By John Klein (aka Saskboy)
Conservatives are not responsible for your neighbour’s children (although your neighbour’s children will eventually be paying off debts incurred by Conservative Ministers). Conservatives only feel responsible for your neighbour’s children when they street race, have sex, use drugs, or are bullied. Full bellies are definitely not their responsibility, unless it’s unsafe meat. Why don’t hungry children benefit from the government’s “rigor” to “meet consumers expectations”? Are hungry children not “consumers”?
Apparently child poverty is a provincial thing, but James Moore will tell them how to teach history http://t.co/L3ET1ncqSy #cdnpoli
— Jeff Jedras (@jeffjedras) December 16, 2013
Why yes @JamesMoore_org, it is the job of those who have lots to ensure those who don’t – esp kids – get enough too. #yourjob
— pattibacchus (@pattibacchus) December 15, 2013
@pattibacchus Yes. The Canada-BC social housing agreement has yielded some great results for BC. Many excellent projects. Esp 4 seniors.
— James Moore (@JamesMoore_org) December 15, 2013
[From straight.com]: One in seven children or about 121,000 kids in British Columbia were found to be living in poverty in 2008.
The poverty rate among B.C. children below the age of six during that year was 19.6 percent. This means that one in five in this age category didn’t have enough to lead decent lives.
That was in 2010. The rate is comparable to the USA at the time.
Now the rate is 1% less, at 18.6%. That’s “some result,” not “some great results.” Maybe Moore, discounting child poverty entirely because it means little to him personally, meant “great” in the sense that it’s the greatest (highest) rate in the country?
[From cbc.ca]: The authors of the 2013 Child Poverty Report Card used the most recent economic data available from Statistics Canada to issue their “dismal” findings for British Columbia.
First Call says the number of poor children in B.C. in 2011 was 153,000 – enough to fill the Vancouver Canucks’ stadium more than eight times.
“The child poverty rate rose from 14.3 per cent in 2010 to 18.6 per cent in 2011,” said the report, which used the agency’s low-income cutoffs before tax as a measure of poverty.
Calling a reporter a liar when they have you on tape (or more generally, when they aren’t lying) is never, ever the best defense.—
Rob Silver (@RobSilver) December 15, 2013
I assume @JamesMoore_org‘s apology is in the mail?—
Rob Silver (@RobSilver) December 15, 2013
@saskboy one of several http://t.co/Wwj0e9kQ9U—
Allan Sorensen (@AllanSorensen) December 16, 2013
A common liar not shown here, who frequents Twitter, started berating National Newswatch for reporting the matter. @robsilver on that:
Ok, in order of stupid defenses:
2. Calling a reporter with a tape a liar;
1. Calling an aggregator a fabricator for posting headlines.—
Rob Silver (@RobSilver) December 15, 2013
I think we’ve sufficiently determined that neither Moore nor the Conservative Party feels responsible for poverty — it thinks the provinces are responsible. If you go to your local city council, in Regina they’ll say the province is responsible for homelessness issues. Clearly the buck stops at your provincial legislature?
Except child poverty on federally funded reserves is not a provincial jurisdiction. Try another talking point, Moore.
ADDED: Dave and RossK have more.
I too thought Moore was maybe not among the worst of the HarperCons.
