What's Next For BC?

Now that certain politicians may have learned how serious the populace is about being listened to by their Government, what can we anticipate in B.C.’s future politics?

By the look and sound of the contenders vying to replace our last temporary King, we’re simply in for more of the same. These bunch are all like little brothers and sisters of the guy leaving. Will we have just another temporary King or Queen, seeing his or her mandate as one of invincible and infallible power beyond the opinion of mere mortals? I fear we may.

But what would we want instead? These contenders all promote listening to the populace, but nowhere do I see a push for real change in the process of Governing. None of our parties have proposed any mechanism for actually gathering the opinion of the people. And this shouldn’t really be that difficult. There’s an old expression, ‘If you build it, they will come!’ I believe that might relate to a secure and ongoing polling website of some sort, where the populace could actually be asked their opinions.

Government should perhaps be in the business of developing alternative policy choices for public consideration. Governing policy initiatives should never be enacted without input from the populace. So the people should vote before the enactment. Permanent polling stations should be created and secure systems developed to allow direct input to Government before the fact, not after.

The HST issue demonstrates completely the current intransigence of Government. Finally, after years of wrangling the HST issue, someone suggests we might solve the entire issue by reducing the combined rate of the new tax. That would permit the Province to retain the $1.6 enticement money, neutralize the complaints of the taxpayers who are now paying more tax in a whole bunch of places, and forestall any need to erase the transition to the combined Federal and Provincial taxes.

But where was this dialogue and discussion prior to the implementation? No alternatives were ever offered or discussed. The supreme ruler knew what was best for us, our own opinions be damned, and made the change, exactly as he planned, sticking to the course no matter what. Well goodbye to him, our collective democratic ambitions demand more than that of our Premier.

And now the contenders are all thinking this, or thinking that, about the HST question, and are fumbling about trying to decide what policy they will force upon us if elected. None of them has proposed asking the populace what to do next. The rigid referendum process says either we kill the tax or we don’t. But if we kill the tax now, will be simply pay again later to re-introduce it. If it is such a critical requirement for our future competitiveness, etc., then we are doomed to see a return of the blend at some time in the future.

Government could actually use this opportunity to actually ask us what we prefer to do next. Personally, I’m for allowing the combined tax to stay, but reducing the rate to 10%. But whenever the referendum is finally conducted, under the present set up, we must rigidly decide either yes or no.

No one in Government, or in opposition even, has suggested the rescission of the Tax without a referendum. What if Government backtracked and permitted a free vote in the Legislature on the tax? Government could kill the tax, kill the referendum and save all that money. If we are going to decide rigidly either yes or no, then the tax will go anyway, as we the people have a point to make.

But Government should be permitted to offer us alternatives, and should permit us the opportunity to indicate our preference. That would be a democratic process.

So how about a move to adjust the referendum question to include more than one possibility? Maybe we could include an option to keep the tax but reduce the rate. And perhaps another option to keep things as they already are now, for any so inclined. Majority vote wins, just like in a Democracy. The petition proponents should ultimately be convinced of the positive improvement in Democratic process this would afford us all.

If we must blindly stumble towards the referendum, with only the rigid question ahead, the tax will ultimately go. So Government should, if it cannot create a process to ask us what we actually prefer, just save us all the expensive and time-consuming process, and kill the tax without a referendum.