The New Democrat Opposition did their sworn duty and criticized the new-old budget right through the passage of second reading on Monday.
And they revealed as much about themselves as they did about the budget over the past week.
One of their central charges is that the budget is not balanced.
鈥淭he government tabled a budget in February, a budget which was not balanced, which resulted in cuts to important areas of programming that British Columbians depend on not only today but for the future ...鈥� said NDP finance critic Mike Farnworth.
It was presented as a $44-billion budget that will come in just $197 million over the balanced mark. When it was updated after the election, that margin had shrunk to $153 million.
The NDP launched attacks on the balanced claim at the start of the campaign, insisting it wasn鈥檛 balanced. That was obviously based on the assumption they would win the election. They didn鈥檛 want to be seen as taking the province from the black back into the red. So they denied the black ink right from the start.
But the whole argument is entirely academic. The budget is a plan for a fiscal year that still has almost nine months to run. Nobody will know if it鈥檚 balanced or not until the year ends next March 31, and the final accounting is revealed in July 2014.
Arguing over whether it鈥檚 balanced is like arguing whether your overdraft next year is still going to be around. You won鈥檛 know until you get there.
With all the second-guessing that鈥檚 been going on since they lost the election, you have to wonder if they would have been better off to accept that the Liberals plan to balance.
It seemed to go over well with voters. For all the pain caused by all the cutbacks, and all the controversy over each cut, people seemed to appreciate the idea B.C. is at least claiming, or aiming for, a balanced budget.
But the NDP notably never promised to balance the budget. They just said that the future deficits for three years under an NDP government would match 鈥渢he real Liberal deficits.鈥� And they remained vague about the fourth year.
It was read by some as confirmation of the eternal struggle the party faces when it comes to controlling costs. Liberals capitalized on that.
Similarly, the Opposition has been attacking the job-creation record of the Liberals over the past week.
Farnworth and others cited StatsCan numbers showing thousands fewer jobs.
The province is down since the jobs plan was invented, down 30,000 forestry jobs in the last 12 years and about the same in construction.
鈥淭he premier鈥檚 job plan is a bust. It鈥檚 a bust 鈥� nine consecutive quarters of job losses,鈥� said NDP critic Leonard Krog.
But where was all that concern about jobs during the campaign?
The platform made some vague commitments to creating jobs, but had next to nothing in the way of specific ideas to grow anything other than government jobs.
If the NDP are so concerned about job creation now, why did party leader Adrian Dix allow himself to appear solidly against jobs?
NDP veteran Harry Lali made it clear to all in the weeks after they lost the election and he lost his seat that Dix鈥檚 surprising stance against the idea to twin the Kinder Morgan pipeline was the main reason.
He said Dix鈥檚 Earth Day announcement 鈥減ut the final nail in the coffin for rural B.C.,鈥� as far as the NDP鈥檚 chances were concerned.
鈥淜inder Morgan did me in. It came across as the NDP against the economy and jobs.鈥�
While they鈥檙e going over their failed election plan, they might want to re-think their legislature strategy as well.
Just So You Know: Saturday鈥檚 column 鈥淗ow to read a newspaper with style鈥� referred to a similar, earlier piece that I vaguely recalled but was unable to locate.
It turns out I was channelling Garrison Keillor, who wrote a brilliant piece on the topic in 2007 in the New York Times.
Amanda Knowles, a reader in Washington, D.C., of all places, made the connection for me. Thanks to her, and to Keillor.
