NDP Plans

LadyC
#1
Posted by the Rev elsewhere....
Quote:

3110 Boundary Road, Burnaby, BC V5M 4A2
604.430.8600 toll-free 1.888.868.3637
www.bc.ndp.ca
Backgrounder
Strengthen public health care to reduce waitlists for key services, end
privatization, and respond better to patient needs
The Liberal government is putting patient care at risk by shutting down hospitals, closing emergency
rooms and cutting long-term care for seniors. And by opening up more of health care to privatized
services, Gordon Campbell is moving BC closer to a two-tiered system where those who can afford it
are able to buy their way to the front of the line.
Carole James will move British Columbia’s health care system forward, developing and delivering
innovation in quality public health care. Her solutions lie in prevention rather than privatization. In
strengthening hospitals, not closing them. And in listening to community needs, not making arbitrary
decisions behind closed doors.
The New Democrat Plan
Reduce waitl i sts and strengthen hospital services
Expand long-term care services, starting by opening 1,000 units in the first year and a total of
6,000 by 2009, to reduce waitlists and make life better for seniors
Reduce waitlists and privatization of surgical procedures by:
• investing $75 million in a waitlist reduction strategy
• creating new, public specialized surgical and diagnostic centres
End emergency room backlogs by:
• funding 200 acute care beds
• hiring more nurses
• expanding the role of nurse practitioners to BC hospitals
A greater focus on community health care, deci sion-making and prevent ion
• Stop closing hospitals and emergency services, and require health boards to consult with
communities on any significant changes to services
• Improve public accountability through local elections for some health authority board
positions
• Improve access to front line health care by investing in community-based prevention and
primary care – adding 12 new Family Health Care Centres
• Increase British Columbians’ access to family doctors by making it easier for highly skilled
foreign trained doctors to set up practice in BC
Improving services for BC’ s most vulnerable people
• Increase funding for home care and home support services to help seniors and others with
chronic illness live independently and to take pressure off emergency rooms and acute care
beds
• Invest in community based mental-health and addiction services, especially for people living
on our streets.

Quote:

3110 Boundary Road, Burnaby, BC V5M 4A2
604.430.8600 toll-free 1.888.868.3637
www.bc.ndp.ca
Backgrounder
Work with business, labour and communities for a strong economy for everyone
Creating a more diverse and value-added economy requires a fair, competitive tax and regulatory
environment, no question. But so much more is needed: a skilled workforce, reliable public services such
as BC Hydro and medicare, a commitment to research and to commercialization of new ideas and
products, solid transportation and communication infrastructure, and – most importantly – a partnership
between the province and communities to develop economic strategies that work to provide stability for
businesses, employees, communities and families
The New Democrat Plan
• During periods of high commodity prices, return a significant portion of the provincial budget
surplus to rural and resource communities for investment in economic sustainability and
diversification
• Help forest communities plan for the economic impact of the pine beetle epidemic with reinvestment
of increased timber royalties from expanded local harvest
• Restrict exports of raw logs from public lands and ensure that forest communities gain jobs from
regional timber harvest
• Balance the budget
• Resolve land claims and strengthen meaningful consultation with First Nations
• Scrap the $6 an hour training wage, prevent the exploitation of children in the workplace, and
ensure fair employment standards and strengthened enforcement
• Ensure healthy and safe working conditions
• Ensure a strategic and competitive tax and regulatory environment that stimulates and supports
innovation, job creation and diversification:
• strategic tax reductions for innovation and job growth, e.g. film production tax credits
• no corporate capital tax for non-financial institutions
• no new taxes on small businesses
• reduce regulatory costs while maintaining high standards
• work with the federal government to extend EI to self-employed people
• Establish a Premier's Economic Advisory Council
• Utilize the strength of BC Hydro to establish British Columbia as a major world leader in the
development of clean, green power
• Market BC agriculture with a creative and energetic Buy BC program and ensure the
Agricultural Land Reserve is protected to strengthen opportunities for sustainable agriculture
• Improve freight and goods transportation on key trade corridors
• Ensure that the 2010 Olympic Games are socially, economically and environmentally
responsible, and bring benefits to all regions of the province.
This vision of an increasingly prosperous, stable and sustainable economy whose benefits are shared equally
throughout our province will not be achieved at exclusive meetings in Victoria between Gordon Campbell
and Liberal Party insiders. All regions, all British Columbians, deserve to be partners in that effort.

You still can't seem to answer how all this pie in the sky will be paid for.
 
Reverend Blair
#2
Quote:

• During periods of high commodity prices, return a significant portion of the provincial budget
surplus to rural and resource communities for investment in economic sustainability and
diversification
• Help forest communities plan for the economic impact of the pine beetle epidemic with reinvestment
of increased timber royalties from expanded local harvest
• Restrict exports of raw logs from public lands and ensure that forest communities gain jobs from
regional timber harvest

 
LadyC
#3
Yup... that'll do it.
 
Reverend Blair
#4
It's the same sort of plan that the NDP used to turn Saskatchewan into a have province, C.
 
LadyC
#5
Saskatchewan is a have province now? Last source I saw said it was only Ontario and Alberta.

It's easy to tell everyone how wonderful things will be as soon as you're elected. It's after the ballots are counted that things get tricky. That's when you need your "wriggle room".
 
Reverend Blair
#6
You should listen more then.
 
LadyC
#7
Yes, perhaps I should. I'd much rather hear the pie-in-the-sky ideals than bother with the nasty reality.
 
galianomama
#8
Quote:

Yes, perhaps I should. I'd much rather hear the pie-in-the-sky ideals than bother with the nasty reality.

spoken as a true liberal
 
LadyC
#9
You obviously didn't understand.
 
Reverend Blair
#10
No, you obviously don't understand, C. It is the same kind of plan that the NDP in Saskatchewan used to become a have province. Diversification, promotion of local resources and local businesses and value-added to natural resources before they are exported.

It is a strategy that works not just in the short-term, but insures that long-term growth can take place.

You rolled your eyes at it and then questioned whether Saskatchewan was a have province. It is. It became one in November.
 
LadyC
#11
Apparently Saskatchewan will be classed as a "Have" province for 2005-06, but they will still receive some equalization payments this year.

Those things alone aren't enough to turn things around, Rev. How much were taxes raised to pay for the programs? How much will the university's suffer if the tuition freeze is implemented again?
 
Reverend Blair
#12
How much will the people of BC suffer if they keep shipping raw logs instead of developing value-added industries? How much will they suffer if the population does not have a good education? How much will they suffer when the average real wage keeps dropping? How much will they suffer if the fish farms kill off the wild species?
 
LadyC
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by LadyC

How much were taxes raised to pay for the programs?

It seemed a simple enough question, B. I take it you have no answer, since your only response was to ask a handful more.
 
Reverend Blair
#14
How much were they raised to pay off the debt left behind by the neo-cons in the Devine government? It's not an answerable question, C. If you knew anything about Saskatchewan, you'd know that.

The NDP left office in the early 1980s with the province in the black. When they came back to power the province was on the verge of bankrputcy, social programs had been cut to the bone, profitable crown corporations had been sold off.

So did the taxes go up? Yup. It's been a long slog to get the province back on its feet and somebody had to pay for it. Campbell's plan and what he's been doing to your province looks an awful like what Grant Devine did in Saskatchewan. The rhetoric and the promises are the same. So are the actions that don't meet the rhetoric and promises.
 
LadyC
#15
The NDP here in B.C. claimed to have balanced the books, too.

Your post offered no answers, just more rhetoric and blame-shifting.
 
Reverend Blair
#16
Quote:

The NDP here in B.C. claimed to have balanced the books, too.

Yeah, Devine used to do that too.
 
no1important
#17
With all the "Olympic and RAV" construction coming up we need to the NDP back in to make sure these people get fair wages.

I got a laugh at that "notndpagain" web site. The Construction Contractors page. Basically they want more money for themselves and not pay their employess a descent living wage. They are scared shitless if the NDP get in they will bring back the "Fair Wage" Law. Campbell was an ass for getting rid of it. But in BC I guess only the few friends of Campbell's are allowed to make a descent wage.

Hopefully the NDP get rid of the slave wage ($6 bucks sucks) and legalized child exploitation by allowing 12 year olds to work. That is plain wrong. And they eliminated the office of the independent Children's Commissioner, who was the province's watchdog for children in care.

Basically the liberals and their supporters just care about money and not the people.

I see now Campbell is going to destroy the Skeena river salmon runs by allowing fish farms in its esterary.
here

Is there nothing this man won't do for money? Destroying eco systems, wanting to start offshore drilling, slave labour, slave wages, gutting legally signed contracts, over ruling labour board arbitrators decisions, cutting wages in half. No wonder the UN has found Campbell's government guilty 9 times for human rights violations. Campbell is truly an evil man.

Shipped Ferry construction to Germany and now sounds like Poland will build our new ferries. Of course he will wait until after election to announce that. So much for creating BC jobs.

Here is a good link--> Here and here for the real truth here or here or here or
here

Watch the exportation of raw logs Here

BC has the fewest cops. here
 
galianomama
#18
hey no 1 - did you see the debate last night? i thought the ndp looked good, and the green party was particularly strong. liberal's got off to a pretty shaky start....what did you think?
 
peapod
#19
Agreed mama.
side note: no one important you have come into your own :P I have been reading your posts lately and they are really good.
 
Reverend Blair
#20
They are dandy posts, aren't they? No 1 needs to post more.

I've been reading a few things about the BC debate last night. The general concensus seems to be that James won, but there was no knockout punch, Campbell did okay but looked a little arrogant and evasive at times, and that the Green leader(sorry, can't remember the name) was much improved over previous performances.
 
galianomama
#21
yeah, most felt that adrain carr was pretty good....she seems to represent the 'average' bc voter.. i dunno, i still think the libs will get in, only because they don't know enough about the other runners. we will see. you know what is weird, they polled 650 people after the debate and gordon campbell got the lowest rating - no one trusted anything he said - but i bet he will get in!
 
Reverend Blair
#22
If your STV thing passes, it could put an end to the kind of dictatorial measures he's been taking anyway, at least in the future.
 
galianomama
#23
god, i have been trying to understand that whole thing...we should start a thread on it and see if someone could explain it to me in really simple terms.
 
mrmom2
#24
Sorry to say Rev it's not going to fly People just don't get it and I don't know why it's not rocket science
 
Reverend Blair
#25
It looked pretty straight forward to me. More complicated than straight proportional representation, but not so complicated that it won't be understood once it's put into practice.
 
mrmom2
#26
I garee with you but average Jo citizen just doesn't seem to get it There is not much info on it I suspect by design Whether your NDP or Liberal politico you want no part of it .It would mean a loss of power for these pin head politicians we have out west
 
galianomama
#27
okay, i'll give it a whirl. i received an email the other night from buddy who was trying to explain it, haven't read it yet though. so how does it work?
 
mrmom2
#28
I'm looking for my STV pamphlet that I got in the mail so I don't explain it wrong for you galianomama
 
LadyC
#29
The following material is downloaded from http://www.aceproject.org, which is a cooperative effort by three leading international organizations (The International Foundation for Election Systems (IFES), the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA) and the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA))

STV - Overview

Political scientists have long advocated the Single Transferable Vote (STV) as one of the most attractive electoral systems. However, its use for national parliamentary elections has been limited to a few cases - Ireland since 1921 (see Ireland: The Archetypal Single Transferable Vote System), Malta since 1947 (see Malta: STV With Some Twists), and once in Estonia in 1990. It is also used in Australia for elections to the Tasmanian House of Assembly, the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly, and the federal Senate (see The Alternative Vote in Australia); and in Northern Ireland local elections.

In the nineteenth century, Thomas Hare in Britain and Carl Andru in Denmark independently invented the core principles of the system. STV uses multi-member districts, with voters ranking candidates in order of preference on the ballot paper in the same manner as the Alternative Vote (see Alternative Vote). In most cases this preference marking is optional, and voters are not required to rank-order all candidates; if they wish they can mark only one. After the total number of first-preference votes are counted, the count then begins by establishing the "quota" of votes required for the election of a single candidate. The quota is calculated by the simple formula: Quota = (votes/seats + 1) + 1

The first stage of the count is to ascertain the total number of first-preference votes for each candidate. Any candidate who has more first preferences than the quota is immediately elected. If no-one has achieved the quota, the candidate with the lowest number of first preferences is eliminated, with his or her second preferences being redistributed to the candidates left in the race. At the same time, the surplus votes of elected candidates (i.e., those votes above the quota) are redistributed according to the second preferences on the ballot papers. For fairness, all the candidate's ballot papers are redistributed, but each at a fractional percentage of one vote, so that the total redistributed vote equals the candidate's surplus (except in the Republic of Ireland, which uses a weighted sample). If a candidate had 100 votes, for example, and their surplus was ten votes, then each ballot paper would be redistributed at the value of 1/10th of a vote. This process continues until all seats for the constituency are filled.

STV – Advantages

As a mechanism for choosing representatives, the Single Transferable Vote (STV) is perhaps the most sophisticated of all electoral systems, allowing for choice between parties and between candidates within parties. The final results also retain a fair degree of proportionality, and the fact that in most actual examples of STV the multi-member districts are relatively small means that an important geographical link between voter and representative is retained.

Furthermore, voters can influence the composition of post-election coalitions, as has been the case in Ireland, and the system provides incentives for inter-party accommodation through the reciprocal exchange of preferences. STV also provides a better chance for the election of popular independent candidates than List PR, because voters are choosing between candidates, rather than between parties (although a party-list option can be added to an STV election; this is done for the Australian Senate - see The Alternative Vote in Australia).

STV – Disadvantages
The Single Transferable Vote (STV) is often criticized on the grounds that preference voting is unfamiliar in many societies, and demands, at the very least, a degree of literacy and numeracy. The intricacies of an STV count are themselves quite complex, which is also seen as being a drawback.

STV also carries the disadvantages of all parliaments elected by PR methods, such as under certain circumstances increasing the power of small minority parties. Moreover, at times the system, unlike straight List PR, can provide pressures for political parties to fragment internally, because at election-time members of the same party are effectively competing against each other, as well as against the opposition, for votes.

Many of these criticisms have, however, proved to be little trouble in practice. STV elections in Ireland (see Ireland: The Archetypal Single Transferable Vote System), Malta (see Malta: STV With Some Twists) and Tasmania (see The Alternative Vote in Australia) have all tended to produce relatively stable, legitimate governments comprised of one or two main parties.

Current System FPTP – Advantages

First Past the Post (FPTP), like other plurality-majority electoral systems, is defended primarily on the grounds of simplicity and its tendency to produce representatives beholden to defined geographic areas. The most often cited advantages of FPTP are that:

 It provides a clear cut choice for voters between two main parties. The built-in disadvantages faced by third and fragmented minority parties under FPTP in many cases makes the party system gravitate towards a party of the "left" and a party of the "right", alternating in power. Third parties often wither away, and almost never reach a threshold of popular support where their national vote achieves a comparable percentage of parliamentary seats.

 It gives rise to single party governments. The "seat bonuses" for the largest party common under FPTP (i.e., where one party wins, for example, 45 percent of the national vote but 55 percent of the seats) means that coalition governments are the exception rather than the rule. This state of affairs is praised for providing cabinets unshackled from the restraints of having to bargain with a minority coalition partner.

 It gives rise to a coherent parliamentary opposition. In theory, the flip side of a strong single-party government is that the opposition is also given enough seats to perform a critical checking role, and present itself as a realistic alternative to the government of the day.

 It benefits broadly-based political parties. In severely ethnically or regionally-divided societies, FPTP is praised for encouraging political parties to be "broad churches", encompassing many elements of society, particularly when there are only two major parties and many different societal groups. These parties can then field a diverse array of candidates for election. In FPTP Malaysia, for example, the governing coalition is a broad-based movement, and fields Chinese candidates in Malay areas and vice versa.

 It excludes extremist parties from parliamentary representation. Unless an extremist minority party's electoral support is geographically concentrated, it is unlikely to win any seats under FPTP. This contrasts with the situation under straight PR systems, where a fraction of one per cent of the national vote can ensure parliamentary representation.

 It retains the link between constituents and their Member of Parliament (MP). Perhaps the most often quoted advantage of FPTP systems is that they give rise to a parliament of geographical representatives: MPs represent defined areas of cities, towns, or regions rather than just party labels. Many proponents of FPTP argue that true representative accountability depends upon the voters of one area knowing who their own representative is, and having the ability to re-elect, or throw them out, at election time. Some analysts have argued that this "geographic accountability" is particularly important in agrarian societies and developing countries (see Holding the Government and Representatives Accountable).

 It allows voters to choose between people, rather than just between parties. At the same time, voters can assess the performance of individual candidates, rather than just having to accept a list of candidates presented by a party, as can happen under some List PR electoral systems.

 It gives a chance for popular independent candidates to be elected. This is particularly important in developing party systems, where politics revolves more around extended family ties, clan, or kinship, and is not based on strong party-political organizations.


 Finally, FPTP systems are particularly praised for being simple to use and understand. A valid vote requires only one mark beside the name or symbol of one candidate, and the number of candidates on the ballot paper is usually small, making the count easy to administer for electoral officials.


Current System FPTP – Disadvantages

Excluding Minority Parties from Fair Representation
Here we take the word "fair" to mean that a party which wins approximately ten percent of the votes should win approximately ten percent of the parliamentary seats. In the 1983 British general election, the Liberal-Social Democratic Party Alliance won twenty-five percent of the votes, but only three percent of the seats. In the 1981 New Zealand election the Social Credit Party won twenty-one percent of the vote, but only two percent of the seats. In the 1989 Botswana general election the Botswana National Front won twenty-seven percent of the votes, but only nine percent of the seats. This pattern is repeated time and time again under FPTP (see UK: Electoral System Experimentation in Cradle of FPTP and New Zealand: A Westminster Democracy Switches to PR).

Excluding Minorities from Fair Representation
As a rule, under FPTP, parties put up the most broadly acceptable candidate in a particular district so as to avoid alienating the majority of electors. Thus it is rare, for example, for a black candidate to be given a major party's nomination in a majority white district in Britain or the USA. There is strong evidence that ethnic and racial minorities across the world are far less likely to be represented in parliaments elected by FPTP. In consequence, if voting behaviour does dovetail with ethnic divisions, then the exclusion from parliamentary representation of ethnic minority group members can be destabilizing for the political system as a whole (see US: Ethnic Minorities and Single-Member Districts).

Excluding Women from Parliament
The "most broadly acceptable candidate" syndrome also affects the ability of women to be elected to parliamentary office, because they are often less likely to be selected as candidates by male-dominated party structures. Evidence across the world suggests that women are less likely to be elected to parliament under plurality-majority systems than under PR ones. The Inter-Parliamentary Union's annual study of "Women in Parliament" in 1995 found that on average women made up eleven percent of the parliamentarians in established democracies using FPTP, but the figure almost doubled to twenty percent in those countries using some form of Proportional Representation. This pattern has been mirrored in new democracies, especially in Africa.

Encouraging the Development of Ethnic Parties
In some situations, FPTP can encourage parties to base their campaigns and policy platforms on hostile conceptions of clan, ethnicity, race, or regionalism. In the Malawi multi-party elections of 1994, a history of colonial rule, missionary activity, and Hastings Banda's "Chewa-ization" of national culture combined to plant the seeds of regional conflict which both dovetailed with, and cut across, pre-conceived ethnic boundaries. The South voted for the United Democratic Front of Bakili Muluzi, the Centre for the Malawi Congress Party of Hastings Banda, and the North for the Alliance for Democracy led by Chakufwa Chihana. There was no incentive for parties to make appeals outside their home region and cultural-political base.

Exaggerating "Regional Fiefdoms"
This is where one party wins all the seats in a province or district. In some situations, FPTP tends to create regions where one party, through winning a majority of votes in the region, wins all, or nearly all, of the parliamentary seats. This both excludes regional minorities from representation and reinforces the perception the politics is a battleground defined by who you are and where you live, rather than what you believe in. This has long been put forward as an argument against FPTP in Canada (see The Canadian Electoral System: A Case Study).

Leaving a Large Number of "Wasted Votes"
Votes which do not go towards the election of any candidate are often referred to as 'wasted votes.' Related to "regional fiefdoms" above is the prevalence of wasted votes, when minority party supporters begin to feel that they have no realistic hope of ever electing a candidate of their choice. This can be a particular danger in nascent democracies, where alienation from the political system increases the likelihood that extremists will be able to mobilize anti-system movements.

Being Unresponsive to Changes in Public Opinion
A pattern of geographically-concentrated electoral support in a country means that one party can maintain exclusive executive control in the face of a substantial drop in popular support. In some democracies under FPTP, a fall from sixty percent to forty percent of a party's popular vote nationally, may represent a fall from eighty percent to sixty percent in the number of seats held, which does not affect its overall dominant position. Unless seats are highly competitive, the system can be insensitive to swings in public opinion.

Open to the Manipulation of Electoral Boundaries
Any system with single-member districts is susceptible to boundary manipulation, such as unfair gerrymandering or malapportionment of district boundaries (see Boundary Delimitation). This was particularly apparent in the Kenyan elections of 1993 when huge disparities between the sizes of electoral districts - the largest had 23 times the number of voters as the smallest - contributed to the ruling Kenyan African National Union party's winning a large parliamentary majority with only thirty percent of the popular vote.
 
mrmom2
#30
Thanks Lady C I can't find that pamphlet anywhere my wife must have thrown it out
 

Similar Threads

32
Tell us your Halloween plans?
by CBC News | Nov 2nd, 2008
15
Oh boy do I have plans! But I need help!
by MitchellP | Oct 13th, 2008
44
576
NDP Have BIG plans in BC again!!!
by insignificant | May 17th, 2005