Interestingly, the Communists oppose the STV system on the grounds that it is undemocratic.
What are the REAL issues in the BC Election?
Thu, 2009-04-16 16:04
#52
N.Beltov
Thu, 2009-04-16 19:18
#53
There are two simultaneous disconnected events happening in BC - there is a referendum on electoral reform AND there is a provincial election. Once has nothing to do with the other.
It would be nice if that were true and that it would simply be a given that our elected MLAs would respect the majority of those voting in the referendum on electoral reform(especially MLAs in a Social Democratic party). Unfortunately, our MLAs think that some people's vote in the referendum should be worth more than others. This being the case, and keeping in mind that in Canadian politics, political parties seem to act soley in their own self interest(an observation confirmed by the Federal NDP's support for electoral reform in contrast to the position's of their provincial counterparts in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and BC)the position the BC NDP find themselves in after the election will likely have a significant effect on their support or opposition to a 50%-60% result on the referendum.
Election and "elect" comes from the same word root as well - that doesn't make the Calvinist concept of "the elect" a BC provincial election issue.
Actually it is an issue, not in the religious sense but central to the disillusionment I hear a lot of people voicing with BC politics is the prevalent notion of an 'elect' party elite that is entitled to ignore the resolutions and views of its membership. This elite thinks that the vote of those who prefer the status quo electoral system(a system which from Chretien to Cambell to Harper has allowed a select backroom group with a smaller and smaller mandate to dictate their policies to the majority)should be worth more than the vote of those who would like to see reform.
After this election if we get a similar referendum result as last time(anywhere between 50% to 60%) then things will be up in the air with both sides trying to claim victories and it will matter how electoral reform hurts or helps BC's respective parties-won't be the only factor but it will be one. If the party I voted for last time had championed the 58% who voted for reform or at least put up a fight against the anti-democratic 60% threshold this time then I'd be mailing in my advance ballot with their name on it. Unfortunately they don't seem to be philosphically opposed to the Calvinist influences still dominating our political culture after all these years.
Thu, 2009-04-16 19:26
#54
I personally wouldn't be averse to the BC NDP announcing that if it wins the election it will move ahead with STV if it gets over 50% in the referendum. Maybe this will be a May surprise of theirs. That being said, i think its a moot point because I predict that STV will get less than 50% this time around.
Thu, 2009-04-16 20:04
#55
scott
I personally wouldn't be averse to the BC NDP announcing that if it wins the election it will move ahead with STV if it gets over 50% in the referendum. Maybe this will be a May surprise of theirs. That being said, i think its a moot point because I predict that STV will get less than 50% this time around.
What are you basing your prediction on? The only poll so far is predicting a win for STV:
[url=http://stv.ca/node/810]65 per cent of British Columbians support BC-STV[/url]
British Columbia voters are giving a big thumbs up to electoral reform with 65 per cent saying they will vote for BC-STV in the upcoming referendum on May 12. That is the top line result of a major survey conducted by Angus Reid Strategies. Support for a new way of electing our MLAs is particularly strong among younger voters - those 18 to 34 - at 74 per cent....
When presented with the question that will appear on the ballot, 65 per cent said yes to BC-STV while only 35 per cent chose to keep the current first-past-the post system. Angus Reid Strategies conducted the online survey March 9 to 12 and polled 702 British Columbians across the province.
I agree with your call for the NDP to pass it with 50%+1. It is the democratic thing to do
__________________________________
One struggle, many fronts.
Fri, 2009-04-17 15:41
#56
N.Beltov
The privatization frenzy of the BC Liberals and the danger that poses to BC's rivers and streams was a issue important enough to get a crowd of around 100 people out to a meeting in my locality last night. The folks over at SaveOurRivers made an excellent presentation. The privatization of public wealth, the loss to future generations, the increased cost of privatized hydro, the destruction of priceless ecosystems to line the pockets of friends of the government (Plutonic Power, e.g., includes the former Deputy Chief of Staff for Premier Campbell among its senior managers), and so on, are issues that all connect and could generate some serious traction on election day. This really is an important election for the future of protecting priceless public wealth for the future. It would sure be nice to see some cabinet ministers on this coast, like at least one minister on the other coast, arrested and on their way to jail. These Liberals deserve to be thrown out of office and incarcerated.
Fri, 2009-04-17 16:31
#57
Yeah, Stockholm, I'm really not sure if STV will cross the 50% threshold or not but I think its a possiblity, kinda like the Nucks winning the Cup this year! I hear a lot of people say they think it will fail because everyone is scared of change and instability right now but at the same time, almost everyone I talk to plans to vote for it. BC has had terrible governance and I think most people are willing to try something new. That would be nice if the BC NDP took a position on the referendum, it would build a lot of instant crediblity for the party and be a strong case for strategic voting amongst those who might be inclined to vote Green. Drove through Courtenay the other day and BC NDP signs and STV YES signs are side by side throughout the city so I think there is a fair amount of mutual good will between the two movements there.
I agree with N Beltov that fighting privatization is an excellent issue for the NDP. Deep down people here know we're selling off our future, the BC NDP should keep hammering the point home. A pawnshop analogy might be something people in BC can relate to? 
Fri, 2009-04-17 20:51
#58
. . . how about abolishing the civil forfeiture office (who's fascist idea was that? no criminal charge required to confiscate privately-owned property -- very disturbing)
Sadly the BC NDP voted in support of the Liberal bill to introduce civil forfeiture without trial or conviction.
It is a real shame that the BC NDP seems to support the "war on drugs" as much as the BC Liberals. Especially when their own party policy is to support ending marijuana prohibition! A policy which has been completely ignored by every single member of the Caucus since it was passed in February 2006.
The BC NDP also voted in support of the Liberal law forcing BC Hydro to hand over all electricity use records to the police.
Civil Forfeiture Act: http://www.leg.bc.ca/38th1st/3rd_read/gov13-3.htm
Sat, 2009-04-18 11:45
#59
One of the real disappointments so far is the complete lack of discussion of labour issues. The Labour Code and the Employment Standards Act need real reform and the BCLRB and the Employment Standards Branch are sorely lacking in clout. I fully support raising the minimum wage, but that must go hand in hand with real enforcement. The Board needs new leadership and a retrun to some of the progressive policies of the past.
Sat, 2009-04-18 16:18
#60
I personally wouldn't be averse to the BC NDP announcing that if it wins the election it will move ahead with STV if it gets over 50% in the referendum. Maybe this will be a May surprise of theirs.
It escapes me why they haven't done this. Like, what's the downside? Who will they annoy by doing this? Who's so opposed to majority rule as to vote Liberal in disgust?
While they would surely attract some wavering independent or Green voters.
It may be moot in view of the recent 65% poll support for STV. But the release did not state the number of undecided. Keep in mind it showed only 44% awareness of the referendum. If there were 56% undecided, and if they split 50/50, that's 56.6% for BC-STV, so it may not be moot at all.
Sat, 2009-04-18 18:13
#61
"It escapes me why they haven't done this. Like, what's the downside? Who will they annoy by doing this? Who's so opposed to majority rule as to vote Liberal in disgust?"
There are factions within the party, I believe, who strongly oppose PR, thinking that the NDP's best chance is to sneak back into government with a phoney FPTP majority like Clark did.
Sat, 2009-04-18 18:43
#62
remind
Doubt it. Perhaps those opposed to STV, would prefer another form of PR, while still others happen to believe in FPTP?
Sat, 2009-04-18 18:47
#63
N.Beltov
There's never been an elected NDP government in Canadian history, whatever their views were BEFORE an election, who carried out the switch from FPTP to some version of PR. Nada. Squat. Goose-egg.
Of course, there's a first time for everything. I think I will hold my breath and maybe that will work.
Wed, 2009-04-22 10:41
#64
People are right. But at the end of the day, the biggest weight around the neck of the NDP is their previous record in managing the books.
The business community is all over them because of an admission that they would raise the provincial deficit by $3 billion. I mean, why would that be a part of your platform when you are already damaged goods in times of a recession?
I’m a traditional party supporter, but even I am bewildered by the NDP’s strategy right now.
I might just have to sit home this time around, because Carole James just doesn’t do it for me.
Wed, 2009-04-22 10:58
#65
There's never been an elected NDP government in Canadian history, whatever their views were BEFORE an election, who carried out the switch from FPTP to some version of PR. Nada. Squat. Goose-egg.
It's logical, too. Assume Party X has a leadership clique with no aim in life except to win seats and power. Assume further that Party X comes to power within an FPTP system. Why quarrel with success?
Wed, 2009-04-22 11:03
#66
"The business community is all over them because of an admission that they would raise the provincial deficit by $3 billion. I mean, why would that be a part of your platform when you are already damaged goods in times of a recession?"
Probably for the simple reason that if you insist that you won't spend one penny more than the BC Liberals and that you won't have a deficit that is one penny higher than what the BC Liberals propose - then you essentially have no program because virtually everything that the NDP would want to do is going to cost something.
Of course, its worth noting that according to just about every reputable economist - the deficit in BC is going to go at least into the $3-4 billion range even if the BC Liberals are reelected because their current budget estimates are pure fiction.
Wed, 2009-04-22 11:06
#67
"There's never been an elected NDP government in Canadian history, whatever their views were BEFORE an election, who carried out the switch from FPTP to some version of PR. Nada."
There has also never been an elected NDP federal government in Canadian history and I happen to believe that where we really need to move to PR is at the federal level. The only reason I would support PR at the provincial level is because it could be a stepping stone to having it federally - but honestly, I don't think we really need it that badly provincially. Its in federal politics that FPTP has led to really dysfunctional politcal system.
Wed, 2009-04-22 11:12
#68
Its in federal politics that FPTP has led to really dysfunctional politcal system.
BC has had dysfunctional governance for awhile, maybe things are much better in Ontario, although it looks like a total shit show from out here.
Wed, 2009-04-22 11:18
#69
The only reason I would support PR at the provincial level is because it could be a stepping stone to having it federally - but honestly, I don't think we really need it that badly provincially. Its in federal politics that FPTP has led to really dysfunctional politcal system.
See, N.Beltov? My syllogism stands. We don't need it that badly at the provincial level, because we can still elect NDP governments! But we can't do it federally, so we need a change there!
The voice of logic and of democracy.
Wed, 2009-04-22 11:23
#70
Just because parties you don't like win elections doesn't ipso-facto make the system dysfunctional.
There is a big problem with FPTP at the federal level that isn't much of an issue provincially in Canada and that is regionalism. Canada is a very decentralized country with powerful centrifugal forces and when we have a FPTP electoral system federally it makes things even worse because it encourages the formation of regionalist parties like the BQ and the old Reform Party and it also causes parties to get stuck with caucuses that are grossly skewed towards certain regions of the country. Its not healthy for Canada to have a situation where you can have a Conservative government that literally has no one to put in cabinet from most of Quebec, Newfoundland or from any major city. Its also bad for Canada that if we get a Liberal government - it probably will have no one from Alberta or from any of the rural west etc... Also, with the advent of the BQ etc... it is now a fact of life in federal politics that more often than not we will have minority government any way you slice it - and i believe that if we are going to have minority governments anyways - they will function better if we have PR.
I don't see the same factors in provincial politics.
Wed, 2009-04-22 11:26
#71
I guess it's just inevitable. You try to start a thread about the REAL issues facing the people of BC and it gets hijacked by the STV debate. Alas....
Wed, 2009-04-22 11:33
#72
Yeah, who woulda thunk it, you start a thread saying electoral reform isn't a REAL issue and that no real people are talking about it so therefore it isn't to be mentioned in this thread and then some people come along and take issue with the premise. What a massive surprise! Are you involved with the BC NDP's campaign strategy by any chance Munroe?
Wed, 2009-04-22 11:45
#73
Melovesproles, I have done a bit in the campaign, but to be honest I find the NDP a bit rightwing for my taste (OK, far too rightwing). There has been lots of room for comment on STV and it has been worthwhile. The problem in my mind is that I'm not hearing much debate amongst the workers I work with and for on the issue. The economy, corruption, healthcare, education, privatisation, forestry, fish farms are all hot topics except on Babble it seems (although I give full credit to Remind for her efforts).
Wed, 2009-04-22 11:56
#74
remind
People are right. But at the end of the day, the biggest weight around the neck of the NDP is their previous record in managing the books.
There is no previous record in managing the books, the fudget budget myth was a creation by the BC Libs, and canwest global, but you are swell guy and strong NDPer for trying to continue it, eh , and then say you are staying home.
Me thinks the BC Liberals are getting worried, considering the increased attacks against Carole James and the BCNDP, here by new people joining, and also of course by the same provocatuers here who step up attacks on the NDP for some alleged non-progessive action every election, federal or provincial.
Wed, 2009-04-22 12:05
#75
"The economy, corruption, healthcare, education, privatisation, forestry, fish farms are all hot topics except on Babble it seems..."
...where all we seem to care about is electoral reform and zionism.
Wed, 2009-04-22 19:19
#76
That's fair enough Munroe, I just think that if your intention is to have a thread where STV isn't discussed its probably better not to declare in the opening post that its not a REAL issue, which is a statement that provokes and invites dissent. In my view this has been a problem with the BC NDP communication strategy-if the focus is on the privatization and environmental destruction of rivers which many in the NDP claim is the most pressing environmental issue than they shouldn't have made their opposition to the gas tax such a prominent part of their platform. Would anyone have spent more than two seconds talking about an NDP candidate having a photo where he touched his friend's boob if the party hadn't forced him to step down over it ect, ect. The party doesn't seem to have a grasp on how to frame the debate. I think the issues you list are all good ones, but I think like most discussion forums, at babble the discussion tends to focus on those topics where there is disagreement.
Wed, 2009-04-22 19:51
#77
remind
This over here is the real issue, as it ties into everything, loss of jobs, privatization, the phoney carbon tax, and the environmental sell off of our water.
Wed, 2009-04-22 20:24
#78
We can add a few more - Seniors Housing, homelessness and tuition fees. MLP, I am just not hearing from anyone that STV is an ELECTION issue (except the Greens). It is certainly a referendum issue, but not something on people's radar when choosing who to support (again except perhaps the Greens).
Wed, 2009-04-22 20:43
#79
remind
(although I give full credit to Remind for her efforts).Thanks, I am trying hard, in the face of what appears to be a concentrated effort to smoke screen the concerns of actual BC residents in this election, and what the mitigating factors and reality are.
Thu, 2009-04-23 19:03
#80
We can add a few more - Seniors Housing, homelessness and tuition fees. MLP, I am just not hearing from anyone that STV is an ELECTION issue (except the Greens). It is certainly a referendum issue, but not something on people's radar when choosing who to support (again except perhaps the Greens).
Well, I think that becomes a self-fufilling prophecy. If the Greens are the only ones with a principled position on the referendum then people who care about the issue are encouraged to vote for them. Writing people and their issues off seems to be a strategy of the BC NDP in this election and I think we are going to see that reflected in a lower level of popular support this election despite widespread dislike for Cambell.
As for you not hearing anyone talking about electoral reform, I guess it all depends on your circle and your location. FPTP certainly screws over some ridings more than others so its possible that it isn't much of a problem in yours but I think it shows a lack of solidarity with those from ridings where it is a real problem to dismiss their concerns as only pertinent to Greens. If everyone only cared about the issues that directly affect them then obviously making real progress on anything becomes very difficult, I really don't see the point in an isolated, insular approach.
Thu, 2009-04-23 21:53
#81
"If the Greens are the only ones with a principled position on the referendum then people who care about the issue are encouraged to vote for them."
Why? If I want STV all I have to do is vote Yes to the referendum question. How I vote in the provincial election makes no difference whatsoever to whether it passes or not.
Thu, 2009-04-23 22:12
#82
Why? If I want STV all I have to do is vote Yes to the referendum question. How I vote in the provincial election makes no difference whatsoever to whether it passes or not.
Deja Vu.
MLA's set the 60% threshold, I want a representative that thinks my vote in the referendum is worth the same as the vote of Carol James. Unfortunately, the NDP doesn't seem to be that party. If the referendum gets 50-60% then we can be sure that their support or opposition will depend entirely on what is beneficial to them. If like the Federal NDP they get screwed over by FPTP, then like the Federal NDP they will probably support electoral reform, if they think phony majorities for themselves are still likely under FPTP then they will continue along with the BC Liberals to block real progress on electoral reform. I didn't think that was the case when I voted last election but the evidence has been pretty overwhelming.
Tue, 2009-04-28 22:58
#83
[url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090427.wbcelectionc... policy on domestic violence 'devastating' for women[/color][/url]
"This period of time between 2002 and 2009 in the province of B.C. has been a devastating one for women," said Shelagh Day, co-author of a report, Inaction and Non-compliance: British Columbia's Approach to Women's Inequality, submitted last fall to a United Nations committee on the elimination of discrimination against women. Ms. Day, a founder of the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF) and international advocate, was among six Canadians who last fall received the Governor-General's Award in Commemoration of the Persons Case.
"The Liberals have been on a course of policy decisions and cuts that had a very negative impact on women of this province," Ms. Day said in an interview. "The Liberals won't acknowledge it and the NDP are not openly fighting back."
Wed, 2009-04-29 08:06
#84
remind
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wed, 2009-04-29 08:22
#85
remind
[quote] Investing in equality of opportunity by:
• Establishing a Ministry of Women’s Equality.
• Creating provincial women’s centres as a central point of contact and help for women
facing hardship or the threat of violence.
• Reducing waitlists at rape relief and crisis centres.
• Increasing resources for the investigation into the Highway of Tears murders and holding
an inquiry into the multiple murders of women in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside.
• Strengthening human rights protections by establishing a Human Rights Commission,
and enhancing preventative actions such as community anti-racism and discrimination programs including a provincial anti-hate hotline
A. REDUCING HOMELESSNESS AND POVERTY IN BRITISH COLUMBIA through housing
construction assistance improvements and a poverty reduction plan.
Ending the crisis in homelessness in 5 years. The NDP will set firm targets for social housing, and
report progress to the Legislature annually. First year commitments are for 2,400 social housing units,
with 1,200 units in each of the next 4 years. During this time, short-term shelters will be supported to
offset the housing shortage.
Making life more affordable for the most vulnerable British Columbians by increasing the
earnings exemption to $100 per month for individuals and $200 per month for families.
Increasing support payments for people with multiple barriers who are unable to work.
Increasing Income Assistance-to-Work supports, such as allowances for work clothing, bus fares
to job interviews, etc.
Developing a poverty reduction plan with targets and timelines that build on our initiatives that
will raise the minimum wage, support jobs and skills training, increase affordable housing, improve
child protection and change income assistance.
Linking Income Assistance rates to inflation and reviewing overall rates as part of the process
to develop a poverty reduction plan.
Carole James and the NDP will create more affordable and accessible child care spaces for
families by:
• Capping fees.
• Improving recruitment and retention, and enhancing training of teachers and early
childhood education professionals.
• As finances permit, introducing all-day kindergarten for 5-year-olds and the accompanying
after school care. This will free up 10,000 spaces within existing group child care centres
and family child care providers.
• Creating targets and timelines to build an affordable, accessible, quality child care system.
RECOGNIZING ABORIGINAL RIGHTS TO BRING A SECURE FUTURE FOR ALL
After years of expensive and lengthy court cases and treaty-making efforts, First Nations and the BC
and federal government now have to make “The New Relationship” real. Our commitments include:
Respect, recognition and accommodation of aboriginal title and rights in developing government
agreements and treaties, ending court actions by government that have sought to deny such title and
rights and broadening the range of tools available to include legislation and resources.
Support for the adoption by the Government of Canada of the UN Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples, to help guide the policies of the BC government.
Improvements to the BC treaty process by providing greater independence to the Treaty
Commission and recognizing aboriginal title and rights without the need to establish those principles
in expensive court cases.
Fair agreements and shared decision-making on economic development and resource
management, recognizing that these agreements are able to provide concrete benefits from revenue
and benefit-sharing.
Empower the Legislature’s Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs which includes both
government and opposition members, to actively consult the First Nations Leadership Council and
implement The New Relationship.
Carole James and the NDP will work with First Nations and all other British Columbians to bring
about reconcilation and shared decision-making on land and resources so we all benefit from settling
these long-standing injustices.
The
Wed, 2009-04-29 15:14
#86
Umm, you ran out of steam in the middle of that last promise, remind. But thanks for your refreshing burst of laughter in response to Shelagh Day. I'm sure Carole James has done far more for the cause of women's rights than Ms. Day could possibly comprehend. I hope she's reading this thread, so she can realize how many promises Carole James has made to do something.
Wed, 2009-04-29 15:27
#87
Come on Unionist, old friend. Actually James and the NDP in this province are advancing women's rights and no one denies Day has been a powerful advocate. I hear your critique of James and it is well deserved, but now is not the time to highlight differences. We must, no WE MUST get rid of the right wing corporatist bastards currently steering the boat. That is job one. Remind keeps reminding of this (chuckle) and where this bit of the world goes if we can get a half-assed progressive government remains (chuckle) a mystery.
For the moment the focus must remain on how bad it will be to give these nutcases another four years. We can debate how bad an NDP government (bunch of social dems!) is later.
Wed, 2009-04-29 17:36
#88
remind
You have mistaken it as a laughter response to Ms Day. It was LOL @ your actions unionist.
The BCNDP actions for FN's in BC, will help the plight of FN women, more than any other government has ever put forth. They are fighting back, contrary to what MS day has imported and I am not sure why she slanted it as she did, by saying "openly" as if it could be done covertly or something, because when you look at the points addressed in the article as being needed, the NDP's platform covers pretty much them all.
Wed, 2009-04-29 17:45
#89
We must, no WE MUST get rid of the right wing corporatist bastards currently steering the boat. That is job one.
And that's why, munroe, I posted that article entitled, "Liberal policy on domestic violence 'devastating' for women" - to show that this is job one. And to ensure the NDP remembers [b]why[/b] the Liberals have to be defeated. Isn't that important?
Remind, unfortunately, missed that part of the article - the part that condemned the Liberals for being the enemies of women.
Wed, 2009-04-29 18:17
#90
Damn right, Unionist, it is very important. Never doubted you....
Wed, 2009-04-29 18:41
#91
remind
No actually unionist I didn't miss anything, as I know that the BC Liberals are enemies of women, and so do the majority of BC women, we live here, that is in part why we are overwhlemingly supporting the NDP in this election, as was mentioned in the BC polling thread.
It is not the NDP who need reminding what is at stake in this election, perhaps you should be addressing the Green Party supporters?
Thu, 2009-04-30 20:27
#92
I agree it should be the Federals setting the carbon standard and not BC as it is not an island unto itself despite Mr. Campbell's obvious disregard of that fact as he runs this province into the ground. And Mr. Campbell is the Carbon King as he sets to pollute the environment with 450,000 tonnes of carbon waste just for media and athletics traveling to the games. Thats a lot of waste don't you think? Do you think your carbon tax will have reduced that kinda carbon? I don't think it has even come anywhere near it and it will be some years before it does. As the big polluter are still driving their penis extensions.
So lets get it right the guy who has set to dump 450,000 tonnes of carbon is the guy who put in a carbon tax? Its ironic don't you think as surely those who travel here will for go the tax so I guess its no big deal despite the fact this is a great deal of carbon as countries have this kinda waste for the year and Campbell wants to dump it in a day.
And another thing I was just thinking about well not just but the people on the street, you know your homeless what happens if one of them catches the disease? They can't go home, they can't wash their hands, and they don't do doctors. Hopefully none of them gets it as it will spread like wildfire and there will be no containing as how? Its lucky we don't have those shelters anymore as the weather warms as its frightening to think what could happen if its gets any on the streets as it goes from human to human.
http://www.publiceyeonline.com/archives/003863.html#comments
Working wages is another as Campbell says business can't afford the $4000 dollars a year it would cost as sm business are already trying to figure out how to come up with those overpriced rents that have went up as much as $4,000 or more a month as small business is forced to pay for overpriced real estate when the business is not there to justify it. I just went up the block on the Drive and noticed there were five business closed just on that one block with for rents signs and those signs have been there for months. This is sad indeed because if it was the NDP business would still be in business and people would be able to rent a place. And that is the truth because whats hurting business the most right now is those rents that they have to pass on to consumers and they don't have the product or the business to justify the added cost. Is Campbell good for business? No. But little business is not who Campbell is interested in, actually anything little as the homeless find a home 6ft under as the Genocide of the poor goes full force.
Thu, 2009-04-30 20:38
#93
And there is no doubt the Liberals could care less about women as one of the most horrid sights I have seen in a long time was women who was has her eye mutilated and face by her mate but could not find a safe place to go as shelters were full along with her children.
Children don't fair well either and the police well why bother as they are really truly something of a great embarrassment to the name in this province as they would rather leave a women to be beaten or a child be molested than go to the trouble of doing the paper work and that is the truth. They say its no use as police are discouraged from putting in complaints.
Fri, 2009-05-01 11:34
#94
remind
mybabble, Peter3 called it correctly over here:
Anyway, investments in transit infrastructure and the like may not be the whole answer to demand reduction, but they are an essential element in the social policy equation if social impacts are not to be disproportionately borne at the bottom end of the income scale. The inability of Suzuki acolytes to understand the importance of this sort of consideration, or to recognize the complete reversal of priorities in this regard embodied in the BC carbon tax legislation, speaks to the emptiness of "green" rhetoric on social responsibility.
It is pretty damn easy to write a platform that says we are the only ones who care, like the Green Party has done, but when their actions/words, directly oppose their assertations, well, there is a problem with reality and empty rhetoric coming from a party that can say anything because they will not be in contention. However, their actions have the ability to destroy BC.
Moreover, that some have suggested that electoral reform is the real issue, in face of; the serious threat to our environment, violence against women and lack of support, in creasing poverty rates, school closures, and government corruption, is IMV, beyond belief and rational thought.