less as they have regardless of who is elected, just with different groups being screwed over at the expense of other different groups. This assumption is wrong. There is more at stake.

Saying the Liberals haven't been a total disaster for the province in numerous ways indicates your primary concerns are economic outcomes.

First, again, you're missing the basic meaning of "total disaster". There is no "total disaster in numerous ways". You either #### up the province, or you don't.

Second, yes, my primary concern is economic, to the baseline standard of ensuring that there is a functioning economy. There are many versions of a functioning economy, with varying tax rates for varying groups and a whole range of policies. Then, there is what the NDP did the last time they formed a government.

[Zarley]

It would be insane for BC to switch governments given how well the economy is doing.

[OMG!WTF!]

How are BC university students getting screwed? BC has way lower than average undergrad tuition compared to other provinces and some of the best infrastructure spending. You can't even find anything in the ndp platform about education spending.

Man you have to have some super blind faith to vote ndp.

Also funny is the interest on student loans. Libs are lowering to prime and NDP's are going with zero. So you save 2.7% on your loans but pay a bunch more in carbon tax.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Second, yes, my primary concern is economic, to the baseline standard of ensuring that there is a functioning economy. There are many versions of a functioning economy, with varying tax rates for varying groups and a whole range of policies. Then, there is what the NDP did the last time they formed a government.

The economy under the 5 years of the Harcourt government was fine. BC saw 2-4% GDP growth every year and the number of jobs grew 2-3% per year until the late '90s. The provincial debt grew at a slower rate than it had in the last decade under the Liberal government too. Only in the late '90s did the NDP really stink it up.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

No. Not that type of shortsighted. The type of shortsighted that assumes that things will continue more or less as they have regardless of who is elected, just with different groups being screwed over at the expense of other different groups. This assumption is wrong. There is more at stake.

It's not really wrong in this circumstance though. Each party has policy positions that will help or hurt depending on where you live, what your income is, etc.

First, again, you're missing the basic meaning of "total disaster". There is no "total disaster in numerous ways". You either #### up the province, or you don't.

I'm actually chuckling that you're trying to assert that there is some objective definition for total disaster. I consider the thousands of lives that have been thrown away due to cynical and negligent public health policies to be pretty disastrous.

Second, yes, my primary concern is economic, to the baseline standard of ensuring that there is a functioning economy. There are many versions of a functioning economy, with varying tax rates for varying groups and a whole range of policies. Then, there is what the NDP did the last time they formed a government.

So are you also one of those people who won't for the federal Liberals because of the NEP?

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by simmer2

If only the left realized they need the 'wealthy' to provide social services.

Originally Posted by jammies

If only the "right" understood that it costs less and produces more in the long run to alleviate poverty, ill health and addiction.

If only there was a sensible middle to govern with a balance of both.