Please support our coverage of democratic movements and become a supporting member of rabble.ca.

Last week, Seth Klein reflected on some lessons from the 2013 B.C. election. Among the many important lessons he noted was the fact that "we need to better understand why so many people feel disengaged from politics and key policy debates." Indeed. Now that the election is over, those of us who are passionate about civic engagement need to do what we can to understand this trend and hopefully alter its course.

As I write, it has been just a few days since the provincial election. As was the case for most of you, the result was unexpected. We are still processing what it means for our work and rethinking some of our research plans.

For those of us who engage in deep thinking about policy ideas, this election felt very shallow. It makes us question the value of careful and thoughtful policy development. Does the work of a research institute like ours even matter when so many political debates seem to unfold "fact-free"?

Unlike a number of green advocates, political and otherwise, I think there can be some significant benefit for British Columbians from the development of LNG exports, particularly if issues around the supply and pricing of electricity, and the regulation and offset of industry GHG emissions are properly addressed. Nevertheless, I do agree with those who argue that LNG won't bring the unprecedented riches that our indefatigable even if deluded premier would have us believe.

Both main parties in this election campaign are accusing the other of being big spenders. The BC Liberals claim the BC NDP is making election promises that are too expensive and argue the 1990s (the last time the NDP was in government) was a time of particularly high spending. The BC NDP points out that the provincial debt has grown significantly since the BC Liberals came to power in 2001.

But is too much of the public debate around this election focused on reducing the size of government?

As many readers of this blog will know, back in February the CCPA (with the assistance of a number of our partners in the Climate Justice Project) published an open letter to the B.C. political parties calling on them to recommit to B.C.'s legislated greenhouse gas reduction targets, and to table plans for how to achieve them. The GHG reduction law was passed in 2007, and obliged the government to reduce B.C.'s emissions by 33 per cent below 2007 levels by 2020, and 80 per cent below by 2050.

You can find the open letter here.

Over 65 organizations signed that open letter, representing thousands of British Columbians.

The CCPA is a founding member of the BC Poverty Reduction Coalition (PRC), which for over four years now has been advancing the call for a comprehensive BC poverty reduction plan. Its Open Letter calling on the B.C. government to adopt a legislated plan has been signed by hundreds of organizations.

The PRC has now published its analysis of where the parties have landed. You can find a summary table here.

And below is an opinion piece on the subject co-authored by PRC organizer Trish Garner, Ted Bruce and myself.

A Poverty Reduction Plan for B.C.: Government spending saves money in the long-term

We have been surprised, to say the least, at the lack of public discourse around health care during this election period. As a top-of-mind issue for British Columbians, you'd think it would be as central as the always large and looming economy. So what are the burning issues in health care, and how do the party platforms stack up? Here's our take, with a particular focus on seniors.

The challenge:

It is pretty clear that Premier Christy Clark's election-inspired promise of a debt-free B.C. is not to be taken seriously. There is no credible market analysis indicating that the royalties from B.C. liquified natural gas (LNG) exports would be sufficient to do that in 15 years, as the Premier would have it. The potential for increased gas supply from other sources and diminishing price spreads between North America and the Asian market are simply too great to place any weight on a promise of the multi-billion dollar windfall that would be needed to pay off B.C.'s debt.

How much do working parents need to earn to be able to afford to live in our community? Reports released yesterday provide the answer for the three largest regional districts in B.C., home to two-thirds of this province's population: $19.62/hour in Metro Vancouver, $18.73/hour in Greater Victoria and $16.37/hour in the Fraser Valley.

B.C. has acquired the "distinction" of being home to Canada's largest income gap, highest poverty rate, and second-highest child poverty rate.  It also has greater employment insecurity and lower wages than the national average, even though B.C. is the province with the highest cost of living in Canada.

How has this occurred in such a rich province?

The answer is at least partially due to the low-wage policies the B.C. government has implemented in the 21st century through changes to the Employment Standards Act (ESA). These changes, beginning in 2001, represented a dramatic roll-back of worker rights.