Site C: How much support will BC NDP lose if they refuse to cancel?

18 posts / 0 new
Last post
jas
Site C: How much support will BC NDP lose if they refuse to cancel?

My guess is close to one third if they break their promise to heed the BCUC recommendation.

Rumour has it Horgan is listening to lobbyists and other insiders -- people who apparently can't do math and think BC taxpayers owe trade unionists expensive, temporary jobs at the expense of Hydro ratepayers, and of BC's credit rating and financial solvency long into the future.

Didn't take long for the division between the new left and the old left to rear its ugly head. Horgan's actions will tell us whether he's a dinosaur or whether he will bring the NDP into the 21st century.

Site C Decision Will be Made Any Day Now — What the Hell is Going On?

jas

It's not like there won't be jobs in alternative energy projects.  So what's the actual deal here? Have some in the trade unions been bought off by special interests? If not, why support a project that is so obviously hostile to the public interest? Bill Tieleman, feel free to provide us your special insights.

Muskrat Falls experience a warning for B.C.'s Site C: expert

"B.C. has the luxury of being able to stop this now without going any further," Vardy said in an interview. "In terms of the take-away from Muskrat Falls: It's not too late to stop it."

Site C and Muskrat Falls Compared

Muskrat Falls experience a warning for Site C dam project, expert says

It's official: Muskrat Falls a boondoggle, says Stan Marshall

NorthReport

Typical.

The Liberals didn't refer Site C to the BCUC but let's blame Horgan. 

jas

Not sure what you mean, NR. What is the point of sending it to the BCUC if he's not going to use that information? And yes, if Horgan approves such a monumental waste of public money to get in good with some union cronies, I will blame him. He is offering nothing different in this case from the BC Liberals.

jas

Among other things, it will be a bottomless money hole. This was not a problem for the BC Liberals, whose sole purpose was to bankrupt or undermine any well-functioning public service. For a social democratic government though, it makes no sense. Again, it will be the NDP taking the fall for Hydro's unmanageable debt (currently hidden in deferral accounts) spiking rate increases, and declining market within a global energy glut.

As we speak, Hydro is paying producers around BC to not produce power.  The Mica dam is also currently not operating at full capacity. Every energy expert who has weighed in on this has offered the same advice: BC does not need the extra capacity, and if it ever does, alternative sources can meet that demand much more quickly and at less cost.

Why approving Site C could sink NDP

 

jas

Not to mention that the sunk costs argument (against canceling) contradicts the "jobs, jobs, jobs" argument (for continuing).

Cancelling the Site C dam will be a tough pill to swallow – but alternatives are harsher (Six former NDP MLAs weigh in)

Pondering

If it were over Site C then I suppose they could lose votes to the Greens but I think it is unlikely. The type of people who are against Site C will surely appreciate other things the NDP is doing over what it was like under the "Liberals".

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

If PR passes going ahead with Site C will cost the NDP dearly in its Coast heartland. The Vancouver Island seats could easily go mostly Green instead of Orange. The on going distruction of the Peace River during the next election would be handing the Greens a cudgel to play whackamole with. The environmental file is a deal maker for many of the progressive people who vote NDP.  I am still hopeful, I e-mailed my MLA and his office responded with a thank you for the support to stop it. Inside the caucus I am pretty sure there are many MLA's who are also looking at the Indigenious Rights aspect of continuing to build in the face of indigenous dissent.  The NDP does not need to have indigenous and environmental activists pursuing it during the election because they are building a money sink. The Liberal's will track the rising construction costs and blame the NDP for them. It will be a fun time for the NDP.

 

jas

Thanks, Krop. Nice to see your post here.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

CHEK news is the best loved Vancouver Island news site. This poll shows the depth of the feeling for the Site C project in the BC NDP's Coast base.  A wrong decision will cost them dearly. At 88% when I voted.

https://www.cheknews.ca/chek-point-poll-site-c-dam-cancelled-completed-3...

jas

Announcement expected tomorrow at 11:30 am, with Global BC already declaring the winner.

I don't see how the NDP could possibly benefit from allowing the project to continue. Again, it seems the party is taking bad advice from dubious insiders who are working not just against the party's interests, but against the public interest. They have an opportunity to hang Site C around the necks of the BC Liberals for the next decade or more, but instead, they're going to hang it around their own necks.

They're setting themselves up to take the fall for the largest and most wasteful public expenditure in BC's history, and also hand the BC Liberals the next election. This is the sign of a fake party and a fake political system.

jas

New depths of dumb have been realized today. Wow.

Deal breaker.

 

Martin N.

jas wrote:

New depths of dumb have been realized today. Wow.

Deal breaker.

 

If you thought the project was due to be cancelled, you need to inform yourself, if not plumb your own depths. There was never any intention on the part of Horgan to cancel and he will lose no support over it. Site C is only a peripheral issue in urban/coastal ridings but it is a huge issue in northern/interior riding that voted Liberal.

jas

Inform myself of what? Several NDP ministers, including Horgan, are on record against Site C. It is guaranteed, and has already proven to be a massive money loser, just as Muskrat Falls has been and will be.

One cannot accept that Horgan et al have no understanding of this.

I agree with you though that they've probably weighed their options. If they cancel Kinder Morgan, they will retain their urban and a good chunk of their coastal base, and Site C will do them some, but minimal damage. But only because BC'ers don't understand what's actually at stake.

But for me, it's a deal breaker. I thought the NDP had turned a corner. Not so.

Mighty Middle

Latest poll for the FEDERAL NDP support in BC (led by Jagmeet Singh) is at 11%. After this I suspect that support will fall even more, with NDP supporters going to the Green Party. Even though Jagmeet Singh has nothing to do with Site C, voters will probably conflate the Fed & Prov NDP.

Martin N.

The project hasn't proven anything yet but the fact remains that it was on budget and on time until the NDP took over and initiated their ( necessary, I agree) review. Both pro and con are spinning their wheels with extremist language and the truth of the matter is that this delay has endangered the river diversion timetable, which, if delayed by a year due to high water flows will be costly.

Now that there is certainty, let the professionals do their due diligence on timing and geophysical challenges in order to mitigate delays. Using more or more productive equipment may still allow them to meet the diversion schedule and so will retaining more water behind the existing Bennett and Peace Canyon dams. 

jas

Here is John Horgan's stake in the Peace. Not worth much today.

John Horgan's stake in the Peace

Rev Pesky

From kropotkin1951:

This poll shows the depth of the feeling for the Site C project in the BC NDP's Coast base. 

Sorry, but it shows nothing of the kind. Pardon me, perhaps it does show the 'depth of feeling'. when I looked, the poll showed 51% wishing to cancel the project, to 49% wishing to complete it. 

But it also shows only jsut over 14,000 people responded to the poll, which is hardly enough for any politician to get excited about.

What baffles me is all those NDP'ers who were running around touting the Leap Manifesto apparently didn't bother to read it, because in it's support documentation there was the requirement for 270 new 1300MW hydroelectric power plants.

Where did they think these plants were going to be built, in the middle of Arizona? Sahara desert?