Over at my favorite blog, the Gazeteer posted last night on the impact of non-traditional media in this election.
Would the gap between the Liberals and NDP have been much greater without the role played by The Tyee and bloggers and other non-traditional media, he asks.
To which I commented:
"There was some excellent coverage from non-traditional media, for want of a better term, during the campaign - Holman, Tyee, here.
But would the gap have been much different without it? The results are close to identical to 2005, in terms of popular vote. The most significant change might be the emergence of a Conservative vote in some regions.
The mass news media has suffered audience declines in the last four years; non-traditional coverage has expanded. But I'm not sure of the influence of either at this point.
One factor, I'd argue, is a tendency to be non-inclusive in many non-traditional news/commentary sources. The argument starts based on shared assumptions. But often those assumptions are shared by a minority.
Not that they are necessarily wrong. But the majority are left out of the discussion. It's like forming a hiking club and announcing that the first walk will start at the 7,000-foot mark on Mt Robson."
It's an important discussion. Mainstream media or whatever you want to call them have great benefits. They provide a shared starting point for community discussion on an inclusive basis. People in Lillooet might not all love the Lillooet-Bridge River News. But when there's a controversy - like the one right now about proposed water meters - most people have read its coverage. They can develop opinions based on it and can do their own research and advance the discussion. (Today, more than ever.) Blogs don't offer that universal starting point that sees 80 per cent of the people in a community literally on the same page on Wednesday when the paper comes out.
That reach also imposes a discipline on writers or journalists or whatever you call them. When I wrote editorials long ago for the Red Deer Advocate - a fine newspaper - I knew that probably two-thirds of the people in that Central Alberta would at least glance at them. Retired farmers, rig workers, store owners, college instructors, car salesman. So if the editorial was to be persuasive, it had to start at a place where all of them could be comfortable and make an argument they could all consider seriously. Otherwise, what would be the point?
That, I think, is missing in the role non-traditional media play. They are mostly starting at a place that shuts a majority of the population out of the argument.
I'm not sure how that can change. One critical question is how you create a community that is broader than people who share beliefs about policy or politics, whether its geographic or occupation-based or.....
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
The battle of the pollsters
There was some pundit sniffing at the credibility of an Angus Reid Strategies poll showing a narrower gap between the Liberals and the NDP, in part because the company uses an online panel rather than telephone sampling.
But Angus Reid claims victory today as the most acccurate forecaster. (As the company was in the last federal election.
For the dedicated, there's a rundown of the polls here.
But Angus Reid claims victory today as the most acccurate forecaster. (As the company was in the last federal election.
For the dedicated, there's a rundown of the polls here.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Now we find out what the Liberals will really do
After four weeks of official campaigning - and months of unofficial efforts - we're back where we started.
As I write this, with ballots still being counted, the legislature will look much as it did before the election, with a comfortable Liberal majority.
That is a significant achievement for Gordon Campbell, who is only the third B.C. premier to win three consecutive majority terms.
But we're not really back where we started. We allowed the politicians to pull the wool over our eyes and almost down to our ankles.
The biggest issue, especially, was never acknowledged by either of the two main parties.
So now we have a sort-of new government with no real mandate - and thus no base of public support for some very tough decisions ahead.
The Liberals and the NDP both campaigned as if the budget tabled in February was credible. It is not. The deficit, forecast at $495 million, will be substantially over $1 billion.
Just two areas - slower than forecast economic growth and low natural gas prices - means a revenue shortfall of almost $1 billion. The lower GDP, based on the budget documents, will mean $320 million revenue than forecast. The gas prices are far below forecast levels and a $600-million budget shortfall is a likely result.
That's huge, and it should have been at the centre of the campaign. The big issue, for most British Columbians, will be how the government deals with that reality.
The impact is enormous. Finding new revenue to make up the shortfalls - at last in this fiscal year - would be impossible. There is at least the potential for tax increases to address the continuing problems next year and the year after.
And cutting spending to balance the revenue gap would be horrendous. The budget already called for cuts in eight of 19 ministries, just to meet the deficit target of $495 million. A significant chunk of those savings hadn't even been identified at budget time, but cuts to park wardens and campgrounds show the kind of changes that were coming.
Finding another $900 million in cuts - especially if health and education are protected - would mean an eight-per-cent across the board cut in other ministries. (Actually, quite a bit more, since the fiscal year is already well under way.)
Or Campbell could just claim things had changed dramatically since the budget - even though he has denied that up until now - and announce bigger deficits, perhaps lasting more than the forecast two years.
So far, Campbell has insisted that the budget numbers are set. That means deep cuts to services and significant government job cuts.
It's an agenda that will sit well with some Liberals, the ones who really aren't keen on government and would like to see it smaller, even at a considerable cost to services and programs.
But not all Liberal MLAs are going to share that view.
Especially ones who look ahead to their chances of getting re-elected in 2013 if the next two or three years are spent making life more difficult for a lot of people.
Much will depend on what message the Liberals, and Campbell, take from the results.
The Liberal campaign stressed the need for continuity and stability and the risks of an NDP government.
A lurch to the hard right, with major cuts to services, would betray that expectation. The Liberals face a tough challenge to avoid facing their own fudge-it budget accusations when the next budget rolls around.
But alternately, the Liberals have a great chance to work toward a fourth term. A competent, moderate government through a few difficult years will likely continue to have a solid base of support.
The outcome of the 2013 election will be greatly affected by the Liberals'decisions over the next few months.
The party promised stability; Campbell's challenge now is to deliver that at a challenging time.
Footnote: The STV system, sadly, appears to be falling well short of the threshold for approval. British Columbians have lost the chance to reform politics, probably for decades. It is a great blow to chances for a better, more representative system.
As I write this, with ballots still being counted, the legislature will look much as it did before the election, with a comfortable Liberal majority.
That is a significant achievement for Gordon Campbell, who is only the third B.C. premier to win three consecutive majority terms.
But we're not really back where we started. We allowed the politicians to pull the wool over our eyes and almost down to our ankles.
The biggest issue, especially, was never acknowledged by either of the two main parties.
So now we have a sort-of new government with no real mandate - and thus no base of public support for some very tough decisions ahead.
The Liberals and the NDP both campaigned as if the budget tabled in February was credible. It is not. The deficit, forecast at $495 million, will be substantially over $1 billion.
Just two areas - slower than forecast economic growth and low natural gas prices - means a revenue shortfall of almost $1 billion. The lower GDP, based on the budget documents, will mean $320 million revenue than forecast. The gas prices are far below forecast levels and a $600-million budget shortfall is a likely result.
That's huge, and it should have been at the centre of the campaign. The big issue, for most British Columbians, will be how the government deals with that reality.
The impact is enormous. Finding new revenue to make up the shortfalls - at last in this fiscal year - would be impossible. There is at least the potential for tax increases to address the continuing problems next year and the year after.
And cutting spending to balance the revenue gap would be horrendous. The budget already called for cuts in eight of 19 ministries, just to meet the deficit target of $495 million. A significant chunk of those savings hadn't even been identified at budget time, but cuts to park wardens and campgrounds show the kind of changes that were coming.
Finding another $900 million in cuts - especially if health and education are protected - would mean an eight-per-cent across the board cut in other ministries. (Actually, quite a bit more, since the fiscal year is already well under way.)
Or Campbell could just claim things had changed dramatically since the budget - even though he has denied that up until now - and announce bigger deficits, perhaps lasting more than the forecast two years.
So far, Campbell has insisted that the budget numbers are set. That means deep cuts to services and significant government job cuts.
It's an agenda that will sit well with some Liberals, the ones who really aren't keen on government and would like to see it smaller, even at a considerable cost to services and programs.
But not all Liberal MLAs are going to share that view.
Especially ones who look ahead to their chances of getting re-elected in 2013 if the next two or three years are spent making life more difficult for a lot of people.
Much will depend on what message the Liberals, and Campbell, take from the results.
The Liberal campaign stressed the need for continuity and stability and the risks of an NDP government.
A lurch to the hard right, with major cuts to services, would betray that expectation. The Liberals face a tough challenge to avoid facing their own fudge-it budget accusations when the next budget rolls around.
But alternately, the Liberals have a great chance to work toward a fourth term. A competent, moderate government through a few difficult years will likely continue to have a solid base of support.
The outcome of the 2013 election will be greatly affected by the Liberals'decisions over the next few months.
The party promised stability; Campbell's challenge now is to deliver that at a challenging time.
Footnote: The STV system, sadly, appears to be falling well short of the threshold for approval. British Columbians have lost the chance to reform politics, probably for decades. It is a great blow to chances for a better, more representative system.
Monday, May 11, 2009
An interesting voice for STV
Sean Holman at publiceyeonline.com does a superb job of covering politics and government.
And he has decided that STV is a needed change. Read it here.
And he has decided that STV is a needed change. Read it here.
Wednesday, May 06, 2009
STV offers the chance for a better political future
I spent almost 10 years in the press gallery, watching B.C. politics from a front-row seat.
That's largely why I'm so convinced that you should vote yes in the STV referendum on Tuesday.
The current system doesn't work. Results are routinely unfair. In 1996, the Liberals got more votes than the NDP, but the New Democrats formed a majority government. In 2001, the Liberals got 58 per cent of the vote and 98 per cent of the seats. In 2005, 162,000 British Columbians - nine per cent of voters - backed the Greens, but were not represented in the legislature.
And that's not the only issue.
The current system encourages MLAs to keep their faces fixed on the leader and, as a result, to turn their backsides to their communities.
The challenge in most ridings is to get the nomination, not to win people over in the election campaign.
Voters are considering the party they want in power - or want to block. That drives their decisions on election day.
Candidates and MLAs need to keep in the party leaders' good books, to get a cabinet job or gain influence or even to keep the nomination. That effort is rewarded more than paying attention to constituents.
That leads to one the most common complaints about politicians - that instead of representing the riding in Victoria, they soon start representing the party in the riding.
STV won't fix all the system's ills. But it will be a significant step forward.
Here's how the system works. There would be fewer, larger ridings, with two to seven MLAs each, depending on population. The total number of MLAs wouldn't change.
On election day, you would no longer mark an "X" beside one candidate, rejecting the rest. You would rank as many candidates as you liked, in order of preference.
When the votes were counted, the election results would reflect the overall rankings. The method is explained well at www.gov.bc.ca/referendum_info. It's used around the world - Australia has used STV in national elections for 60 years - and considered fair and representative.
So the capital region, for example, would be a seven-MLA riding. They would come from more than one party - perhaps three New Democrats, three Liberals and a Green, based on the 2005 results.
Liberal supporters would not just mark an "X" beside the party's candidate, but rank them against the others - including their fellow Liberals. The ranking would help determine who is elected.
It would no longer be enough to carry the banner of a party. Voters would be judging how well each candidate would represent their interests.
So an incumbent who had been willing to stand up for a community - even if it made the party uncomfortable - would be rewarded with votes.
A Liberal who New Democrat or Green supporters considered effective would also be rewarded with a higher ranking. That is a considerable incentive for working with all members of the community and the legislature, rather than throwing up partisan walls.
While ridings would be larger, there would also be an incentive for parties to ensure that all constituents were well-served. If the NDP decided to run four candidates from Kamloops in the Columbia-Kootenay riding, while the Liberals nominated at least one candiate from Williams Lake, the New Democrats would pay a price.
Similarly, parties would be wise to have candidates with varied backgrounds and positions to appeal to diverse voters.
Minority governments are more likely, though far from certain. But that would mean parties must learn to work together - a process that would be aided by the increased focus on constituents.
It would also mean more centrist government, rather than the peculiar right-left lurches that have been the hallmark of B.C. politics.
This is a chance to take a leap forward and shed a system that simply doesn't deliver representative, effective government for one that offers the promise of at least some positive change. We shouldn't let it slip away.
Footnote: The measure will require 60 per cent approval and majority support in 60 per cent of the ridings. In 2005, 58 per cent of British Columbians voted yes, with majority support in 77 of 79 ridings. The STV system was chosen by a citizens' assembly of British Columbians.
For more, just search on STV on this blog. Lord knows I've written enough.
That's largely why I'm so convinced that you should vote yes in the STV referendum on Tuesday.
The current system doesn't work. Results are routinely unfair. In 1996, the Liberals got more votes than the NDP, but the New Democrats formed a majority government. In 2001, the Liberals got 58 per cent of the vote and 98 per cent of the seats. In 2005, 162,000 British Columbians - nine per cent of voters - backed the Greens, but were not represented in the legislature.
And that's not the only issue.
The current system encourages MLAs to keep their faces fixed on the leader and, as a result, to turn their backsides to their communities.
The challenge in most ridings is to get the nomination, not to win people over in the election campaign.
Voters are considering the party they want in power - or want to block. That drives their decisions on election day.
Candidates and MLAs need to keep in the party leaders' good books, to get a cabinet job or gain influence or even to keep the nomination. That effort is rewarded more than paying attention to constituents.
That leads to one the most common complaints about politicians - that instead of representing the riding in Victoria, they soon start representing the party in the riding.
STV won't fix all the system's ills. But it will be a significant step forward.
Here's how the system works. There would be fewer, larger ridings, with two to seven MLAs each, depending on population. The total number of MLAs wouldn't change.
On election day, you would no longer mark an "X" beside one candidate, rejecting the rest. You would rank as many candidates as you liked, in order of preference.
When the votes were counted, the election results would reflect the overall rankings. The method is explained well at www.gov.bc.ca/referendum_info. It's used around the world - Australia has used STV in national elections for 60 years - and considered fair and representative.
So the capital region, for example, would be a seven-MLA riding. They would come from more than one party - perhaps three New Democrats, three Liberals and a Green, based on the 2005 results.
Liberal supporters would not just mark an "X" beside the party's candidate, but rank them against the others - including their fellow Liberals. The ranking would help determine who is elected.
It would no longer be enough to carry the banner of a party. Voters would be judging how well each candidate would represent their interests.
So an incumbent who had been willing to stand up for a community - even if it made the party uncomfortable - would be rewarded with votes.
A Liberal who New Democrat or Green supporters considered effective would also be rewarded with a higher ranking. That is a considerable incentive for working with all members of the community and the legislature, rather than throwing up partisan walls.
While ridings would be larger, there would also be an incentive for parties to ensure that all constituents were well-served. If the NDP decided to run four candidates from Kamloops in the Columbia-Kootenay riding, while the Liberals nominated at least one candiate from Williams Lake, the New Democrats would pay a price.
Similarly, parties would be wise to have candidates with varied backgrounds and positions to appeal to diverse voters.
Minority governments are more likely, though far from certain. But that would mean parties must learn to work together - a process that would be aided by the increased focus on constituents.
It would also mean more centrist government, rather than the peculiar right-left lurches that have been the hallmark of B.C. politics.
This is a chance to take a leap forward and shed a system that simply doesn't deliver representative, effective government for one that offers the promise of at least some positive change. We shouldn't let it slip away.
Footnote: The measure will require 60 per cent approval and majority support in 60 per cent of the ridings. In 2005, 58 per cent of British Columbians voted yes, with majority support in 77 of 79 ridings. The STV system was chosen by a citizens' assembly of British Columbians.
For more, just search on STV on this blog. Lord knows I've written enough.
Monday, May 04, 2009
The FOI problem defined
BC Ministry responsible for FOI claims they have no record of how many employees work in FOI
Vancouver – - The ministry responsible for the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act across the BC government claims it has no documents stating how many people in the government work on FOI requests.
In March 2008, the BC Freedom of Information and Privacy Association filed an FOI request with the Ministry of Labour and Citizens’ Services asking for “the number of staff employed in managing and responding to FOI requests in the information and privacy offices of each ministry, for each year from the year 2000 to the present day.”
The Ministry responded to the FOI request by supplying 10 pages of near-unintelligible emails sent between ministries on a single day in November 2007, containing staff figures for two ministries. There are 19 ministries in the BC government.
The response included a statement that these were the only records responsive to the request.
The Ministry’s Service Plan for 2008-09 describes its role as follows:
“Citizens’ Services provides corporate leadership and strategic direction for information management and information technology across government. It is responsible for the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the Personal Information Protection Act, the Document Disposal Act, and the Electronic Transactions Act and all policy, standards and directives that flow from them.”
“It is inconceivable to us that the lead department responsible for FOI across the government has no idea how many people actually handle FOI requests,” said FIPA Executive Director Darrell Evans. “You would naturally suspect they were hiding something – but maybe they really don’t know what is going on with FOI, despite what their own Service Plan says.
This does not bode well for the government’s plan, just announced, to centralize the processing of all FOI requests in a single agency within the Ministry of Labour and Citizens’ Services (MLCS).
The centralization of FOI was part of government’s response to a critical report from Information and Privacy Commissioner David Loukidelis. MLCS was identified as having the second worst performance in the entire BC government. (Only the Premier’s office was slower to respons to access requests.)
The Commissioner’s full report is available here.
Vancouver – - The ministry responsible for the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act across the BC government claims it has no documents stating how many people in the government work on FOI requests.
In March 2008, the BC Freedom of Information and Privacy Association filed an FOI request with the Ministry of Labour and Citizens’ Services asking for “the number of staff employed in managing and responding to FOI requests in the information and privacy offices of each ministry, for each year from the year 2000 to the present day.”
The Ministry responded to the FOI request by supplying 10 pages of near-unintelligible emails sent between ministries on a single day in November 2007, containing staff figures for two ministries. There are 19 ministries in the BC government.
The response included a statement that these were the only records responsive to the request.
The Ministry’s Service Plan for 2008-09 describes its role as follows:
“Citizens’ Services provides corporate leadership and strategic direction for information management and information technology across government. It is responsible for the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the Personal Information Protection Act, the Document Disposal Act, and the Electronic Transactions Act and all policy, standards and directives that flow from them.”
“It is inconceivable to us that the lead department responsible for FOI across the government has no idea how many people actually handle FOI requests,” said FIPA Executive Director Darrell Evans. “You would naturally suspect they were hiding something – but maybe they really don’t know what is going on with FOI, despite what their own Service Plan says.
This does not bode well for the government’s plan, just announced, to centralize the processing of all FOI requests in a single agency within the Ministry of Labour and Citizens’ Services (MLCS).
The centralization of FOI was part of government’s response to a critical report from Information and Privacy Commissioner David Loukidelis. MLCS was identified as having the second worst performance in the entire BC government. (Only the Premier’s office was slower to respons to access requests.)
The Commissioner’s full report is available here.
Sunday, May 03, 2009
James comes out ahead in the leaders' debate
The wise Norman Ruff says it takes several days to declare a winner in a leaders' debate.
For starters, not that many people are actually watching. Especially at 5 p.m. on a spring Sunday, sunny here in Victoria.
About 37 per cent of the people in the Lower Mainland who were watching TV watched the debate in 2005. That was in primetime, on a Tuesday.
At most, one in six British Columbians watched even part of this year's debate.
Yet over a few days, based on media coverage and what people are saying at work or the playground, a sense will emerge of how did well, and who stumbled.
A few minutes after the debate, I'm thinking the Liberals should be nervous about how that consensus will shake out.
Gordon Campbell sounded a little defensive and, I have to say, looked a little crazy.
That's only partly his fault. The set, out of a high school TV station, had a black backdrop that left his head and white shirt floating like a low-budget special effect.
The format was tough for the party in power. The debate was structured around videos of questions from people around the province. They were pointed.
And Carole James was focused in her response and skillful in posing questions that Campbell had a hard time answering.
Green Leader Jane Sterk didn't really seem that relevant - sort of a polite heckler, offering occasional insights that would appeal to most rational voters, except for the reality that no Green candidate had a chance of being elected.
Campbell's pitch seemed to be that we face scary times ahead and he's the best person to have in charge. "I know British Columbians are worried," he said. "But we can get through this."
James doesn't have enough experience - especially business experience - to lead the province through a tough patch, Campbell suggested.
It's a little iffy as an argument, not least because Campbell has been a politician for the last 25 years. His business experience is dated.
James' pitch had two elements. The Liberals had a chance and had not delivered, she said, failing to invest in communities in the good time.
And she had a better sense of the problems faced by most British Columbians, James claimed. Her answers referred to people or groups she had met with and their struggles.
It was well done and fit nicely with poll results that indicated James is seen as more in touch with the priorities of average British Columbians.
The Liberals should have been in good shape heading toward the May 12 election. They have avoided big mistakes.
But it hasn't turned out that way. The latest poll suggests a close race.
And Campbell didn't win over undecided voters during the debate. He was stiff, defensive - a politician.
James was a politician, too, of course. But she appeared to understand the problems of ordinary people, whoever they are.
None of this matters for the committed Liberal or NDP voters.
But for a lot of people - those who are undecided, or the million-plus British Columbians who aren't likely to vote - the debate becomes part of the decision-making process.
That's not good for Campbell. James batted him around on several issues, from corruption to seniors care.
The leaders each got a chance to close out the debate.
Campbell talked about the economy and leadership. Jobs are at stake, he said. He looked worried.
James offered a plan for addressing five public policy issues, from taxes to education. She seemed positive.
Mostly, it seemed sad that this was the only debate of this long campaign.
Just 60 minutes, in a four-week campaign, to hear from the party leaders.
It's a strange way to choose a government and set the course for the province for the next four years.
Footnote: The most interesting point in the debate might have been about crime. Campbell and James talked about more police. Sterk talked about legalization of some drugs to talk the profits away from criminal gangs. She sounded sensible; they sounded delusional.
For starters, not that many people are actually watching. Especially at 5 p.m. on a spring Sunday, sunny here in Victoria.
About 37 per cent of the people in the Lower Mainland who were watching TV watched the debate in 2005. That was in primetime, on a Tuesday.
At most, one in six British Columbians watched even part of this year's debate.
Yet over a few days, based on media coverage and what people are saying at work or the playground, a sense will emerge of how did well, and who stumbled.
A few minutes after the debate, I'm thinking the Liberals should be nervous about how that consensus will shake out.
Gordon Campbell sounded a little defensive and, I have to say, looked a little crazy.
That's only partly his fault. The set, out of a high school TV station, had a black backdrop that left his head and white shirt floating like a low-budget special effect.
The format was tough for the party in power. The debate was structured around videos of questions from people around the province. They were pointed.
And Carole James was focused in her response and skillful in posing questions that Campbell had a hard time answering.
Green Leader Jane Sterk didn't really seem that relevant - sort of a polite heckler, offering occasional insights that would appeal to most rational voters, except for the reality that no Green candidate had a chance of being elected.
Campbell's pitch seemed to be that we face scary times ahead and he's the best person to have in charge. "I know British Columbians are worried," he said. "But we can get through this."
James doesn't have enough experience - especially business experience - to lead the province through a tough patch, Campbell suggested.
It's a little iffy as an argument, not least because Campbell has been a politician for the last 25 years. His business experience is dated.
James' pitch had two elements. The Liberals had a chance and had not delivered, she said, failing to invest in communities in the good time.
And she had a better sense of the problems faced by most British Columbians, James claimed. Her answers referred to people or groups she had met with and their struggles.
It was well done and fit nicely with poll results that indicated James is seen as more in touch with the priorities of average British Columbians.
The Liberals should have been in good shape heading toward the May 12 election. They have avoided big mistakes.
But it hasn't turned out that way. The latest poll suggests a close race.
And Campbell didn't win over undecided voters during the debate. He was stiff, defensive - a politician.
James was a politician, too, of course. But she appeared to understand the problems of ordinary people, whoever they are.
None of this matters for the committed Liberal or NDP voters.
But for a lot of people - those who are undecided, or the million-plus British Columbians who aren't likely to vote - the debate becomes part of the decision-making process.
That's not good for Campbell. James batted him around on several issues, from corruption to seniors care.
The leaders each got a chance to close out the debate.
Campbell talked about the economy and leadership. Jobs are at stake, he said. He looked worried.
James offered a plan for addressing five public policy issues, from taxes to education. She seemed positive.
Mostly, it seemed sad that this was the only debate of this long campaign.
Just 60 minutes, in a four-week campaign, to hear from the party leaders.
It's a strange way to choose a government and set the course for the province for the next four years.
Footnote: The most interesting point in the debate might have been about crime. Campbell and James talked about more police. Sterk talked about legalization of some drugs to talk the profits away from criminal gangs. She sounded sensible; they sounded delusional.
Beer and elections: Creating sorrows to drown
The campaign hoohaw about the price of beer should make you despair.
Private liquor stores are miffed at the NDP plan to roll back price breaks the Liberals have handed them in the last few years.
The bigger discounts cost taxpayers and enriched the well-connected private companies, who convinced the Liberals their profits weren't high enough. (You might try that - ask the store if it will cut prices for you because times a little tough.)
You can debate the largesse as a policy measure, but it's small potatoes in terms of election issues, unless you own a private liquor store.
Here's a primer. When the Liberals decided to allow private liquor stores in 2002, they said the operators could buy their stock at 10 per cent below the retail price in the province's liquor stores.
If a six-pack of beer sold for $10 in the government store, the private operator could buy it for $9 and mark it up to cover operating costs and leave a profit.
But the Liberals messed up the whole privatization effort. They told private operators the public stores would be closing.
Then - a little late, really - the government looked at the numbers. Closing the public stores would mean a big drop in government revenues, and thus higher taxes. There was no public advantage, just a big cost.
So the government reneged. That wasn't fair to the private operators, changing the rules after they had invested.
So to sweeten the deal, the government gave them a bigger discount - 12 per cent. For a store doing $2 million in sales, that meant an extra $40,000 a year in profits.
Not enough, said the stores. They kept lobbying and the next year got the discount raised to 13 per cent.
And, naturally enough, they kept lobbying - insider Patrick Kinsella was involved with one of the largest companies - and in 2007 John Les quietly gave the private stores another windfall. The discount jumped to 16 per cent.
There was no public benefit. Quite the opposite - every time the government increased the price break for private stores, it reduced its own revenues. And that means taxes had to go up.
And there was no economic case for the change. Stores weren't closing. In fact, in the year before the last gift, the number of private stores increased by 10 per cent and the leading company said it planned more expansion.
The government just offered a series of gifts to the private companies, at your expense. The discounts will mean more than $50 million a year transferred from government to a select group of private businesses.
The NDP, looking for revenue to support spending increases, said in its platform it would rescind the changes and take the discounts back to their original, 10-per-cent level. That would produce $155 million over three years, the party says.
Horrors, says the industry. The change would mean the companies would pay an extra 80 cents wholesale for a six pack of beer, which they would pass on to their customers. People seeking convenience would pay; the frugal would likely go to a government store.
The industry's bigger concern is the NDP plank to raise the minimum wage from $8 to $10. Most jobs in the private liquor business are minimum wage; the industry believes having to pay staff $10 an hour would add 15 to 20 per cent to its operating costs.
Wiping out the whole discount is probably unfair. The initial increase, in 2003, was reasonable compensation for the way the Liberals changed the rules of the game after some private companies had entered the industry.
But the following two price breaks were simply gifts from the government to a group of well-connected private companies (and political donors). At taxpayers' expense.
Footnote: Private liquor store expansion has increased the number of alcohol outlets from 786 in 2002 to 1,294 in 2008. A report last year from the province's chief health officer noted that the expansion of private outlets had identified as a factor in increasing addiction and problem and youth drinking.
Private liquor stores are miffed at the NDP plan to roll back price breaks the Liberals have handed them in the last few years.
The bigger discounts cost taxpayers and enriched the well-connected private companies, who convinced the Liberals their profits weren't high enough. (You might try that - ask the store if it will cut prices for you because times a little tough.)
You can debate the largesse as a policy measure, but it's small potatoes in terms of election issues, unless you own a private liquor store.
Here's a primer. When the Liberals decided to allow private liquor stores in 2002, they said the operators could buy their stock at 10 per cent below the retail price in the province's liquor stores.
If a six-pack of beer sold for $10 in the government store, the private operator could buy it for $9 and mark it up to cover operating costs and leave a profit.
But the Liberals messed up the whole privatization effort. They told private operators the public stores would be closing.
Then - a little late, really - the government looked at the numbers. Closing the public stores would mean a big drop in government revenues, and thus higher taxes. There was no public advantage, just a big cost.
So the government reneged. That wasn't fair to the private operators, changing the rules after they had invested.
So to sweeten the deal, the government gave them a bigger discount - 12 per cent. For a store doing $2 million in sales, that meant an extra $40,000 a year in profits.
Not enough, said the stores. They kept lobbying and the next year got the discount raised to 13 per cent.
And, naturally enough, they kept lobbying - insider Patrick Kinsella was involved with one of the largest companies - and in 2007 John Les quietly gave the private stores another windfall. The discount jumped to 16 per cent.
There was no public benefit. Quite the opposite - every time the government increased the price break for private stores, it reduced its own revenues. And that means taxes had to go up.
And there was no economic case for the change. Stores weren't closing. In fact, in the year before the last gift, the number of private stores increased by 10 per cent and the leading company said it planned more expansion.
The government just offered a series of gifts to the private companies, at your expense. The discounts will mean more than $50 million a year transferred from government to a select group of private businesses.
The NDP, looking for revenue to support spending increases, said in its platform it would rescind the changes and take the discounts back to their original, 10-per-cent level. That would produce $155 million over three years, the party says.
Horrors, says the industry. The change would mean the companies would pay an extra 80 cents wholesale for a six pack of beer, which they would pass on to their customers. People seeking convenience would pay; the frugal would likely go to a government store.
The industry's bigger concern is the NDP plank to raise the minimum wage from $8 to $10. Most jobs in the private liquor business are minimum wage; the industry believes having to pay staff $10 an hour would add 15 to 20 per cent to its operating costs.
Wiping out the whole discount is probably unfair. The initial increase, in 2003, was reasonable compensation for the way the Liberals changed the rules of the game after some private companies had entered the industry.
But the following two price breaks were simply gifts from the government to a group of well-connected private companies (and political donors). At taxpayers' expense.
Footnote: Private liquor store expansion has increased the number of alcohol outlets from 786 in 2002 to 1,294 in 2008. A report last year from the province's chief health officer noted that the expansion of private outlets had identified as a factor in increasing addiction and problem and youth drinking.
Friday, May 01, 2009
Where, and how much, will NDP, Liberals cut
We're sliding toward a fraudulent provincial election. And both the main political parties and their candidates are playing along.
Their plan appears to seek election with a bogus mandate and then do whatever they want.
Here's the nub. The Liberal budget in February called for two years of deficits. The New Democrats built their platform based on the budget projections. They project three years of deficits, due to some additional spending.
But the budget was way off and neither of the two main parties wants to admit it. So you're being asked to choose based on misinformation.
This is a big deal. The budget calls for a $495 million deficit this year and $245 million shortall next year before a return to balanced budgets.
It's a fantasy.
The budget is based on projections of 0.9 per cent reduction in the GDP in 2009 and 2.4 per cent growth in 2010. It assumed growth of one per cent last year.
But StatsCan just reported the B.C. economy shrank last year.
And two leading economists, both on the province's forecast council, said they now expect a sharper decline this year - perhaps 2.7 per cent.
The Finance Ministry reports on risks to the budget. Each one-point drop in economic growth chops $150 million to $250 million off the bottom line. So the new GDP forecast alone suggests the deficit will be some $320 million more than the budget projects.
That's conservative; the slowing economy hurts revenues in other areas and increases demand for services like welfare. Natural gas prices, for example, are far below the level the government projected in the budget, meaning a shortfall of of some $600 million.
Gordon Campbell says he won't allow the deficit to rise above the projected level. Meeting that target already required spending cuts in eight of 19 ministries. Most cuts are still being identified, though park and campground closures have already been announced.
The worsening economic results mean another $320 million in cuts from a new Liberal government.
Campbell hasn't specified how or where the cuts will come. Voters need to hear that, so they can make an informed choice. The Liberal plan already calls for 10 of 19 ministries to spend less in 2011 than they did in 2008, despite inflation and population increases.
If you believe that's realistic and won't hurt services you or family members rely on, no worries.
But it has been eight years since the Liberals promised to root out waste and unnecessary programs. You would think the services that have survived make a difference in peoples' lives.
Still, you know where Campbell stands.
That's not yet true for Carole James and the New Democrats. The NDP platform includes a fiscal plan and costs for its promises, though some numbers are questionable.
But it's still based on the Liberals' February budget and three-year-plan.
Since those numbers are wrong, James has three choices. Like Campbell, she could pledge to make whatever cuts are necessary to meet her budget targets - to manage by the numbers. She could raise taxes to come up with more revenue. Or the NDP could decide a couple of extra years of bigger deficits would be reasonable. The Harper Conservatives have, after all, decided that four years of deficits are needed.
With barely a week left in the campaign, voters aren't getting straight talk on what should be one of the must fundamental issues in the election campaign.
The deficit is certainly going to be much greater than the budget projected. The way in which the new government deals with it will have an impact on the lives of almost everyone.
Campbell has said he would cut, but not where.
James hasn't offered any clear idea how an NDP government would deal with a projected deficit greater than the one forecast in its platform.
Voters need answers, fast.
Footnote: The fiscal plan also abandoned the Liberals' past practice of including a healthy "forecast allowance" as a cushion against the unexpected. A post-election budget crisis is almost certain. The unknown is how the parties would respond.
Their plan appears to seek election with a bogus mandate and then do whatever they want.
Here's the nub. The Liberal budget in February called for two years of deficits. The New Democrats built their platform based on the budget projections. They project three years of deficits, due to some additional spending.
But the budget was way off and neither of the two main parties wants to admit it. So you're being asked to choose based on misinformation.
This is a big deal. The budget calls for a $495 million deficit this year and $245 million shortall next year before a return to balanced budgets.
It's a fantasy.
The budget is based on projections of 0.9 per cent reduction in the GDP in 2009 and 2.4 per cent growth in 2010. It assumed growth of one per cent last year.
But StatsCan just reported the B.C. economy shrank last year.
And two leading economists, both on the province's forecast council, said they now expect a sharper decline this year - perhaps 2.7 per cent.
The Finance Ministry reports on risks to the budget. Each one-point drop in economic growth chops $150 million to $250 million off the bottom line. So the new GDP forecast alone suggests the deficit will be some $320 million more than the budget projects.
That's conservative; the slowing economy hurts revenues in other areas and increases demand for services like welfare. Natural gas prices, for example, are far below the level the government projected in the budget, meaning a shortfall of of some $600 million.
Gordon Campbell says he won't allow the deficit to rise above the projected level. Meeting that target already required spending cuts in eight of 19 ministries. Most cuts are still being identified, though park and campground closures have already been announced.
The worsening economic results mean another $320 million in cuts from a new Liberal government.
Campbell hasn't specified how or where the cuts will come. Voters need to hear that, so they can make an informed choice. The Liberal plan already calls for 10 of 19 ministries to spend less in 2011 than they did in 2008, despite inflation and population increases.
If you believe that's realistic and won't hurt services you or family members rely on, no worries.
But it has been eight years since the Liberals promised to root out waste and unnecessary programs. You would think the services that have survived make a difference in peoples' lives.
Still, you know where Campbell stands.
That's not yet true for Carole James and the New Democrats. The NDP platform includes a fiscal plan and costs for its promises, though some numbers are questionable.
But it's still based on the Liberals' February budget and three-year-plan.
Since those numbers are wrong, James has three choices. Like Campbell, she could pledge to make whatever cuts are necessary to meet her budget targets - to manage by the numbers. She could raise taxes to come up with more revenue. Or the NDP could decide a couple of extra years of bigger deficits would be reasonable. The Harper Conservatives have, after all, decided that four years of deficits are needed.
With barely a week left in the campaign, voters aren't getting straight talk on what should be one of the must fundamental issues in the election campaign.
The deficit is certainly going to be much greater than the budget projected. The way in which the new government deals with it will have an impact on the lives of almost everyone.
Campbell has said he would cut, but not where.
James hasn't offered any clear idea how an NDP government would deal with a projected deficit greater than the one forecast in its platform.
Voters need answers, fast.
Footnote: The fiscal plan also abandoned the Liberals' past practice of including a healthy "forecast allowance" as a cushion against the unexpected. A post-election budget crisis is almost certain. The unknown is how the parties would respond.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
One poll, and things different and a little strange
It's time to start paying attention to the election campaign.
The Angus Reid Strategies poll released this week raised a bunch of interesting issues beyond the headline news of a tie between the Liberals and the NDP.
That's significant, of course. The poll found the Liberals have the support of 42 per cent of decided voters; the New Democrats 39 per cent; and the Greens 13 per cent.
Given the margin of error, that's pretty much a dead heat, with the May 12 vote coming fast.
People will spin the results. But Angus Reid has a good track record; the company's predictions in last year's federal election, for example, were extremely accurate.
So it's likely the parties are a lot closer than an earlier Mustel. It showed the Liberals 17 points ahead.
Good news for Carole James, obviously. The media perception was that the NDP campaign had been slow to launch and challenged by environmentalists' attacks over the party's opposition to the carbon tax.
But the poll results tell a different story. When the pollster asked about the tax, 30 per cent of respondents said it had moderately or severely affected their household finances; 62 per cent said it had made them less likely to vote Liberal.
The responses don't make much sense. The tax impact so far is minor and offset by other cuts. And the tax makes policy sense. But people don't like it.
Which leads to one of the interesting issues raised by the poll. Green support is at 13 per cent of decided voters, up four points from its actual support in 2005. But the poll found less than one-third of the Green support this time was definitely committed to the party. Angus Reid Strategies analysis predicts a shift of Green support to the NDP, but the carbon tax issue could be a barrier. The Liberals' problem is that attacking the NDP over the carbon tax might win Green support, but alienate other voters.
The poll has some encouraging news for the Liberals too.
Voters don't like or respect the performance of either Campbell or James. But 40 per cent of British Columbians think the Liberal leader would be the best premier, compared with 23 per cent who prefer James.
The findings on the most important issue facing B.C. are also good news for the Liberals. Some 34 per cent of respondents picked the economy. And Campbell got much higher ratings for being able to deal with that issue. (He also did somewhat better on crime.)
Both leaders should be chastened by the polls. Only 29 per cent of those surveyed thought Campbell inspired confidence; 19 per cent said James inspired confidence.
Campbell scored the biggest lead in the areas of strength and decisiveness and the worst ratings for honesty and trustworthiness. James' best relative grades were for understanding the problems of B.C. residents and being in sync with them on the issues.
Assuming the parties' private polls are producing similar results, the strategists should be having conniptions.
Should James try and emphasize competent management of the economy? Or play to her existing strength as someone who relates to average people?
Does Campbell keep attacking the NDP on economic issues, or show more concern for the needs of British Columbians?
It's interesting that what you could call government responsibility issues - health, poverty, homelessness, education and the like - rival the economy issue if taken together.
The poll also suggests a regional divide. Liberal support is softening in the North and Interior and fading on Vancouver Island (Pat Bell and Shirley Bond both might be in trouble, the pollster suggests).
But the Campbell party still has a 43 to 37 lead in Vancouver and its suburbs.
What it all means is that you should pay attention for the next 10 days and vote - unless you truly don't care which party governs for the next four years.
Footnote: You can review the results at here.
You should; it's both fascinating and an interesting chance to compare the data and the media coverage and make your own guesses at what it all means.
The Angus Reid Strategies poll released this week raised a bunch of interesting issues beyond the headline news of a tie between the Liberals and the NDP.
That's significant, of course. The poll found the Liberals have the support of 42 per cent of decided voters; the New Democrats 39 per cent; and the Greens 13 per cent.
Given the margin of error, that's pretty much a dead heat, with the May 12 vote coming fast.
People will spin the results. But Angus Reid has a good track record; the company's predictions in last year's federal election, for example, were extremely accurate.
So it's likely the parties are a lot closer than an earlier Mustel. It showed the Liberals 17 points ahead.
Good news for Carole James, obviously. The media perception was that the NDP campaign had been slow to launch and challenged by environmentalists' attacks over the party's opposition to the carbon tax.
But the poll results tell a different story. When the pollster asked about the tax, 30 per cent of respondents said it had moderately or severely affected their household finances; 62 per cent said it had made them less likely to vote Liberal.
The responses don't make much sense. The tax impact so far is minor and offset by other cuts. And the tax makes policy sense. But people don't like it.
Which leads to one of the interesting issues raised by the poll. Green support is at 13 per cent of decided voters, up four points from its actual support in 2005. But the poll found less than one-third of the Green support this time was definitely committed to the party. Angus Reid Strategies analysis predicts a shift of Green support to the NDP, but the carbon tax issue could be a barrier. The Liberals' problem is that attacking the NDP over the carbon tax might win Green support, but alienate other voters.
The poll has some encouraging news for the Liberals too.
Voters don't like or respect the performance of either Campbell or James. But 40 per cent of British Columbians think the Liberal leader would be the best premier, compared with 23 per cent who prefer James.
The findings on the most important issue facing B.C. are also good news for the Liberals. Some 34 per cent of respondents picked the economy. And Campbell got much higher ratings for being able to deal with that issue. (He also did somewhat better on crime.)
Both leaders should be chastened by the polls. Only 29 per cent of those surveyed thought Campbell inspired confidence; 19 per cent said James inspired confidence.
Campbell scored the biggest lead in the areas of strength and decisiveness and the worst ratings for honesty and trustworthiness. James' best relative grades were for understanding the problems of B.C. residents and being in sync with them on the issues.
Assuming the parties' private polls are producing similar results, the strategists should be having conniptions.
Should James try and emphasize competent management of the economy? Or play to her existing strength as someone who relates to average people?
Does Campbell keep attacking the NDP on economic issues, or show more concern for the needs of British Columbians?
It's interesting that what you could call government responsibility issues - health, poverty, homelessness, education and the like - rival the economy issue if taken together.
The poll also suggests a regional divide. Liberal support is softening in the North and Interior and fading on Vancouver Island (Pat Bell and Shirley Bond both might be in trouble, the pollster suggests).
But the Campbell party still has a 43 to 37 lead in Vancouver and its suburbs.
What it all means is that you should pay attention for the next 10 days and vote - unless you truly don't care which party governs for the next four years.
Footnote: You can review the results at here.
You should; it's both fascinating and an interesting chance to compare the data and the media coverage and make your own guesses at what it all means.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Speeding, parks and post-election deep cuts
In one sense, the John van Dongen speeding scandal is a sideshow, a distraction from bigger issues.
But it was also telling, especially in light of two other campaign developments breaking at the time.
Van Dongen, who has never struck me as a wild man, turns out to be the kind of driver who makes highways more dangerous. His record was so bad that the superintendent of motor vehicles issued a four-month licence suspension.
That's bad for any politician, but especially for the solicitor general, responsible for both ICBC and road safety.
Van Dongen had promised to get tough on unsafe driving. "There is no excuse for racing or speeding." He said. "People who engage in behaviours like these can expect to face some of the most severe penalties and fines in Canada."
But when he got caught, van Dongen did offer excuses - he was busy and sometimes drove too fast, he said.
Gordon Campbell offered excuses too. The important thing, he said, was that van Dongen had acknowledged his mistake publicly.
Sort of. Van Dongen lost his licence a week before he told the premier. Only then was responsibility for road safety and ICBC taken from him. He initially would not say how many tickets he had received.
And Campbell said he wouldn't ask van Dongen to step down from cabinet. (He obviously has a problem in all this. If the premier doesn't have to step down for drunk driving, why should cabinet ministers who lose their licences for speeding?)
After a weekend of criticism - especially from the families of people killed by drunk driving - van Dongen did the right thing and resigned from cabinet.
It was wrong, by his standards, to stay, he said. (He also acknowledged nine speeding tickets in five years, including two for being way over the limit.)
Campbell apparently has lower standards.
Carole James, after two weeks of sputtering campaigning, seized on the premier's position as an example of arrogance, lack of transparency and hypocrisy. (Campbell had called for an NDP candidate to drop out of the race after he posted some stupid pictures on his Facebook page; the man did.)
Which leads to the two other developments. The news that the government is planning to close provincial campgrounds this summer and lay off park wardens to cut spending.
And a Statistics Canada report that, rather than growing as the government expected, B.C.'s GDP actually declined last year by 0.3 per cent, the first decline in 25 years. Only Ontario fared worse in 2008.
The campground closures and job cuts, according to Environment Minister Barry Penner, are to reduce spending. The Environment Ministry is among eight of 20 ministries to face budget cuts next year,
By 2011, the last year in the three-year plan, the Liberals are projecting that half the ministries - 10 - will have budgets lower than they had last year, despite inflation and population increases.
That reflects the Liberals' pledge to run small deficits for two years before returning to balanced budgets. Campbell has also pledged during the campaign to stick to the deficits forecast in the budget.
That leads to the StatsCan growth figures. The budget is based on growth of one per cent last year and a decline of 0.9 per cent in 2009.
The 2008 number is apparently wrong, off by 1.3 per cent. The 2009 number is suspect.
And lower growth means lower government revenues - about $150 million to $250 million for each percentage point.
Which would leave a returning government, given Campbell's commitment, with no alternative but even more cuts.
If the government is willing to cut family camping opportunities and lay off park wardens at a time when employment is an issue, what lies ahead?
And if accountability on issues like speeding cabinet ministers is a low priority for Campbell, then the public might worry about accountability on bigger issues after the election.
Footnote: The New Democrats also need to come up with answers. Their fiscal plan is based on the Liberal budget. If the budget has inflated revenues, the party needs to say how it will address the issue - spending cuts, more taxes or bigger deficits. The NDP now proposes three deficit years as opposed to the Liberals' two.
But it was also telling, especially in light of two other campaign developments breaking at the time.
Van Dongen, who has never struck me as a wild man, turns out to be the kind of driver who makes highways more dangerous. His record was so bad that the superintendent of motor vehicles issued a four-month licence suspension.
That's bad for any politician, but especially for the solicitor general, responsible for both ICBC and road safety.
Van Dongen had promised to get tough on unsafe driving. "There is no excuse for racing or speeding." He said. "People who engage in behaviours like these can expect to face some of the most severe penalties and fines in Canada."
But when he got caught, van Dongen did offer excuses - he was busy and sometimes drove too fast, he said.
Gordon Campbell offered excuses too. The important thing, he said, was that van Dongen had acknowledged his mistake publicly.
Sort of. Van Dongen lost his licence a week before he told the premier. Only then was responsibility for road safety and ICBC taken from him. He initially would not say how many tickets he had received.
And Campbell said he wouldn't ask van Dongen to step down from cabinet. (He obviously has a problem in all this. If the premier doesn't have to step down for drunk driving, why should cabinet ministers who lose their licences for speeding?)
After a weekend of criticism - especially from the families of people killed by drunk driving - van Dongen did the right thing and resigned from cabinet.
It was wrong, by his standards, to stay, he said. (He also acknowledged nine speeding tickets in five years, including two for being way over the limit.)
Campbell apparently has lower standards.
Carole James, after two weeks of sputtering campaigning, seized on the premier's position as an example of arrogance, lack of transparency and hypocrisy. (Campbell had called for an NDP candidate to drop out of the race after he posted some stupid pictures on his Facebook page; the man did.)
Which leads to the two other developments. The news that the government is planning to close provincial campgrounds this summer and lay off park wardens to cut spending.
And a Statistics Canada report that, rather than growing as the government expected, B.C.'s GDP actually declined last year by 0.3 per cent, the first decline in 25 years. Only Ontario fared worse in 2008.
The campground closures and job cuts, according to Environment Minister Barry Penner, are to reduce spending. The Environment Ministry is among eight of 20 ministries to face budget cuts next year,
By 2011, the last year in the three-year plan, the Liberals are projecting that half the ministries - 10 - will have budgets lower than they had last year, despite inflation and population increases.
That reflects the Liberals' pledge to run small deficits for two years before returning to balanced budgets. Campbell has also pledged during the campaign to stick to the deficits forecast in the budget.
That leads to the StatsCan growth figures. The budget is based on growth of one per cent last year and a decline of 0.9 per cent in 2009.
The 2008 number is apparently wrong, off by 1.3 per cent. The 2009 number is suspect.
And lower growth means lower government revenues - about $150 million to $250 million for each percentage point.
Which would leave a returning government, given Campbell's commitment, with no alternative but even more cuts.
If the government is willing to cut family camping opportunities and lay off park wardens at a time when employment is an issue, what lies ahead?
And if accountability on issues like speeding cabinet ministers is a low priority for Campbell, then the public might worry about accountability on bigger issues after the election.
Footnote: The New Democrats also need to come up with answers. Their fiscal plan is based on the Liberal budget. If the budget has inflated revenues, the party needs to say how it will address the issue - spending cuts, more taxes or bigger deficits. The NDP now proposes three deficit years as opposed to the Liberals' two.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Cuts are coming - how deep, and where?
Columnist Dave Obee has an interesting- and accurate - piece in the Times Colonist warning that given the wild optimism of the February fiscal plan big cuts are coming in government after the election. Worth reading here.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Van Dongen's bad driving
Four thoughts.
1) Why did John van Dongen wait a week before revealing his licence suspension to the premier and what does that say about his understanding of the seriousness of the suspension? (Though based on the many times he has condemned speeders - see Vaughn Palmer's column - van Dongen should be aware.)
2) Gordon Campbell's record continues to have an impact. He can't ask van Dongen to step down from cabinet for speeding when he kept the top job after driving drunk.
3) But, back in 1993 when Moe Sihota was racking up speeding tickets, the Liberals saw things differently. Gary Collins said Sihota should be out of cabinet (though the driving record was just one of the reasons he offered).
4) The Liberals also pressed Sihota to release his full driving record, which - after some misleading answers - he did. Van Dongen is refusing, a mistake which should give the issue a few extra days attention.
4) The suspension puts van Dongen in a small group of bad drivers. Out of 3.1 million drivers in B.C., only 25,000 a year lose their licences for speeding and other offences.
1) Why did John van Dongen wait a week before revealing his licence suspension to the premier and what does that say about his understanding of the seriousness of the suspension? (Though based on the many times he has condemned speeders - see Vaughn Palmer's column - van Dongen should be aware.)
2) Gordon Campbell's record continues to have an impact. He can't ask van Dongen to step down from cabinet for speeding when he kept the top job after driving drunk.
3) But, back in 1993 when Moe Sihota was racking up speeding tickets, the Liberals saw things differently. Gary Collins said Sihota should be out of cabinet (though the driving record was just one of the reasons he offered).
4) The Liberals also pressed Sihota to release his full driving record, which - after some misleading answers - he did. Van Dongen is refusing, a mistake which should give the issue a few extra days attention.
4) The suspension puts van Dongen in a small group of bad drivers. Out of 3.1 million drivers in B.C., only 25,000 a year lose their licences for speeding and other offences.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Residential care for seniors should be big issue
Eight years in power, and the Liberals are still fumbling the issue of residential care for seniors. The Liberal New Era campaign pledge in 2001 was clear - an additional 5,000 new intermediate and long-term care beds by 2006. It was an important promise. When the time comes that you, or your parents, can't live independently, you want desperately to have residential care available, close to friends and family. That was far from certain when the Liberals took over, because there just weren't enough spaces.
In less than a year, the Liberals started backtracking on the promise. The numbers shifted, but the promised 5,000 beds turned into some 1,000 intermediate and long-term care beds and some additional supports for seniors.
Even that was fuzzy and the government couldn't say how many beds were actually needed.
I went through a couple of months of work in late 2004 and 2005 to try and find out how many beds had been added. (The government had already rewritten its plan to allow an extra two years to deliver the 5,000 beds or spaces or whatever.)
After leaping through an array of bureaucratic obstacles I finally established that across the whole province, by the health authorities own count, had added 100 long-term care beds in about four years. The seniors' population had increased by eight per cent in the same period. The Liberals now claim they have delivered on the promise. But Health Minister George Abbott confirmed this week that there were in fact only 800 more residential care beds than there were in 2001. The increase has come in assisted living spaces, which are certainly needed. But by the Health Ministry's own definition, those are not residential care beds, as promised. So if the Liberals were correct and there were 5,000 too few beds seven years ago, the problem has certainly worsened. One of the striking things in the whole eight years of confusion is the lack of the most basic information - like how many beds are actually needed. The promises have been plucked from the air. There are some useful measures. One is wait times, which continue to be a problem.
The Liberal campaign claims waits have fallen from one year under the former government to 15 to 90 days. But the one-year number was based on a previous system, in which people put their names on waiting lists long before they needed care. Waits of three months are too long. People waiting for residential care are often unable to remain in their homes for a wait of two to 13 weeks. In many cases, they simply cannot care for themselves.
Until that wait is over, they are likely to be sent to hospital bed. That's extremely expensive. It is bad for the seniors, confined in a strange environment. And it means surgeries are cancelled and people wait in emergency rooms because acute care beds aren't available. In 2001, some 15 per cent of acute care beds were tied up inappropriately in this way. The problem remains at similar levels. The Liberal platform promises 1,000 new homes for "seniors and persons with disabilities" in the next year. The health budget does not provide for any significant increase in care beyond current levels. The NDP platform goes farther, promising to re-open 300 beds in closed facilities and adding 3,000 beds to fill the gap. The New Democrats are pledging $275 million over three years, plus $210 million in capital spending - an amount the Liberals say is inadequate. The New Democrats are also promising appointment of a Representative for Seniors to address their issues and report on progress. A similar commitment from the Liberals would be welcome; it is too easy for seniors and their issues to be forgotten. What's missing in all this is a clear, five-year plan for seniors' care. And that should make most British Columbians, whether they are older themselves or thinking about family members, quite uncomfortable.
In less than a year, the Liberals started backtracking on the promise. The numbers shifted, but the promised 5,000 beds turned into some 1,000 intermediate and long-term care beds and some additional supports for seniors.
Even that was fuzzy and the government couldn't say how many beds were actually needed.
I went through a couple of months of work in late 2004 and 2005 to try and find out how many beds had been added. (The government had already rewritten its plan to allow an extra two years to deliver the 5,000 beds or spaces or whatever.)
After leaping through an array of bureaucratic obstacles I finally established that across the whole province, by the health authorities own count, had added 100 long-term care beds in about four years. The seniors' population had increased by eight per cent in the same period. The Liberals now claim they have delivered on the promise. But Health Minister George Abbott confirmed this week that there were in fact only 800 more residential care beds than there were in 2001. The increase has come in assisted living spaces, which are certainly needed. But by the Health Ministry's own definition, those are not residential care beds, as promised. So if the Liberals were correct and there were 5,000 too few beds seven years ago, the problem has certainly worsened. One of the striking things in the whole eight years of confusion is the lack of the most basic information - like how many beds are actually needed. The promises have been plucked from the air. There are some useful measures. One is wait times, which continue to be a problem.
The Liberal campaign claims waits have fallen from one year under the former government to 15 to 90 days. But the one-year number was based on a previous system, in which people put their names on waiting lists long before they needed care. Waits of three months are too long. People waiting for residential care are often unable to remain in their homes for a wait of two to 13 weeks. In many cases, they simply cannot care for themselves.
Until that wait is over, they are likely to be sent to hospital bed. That's extremely expensive. It is bad for the seniors, confined in a strange environment. And it means surgeries are cancelled and people wait in emergency rooms because acute care beds aren't available. In 2001, some 15 per cent of acute care beds were tied up inappropriately in this way. The problem remains at similar levels. The Liberal platform promises 1,000 new homes for "seniors and persons with disabilities" in the next year. The health budget does not provide for any significant increase in care beyond current levels. The NDP platform goes farther, promising to re-open 300 beds in closed facilities and adding 3,000 beds to fill the gap. The New Democrats are pledging $275 million over three years, plus $210 million in capital spending - an amount the Liberals say is inadequate. The New Democrats are also promising appointment of a Representative for Seniors to address their issues and report on progress. A similar commitment from the Liberals would be welcome; it is too easy for seniors and their issues to be forgotten. What's missing in all this is a clear, five-year plan for seniors' care. And that should make most British Columbians, whether they are older themselves or thinking about family members, quite uncomfortable.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Comparing the Liberal and NDP platforms
Plow through the Liberal and NDP platforms and you will find a surprising amount in common.
For starters, both agree the other guys are incompetent.
And at least based on their platforms, both parties would be cautious and steady. But an issue for both Gordon Campbell and Carole James is whether they can be trusted to deliver.
There are differences. The campaign's opening days were dominated by the New Democrat's promise to abolish the Liberals' carbon tax. A lot of environmentalists, who might have considered themselves NDP voters, are troubled by the pledge.
Rightly. The tax isn't perfect, but it is sound policy. A tax on fossil fuels will reduce use and curb greenhouse gas emissions. Both parties support that goal.
The New Democrats have also pledged to raise the minimum wage, from $8 - soon to be tied for the lowest in Canada - to $10. The increase is significant. But the Campbell government hasn't raised the minimum once in the last eight years (while raising MLAs' pay by 35 per cent). It comes across as at best indifference.
The Liberals' platform basically promises to keep on the same course.
That's as it should be. A governing party that pulls out a whole of whack of new initiatives for an election campaign is negligent. If they were good programs, they should have been introduced already.
So the Liberal platform talks about the importance of a stable, tested government. It promises to follow through with infrastructure spending and curb government spending - 11 of 20 ministries face budget cuts.
Health gets a significant increase, but that's about it.
The focus is on tailoring spending to fit the money coming into government. Two deficits and then back to a balanced budget - that's the law.
And it's a worry. The budget introduced last February is optimistic about government revenue.
That should make voters wonder about the Liberals' priorities. Are balanced budgets within two years more important than maintaining vital public services? (Even Stephen Harper thinks four years of deficits are needed federally.)
Put another way, will this be the Grinch-like Liberals of the first term, or the genial Campbell of the second?
The platform does offer some new measures. Proposals for kindergarten for three- and four-year-olds have been shelved, although the Liberals have committed to bring in optional full-day kindergarten for five-year-olds. A school curriculum review and greater emphasis on personal health and financial planning are promised.
The Liberals promise more community courts and money to fly offenders back to other provinces to face outstanding warrants.
But largely, this is a platform based on tightening belts and shrinking government.
The New Democrats' platform offers more new initiatives. It promises four new specialized day surgery centres, 300 additional addiction and mental health treatment spaces and 3,000 new long-term care beds for seniors.
The NDP also commits to a five-year plan to end the homelessness crisis, with budgets and timelines and targets, including 2,400 new social housing units in the first year.
It pledges to sharply limit raw log exports, take a hard look at run-of-river power projects and force aquaculture operations to shift to closed containment systems. All the measures carry some economic risks.
And the party proposes fixing the lobbyist legislation, establishing a Community and Jobs Protection Commissioner and a Seniors Advocate.
The proposals are all costed; the result, says the platform, would be three years of deficits before returning to balanced budgets.
A problem for both parties is that the budget starting point is the three-year plan the Liberals presented in February. That was optimistic about revenues and stingy in spending projections.
Which leads back to the credibility question. If tough times continue, would the Liberals choose to slash services over of running deficits? Would the NDP stick with a moderate course, or spend freely despite an increasing debt.
The platforms are useful guides, but far frm binding.
Footnote: The platforms are available online - see bcliberals.com, bcndp.ca and greenparty.bc.ca. The Green platform, in my view, is interesting but of little real relevance. The party's chances of electing an MLA are slim, especially under the current electoral system. Green supporters would best use their time supporting the STV campaign.
For starters, both agree the other guys are incompetent.
And at least based on their platforms, both parties would be cautious and steady. But an issue for both Gordon Campbell and Carole James is whether they can be trusted to deliver.
There are differences. The campaign's opening days were dominated by the New Democrat's promise to abolish the Liberals' carbon tax. A lot of environmentalists, who might have considered themselves NDP voters, are troubled by the pledge.
Rightly. The tax isn't perfect, but it is sound policy. A tax on fossil fuels will reduce use and curb greenhouse gas emissions. Both parties support that goal.
The New Democrats have also pledged to raise the minimum wage, from $8 - soon to be tied for the lowest in Canada - to $10. The increase is significant. But the Campbell government hasn't raised the minimum once in the last eight years (while raising MLAs' pay by 35 per cent). It comes across as at best indifference.
The Liberals' platform basically promises to keep on the same course.
That's as it should be. A governing party that pulls out a whole of whack of new initiatives for an election campaign is negligent. If they were good programs, they should have been introduced already.
So the Liberal platform talks about the importance of a stable, tested government. It promises to follow through with infrastructure spending and curb government spending - 11 of 20 ministries face budget cuts.
Health gets a significant increase, but that's about it.
The focus is on tailoring spending to fit the money coming into government. Two deficits and then back to a balanced budget - that's the law.
And it's a worry. The budget introduced last February is optimistic about government revenue.
That should make voters wonder about the Liberals' priorities. Are balanced budgets within two years more important than maintaining vital public services? (Even Stephen Harper thinks four years of deficits are needed federally.)
Put another way, will this be the Grinch-like Liberals of the first term, or the genial Campbell of the second?
The platform does offer some new measures. Proposals for kindergarten for three- and four-year-olds have been shelved, although the Liberals have committed to bring in optional full-day kindergarten for five-year-olds. A school curriculum review and greater emphasis on personal health and financial planning are promised.
The Liberals promise more community courts and money to fly offenders back to other provinces to face outstanding warrants.
But largely, this is a platform based on tightening belts and shrinking government.
The New Democrats' platform offers more new initiatives. It promises four new specialized day surgery centres, 300 additional addiction and mental health treatment spaces and 3,000 new long-term care beds for seniors.
The NDP also commits to a five-year plan to end the homelessness crisis, with budgets and timelines and targets, including 2,400 new social housing units in the first year.
It pledges to sharply limit raw log exports, take a hard look at run-of-river power projects and force aquaculture operations to shift to closed containment systems. All the measures carry some economic risks.
And the party proposes fixing the lobbyist legislation, establishing a Community and Jobs Protection Commissioner and a Seniors Advocate.
The proposals are all costed; the result, says the platform, would be three years of deficits before returning to balanced budgets.
A problem for both parties is that the budget starting point is the three-year plan the Liberals presented in February. That was optimistic about revenues and stingy in spending projections.
Which leads back to the credibility question. If tough times continue, would the Liberals choose to slash services over of running deficits? Would the NDP stick with a moderate course, or spend freely despite an increasing debt.
The platforms are useful guides, but far frm binding.
Footnote: The platforms are available online - see bcliberals.com, bcndp.ca and greenparty.bc.ca. The Green platform, in my view, is interesting but of little real relevance. The party's chances of electing an MLA are slim, especially under the current electoral system. Green supporters would best use their time supporting the STV campaign.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Test drive STV for your area
I can't imagine why anyone wouldn't vote yes in the electoral reform referendum and try an alternative to the current system which has served us so dismally. Sure, the single transferable vote system isn't perfect, but look at the way we elect governments and our representatives now. It's an abomination.
I'll write about it, but meanwhile this site lets you vote under the system, based on the party's candidates and the proposed boundaries. It's a great way to explore the real impact.
I'll write about it, but meanwhile this site lets you vote under the system, based on the party's candidates and the proposed boundaries. It's a great way to explore the real impact.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Friday, April 17, 2009
A look at the Liberal platform
A useful Victoria Times Colonist editorial today on the Liberal platform.
On election day, will you be a happy sheep?
Barely back from a 2,800-mile road trip, and I was greeted by the first election signs.
And my heart sank.
That’s bad. We should look forward to a chance to choose our representatives. Journalists should be eager to write about the campaign.
But I was discouraged. Partly, it was because of my travels down to California, mostly through small towns. Things are bad in most of those communities — homes lost, industries and stores closing and social infrastructure crumbling. And I was struck again by the friendly, helpful, open nature of most Americans, and how they seem unable to elect governments that reflect those qualities.
Partly because this election already looks to be fearful, rather than hopeful. Many undecided voters seem focused on deciding which party is less likely to make big mistakes in government. There’s not a lot of interest in big ideas for a better B.C.
But you can, and should, rise above all that. Elections matter. There are differences between the parties that will affect your life over the next four years, and your children’s lives for decades. You can’t claim to care about community or family or the future and not vote.
In 2005, slightly more than three million British Columbians were eligible to vote. Yet 1.3 million didn’t. For most, there was no good reason.
Extreme ideologues of the right, left or whatever will claim the parties are all the same. That’s simply false.
Some people claim their votes don’t matter. But at least seven races were decided in 2005 by margins narrow enough that even a modestly increased turnout might have changed the outcome — and perhaps resulted in a different government.
And some non-voters don’t feel well-enough informed and are willing to leave the choice up to others. But the best decisions are made by diverse groups. (James Surowiecki’s The Wisdom of Crowds is brilliant on the subject.) If one group is not represented at the polls, neither is their judgment based on experience and lessons learned.
Becoming informed isn’t difficult. The media will report on local and provincial campaigns.
There are other great resources. The party websites — bcliberals.com, bcndp.ca and greenparty.bc.ca — let you review their positions.
Most media organizations, including online publications such as thetyee.ca, have election areas within their websites with more information, columns and blogs.
And sites like the Election Prediction Project, at electionprediction.org, offer online discussions of the issues and outlook for each riding.
That’s important. Sometimes, it makes sense to focus on the candidates, not the parties. A great person, committed to a community, can be a valuable addition to the legislature on either side of the house.
The task of deciding how to vote can be simplified. Many people don’t need to analyze the entire platforms. If you’re an unemployed coastal forest worker, look at policies on the industry, economic development and retraining. If you are aging, consider voting based on policies on health care and support for seniors.
And get a sense of whether the promises are credible and affordable.
All parties work to identify supporters and mount a big election day effort to ensure they actually vote. Often, that effort determines the outcome in ridings.
That effort is also a reminder of how much your vote could matter.
It’s often a messy and uncertain, this democracy business. Each election day remains a test. Are we a people who take our best shot at electing a government that will serve our interests?
Or are we sheep, willing to be led wherever others decide?
Footnote: The other big reason to vote this time is the referendum on fixing our broken electoral system. British Columbians have a chance to say yes to a single-transferable-vote system that will be more representative and encourage MLAs to pay attention their constituents, not the party.
And my heart sank.
That’s bad. We should look forward to a chance to choose our representatives. Journalists should be eager to write about the campaign.
But I was discouraged. Partly, it was because of my travels down to California, mostly through small towns. Things are bad in most of those communities — homes lost, industries and stores closing and social infrastructure crumbling. And I was struck again by the friendly, helpful, open nature of most Americans, and how they seem unable to elect governments that reflect those qualities.
Partly because this election already looks to be fearful, rather than hopeful. Many undecided voters seem focused on deciding which party is less likely to make big mistakes in government. There’s not a lot of interest in big ideas for a better B.C.
But you can, and should, rise above all that. Elections matter. There are differences between the parties that will affect your life over the next four years, and your children’s lives for decades. You can’t claim to care about community or family or the future and not vote.
In 2005, slightly more than three million British Columbians were eligible to vote. Yet 1.3 million didn’t. For most, there was no good reason.
Extreme ideologues of the right, left or whatever will claim the parties are all the same. That’s simply false.
Some people claim their votes don’t matter. But at least seven races were decided in 2005 by margins narrow enough that even a modestly increased turnout might have changed the outcome — and perhaps resulted in a different government.
And some non-voters don’t feel well-enough informed and are willing to leave the choice up to others. But the best decisions are made by diverse groups. (James Surowiecki’s The Wisdom of Crowds is brilliant on the subject.) If one group is not represented at the polls, neither is their judgment based on experience and lessons learned.
Becoming informed isn’t difficult. The media will report on local and provincial campaigns.
There are other great resources. The party websites — bcliberals.com, bcndp.ca and greenparty.bc.ca — let you review their positions.
Most media organizations, including online publications such as thetyee.ca, have election areas within their websites with more information, columns and blogs.
And sites like the Election Prediction Project, at electionprediction.org, offer online discussions of the issues and outlook for each riding.
That’s important. Sometimes, it makes sense to focus on the candidates, not the parties. A great person, committed to a community, can be a valuable addition to the legislature on either side of the house.
The task of deciding how to vote can be simplified. Many people don’t need to analyze the entire platforms. If you’re an unemployed coastal forest worker, look at policies on the industry, economic development and retraining. If you are aging, consider voting based on policies on health care and support for seniors.
And get a sense of whether the promises are credible and affordable.
All parties work to identify supporters and mount a big election day effort to ensure they actually vote. Often, that effort determines the outcome in ridings.
That effort is also a reminder of how much your vote could matter.
It’s often a messy and uncertain, this democracy business. Each election day remains a test. Are we a people who take our best shot at electing a government that will serve our interests?
Or are we sheep, willing to be led wherever others decide?
Footnote: The other big reason to vote this time is the referendum on fixing our broken electoral system. British Columbians have a chance to say yes to a single-transferable-vote system that will be more representative and encourage MLAs to pay attention their constituents, not the party.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Camped in a casino RV lot...
And one day from home after a great road trip to Yosemite and Death Valley and many great points along the way. Struck, as always, by the consistent kindness, openness and generosity of individual Americans despite their political inability to develop policies that deal with real problems or elect governments that reflect their own values.
And also struck by how huge the unfolding economic/political crisis is down here and how the bottom does not seem to be in sight. The slowdown in Canada - so far - is insignificant compared to the crisis in the U.S. Every local paper had stories about layoffs and big numbers of ads for foreclosed homes. School districts are slashing spending and municipalities are on the edge of bankruptcy. In California City, a high desert town, a guy tinkering outside the RV he lived in predicted the Depression would mean the people living in $700,000 homes would be moving out to $7,000 desert lots and see how the poor people live.
It's not the Thirties, but it's worse than I expected watching from Victoria.
Plunging into paying attention to the B.C. election campaign, and hoping the parties will have something to say about how all this will affect the province.
And also struck by how huge the unfolding economic/political crisis is down here and how the bottom does not seem to be in sight. The slowdown in Canada - so far - is insignificant compared to the crisis in the U.S. Every local paper had stories about layoffs and big numbers of ads for foreclosed homes. School districts are slashing spending and municipalities are on the edge of bankruptcy. In California City, a high desert town, a guy tinkering outside the RV he lived in predicted the Depression would mean the people living in $700,000 homes would be moving out to $7,000 desert lots and see how the poor people live.
It's not the Thirties, but it's worse than I expected watching from Victoria.
Plunging into paying attention to the B.C. election campaign, and hoping the parties will have something to say about how all this will affect the province.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
