After a bit of a hiatus, I’ve penned another column about Gordon Campbell and the B.C. Liberal Party’s electoral prospects in the future. Although I’ve neglected B.C. politics for the past little while, it’ll be sure to heat up again this fall and it should become more interesting. Today’s piece is mainly about how badly the Premier has messed up his reputation with the people of the province. I note that long-time freelance journalist Sean Holman is of a similar mind on this topic.
The B.C. Liberal Party won its third consecutive majority government in an election only a short 15 months ago, garnering 49 seats in the Victoria Legislature with a popular vote of 46%. In that election the B.C. NDP came in second with 42% of the popular vote, giving them 35 seats, but ultimately no ability to control any legislation being passed by the governing Liberals.
Though the NDP were powerless to stop the passage of the Harmonized Sales Tax into law in early May, several polls have shown that as many of four out of five British Columbians do not like the tax, and it has hurt the Liberal Party badly. What a difference 15 months can make.
“The B.C. New Democrats’ election pledge to scrap the carbon tax ”
Did the NDP promise to reverse the HST?
Just wondering how the NDP would propose to pay for all the goodies BC enjoys?
BC/Alberta/Sask are going to lead the way on the economic recovery,
Dippers or Liberals sucking up to Dippers, is a sure fire way to stop that from happening, imo.
wow. holy cow. what is your definition of centrist?
“The implementation of the carbon tax in 2008, for instance, at a time when gasoline prices were at a historic high worldwide, was not enough to remove them from power in the following May election, fought largely on the fiscal bona fides of the centrist party.
All the goodies?
Well, beyond the transfer of tax from large corporations to human beings…
If we simply go back to the PST we’ll increase tax revenues by $113 million.
The finance minister’s own numbers show that much less revenue will come in with the shift to the HST. See slide 17 here:
http://www.bcbudget.gov.bc.ca/2010/slides/default.htm
Vaughn Palmer calculates it at 3x that amount:
http://politicsrespun.org/2010/02/the-hst-is-actually-a-tax-cut/
And no, the NDP hasn’t promised it will scrap the HST. They need to be pressured there. As will the next Liberal leadership contenders.
What’s your definition?
well, the neoliberal economic agenda of the bc liberal party is radically right wing, implementing much of the most drastic elements of the washington consensus and milton friedman’s social nightmares:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Consensus#List_of_recommendations
if we look at parties as left [progressive] or right [conservative] on social and economic planes, the bc liberals are radically right wing whereas an economically centrist party would have more of a mixed economy, more keynesian, more progressive tax system, a funded social safety net.
in terms of a social agenda, campbell’s goal of eroding everything public puts social priorities in a locked cage as he destroys the systems in place for addressing social goods: the racist first nations referendum, welfare time limits [both rescinded], increasing user fees, defunding education and health care and mental health services.
yeah.
so. like i said. how would you define centrist?
come on, it was your word!
what did you have in mind?
But where do you place woolly-headed leftwing ideas like the carbon tax, renaming the Queen Charlotte Islands to Haida Gwaii, increased government spending, deficits, and a mandate for all government to become “carbon neutral”?
interesting.
1. a 4-7 cent carbon tax that doesn’t apply to industry is greenwashing. the only kind of carbon tax that could help avert climate breakdown is something like $0.75 to $3 per litre tax to create a true disincentive for carbon use.
2. it wasn’t campbell’s idea to rename the islands, and then there was the racist treaty referendum in his first term. his only constructive relationships with first nations these days is to reach settlements that include massive economic concessions. the tsawwassen band helped him remove ALR land for a container parking lot to avoid the political danger of him doing it himself.
3. nominal dollar increases in government spending have coexisted to relative cuts to social programs since campbell took office, particularly when government explicitly doesn’t fund legislated salary increases.
4. or when they mandate carbon neutrality, but again don’t fund it so that programs and services will have to cut delivery to pay for the carbon tax instead of an effective tax regime to fund climate change mitigation. big and small business taxes are approaching zero and the rich have been getting disproportionate tax cuts since 2001. w.bush loved talking about how is base is the “haves and the have-mores” instead of have-nots. same thing here.
5. deficits. w.bush helped popularize a new tool for fiscal conservatives: look like keynesians by running deficits, but combine them with tax cuts for the rich to ultimately defund government, creating a crisis to justify cutting public ownership of public goods and delivery of services. try this one on for proof of crisis manufacturing: http://www.publiceyeonline.com/archives/005133.html
like i said, washington consensus.
Well sure, but at what purpose? Even a higher carbon tax as advocated by environmentalists would hurt the poor more than it would the wealthy. A consumption tax of that nature would eliminate private transit for all but the upper class, who could still quite easily afford $3/litre.
A carbon market isn’t really an effective climate-fight tool either — whatever the hell that means — as shown by the European example.
No, you’re right about that. It was a socially liberal idea to rebuke the colonialist name by restoring some form of title to the Island people. An idea that’s been floating around in the heads of UBC professors, no doubt since the 70′s.
Let’s not forget Campbell’s party jumped at the idea of Xwayxway, too.
Sure. But this is the same guy who has used massive public monies to fund grandiose ideas like the Olympics and the Vancouver Convention Centre, the latter being quite similar in cost overruns to the NDP Fast Ferries.
But I think we’re arguing about two sides of the same coin here. Gordon Campbell is a transparent corporatist, who rewards only his own political cronies and hacks, business partners, and personal friends.
You can see that with his unsubtle land acquisitions for his friends. With his $2 billion tax transfer from corporation to consumer on the HST. With his subsidies to Natural Gas while running a carbon tax against the people.
The way I see it, Gordon Campbell isn’t necessarily rightwing or leftwing. He’s in it for himself and his friends.
My vision for a conservative party in British Columbia would take into account the need for personal income tax cuts to the people, offsetting revenue losses with higher consumption tax. One that wouldn’t give with one hand while taking with the other, and defunding essential public services so that they can build a two-week symbolic tribute of Vancouver’s greatness at a cost of several billions of taxpayer dollars.