I would vote first time ever for NDP if...

[KnowItAll]

they would put some kind of excessive tax on excessive cross boarder shopping to greatly reduce this activity, while putting more money into BC coffers to go towards helping those whose jobs are lost due to excessive cross boarder shopping.

Habitual cross boarder shoppers are among the most ignorant shortsighted and or selfish people ever to exist.

[Toppy Vann]

Don't worry. I think Washington states new .10 tax on gas might help that out.

I too agree that it is not a good thing for our consumers to shop down south as much as is done and that we should support local business. But cross border shopping is like the law that says we can go just 50 KPH on a major street in our region. Most know it is too low for good driving conditions and go over the limit just to keep cars off their tail even. Consumers today feel pinched and they are so feel justified as they are shouldering more and more costs than before shifted to them by govt.

The FEDs just opened the rules up so that we can bring more in now. I thought that timing was kind of dumb.

As to your question, I have crossed my traditional Liberal (always at Federal) to vote NDP in the last provincial election.

One of the criticisms from some former NDP heavyweights like John Fryer of Adrian Dix (posted in response to Facebook post of mine on a book on the first NDP gov't) is that Dix is not running like Dave Barrett did on any sort of grand vision or major platform. The truth though is Barrett and the NDP did not expect to win. In '72 they had $25 a year car insurance (postage stamp type) with no real plan for its implementation other than Sask and Man were models of public auto insurance and they won. They put this in the platform based on Justice Wootton's damning indictment of the auto insurers (he reported to WAC Bennett's gov't) who would only insure in the cities leaving over 30% of motorists with no car insurance

While times have changed and voters now have been trained US style (we copied them) to make elections about running against the other guy and making it as much as a blood sport as possible. Voters today vote their biases and studies in the USA show they will even vote their own interests as voters did when they first elected Gordon Campbell with his main promise to end photo radar and then he really put it to consumers and made users pay far more in an economy that hasn't paid them more.

Dix is running not to lose and not to make mistakes. He knows it will be hard to argue once elected that he didn't know how bad the province's finances were as he has been there. When Dix called a minister's - that minister did what he was told. I've been there. He was as powerful as any in that gov't including deputy to the Premier who was powerful - Tom Gunton.

I am not against Christy Clark though as I believe she is a good person, wants to do the right thing but is leading a team that has been in place too long and are burning out with few shining lights to keep it alive.

You get the feeling that despite so much animosity to the NDP (for real and imagined reasons) as voters cut the Liberals more slack that the Libs in power are the like the Socreds under Premier Bill Bennett and his dad WAC before him - they are running out of gas. Their message is not resonating as well.

Will we hear one reason to vote NDP? I doubt it as Dix is playing not to lose. The platform will not be at all radical and will deal with the usual - health care, consumers, elderly, poor - but will be hard pressed to back this up with any cash to spend.

[Sir Purrcival]

Or they could find a way to make goods purchased at home more attractive......

I used to be among those who decried cross border shopping. I don't any more. Although I usually restrict my trips and usually settle on just gas and a few groceries, I have reached my tolerance point on the taxes and fees we end up paying in this country. I don't mind paying for services but the ludicrous amounts we end up paying for some things is obscene. Paid any probate fees lately, or property transfer taxes, how is that new city assessment looking? My last years assessment was off the hook, my fees went up for city services even though the actual amount of services went down. I inherited a piece of property a while back. No sewer, water or electricity. None of the adjacent properties are occupied either. Didn't stop Surrey from putting in sidewalks, all while cutting off road access to my property and at the same time sending me a letter telling me that I now need to mow the boulevard on this unoccupied land, that I can't even drive onto. Land which gets no services from the city and which I pay 1000's for annually in city fees. Call me a negative Nelly but I don't appreciate being told that I have to haul a lawnmower out to Surrey to mow a strip of land when I pay tons of money to the city annually and get nothing in return.

So don't lecture those of us who try to save a bit of money here and there. I and many others pay plenty in the service of cities,provinces, and country. For those that don't like it, Well, lets just say, that I am not going to lose any sleep over the condemnation.

As for the NDP, I have voted for them before and the Libs too. I can tell you that despite the Libs, past history, if I was voting in one of my former ridings today, I would vote for them again because the NDP candidate is as unscrupulous as many of the Liberals that people are roasting today for misdeeds. People should vote for the best candidate, not one whose colour is this or that. People seem to spend far too little time finding out about candidates and far too much time hating on some who aren't even coming back. The Libs are done this time around and they have earned their fate. It doesn't mean that some of their candidates aren't good ones or shouldn't be elected. The last thing we want is a repeat of the NDP disaster where they got only 2 seats. That wasn't helpful at all. And Toppy, you are right, Dix is basically saying little of anything because he knows it is his election to lose. I for one welcome the NDP this time around. It is good once in a while to see how they have to deal with the Unions who will expect much for their support. We will hear the invariable, "we didn't have the books to see how bad things were". Talk is cheap when in opposition because you know you never have to make good on anything you say. It is always nice to see things when the shoe is on the other foot. But recall this is also the same party that not so long ago turned on each other right before the provincial election. That was a bitter and viscous affair and many of those people are still around. So just how much better they will be as gov. remains to be seen. I predict, much better for a time but that eventually they will slide downhill just as their predecessors have. Seems to be the nature of the beast.

[TheLionKing]

I have no problems crossing the 49th parallel if I can save a few bucks. Plus, there are more choices. I'm tired of paying taxes, taxes, taxes especially to Translink.

[KnowItAll]

I have no problems crossing the 49th parallel if I can save a few bucks. Plus, there are more choices. I'm tired of paying taxes, taxes, taxes especially to Translink.

me me me me me me me me me me me me me

[South Pender]

they would put some kind of excessive tax on excessive cross boarder shopping to greatly reduce this activity, while putting more money into BC coffers to go towards helping those whose jobs are lost due to excessive cross boarder shopping.

Habitual cross boarder shoppers are among the most ignorant shortsighted and or selfish people ever to exist.

Wow, that's a pretty hostile view of many other people. But is it justified? First, can you provide some empirical evidence that any "jobs are lost due to excessive cross boarder shopping." It may seem as though this might be the case, but is it? It may be that retailers in Canada make a little less money, but even that's not necessarily true. Perhaps, without the opportunity to buy goods at a much lower price across the border, many Canadians would just go without, rather than paying the much-higher Canadian price. Consumer behavior works in unpredictable ways, as does retail economics. You need to be able to back up assertions like yours with hard, empirical data.

Second, many Canadians find it hard to understand that the same item costing $50 in the US costs $75 in Canada. When there was a big difference in the value of the US and Canadian dollars, this made some sense, but now that the two dollars are at or very close to par and we have free trade with the US, it makes very little sense to many purchasers. This apparent discrepancy leads many shoppers to conclude that they're often being gouged at Canadian stores.

Labeling people as "ignorant, shortsighted and or selfish" is just far too simplistic and superficial. We don't know the circumstances of other people. We don't know, for example, that a certain single mother with three kids needing a new refrigerator because the old one has stopped working can only afford the $275 she would have to pay in Bellingham, and simply can't fork out the $415 that is the cheapest she could get it in Canada. Would you begrudge her the new fridge?

Not being well-versed in retail economics, I'm not sure that the Canadian retailers who are screaming the most might not be able to compete more effectively by operating smarter. What are they doing to make it more attractive to buy in Canada? What sacrifices are they willing to make to be more competitive at the same time as retaining their staff?

Finally, if you want a government that will well and truly tank the BC economy, vote in the NDP. Then, with the higher taxes and bureaucratic waste, we'll all have less to spend, and even more of us will have to cross the border to be able to afford our purchases. The additional effect will be for the province to go into unsustainable debt. As far as I can remember, it's happened every time we've let the dippers have the levers of power.

[Toppy Vann]

Chris Rose, Vancouver Observer on both parties recent records in power. Remember one thing, governments can control spending to a degree or shift priorities on spending but the economy we have is subject to the global economy. What gov't can do is pick areas of spending and I am very critical of Canadian gov'ts shifting cost burdens to taxpayers to make their books better when in our economy the jobs aren't there. We need to really assess how to prepare our youth for future jobs as technology is reducing jobs and will keep doing so. We need gov't to invest more in R&D.

An incoming gov't inherits the momentum or lack of it in the economy so some things they can't control.

By the way, during the NDP last reign the pressure on ICBC was to find new ways to keep claims costs and rates were frozen for 6 years. Now the Libs take a profit off optional and have inflated the rates on basic and optional by forcing ICBC to retain excess capital like a private insurer must thus big rate increases. Excess capital is to prevent insolvency/bankruptcy but ICBC has a monopoly on basic thus just needs to keep smaller amounts. Second ICBC can't go bankrupt unless the govt of BC went insolvent and ICBC followed. ICBC used road safety programs that are no longer invested in to the same degree and they have known that. A lost decade. They are not doing well other than huge excess capital levels.

Oh the 11.2% rate increasein 2012 this very very likely would have been double that if the gov't did not alter the excess capital requirement. I know this as I've looked at these numbers and Cabinet orders.

http://www.vancouverobserver.com/politi ... -stomp-ndp

But what of both parties’ economic record while in government?

Cutting through the overwhelming spin, cacophonous hyperbole and hysterical exaggeration associated with the “Big Lie” technique, an examination of Ministry of Finance data between the NDP years (1991-2001) and the Liberals since then provides a reasonably unobscured window on B.C.’s economic status.

Indeed, there is a table in the 2012 British Columbia Financial and Economic Review — Historical Operating Statement Surplus (Deficit) — that goes back to 1969-70. Because of the passage of time, different accounting practices and inflation have to be considered when reading ministry records presented by both the NDP and the Liberals.

Having said that, in the 1991-92 budget, the first after Harcourt became premier, the NDP had a deficit of $2.3 billion and the deficit as a percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was 2.9%.

In the NDP’s last budget, in 2000-01 with Dosanjh as premier, there was a surplus of $1.2 billion and a surplus as a percent of GDP of .9%.

In the Liberals’ first budget, in 2001-02 with Campbell as premier, there was a deficit of $1.1 billion and a deficit as a percent of GDP of .8%.

In the last Liberal budget of 2011-12, with Christy Clark as premier, there was a deficit of $1.8 billion and a deficit as a percent of GDP of .9%.

Examining debt is another way of checking the financial health of the province. Again, inflation, a change in accounting practices, notably the inclusion of debt from schools, universities, colleges and health authorities, and a rapid population increase which resulted in both a larger tax base and more demand for government services, has to be considered.

Nevertheless, according to the accompanying “Historical Provincial Debt Summary,” in 1991-92 total provincial debt was $20 billion and total debt as a percent of GDP was 24.5%. In 2000-01, the year the NDP left office, total provincial debt was $33.8 billion and debt as a percent of GDP was 25.7%.

The debt summary shows that total provincial debt in 2001-02, under the Liberals, was $36.1 billion and debt as a percent of GDP was 27%. Total provincial debt under the Liberals last fiscal year was $50.2 billion and debt as a percent of GDP was 23.7%. In its three-year budget and fiscal plan from 2012-13 to 2014-15, the Liberals also estimated debt would climb from $57.6 billion to $66.3 billion.

The only major change since 1990-91 and now — a time when both parties had to deal with years of economic downturn — is the provincial debt, which increased 151% in the past 21 years and 39% from 2001-02, when the Liberals had taken over, until last year.

The official non-partisan records clearly show that, unlike the howling Big Lie that still screams out the NDP is incapable of adding and subtracting correctly, both parties more or less muddled along the same fiscal path, expecting, as usual, that B.C.’s bountiful natural resources — especially natural gas, coal and timber — would continually bail out the provincial treasury, as hewers of wood and drawers of water always did.

[Toppy Vann]

http://www.leg.bc.ca/hansard/33rd2nd/33 ... 40217a.htm

I was looking for a quote from Richard McAlary and found this Dave Barrett speech on how bad it was in the early 80s with Premier Bill Bennett putting the boots to the economy. Great speech the like of which we don't see these days.

Barrett spoke some years ago at an SFU Alumni event and he came up to our group standing with then Chancellor Joe Segal and they hugged. After I asked Joe about that - he said they have always been great friends.

What are the further results of this economic wrecking crew? For the first time in the history of British Columbia the Unemployment Insurance Commission has 230,000 claims in front of it. Are you proud of that record? You must be; you say the program is working. This did not even happen during the Depression. Almost one in three British Columbians is drawing unemployment insurance, social assistance or an old-age pension. It is almost double the Canadian average. In two short years your economic wrecking crew has established this record in unemployment, welfare and social assistance. You say you have made the right choices. You can hardly say that when it comes to bankruptcies, unemployment, welfare and other benefits. Your madcap wrecking crew economics have helped only those who do not need help: the super-rich and the super-powerful.

Richard McAlary, B.C. Central Credit Union economist, yesterday pointed out that British Columbia's unemployment rate is one of the highest in North America. Worse, it's about the only region in North America where unemployment is going up during recovery. As an opposition member sitting across from W.A.C. Bennett, I remember that in the throne speeches the desks pounded incessantly over the fact that we were given hints of economic growth and new jobs every single year. During our three years, I remember the desks pounded with the same anticipation. Now we get the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) of the province of British Columbia, in anticipation of a provincial budget, attacking the federal government. McAlary said it well when he said: "Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones."

Bankruptcies in British Columbia in 1982 were 3,127. In 1983 — in the second year of the wrecking-crew economics of Social Credit — they went up by 25 percent to 3,931. Social Credit wreckonomics, that's what it is. You have wreaked havoc on the private lives of decent people in this province by stupid, backward economic planning that belongs to some kind of neanderthal thinking. After two years of planning the economy your way, and boasting about the planning that you have done, this is the mess that we have in front of us. It would be excusable a bit, understandable a bit, if they didn't go around bragging about what they are doing. But when you examine the results and understand that they have been planning these results for two years, it makes one wonder if it is not an Alice-in-Wonderland cabinet over there.

Mr. Speaker, in the 25 years I've been here, every one of us in this chamber, regardless of party.... I've seen all kinds of parties and all kinds of switches. I've seen them come in here as Liberals and join the Socreds; I've seen them come in as Tories and join the Socreds; I've seen them come in as opportunists and join the Socreds; and they've all found a home. But no matter how they got over there as Socreds, we all as a group collectively rejoiced in the growth of British Columbia.

[TheLionKing]

I have no problems crossing the 49th parallel if I can save a few bucks. Plus, there are more choices. I'm tired of paying taxes, taxes, taxes especially to Translink.

me me me me me me me me me me me me me

Yup