Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: Become a Podcaster | Find a Show
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2012 the authors
Syndicate
Isn't it interesting how when the only published poll showed the BC Liberals with a huge lead, these threads about the BC election had hundreds of postings with people going on their fiesta of hate against Carol James for not being doctrinaire enough and for doing this wrong and that wrong etc...(and I'm not saying that none of the criticisms had merit). But now, no sooner does a poll come out showing that the race is actually a lot closer, then suddenly no one seems to have anything to say about the BC election anymore.
I guess its all a sign of how many people on the so-called left, really hate the idea of actually winning because then they have no one they can bitch and complain about. God forbid that the NDP might possibly win or even do better than expected - then no one can wave their finger and complain about anything.
Well, who knows, maybe Campbell will win and then all the usual suspects can punch their fists in the air with glee and then start bitching about how if only they had been running the campaign - everything would have turned out differently...
Oh, come on, Stock. You've been around here long enough to know that win or lose, the NDP routinely gets pilloried for not being 'left' enough. If they lose, it's because they weren't left-wing enough. If they win, it's because they 'sold out'. Once in office, NDP governments receive a torrent of abuse about how they have failed to immediately turn [province] into a workers' paradise, eliminate poverty, cure cancer, etc, and therefore are really Liberals in disguise. Make no mistake, if James and the NDP win, there will still be plenty of bitching and complaining around here.
Shifting gears slightly, I wonder if tonight's Leaders Debate will have any measurable impact on the race? Luckily for them, there's no Canucks game on tonight, although I'll wager that more than a few people will be watching the Canes-Bruins dustup instead.
But the Liberals have been in power federally for 65 or 70 of the last 100 years. And Canada has never been ranked in the top five most competitive economies in the world with Liberals in Ottawa federally. The social democracies of Scandinavia and Denmark, led by social democrats in power or in strong opposition for long periods, have. And those countries have eliminated child poverty and low wage slavery. Not Liberal Canada though.
In fact, the Liberals are zeros in Scandinavia and Europe where voters realized long ago that theyre just another conservative party.
Canadians will realize our Liberals have been just another conservative party, sooner or later. It's just a matter of time and ditching our obsolete electoral system.
Oh lord, the view from Toronto really is myopic. Look, some of us actually have to live with the results of this election, seeing as we actually live here. So heaven forbid we British Columbians criticize the BC NDP for running an unprofessional campaign, with a minor shot at winning. I for one find it extremely depressing considering how close they came in 2005. Hence, I am convinced they'll loose, and don't much believe that one Angus-Reid poll. The NDP is being massivley outspent, it's volunteer base is weak, it's message is confusing and it's campaign seems unprofessional. Not that the Liberals have been invincible, as the last week has shown, but even so I doubt that's enough to loosen their grip on power. If the NDP, by some stretch of the imagination actually win, I'll eat my proverbial hat.
Oh, come on, Stock. You've been around here long enough to know that win or lose, the NDP routinely gets pilloried for not being 'left' enough. If they lose, it's because they weren't left-wing enough. If they win, it's because they 'sold out'. Once in office, NDP governments receive a torrent of abuse about how they have failed to immediately turn [province] into a workers' paradise, eliminate poverty, cure cancer, etc, and therefore are really Liberals in disguise. Make no mistake, if James and the NDP win, there will be plenty of bitching and complaining around here.
And no, I don't expect some "workers paradise" if the NDP actually wins. All of the parties are very similar and will all lead to similar results for the average person, with the NDP being slightly more average person-friendly. A non-voting friend of mine said something like, "they all just move money from here to there and nothing actually changes. Things actually get worse." I couldn't really disagree, and didn't really feel like convincing him to vote. I just said something like, "If you change your mind vote NDP cause they're the least-bad option, but I don't blame you for not bothering." This is not surprising because they all work within the same framework, so I really don't expect anything that drastic to change if any of them get in. That being said, considering the economic and environmental situations we're in, I would hope to see some inkling of leadership in addressing these issues. BTW, notice how I've avoided saying they're not left-wing enough. That's because leadership and ideology are not one and the same. So yeah, I haven't gotten an impression of leadership from the current crop of leaders, but heaven forbid anyone point that out.
In conclusion... All hail the dear leader, because an election campaign is no time to talk about the issues
. (ETA: Typos - because I'm anal like that).
And dont forget the tens of billions of dollars which Mulroney, Chretien and Martin tried to force the provinces and territories to accept in transfers since the 80s and 90s and 2000's!! Those strong leaders with all-Canadian vision for social democracy and globally un-competitive, wannabe G8 economies in Canada tried their best to resist the neoliberal voodoo emanating from the USsA all those years!! But it was provincial NDP governnments that forced bottom-up rightwing baloney on Canadians since CUSFTA and LaffTA, I mean NAFTA!! And since the NDP's rightwing ideology forced on Ottawa has flopped as badly as it has, the leftwing Tories have little recourse now but to run us into another debt hole while distancing themselves as best they can from the provincial NDP's neoliberal ideology shoved down their throats in Ottawa since the 1980s.
On another thread, I was talking about the Leaders Tour and what it reveals.
In the last few days, I've seen Campbell in NDP seats. Most notably Fraser-Nicola and Delta North. I believe he spent at least as much time in NDP seats as in Liberal seats.
Meanwhile, I was baffled to see Shane Simpson and Jenny Kwan get face time in the media with Carole James. These two hold the safest NDP seats in the Province. She also visited other NDP seats like Nelson-Creston and North Island. All told, James has also been spending more time in NDP seats than Liberal seats.
Watching the Leaders Tour before the debate, cleared showed that most battles are being fought in NDP districts. This confirms my suspicion that the Angus Reid poll is an outlyer.
Has Carole James strong performance (and Campbells cold fish imitation) in the debate turned this around? Myself, I'll keep watching the leaders to see what's happening.
And dont forget the tens of billions of dollars which Mulroney, Chretien and Martin tried to force the provinces and territories to accept in transfers since the 80s and 90s and 2000's!! Those strong leaders with all-Canadian vision for social democracy and globally un-competitive, wannabe G8 economies in Canada tried their best to resist the neoliberal voodoo emanating from the USsA all those years!! But it was provincial NDP governnments that forced bottom-up rightwing baloney on Canadians since CUSFTA and LaffTA, I mean NAFTA!! And since the NDP's rightwing ideology forced on Ottawa has flopped as badly as it has, the leftwing Tories have little recourse now but to run us into another debt hole while distancing themselves as best they can from the provincial NDP's neoliberal ideology shoved down their throats in Ottawa since the 1980s.
And this has to do with the BC election, or the leadership of the BC political parties in this election, how exactly? *Confused*
Leadrs debate polls are out, James wins in both of the question formats.
who won? James
who lost? Campbell... well Sterk was below Campbell at 14%, or so, but that was to be expected considering the whining she did.
"That being said, considering the economic and environmental situations we're in, I would hope to see some inkling of leadership in addressing these issues."
I asked a question in one of these threads a while ago that no one has ever answered. Some people keep going on and on about how the BC NDP ought to be taking advantage of the current economic crisis and that if they would just start talking about the economy, they would win the election.
Well, what ABOUT the economy?? What pray tell would you like Carol James to be proposing that would shield BC from the economic collapse hitting the entire world. What magic bullet should the NDP propose? I think the problem is that right now, the perception is that a) the economic collpase is all the result of stuff on Wall St. and banking practices in the US that none of our governments have any control over, b) we are pattingf ourselves on the back for being less hard hit than the US. Give it another six months or a year and all that will change, but right now that is the lay of the land.
Times are still tough there, but the $185 million of taxpayers' monies placed in the Northern Development Initiative Trust has almost certainly taken a big hit thanks to some risky decisions about how to invest it.
How big a hit? The Tyee estimates at least $25 million (calculations shared later in this piece).
If that sounds like the making of a political bombshell, given the already highly controversial and scandal-plagued B.C. Rail deal, one thing stands in the way of voters knowing all the facts. The 13 directors of the trust, five of them hand-picked by the B.C. Liberals, apparently are in no hurry to release their financial statements, even though they've already missed their legal deadline.
No release date promised
On Thursday, April 30, the directors of the Northern Development Initiative Trust were required by law to publish the trust's latest audited financial statements.
Those 2008 financial statements would have revealed the amount of monies lost by the trust in last year's stock-market meltdown.
snip~
With a board of directors recruited from the ranks of prominent business people and regional politicians, a staff of six with a yearly administrative budget of $900,000, and a mandate to annually dole out millions of dollars to worthwhile projects, it's fair to say the trust enjoys a high public-profile in B.C.'s Northern Interior.
And it's likely that confirmation of the NDIT's loss of tens of millions of dollars entrusted to it by the Campbell government would have an impact on local and regional election campaigns.
But with 10 days to go before voting day, the trust's board of directors is disregarding its legal requirements by failing to inform B.C. taxpayers about how well their money has been managed.
http://thetyee.ca/Views/2009/05/04/BCRail/
New Angus Reid poll on the pro-rep referendum:
British Columbians Closely Divided on Changing the Electoral System
On the question that will be on the ballot:
STV 53%
FPTP 47%
The demographics are interesting:
I think she should promise to cut taxes for everyone - individuals, businesses - the whole shebang.
Comments?
At the same time, a different set of oil and gas numbers where being crunched at the northern end of the Peace River region.
"There are at least a dozen documented cancers within three miles of Upper Pine Elementary," said Rose Prairie resident June Volz. The farming community about 30 kilometres north of Fort St. John is permeated by oil and sour gas wells, including one directionally drilled beneath the school.
The former elementary school teacher mapped out the incidences of cancer in the Rose Prairie area in 2006, and said she was alarmed by the trend she saw.
"I think there's more research that needs to be done about this," she said. "Nothing will happen with regard to the health situation until someone draws attention to it."
It's a call for action directors with the Peace River Regional District (PRRD) have become familiar with. In December 2007, they were presented with a report from former Northern Health medical health officer Dr. Lorna Medd. Her study recommended a review of setback regulations, better public consultation and more health funding to address the impacts associated with the industry.
Sixteen months later, those recommendations have yet to be set in motion. A working group led by Northern Health medical health officer Dr. Charl Badenhorst has been set up to implement the recommendations, but the group remains in its teething stages and in need of funding.
http://thetyee.ca/News/2009/05/01/MeddReport/
The NDP will:
Fund enforcement of environmental protections a • nd regulations.
• Protect endangered wildlife with BC’s first Species at Risk legislation and establish
a Species at Risk Stewardship Fund available to landowners, farmers, First Nations, academic institutions, community groups.
• Safeguard and enhance freshwater and saltwater fish stocks:
• Implement the recommendations of BC’s Sustainable Aquaculture Committee, including the transition to closed containment fish farming within five years.
• Strengthen the Salmon Protection Act and re-establish programs that support the return of salmon and steelhead runs throughout BC.
• Restore the BC Parks system:
• Stop Gordon Campbell’s push for privatization and commercialization of parks and park services.
• Restore funding to BC Parks and add interpretive services.
• Establish an Environmental Youth Corps, to renew campground and park infrastructure.
• End the sale of pesticides for residential and cosmetic use to help protect public health, safety and the environment, following the lead of 17 BC municipalities and the provinces of Quebec, Ontario and PEI. This approach does not affect agricultural use which is
separately regulated and golf course use will be specifically addressed.
• Ensure safe drinking water and protect our freshwater resources through a full
assessment and consultation process leading to a revitalized Water Act for BC.
• Improve public accountability of environmental protection services by establishing a
Standing Committee of the Legislature on Environment and Sustainability, extending the
mandate of the Auditor General to include environmental considerations, and reviewing
the Environmental Assessment process to make sure long-term, cumulative impacts of
proposed projects are fully analyzed.
New Angus Reid poll on the pro-rep referendum:
British Columbians Closely Divided on Changing the Electoral System
On the question that will be on the ballot:
STV 53%
FPTP 47%
The demographics are interesting:
So, while the NDP's core constituencies are solidly behind STV, Carole James has been undermining it and senior NDP insiders are leading the campaign against it. And although Carole James has freed the candidates to take sides, not one NDP candidate has AFAIK. Interesting.
FORMER VANCOUVER-FRASERVIEW NDP MLA TO ENDORSE KASH HEED
Bernie Simpson endorsed Kash Heed tonight in Vancouver. Simpson was the NDP MLA for Vancouver-Fraserview from 1991-1996.
The NDP can not even keep their own voters let alone get new ones.
Saw this one on-line - gonna try and see if I can find a further link to confirm it.
It comes from an article in the Globe and Mail last week - here's is more of the story
"VICTORIA — Former police officer Kash Heed, locked in a tough campaign to win Vancouver-Fraserview, yesterday picked up an unusual endorsement. A former New Democratic MLA for the riding called Mr. Heed the best choice to send to Victoria.
Bernie Simpson yesterday said he thinks the Liberal candidate, Mr. Heed, the former chief of the West Vancouver police and a veteran Vancouver officer, is best equipped to handle the issues of crime and the economy that are of concern in the riding.
Mr. Simpson said he had "no axe to grind with the provincial NDP," but thinks Mr. Heed is a better candidate than Gabriel Yiu, a Chinese-language media commentator and businessman running for the New Democrats. ...........................................
Why interesting? The statement of taking no political stand on STV is in the platform.
Slap up a statement from James that "undermines" it! Otherwise it is just spurious accusations.
If non-running for office NDPers want to take a personal stand against it, there is not 1 damn thing wrong with them doing so. My how democratic of you to infer that they should not have this right.
"That being said, considering the economic and environmental situations we're in, I would hope to see some inkling of leadership in addressing these issues."
I asked a question in one of these threads a while ago that no one has ever answered. Some people keep going on and on about how the BC NDP ought to be taking advantage of the current economic crisis and that if they would just start talking about the economy, they would win the election.
Well, what ABOUT the economy?? What pray tell would you like Carol James to be proposing that would shield BC from the economic collapse hitting the entire world. What magic bullet should the NDP propose? I think the problem is that right now, the perception is that a) the economic collpase is all the result of stuff on Wall St. and banking practices in the US that none of our governments have any control over, b) we are pattingf ourselves on the back for being less hard hit than the US. Give it another six months or a year and all that will change, but right now that is the lay of the land.
Well, I already answered you, you must have missed it because I've been waiting with baited breath to hear your policy-laden reply to a post I made a week ago.
Seriously though what the NDP should do is use its strength (credibility on social policy) to turn its weakness (credibility on the economy) into a strength. Essentially the NDP should say: "You're worried about the economy, therefore we will use the government as a force for good during and after this global recession. The Liberals won't and can't because they don't believe that government can be a force for good to help you during and after this global recession." That's a very generalized way of saying that basically the NDP should highlight how its policy perscriptions will a) create jobs (think the US "stimulus package" via infrastructure programmes and building a green economy - which is completely leeching off Obama) and b) help you if you loose your job (through various social programmes that the party has more credibility on than their opponents). Frankly, I don't think they've been making this connection very well. All I've gotten, as an impression from the BC NDP, is that Gordon Campbell is bad, privitization is bad and that the NDP won't privatize. Which doesn't really say whether or not they'll actually do anything themselves. All they've done is spout a bunch of corny generalities about creating a "caring society" and how "everybody matters."
ETA: Oh, and before anyone quotes the platform at me like some evangelical preacher on the street trying to convert the sinners, I know these policy positions are vaguely in the platform. The problem is that the NDP campaign hasn't been emphasizing them in a cute, albiet misguided, attempt to distract from the economy as the major concern of British Columbians. I know the NDP is worried that the Liberals are seen as better economic managers, so they want the ballot question to be Gordo's corruption, arrogance, and right-wing agenda. But folks, I gotta tell you, they aren't going to be winning issues. I'd like to be wrong, and I'll eat my proverbial hat if I am, but I just can't see the NDP's campaign themes pushing them to victory next week.
So, maybe, if they'd also stop wasting time playing to the base about how privitization is bad, but not really telling the base whether or not they'll reverse it (to be fair, it's probably quite hard to and expensive, so maybe its best to be obscure), they could invest some political capital into talking about the issue that is of overwhelming importance to British Columbians. Granted, now it's clearly too late, since the election is next week. But oh well it was a fun, pointless election where we got to hear about how everyone matters - how privitization is bad, and how the BC Rail Scandal is bad too (because, afterall, since it didn't damage the Liberals in the last five years - it was defenetly going to in the last two weeks, if only the NDP wasted some money on ads claiming it would). Oh also, naughty facebook pictures and speeding tickets are bad too.
I guess its all a sign of how many people on the so-called left, really hate the idea of actually winning because then they have no one they can bitch and complain about. God forbid that the NDP might possibly win or even do better than expected - then no one can wave their finger and complain about anything.
What I'd like to see in ANY left-of-center political leader is basically this.
A clear commitment to their party's core values and an actual willingness to try to make the case to swing voters that those core values are actually better for their needs than the values of the party the left-of-center party is trying to defeat. What never works is to act as if the Right has permanently won the argument and that your party will simply try to make things slightly less ugly if it doesn't threaten anyone.
The other thing that doesn't work is distancing yourself from the base. If you're leading a left-of-center party, it's your duty to defend that base, to make the case to swing voters that that base has a legitimate place in the political discourse and is as deserving of respect as any other voice. You don't have to agree with that base on everything but you do have to honor it and validate its role in political life. That's never too much to ask.
What was particularly disturbing about your opening post in this thread, Stockholm, was that you basically seemed to be saying that the NDP's most loyal supporters have no right to expect anything in exchange for that support. Why, at this late stage, would you possibly want to start channeling Bill Clinton and Tony Blair? You can't have a left made up only of cynical, activist-dismissing centrists. Or at least not one that can actually be different from the right.
A left-of-center party doesn't need to repent to win anymore.
Provincial governments can change a few laws, stop the expansion of neoliberal labour markets, tweak taxes, and maybe create a few government jobs. But there is a lot they cant do since CUSFTA-NAFTA. And it looks like fast Gordo will sign them all up for nafta-lite with tilma while pawning off the rivers and streams and anything worth a bob or two. They should campaign with, VOTE LIBERAL IF YOU DONT GIVE A DAMN!!@
Environics Poll (pre-debate)
47% Liberals
36% NDP
12% Green
5% Conservative
http://erg.environics.net/media_room/default.asp?aID=700
The Environics numbers are what I sensed pre-debate, and I think many others had the same impression.
Liberals have lost some votes to the Conservatives but have gained from the right-wing Greens IMHO. This would translate into possible Liberal losses in the Interior but stronger showings in some urban areas.
A good chunk of NDP vote has fractured to the Greens. Up until the debate, the NDP was alienating some of its vote with poor policy and communications. I think James' debate performance was too little too late, but we'll see.
Green vote is probably more leftish in nature so Sterk will be smart to stay on the left side of the field.
Conservative vote may go up with Campbells poor performance during the debate. He reminded the country bumpkin faction what a slick, sleazy, big city real estate developer guy he is.
Watching the leaders shows a shift to both Campbell and James being in more Liberal districts. Campbell being in North Van and Surrey right after the debate shows he is more on the defensive.
If non-running for office NDPers want to take a personal stand against it, there is not 1 damn thing wrong with them doing so. My how democratic of you to infer that they should not have this right.
remind, the real problem is that none of the "running-for-office NDPers" are openly for BC-STV, not that New Democrats outside of this election are against it.
Personally, it's the way all of our MLAs have supported the anti-democratic 60% threshold that ticks me off. If they support STV or not is immaterial as far as I'm concerned if they'd just value their constituents vote on the referendum equally. However, we haven't seen that kind of commitment to democracy from any of our MLAs(one NDP MLA made a few half hearted squeaks in the leg but no real opposition) or the two mainstream partys. That's the dealbreaker as far as I'm concerned. I expected more from the NDP when I voted for them and STV last election, I'm not interested in making the same mistake twice.
Provincial governments can change a few laws, stop the expansion of neoliberal labour markets, tweak taxes, and maybe create a few government jobs. But there is a lot they cant do since CUSFTA-NAFTA. And it looks like fast Gordo will sign them all up for nafta-lite with tilma while pawning off the rivers and streams and anything worth a bob or two. They should campaign with, VOTE LIBERAL IF YOU DONT GIVE A DAMN!!@
Granted, there are limits to what a provincial government can do. But an opposition party can at least make it clear that it will work, within those limits, for a different set of values and to make the case for why those values are better for all voters, not just "the base".
The analysis that Stockholm had at the beginning of this thread seemed to be that core supporters of left-of-center parties are nothing but a nuisance and have nothing to offer people outside "the core". Given that you need those core people to care about the outcome, a left-of-center party can't disrespect them too much and still demand that they work and vote for it.
Has this been discussed yet?
Campbell flips paramedics the bird
I'm speechless on that one -- he better hope he doesn't need an ambulance anytime soon.
How did Environics do last time around? I'd prefer if they said the NDP was up or down compared to our poll done in 2005 rather than what the actual election result was. After all, if they were 15% wrong last time I'd like to know that.
Frankly, I think its closer than that poll suggests, an 11% gap just feels wrong.
But its nice to see the Cons at 5%
Has this been discussed yet?
Campbell flips paramedics the bird
I'm speechless on that one -- he better hope he doesn't need an ambulance anytime soon.
This, and the 'patronizing tone', Gordo used during the debate is more of the Gordo we all knew and 'loved'.
As for the environics poll, it's a little more meagre than what I expect post-debate. But, it 'feels' reasonable pre-debate. As for what James performance during the debate did, I couldn't imagine it pushing a lot higher than 40. What will matter more is how well the NDP squeezes the Green vote by appealing to progressives to "stop Campbell", and how well the Conservatives siphon the Liberal vote. They're not running a full slate, but their name alone, and the increase in the number of candidates they're running over the last election should see them do ok. I could see the parties finishing something (percentage wise) like, Liberal 45, NDP 40, Green 9, Conservative 4, Other 2.
Mike Harcourt was the most centrist leader the BC NDP has ever had, and the NDP's traditional base, in particular ogranized labour, got plenty of what it wanted while he was premier. Being a centrist does not mean writing off the party's traditional base.
If anyone thinks James is taking a different approach, perhaps they might want to fill us in. I'm not trying either to attack or defend James, just interested in what people think.
"Ho w did Environics do last time around? I'd prefer if they said the NDP was up or down compared to our poll done in 2005 rather than what the actual election result was. After all, if they were 15% wrong last time I'd like to know that.
Frankly, I think its closer than that poll suggests, an 11% gap just feels wrong."
I don't believe Environics has done any political polling in BC in the past - but FWIW these numbers are almost exactly the same as the last Ipsos poll in BC which came out in late March. I tend to agree that when you factor in Carol James debate performance, the fact that something like 2/3 of the Green supporters say they may change their minds and the fact that things often tighten up in the end etc...I wouldn't be surprised if when all the dust settles we end up with something like Libs 45-46%, NDP 38-39% and the Greens 7-8% and with a ton of Liberal wasted votes in the outer 'burbs and Fraser valley. I'm not optimistic about actually winning the election (though stranger things have happened) - but hopefully the NDP can at least hold what it has and maybe pick up a couple of new seats to make up for one or two losses.
Has this been discussed yet?
Campbell flips paramedics the bird
I'm speechless on that one -- he better hope he doesn't need an ambulance anytime soon.
Any non-CUPE sources reporting this? Seems just a bit fishy to me. Gordo is many (bad) things, but I can't see him doing something *this* stupid. (although it wouldn't completely surprise me)
Again, the polls we see released are extremely small sample sizes. 500 people? From where? A good cross-sample, the Fraser Valley, or metro Vancouver?
The people of British Columbia are idiots, that is why we will have a third Gordon Campbell majority. Face it, folks, Gordo could skin kittens on live TV and still win. Too many people still fear the NDP (rightly or wrongly) that much. Too many apathetic BCers don't realize just how much damage Gordo has done to them now, and in the future.
One other factor helping Gordo: The Canucks! The more the Canucks play, the less attention is focused on the election. No wonder Gordo is suddenly such a Canucks fan.
Probably there were no media folks there...hence, no corroboration from a third party and, had there been, it wouldn't have happened. The mask slipped...
Loretta,
As much as an a$$hole as Gordo is, you have to be very suspicious about such a news release put out by a Campbell-hating union. CUPE is clearly not a neutral party reporting the story. The media have been all over Campbell this election, so it seems rather odd to me that there isn't another source reporting this. I know the MSM is Gordo-friendly, but slip-ups like this tend to make their way out. It makes good headlines.
That said, If the BC Liberals don't give the story so much as a sniff (calling for libel!), then I would be more inclined to believe it happened.
One other factor helping Gordo: The Canucks! The more the Canucks play, the less attention is focused on the election. No wonder Gordo is suddenly such a Canucks fan.
You may be right - as they have said over the centuries, if you can distract the population with entertainment and sports, they are less likely to pay attention to what a government is doing to its people.
I had read the opposite that the BC Liberals were afraid that a lot of their cotre supporters (ie: grumpy old men) would be distracted by the playoffs and not vote.
I had read the opposite that the BC Liberals were afraid that a lot of their cotre supporters (ie: grumpy old men) would be distracted by the playoffs and not vote.
I read the same thing, but I don't agree with it.
Canucks support crosses party lines. Also, many of those who follow hockey are going to be those middle-of-the-road voters who don't care for politics too much...the kinds of voters the NDP needs to appeal to. The playoffs are making it tough for the NDP to get its message out. The Liberals don't need to do nearly as much communication as the NDP does, so it hurts the NDP more, IMO, than the Liberals, who are ultimately playing it very safe.
I guess that when you are behind and you need a "game changer" you need people to be paying attention. Having people pay no attention helps who ever is ahead - regardless of party.
There is a very big gender gap in BC and I suspect that if there was actually a game on election night - a lot of canuck fans (who will be disproportionately male) might watch the game rather than voting. But there is no game on election day so its all academic.
I'm personally pulling for a Game 6 in the series because I believe that will be played on election night.
And although Canuck support cuts across party lines I think its more prevalent among men and the NDP is stronger among women, so a game on election night could help the NDP.
Also, chances are that anyone who's sole motivation to vote Liberal is because they've heard the NDP will raise the price of beer probably won't be motivated enough to turn off game 6 and go vote.
Where the Canucks are hurting the NDP is in getting the message out about the crap that's gone on for the last 8 years because people just aren't paying attention.
There is no Canucks game on election night but in watching the games there appears to be a lot of NDP and it's your wallet commericals running so they are trying to get the message out - whether anyone is listening will be known in a week.
That's too bad about game 6 being the day before the election. I was hoping that since game 3 is tonight game 6 would also be on the tuesday.
Don't forget everyone that the advance polls are opened for 4 days starting at 8AM tomorrow - unlike in previous elections anyone can vote at an advance poll - no need to state a reason - also if you are not registered you still can vote - just need two pieces of ID with at least one of them having your current address.
One thing that I find interesting is that first nations status card is all that is needed for a first nations individual to vote - no proof of residency is required. - I have to assume that there is something in the Indian Act that allows them to vote without proving where they are living.
Also different from the Federal election is that your Where to Vote card is acceptable as one piece of ID
For those living in a shelter - election officials have canvass them - have given them a piece of paper indicating that they are entitled to vote and that piece of paper is all that they required - if they have lost it - have them go to the shelter and the administators will re-issued the require document.
The Elections BC folks are trying to get a better turnout and have therefore loosen the requirements to vote unlike the Feds who have gone in the other direction.
PS - working as a voting officer (DRO) on election date so this info is from my training session.
Mike Harcourt was the most centrist leader the BC NDP has ever had, and the NDP's traditional base, in particular ogranized labour, got plenty of what it wanted while he was premier. Being a centrist does not mean writing off the party's traditional base.
If anyone thinks James is taking a different approach, perhaps they might want to fill us in. I'm not trying either to attack or defend James, just interested in what people think.
The great paradox with Harcourt was that, as a "centrist" he led the NDP to a lower share of the popular vote than the supposedly "leftist" Bob Skelly(a man whose only real failing as leader was that he was speechless before the media for a whole two or three seconds when the reporters told him Vander Zalm had dropped the writ). If that campaign had gone on for two or three more days, Gordon Wilson(leading a genuinely center-left BC Liberal Party, would likely have won. Nothing against Harcourt as a person, and the man never did deserve to be driven out of office, but his 1991 victory was a victory by default in terms of the popular vote.)
1986 was a strict two way race, literally 89% of people voted either NDP or Social Credit. In 1991 it was more of a three way race with the NDP getting 39%, BC Liberals 32% and Social Credit 22%. Of course you will get a lower popular vote when there are more parties running.
It's interesting that no one seems to mention the BC Refederation Party (http://refedbc.com/siteA/index.html). Looking at their platform they might just get my vote. I see no point in voting for Green, NDP or the Liberals if it will just be more of the same we have seen over the past years.
1986 was a strict two way race, literally 89% of people voted either NDP or Social Credit. In 1991 it was more of a three way race with the NDP getting 39%, BC Liberals 32% and Social Credit 22%. Of course you will get a lower popular vote when there are more parties running.
And of course re 1986, don't assume that all those NDP voters would have voted that way had a "viable" BC Liberal entity existed that year--a lot of them were probably centrists who parked their vote with the NDP because they weren't, uh, Vander Zalm.
Otherwise, under Skelly, it might have been the NDP's turn in third place that year.
Well, the latest poll from Mustel is out. I guess the bad news is that it shows the BC Liberals ahead by 9% (47% to 38%). The good news is that it sure beats the 17% lead they had for the Libs when the campaign began.
http://www.mustelgroup.com/pdf/20090507.pdf
This is very close to the numbers in the Environics poll that came out on Monday (47% to 36%). One thing that could give us reason for hope is that i hear through the grapevine that the NDP has been gaining ground since the leaders debate. The Environics poll was completed before the debate and had an 11-point gap. This Mustel poll was done April 29-May 6 - in other words, half before and half after the debate and it shows a nine point gap. I'm not optimistic about actually winning the election (though stranger things have happened) - but if the trend continues and 47-38 turns into - say - 45-40 on election day then at the very least the NDP would not lose any ground and might even gain a few seats.
Interestingly, it seems that when Green party voters are asked who their second choice would be - it is an almost even split between the Liberals and NDP.
The BC NDP has the momentum and let's recall that last time out Campbell got 46% of the vote but could still have lost if even 2500 votes went the other way.
This ain't over yet.
Now Angus Reid has just come out with their final online poll of 1,000 people all conducted AFTER the debate - and it has the BC Liberals at 44% and the NDP at 42% (and in case you're wondering the so-called greens are at 10%). If that was actually the popular vote, the NDP would win the election.
I learned something very interesting about what Angus Reid has done in terms of methodology. Usually when federal or provincial political polls are done - it just asks people which party they support. In this poll they gave people the names of the actual candidates on the ballot in their own ridings. In other words everyone got an exact replica of their election day ballot.
Well, the latest poll from Mustel is out. I guess the bad news is that it shows the BC Liberals ahead by 9% (47% to 38%). The good news is that it sure beats the 17% lead they had for the Libs when the campaign began.
http://www.mustelgroup.com/pdf/20090507.pdf
This is very close to the numbers in the Environics poll that came out on Monday (47% to 36%). One thing that could give us reason for hope is that i hear through the grapevine that the NDP has been gaining ground since the leaders debate. The Environics poll was completed before the debate and had an 11-point gap. This Mustel poll was done April 29-May 6 - in other words, half before and half after the debate and it shows a nine point gap. I'm not optimistic about actually winning the election (though stranger things have happened) - but if the trend continues and 47-38 turns into - say - 45-40 on election day then at the very least the NDP would not lose any ground and might even gain a few seats.
Interestingly, it seems that when Green party voters are asked who their second choice would be - it is an almost even split between the Liberals and NDP.
Mustel is the most reliable of the BC polling firms - there is not much difference between a 9 point gap and an 11 point gap (the 17 point gap in the first Mustel poll was clearly not going to last). The debate was a 2-day story at most, now the Canucks and other issues are dominating the news again. The dominant issue by far is the economy and the Libs clobber the NDP on who is best to deal with the economy. The Libs lead among men and even narrowly among women, and the NDP and Libs are even tied with under-35 voters. Those demographics are not good news for Carole James and her team.
I see from Stockholm's post that Angus Reid has another "dead heat" result, but they read the candidates names and that is not how public opinion research is typically done. I remember the 2004 federal election when Strategic Communications did internal riding polling for the NDP using that same approach and the results were way off. We'll see if Ipsos has a poll out in the next few days - I know Global TV is releasing new poll results on the Friday 6pm news. I respect Angus Reid's long history in the field but I won't give those results much credence unless they are replicated by another polling firm.
Some good news for those who care about the future of the planet - more British Columbians support the carbon tax than oppose it, according to Mustel
While the Angus Reid poll shows all the parties for likely support on election day and momentum of leaders, on issues it only includes results for the BC Liberals and the BC NDP. However, the ommission is interesting when you add the total support together.
The two mainstream parties are considered best suited to deal with the issues by 72% of respondents on the economy, 74% on healthcare, and 76% on education but it drops to 64% on the environment and 63% on crime.
Here's the Georgia Straight's voting recommendations for the election. I basically agree with the voting recommendations in the article. However, I think the NDP has the same platform as the Liberals on more issues than just crime and the environment. I would, among other things, the p3 contracts that the Campbell government has signed with private companies, contracts which the NDP has no plan to rip up (despite what some babblers would like us to believe). I also think they overlook BC-STV as a means to make it easier to resist the rightward shift in BC politics.
The Straight Slate for Progressive Change
A secondary goal should be to stop the rightward drift of the NDP into what UVic political scientist Dennis Pilon has called the realm of "Liberal Lite". The NDP under Carole James has become a shadow of its former self. Gone are the imaginative public-policy proposals that we used to see from former MLAs like Bob Williams and Harold Steves.
...
We feel that Campbell can't be trusted as premier for another four years. If he has another term, he might introduce more private financing (i.e., more private insurance) to the health-care system, which would undermine the efficiency embedded in a single-payer system. He says he won't do this, but he also said he wouldn't sell B.C. Rail and he would create the most open and accountable government in Canada.
At the same time, we question whether or not James and her NDP colleagues have the intellectual depth to govern effectively in trying economic times. The leader doesn't seem aware of the risks presented by peak oil. Our preference is for an NDP minority government with the Greens holding the balance of power.
The Greens have some exceptional young candidates. They shouldn't be overlooked in constituencies where the NDP has no chance.
Gone are the imaginative public-policy proposals that we used to see from former MLAs like Bob Williams and Harold Steves.
But but but... the NDP has "diversity" quotas for its candidates.
I'll take old whte guys with real ideas over the current bunch any day.
Left Turn: "Here's the Georgia Straight's voting recommendations for the election. I basically agree with the voting recommendations in the article. However, I think the NDP has the same platform as the Liberals on more issues than just crime and the environment. I would, among other things, the p3 contracts that the Campbell government has signed with private companies, contracts which the NDP has no plan to rip up (despite what some babblers would like us to believe). I also think they overlook BC-STV as a means to make it easier to resist the rightward shift in BC politics."
I don't know about the resisting STV part as it puts a bit much faith in the Green party's intention of supporting the NDP, but I'm afriad youre right that the present NDp has a very similar platform when it comes to the reality of it and I can no longer call myself a social democrat -not that the term ever meant much. I may have missed it here, but James continues to insist that she/we can pay for all the wonderful things she wants to do (actualy very very little) without raising taxes OR running deficits whioch leaves the usual option three and another Glen Clark style disaster for the party and province if she somehow manages to win. One I doubt the party could survive a second time, so soon after the first. Has her recent statements been posted here?
I keep calling her Kerry James by accident as she reminds me of John Kerry agreeing with almost everything George Bush did except to say hed do it BEtter. And then losing because of it. Says something about the true nature of power in our society now. Question that should be asked now, is does the NDP really want the thankless job of cleaning up this mess in the middle of depression without the tools to do the job? Might it be better to wait at least onemore term so voters can really become clear on whos to blame then possibly go in with a leader with some real vision or plan. This really has gone on too far.
"I see from Stockholm's post that Angus Reid has another "dead heat" result, but they read the candidates names and that is not how public opinion research is typically done. I remember the 2004 federal election when Strategic Communications did internal riding polling for the NDP using that same approach and the results were way off. We'll see if Ipsos has a poll out in the next few days - I know Global TV is releasing new poll results on the Friday 6pm news. I respect Angus Reid's long history in the field but I won't give those results much credence unless they are replicated by another polling firm."
Actually, I will give the Angus Reid results credence if they are replicated on May 12! For the moment this is the only post-debate poll we have. Its true that giving names of candidates in every riding has not been way province-wide or national polls have "typically" been done - but only because in the past no one has bothered. I can assure you that ALL polling companies - whether they are polling for parties or for media or whoever - ALWAYS 100% of the time will read the nams of the local candidates anytime they are doing a poll in a specific riding. If Strategic Communications was "way off" on some polling they did in 2004 - it would have been for other reasons since everyone reads names of local candidates when doing riding polls. All companies, for all parties in all countrues with FPTP.
The debate about online vs. telephone polling is a separate issue. But it seems to be that it is a no-brainer that the most accurate question you can possibly as on vote intention when you are in the final days of an election campaign is the one which most closely resembles the question people will answer when they are in the polling booth on election day. If Angus Reid has found a way to give people an online replica of the ballot they will actually fill out in their riding on May 12 - my hat's off to them!
Erik! Where the hell have ya been? Welcome back!
What a joke!
Take the union money away and the NDP would not be able to fight their way out of a paper bag.
This plank alone offers sufficient grounds for an undecided voter to cast a ballot for the NDP.
How much of a lead do the BC Liberasls have to have to win as they have some ridings such as most North Shore ridings where their vote is quite heavily concentrated?
Well, the latest poll from Mustel is out. I guess the bad news is that it shows the BC Liberals ahead by 9% (47% to 38%). The good news is that it sure beats the 17% lead they had for the Libs when the campaign began.
http://www.mustelgroup.com/pdf/20090507.pdf
This is very close to the numbers in the Environics poll that came out on Monday (47% to 36%). One thing that could give us reason for hope is that i hear through the grapevine that the NDP has been gaining ground since the leaders debate. The Environics poll was completed before the debate and had an 11-point gap. This Mustel poll was done April 29-May 6 - in other words, half before and half after the debate and it shows a nine point gap. I'm not optimistic about actually winning the election (though stranger things have happened) - but if the trend continues and 47-38 turns into - say - 45-40 on election day then at the very least the NDP would not lose any ground and might even gain a few seats.
Interestingly, it seems that when Green party voters are asked who their second choice would be - it is an almost even split between the Liberals and NDP.
Mustel is the most reliable of the BC polling firms - there is not much difference between a 9 point gap and an 11 point gap (the 17 point gap in the first Mustel poll was clearly not going to last). The debate was a 2-day story at most, now the Canucks and other issues are dominating the news again. The dominant issue by far is the economy and the Libs clobber the NDP on who is best to deal with the economy. The Libs lead among men and even narrowly among women, and the NDP and Libs are even tied with under-35 voters. Those demographics are not good news for Carole James and her team.
I see from Stockholm's post that Angus Reid has another "dead heat" result, but they read the candidates names and that is not how public opinion research is typically done. I remember the 2004 federal election when Strategic Communications did internal riding polling for the NDP using that same approach and the results were way off. We'll see if Ipsos has a poll out in the next few days - I know Global TV is releasing new poll results on the Friday 6pm news. I respect Angus Reid's long history in the field but I won't give those results much credence unless they are replicated by another polling firm.
Some good news for those who care about the future of the planet - more British Columbians support the carbon tax than oppose it, according to Mustel
The Angus Reid poll also showed that STV was going down 55-45, which would be a real disaster. I hope that poll was an outlier. I could live with missing the 60% threshhold again, that would still at least keep the issue alive. But if it fails to at least win a majority, I think electoral reform in Canada will be dead for at least 20 years.
Well, I guess if it goes down 55-45 or belwo 50% I guess that puts to rest that pesky flawed premise that the NO vote is worth more than the YES vote.
But I do not believe electoral reform will be dead for 20 years, or even 1 election cycle. It would be a No vote to this STV system.
How much of a lead do the BC Liberasls have to have to win as they have some ridings such as most North Shore ridings where their vote is quite heavily concentrated?
Good question - I believe in 1996 the NDP had 39% and the BC Libs had 42% and the NDP won...but the more critical factor in that election was the split in the right-wing vote. I believe BC Reform got around 10% of the vote (Stockholm will be quick to correct me if this is wrong!) and that killed the BC Libs in a lot of Northern and Interior ridings (the PDA also ran candidates and elected Gordon Wlison in 1996 but not sure what their impact was on the vote split).
If the gap on Tuesday is 3-4 points, the key to who will win is how strong the Green vote and the BC Conservative vote is and in what regions and ridings. I predict the BC Cons will help the NDP steal Bill Bennett's seat in the Kootenays (and good riddance, beleive me) but the Green vote will sink the NDP in key incumbent ridings like Saanich South and North Island, and will also help the Libs hold on to swing seats like Comox Valley and possibly 1 or 2 of the Burnaby seats as well. I also think the gap will be more like the 2005 result - somewhere around 5-6 points, a solid Lib win but not a landslide.
This election was totally winnable by the NDP if they had just dropped the "axe the tax" nonsense. All the polls show the carbon tax is a very minor issue for voters in this election, and Campbell is such a smug and arrogant leader who is widely reviled by voters...if the NDP had a strong climate change platform, they'd have swept up a majority of the Green votes and would have a good shot at taking the big prize on May 12th.
Actually, I will give the Angus Reid results credence if they are replicated on May 12! For the moment this is the only post-debate poll we have. Its true that giving names of candidates in every riding has not been way province-wide or national polls have "typically" been done - but only because in the past no one has bothered. I can assure you that ALL polling companies - whether they are polling for parties or for media or whoever - ALWAYS 100% of the time will read the nams of the local candidates anytime they are doing a poll in a specific riding. If Strategic Communications was "way off" on some polling they did in 2004 - it would have been for other reasons since everyone reads names of local candidates when doing riding polls. All companies, for all parties in all countrues with FPTP.
The debate about online vs. telephone polling is a separate issue. But it seems to be that it is a no-brainer that the most accurate question you can possibly as on vote intention when you are in the final days of an election campaign is the one which most closely resembles the question people will answer when they are in the polling booth on election day. If Angus Reid has found a way to give people an online replica of the ballot they will actually fill out in their riding on May 12 - my hat's off to them!
Point taken on the riding polls but I seem to recall that the NDP used the "name the candidate" technique for province-wide or national polling as well, in any event, that's a side issue. The Angus Reid poll shows a totally different landscape than Mustel or Environics in terms of leadership rankings as well as the horse race - just doesn't ring true to me. Carole clearly won the debate but it's not like it has dominated the news in the last few days.
Campbell has been campaigning in NDP strongholds like Prince Rupert and Columbia-River Revelstoke and soft NDP ridings like Cariboo North over the last few days, whereas Carole is on Commercial Drive and the West End of Vancouver today (!) along with other Lower Mainland ridings, most held by the NDP now - if the AR results were accurate, those seats should totally be in the bag and the leader would be nowhere near them. Instead, you'd see Carole barnstorming through Kamloops and Prince George, Comox Valley and Oak Bay - the swing seats the NDP needs to take to form government.
It's true that Mustel was in the field half before the debate and half afterward - but since Environics gave us a baseline of the pre-debate public opinon, you'd think that Mustel would have shown a bigger shift with their half-sample being post-debate. Instead, the Mustel and Environics results are pretty similar.
In terms of replicating results on election day, Mustel did the best on this score in 2005, and since they show similar results to Environics, with AR being the lone outlier to date, I tend to go with the Mustel analysis. As for "replicating the polling booth", I believe the vast majority of voters have their minds made up when they get to the ballot box, they are not going over each candidates name with their pencil before making their X. They saw Gordo or Carole's ads, spoke to friends, read a brochure,etc, and thought, "I'm voting (insert party/leader name here)" and then they simply look for that party ID and mark that spot on the ballot, in most cases without regard to who the local candidate is.
That's why the practice over decades of public opinion research is not to read the candidate's names when doing voter intention public opinion surveys at the national or provincial level. Virtually all polling companies use the party and leader name when asking the "who will you vote for" question, but not the local candidate name. Most research indicates the local candidate sways at most 5% of voters (with the exception of very popular local figures like Bill Casey, Svend Robinson, etc)
I'm at a loss as to explain why Carole James is spending so much time in East Van. Maybe this is the only place to get the sufficient numbers for a big rally.
http://www.electionprediction.org/2009_bc/lm.html now has both Maple Ridge seats going NDP, which is a net gain of one. Did the old homophobic email really hurt the Liberals that much?
I wonder if CJ will be spending any time in Delta North or Coquitlam-Maillardvile.
The Greens have fallen off the face of the Earth. This is good news for the NDP.
Campbell seems to be spending a lot of time in Prince George in the dying days of the campaign - which is made up of ridings the Liberals won pretty comfortably last time. Carol James is spending time in Campbell's own riding! I checked the NDP website and today, James seems to be in Vancouver-Fraserview (Liberal held), Burnaby (3 out of 4 Liberal held), and Surrey-Fleetwood (new seat that is barely notionally NDP).
Its hard to conclude too much from where the leaders are spending their time. You hold a news conference in vancouver and the place where its held happens to be in Vancouver-Mount Pleasant (safe NDP seat) - but if they had rented a hall three blocks away it might have been in Vancouver-False Creek and then peoplre would be saying "look Carol James is spending time in what is supposed to be a safe Liberal seat!"
I don't buy this nonsense about the NDP losing any votes as a result of opposing the carbon tax. if that were the case we would see the green party surging as opposed to being in single digits. At most I will concede that the carbon tax position led to a couple of news cycles early in the campaign where the NDP wasted time having to respond to "Tzipi" Berman and company. But that's already ancient history.
Let's see what Ipsos has to say when they come out with their final poll (telephone).
PS: I like this final TV ad by the NDP
http://www.bcndp.ca/newsroom/video/enough
There are 2 choices on May 12th, either you vote to keep Gordo in power, or you do not.
Intelligent, and true environmental activists, who have formerly voted Green Party know this. As such, they will vote for the best choice for the environment and BC, period. They are not playing partisan and pocket lining politics with the environment, and using a useless carbon tax, or even STV, to phonily do so.
Your comments have completely ignored the reality that discerning environmentally conscious Green Party supporters and voters, in the majority, will be voting NDP.
They were reluctant to endorse any specific party, but their pointed criticisms of policies introduced by the Liberals indicated they think a vote for the NDP would be in the best interest of the environment.
"When you see five people of this calibre gathered together to raise the alarm, you have to pay attention," said Craig Orr, who moderated a group news conference.
Making statements were Mark Angelo, chairman of the Rivers Institute at B.C. Institute of Technology; Elaine Golds, a biochemist; William Rees, a professor at the University of British Columbia; Alexandra Morton, a leading salmon researcher who has been campaigning against salmon farms; and Vicky Husband, a senior environmental advocate.
Scientists urge BCers to "vote strategically" on May 12
The diverse list of supporter from across BC shows the need to both protect the environment and support democratic public control of sustainable power generation. Organizers expect the list to grow significantly as the public continues to learn more about negative implications of these projects.
"The run-of-river projects should more aptly be called 'ruin-of-river'," says Maude Barlow, National Chairperson of the Council of Canadians and Senior Advisor on Water to the President of the United Nations General Assembly. "Granting hundreds of multi decade contracts and 40 year water licenses to private corporations to divert rivers and run roughshod over BC's pristine wilderness simply cannot be called 'green'."
The list for Endorsing Organizations,Groups and Representatives is:
A-Line Communications (Vancouver, BC)
Apple Tree Productions Inc
BC Citizens for Public Power
BC Committee for Human Rights in the Philippines (Vancouver, BC)
BC Federation of Retired Union Members
BC Government and Service Employees' Union (BCGEU)
BC Guardians
BC Peace & Global Educators, PAGE
BC Teachers' Federation (BCTF)
Blewett Conservation Society (Nelson, BC)
Burke Mountain Naturalists (Coquitlam, BC)
Canadian Office & Professional Employees Union 378 (COPE 378)
Canadian Union of Public Employees BC (CUPE BC)
Cariboo Chilcotin Conservation Society (Williams Lake, BC)
Citizens Against Urban Sprawl Society (Mission, BC)
Citizens United to Save the Peace (Fort St. John, BC)
Community Action Coalition of Burnaby (Burnaby, BC)
Comuna of Consejo Indigena Popular de Oaxaca (CIPO) in Vancouver
Councillor Andrea Reimer, City of Vancouver
Councillor David Cadman, City of Vancouver
Councillor Karen Rockwell, City of Port Moody
Councillor Paul McDonnell, City of Burnaby
Councillor Pietro Calendino, City of Burnaby
Councillor Sav Dhaliwal, City of Burnaby
Councillor Tom Duncan, City of Duncan
Council of Canadians
Council of Senior Citizens Organizations
Council of Senior Citizens Organizations (Sunshine Coast Branch)
Friends of Bute Inlet (Discovery Islands, BC)
Friends of Eagle River (Powell River, BC)
Golden Branch of Wildsight (Golden, BC)
Greater Victoria Water Watch Coalition (Victoria, BC)
Impact on Communities Coalition (Vancouver, BC)
Indigenous Action Movement (Vancouver, Coast Salish Territory)
Interfaith Summer Institute for Justice, Peace and Social Movements
(Burnaby, BC)
Kelowna Citizens for Public Power (Kelowna, BC)
Kelowna KAIROS (Kelowna, BC)
Malaspina Communities for Public Power (Powell River, BC)
Mothers Against Power Poles (Delta, BC)
New Media B.C.
North Columbia Environmental Society (Revelstoke, BC)
Parksville/Qualicum KAIROS (Parksville, BC)
Pitt Polder Preservation Society (Maple Ridge BC)
Purcell Alliance for Wilderness (Argenta, BC)
Salmon Arm KAIROS Committee (Salmon Arm, BC)
Save Our Rivers Society
Secwepemc Native Youth Movement (unceded Secwepemc Territories)
Seniors For News On The Bright Side (Vancouver, BC)
Shuswap Environmental Action Society (Chase, BC)
Social Justice Group, St. James Anglican Church (Vancouver, BC)
Society Targeting Overuse of Pesticides (Victoria, BC)
South Asian Network for Secularism and Democracy (Burnaby, BC)
Streams of Justice (Vancouver, BC)
Toxic Free Canada
Union of BC Indian Chiefs
Victoria Raging Grannies (Victoria, BC)
Watershed Watch Salmon Society (Port Coquitlam, BC)
Western Canada Wilderness Committee
Women Elders in Action (Vancouver, BC)
Women's International League for Peace and Freedom (Vancouver, BC)
2010 Watch (Vancouver, BC)
Unity in Opposition to Private Power Projects
Of course not all in that list above were/are Green Party supporters, a good many were NDP supporters, and even some I would imagine are BC Liberal supporters who cannot accept such a treasonous action of selling off our rivers, and would vote NDP instead.
Gah, "Strategic Voting" is one of the worst trends to pop up in the last decade, right behind Twitter and famous-for-being-famous celebutants.
Vote YES to STV so that you don't have to worry about 'strategic' voting, and can actually have your vote mean something more than it does now (nothing).
That said, the current provincial Green Party is out to lunch on a great many issues. If you do care about the environment, getting rid of Campbell would be a huge first step in the right direction. Fish farming, logging practices, power generation, off-shore oil, water selling, etc...
Who is winning in editorial endorsements so far? I live in Central Canada and am not that familiar with B.C. politics, but I did a search this afternoon, and I see that The Vancouver Sun and The Globe and Mail are supporting Campbell. Seems like they feel it's best to "stay the course" in these economic times.
http://www.vancouversun.com/opinion/Campbell+Liberals+have+earned+right+third+term/1575371/story.html
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20090508.ECAMPBELL08ART2211/TPStory/Comment
Debater, I saw those as well.
It's no big surprise, given the leanings of the CanWest empire and their support of Harper in the last federal election.
"Stay the course" would mean declining employment and even more recession, if they truly meant that phrase.
--
On an older topic, the Province rag has something on that incident between Gordo and the paramedics:
Story Link
Not surprisingly, the paper, and the campaign manager, claim it was a joke that everyone laughed at...and the paramedic asked for spare change.
Too bad nobody caught this on camera. I'm not inclined to trust either side.
Editorial endorsements makes it sound as if we have freedom of the press or something. We do not. We have anti-democractic msm in BC and indeed throughout Canada. And BTW who gives a fuck who the Globe and Mail endorses in a BC election?
"stay the course" means further destruction of the environment, the privatization of rivers and lakes and other such treasonous actions, thousands more homeless, more corruption, more job losses, and class arrogance. I guess the editorial boards are aware they are not quite finished destroying everything, and are advocating a continuance.
Big Surprise. The rich and powerful back Campbell. If not for the lost jobs, I would cheer Canwest's bankruptcy.
Not surprisingly, the paper, and the campaign manager, claim it was a joke that everyone laughed at...and the paramedic asked for spare change.
Too bad nobody caught this on camera. I'm not inclined to trust either side.
Well, I can the reason for not trusting Gordo, and his campaign manager, given the BC Liberals level of corruption, and lying, however, why would you not trust the paramedic's accounts, they say that he was joking, but that it was in extremely bad taste?
WCL
You are absolutely correct - the axe the tax campaign is increasingly worrisome concerning the final results on Tuesday nite. I know 20 year NDP members that have ripped up their NDP cards because of this brain-dead approach to the environment. Were it not for that the Greens would be lucky to be polling 3%.
North, I really think those age old NDPers are thinking through a straw. They may live in areas served by transit and are blind to to the eco-destruction wrought by Gordo and his crew. Why would a proven ineffective policy cause such a reaction? The Green vote appers to be dropping like a stone as the light comes on that an ineffective tax does not make a "green" government. Do you or others really want to trade tankers and off-shore drilling for a paltry tax?
"Were it not for that (the NDP plan to axe the carbon tax) the Greens would be lucky to be polling 3%."
I totally disagree. The so-called green party will end up with about 8% on Tuesday - just like they got 9% in the 2005 BC election when the carbon tax was a non-issue and just like they have won high single digits in BC in the last few federal elections. I thnk that there is a certain bedrock proportion of people ranging from 6% to 10% in BC who will vote for any party or candidate that has the word "Green" after their name because they associate it with an international brand. The NDP could promise a carbon tax that was triple the size of the one that jane Sterk wants and it wouldn't matter - there will still be 8% of people in Bc who will be oblivious and will still vote green because they are...green! Most of them probably don't even know what a carbon tax is! In fact, one of the polls this campaign showed that a majority of people voting green were OPPOSED to the carbon tax - so go figure.
I suppose that if you travel in ENGO circles in downtown Vancouver - you might encounter the odd "carbon tax enthusiast" in your social circle, but for every one person like that - there are dozens of swing voters in places like kamloops and Prince George and Burnaby who see the carbon tax as one more reaon to hate Gordon Campbell.
Perhaps one of the reasons that Carole James is in Vancouver West End is because of some private poll numbers that the Liberals are gloating about showing it tied at 50 - 50 - don't believe it for a moment but that is what someone connected to the Liberal campaign was telling anyone who would listen.
Also questions are being raised about just where Spencer is actually living - he supposedly moved into the riding and is registered to vote in the riding but HE is still renting an apartment in Kerrisdale - perhaps he has a lease and can't break it but it does raise a question as to whether he is telling the truth.
Oh my desperation is showing questioning where he lives.
The latest Ipsos poll was on Global TV just now - 47% Liberal, 39% NDP and 10% Green - don't have the link yet. It's virtually identical to the Mustel results (btw, Stockholm, the Greens are in double digits in both the Mustel and Ipsos polls) and shows a clear Liberal win on May 12 unless something changes dramatically in the next 4 days. It's possible enough Green votes will bleed to the NDP to replicate the 2005 result but I suspect the gap will be wider this time - again, Carole basically slammed the door in soft Green voters faces with "axe the tax."
You see that both parties have the same numbers internally - Gordo had a relaxing photo op with former Premier Bill Bennett today and Carole was bombing through Vancouver, posing at the Burnaby proposed jail site to try to drum up some local protest votes, having burgers with Dawn Black in what should be an ultra-safe NDP riding. I admire Carole's stamina but that's not the strategy that will win government on May 12.
This one's over, folks. Carole has lost a winnable election by pushing a totally misguided environmental policy and leading one of the worst-run central campaigns in recent memory. Campbell is beatable and people want him out but the NDP simply did not offer a credible alternative.
I suppose you could call 10% double digits - but since the so-called greens have nbo organization whatsoever - it will melt to 8% when the votes are counted. The envcironment is a non-issue and if the NDP loses it will be for one simple reason - early in a recession people feel fear as opposed to anger - and they run to the security blanket of incumbency. Turning of Tzipi Berman is the leats of my concerns. If any significant number of people were dying to pay a carbon tax - Dion woulod be PM right now.
"soft green party voters". Lmao that means those who are not actually environmentalists, and those who want to fill their pockets, and they want gordo back in power, and then are those who know no better because they were sucked in by a name and a false promise.
"Oh my desperation is showing questioning where he lives.'
Yes - probably so but it was the NDP who made a big issue of Arthur Griffiths temporary apartment in the West End in the by-election and the assurance that Spencer lived in the riding.
I expect Spencer to win the riding handily possibily with more than 50% of the vote.
Ipsos and Mustel have basically the same results showing the Libs with 47 and the NDP with 38-39. Mustel was by far the most accurate pollster last time. Their final poll had Libs 45, NDP 40, Green 12. Final score was Libs 45.8, NDP 41.5, Green 9.1. If they're showing a 9-point spread, that's probably pretty close to what the final tally will be, meaning the NDP will probably suffer a net seat loss.
It's GET OUT THE VOTE time..
In polling your only ever as good as your last election. After the 2006 election federally, we never heard the end of how Nanos was the MOST accurate etc... then in 2008 he was one of the most inaccurate. People can quibble about online vs. telephone polling, but honestly when you are comparing Mustel, Ipsos, Environics etc...you are dealing with companies that all basically employ the exact same methodology - for all we know they may even all sub-contract the actual dialling to the same phone room. In 2005, Mustel got lucky and had a final poll that happened to be a bit closet to the final results. This time, it may be someone elses turn. One thing to keep in mind about all of these polls is they are all snapshot. For example, the Mustel poll was in field April 29-May 6 - election day is May 12 - meaning that their final poll will have been taken one to two weeks before election day. We know from the last few federal elections that a lot can happen even in the last 48 hours of a campaign. In 2006 on the Thursday before election day, all the polls gave the Tories a double digit lead over the Liberals (sometimes as much as a 15 point lead) then the votes were counted and it was just a six point lead. In BC we won't have the luxury of four polling companies being in the field up until the night before election day. In the 2004 federal election, the polls were all wrong because everyone published their "final" numbers on the Friday before election day and they missed the shift that took place in the final weekend.
If I was the President of Mustel and my poll released yesterday had a 9 point and lead and in the end the Liberals and NDP were dead even, I would argue that my poll was not "wrong", it was simply showing the state of public opinion one week before the election and that things shifted in the final week.
All that being said, if i had to make a wager, i would say that the Liberals will win by about 5% and that the seat split will be about the same as it is now - maybe Libs 49 NDP 36 or there abouts.
Libs 42
NDP 42
Independant 1
Hey Unionist, just recovering from surgery, worrying about bills and believe it or not playing the role of subversive in the NDP. Mostly just good clean fun. I heard youve been promoted to moderator, traffic cop and dog catcher here, does that mean I have to agree with everything you say now or just call you sir afterwords? ;)
I hope life goes well for you, Erik. And yes, I'm in charge here now, and there's only a couple people who haven't figured that out yet (Michelle, oldgoat, Maysie aka bigcitygal...). You don't have to agree with everything I say, only the parts that I mean.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090507.wbcpollearly...
This poll indicates that the difference between the two parties is only 2%. This poll was done online between May 5 and May 6. A week before the election. Which is a long time.
I suppose you could call 10% double digits - but since the so-called greens have nbo organization whatsoever - it will melt to 8% when the votes are counted. The envcironment is a non-issue and if the NDP loses it will be for one simple reason - early in a recession people feel fear as opposed to anger - and they run to the security blanket of incumbency. Turning of Tzipi Berman is the leats of my concerns. If any significant number of people were dying to pay a carbon tax - Dion woulod be PM right now.
That analysis betrays such ignorance of the BC political dynamic. The only time the NDP wins in BC is when the left is united and the right is divided - the Greens may only take 8% but that is a killer for the NDP's chances to win government. Berman symbolizes the green part of the Harcourt green/brown coalition that won a majority in 1991, which Clark alienated in the 2nd NDP mandate with his "environmentalists are enemies of BC" comment and which Carole may have permanently divorced from the BC NDP, especially if STV wins on the 12th.
There is zero "security blanket of incumbency" in BC right now - Campbell is widely despised and people would love to get rid of him, just as they will dump Rodney MacDonald in NS on June 9th and elect Dexter as NDP Premier. Carole simply failed to unite the left and to present a credible alternative - just running mindless negative ads and trying to hype the BC Rail scandal is a sure loser strategy in a recession.
Transposing the Dion result federally to the BC context (where the pro-carbon tax parties - BC Liberal and Green - command over 50% of popular support) is a pretty big stretch, Stockholm. BC has implemented a serious and effective carbon tax and people aren't dying in the streets, Dion was talking about a mish-mash of enviro and anti-poverty programs with a huge exemption for gas sold at the pump. The carbon tax is a major reason why Gordo will be returned with a stronger majority on the 12th.
Really on a couple of those points Erik????
First, what evidence is there that this was a "winnable election" for the NDP before the campaign began? Was there a Mustel poll showing the NDP with a big lead before they opposed the carbon tax? No, there wasn't.
As for the carbon tax, the NDP chose to stick to their roots instead of jumping on a Fraser Institute bandwagon. No matter how green people say the dress is the fact is its still a consumption tax versus a progressive income tax. What nobody likes to mention is that the NDP hasn't lost any support because of their opposition to moving away from progressive income taxes and instead have gained.
I for one am happy that a Green party exists for those who want a pay-to-pollute license that raises taxes for low income people and lowers them for high income people. It gives disgruntled Liberals a place to go. I don't believe any supporter of the NDP could ever have championed a Michael Walker wet dream.
If the carbon tax is a big part of the Liberal victory it just goes to show how right-wing this province is.
First, what evidence is there that this was a "winnable election" for the NDP before the campaign began? Was there a Mustel poll showing the NDP with a big lead before they opposed the carbon tax? No, there wasn't.
Um...that's exactly the point. The NDP ran on "axe the tax" for a year prior to the writ drop and they started the campaign 17 points behind. They had a brief surge of support in the summer of 2008 when gas prices were high but the Libs opened up a big lead beginning in October/November and that lead has held through the campaign (except for the Angus Reid fantasy world).
As for the carbon tax, the NDP chose to stick to their roots instead of jumping on a Fraser Institute bandwagon.
Frank, you obviously don't know that the BC NDP endorsed the carbon tax at their 2007 convention. There are several quotes from Carole James, Bob Simpson and other NDP MLAs saying that a revenue-neutral carbon tax was the way to go. The "roots" and leadership of the BC NDP were totally on board with the carbon tax until Gordo actually implemented one, and then it became an evil tool of the corporate elite to shaft low-income British Columbians.
No matter how green people say the dress is the fact is its still a consumption tax versus a progressive income tax. What nobody likes to mention is that the NDP hasn't lost any support because of their opposition to moving away from progressive income taxes and instead have gained.
I for one am happy that a Green party exists for those who want a pay-to-pollute license that raises taxes for low income people and lowers them for high income people. It gives disgruntled Liberals a place to go. I don't believe any supporter of the NDP could ever have championed a Michael Walker wet dream.
If the carbon tax is a big part of the Liberal victory it just goes to show how right-wing this province is.
It's not a consumption tax, it's a pollution tax. The federal and BC NDP both support carbon pricing through a cap-and-trade system that amounts to the same "pay to pollute" concept that you are attacking above. Marc Lee from the CCPA confirmed the carbon tax is fair to low-income people - corporations pay 2/3 of the carbon tax (think of all the cars and buildings a big forest company or oil company owns) and individuals get 2/3 of the tax breaks. Carole's "axe the tax" lunacy of scrapping the carbon tax and keeping the tax breaks would be a direct transfer of wealth from low and middle-income households to corporations.
WCL, I see you are again attempting to spin that nonsense, that I had cleared up above.
Berman, pretty much symbolizes nothing in BC environmentally these days, other than a greenwashing sell out, please do see above what actual environmentalists in the majority are stating and doing. I can't see her ever retaining, or regaining, any environmental credibility in the future. She burned too many bridges this time, as most discerning environmentalists, aboriginal leaders, and others see clearly who she is. And they know now/understand she is no friend to BC, nor our environment.
The gig is up on the Green Party leader too, Jane Sterk is a Reformatory get rid of the welfare state and nothing more.
Won't you be surprised when AR again calls it correctly in this BC election like they did the federal. NDP and Liberals are running equal, and James is surging in public opinion and indeed she has united the left, with a little help from Berman of course.
From the link above by NR
The poll, conducted for The Globe and Mail and CTV, points to a neck-and-neck race, with the Liberals at 44 per cent and the NDP at 42 per cent. The Liberal lead of two percentage points, down from three points last week, is effectively a tie.
Meanwhile, the single-transferable-vote referendum proposal appears headed for defeat, with just 45 per cent of voters expressing support, well short of the threshold needed to secure approval.
Though I must say, the Green Party vote is also collapsing on VIsland at 7%, which is great for North Island, thinking people on VIsland, not Reforma/tories with composters.
WCL, I see you are again attempting to spin that nonsense, that I had cleared up above.
Berman, pretty much symbolizes nothing in BC environmentally these days, other than a greenwashing sell out, please do see above what actual environmentalists in the majority are stating and doing. I can't see her ever retaining, or regaining, any environmental credibility in the future. She burned too many bridges this time, as most discerning environmentalists, aboriginal leaders, and others see clearly who she is. And they know now/understand she is no friend to BC, nor our environment.
The gig is up on the Green Party leader too, Jane Sterk is a Reformatory get rid of the welfare state and nothing more.
Won't you be surprised when AR again calls it correctly in this BC election like they did the federal. NDP and Liberals are running equal, and James is surging in public opinion and indeed she has united the left, with a little help from Berman of course.
From the link above by NR
The poll, conducted for The Globe and Mail and CTV, points to a neck-and-neck race, with the Liberals at 44 per cent and the NDP at 42 per cent. The Liberal lead of two percentage points, down from three points last week, is effectively a tie.
Meanwhile, the single-transferable-vote referendum proposal appears headed for defeat, with just 45 per cent of voters expressing support, well short of the threshold needed to secure approval.
Though I must say, the Green Party vote is also collapsing on VIsland at 7%, which is great for North Island, thinking people on VIsland, not Reforma/tories with composters.
Yes, you clearly put a lot of stock in the Angus Reid poll of self-selected people who participated in an online survey, remind. I don't buy their results and every other poll from 3 reputable companies has the Libs clearly ahead (Ipsos, Mustel, Environics). But AR was pretty good on the federal results in Oct 2008, I grant you that. We'll see who was right on Tuesday night.
While Stock is correct that things can change in the last few days/hours of a campaign, that is less likely this time. The Canucks are in the playoffs and the next game is Saturday night, with another game possibly taking place on Monday, I believe. Both Gordo and Carole are known quantities - there isn't the same fear of Harper winning in 2004 (and 2006 to some extent) or Dion winning in 2008 that drove sudden voting shifts. Again, discounting AR, there hasn't been a big swing in momentum in the campaign - the 17-point Lib lead in the April 14 Mustel poll was an outlier, but the other polls besides Angus Reid have been pretty consistent in showing a 8-12 point gap between the NDP and the Libs, with the NDP closing slightly post-debate and Green support bleeding to the NDP a bit.
I hope life goes well for you, Erik. And yes, I'm in charge here now, and there's only a couple people who haven't figured that out yet (Michelle, oldgoat, Maysie aka bigcitygal...). You don't have to agree with everything I say, only the parts that I mean.
There, I've found the Quote function -Finally- aren't I clever. Need reading glasses even for my com now, too. Just let me know when you Mean what you mean then, and throw in the odd smiley ok? Just for us myopic intellekshual types. If not I'll have to subvert you too by running to BCG or Oldgoat or someone else I can still bribe... =8) Oh and congrats. I hope the pay covers your electric bill and you haven't had to be too harsh on us brats, does seem well behaved here for an election cycle. Good stuff.
WestCoastLefty, the "roots" of the NDP are policies like progressive income taxes, they are not James and Simpson. We who support the NDP do not support replacing progressive income taxes with consumption taxes.
Look at the polls right now, the Libs are not 17 points ahead, at best, they are 9. The NDP has gained support while opposing the carbon tax. And the Greens are about the same as they were in 2005. The NDP has not lost anything, they've gained politically.
And it is a consumption tax, or a pay-to-pollute tax, I'd call it a gas tax but its not even as good as that because at least gas taxes go to fund transit.
As for cap-and-trade, I oppose that too as being a waste of time.
Marc Lee has decided that he and Michael Walker agree on abolishing part of our progressive income tax system and replacing it with a consumption tax? Then I expect the CCPA and the FI will merge and he'll soon be calling for school vouchers and replacing property taxes with a bigger PST.
There's a real environment out there that is being desecrated by Campbell's buddies, a vote for anyone other than the NDP is a vote for less park rangers, IPP's on pristine rivers, offshore oil and gas, raw log exports and a half-dozen more ridiculous policies.
Really on a couple of those points Erik????
Ya, that and more but feeling cocky again now. Even telling God (or her favourite trickster servant) to eat my shorts lately, though can't say its helped my luck much. Why I haven't been able to contribute much last few, along with my usual low energy and short atention span I suppose. Que sara sara, still lots of other butt to kick or kiss, praise be to Loki.
Are you dreaming, or just completely lacking knowlege? They get to write off their fuel and heating expenses, private citizens don't. Private citizens may be, and I stress may be, getting back what they are currently paying, but I doubt it.
Moreover, most of them are shut down anyway, in the forest industry corporate ranks, so they are doing nothing but writing mill equipment and machinery off, as depreciating losses and having no building or machinery operating expenses. Whilst they are shipping raw logs off to China.
Remind, WCL is right. All of the partisan posts aside, WCL always takes a reasonable, analytical, and "A"-political perspective. He's a longtime member of the party and a member if the BCGEU, IIRC.
And WCL's reasonable analysis is exactly what the party needs to win government.
WCL, I sure hope that you will consider taking a leave of absense during the next campaign and ideally consider taking over the position of Gerry Scott. I'm not kidding.
BTW, former premier Mike Harcourt has also now come out in favour of the carbon tax at a speach he gave last week at the North Central Municipal Association.
http://www.energeticcity.ca/news/05/07/09/former-premier-mike-harcourt-a...
Perhaps someone should ask Harcourt if he would also be fine with user fees in the healthcare system offset by a reduction in income taxes.
The Fraser Insitute has consistently opposed the carbon tax:
"This was a lost opportunity for British Columbia in terms of improving the investment climate," he said.
"We had a real and historic opportunity to improve our investment climate, to ensure our prosperity going forward by aggressively reducing business taxes and personal taxes."
For example top earners in B.C. pay taxes almost 50 per cent higher than their counterparts in Alberta, he said.
Instead of reducing taxes they chose to "change the mix," he said.
B.C. introduces carbon tax
I have never seen such a barrage of illogic and outright misinfomation from NDP supporters as I have seen on this issue.
brookmere, if you're trying to say the Fraser Institute is in favour of progressive income taxes and against consumption taxes then we'll have to agree to disagree because that is not what I've heard.
"Hike GST, cut income taxes, Institute urges"
http://www2.canada.com/vancouversun/news/business/story.html?id=3c0862bb...
Here's a nice pdf written for the Fraser boys by one of the CD Howe boys.
http://www.fraserinstitute.org/Commerce.Web/product_files/Taxation%20with%20the%20Least%20Pain-mintz_paper_1.pdf.
I still can't find any evidence of the Fraser Institute not preferring consumption taxes over progressive income taxes. As the following quote might suggest they do seem to like the idea of a flat income tax rate but either way they also seem to like consumpotion taxes. If anyone can find an article where the FI says they prefer progressive income taxes to consumption taxes by all means post it, I look forward to reading it. Otherwise I'll just continue to assume that people that agree with primary FI taxation ideas aren't NDPers.
"Another benefit of the Hall-Rabushka model is that it effectively moves the income tax system away from one based on income towards one based on consumption. A consumption tax is levied on any income that is consumed—spent rather than saved. Hall-Rabushka excludes savings—investment—from taxation. Taxing consumption creates minimum distortions since it only exempts savings; all expenditure, regardless of its nature, is taxed. Taxing consumption rather than income increases the efficiency of the tax system"
Oops, the link for the article containing the above quote is here
http://oldfraser.lexi.net/publications/forum/2001/07/section_05.html
Oops, the link for the article containing the above quote is here
http://oldfraser.lexi.net/publications/forum/2001/07/section_05.html
And WCL's reasonable analysis is exactly what the party needs to win government.
Well, thanks for the heads up, on his being "right". I disagree, especially about Berman and I will look forward to the NDP losing in the future then too, if his "analysis" is considered to be "reasonable" and what it takes to win...as I certainly won't be voting NDP under any sort of direction he appears to be giving and would apparently give in the future. Cue's advice is looking better all the time. Or maybe the Green Party will grow a brain and get rid of the Jane Sterk type of leaders.
Now, there is a ringing endorsement.
First, I do not think any polling firms are reputable, especially not when doing politcal polling. I find AR less so, perhaps because they do it as self selecting on line participation. I think the federal election indicated exactly what their potential is. And yes, we will see on Tuesday, won't we. I believe it will be very very close, and will blame naysayer negative Neds, aka old boys network, within the party, for the loss, if it happens, not James. Especially those that are somehow still touting Berman.
I think you just missed the big swing, because it was not convienent for you to recognize it.
Earlier it was suggested here by someone who likes Mustel polls that the NDP are going to lose an election they had in the bag because they opposed the carbon tax.
Well, here are the mustel poll results :
Liberal / NDP
May 05 The actual election results
46 42
Nov 05
45 41
May 06
54 37
Aug 06
48 37
Feb 07
46 38
May 07
51 36
Aug 07
50 32
Nov 07
50 36
Feb 08 Campbell brings in carbon tax this month.
48 36
Jun 08
47 37
Nov 08
44 42
Jan 09
47 33
Feb 09
52 36
Apr 09
52 35
May 09
47 38
I realize I may not be wearing the glasses required to see where the NDP had the election in the bag until they opposed the tax so perhaps someone could point it out to me?
I guess it must have been in Nov 08, eh?! ;)
And just what gave you that impression? I gave you a quote from the Fraser Institute saying that they opposed the carbon tax, and wanted lower income taxes as well. Talk about straw men.
"The only time the NDP wins in BC is when the left is united and the right is divided - the Greens may only take 8% but that is a killer for the NDP's chances to win government."
You may be right that for the NDP to win there needs to be more division on the right (i.e. it would help enormously if the BC Conservatives had a credible leader and ran candidates in all 85 ridings rather than in just 24) - but there isn't much we can do about that except HOPE.
As for uniting the "left" - I think it is about as united as it will ever be. First of all, the Green Party in BC isn't a party of the left at all - they are led by some wonky ex-Reform party type. Secondly, let's say that they end up with 9% on election day (which is generous) - I'd say that may 2% of that at most are these dissident New Democrats who are voting Green to protest the NDP being anti-carbon etc..., the other 7% are people of indeterminate political philosophy who just want to vote "None of the above" or who just think the word green "sounds nice". When the NDP last won in BC in 1996 - almost 7% voted for the centre-left Progressive Democratic Alliance led by Gordon Wilson.
As it is - one thing all the polls are pretty unanimous about is that over the course of the campaign, about one third of the people who were going to vote Green have now shifted to the NDP - and the ones who haven't are mostly "Tory with composter" types who hate unions etc... and the "young techies in condos" described in this article.
http://thetyee.ca/News/2009/05/08/GreenSuits/
I would submit that most people who vote Green are people who really want to vote for a Liberal Party that is like the federal Liberals and they wish that the name of the BC Liberal Party was The Conservative Party.
Incidentally, how do you explain the fact that according to the Angus Reid poll almost 60% of people who are voting Green are OPPOSED to the Carbon Tax???
If the NDP ends up with 39-40% of the vote - they will have the same % they got when they WON in 1972, 1991 and 1996.
WestCoastLefty, the "roots" of the NDP are policies like progressive income taxes, they are not James and Simpson. We who support the NDP do not support replacing progressive income taxes with consumption taxes.
Look at the polls right now, the Libs are not 17 points ahead, at best, they are 9. The NDP has gained support while opposing the carbon tax. And the Greens are about the same as they were in 2005. The NDP has not lost anything, they've gained politically.
And it is a consumption tax, or a pay-to-pollute tax, I'd call it a gas tax but its not even as good as that because at least gas taxes go to fund transit.
As for cap-and-trade, I oppose that too as being a waste of time.
Marc Lee has decided that he and Michael Walker agree on abolishing part of our progressive income tax system and replacing it with a consumption tax? Then I expect the CCPA and the FI will merge and he'll soon be calling for school vouchers and replacing property taxes with a bigger PST.
There's a real environment out there that is being desecrated by Campbell's buddies, a vote for anyone other than the NDP is a vote for less park rangers, IPP's on pristine rivers, offshore oil and gas, raw log exports and a half-dozen more ridiculous policies.
Who is talking about replacing progressive income taxes? That would be you, not me
European and Scandinavian countries who have much higher and more progressive tax systems than BC also have carbon taxes, they are not mutually exclusive at all. Carole James is the one running around saying how she will cut taxes for everybody and using the right-wing FI anti-tax message. Do you understand that Jack and Carole support cap-and-trade which, if properly designed, is also a polluter/consumption tax?
Do you really support her policy of scrapping the carbon tax and keeping all the tax breaks for businesses?I guess I missed that part of the Regina Manifesto. BTW, I've been an active NDP member for over 20 years, so let's skip the lectures on party principles, shall we?
I agree the money should go to transit, that's why the NDP should have run on "fix the tax", not " ax the tax." The only thing worse than a carbon tax with zero $$ for transit is no carbon tax at all, that just encourages more driving and higher GHG emissions. And it is really a stretch to say the NDP has "gained politically" when they are headed to a big loss on Tuesday, a 3rd straight majority for Gordo with the NDP likely suffering a net seat loss. If that's a "gain", what's a loss?
Whatever the results of the election are - if the NDP had supported the carbon tax, they would have done worse. If they lose, I would maintain that if they had supported the tax they would have lost by an even bigger margin.
Remind, WCL is right. All of the partisan posts aside, WCL always takes a reasonable, analytical, and "A"-political perspective. He's a longtime member of the party and a member if the BCGEU, IIRC.
And WCL's reasonable analysis is exactly what the party needs to win government.
WCL, I sure hope that you will consider taking a leave of absense during the next campaign and ideally consider taking over the position of Gerry Scott. I'm not kidding.
BTW, former premier Mike Harcourt has also now come out in favour of the carbon tax at a speach he gave last week at the North Central Municipal Association.
http://www.energeticcity.ca/news/05/07/09/former-premier-mike-harcourt-a...
Thanks for the kind words, Centrist
Gerry Scott is an interesting case - he spent years at the David Suzuki Foundation advocating for the carbon tax and other climate change policies the NDP is now campaigning against under him as Campaign Manager. And I do want to work to elect a visionary NDP government that would implement leading-edge climate change policies AND fight poverty, protect public services, etc. Carole is running on an anti-tax, higher-emissions, "war on crime" right-wing message that would have Tommy Douglas spinning in his grave. A future NDP leader like Gregor Robertson will set us back on the path to victory, I hope.
Speaking of Harcourt, he has endorsed the carbon tax along with Marc Lee and many BC mayors in the Globe and Mail today.
Its too bad that some of these people would fall for Campbell phony carbon tax that won't reduce GHG emissions one single solitary iota but wiull provide a convenient smokescreen for him to impose a flat consumption tax that disproportionately hits people with low incomes and is using 100% of the money to pay for income tax cuts that will go disproportionately to the wealthy. The only possible justification for a carbon tax is if its a way of raising revenue that will all be used for things like home insulation and public transit. Unless the money is to be used for those purposes then it is WORSE than doing nothing at all.
Meanwhile, I'll be curious to see if there is a single solitary riding where anyone will be able to make the case that the NDP lost because so many people voted against them because they soooo badly wanted to pay the carbon tax.
Maybe a good solution is to make the carbon tax voluntary. If Tzipi Berman and David Suzuki want to pay the carbon tax - they can voluntarily do so - let them pay their little feel-good indulgences - I'm sure they cn each easily afford it! But the rest of us who don't feel like paying this tax that is all being used to pay for income tax cuts for the wealthy should be able to opt out.
"Carole is running on an anti-tax, higher-emissions, "war on crime" right-wing message that would have Tommy Douglas spinning in his grave. "
As far as I know, when Douglas was Premier of Saskatchewan he was every bit as "tough on crime" as any other political leader. I have no idea what he would have thought of carbon taxes - probably not much. Back in 1994 there was a crime surge in BC - and Harcourt responded by bringing in a bunch of "tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime" initiatives. There is nothing wrong with a progressive party opposing a REGRESSIVE tax. Back in the 1988 election, the NDP under Broadbent was leading mass rallies chanting "axe the tax" with regsrd to the GST - and you may well see New Democrats in Ontario strongly oppose McGuinty's sales tax increase disguised as a "harmonixation" with the GST. Its our duty as progressive to strenuously oppose REGRESSIVE taxes. There is nothing "higher emission" about the NDP policy on the environment. In fact the NDP platform actually includes tough, concrete measures to force industries to reduce emissions. That's a far cry from the Campbell greenwash which consists of "OK, we gave you your two cent carbon tax, now shut up and let industry pollute as much as they want".
Whatever the results of the election are - if the NDP had supported the carbon tax, they would have done worse. If they lose, I would maintain that if they had supported the tax they would have lost by an even bigger margin.
We'll never know, of course. The federal and BC polling and election results suggest otherwise- federally, the 2008 NDP vote in BC went down compared to 2006 despite Jack's anti-carbon tax rhetoric, we lost 2 BC incumbent seats in rural and suburban ridings that should have been receptive to the anti-tax message, we got blown out in Vancouver Centre which should have been competitive due in part to our anti-carbon tax stance. We lost Peggy Nash's seat in the GTA and weren't close in any Fortress Toronto ridings, Mulcair barely hung on in Outremont, we were nowhere close in Westmount V-M. The carbon tax may have helped us win some Northern Ontario seats but it hurt us in urban ridings where the most votes are. The pro-carbon tax parties (Libs and Greens) got about double the vote the NDP did federally in Oct 2008 - so I'd argue there is definite room to grow among that 35% voting block.
Provincially in BC, most polls put the combined pro-carbon tax party vote (BC Libs and Greens) at about 55%-60% of the vote - again, the NDP shouldn't write off those voters. Obviously, people vote on all kinds of issues but it's clear that being pro-carbon tax is hardly political suicide - basically, the NDP is going to be beaten badly both federally and provincially by parties that are pro carbon-tax. Even with Dion, the Libs got double the seats the NDP did in 2008, despite the Green Shift, and Campbell seems poised for a 3rd majority win on Tuesday, despite the carbon tax.
Yes, Scandinavia has carbon taxes, but they also have great social safety nets so its not a fair comparison. Its like my friend who lives in Houston always bragging about how Texas doesn't have income tax and they're just fine without it. The point being you can't take one policy out of a society that has hundreds of different policies in isolation. If the Liberals were saying we're going to copy Scandinavia in every way then sure, I'd put up with the carbon tax.
Here in BC, unlike Scandinavia, we have high inequality and are constantly fighting, and losing, to keep the public programs and the social safety net we still have. We have the Fraser Institute and other like-minded groups constantly selling us ideas that as their common theme always end up with income being taxed less. The fact that the carbon tax was generated from that side of the struggle I think makes it pretty obvious that its simply another plank in that platform.
Want me to support a carbon tax? Make it progressive. When Jimmy Pattison fills up his car he can pay more than when I fill up mine, enough so that the economic pain is felt equally. Otherwise the carbon tax is a flat tax, another FI dream, and in the end will serve to drive lower income people out of their cars long before high income earners are driven out of theirs.
As for Carole James, how is it "green" to raise the taxation on people who grow and transport food in BC? Does that not make imported food more of a bargain? After all, if I want people to adopt a "100 mile diet" why would I tax the food grown within that 100 miles more than the food imported from California?
I think James should lower the tax on regular joe's and increase the tax on things like raw log exports and imported food. I think that would do more for the environment.
Although I would have supported an NDP campaign that said we want to raise the Lower Mainland's gas tax and put the money into transit I understand why she didn't. It would not have flown politically and right now the NDP would be polling around 25-30%. And I would not support a province-wide increase in the gas tax either because outside the Lower Mainland there would have been no benefit.
I posted the polls for the last 4 years, except for one weird one (Nov 2008) they all show the NDP was doing worse before the carbon tax.
If you've been a member for 20 years then you should know that historically it has not been the NDP's position to impose flat taxes and/or consumption taxes and that we have instead pushed for more progressivity in the tax system. At times different provincial NDP governments or the federal NDP will oppose something that the others support or vice versa but in general the NDP usually is on the little guy's side. Obviously however that means its always easy to find a position that doesn't fit with some other NDPers position and use that as the basis for an attack but I don't think we all have to walk in lock-step with each other as long as we agree on the general themes.
I expect James will do well outside of the Lower Mainland this election. Although the carbon tax is just one small part of how unfair Campbell's policies have been to the "heartland" it is quite symbolic. Some guy that has lost his job as a fisher sees foreign owned salmon farms polluting the environment. A mill worker watches the logs from his area drive by on their way to Washington State. He maybe tries to use his boat to take people on eco-tours but then IPP's come along and he can't get German tourists to pay big money to go look at the Plutonic Power setup on Bute Inlet. Power that he gets no benefit from. And then to top it off he's told he's going to pay a carbon tax to lower emissions while at the same he watches new roads and bridges being built all over the Lower Mainland. I think its clear why NDP support has been rising in those areas.
First of all the two seats that the NDP lost in BC federally were lost to the Conservatives - who made even more noise about opposition to Dion's "tax on everything" than the NDP did. In both of those ridings, support for the Liberals and the so-called greens was some of the lowest for either party in all of BC. The story in Bc in the last federal election was a sharp spike in TORY support while Liberal support sank like a stone.
Meanwhile now that the federal Liberals have dropped the carbon tax like a hot potato, we can now say that 93% of Canadians support parties that oppose a carbon tax..and i doubt if this silly policy will ever rear its ugly head again at the federal level - aprt from some predictable squawking by Elizabeth ME.
James is not running on an "anti-tax" platform that would have Tommy Douglas spinning in his grave. That is like saying Broadbent should have supported Mulroney's GST.
Ask a right-winger what the NDP stands for and you'll be told "tax and spend".
If we claim all taxation is good then he's right.
The fact is, there's good taxation and bad taxation.
I think issue is that some people who live in about a one square mile area in the "granola belt" of Vancouver - have this delusion that they if they want to win a BC-wide election the way to do it is is to bend over backwards to win the votes of a handful of "techies in condos" who think a carbon tax is "groovy". In other words, the entire provincewide campaign strategy should revolve around "what do we need to do to win Vancouver-False Creek?". Wake up and check out the rest of the world. Winning an election in BC means winning in a lot of very UN-groovy places like Prince George, Kamloops, Surrey, Maple Ridge etc... and people there are not going to suddenly shift from BC Liberal to NDP because they are sooo excited about the fact that the NDP agrees with Gordon Campbell that everyone should pay a flat regressive carbon tax. They have other concerns.
Let's say that the Ipsos poll is right and the NDP loses by about a 47% to 40% margin and the so-called greens pull up the read with 8 or 9 percent. I can guarantee you that a few things would happen next - Carol James would probably step down. The next NDP leader will be someone who is a better communicator - but who will not represent any significant change in ideology from what Carol James represents and in the 2013 election, the primary strategy of the BC NDP will (and rightfully so) be focussed on how to peel away soft-BC Liberal supporters who are centrists. They will draw the conclusion that anyway you slice it - as long as 47% of people in BC vote for the party of the right - the NDP cannot win and the only answer is to reduce that number. Very litte time will be wasted on trying to whittle the green party from 8% to 7%.
A pretty accurate analysis, Stock, for an easterner, right?
And in one of those seats, the combination of the Cadman name plus Penny Priddy's retirement on behalf of a so-so candidate didn't help matters...
Apparently, not if WCL, has any say in it, if he does, a huge amount will be wasted.
But perhaps that is a failure to keep up with events occuring, and what the future implications are, and thus not reconfiguring entrenched and faulty perceptions in play, within one's mind set.
It's interesting that in these dying days of the campaign, Carol James is making a pitch for soft green voters to vote NDP. In 2005, the final polls had the greens at 12% and they wound up with 9% and virtually all of that shortfall went NDP. It is the same strategy that the federal Liberals used quite effectively against the NDP in 2004. But its a much easier to argument to make against the Greens since they have no seats, they have no chance of even coming close to winning a seat anywhere in BC and they have no resources and no leadership that is capable of hitting back. Hopefully the NDP can drive the drive the green vote wayyyy down to 6 or 7% and let the people who vote green all be "rich techies in condos" who would otherwise vote for Campbell!
It's interesting that in these dying days of the campaign, Carol James is making a pitch for soft green voters to vote NDP. In 2005, the final polls had the greens at 12% and they wound up with 9% and virtually all of that shortfall went NDP.
Actually the Libs got about 40% of Green 'slippage'. The NDP went from 40% to 41.5% and the Libs went from 45 to 46%.
Well, Stock, if they are voting Green Party they are voting for Campbell, there is absolutely no difference, especially once you realize Sterk and Kettlewell, are promoting private runs on river by General Electric, Tersan Gas, BP, Suncor/Shell and have links to the Reform movement, and/or Ralph Klein's environmental disaster in AB.
See over here
James is not running on an "anti-tax" platform that would have Tommy Douglas spinning in his grave. That is like saying Broadbent should have supported Mulroney's GST.
Frank, have you followed federal politics since the Mulroney-Broadbent years? Do you remember that Harper proposed to lower the GST by 2 percentage points and Layton attacked that proposal, and voted against it when Harper implemented it? I guess you are saying that Douglas would be voting for Harper now since opposing consumption taxes is the fundamental NDP doctrine...
First of all the two seats that the NDP lost in BC federally were lost to the Conservatives - who made even more noise about opposition to Dion's "tax on everything" than the NDP did. In both of those ridings, support for the Liberals and the so-called greens was some of the lowest for either party in all of BC. The story in Bc in the last federal election was a sharp spike in TORY support while Liberal support sank like a stone.
And that's precisely my point - the NDP attack on the carbon tax ended up helping the Conservatives. Anti-tax messages don't work with the NDP universe, but they galvanize the centre-right vote. Saying "the NDP was right to oppose the carbon tax, even though it helped the Cons increase votes while the NDP went down in seats and the popular vote" is like saying asbestos is a great insulation material EXCEPT that it causes cancer! That's hardly a minor detail. Similarly, the BC NDP's axe-the-tax strategy has lead to a 10-point gap in the recent polls, when the gap was only 4 points in the 2005 election. Yep, Stockholm, that is quite the winning strategy you got there
And in one of those seats, the combination of the Cadman name plus Penny Priddy's retirement on behalf of a so-so candidate didn't help matters...
And in the other one the Liberal vote collapsed *so* badly that it nearly all went Conservative, while our NDP M.P. held her vote.
The Conservatives didn't need any help from the NDP to attack the Liberals green shit (aka the carbon tax) - they spent so much time and money attacking it themselves that nothing the NDP said or did helped them. In fact if you actually paid any attention during the federal election, you will note that while the NDP didn't favour the carbon tax and had a different approach to climate change - Layton actually spent almost zero time during the campaign attacking the carbon tax. In fact, he spent virtually zero time attacking the Liberal at all and about 99% of the NDP campaign was directed at the Tories. The NDP quietly put out its own competing policy on climate change that went much further than the green shift and did not include a carbon tax. There was never any "axe the tax" rhetoric - it was just "the Liberals have their plan and we have ours and we think our sis more effective".
Canada owes a debt of gratitude to the NDP for NOT joining the Liberals and so-called Greens in opposing the hated carbon tax. By being against it, hundreds of thousands of voters who were anti-carbon tax, but who also weren't crazy about Harper had somewhere to park their votes. If the NDP had had a policy that was essentially "me too" with the Liberals, the NDP would have won about a dozen fewer seats as all the anti-carbon tax votes would have gone Tory and Harper would have won a majority. I can name about a diozen seats that the NDP would have LOST if it had been pro-carbon tax federally. I cannot think of a single one they would have won.
The NDP in BC has been lagging the BC Liberals by more than 10 points in just about every poll over the past three years - and that goes back to long before the carbon tax was an issue. People can speculate on the reasons for that - but I refuse that apart from two or three carbon tax enthusiasts in the rightwing environmentalist clique - ANYONE in BC is going to vote for Gordon Campbell for no other reason than that they soooo badly want to pay the carbon tax that it makes up for all the horrid environment destroying policies of the Campbell government. Once you get outside of the "granola belt" of Vancouver - most of which is in super safe NDP seats to begin with - most people see the carbon tax (if they think about it at all) as trying to make the average Joe pay the price for climate change when the real culprit - heavy industry - is getting off scot-free.
"Actually the Libs got about 40% of Green 'slippage'. The NDP went from 40% to 41.5% and the Libs went from 45 to 46%."
There were several polls at the very end of the 2005 BC election campaign. As I recall on average they had the Liberals at about 46 or 47, the NDP at 38 or 39 and the Greens at about 12%. In the end the Liberals got just under 46%, the NDP got just over 41% and the Greens dropped to 9% - so it seems to me that there was a last minute shift of soft Greens to the NDP - but we will never know what actually happened.
WestCoastLefty, actually I thought Harper lowering the GST by 2% was an excellent move that helped people. Does that make me more of an NDPer than you and Jack Layton?
Now I see you're comparing the current poll results with the 2005 election and saying th gap is due to the carbon tax? I assume that means you're an extreme ideologue and can't imagine there have been other issues raised these last 4 years?
Please look at my post of the Mustel polling results over the last 4 years. Your argument fails to hold water but I think you know that already.
So I'm watching the game tonight and I see a new NDP ad attacking the Liberals on their home turf, but in an intelligent way, I thought. Rather than talk about the Province's finances they made the case that your personal finances have suffered under the Liberals. The tag line was Gordon Campbell, he's even bad for your wallet. I don't know if it can make much difference at this point, but it was nice to see them trying to tackle that subject. Who knows? I suspect the race is closer than the polls are saying, so it might just change enough minds at the right time to squeak out a win.
"Actually the Libs got about 40% of Green 'slippage'. The NDP went from 40% to 41.5% and the Libs went from 45 to 46%."
There were several polls at the very end of the 2005 BC election campaign. As I recall on average they had the Liberals at about 46 or 47, the NDP at 38 or 39 and the Greens at about 12%. In the end the Liberals got just under 46%, the NDP got just over 41% and the Greens dropped to 9% - so it seems to me that there was a last minute shift of soft Greens to the NDP - but we will never know what actually happened.
And who knows how much it could be that in some of the "stronger" Green seats like out Sea To Sky way, the default "winning" option was Liberal, by far...
Wow, long thread! Let's take pity on paople with dial-up and start a part 4 if you want to continue. :)