One week to go until the provincial election. One week for each party to make their case. One week to convince the undecided.
It has still been a lackluster campaign. Hopefully, there will be some inspirational messages provided in the all-candidates forum tonight at UNBC. So far, the local all-candidates events have been most notable for who didn't show than what was said.
The leader's debates over the past two weeks were pretty much a wash as well.
Each candidate stuck to their talking points and, with the exception of a flare of anger from John Horgan, they were fairly mild affairs.
Premier Christy Clark kept coming back to jobs, jobs, jobs.
NDP Leader Horgan tried to pull the debate forward to 2017, declining to rehash the 1990s.
And Green Party Leader Andrew Weaver missed several opportunities to score points, although he did point out "better than really bad" is still "bad."
On the whole, having listened to the debates, it is really hard to think of one memorable moment. No quips about fast ferries.
No promises of billions in LNG money. No defense of a carbon tax which is clearly not accomplishing its objectives. No Gordon Wilson moment pointing out why nothing gets done in this province.
Even among my politically active associates, there is a general sense this is an election without the big central issues or concerns.
It is almost as if we are having an election for the sake of having an election and no other reason.
At least, that is the way it appears locally.
The one thing I did take away from the televised debate is that for all three leaders, the Lower Mainland/Capital Region District is British Columbia. The rest of us don't matter. We are just here to pay the bills.
For example, at one point Horgan claimed the average price of a single family dwelling in British Columbia has increased by $600,000. He went on to say it is unacceptable.
$600,000? Really? I would love it if my house was worth $600,000 more than I paid for it but thankfully even the B.C. Assessment Authority doesn't think it is worth that much. Indeed, the average selling price in Prince George last year was just over $300,000. You do the math.
For the other two leaders, this should have been a chance to go to town on the opposition leader.
Instead they debated the merits of their respective policies dealing with the Vancouver/Victoria housing market. Yes, it is a problem, but it is not a provincial problem.
Other issues, such as a renter's grant, toll bridges, high tech workers and the fentanyl crisis have more to do with the Lower Mainland than the heart of the province.
That is not to say these are not issues of some concern in the rest of B.C. but they do not carry the same weight for Prince George or Kamloops as they do for Vancouverites.
For the rest of the province access to educational programs, healthcare equity and a resolution to the softwood lumber dispute are of more importance. Indeed, the latter was raised during the debates and got the usual pat answers - "I am going to fight for British Columbians."
Ironically, trade is a federal issue and there is little any of the candidates can do to reach a resolution on the issue.
The one point which I would have loved to see the leader's really debate is the shape of our overall economy.
For example, Premier Clark is correct in saying we have more British Columbians working now than ever before.
After all, we have more British Columbians now than ever before.
Over the past 20 years, the total number of working British Columbians has increased from 1,859,900 in 1997 to 2,379,500 in 2016 - or by roughly half a million. Our population over the same time period has increased by roughly 800,000 people which means 300,000 are without jobs.
How do they fit into the economic model?
During the same 20 year period, the number of workers in the goods producing sector increased from 419,100 to 470,100 while for forestry and logging with support activities, the number of employed British Columbians decreased from 32,900 to 19,400, according to BCStats.
What does this imply about our economy? Especially considering the service industries have increased from 1,440,800 to 1,909,400 workers.
And during that same time period, the average weekly take home pay for a worker in British Columbia has dropped from second in the country to fifth. We used to compete with Alberta for the top.
How are relatively lower wages impacting our GDP?
Yes, we have more jobs but what sorts of jobs do we have?
That is the question I would have liked to see the leaders debate. After all, we are talking about our children's future.
