Eby not ruling out possibility of Conservative Speaker of the House
The morning after his party was asked to form government, Premier David Eby said he was feeling well rested for the “first time in a long time.”
. . .
But now, the premier says he and his party have their work cut out for them after a close election showed that British Columbians want more from the NDP.
“They’re asking us to do better, but they’re also giving us the opportunity to do better,” Eby said.
. . .
But he said none of that can be accomplished without the support of Conservative and Green MLAs in the legislature.
You must log in or register to comment.
Given the amount of brain drain that has left BC, he could make life instantly easier for every single person universally by cutting taxes, cutting regulations, cutting government spending, shutdown a few government programs, and cut fees.
Vague hand-waving is not a solution to problems, it is lazy.
What spending should be cut? What regulations should be removed? What government programs should be shutdown?
Without some specifics there is not even anything to discuss in your comment.
Please don’t feed the trolls.
Not to question the mod work being done, but if someone is trolling, isn’t it better to reprimand them than the users responding to the troll? Telling people not to engage with trolls is adressing the symptom, not the cause IMHO.
Yeah. I’m 100% open to cutting government services, regulations, and spending, but you gotta make a case for it. How would it be better? Could it be done better and more cheaply by private services? How would you avoid the downsides?
Like, we never should have sold BC Tel. We’re paying more money for less service now, to out-of-province entities taking huge profit margins at the expense of BC citizens. I honestly think we should nationalize all the fibre, copper, and cell towers in the province and force Telus et al to be resellers for wholesale access to lines. That would minimize the monopoly rents and allow innovation and competition on the front end, where currently, they use their monopoly access to the networks to force us to accept shitty front end service.
Anyone planning to sell a government service to the private sector needs to answer the question of how to prevent us from being fleeced by oligopolists and increasing our costs.
100% open to cutting government services,
I see you writing that you don’t like centrally-managed projects that effectively leverage economies of scale and reverse monopoly to benefit regular people. Explain? Compare healthcare with dental care.
regulations
ALL REGULATIONS ARE WRITTEN IN THE BLOOD OF PEOPLE HURT OR KILLED DURING THEIR LACK.
There. I used the clear text for greater legibility.
, and spending
On what? Hint; if it’s spent by the government, you have a say in it. The gov only spends on things we have told it to spend on and how. And usually gets a better rate when you look at it.
Like, I agree that overspending is dumb. But I can predict that the cost of analyzing spending properly to trim any fat will cost more than the fat trimmed. All the money dumped on complications are either there for a reason or there by our specific request.
I’d like you to please step down a little bit from DEFCON 3. :) I feel like you’re reading me say “all” regulations when I mean “some” regulations. There definitely exist stupid rules that aren’t science-based, or have been ideologically-motivated, or created in response to temporary panics, that could be rolled back.
Like, property setbacks and parking minimums are examples of regulations that I personally think could be removed.
The important thing is that any proposed service cut, or regulation cut, be well-justified, at least as well-justified as the introduction of new ones. We have to consider the consequences of introducing a new rule, or repealing an old one.
Not all regulations are “WRITTEN IN THE BLOOD OF PEOPLE HURT OR KILLED”, some are pushed through by (say) lumber companies afraid of losing profit, or tech companies trying to make life more difficult for smaller tech companies. Some simply have unintended consequences and turn out to be worse than not having them.
Ditto government services and spending. There are good government services, and honestly, services that could be redefined, or rebuilt to be more effective.
Surely supply side economics will work this time. The million attempts before were just practice.
The US has been engaged in that experiment for 50+yrs now. Still waiting for the trickling to start.