B.C. Politics Thread

[bishopshodan]

1 minute ago, Bob Long said:

 

PP pumping 

 

 It's an honest question though

 

Bouds responds to about 30% of my questions...

So , do you know? how much fed 'pumping' is there normally in Provincial elections?

[Bob Long]

1 minute ago, bishopshodan said:

 

 It's an honest question though

 

Bouds responds to about 30% of my questions...

So , do you know? how much fed 'pumping' is there normally in Provincial elections?

 

It happens. Not sure it really helps or not.

 

Don't know the frequency but you see it a lot in ab.

 

[bishopshodan]

2 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

It happens. Not sure it really helps or not.

 

Don't know the frequency but you see it a lot in ab.

 

 

So has PP been involved in  Rustads group? I saw that he made a comment when the merger happened but nothing I can find since.

 

It wouldnt be that our fine friend bouds is just picking on Singh and giving PP a pass , would it?

 

[Bob Long]

Just now, bishopshodan said:

 

So has PP been involved in  Rustads group? I saw that he made a comment when the merger happened but nothing I can find since.

 

It wouldnt be that our fine friend bouds is just picking on Singh and giving PP a pass , would it?

 

 

Yea there was support given in the media. Not sure the level of actual involvement. I suspect very little.

[4petesake]

1 hour ago, bishopshodan said:

 

 It's an honest question though

 

Bouds responds to about 30% of my questions...

So , do you know? how much fed 'pumping' is there normally in Provincial elections?

 

Not sure why Bouds would even want this to happen. I’d much prefer federal and provincial parties stay the hell out of each others politics. There is more than enough tribalism already.

[Coconuts]

https://www.gensqueeze.ca/bc_election_housing_affordability

[Duodenum]

13 minutes ago, Coconuts said:

https://www.gensqueeze.ca/bc_election_housing_affordability

Nice article, I recommend everyone read it.

[Coconuts]

Increasing, or removing, rent caps is only going to benefit those who already own homes

 

It'd only exacerbate generational wealth divides, and class wealth divides

 

https://www.bcndp.ca/releases/rustads-plan-raise-rent-caps-could-cost-renters-hundreds-dollars-month

Edited 13 hours ago by Coconuts

[King Heffy]

32 minutes ago, Coconuts said:

Increasing, or removing, rent caps is only going to benefit those who already own homes

 

It'd only exacerbate generational wealth divides, and class wealth divides

 

https://www.bcndp.ca/releases/rustads-plan-raise-rent-caps-could-cost-renters-hundreds-dollars-month

It's my biggest fear from Rustad's platform. Allowing this worthless parasite to inflict his platform on the province will cause irreparable damage and render the province uninhabitable.

[Bob Long]

2 hours ago, Coconuts said:

Increasing, or removing, rent caps is only going to benefit those who already own homes

 

It'd only exacerbate generational wealth divides, and class wealth divides

 

https://www.bcndp.ca/releases/rustads-plan-raise-rent-caps-could-cost-renters-hundreds-dollars-month

 

Millennials pretty much have to wait and hope for a wealth transfer via inheritance. 

 

It's pretty much rentals or leasehold property for them. Which can be a great choice if we can get rent control in that gives people their lives back .

 

 

[Bob Long]

Looking at the polling, Main Street polls the BCC 5 points up, and Angus Reid has the NDP 5 points up.

 

Main St does rolling telephone, Angus online.

 

It'll be interesting to see which method is correct.

Edited 10 hours ago by Bob Long

[DSVII]

Remember to vote this week if you haven't done so! 

[Coconuts]

1 hour ago, Bob Long said:

 

Millennials pretty much have to wait and hope for a wealth transfer via inheritance. 

 

It's pretty much rentals or leasehold property for them. Which can be a great choice if we can get rent control in that gives people their lives back .

 

 

 

To some degree you're right, and I've said as much myself, many millennials will have to wait for their boomer parents to die in order to have a chance at home ownership. But even that's nuanced. 

 

Personal example, I'm 34 and the oldest of four brothers, my parents are both closing in on 65, they could each live another 25-30 years. Anything left to us would be split four ways, and that's assuming there is much and that our parents don't utilize equity stemming from increased home value over time to eke out a retirement that isn't bare bones; and we'd obviously prefer them not to just eke things out. Myself and two of my siblings, we've got professions and tickets and the like and will probably get by one way or another even if we're stuck in a rental position. My other sibling though, he'll always face barriers through no fault of his own, inheritance will likely be his only shot at home ownership. 

 

Now, obviously the reality is that not everyone gets to own homes, but access has grown increasingly difficult and there are definitely generational disparities in regards to achieving the home ownership milestone. 

 

Folks being able to increasingly jack up rent, as these Cons seem to be in favour of, would also negatively affects the ability of renters to scrounge up that ever challenging (and increasingly high) down payment. 

 

Lot of folks won't get much in the form of an inheritance, whatever many get will be divided. Folks are living longer than ever, in many cases what would have once been passed along as an inheritance may have to be used to finance one's living into old, old age. Bits like care homes, respite, age related physical ailments, there's a lot that potentially comes into play. 

 

Some of it's a societal issue, and it's intrinsically tied to how housing is viewed, it's frequently encouraged to look at housing as an investment now as opposed to simply the purchase of a home in which to live. Lot of industry and media will portray the housing market as being strong when prices continue to rise and as weak when they stall, seems pretty backwards, a healthy housing economy should be one that isn't jumping all over the place. 

 

Some of it is tied to the root causes of housing affordability, those who have owned homes and bought up homes have been benefiting from the ever increasing valuation of said homes for decades, and politicians are going to protect the perceived nest eggs of these largely older demographics. Most homes in BC are owned by regular citizens who have financially benefitted from the the ever increasing equity associated with home ownership, especially in recent years, many folks view it as a means to fund their retirement. And this is a growing issue, I posted in the Canada thread a while back that the number of first time Canadian home buyers has been declining, smaller investors are largely eating up that housing share. 

 

Simply having what'll be multiple younger generations struggling to get into home ownership waiting for their parents to die is untenable, progressive change will be necessary imo. Not only do we need a lot more housing to be built, we need housing prices to stabilize as opposed to the massive jumps in value we've seen in recent years. We can't just wait for older Canadians to die, a lot of them won't be dying any time soon.

 

I'm not sure provincial parties can actually make progressive changes without recognizing that regular home owners have probably benefitted more from rising housing prices than investors and so on, and that making some of the needed progressive changes will probably have to involve curtailing some of those benefits to some degree. It's likely not enough to simply try and crack down on illegal money, speculative investing, and so on. I don't see how any measure of generational housing equity is achieved without curtailing the benefits of those who currently possess most of the housing wealth to some degree. 

 

Income has not kept pace with housing and rental costs, housing costs have accelerated so much faster than wages, even for educated professionals who once upon a time would have had respectable earning power. Something's gotta give. I've said it before, folks shouldn't have to have bachelors degrees, masters degrees, trades tickets, or PHD's to finance homes. Lot of folks don't benefit from intergenerational wealth, it shouldn't be needed. Most of the Canadian population lives within proximity of the US border, housing needs to be affordable there too, not just in rural and remote areas. 

 

 https://www.canada.ca/en/financial-consumer-agency/services/mortgages/down-payment.html

 

Hopefully the NDP can pull out a win, the Cons winning would only make these matters even more challenging. 

Edited 10 hours ago by Coconuts

[Bob Long]

3 minutes ago, Coconuts said:

 

To some degree you're right, and I've said as much myself, many millennials will have to wait for their boomer parents to die in order to have a chance at home ownership. But even that's nuanced. 

 

Personal example, I'm 34 and the oldest of four brothers, my parents are both closing in on 65, they could each live another 25-30 years. Anything left to us would be split four ways, and that's assuming there is much and that our parents don't utilize equity stemming from increased home value over time to eke out a retirement that isn't bare bones; and we'd obviously prefer them not to just eke things out. Myself and two of my siblings, we've got professions and tickets and the like and will probably get by one way or another even if we're stuck in a rental position. My other sibling though, he'll always face barriers through no fault of his own, inheritance will likely be his only shot at home ownership. 

 

Now, obviously the reality is that not everyone gets to own homes, but access has grown increasingly difficult and there are definitely generational disparities in regards to achieving the home ownership milestone. 

 

Folks being able to increasingly jack up rent, as these Cons seem to be in favour of, would also negatively affects the ability of renters to scrounge up that ever challenging (and increasingly high) down payment. 

 

Lot of folks won't get much in the form of an inheritance, whatever many get will be divided. Folks are living longer than ever, in many cases what would have once been passed along as an inheritance may have to be used to finance one's living into old, old age. Bits like care homes, respite, age related physical ailments, there's a lot that potentially comes into play. 

 

Some of it's a societal issue, and it's intrinsically tied to how housing is viewed, it's frequently encouraged to look at housing as an investment now as opposed to simply the purchase of a home in which to live. Lot of industry and media will portray the housing market as being strong when prices continue to rise and as weak when they stall, seems pretty backwards, a healthy housing economy should be one that isn't jumping all over the place. 

 

Some of it is tied to the root causes of housing affordability, those who have owned homes and bought up homes have been benefiting from the ever increasing valuation of said homes for decades, and politicians are going to protect the perceived nest eggs of these largely older demographics. Most homes in BC are owned by regular citizens who have financially benefitted from the the ever increasing equity associated with home ownership, especially in recent years, many folks view it as a means to fund their retirement. And this is a growing issue, I posted in the Canada thread a while back that the number of first time Canadian home buyers has been declining, investors are largely eating up that housing share. 

 

Simply having what'll be multiple younger generations struggling to get into home ownership waiting for their parents to die is untenable, progressive change will be necessary imo. Not only do we need a lot more housing to be built, we need housing prices to stabilize as opposed to the massive jumps in value we've seen in recent years. We can't just wait for older Canadians to die, a lot of them won't be dying any time soon.

 

I'm not sure provincial parties can actually make progressive changes without recognizing that regular home owners have probably benefitted more from rising housing prices than investors and so on, and that making some of the needed progressive changes will probably have to involve curtailing some of those benefits to some degree. It's likely not enough to simply try and crack down on illegal money, speculative investing, and so on. I don't see how any measure of generational housing equity is achieved without curtailing the benefits of those who currently possess most of the housing wealth to some degree. 

 

Income has not kept pace with housing and rental costs, housing costs have accelerated so much faster than wages, even for educated professionals who once upon a time would have had respectable earning power. Something's gotta give. I've said it before, folks shouldn't have to have bachelors degrees, masters degrees, trades tickets, or PHD's to finance homes. Lot of folks don't benefit from intergenerational wealth, it shouldn't be needed. Most of the Canadian population lives within proximity of the US border, housing needs to be affordable there too, not just in rural and remote areas. 

 

 https://www.canada.ca/en/financial-consumer-agency/services/mortgages/down-payment.html

 

Hopefully the NDP can pull out a win, the Cons winning would only make these matters even more challenging. 

 

All of these issues are why I keep coming back to leasehold property. It's really the only affordable way to buy for people under 40 who don't have family help.

 

I don't see any party doing enough tbh, but Rustad is playing a bit of a bs game with his self named rebate.

 

As far as equity goes you are correct. Id be fine with mine going down if it helps folks like you get a home. I think a lot of homeowners might agree if there was a legitimate plan in place to build homes on a scale we haven't seen yet.

 

[Coconuts]

3 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

All of these issues are why I keep coming back to leasehold property. It's really the only affordable way to buy for people under 40 who don't have family help.

 

I don't see any party doing enough tbh, but Rustad is playing a bit of a bs game with his self named rebate.

 

As far as equity goes you are correct. Id be fine with mine going down if it helps folks like you get a home. I think a lot of homeowners might agree if there was a legitimate plan in place to build homes on a scale we haven't seen yet.

 

 

It's gonna require some radical things being implemented at provincial and federal levels if we want Canada to avoid becoming a place where only the rich own homes. 

 

The oldest of Gen Alpha are roughly 11, the youngest Gen Z are roughly 12, the youngest millennials are 28. In a mere 10 years there are going to be two generations very much looking to own homes, and one that's getting very closer to the age where that'll be the biggest economic pursuit, so two generations trying to head off Gen Alpha and one young generation chomping at their heels if the status quo continues as is. Some millennials and Gen Z will obviously see inheritances, but I've touched on what that could or couldn't look like. 

 

Those ten years are gonna come and go before we know it, that's not a ton of runway if governments continue to twiddle their thumbs in regards to meaningful change, even less if provincial and federal governments contribute to setting things back.

[Western Red]

On 10/16/2024 at 10:52 AM, Optimist Prime said:

found a cool little view of the 338 election poll of polls website. I had not seen this layout until this morning. Polling averages laid against riding data leads to this forecast.

 

Ladysmith is always tough, I'm even worried for my riding of Cowichan.

 

I love the thought of Green policies, especially with the age of the boomer generation and addiction measures.. but this time, in Cowichan we need to do the thing and not dabble.. NDP for the win.

 

There's always new money coming in and year over year, we see the Cons ticking up while the left is split. Has to stop this go 'round. I hope Ladysmith and Naniamo has the same gumption.

[bishopshodan]

26 minutes ago, Western Red said:

Ladysmith is always tough

 

It's weird this year.

Ladysmith / Oceanside ( Parksville, Nanoose, Qualicum)

 

There's Naniamo and Lantzville in between...seems strange to group Ladysmith and Oceanside together.

 

https://www.timescolonist.com/2024-bc-votes/bc-election-2024-ladysmith-oceanside-9626653

Edited 9 hours ago by bishopshodan

[Optimist Prime]

1 hour ago, Western Red said:

Ladysmith is always tough, I'm even worried for my riding of Cowichan.

 

I love the thought of Green policies, especially with the age of the boomer generation and addiction measures.. but this time, in Cowichan we need to do the thing and not dabble.. NDP for the win.

 

There's always new money coming in and year over year, we see the Cons ticking up while the left is split. Has to stop this go 'round. I hope Ladysmith and Naniamo has the same gumption.

We mailed in our NDP votes already. Same riding. NDP candidate has 5 wins for tribal council, and 2 or 3 for north cowichan council member. I prefer her by a mile to the green party here. Fursteneau did nothing for us. Nothing. I hope she loses in beaconhill too.

[Elias Pettersson]

Record number of early voters. This signifies change IMO..

 

 

[aGENT]

1 hour ago, bishopshodan said:

 

It's weird this year.

Ladysmith / Oceanside ( Parksville, Nanoose, Qualicum)

 

There's Naniamo and Lantzville in between...seems strange to group Ladysmith and Oceanside together.

 

https://www.timescolonist.com/2024-bc-votes/bc-election-2024-ladysmith-oceanside-9626653

 

It's SO weird.  Ladysmith should be in a riding with like Chemainus, Saltair and Cedar, Yellowpoint, South Wellington, Cassidy etc. 

[Bob Long]

10 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

Record number of early voters. This signifies change IMO..

 

 

 

This is good to see, regardless of the results.

 

If we could get people paying attention to candidate selection we could fix most of our issues with our politicians.

 

[The Arrogant Worms]

1 hour ago, bishopshodan said:

 

It's weird this year.

Ladysmith / Oceanside ( Parksville, Nanoose, Qualicum)

 

There's Naniamo and Lantzville in between...seems strange to group Ladysmith and Oceanside together.

 

https://www.timescolonist.com/2024-bc-votes/bc-election-2024-ladysmith-oceanside-9626653

This is why the Cons will win my riding.  Completely different demographics  between Ladysmith and the rich folks up Island

[The Arrogant Worms]

17 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

Record number of early voters. This signifies change IMO..

 

 

Or keep the devil at the door

[The Arrogant Worms]

1 hour ago, Western Red said:

Ladysmith is always tough, I'm even worried for my riding of Cowichan.

 

I love the thought of Green policies, especially with the age of the boomer generation and addiction measures.. but this time, in Cowichan we need to do the thing and not dabble.. NDP for the win.

 

There's always new money coming in and year over year, we see the Cons ticking up while the left is split. Has to stop this go 'round. I hope Ladysmith and Naniamo has the same gumption.

NDP should win Cowichan.  The Conservative candidate is well hated by many people.  I have a very bad story about him but I won't share it.

[LegioN]

1 minute ago, The Arrogant Worms said:

Or keep the devil at the door

Kind of how I see it. People who would usually be apathetic about politics being fearful that a party of conspiracy theories, regressive policies, and barely concealed racism doesn't take over the province.