babble-intro-img
babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.

BC election polls.

Treetop
Offline
Joined: Jun 23 2005

Two polls in two days, with more to come. I thought it might be time for a BC polling thread.

March 24. Ipsoid Reid. 800 polled.

BCL: 46%

NDP: 35%

GRN: 15% 

http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=4320

Today Angus Reid released their poll of 800 people. You'll notice they include the BC Conservatives.

BCL: 43%

NDP: 37%

GRN: 13%

BCC: 4%

http://www.angusreidstrategies.com/polls-analysis/opinion-polls/bc-liberals-lead-voter-turnout-will-decide-bc-election


Comments

melovesproles
Offline
Joined: Apr 15 2005
I could see the Cons getting that much and the BC Libs will have less support than last time.  As those polls suggest, the NDP will probably drop 4-6% from last election with the Greens getting a nice bump.  Its going to be a sad result but thats what happens when you have an opposition that cares more about CanWest editorials than its own natural base.  Hopefully, something good comes out of it, (STV would be great but the antidemocratic threshhold is pretty steep)either the NDP finally wakes up or the Greens become a credible progressive alternative.

Stockholm
Offline
Joined: Sep 29 2002
When it comes to the so-called Greens - take what the pre-campaign polls say and then divide by half and that is what they will get. if their leader running in a byelection in October right spalt in the middle of the granola belt of Vancouver - was only a ble to get 7% of the vote that speaks volumes.

Basement Dweller
Offline
Joined: Nov 27 2006

The Green leader is still an unknown to voters. She could fizzle, or she could come out of nowhere to contention. Stranger things have happened in BC. The public is starting to get in a volatile mood with the worries over the economy and Olympic debt.

If an election were held today, roughly ten seats would switch from NDP to Liberal.


melovesproles
Offline
Joined: Apr 15 2005
Mebe, I've met a lot of people who plan to become first time Green voters lately though and the BC NDP is on a roll punishing their candidates for saying the word 'Zionist', doesn't exactly look like momentum to me.

Stockholm
Offline
Joined: Sep 29 2002

Do you seriously think that 99.999% of BC voters know or care about what "Zionism" is?? Talk about a tempest in a tea pot. Maybe someone should ask the green leader if she has a policy on zionism as well?

Getting back to the polls - on the bright side - the trend line is looking good, the Mustel poll conducted in early February had the BC Liberals 16 points ahead, the Ipsos poll conducted in early March sliced that to an 11 point lead and now the ARG poll done just in the last couple of days has it down to a 6 point lead with the NDP actually ahead by 1 point among those who are likeliest to vote. So hold on to your hats.


ottawaobserver
Offline
Joined: Feb 24 2008

From what I've been reading from a distance, the BC Rail-Patrick Kinsella-Basi-Virk issue could be the real wild card for the BC Libs, and not in a good way.

Although I'm all for fixed election dates, you can really see why they can be risky for governing parties, when freak storms can gust up from simmering issues at just the wrong time!


Policywonk
Offline
Joined: Feb 6 2005
We do tend to downplay the bad polls and play-up the good ones. But a six point difference does not seem that unsurmountable, given the current economic situation, assuming the BC NDP can give people something positive to vote for.

Jacob Two-Two
Offline
Joined: Jan 16 2002
Stockholm wrote:

Do you seriously think that 99.999% of BC voters know or care about what "Zionism" is?

No, of course not, but I think they do notice when a party is easily bullied, even if they don't understand what they're being bullied about. There's some hard times coming down the pike and any party that can't seem to take a little heat is not going to look too attractive to the electorate. As time goes on, the BC NDP just looks more and more like a pushover. In the last election, I think a moderate stance was the proper one to take, and the party came very close to winning with it. If they'd been just a bit more aggressive about disrupting the Liberal's prosperity message, we'd have an NDP government right now. But that was then. The BC NDP needs to build itself a backbone and start kicking some ass. It's the only way we have a hope in hell of winning in May. 


remind
Offline
Joined: Jun 25 2004
Basement Dweller wrote:
The Green leader is still an unknown to voters. She could fizzle, or she could come out of nowhere to contention. Stranger things have happened in BC. The public is starting to get in a volatile mood with the worries over the economy and Olympic debt.

If an election were held today, roughly ten seats would switch from NDP to Liberal.

If the public is worried about the economy and the olympic debt it makes no sense that the NDP would lose 10 seats.


Stockholm
Offline
Joined: Sep 29 2002

"The Green leader is still an unknown to voters. She could fizzle, or she could come out of nowhere to contention."

By all accounts she is a much weaker leader than Adriane Carr and she was was pretty dreadful to begin with. In any case, people don't vote Green for the leader, they vote for the vague international brand "green". In the last Ontario election they got 8% of the vote with a totally unknown leader who got zero media coverage. Under the tediously over-promoted Elizabeth May, the federal greens got the same % in Ontario. 


melovesproles
Offline
Joined: Apr 15 2005

I totally agree with Jacob Two-Two, the NDP should be worried about the fact that after two terms of rule by a complete rightwing ideologue, people are slumbering into giving them another term.  I think its because a lot of people who voted NDP last time feel like they didn't get their money's worth from the party in opposition and figure that the NDP isn't able to shift the debate in a progressive direction so are looking elsewhere. 

 

Quote:
From what I've been reading from a distance, the BC Rail-Patrick Kinsella-Basi-Virk issue could be the real wild card for the BC Libs, and not in a good way.

Sure, its on page five and six for the wonks but I'm not seeing alot of real public outrage or even interest. People want to hear what the NDP would actually do in power, so far apart from killing electoral reform, pandering to Province readers on crime and punishment, and enforcing CanWest's editorial bias on foreign policy upon its candidates, I'm not sure what that is.

Obama obviously has a lot of faults but he was able to pick a few strong progressive positions and rally the base, James seems to be going the Kerry route of letting the right totally dictate the terms of debate.  I'm glad Stockholm is excited about the NDP polling four to six percent behind where they were last election with the clock ticking but really its inexcusably pathetic.    


brookmere
Offline
Joined: Jun 23 2005

remind wrote:
If the public is worried about the economy and the olympic debt it makes no sense that the NDP would lose 10 seats.

Yes it does, because the great majority of voters believe that the Liberals are the best economic managers. And that's because they think that BC's apparent prosperity over the past 8 years was due to Gordo's leadership, rather than a giant RE and consumer spending bubble. And that's because the NDP has failed to demontrate this to the voters.

 


Stockholm
Offline
Joined: Sep 29 2002

I'm not sure how you "demonstrate" to people that the economy is terrible when for most people up until a couple of months ago it wasn't. And, to the extent that there is an economic crisis in BC - it is no worse than what people see happening in Ontario or in all of the US and in the rest of the world for that matter. Do you seriously think that people are suddenly going to think that BC has the worst economy in Canada and that the entire global recession is all Gordon's Campbell's fault - just because Carol James gives a few speeches saying - "there is a recession in BC and its all because of  Campbell"?

"the NDP should be worried about the fact that after two terms of rule by a complete rightwing ideologue, people are slumbering into giving them another term."

It wouldn't be the first time. In 1983, Bill Bennett who was the ultra rightwing ideologue of that era was running for a third term. The NDP had come very close to beating him in 1979 under Dave Barrett and by 1983 BC was being very hard hit by a recession and Barrett ran a lively economically populist campaign from one end of the province to the other talking about nothing but economic "bread and butter" issues - and rightwing idelogue Bennett won a third term and increased his majority - so go figure.


Jacob Two-Two
Offline
Joined: Jan 16 2002

" Barrett ran a lively economically populist campaign "

Well, yeah. That's just it. What is there about the current provincial party that is either lively or populist? 


Stockholm
Offline
Joined: Sep 29 2002
Barrett also kept running these "lively, economically populist campaigns" and he lost three straight elections - including the one in 1983 which should have been a slam dunk.

Centrist
Offline
Joined: Apr 7 2004

After 1979's ohhhhh so close election with the NDP's 46% high water mark, Barrett further repositioned himself to the centre by wearing blue pin stripe suits and declaring himself as a "fiscal conservative", which received alot of media attention.

A good strategic move for the NDP to move to the centre in order to catch some more of the middle ground from the Socreds.

In late 1981, BC's economy fell off a precipace... 20% interest rates and skyrocketing unemployment reaching well into the double digit levels. Foreclosures, business shutdowns were the norm everywhere thereafter.

1 and 1/2 years later heading into the May 5, 1983 election, the NDP was well ahead in the polls and the Socreds were looking at a dog's breakfast for a political outcome at the outset of the campaign.

Barrett was focusing upon Keynesian economics to stimulate the economy.

It was a slam dunk election for the NDP. 

Then Barrett made a fatal strategic error a couple of weeks later. While on a radio talk show in Cranbrook, Barrett stated that he would get rid of the 5% and 6% wage hike limits for the public service in response to a caller to the talk show.

BCTV also had a new mobile news van with a satellite dish in Cranbrook and had John Daley reporting back LIVE as the first story on the evening 6 o'clock news. I will never forget that moment.

All Barrett had to do was remain noncomittal and say that "we may review it" under the existing mini-depression economic environment. Instead Barrett said he would "scrap it".

Biggest fatal strategic political blunder I have ever seen scaring away some of the middle electorate. Thereafter, momentum shifted dramatically with the Socreds and media hounding Barrett on the issue.

The NDP lost seats in the 1983 election as a result.

After 1983, the Socreds then began their deep government cost-cutting resulting in Operation Solidarity/Solidarity Coalition and the rest is history. 

  


Stockholm
Offline
Joined: Sep 29 2002

So, in other words Barrett lost the election because he unwisely played too much to his base and threw them some red meat and it turned off the critical swing voters in the middle. (though it seems strange that so many people would change their vote at the thought of not putting a set cap on wages for public service employees - seems kinda trivial to me). I guess this is a cautionary tale for people who think that all Carol James has to do is give some soapbox 60s style socialist fire and brimstone speeches and she will be home free.

My usual rule of thumb is that if an NDP politician is saying all the things that most people on babble like to hear - it is probably turning off about 85% of the electorate.


Centrist
Offline
Joined: Apr 7 2004
Stockholm wrote:

though it seems strange that so many people would change their vote at the thought of not putting a set cap on wages for public service employees - seems kinda trivial to me.

Remember that was an era of COLA (cost of living allowance) clauses in union contracts. People today would think one is talking about Coca-Cola. 

Even private sector unions back then were willing to see wage reductions in order to see jobs preserved. 

Put it into this context: People were losing their homes enmasse, losing their jobs enmasse, and also seeing large reductions in wages/salary at the time.

Today is a piece of cake in BC compared to that era. It was brutal back then.

Now, in that context, look at how the electorate/taxpayer would view the public service being capped at 5% and 6% wage increases compared to everyone else losing their jobs and seeing wage reductions.

Barrett was obviously feeding some "meat" to the BC Fed, since BC Fed head (a hothead) Jim Kinnaird was lambasting those public sector wage caps.

That's how one should view same looking back in time at that era... "with those lenses".


Stockholm
Offline
Joined: Sep 29 2002
To me whether you have a "cap" or not - wages for the public sector are something that is negotiated. Right now there is no official "cap" at all on salaries in the public service - but I can assure that no one is going to get anywhere near a 5% raise this year.

Policywonk
Offline
Joined: Feb 6 2005

Stockholm wrote:
To me whether you have a "cap" or not - wages for the public sector are something that is negotiated. Right now there is no official "cap" at all on salaries in the public service - but I can assure that no one is going to get anywhere near a 5% raise this year.

I assume you are talking provincial civil service (since this is a BC thread) and not federal, where there certainly is a legislated wage cap, that was in the budget.


Basement Dweller
Offline
Joined: Nov 27 2006

"Today is a piece of cake in BC compared to that era. It was brutal back then."

Give it a couple of years. The 80s will look like the good ol' days.

Barrett just misunderstood the mindset of many private sector workers in hard times.  If the public sector workers keep getting ahead with wage increases, it hurts for those who may not have a job at all (or face pay cuts). Its more emotional than ideological.

I think the NDP could do well with a populist left platform that didn't seem to favour its political allies. The way I see it, they are heading to a crushing defeat the way things are, so why not take some risks. For instance, a focused campaign against poverty and homelessness. It has reached such extreme levels in BC, that it will strike a chord.

 

 


brookmere
Offline
Joined: Jun 23 2005

Stockholm wrote:
I'm not sure how you "demonstrate" to people that the economy is terrible when for most people up until a couple of months ago it wasn't.

You point out:

- the continuing deindustrialization of BC.

- the continuing loss of head offices

- the fact that all job growth in BC has been tied to the real estate bubble, and that the government ought to take measures to stop the bubble.

- the -8% savings rate.

 In other words, you point out that the BC economy is just a house of cards like the US, and will collapse for the same reasons.

The NDP should have been pointing this out for years. Then our stand would have been proven right by the economic crisis, and Gordo's strategy proven wrong. It's far too late now - it would just look like opportunism.

 


Stockholm
Offline
Joined: Sep 29 2002

A year ago if the NDP had spent all its time on that stuff you would have said they were crazy and that the only issue that mattered was the environment. I don't think people were ready to hear a "we're going to hell in a handbasket" message a year ago when things "seemed" to be booming. I think that - whether rightly or wrongly - the current economic crisis is widely regarded as a global crisis and maybe even as a North American crisis - but people don't see BC as doing worse than any other place on the continent - if anything people probably think "thank god we aren't California or Ontario".

I'm not sure what "measures" a provincial government can take to stop a housing "bubble". The one sure fire way to do that would be to significantly raise interest rates - but only the Bank of Canada can do that. I suppose another way would be to say "an NDP provincial government in BC will demand that banks stop issuing mortgages to people who don't have 25% down payments and good credit ratings".


Sarann
Offline
Joined: Dec 23 2006
I just read an analysis in the Gold River Record about how costly public private projects are.  The real cost is hidden because of tricky accounting.  Why isn't the NDP on this?????

DrConway
Offline
Joined: May 6 2001

melovesproles wrote:
 I'm glad Stockholm is excited about the NDP polling four to six percent behind where they were last election with the clock ticking but really its inexcusably pathetic.    

Stocko boy doesn't have to live here after the election's over, so he can just keep on being a backseat driver butting his nose in where he isn't wanted.

As for me, I feel the Basi-Virk affair could get traction if the NDP hammers on it a hell of a lot more than they have been. This Zionism crap is a red herring that, as Jacob Two-Two points out, makes the NDP look like a bunch of pushovers. Pushovers don't exactly get remembered for strong stances on anything.

One of the reasons why the NDP got visibility in the last federal election was because Jack Layton cleverly took the "Strong Leader" motif Stephen Harper tried to use and inverted it for the NDP's own judo move on the Cons.

We need something similar in BC and the Basi-Virk thing could do it.

All it takes is the NDP drawing a line in the sand and saying "no more pandering to people who have no interest in voting for us anyway, and no more sneaky privatizations".

Basi-Virk is showing that the rot goes right to the top in the BC Liberal government, and just like the Devine Tories in Saskatchewan, it's clear that top BC Liberal officials are, at the very least, tainted by association with people who misused government funds for their own purposes. I mean, my god, are we a banana republic or a real province?

Banana republics have kickbacks, bribes, and influence peddling, not real provinces.

 


Jacob Two-Two
Offline
Joined: Jan 16 2002

" I guess this is a cautionary tale for people who think that all Carol James has to do is give some soapbox 60s style socialist fire and brimstone speeches and she will be home free. "

But that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm all too aware that the party would shoot itself in the foot by trying to send a message that would appeal to my personal politics. I would never advise they do that. I'm saying they need to be seen to be fighting about something, and not back down at the first sign of trouble. Can you name one issue where this can be said of the provincial party? That they took a fierce stand and faced down the inevitable criticism? I'd like to hear it.


brookmere
Offline
Joined: Jun 23 2005

Stockholm wrote:
I'm not sure what "measures" a provincial government can take to stop a housing "bubble"

You impose a speculation tax, like they do in Germany. It works.

And by the way, why the quotes - are you the last person on the planet who does not think there is a housing bubble?

 


Stockholm
Offline
Joined: Sep 29 2002
there sure isn't a bubble now.

Adam T
Online
Joined: Nov 7 2003
brookmere wrote:

Stockholm wrote:
I'm not sure what "measures" a provincial government can take to stop a housing "bubble"

You impose a speculation tax, like they do in Germany. It works.

 

 

Was that at the national level in Germany? That would be the equivalent of Canada doing that, not British Columbia.

I know this isn't the point of the thread, but anything that lowers demand or raises supply of housing might work to stem a bubble:

1.The B.C government lowering the property tax rebate (that would sideswipe a lot of housing owners)

2.The B.C government selling land to housing developers (that would work rather slowly though).

3.At the municipal level, muni governments can increase density.  Of course, that might further raise housing values in areas zoned for single detached housing.

  

 


brookmere
Offline
Joined: Jun 23 2005

Was that at the national level in Germany? That would be the equivalent of Canada doing that, not British Columbia.

 If such a tax is imposd at the national level, it's effecteive at the national level. If imposed at the provincial level, it's effective at the provincial level. What matters is how much tax the speculator pays, not which level of government it's paid to.

 Your items 1 and 3 would have some effect, 2 less as the provincial government no longer large enough holdings to make a difference in the market. But measures affecting supply or density work only in the long term and do not prevent price bubbles in the short term. Look at places like Florida which had virtually unlimited supply.

 The most effective tool to prevent excessive housing prices is restricting mortgage financing, which Germany also does, but which cannot be implemented at the provincial level.

 Of couse the BC housing market is crashing just like the US, and for the same reasons - high prices, oversupply, and the global recession, so such measures are really moot now. But they would prevent a similar debacle in the future. 


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or register to post comments