B.C. Politics Thread

[Optimist Prime]

4 hours ago, Bob Long said:

Not sure if anyone is watching the debate, but imo Eby's tack of trying to put the blame of past government actions on Rustad isnt landing. Rustad wasn't the leader and Eby isn't actually talking about his own record enough.

 

My little focus group said Rustad wasn't trust worthy at all but they have a hard time liking Eby.

[Boudrias]

The debate was pretty civil which I appreciated. The moderator did an excellent job. The topics brought up covered much of the issues faced by BC. Softwood tariffs were mentioned briefly but the $9 billion being held by the USA was not mentioned. BC's relationship with Ottawa was not a topic. 

 

The Green rep was a distraction. The Greens have a superior attitude. They claim a solid fiscal capability but it is BS. If their program was implimented it would cost more than the NDP. I didn't mind Eby's projection. He basically said stay the course and our programs will work. They might but the costing is pretty suspect especially with the new promises. NDP obviously pay atttention to the polls as they reign in their drug and housing initiatives. 

 

Rustad did well. Easier for him to attack Eby's record. Eby's attacks on Rustad when a BC Lib fall short since so long ago. People are worried about now. BC Cons throwing out a lot of uncosted promises. Will people give them the benefit of the doubt? Two terms of NDP rule likely tends for votes to change it up. The fact that Horgan is quiet and had said he could support Rustad suggests a bit of a split inside the NDP. It doesn't help that the previous Green leader has endorsed Rustad. 

[bishopshodan]

2 minutes ago, Boudrias said:

NDP obviously pay atttention to the polls as they reign in their drug and housing initiatives. 

 

 

They reversed the decriminalization back in April,  after lots of push back, and after Orgeon voted to do the same earlier. BC spoke with Oregon about what the data was showing.

I dont believe it was a response to any polls. 

Actually props to the BC NDP, they seem to listen to the public, adjust based on data, and think long term.

 

[bishopshodan]

So, Rustad seems kinda like he`s gonna let internet researchers dictate our provinces direction?

Maybe will be able to reduce the amount of AIDS cases?

 

Anyway, I am happy to report that there are a lot more NDP signs on lawns here in the mid-island. Seems about 2-1 vs Cons. In fact there are more independent sings than Cons. Did not look that way a few weeks ago, I think the Cons got theirs out first and made it look like they had the majority of the support.

 

 

[Bob Long]

8 hours ago, Optimist Prime said:

My little focus group said Rustad wasn't trust worthy at all but they have a hard time liking Eby.

 

Yep that seems on point. I didn't see a convincing win by anyone tho.

 

I thought Rustad handled some questions fairly well in the sense that I could see it playing well in rural areas on health and first Nations issues. I don't think he gained anywhere else.

 

The one thing he did clarify was he doesn't seem intent on changing single payer healthcare.

 

Eby went with the personal attacks too much, even if true. I didn't hear enough about his plans for healthcare eg other than more hiring. Zip on health innovation.

 

[Warhippy]

7 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

Yep that seems on point. I didn't see a convincing win by anyone tho.

 

I thought Rustad handled some questions fairly well in the sense that I could see it playing well in rural areas on health and first Nations issues. I don't think he gained anywhere else.

 

The one thing he did clarify was he doesn't seem intent on changing single payer healthcare.

 

Eby went with the personal attacks too much, even if true. I didn't hear enough about his plans for healthcare eg other than more hiring. Zip on health innovation.

 

Haahahaha.

 

No.

 

We are not in a child/parent relationship like Rustad says.  No.  That didn't play well with any of us.  If anything it was highly insulting.

[Bob Long]

Just now, Warhippy said:

Haahahaha.

 

No.

 

We are not in a child/parent relationship like Rustad says.  No.  That didn't play well with any of us.  If anything it was highly insulting.

 

Did he actually say that? Eby spun it that way.

[Optimist Prime]

2 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

Haahahaha.

 

No.

 

We are not in a child/parent relationship like Rustad says.  No.  That didn't play well with any of us.  If anything it was highly insulting.

I did not like Rustad's take on UNDRIP. Not at all. Some mealy mouthed answer about ripping it up so that first nations can benefit from corporate partnerships....they can do that now under undrip.. what he meant was that he will rip it up so that corporations can continue to exploit first nations. I didn't like anything Rustad said on the F.N. file. 
I don't necessarily have any cred there though myself, but my half sister is from the Pacheedaht First Nation in Port Renfrew and my buddy, a retired Colonel and first Colonel of the Canadian Special Operations Regiment, toured almost every nation in BC as part of his position working for the BC government since retirement from the armed forces. He has been on this job bridging the BC Liberal government and into the NDP government era.  He most certainly would not vote for the BC Conservatives. My third personal inference on the topic is from our bridesmaid and dear friend, an Odji-cree woman living in Vancouver who has literally said she wouldn't piss on Rustad if he was on fire. 

[Bob Long]

2 minutes ago, Optimist Prime said:

I did not like Rustad's take on UNDRIP. Not at all. Some mealy mouthed answer about ripping it up so that first nations can benefit from corporate partnerships....they can do that now under undrip.. what he meant was that he will rip it up so that corporations can continue to exploit first nations. I didn't like anything Rustad said on the F.N. file. 
I don't necessarily have any cred there though myself, but my half sister is from the Pacheedaht First Nation in Port Renfrew and my buddy, a retired Colonel and first Colonel of the Canadian Special Operations Regiment, toured almost every nation in BC as part of his position working for the BC government since retirement from the armed forces. He has been on this job bridging the BC Liberal government and into the NDP government era.  He most certainly would not vote for the BC Conservatives. My third personal inference on the topic is from our bridesmaid and dear friend, an Odji-cree woman living in Vancouver who has literally said she wouldn't piss on Rustad if he was on fire. 

 

Don't you think that he may appeal to non first Nations voters though? Particularly where the land use fear is strongest? I thought he spoke to them (and no I don't agree with him).

 

[bishopshodan]

23 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

I could see it playing well in rural areas on health and first Nations issues

 

Really !?

 

I didn't see the debate but I would be very surprised if our indigenous voters went Con. 

 

UNDRIP and all.

Edited October 9 by bishopshodan
OP pointed this out while I was responding

[Bob Long]

Just now, bishopshodan said:

 

Really !?

 

I didn't see the debate but I would be very surprised if our indigenous voters went Con. 

 

UNDRIP and all.

 

I didn't mean to suggest first Nations voters would like him. I do think he spoke to non first Nations voters who are worried about the land use issues.

 

[Warhippy]

13 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

Did he actually say that? Eby spun it that way.

He made a statement 2/3 days ago likening the status of the C government and first mations as that of a parent and a child,  Didn't go over well

[bishopshodan]

Just now, Bob Long said:

 

I didn't mean to suggest first Nations voters would like him. I do think he spoke to non first Nations voters who are worried about the land use issues.

 

 

Ahh, gotcha

[Bob Long]

Just now, Warhippy said:

He made a statement 2/3 days ago likening the status of the C government and first mations as that of a parent and a child,  Didn't go over well

 

Ah thanks I missed that one.

[Optimist Prime]

Just now, Bob Long said:

 

Don't you think that he may appeal to non first Nations voters though? Particularly where the land use fear is strongest? I thought he spoke to them (and no I don't agree with him).

 

Oh certainly but the Cons don't need to win the rural seats, they already have them, by and large, they need to win urban, suburban and vancouver island seats, and I don't see that stance playing well in the seat rich areas of the province. Like they can't win more in Hudson's Hope and Fort St John than they have been winning for generations, so it is a bad trade off to reinforce voter sentiment there at the expense of new frontiers speaking to the right wing in BC as a whole. 

[Bob Long]

1 minute ago, bishopshodan said:

 

Ahh, gotcha

 

The direct question to Eby on it was interesting. He now says he won't try to force new regulations but didn't explain the failed attempt to sneak some through last year. It's what lit the fire under the BC cons popularity.

 

Too much bs on the issue from both of them imo.

[Warhippy]

1 minute ago, Bob Long said:

 

I didn't mean to suggest first Nations voters would like him. I do think he spoke to non first Nations voters who are worried about the land use issues.

 

So while far from perfect and toothless, UNDRIP and the current state of things sort of protects first nations lands from exploitation and resource extraction without due or fair compensation and say as it allows the entirety fo the world stage to see what is going on.

 

If that is gone then there is far less visibility for first nations bands, members and land from that in the future.

 

Think of it as a back door window to the goodies that is otherwise locked for the most part.

 

In Canada we have existing laws and treaties.  But without UNDRIP there is no actual notice to the world that this level of exploitation would be going on. 

[Optimist Prime]

Rustad's view on removing undrip legislation in BC could even cost him a couple ridings that the 'right' already holds.. tough to say cons as its a shell game at the moment of changing party names and affiliations but it is the same economic drivers from teh Socred movement, through the BC Liberal movement and now into the Conservative movement... but you get the idea. From my own files, sorry for the shoddy work haha, but the ridings 2 and 12 might move left in my opinion as the Nisga'a in the SKeena are a pretty large voting group and the St'at'imc peoples in '12' outnumber resource workers by a large margin, with more townsfolks leaning left. Shrug... who really knows, not me, but overall Rustad's performance and positions may favour rural ridings going breaking right, buut he kind of failed at making inroads in the places that determine the Premier, imo. 

[Bob Long]

17 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

So while far from perfect and toothless, UNDRIP and the current state of things sort of protects first nations lands from exploitation and resource extraction without due or fair compensation and say as it allows the entirety fo the world stage to see what is going on.

 

If that is gone then there is far less visibility for first nations bands, members and land from that in the future.

 

Think of it as a back door window to the goodies that is otherwise locked for the most part.

 

In Canada we have existing laws and treaties.  But without UNDRIP there is no actual notice to the world that this level of exploitation would be going on. 

 

the issue I see with it isn't on principle, its the implementation. Having this appeal to authority (which is a problematic take on it) gave some in the NDP the idea that they should "quietly" change land use regulations (https://www.timescolonist.com/opinion/les-leyne-ndp-retreats-on-land-act-blames-dog-whistle-politics-8339967).

 

It was a massive screw up the NDP had to backtrack on and gives the right this kind of talking point:

 

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/bc-plans-to-reconcile-by-giving-first-nations-veto-on-land-use

 

I just don't see how pointing to the UN is going to bring people together in BC. Right now the UN is one of the least respected areas of government with many people on the right. 

 

[Optimist Prime]

11 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

I just don't see how pointing to the UN is going to bring people together in BC. Right now the UN is one of the least respected areas of government with many people on the right. 

oh and me in the left of center, haha. the UN is imo at its lowest point in my adult life. As i type this I can gaze up at my metal UN cap badge on my blue beret sitting on my 'i love me' shelf. hahaha.... it is too bad, late 90s UN seemed to be a force for good in the world. a quarter century later and it is backing up to league of nations status... 

[Bob Long]

Just now, Optimist Prime said:

oh and me in the left of center, haha. the UN is imo at its lowest point in my adult life. As i type this I can gaze up at my metal UN cap badge on my blue beret sitting on my 'i love me' shelf. hahaha.... it is too bad, late 90s UN seemed to be a force for good in the world. a quarter century later and it is backing up to league of nations status... 

 

it is a shame whats happening to it in reality, and in the blogosphere. 

 

I think most of the regulars in this thread know how much I want to see First Nations economic prosperity. I think it's the path forward. But the way the land use thing was handled was imo based in part on the idea that UNDRIP gave some in government the idea that they had moral superiority on their side, instead of thinking of things as a partnership. Maybe I'm wrong on this, but its what I think I see.

 

[Optimist Prime]

6 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

it is a shame whats happening to it in reality, and in the blogosphere. 

 

I think most of the regulars in this thread know how much I want to see First Nations economic prosperity. I think it's the path forward. But the way the land use thing was handled was imo based in part on the idea that UNDRIP gave some in government the idea that they had moral superiority on their side, instead of thinking of things as a partnership. Maybe I'm wrong on this, but its what I think I see.

 

Well we all have our biases, good and bad. I know that I don't like hereditary chiefs at all. Bands that elect a council and chief are, for me, the best models that serve their people in the best ways. But I know I am biased against those bands who choose to stick with the hereditary chiefs in that I consider that model to be backwards and not progressive at all. Who is to say I am right though. It is up to the band at large is my opinion. 

[Optimist Prime]

 

[Bob Long]

10 minutes ago, Optimist Prime said:

Well we all have our biases, good and bad. I know that I don't like hereditary chiefs at all. Bands that elect a council and chief are, for me, the best models that serve their people in the best ways. But I know I am biased against those bands who choose to stick with the hereditary chiefs in that I consider that model to be backwards and not progressive at all. Who is to say I am right though. It is up to the band at large is my opinion. 

 

I have that particular bias as well. I don't know how e.g. Canada should have to support a male only hereditary system in some cases, but dunno, maybe it's over my head. 

 

I prefer to let that stuff play out on its own somewhere and focus more on what groups like the Squamish nation are actually doing to build up their own communities with some very smart folks running their investment and development portfolio. 

 

 

Edited October 9 by Bob Long

[Boudrias]

18 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

it is a shame whats happening to it in reality, and in the blogosphere. 

 

I think most of the regulars in this thread know how much I want to see First Nations economic prosperity. I think it's the path forward. But the way the land use thing was handled was imo based in part on the idea that UNDRIP gave some in government the idea that they had moral superiority on their side, instead of thinking of things as a partnership. Maybe I'm wrong on this, but its what I think I see.

 

Fundamentally I think all Canadians should be equal citizens. I don't agree that the UN should set the agenda for race relations in Canada. 1st Nations is a struggle for me to understand how to move forward. I agree with you that the answer is largely economic. !st Nations having a share of projects in their territory is an opportunity for reconciliation. That said I do not believe in 1st Nations veto as I would not for any ethnic group in Canada. 

 

As it stands now 1st Nations has a veto on land use at our Regional District. Building permits require 1st Nation sign off. I am sympathetic to land claims but hard political decisions have to be made so that the province and the country can move forward. Land claims are not a clear cut process. IMHO there are many people other than natives who have jumped on the band wagon in hopes of enriching themselves. It requires open discussion.