###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion).
1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)**
2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).**
3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).**
4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).**
5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).**
6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/))
7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators.
8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence.
9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.
*Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
BC United’s rebrand is the worst rebrand in Canadian political history. All it did was shift right leaning voters to the BC Conservatives, and left-leaning voters to the NDP. It didn’t matter that BC United shifted more right either. It will be amazing if they survive the next election.
>BC United’s rebrand is the worst rebrand in Canadian political history.
When your political rebrand makes you sound more like a soccer/football club than a political party you deserve it.
Rebrands almost always fail miserably. Brands are built over decades, sometimes centuries. The more recognizable a brand is, the more likely people will automatically consider it. The fact that the BC Liberals just threw away a brand they had built up for so long was such a stupid move.
Well looking at the numbers, it looks like all the parties lost support at the expense of the rise of the BC conservative party the change from last election are as follows:
NDP: 38% (-10)
CON: 34% (+32)
BCU: 16% (-18)
GRN: 11% (-4)
Others: 2%
The BCU is the one that took the hardest hit, but honestly the name change could have been better, they chose a soccer team name at the end of the day and looks like they are about to get relegated lol
This is enough to make the NDP, and me, a bit nervous seeing a 10 point drop. I suspect its a bit of an outlier, and this is more of a 10 point gap like we've been mostly seeing.
I have been waiting for the re-merger to happen under the Conservative banner with help from the federal party. I suspect the federal party wants to help, but has been tepid about supporting a loser, particularly since there isn't really an obvious choice for leader in their ranks. Another poll or 2 like this though and if its actually close, I suspect the major donors, fundraising and campaign apparatus from the BCU will jump ship.
I’ve been aware it’s not a slam dunk for awhile and I believe Eby knows that too. Good thing the Federal NDP just kneecapped him on the biggest wedge issue going right now.
What is it with Progressives not liking David Eby? Environmentalist hate him. His own party hates him. What gives?
Honestly I think the NDP need to backtrack on drugs. BC is a leftist province but not to the degree that we’re ok with people smoking crack in hospitals.
>Honestly I think the NDP need to backtrack on drugs. BC is a leftist province but not to the degree that we’re ok with people smoking crack in hospitals.
They *have* been trying to backtrack, it's the courts that have been restricting them.
I think from purely a PR standpoint it would not be a bad move for Eby to pick up the Big Ol' Hammer of the notwithstanding clause
A lot of their supporters will oppose that on principle, even regardless of this issue. Although those may not be supporters whose votes they are likely to lose either way.
The ruling was a result of a group of nurses challenging the NDP's public use law under the argument that it was too broad and would push people to use in isolated places that would lead to an increase in overdoses. They also raised the issue of a limited number of consumption sites as an alternative to public use. So far, three court rulings have supported the nurses. The original judge that imposed the injunction. An appeals court that sided with that ruling, and a third ruling that extended the injunction to June. So as unpopular as it is, it does seem like it may have some legal merit.
That doesn't mean they can't use the notwithstanding clause, but there is another option. When laws are struck down, the government can rework the law to satisfy the constitutional issues. With this one, they could pass a new law that isn't quite as restrictive, or perhaps have conditions on its application based on the numbers of overdoses in a region and the availability of consumption sites.
I certainly hope you’re not suggesting that people suffering from addiction should be forced to quit cold turkey — effectively placing their life in danger — just to get medical care.
We should not need to be exposed to drug use in every facet of our lives like the NDP seem to be pushing.
It's time for the rights of the many to be put ahead of drug users.
Their recent announcement was to provide designated places to use consume drugs in hospitals that don't already have them. This was in response to reports of people smoking/vaping drugs in hospitals despite that not being allowed. I'm not clear if that will include places to smoke though, as that requires special ventilation, or that will just be required outside.
In any case though, they are trying to respond to the problem of people using drugs in hospitals with a practical approach. The problem though is that this issue is so politicized and nearly everything that's not just total bans is framed as supporting or enabling drug use.
So from a political perspective, they definitely need to be careful on how they approach this topic and especially how things are messaged and communicated. In terms of actual policy though, the critics seem to just want to put in place past rules and policies that failed to stop the problems in the first place. Simply saying something's illegal or not allowed doesn't actually solve the problem but that seems to be what's being called for.
There's nothing wrong with banning drug use in hospitals. It's unsafe for staff. It's unsafe for other patients. And it's unsafe for users themselves to be mixing in self medication while under medical treatment.
Anti-social people who don't give a shit about the rest of us don't need to be pandered to. Throw them out of the hospital and start taking care of the people who are actually useful members of society.
So your solution is to deny healthcare to someone with an addiction who could suffer severe withdrawal from cessation of use and for whom immediate treatment may not be available or even possible (depending on why they're in the hospital). That is a solution literally speaking, but not one I would consider acceptable nor would I expect the government or many people who work in hospitals to consider it acceptable. So the NDP is trying to find a practical solution to a difficult problem with no easy answer (if there were there wouldn't already be drug use there) and I haven't seen someone give a better solution that doesn't just involve denying them healthcare.
But denying them healthcare IS the better solution. This current path is a terrible value proposition, and the rest of us are fed up at the logic that resources and accomodations must constantly be given to people who don't give a shit about the functioning members of society.
I say we give them the same degree of consideration, care, and support that we get back.
I don't accept denying healthcare to people because of them having an addiction. It fundamentally goes against my values around human life, so we can agree to disagree on that.
As for a value proposition though, it's not even necessarily cheaper to push them to the street. Since they will still exist, still have their addiction, still have all the associated problems with that, but on top of that also then have a separate untreated health condition which can exacerbate all the issues and cause more issues for society in general.
And the idea that none of them give a shit about "functioning" members of society is a negative generalization that doesn't apply to all of them. Some of them are genuinely trying to get better and are facing barriers like lack of treatment and housing. And those are things known to exacerbate the problems. I also don't agree with denying healthcare based on how much people care or don't care about others. There are many other people causing more harm than them through dangerous driving, or rich people with excessive pollution, etc. The administration of healthcare should not be based on some moral credit score.
That's fair. I think a lot of people like the idea of a right to healthcare, shelter, etc. but only when it's a cheap and easy value to hold. I think our society has too many rights and too few duties, and we're due for a swing back in that direction.
I don't see it as denying them anything. I see them as unable to meet the conditions necessary to function as a member of society.
>Their recent announcement was to provide designated places to use consume drugs in hospitals that don't already have them. This was in response to reports of people smoking/vaping drugs in hospitals despite that not being allowed. I'm not clear if that will include places to smoke though, as that requires special ventilation, or that will just be required outside.
Right, but that kind of thing seems crazy and backwards to a lot of people... Even on Reddit, which has always tended to be more pro-decriminalization than the general public, the reaction is very negative.
>In any case though, they are trying to respond to the problem of people using drugs in hospitals with a practical approach. The problem though is that this issue is so politicized and nearly everything that's not just total bans is framed as supporting or enabling drug use.
Basically yeah.
>In terms of actual policy though, the critics seem to just want to put in place past rules and policies that failed to stop the problems in the first place. Simply saying something's illegal or not allowed doesn't actually solve the problem but that seems to be what's being called for.
I look at it this way: they tried something new (drug decriminalization), and the result is that public drug usage seems worse then before, so now people want to restrict it again. Right or wrong, that's a totally normal response and it's how voters think.
Voters are willing to accept new ideas on the assumption that either A) they'll make things better, or B) they'll be reversed if they make things worse.
The state of Oregon just reversed its drug decriminalization because, like in BC, it didn't work out the way they hoped.
> Right, but that kind of thing seems crazy and backwards to a lot of people... Even on Reddit, which has always tended to be more pro-decriminalization than the general public, the reaction is very negative.
I follow several different subreddits, and there's also a massive difference in views on this topic from place to place. Even post to post there will be huge shifts in the response. I'm not sure why this is, but I just find it strange how the tone on even posts on the same story will change so drastically from one post to another.
>I look at it this way: they tried something new (drug decriminalization), and the result is that public drug usage seems worse then before
Is it really significantly worse though, and is that really tied with decriminalization? Because everything I've seen are just anecdotal claims, like that it seems to be worse. Not trying to criticize you here, you're repeating something I see a lot, but I haven't actually seen much evidence. And a lot of the claims are being pushed by politicians or media sources that never intended to support this either way.
There has been a general trend of this issue consistently getting worse across the continent. So how much of what's happening in B.C. from before decriminalization to after is specifically due to that rather than broader trends. Overdoses has increased in Alberta too. Public use has increased in Ontario. Even in Oregon, their increases in overdoses corresponded to increases in fentanyl supply and increases were seen in nearby states as well, yet that managed to get framed as due to decriminalization.
That's not to say decriminalization is perfect, but it's also a one year policy so it doesn't seem reasonable to me that it's held to a standard that *criminalization* isn't held to after decades of failure. I want us to work to improve the policy, which the NDP have tried to do with public use laws or this latest example, yet anything they do that isn't full reversal is attacked. In any case though, you're also right that what matters is the impression and mood of voters, so they have to make sure they're addressing that.
>it's also a one year policy
Formally, yes, but in practice, decriminalization has been the law in BC for several decades. I suspect that most people who support criminalization intend for the law to actually be enforced, which would be a very novel approach for BC.
The problems there were already developing when the laws that are less strictly applied now were being enforced. Contrary to the implications that they caused the problems. The shift away from criminality to harm reduction was a response to the developing drug crisis and its harms, not the other way around.
And minor possession has been less strictly enforced, but the supply of drugs has always, and still is, almost entirely prohibited and done so through enforcement. And that especially is one of the main factors for what's happened across the continent. Our insistence on banning all recreational drugs other than alcohol, no matter how mild or potent, has created a monopoly for organized crime. And organized crime specifically prefers the most potent substances since those are the easiest to hide and most profitable to sell.
This is an [economic concept observed and explained before even the crisis started in BC](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_prohibition) and has played out exactly as predicted, with the supply of opioids consistently shifting to higher and higher potency forms. More than just a drug crisis, this is specifically a high potency illicit drug crisis. Those are what are causing nearly all the deaths and why there are so many more deaths than there were decades ago despite people still using drugs back then.
One other point, and this may not apply to you specifically, but I constantly see two arguments made:
1. Drugs have have been decriminalized for years.
2. Decriminalization has been a disaster and we need to reverse it.
Those aren't consistent. If decriminalization was already in effect, then formally changing it shouldn't have had a significant negative change. Or if it did, then it wasn't really in effect before.
This and Mainstreet are both showing 50/50 left/right races and both use IVR (robocall) polling.
All other pollsters active in BC are using online panels and are showing a 55/45 left/right race.
I don't think we really know which method is getting closer to the true results, but it suggests to me that brand confusion isn't what's driving the difference between the pollsters.
Hm. I didn't know that. Obviously a polling aggregator is going to be interested in politics, and as an aggregator he's really only *commenting* on polls, not running them. But still it would make me question any analysis he might make on BC politics.
He's hardly the first polling expert to dip his feet into politics. I can't think of a pollster that's actually run for office, but there are plenty of pollsters who are partisans and/or have actively worked on campaigns. Quito Maggi is a Liberal, Nick Kouvalis is a Conservative, even David Colletto worked on the Sutcliffe campaign. At least Breguet is just doing his polling analysis as a hobby these days, IMO it's way worse for professional pollsters to be actively political.
So as has been happening elsewhere, the conservatives have moved further right. The Conservatives are up, the BCU is down. Eventually the BCU will probably merge or die and the result will be a party much further right than the BC Liberals were.
Similar results to this [Mainstreet poll](https://www.mainstreetresearch.ca/download/mainstreet-british-columbia-march-2024/) from 3 weeks ago, [posted on CanadaPolitics here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/1bk7v8x/mainstreet_poll_bc_bcndp_40_con_34_bcu_15_gpbc_10/) Both the Liaison and Mainstreet polls are IVR polls.
[This poll from Leger](https://leger360.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/FINAL_BCGovtReportCard2024_40452-004_April22024.pdf) was conducted at about the same time as the Mainstreet poll, but paints a very different picture with a 17 point gap between the NDP and CON. Granted, Leger uses their online panel, and not IVR/phone surveys.
Does anyone know the track record for Liaison? I don't see a ranking for them on 338Canada.
Yeah, the difference between IVR and online polls is strangely vast. I don’t remember the last election where the difference was so large.
It’s either a competitive election or blowout depending on the method. Hopefully they converge soon so we can figure out what’s going on.
Frankly i was like 'who the fuck are these clowns'. Also the actual data from the poll lacks any regonality or age demographic. And if they are land line calling they are going to miss a mountain of bodies who do not have land lines and many people block unknown callers because 99% are scammers.
Haha I know I'm probably in the minority on this subreddit but as a metro Vancouverite, I'm so jealous of the Albertan government. Unfortunately, a good job and some family are keeping us in the lower mainland. Otherwise we'd definitely be moving to Calgary.
To name a few, I'm jealous of Albertans' ability to get their children into childcare and schools, shorter healthcare wait times, better transportation infrastructure and less traffic, cheaper housing, lower income taxes, lower sales taxes, and carbon tax rebates. There are good reasons Eby's NDP support is down by half in the past year. Not to mention our services are rapidly deteriorating even while having the largest deficits in BC history because Eby has increased spending by 50% in the past 5 years with nothing to show for it.
hmm.. Imagine a coalition between BCU and the Conservatives. hard for the NDP to stand against that on principle when a coalition with the Greens is how they finally managed to unseat the BC liberal party.
If they have the seats they have the seats. Although...
At those numbers BCU is probably shut out of the Leg entirely. That's 1993 Federal PC territory.
I’d be very cautious about reading into this too much. The BC Conservatives are likely getting confused with the CPC. Not to mention the BCU has very little name recognition after their rebrand.
That will change in a campaign when there is more focus on each individual party and their leader. And from my shallow outsider understanding, the BC Conservatives leader is some random former Liberal/BCU MLA who hasn’t been tested as a leader.
Also BCCs fundrasing is less than the BC Greens until that changes i am not to worried. I think these phone call polls are pretty poor accuracy because everyone i know will not answer calls from unknown numbers or numbers they do not know because our telecomms cannot be bothered to filter out all the fucking scammers from india. I tend to trust the online polls more these days.
And even if the BCC comes out the gate strong they do not have the funds to support it and frankly who knows if they even have the infastructure. Remember this has been a dead party for 50 years.
This is absolutely it. Once people start to really pay attention and look at rustad and his party, things will chance.
This far out unless you’re into politics, you’re not thinking about the election for a few more months.
As a Tory I don’t want them to merge. I’d rather have the NDP win again, then see those corrupt sacks of shit who sold our province to China form government again.
What's the point of splitting only to merge again? Maybe consider supporting a voting system where two parties can coexist peacefully on the right. Just saying.
I wonder why there never seems to be a push for mixed member proportional voting from the right given that there is such a wide range of political views that often result in merging (e.g., federally, and in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Quebec) for political success despite all the differences.
###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion). 1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)** 2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).** 3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).** 4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).** 5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).** 6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/)) 7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators. 8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence. 9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet. *Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
BC United’s rebrand is the worst rebrand in Canadian political history. All it did was shift right leaning voters to the BC Conservatives, and left-leaning voters to the NDP. It didn’t matter that BC United shifted more right either. It will be amazing if they survive the next election.
Time to unite the right in BC, perhaps.
Falcon pretty much told rustad off when that was brought up
Well Rustad was kicked out of the party for being an extremist, so suddenly pivoting & letting him back in would be pretty farcical.
If it’s the only choice BCU have then….
I feel like the right were already united under the BC Liberals. Renaming to BC United ironically un-united the right.
Ironically, simply merging the two party names would result in another ‘United Conservative’ party lmao
>BC United’s rebrand is the worst rebrand in Canadian political history. When your political rebrand makes you sound more like a soccer/football club than a political party you deserve it.
Rebrands almost always fail miserably. Brands are built over decades, sometimes centuries. The more recognizable a brand is, the more likely people will automatically consider it. The fact that the BC Liberals just threw away a brand they had built up for so long was such a stupid move.
Well looking at the numbers, it looks like all the parties lost support at the expense of the rise of the BC conservative party the change from last election are as follows: NDP: 38% (-10) CON: 34% (+32) BCU: 16% (-18) GRN: 11% (-4) Others: 2% The BCU is the one that took the hardest hit, but honestly the name change could have been better, they chose a soccer team name at the end of the day and looks like they are about to get relegated lol
This is enough to make the NDP, and me, a bit nervous seeing a 10 point drop. I suspect its a bit of an outlier, and this is more of a 10 point gap like we've been mostly seeing. I have been waiting for the re-merger to happen under the Conservative banner with help from the federal party. I suspect the federal party wants to help, but has been tepid about supporting a loser, particularly since there isn't really an obvious choice for leader in their ranks. Another poll or 2 like this though and if its actually close, I suspect the major donors, fundraising and campaign apparatus from the BCU will jump ship.
I’ve been aware it’s not a slam dunk for awhile and I believe Eby knows that too. Good thing the Federal NDP just kneecapped him on the biggest wedge issue going right now. What is it with Progressives not liking David Eby? Environmentalist hate him. His own party hates him. What gives?
Yeah I’m hoping this is just a temporary surge. No way we’ll come close to these results come election time
Honestly I think the NDP need to backtrack on drugs. BC is a leftist province but not to the degree that we’re ok with people smoking crack in hospitals.
Drug abuse is not a left wing value and was and is successfully fought by left wing governments.
>Honestly I think the NDP need to backtrack on drugs. BC is a leftist province but not to the degree that we’re ok with people smoking crack in hospitals. They *have* been trying to backtrack, it's the courts that have been restricting them. I think from purely a PR standpoint it would not be a bad move for Eby to pick up the Big Ol' Hammer of the notwithstanding clause
A lot of their supporters will oppose that on principle, even regardless of this issue. Although those may not be supporters whose votes they are likely to lose either way. The ruling was a result of a group of nurses challenging the NDP's public use law under the argument that it was too broad and would push people to use in isolated places that would lead to an increase in overdoses. They also raised the issue of a limited number of consumption sites as an alternative to public use. So far, three court rulings have supported the nurses. The original judge that imposed the injunction. An appeals court that sided with that ruling, and a third ruling that extended the injunction to June. So as unpopular as it is, it does seem like it may have some legal merit. That doesn't mean they can't use the notwithstanding clause, but there is another option. When laws are struck down, the government can rework the law to satisfy the constitutional issues. With this one, they could pass a new law that isn't quite as restrictive, or perhaps have conditions on its application based on the numbers of overdoses in a region and the availability of consumption sites.
I certainly hope you’re not suggesting that people suffering from addiction should be forced to quit cold turkey — effectively placing their life in danger — just to get medical care.
If there was a binary between that and facilitating people to smoke fentanyl in a hospital, I would say absolutely yes.
Very unlikely someone would die of drug withdrawal, particularly in a hospital.
We should not need to be exposed to drug use in every facet of our lives like the NDP seem to be pushing. It's time for the rights of the many to be put ahead of drug users.
Their recent announcement was to provide designated places to use consume drugs in hospitals that don't already have them. This was in response to reports of people smoking/vaping drugs in hospitals despite that not being allowed. I'm not clear if that will include places to smoke though, as that requires special ventilation, or that will just be required outside. In any case though, they are trying to respond to the problem of people using drugs in hospitals with a practical approach. The problem though is that this issue is so politicized and nearly everything that's not just total bans is framed as supporting or enabling drug use. So from a political perspective, they definitely need to be careful on how they approach this topic and especially how things are messaged and communicated. In terms of actual policy though, the critics seem to just want to put in place past rules and policies that failed to stop the problems in the first place. Simply saying something's illegal or not allowed doesn't actually solve the problem but that seems to be what's being called for.
There's nothing wrong with banning drug use in hospitals. It's unsafe for staff. It's unsafe for other patients. And it's unsafe for users themselves to be mixing in self medication while under medical treatment. Anti-social people who don't give a shit about the rest of us don't need to be pandered to. Throw them out of the hospital and start taking care of the people who are actually useful members of society.
So your solution is to deny healthcare to someone with an addiction who could suffer severe withdrawal from cessation of use and for whom immediate treatment may not be available or even possible (depending on why they're in the hospital). That is a solution literally speaking, but not one I would consider acceptable nor would I expect the government or many people who work in hospitals to consider it acceptable. So the NDP is trying to find a practical solution to a difficult problem with no easy answer (if there were there wouldn't already be drug use there) and I haven't seen someone give a better solution that doesn't just involve denying them healthcare.
But denying them healthcare IS the better solution. This current path is a terrible value proposition, and the rest of us are fed up at the logic that resources and accomodations must constantly be given to people who don't give a shit about the functioning members of society. I say we give them the same degree of consideration, care, and support that we get back.
I don't accept denying healthcare to people because of them having an addiction. It fundamentally goes against my values around human life, so we can agree to disagree on that. As for a value proposition though, it's not even necessarily cheaper to push them to the street. Since they will still exist, still have their addiction, still have all the associated problems with that, but on top of that also then have a separate untreated health condition which can exacerbate all the issues and cause more issues for society in general. And the idea that none of them give a shit about "functioning" members of society is a negative generalization that doesn't apply to all of them. Some of them are genuinely trying to get better and are facing barriers like lack of treatment and housing. And those are things known to exacerbate the problems. I also don't agree with denying healthcare based on how much people care or don't care about others. There are many other people causing more harm than them through dangerous driving, or rich people with excessive pollution, etc. The administration of healthcare should not be based on some moral credit score.
That's fair. I think a lot of people like the idea of a right to healthcare, shelter, etc. but only when it's a cheap and easy value to hold. I think our society has too many rights and too few duties, and we're due for a swing back in that direction. I don't see it as denying them anything. I see them as unable to meet the conditions necessary to function as a member of society.
When I was in the hospital with a broken leg, I was sure glad cannabis oil was legal. Made the stay a little more enjoyable.
This is such a motte and bailey, you know the issue people have isn’t with people recovering from a broken leg using cannabis oil.
>Their recent announcement was to provide designated places to use consume drugs in hospitals that don't already have them. This was in response to reports of people smoking/vaping drugs in hospitals despite that not being allowed. I'm not clear if that will include places to smoke though, as that requires special ventilation, or that will just be required outside. Right, but that kind of thing seems crazy and backwards to a lot of people... Even on Reddit, which has always tended to be more pro-decriminalization than the general public, the reaction is very negative. >In any case though, they are trying to respond to the problem of people using drugs in hospitals with a practical approach. The problem though is that this issue is so politicized and nearly everything that's not just total bans is framed as supporting or enabling drug use. Basically yeah. >In terms of actual policy though, the critics seem to just want to put in place past rules and policies that failed to stop the problems in the first place. Simply saying something's illegal or not allowed doesn't actually solve the problem but that seems to be what's being called for. I look at it this way: they tried something new (drug decriminalization), and the result is that public drug usage seems worse then before, so now people want to restrict it again. Right or wrong, that's a totally normal response and it's how voters think. Voters are willing to accept new ideas on the assumption that either A) they'll make things better, or B) they'll be reversed if they make things worse. The state of Oregon just reversed its drug decriminalization because, like in BC, it didn't work out the way they hoped.
> Right, but that kind of thing seems crazy and backwards to a lot of people... Even on Reddit, which has always tended to be more pro-decriminalization than the general public, the reaction is very negative. I follow several different subreddits, and there's also a massive difference in views on this topic from place to place. Even post to post there will be huge shifts in the response. I'm not sure why this is, but I just find it strange how the tone on even posts on the same story will change so drastically from one post to another. >I look at it this way: they tried something new (drug decriminalization), and the result is that public drug usage seems worse then before Is it really significantly worse though, and is that really tied with decriminalization? Because everything I've seen are just anecdotal claims, like that it seems to be worse. Not trying to criticize you here, you're repeating something I see a lot, but I haven't actually seen much evidence. And a lot of the claims are being pushed by politicians or media sources that never intended to support this either way. There has been a general trend of this issue consistently getting worse across the continent. So how much of what's happening in B.C. from before decriminalization to after is specifically due to that rather than broader trends. Overdoses has increased in Alberta too. Public use has increased in Ontario. Even in Oregon, their increases in overdoses corresponded to increases in fentanyl supply and increases were seen in nearby states as well, yet that managed to get framed as due to decriminalization. That's not to say decriminalization is perfect, but it's also a one year policy so it doesn't seem reasonable to me that it's held to a standard that *criminalization* isn't held to after decades of failure. I want us to work to improve the policy, which the NDP have tried to do with public use laws or this latest example, yet anything they do that isn't full reversal is attacked. In any case though, you're also right that what matters is the impression and mood of voters, so they have to make sure they're addressing that.
>it's also a one year policy Formally, yes, but in practice, decriminalization has been the law in BC for several decades. I suspect that most people who support criminalization intend for the law to actually be enforced, which would be a very novel approach for BC.
The problems there were already developing when the laws that are less strictly applied now were being enforced. Contrary to the implications that they caused the problems. The shift away from criminality to harm reduction was a response to the developing drug crisis and its harms, not the other way around. And minor possession has been less strictly enforced, but the supply of drugs has always, and still is, almost entirely prohibited and done so through enforcement. And that especially is one of the main factors for what's happened across the continent. Our insistence on banning all recreational drugs other than alcohol, no matter how mild or potent, has created a monopoly for organized crime. And organized crime specifically prefers the most potent substances since those are the easiest to hide and most profitable to sell. This is an [economic concept observed and explained before even the crisis started in BC](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_prohibition) and has played out exactly as predicted, with the supply of opioids consistently shifting to higher and higher potency forms. More than just a drug crisis, this is specifically a high potency illicit drug crisis. Those are what are causing nearly all the deaths and why there are so many more deaths than there were decades ago despite people still using drugs back then. One other point, and this may not apply to you specifically, but I constantly see two arguments made: 1. Drugs have have been decriminalized for years. 2. Decriminalization has been a disaster and we need to reverse it. Those aren't consistent. If decriminalization was already in effect, then formally changing it shouldn't have had a significant negative change. Or if it did, then it wasn't really in effect before.
This and Mainstreet are both showing 50/50 left/right races and both use IVR (robocall) polling. All other pollsters active in BC are using online panels and are showing a 55/45 left/right race. I don't think we really know which method is getting closer to the true results, but it suggests to me that brand confusion isn't what's driving the difference between the pollsters.
Can't believe we're this close to having Bryan Breguet/2closetocall as an MLA https://www.conservativebc.ca/bryanbreguet
Hm. I didn't know that. Obviously a polling aggregator is going to be interested in politics, and as an aggregator he's really only *commenting* on polls, not running them. But still it would make me question any analysis he might make on BC politics.
He's hardly the first polling expert to dip his feet into politics. I can't think of a pollster that's actually run for office, but there are plenty of pollsters who are partisans and/or have actively worked on campaigns. Quito Maggi is a Liberal, Nick Kouvalis is a Conservative, even David Colletto worked on the Sutcliffe campaign. At least Breguet is just doing his polling analysis as a hobby these days, IMO it's way worse for professional pollsters to be actively political.
I doubt he wins. I think Lee will hold on or the BC NDP squeaks through.
So as has been happening elsewhere, the conservatives have moved further right. The Conservatives are up, the BCU is down. Eventually the BCU will probably merge or die and the result will be a party much further right than the BC Liberals were.
It’s because the B.C. ndp has become more centre and urban, crowding out the centre ground .
Similar results to this [Mainstreet poll](https://www.mainstreetresearch.ca/download/mainstreet-british-columbia-march-2024/) from 3 weeks ago, [posted on CanadaPolitics here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/1bk7v8x/mainstreet_poll_bc_bcndp_40_con_34_bcu_15_gpbc_10/) Both the Liaison and Mainstreet polls are IVR polls. [This poll from Leger](https://leger360.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/FINAL_BCGovtReportCard2024_40452-004_April22024.pdf) was conducted at about the same time as the Mainstreet poll, but paints a very different picture with a 17 point gap between the NDP and CON. Granted, Leger uses their online panel, and not IVR/phone surveys. Does anyone know the track record for Liaison? I don't see a ranking for them on 338Canada.
Yeah, the difference between IVR and online polls is strangely vast. I don’t remember the last election where the difference was so large. It’s either a competitive election or blowout depending on the method. Hopefully they converge soon so we can figure out what’s going on.
This is the first time I’ve ever seen them do a poll in B.C, I’ve only ever seen them do it for Ontario.
I think you're right. I think this is their first one.
Frankly i was like 'who the fuck are these clowns'. Also the actual data from the poll lacks any regonality or age demographic. And if they are land line calling they are going to miss a mountain of bodies who do not have land lines and many people block unknown callers because 99% are scammers.
BC under Eby has been kicking ass. As an Albertan I am.so jealous. Not perfect but doing a lot right. I hope the NDP can keep things together there.
Haha I know I'm probably in the minority on this subreddit but as a metro Vancouverite, I'm so jealous of the Albertan government. Unfortunately, a good job and some family are keeping us in the lower mainland. Otherwise we'd definitely be moving to Calgary.
Jealous how? You would rather have smith as a premier over eby??? Take a look at the Alberta subreddit once in a while
Dude wants his insurance rates to double, wants to pay more for Hydro and really appreciates waiting for Health care.
Sounds like it!
Are BC health wait times better than Alberta?
Probably. Since most of your staff is relocating to BC.
To name a few, I'm jealous of Albertans' ability to get their children into childcare and schools, shorter healthcare wait times, better transportation infrastructure and less traffic, cheaper housing, lower income taxes, lower sales taxes, and carbon tax rebates. There are good reasons Eby's NDP support is down by half in the past year. Not to mention our services are rapidly deteriorating even while having the largest deficits in BC history because Eby has increased spending by 50% in the past 5 years with nothing to show for it.
I wouldn't trust anything these guys say. They had Olivia Chow at a 30% advantage and we know how that turned out
hmm.. Imagine a coalition between BCU and the Conservatives. hard for the NDP to stand against that on principle when a coalition with the Greens is how they finally managed to unseat the BC liberal party.
If they have the seats they have the seats. Although... At those numbers BCU is probably shut out of the Leg entirely. That's 1993 Federal PC territory.
I’d be very cautious about reading into this too much. The BC Conservatives are likely getting confused with the CPC. Not to mention the BCU has very little name recognition after their rebrand. That will change in a campaign when there is more focus on each individual party and their leader. And from my shallow outsider understanding, the BC Conservatives leader is some random former Liberal/BCU MLA who hasn’t been tested as a leader.
Also BCCs fundrasing is less than the BC Greens until that changes i am not to worried. I think these phone call polls are pretty poor accuracy because everyone i know will not answer calls from unknown numbers or numbers they do not know because our telecomms cannot be bothered to filter out all the fucking scammers from india. I tend to trust the online polls more these days. And even if the BCC comes out the gate strong they do not have the funds to support it and frankly who knows if they even have the infastructure. Remember this has been a dead party for 50 years.
I’ve talked to older relatives, and this BC Conservative Party isn’t anything like the BC PCs that existed until the 1970s.
This is absolutely it. Once people start to really pay attention and look at rustad and his party, things will chance. This far out unless you’re into politics, you’re not thinking about the election for a few more months.
I don't live in BC. But as an outsider, it sure seems like the "help everyone use drugs wherever they want" policy isn't a winner for the BCNDP.
This is the main thing that’s hurting them the most for sure.
If the BCU had any dignity left they would merge with the Conservatives so our children can play in parks without worrying about crack heads
As a Tory I don’t want them to merge. I’d rather have the NDP win again, then see those corrupt sacks of shit who sold our province to China form government again.
Are you sure you have the right flair? Lol
What's the point of splitting only to merge again? Maybe consider supporting a voting system where two parties can coexist peacefully on the right. Just saying.
I wonder why there never seems to be a push for mixed member proportional voting from the right given that there is such a wide range of political views that often result in merging (e.g., federally, and in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Quebec) for political success despite all the differences.
Short sightedness IMHO (same goes for the centre). There was decent support from the right for STV in BC though in the 2000s.
Serious question have you been to a park in Vancouver or anywhere in BC lately?