Well, here’s a very different proposition: the leader and party who gets out ahead of the crises we face – who articulates an understanding of their severity, matched by a willingness to meet these challenges with bold solutions and rally us to action – will be politically rewarded.

Take for example the case of climate change and the false debate during the last provincial election over BC’s carbon tax. Both major parties, in effect, told the public, “You won’t have to pay for the changes we need to make.” The Liberals said, “Yes, we will have a carbon tax, but we will return all the money to you in recycled tax cuts in other areas.” The NDP said, “We will go after industry, not you.” No one was speaking the truth, namely, “This challenge is great, and in the near term, we’re all going to have to help pay for climate action, and make some major changes to how we live, work, move around and play.” Ideally, coupled with an inspiring vision: “But done right, the result will be a better quality of life, more inclusive communities, new green jobs, and a more equitable society.”

Who among those vying for leadership today will say, “I firmly accept the overwhelming scientific evidence that climate change is a pressing reality; the defining issue of our time. Its effects are already being profoundly felt in British Columbia. Meeting this challenge will entail fundamental changes, and time is of the essence. If you don’t want a leader who will be guided by this reality, then vote for someone else.”

In the face of the widening gap between the rich and the rest of us, who will say, “I believe public policy should be guided not by the demands and anxieties of the wealthiest among us, but by the needs and wellbeing of the poorest and economically insecure, and I will make policy decisions through that lens.”

Who is willing to say, “I think there is no excuse for poverty and homelessness in a society as wealthy as ours, and their elimination will be a core priority of my government.” Indeed, who might say, “Judge my government by this measure, not by the increasingly less relevant measure of GDP growth.”

And perhaps most daring but honest of all: who will admit that to successfully accomplish these tasks –– confronting climate change, doing so in a manner that provides economic security for modest and middle income families, and eradicating poverty –– will require substantial increases in government spending and investments, which in turn will require an overall increase in taxes. (Now there’s a reality precious few politicians want to admit to, even though most business leaders quietly share this view.)

I could name many more environmental and economic truths that politicians dare not speak, coupled with bold policy ideas they may privately support but which advisors convince them are not realistic. Beneath them all is a simple question: Who will articulate a vision for a province that is truly ecologically sustainable and socially just? (CCPA senior economist Marc Lee offers some of his ideas for what might constitute such a vision here.)

Perhaps one of the reasons that voter turnout is so poor is that a sizable chunk of the electorate is simply uninspired and disaffected, having come reasonably to the conclusion that none of those vying for power is truly speaking to the severity of the challenges we face.

In contrast, one of the reasons behind the recent election of someone like Rob Ford in Toronto, or the historic successes of people like Mike Harris, is not that what they espouse corresponds to the values of the majority of voters (and their “solutions” are simplistic in the extreme), but rather, people like that these leaders brashly say what they think and do what they say.

Or for a more “progressive” example, take the case of recently departed premier Danny Williams (paradoxically a millionaire conservative). He led a bold poverty reduction plan, and asked that his political future be tied to its success. And he brashly stood up to resource corporations (oil companies and AbitibiBowater), demanding that Newfoundlanders receive a fair social contract from these firms. Newfoundlanders hugely rewarded such leadership, making Williams the most popular politician in Canada.

Political boldness such as this comes as a blast of fresh air into the otherwise stale re-circulated air that characterizes politics-as-usual, in which caution is the watchword (and in which progressives vying for leadership fail to offer up a competing vision with as much clarity).

And so a plea to the leadership contenders: trust the public. Trust that we can handle an honest conversation about the challenges we face.

A risky political proposition? Perhaps. But then again, perhaps winning without a mandate to lead us through major change – rooted in fairness and security – isn’t worth the victory.

But looking at the numbers, it was actually quite close: the BC Liberals got 45.7% of the popular vote, compared to 42.2% for the NDP. This slim margin validates the Angus Reid polling camp, which came closest on estimating the popular vote, compared to a handful of others that put the Liberals ahead by 9-10% (I was leaning towards the Angus Reid polls mostly because they had much larger sample sizes of over 1,000 compared to just over 600 for the others, even though according to theory the gap should not change that much).

The Greens had 8.2% of the vote, enough for them to split the vote in enough ridings to make the difference (although it is not obvious that the second choice of Green voters is the NDP). Unlike the federal election, there was no talk of strategic voting in BC, perhaps because the NDP made the carbon tax its wedge issue. That backfired on them badly, with big swaths of the BC Interior and suburbs of Vancouver (those most opposed to the carbon tax) sticking Liberal. Just as Campbell did not know that after announcing the carbon tax, gas prices would shoot up by 40 cents a litre, James and the NDP did not know that those prices would fall so much when they chose to vigorously oppose the carbon tax last summer.

The election, like all Canadian elections that produce majority governments, is a winner-take-all for the Liberals, even though more than half of British Columbians voted against his party. Within the Liberals it is a winner-take-all for Campbell, due to the overly centralized power in the Premier’s office Many of the smiling faces we saw elected will not be seen again except as a backbench backdrop for cameras in the Legislature.

All of which underlines the irony that another opportunity to change the electoral system (to the Single Transferable Vote) went down in flames. Unlike the 2005 referendum, which came close to the 60% approval required to pass, this time it was not even close with 60% supporting the existing system. As several commentators have pointed out, the new Legislature looks a whole lot like the old Legislature, BC basically went for the status quo.

Attention will now turn back to the economy, with the Liberal narrative that they were the best managers through hard economic times. It is surprising that the NDP did not pick up on the string of economic bad news that flowed out of Statscan during the lead up and the campaign. They might have felt that doing so would only reinforce the Liberals’ economic manager frame.

Instead, the NDP ran an opposition campaign that offered no vision for the province other than ridding ourselves of Campbell. They hit the Liberals effectively by playing on a “crony capitalism” theme, manifested in the scandal over BC Rail privatization, and other privatization of new run-of-the-river electricity generation and certain public services. But ultimately their anti-Campbell yang lacked a yin that offered up some concrete changes that would improve the lives of British Columbians. Hopefully, this will provoke some soul searching within the party that leads to renewal.

Both parties were guilty of not being forthcoming about the impact of economic developments on the state of the BC budget. A small deficit tabled in February is surely much much larger, and it was not clear what either party would do if elected. So we will have to wait and see if the Liberals will let the deficit grow, or if they will attempt to cut spending to keep the lid on an ostensible half-billion dollar deficit. They seemed to leaning toward the latter during the election campaign but that was, well, the election campaign. If they wait until September before tabling a budget update, much of this will be easier to spin.

Another big question is where the Liberals now go on climate policy. They have received much praise for the first steps on climate action, including the carbon tax, but there was nothing in the platform that spoke of making the next steps. I seem to have been the only one in the campaign to have pointed out that the Liberals do not have a plan to meet their legislated 33% reduction in GHG emissions by 2020. So getting that done would be a good start, but I’m doubtful that we will see much, although more oil and gas extraction is definitely in the works and that will be a huge hurdle to meeting the legislated target.

Most of the attention on climate policy is likely to turn to the international stage in the lead up to Copenhagen in December, which will attempt to carve out a new global deal on climate change (with a helpful US government, we can only hope). And BC will not want to move ahead too much with a North American cap-and-trade system in the works.

So looking foward to the next four years, it is not obvious at all what we are going to get from the third Campbell administration.

What surprises me is that we don’t hear more outraged voices on this issue, considering the large number of people who stand to benefit from an expanded and improved childcare system. Pieta Woolley reminds us that:

Given that about 30.4 percent of British Columbians live in a household with kids 12 or under, the child-care issue theoretically affects more citizens than seniors’ issues (14.6 percent of B.C. is 65 or older), aboriginal issues (4.8 percent of the B.C. population is status), and public transit (4.7 percent take transit to work; all numbers according to the 2006 census).

UBC’s Paul Kershaw, assistant professor of political science, proposes an interesting theory as to why childcare is neglected in this year’s party platforms:

1. The costs scare politicians.
“By today’s standards,” he said, “it’s relatively expensive. And by that I mean we haven’t had to create a new social program in quite some time, as we did having to create health care and unemployment insurance and pensions. These are very expensive programs, but they’ve become normalized so we don’t view them as such. Health case is $15 billion, and childcare is $1.5 billion, so it’s no small chunk of change for any provincial budget. That’s one of the key reasons it’s a hot potato.”

2. Politicians won’t fund health promotion.
“We’re wonderful about treating illness after the fact. We will spend hundreds of thousands—if not millions—to save one preterm baby, but we are very uncomfortable about promoting housing for families with children that is affordable, or making the case that no one goes hungry in our province, or is homeless. Even when you get into the middle class, and childcare is largely a middle class issue, we don’t seem too concerned that we get these kids off to a good start in life. We let parents put together a patchwork of inadequate supports. We could really do so much to promote health if we go it right in the early years.”

3. Feminist arguments are considered fringy by politicians.
“No one wants to talk about gender inequality anymore….Even when both parents work full-time, women shoulder the responsible to shoulder childcare alternatives when regular care falls through, they stay home when the kids are sick. That’s just how houses are making decisions. Just 15 percent of people taking parental leave are men….Public policy seems content to say, women, figure it out yourselves….We are content to burn out women.”

4. The baby boomers are a “Canadian blight”.

“We are unwilling to ask tough questions about generational inequality….This is the generation that has their hands on the levers of power that’s tolerating 30 percent of our school-age population showing up vulnerable. These intergenerational justice questions are getting sidelined, because the dominant question seniors are wanting to ask is how much money is going to be there for me to get that next knee replacement. We need to make sure people are comfortable and cared for, but before we start debating whether people are eligible for three knee replacements, I think we really do want to think about what it means to promote health over the lifecourse and get that part right.”

I find the last point particularly interesting, as it starts raising questions about generational inequality. Can it be that politicians pay more attention to seniors because unlike children, seniors can vote? Consider also that seniors traditionally have high voter turnout rates, much higher than those of young people, the group that includes most parents of young children.

I hope I’m not being too cynical here. But it would be nice if the parties running for election would do something to dispel that cynicism. (if I may borrow from the conclusion of a recent Paul Krugman blog post)

For more excellent coverage on childcare in the election campaign, check out Ms Woolley’s articles Parties mum on time lines for child-care plans, Political parties ignore recent government-written plan for childcare and UBC prof gives four reasons BC isn’t delivering childcare.

Late last week, the BC Poverty Reduction Committee released its analysis of the three main parties’ platforms with respect to the call. In summary, here’s where they have landed:

The BC Liberal Party does not commit to a poverty reduction plan with clear targets and timelines. The Premier has written, “the Province of British Columbia has made promising steps to address the challenges associated with poverty and we are working on additional measures to put together a comprehensive plan to continue moving forward.” The closest the Liberal platform comes to suggesting a real target is in the area of homelessness, in titling the one-page policy section on housing, “Ending homelessness with new solutions.” The section describes various initiatives to date (outlined below). But this goal of ending homelessness is not linked to clear timelines.

The BC New Democratic Party platform does commit to “Developing a poverty reduction plan with targets and timelines that build on our initiatives that will raise the minimum wage, support jobs and skills training, increase affordable housing, improve child protection and change income assistance.” This is good news. However, the NDP plan does not specify what the poverty reduction targets and timelines should be (presumably this would be determined after the election), nor does it say if such targets and timelines would be legislated (which is key to accountability). The NDP commitment with respect to homelessness is more concrete. Their plan commits to “Ending the crisis in homelessness in 5 years.”

The Green Party has included poverty reduction as a priority in their platform, British Columbia’s Green Book: “The Green Party understands that immediate action is needed to ensure every British Columbian has a meaningful opportunity to share in the wealth of this province.” The key goals of their plan include ensuring British Columbians can all meet their basic needs, and “reversing the trend towards greater disparity between rich and poor.” Additionally, in the area of housing and homelessness, the Green Party has committed to “safe and affordable homes” for everyone living in BC. As the Green Party is not contesting government, they have not costed out their policies.

A more detailed analysis of the party platforms/positions with respect to the poverty reduction call can be found here.

Premier Campbell’s stubborn refusal to commit to poverty reduction targets has been particularly disappointing. During the election campaign, Premier Campbell has repeatedly been asked by reporters and citizens if a re-elected Liberal government would bring in a comprehensive poverty reduction plan with targets and timelines. On each occasion, he has refused to say yes. Instead, the premier has replied that his goal is “to have the lowest unemployment rate that we can,” because “a job is the best social program.” It is correct that job creation is important to poverty reduction. But most poor British Columbians are already employed in the low wage workforce (where they face a minimum wage that hasn’t moved since 2001), and record low unemployment over the past few years has not changed the fact that BC has the highest poverty rate in Canada. So clearly, a focus on employment is insufficient.

During last Sunday’s TV leaders debate, Steve Kerstetter asked (in a recorded question) what new initiatives the leaders would take to reduce child poverty. Notably, in his response, the premier did not mention any new initiatives, but rather, simply talked about things the province has already done.

Once again, the premier selectively noted that BC’s child poverty rate has declined by 15% since 2003. Why 2003? Because that’s when BC’s child poverty rate peaked at 19%. What the premier neglects to mention is that the latest BC child poverty rate of 16% remains 2 percentage points higher than it was in 2001 (when it stood at 14%).

What is surprising, however, is the lack of substantive discussion over the relative merits of each party’s proposed economic recovery policy, as stated in their platforms. Instead, we are repeatedly told that responsible economic stewardship involves keeping the business sector happy and anything that goes against the interest of “employers” (such as increasing the minimum wage, for example) is bad policy. The Liberals’ tactic seems to be to market themselves as friends of businesses while portraying the NDP as the employers’ enemy.

This tactic was used in the televised leaders’ debate last weekend, when Mr Campbell remarked:

“When you’re talking about the economy, I think it’s fair to ask the question: Why is there not one major employer group in British Columbia – in mining, in tourism, in forestry – that actually supports the New Democrats’ policies?”

Like most other over-simplified messages, this one is also incorrect. Good economic policy does not mean pandering to business-based interest groups. Yes, lowering business taxes and relaxing workers’ rights makes it easier for firms to reap higher profits, which encourages them to set up locally, creating jobs for the local population and increasing economic growth. However, economic growth alone is not a guarantee that everyone (or even most people) would benefit from the increased prosperity. In BC, we’ve seen this clearly over the last 25 years, when economic growth was strong yet poverty remained largely unchanged and income inequality increased substantially.

Where does this leave us? We need to keep in mind that the whole point of having a strong economy is to benefit society by improving the standard of living of people. We cannot continue to ignore our social and environmental problems in the name of having a strong economy. We need to balance the need of businesses to keep their costs low with the needs of workers to earn enough so that they are able to afford the basics like housing, child care, education to make sure we’re all set on the right path in life.

This does not mean that we have to completely ignore the interests of the business sector. Policy-making in a recession involves some trade offs for sure, but it’s not the all-or-nothing proposition that the BC Liberals are trying to make it.

US President Obama summed it up well on March 10th, when he revealed the first details of his education plan (quoted widely in the media, for example here):

I know there are some who believe we can only handle one challenge at a time [but] we don’t have the luxury of choosing between getting our economy moving now and rebuilding it over the long term.

It’s time for our policy-makers to recognize that tax dollars are not simply a drain of resources from individuals or businesses but can and should be used for productive investments that would make the economy stronger and more sustainable in the future. These investments include building up physical infrastructure, as the current government is doing, but they also include making this infrastructure “green,” which they are not doing (as Marc explains here), as well as building up the social infrastructure we require to ensure that our children are well-educated and prepared to face the challenges of tomorrow.

The current US Administration is doing it. Let’s make sure that those we elect next week do the same.

Like most of the data coming out these days, this economic report card is worse than expected. We should think about hiding it from our parents. For starters, BC’s real GDP fell by 0.3% – not a big drop, mind you, but the first actual fall in provincial GDP since 1982. Most observers now expect declining GDP for 2009, but a drop in 2008 is very much a surprise.

In the 2009 BC Budget, tabled just two months ago, economic growth for 2008 was estimated at 1.0%, slightly lower than growth of 1.3%, the average estimate of the Economic Forecast Council. This tells us yet again that our forecasting has been too biased toward good times, and we are not developing economic plans or fiscal policies with contingencies for bad times (that we hope will not materialize). The esteemed EFC did not even see a recession in 2009 as late as last Fall, and the BC government seems to have been equally delusional.

In 2008, the whole goods-producing part of the economy, i.e. the export sector, basically fall apart. That forestry got killed is probably of no surprise to anyone living in the Interior. Resource-based industries showed downward movement across the board, including a drop of 15% in forestry, agriculture and fishing. I’ve pasted Statscan’s summary below.

BC’s economy is facing a double-whammy: a demand shock as export markets to the US and Asia drop simultaneously (in 1998, it was just the Asian engine that sputtered); and a supply shock arising from the rapid drop of commodity prices, meaning it costs BC more in exports to buy the same amount of imports. On the way up, these forces, strong demand in export markets and rising commodity prices, essentially made a big part of BC’s boom overall, and almost all of it outside Vancouver, Victoria and Kelowna.

The other shoe to drop in 2009 will be the construction sector. In 2008, construction was a source of growth, up more than 4%. With the sharp drop off in new building permits and construction starts, this sector will turn negative in 2009. In employment terms, consider that there were about 235,200 employed in construction at its peak last summer. By March this number had already dropped to 187,800. This pattern will have huge ripple effects throughout the rest of the economy. It bodes ill, for example, for retail trade, which plummeted to 0.6% growth in 2008 (though still positive) from 7% the year before; more unemployment and broader consumer retrenchment will lead to a decent drop in 2009.

All of this reinforces my concerns that the economy is in worse shape than either the NDP or the Liberals are willing to admit on the campaign trail. We need to press our prospective leaders in the next two weeks on what their economic plan is, and how they are going to handle a much larger deficit than what was projected at budget time. Is either prepared to run the types of large deficits that will be needed as the economy worsens (tip: appeals to the Bank of Canada to puchase provincial debt should be made loud and vociferously, as the Bank contemplates a new round of unorthodox monetary policy measures).

This has relevance for another storyline in the GDP statistics: the growth of the public sector. BC’s GDP performance would have been deeper in the red had it not been for 3% growth in education, health care and social services, and almost 4% for public administration. In times like these, when consumer spending, business investment and export markets are down, the only major sector that can step up is government. In 2008, the BC government leaned against those headwinds – but this is in hindsight, the government thought the wind was still at its back.

In 2009, with the storm gaining strength, the lesson is that the government must do more, not less, to avert a major drop in economic output. The meme of BC “living within our means” and the excessive attention paid to keeping the deficit small (and returning to budget balance within two years) are contractionary ideas that will make the economy worse in 2009. That attitude has already settled in in Victoria to some extent, but could get worse. Making large budget cuts to “share the pain” is exactly the wrong thing to do right now, and is the type of move that turns recessions into depression.

Anyway, here is the blurb for BC from the official publication:

The effects of a sharp drop in output of the forestry industry (-18%) rippled through the economy. The decrease was triggered by a slowdown in housing construction in the U.S. combined with a high Canadian dollar in the first half of 2008. Forestry-related manufacturing, including sawmills and paper manufacturing, posted large declines. Affected by these declines, the wholesale industry contracted while transportation and warehousing services remained flat. With economic activity slowing, demand for energy was also affected. The output of utilities was down 4.0%.

Exports fell 6.8% following a small decline in the previous year. The 2008 downturn was largely due to a drop in lumber products.

Output in the mining sector was down as oil and gas extraction and metal ore mining reduced production. However, with prices high, especially for commodities such as coal and natural gas, revenues poured in. This income helped to offset the losses in the forestry sector and corporation profits registered a small gain in 2008.

After a decline in 2007, construction grew again in 2008. Business investment in non-residential structures picked up with projects related to oil and gas extraction and electricity generation. Government capital expenditure increased 0.3% after a cumulative gain of 80% over the previous six years. Housing starts fell off putting a damper on housing construction. Investment in residential construction declined 4.1%.

Growth in personal spending decelerated in 2008 to 2.8%. This was the slowest growth since 2001. Purchases of durable goods fell as sales of cars and trucks declined.

Labour market conditions stayed strong. Labour income increased 5.6%. This pace was well above the national growth rate but below the British Columbia average of the previous five years. Employment advanced 2.1% while the unemployment rate edged up to 4.6%.

The slowdown in the economy was also experienced in the service industries. Only health and public administration grew more quickly than in 2007, benefiting from government expenditures on goods and services, which advanced at a similar rate as in the previous year.

“I want you to think about one thing. Think about the opening ceremonies of the Games next Feb. 12th. There will be lots of government officials. I expect the prime minister will be there. I expect the mayor of Vancouver will be there. I expect the premier of British Columbia will be there. Visualize those opening ceremonies with Premier Carole James.”

This riff only makes sense in the context of a long-running refrain that NDP government can only play the economic blues. In the weeks to come, we will be reminded about the bad old days when the NDP were last in power. But now that we can roughly compare two terms of the NDP with two terms of the Liberals, we find that there is little truth to the smear that the NDP have the cooties.

The average rate of economic (real GDP) growth under the Liberals has been 3.1%, whereas the so-called “lost decade” under the NDP saw average growth that was only slightly lower, at 2.8 %. But if we add in estimates for 2008 and 2009 (using latest projections from the private sector, which are too rosy in my opinion, and better than what the government itself is projecting in the budget), the average growth rate under Liberal rule falls to 2.6%, LESS than under the NDP.

In terms of family incomes, average after-tax income in BC (constant dollars) was $46,340 in 1991. By 2001 it rose to $50,248, an increase of 8.4%. And by 2006 (last year for which we have data) it grew to $55,583, an increase of 10.6%. This masks some important differences in distribution, with average incomes further down the income distribution lower than they were in the early 1990s, while incomes up higher soared much more than average.

How about employment? During the “lost decade” of 1991 and 2001, BC employment grew by 344,100, an increase of 22%. Between 2001 and 2008, BC employment grew by 392,700, an increase of 20%. However, BC also just lost 35,000 jobs in January, and the prospects for rising unemployment in 2009 are severe. By the time the election occurs, it could well be the case that more jobs were created under the watch of the NDP than under the Liberals.

In terms of the unemployment rate, it was about 10% when the NDP came to power, and fell to 6.9% in May 2001. In the following boom years, the unemployment rate fell to record lows of around 4%, but at last glance (January) it was 6.1% and rising. By the time of the election I would not be surprised if the unemployment rate was higher than when the Liberals first came to power.

My point here is not a partisan one – the NDP were far from perfect in office; they benefited from immigration to BC in record numbers; but also got sideswiped by the Asian crisis of 1998-99. Rather, it is to remind people that BC’s economic fortunes generally swing on decisions made outside our borders. Politicians will inevitably try to take claim credit when times are good, and just as quickly will shift blame onto others when times get bad. The BC Liberals have rode as astonishing wave of luck by coming to power in 2001, just as BC’s real estate boom got underway in the cities, and just as exports surged and commodity prices soared, taking with them the rest of the province.

The Thone Speech may claim that all new jobs in BC have arisen due to tax cuts implemented in 2001 and 2002, but the reality is that BC benefited from: low interest rates as determined by the Bank of Canada that launched a housing boom; an extra $3 billion per year in transfers from the federal government; huge growth in export demand from the US and Asia. At best the government can claim that the downturn of 2001 and 2002 was softened by its deficit-financed tax cuts, although even there so much of the gains went to the top earners in the province that it was a weak stimulus.

That the housing and commodity booms are now over, and BC is in a recession that is getting worse each week, points to structural weaknesses in BC’s economy that were not cured with a tax cut. Alas, the Premier is once again getting bit in the backside by his own penchant for populism, as BC’s fixed election date guarantees two and a half more months of bad economic news in the press in the lead-up to the next election. Given the choice, most politicians would have held a snap election last fall when plausible denial about the state of the economy was still possible (our Prime Minister even broke with his own fixed election date for this very reason).

But since that was not the call, expect a rugged and ugly election season, with a lot of finger-pointing and name-calling. That is a shame because now more than ever British Columbians need a real democratic debate about where the province is headed.