Back to the basics

The provincial government will be "reducing people's taxes, increasing the number of jobs and investing in education." That seemed to be the extent of Gordon Campbell's plan to deal with the rate of child poverty in British Columbia - which is the highest in the country for the sixth year in a row. Of course, the premier could have likely said more about what his government is doing to solve that problem. But he didn't when reporters scrummed him on his way into a caucus meeting.

10 Comments

Bwa-ha-ha-ha-haaaaa!

1.) "Reducing people's taxes": done the opposite
2.) "Increasing the number of jobs": good paying or part-time, low-paying jobs that look good for stats Can and keep his buddies rich, but do jack squat for child poverty.
3.) "Investing in education": if you mean Indpenendent schools.

Three terms. Highest rate of child poverty in Canada again. Failed when times were good, a dismal failure now that times are bad.

What a legacy.

The problem is that this Premier believes economic freedom is the end-all.

The problem is that this Premier has done a lot of good, and yes taxes have been cut and shifted - shifted onto carbon-emissions instead of small businesses, the HST is a blessing to many - including truckers & miners & other job-creators. Just there's some like Buck here (probably formerly "BC Liberals Suck") who like to go crude and toss zingers instead of work the problem.

The problem is that this Premier ought to realize he and that ace Mary Polak of ours in MCFD can slam the NDP all day, all night with enough rockette fire to warm her fellow libertarians' hearts but that's not going to slice & dice child poverty nor autism.

The problem is that ultimately there isn't a strategy on child poverty just yet. Perhaps bringing back a better version of EIBI would do that.

The problem is we have an abysmal voter turnout, who essentialy awarded this neo-liberal regime carte blanche to push their failed agenda by not voting.

The problem is BC still has the lowest minimum wage and highest property costs in Canada.

The problem is there is no political will nor the ideology to want to do anything about it.

The problem is this government has had nearly nine years to create this problem, and has only made it worse.

The problem is Polhack doesn't have the cajones to stand up to her boss and do the right thing- she, as Darth Campbell, is a career politician who has always and will always act in her own best political interests.

Another problem I have is a bizarre American with a crush trying to tell me how my country and province should be run, when his own country has one of the most shameful socio-economic gaps on Earth.

And no, I am not BC Liberals Suck. Longtime reader, short time poster.

You never answered the questions Josef K. Are you a citizen of BC? Of Canada? Are you entitled to vote here? Are you on Mary's payroll? Or MCFD's? What about PAB? These aren't hard questions.

Mary knows the score, she will do her job, defending the indefensible. How is it anyone in good conscience can defend the highest rate of child poverty for 6 years in a row? It is just a morally indefensible position. She's not to blame for child poverty, but she will be the sacrificial lamb. Ah politics, eh? Home of the Damned. Not to worry though, she'll get some appointments as Director to something she's not qualified for after things are all in tatters. It's how it works, its in the neo-Con playbook.

But lest we get deflected lets not forget in the din that the numbers, with thanks to First Call and Campaign 2000, do not lie:

"British Columbia had the highest child poverty rate in Canada for the sixth year in a row in 2007. According to the Statistics Canada before-tax Low Income Cut-Offs (LICOs), the proportion of children living in poverty in BC was 18.8% – well above the national child poverty rate of 15%. This means that an estimated 156,000 children were living in poverty in BC. That is greater than the combined population of Nanaimo and Prince George."

http://bcliberalssuck.blogspot.com/

BC Liberals Suck | November 24, 2009 10:00 PM | Reply

I don't respond very much to your handle and accidentially thought somebody else was you. I'm not on any government payroll or on the BCLib dole. Nor, with EIBI being cut, would I accept. Nor, with me being an open donor of PublicEyeOnline's innovative efforts would I last long as PABLUM.

I do study BC Politics quite a bit, thank you. No further comment.

It seems pretty clear that the game is to cut services, supports and infrastructure away from government, because they might be profitable in the private sector. Sell BC resources to the private sector, because they will result in a lot of money for a few in the private sector. Insulate the private sector from the costs of doing their business in the province and this includes making the public bear the brunt of escalating environmental costs, oh, and covers the cost of big parties such as the Olympics. We know the politicians are going, but I've got a feeling quite a few of those in the private sector will also be getting tickets on the BC taxpayers dime (you know the politicians have to do this to sell the province right?). And let's not forget....when you leave government - along with your big fat pension, receive a golden handshake from the private sector. Seems like a good deal don't it?

Blaming the BC Liberals for not adequately addressing child poverty is too easy, not to mention a waste of time, akin to being shocked about their tax shift from business to consumers via the HST, or in jungle terms being surprised that lions eat gazelles.

I imagine Holman pursued this issue with Campbell because it might generate some controversy around the BC Liberals' lack of care or empathy for the lowest rung in the capitalist pyramid (kids with broke parents), but instead it only shows he's about as useful (on this topic, anyway) as Tamara Taggart is with her current weather observations.

Now if the NDP were in power and still nothing of note was done to help low income families then that would be a real story.

Just a general comment about these scrum videos. The PAB people (press wrangler, personal security detail, blond woman from public affairs) that accompany cabinet ministers down the halls creep me out. I know I should just get used to it, but there it is. Creepy.

For what it's worth I can't view these videos. I 'could', but I can't. One of the reasons I prefer print is that it's cut and dried, you get none of the 'personality/manipulation' that a live communication does. Plus they make the bile rise in my gullet. Okay... the last one is the main reason.

Leave a comment

Copyright © 2004 - Public Eye Mediaworks. Reproductions of any portion of this Website are permitted only with the expressed permission of Public Eye Mediaworks.
Canadian Web Hosting graciously provided by dotcanuck Web Services. Layout and graphics courtesy of Art Department Design.