Your prediction on the BC Election May 12, 2009
With a week to go I thought it might be a good idea to start a thread on everyone's prediction.
Perhaps you might want to include what you think you happen provincially, in your own home riding and predict a riding where you think a major upset might take place.
Also whether you think STV will get the required 60% vote.
I am having a hard time figuring out just what might happen - here in the Lower Mainland there doesn't appear to be any great anti-government feelings BUT outside of the region there is more concern.
Are we looking at a 1996 scenario where the Liberals will win the popular vote and the NDP take more seats.
I don't see the Greens winning everything and think Wally will win a nail-biter in Delta South.
Here goes:
Liberals 48
NDP 37
STV - will pass but not by the required 60%
My home riding is Vancouver False Creek which will go Liberal
As for upsets
Liberals will win back Vancouver Fairview and Lois Boone may lose Prince-George Valemount.
Louis Boone? Are you serious? LMAO...she hasn't been in politics for a long time. So much for fingers on the pulse.
Shirley Bond is the BC Liberal incumbant, and Julie Carew is the NDP candidate.
I'd like to see some post-debate final polling before i venture a guess.
I think I too would like to see some more polling. In Michael Smyth's column today, he suggests that although James won the debate hands-down in his view, the NDP is still behind the Liberals. He notes that "some NDP insiders" told him that they did not believe the race was as tight as the Reid polling suggested, and apparently the Libs' internals show a 10-point lead (which pretty much splits the difference between the two). If I had to guess, I'd say the Libs are sitting on something very similar to last time - about a 5-7 point spread.
I think we will see an end result very similar to last time with the Liberals coming in at around 45-50 seats and the NDP at around 35-40. I think the NDP will steal a few Liberal seats (one or two in Burnaby, Kamloops-North Thompson, possibly Kootenay East) but at the same time will be hard-pressed to hang onto seats like North Island, Vancouver-Fairview, Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows and Surrey-Fleetwood.
If the NDP strategists could actually do something to inspire enthusiasm, they could make it close They still don't seem to want to excite people though, and will choose to lose in order to be sure to look "safe".
The base will work as hard as it can for them, but still be blamed if things don't go well.
I'd be glad to be wrong and see an NDP upset though. It would be an improvement to have Gordo gone.
BTW, did they ever explain why they chose to make their campaign sighs Tory blue?
Campbell will win again, and he'll be even more insufferable than ever. Why people vote this goon in is beyond me.
STV - will pass but not by the required 60%
Okay, I'll bite.
Carole James does a repeat of 1996, winning with fewer votes than the Liberals.
BC-STV gets 59%.
The new caucus and cabinet contemplate how undemocratic it will look to stall electoral reform for another eight years by starting from scratch in the purported hope of getting some as-yet-unspecified MMP model adopted - - and decide that 59% is enough to implement BC-STV.
You heard it first here.
NDP by a nose with 43% of the vote. Liberals 2nd place with only 46%, and Greens elect no one with 10%
STV will suffer defeat with just 57.5% in favour, but as Wilf says, James and the NDP will nudge it over the finish line.
And a whopping 59% voter turnout
STV - will pass but not by the required 60%
Okay, I'll bite.
Carole James does a repeat of 1996, winning with fewer votes than the Liberals.
BC-STV gets 59%.
The new caucus and cabinet contemplate how undemocratic it will look to stall electoral reform for another eight years by starting from scratch in the purported hope of getting some as-yet-unspecified MMP model adopted - - and decide that 59% is enough to implement BC-STV.
You heard it first here.
I like the way you think.
The public will be prime for electoral reform if we get another wrong winner NDP government.
AT
or a wrong-winner Liberal government.
Maybe.
I did a bit of reading on some things that were said during and after the MMP campaign in Ontario.
It's just too complicated. Parties will have too much power. Sure we need change but not this system. After the election, we should have another vote on a different system.
For some reason, it sounds awfully familiar.
Your right Remind - I meant to type Shirley Bond but for some reason this old mind Lois name came first.
Fidel - are you suggesting that the NDP will win more seats but lose the popular vote.
Wilf - you bring up an interesting scenario that I don't think is all that far fetched
STV - will pass but not by the required 60%
Brian White, at least, will be happy if this prediction comes to pass.
Wilf -- so you believe that two near misses will translate into a mandate to reform? You are indeed a perennial optimist.
Hey, this is Canada. We have playoffs here. It'll come down to a best of seven for sure.
Can't imagine who's going to win. But I predict things will get a bit calmer on babble once the election's over.
It sounds like those strategists figured that the NDP was going to tank after the election, so they deliberately threw it in order to pin the crash on the Liberals and then clean up in 2013.
The worst thing about this is that the NDP seems to be in control of strategists who like to play games who have no regard for the consequences these games have on real people.
BS, aristotled, that sounds like the BC Liberals, not the BCNDP, we are firmly aware of the consequences people are experiencing and there is no game playing. BC has laready crashed and is burning down and there is no one else to pin it on other than the BC Liberals.
And I agree with wilf's synopsis too. Should the NDP get in, which is looking more and more promising, and STV is close to 60% they will nudge it over.
For the record remind, I was referring specifically to the NDP bureaucracy and not the rank-and-file members who do all the work. As bad as Campbell is, James doesn't seem that inspiring at all, and I've seen how the NDP stifles the efforts and intentions of the membership. The sense I get from reading the comments section on websites, aside from the unpopularity of the Campbell government, is the sense that none of the politicians seem to care.
Having said that, what I stated was just a guess on my part, so if my point was wrong I'm prepared to concede that.
The forest industry has never hidden its preference to see Gordon Campbell's Liberal government re-elected on May 12, but the bold direct attacks unleashed yesterday were outside the norm.
“If the government was to change, heaven help us,” said Jim Shepard, president and CEO of Canfor Corp. Usually, Mr. Shepard prefers to send cheques to his party of choice and leave the politics to industry associations.
And given the latest polls that suggest the Liberals have a comfortable lead heading into the final week of the campaign, why would he stick his neck out now?
“This is so critically important we felt we had to step out front, we are not going to stand behind the associations,” he said in an interview yesterday. “I see an industry on its knees being taken advantage of by a party that is playing politics.”
The forest companies are worried about what the NDP would do to reform the system of awarding harvesting rights, and their talk of reviewing the Canada-U.S. Softwood Lumber Agreement.
“The biggest threat to any worker is if the investment community decides forestry is not the place to put their money,” he said.
Duncan Davies, CEO and president of Interfor, said the New Democrats could have avoided an election-eve confrontation had they spent more time talking to business.
“If Carole had talked to any of us, we could have put her on the right track,” he said.
Wow, talk about arrogance. That seems to bode well for the NDP that these guys are that scared.
No shit, of course they are scared, the BC Liberals took the timber rights ties away from the communities in which the timber is grown. What this did was allow the corps to havest the timber, and ship it off in raw log form to other countries. They can take all the profits from the timber without having to pay workers, to whom the wood actually belongs, to process it, thus the lay off of 10's of thousands of workers.
Our forests are being cut down faster than ever with no benefit to BC, and it's communities and workers, only the corps are benefiting. The real threat to those still working in the industry, few that there are nowadays, is the increasing rates of shipping raw logs out. Really they are stealing BC timber and making huge profits. At the same time silvaculture is not happening on any replacement scale that was formerly required, because it cuts into profit margins too.
The BCNDP are on the correct track, when they talk of tying the timber back to the communties. The corps are only worried about the significantly higher profit margins gained from shipping BC people's trees out unprocessed.
The forest industry multi-nationals are the ones playing politics, to keep their ever increasing profit margins going. People like Pat Bell, who own logging trucks are the only ones making any money, as they carry BC's raw logs away from BC people.
As for the industry "associations", they are directly funded by the forest industry giants, to be their political arm.
There are many small investors, who would love to be able to access timber in their communities to process, but they can't, because the corps have all tenure rights now sewn up for 75 years.
This is especially disturbing given the standing dead that could be manufactured here into flooring, furniture and pellets, but cannot now be because the forestry giants will not allow it.
Prediction: More of the same.
Too many BCers are apathetic and/or incredibly stupid. No matter how much Gordo sells out BCers, how matter how much of BC's natural resources the Libs give away, no matter how much of an a-hole Gordo is, the NDP just won't capture enough middle-of-the-road voters to win. While the NDP campaign has been better of late, it's a case too little too late. The NDP has really failed to prove that it is a viable alternative. All I see from the NDP is negative campaigning.
I hear it time and time again from people I know. My co-worker yesterday said, "Yeah, Gordo is a jerk, but the NDP will ruin the economy".
As much as they hate Gordo, they don't think the NDP will do much better. These people don't delve into politics past the newspaper or TV, so don't expect them to know any better.
The Big Lie <- It still works
As for STV, It'll probably just be about 55%. Again, too many apathetic and lazy people will default to "it's too complicated", especially when so many people don't know much about this referendum. Sad, but true. Apathy benefits the Powers That Be.
"it's too complicated", especially when so many people don't know much about this referendum"
Yesterday while working as a scrutineer at the advance poll the only questions being asked of the elections officials was regarding the BC STV - it was also hard for the election supervisors to explain it and keep it non-poliitcal. Even I and I have tried to understand the system didn't know the answers to some of the questions being posed. Only perhaps a 12 or so of the 600 who voted at our polling station actually sought advice on this matter - so people either know about it or just couldn't be bothered and didn't mark the ballot and of course we won't know how many until some time on Tuesday evening.
Actually the NDP have proved themselves a viable alternative. They have a better economic record than the Liberals do. How much more viable can they get?
The NDP have a "better economic record than the Liberals do"? I doubt the majority of BC voters agree with you. BC will enjoy another majority term of Gordon Campbell and his 'Liberals' for better or worse because they won't drive investment in BC away.
Forestry in BC is a sunset industry because the triumvirate of industry, government and unions refused to face reality 40 years ago, prefering a dysfunctional status quo that supposedly protected jobs and communities but essentially robbed Peter to pay Paul.
The forest industry stakeholders still think they can stand in a bucket and lift themselves by the handle.
No-one is willing to take the measures necessary to bring the industry back to life - starting with the huge deficit in silvicultural enhancement created by the triumvirate's short-term fixation on local community entitlements and jobs on the part of local government and unions; low cost profitability on the part of industry and sacrificing sustainability for political gain on the part of provincial government - all of them for the last 40 years.
It's time to put that old canard to rest -- from The Tyee:
BC's Economy: Whose Was Best?Loretta,
How many people actually read The Tyee? Those who do are more inclined to be NDP voters, anyway (Especially since the site has shaken all pretense of what it supports).
I love The Tyee, but it's far from mainstream. The Big Lie works because the mainstream media keeps trumpeting it. It doesn't help the NDP's cause that James and company cannot fight fire with fire... the NDP has basically ceded the Economy issue to the Libs (Apart from their last attack ad), so The Big Lie will continue onwards and upwards.
The middle-of-the-road voter is going to be, most likely, a CanWest zombie. Most apathetic types just don't search out other news sources, and get their fill from soundbites and whatever dailies are out there.
I did forward that Tyee link to a few middle-of-the-roaders I know. Maybe one of them will have the lightbulb go off in their head, but I doubt it. It's hard to change somebody's mind with just one action.
Election Prediction.... Straw poll here on BC Election and STV.
Current votes... Will you be voting for STVYES [ 9 ] [47.37%]
NO [ 10 ] [52.63%]
Which Party Will you Support?
Liberals Gordon Campbell [ 8 ] [42.11%]
NDP Carole James [ 7 ] [36.84%]
Green Jane Sterk [ 2 ] [10.53%]
Conservative Wilf Hanni [ 2 ] [10.53%]
Loretta,
How many people actually read The Tyee? Those who do are more inclined to be NDP voters, anyway (Especially since the site has shaken all pretense of what it supports).
...
I did forward that Tyee link to a few middle-of-the-roaders I know. Maybe one of them will have the lightbulb go off in their head, but I doubt it. It's hard to change somebody's mind with just one action.
I agree that The Tyee isn't widely read yet but we need to keep chipping away at these fallacies that have been promulgated. I send them to my friends as well, in moderation, since they might just consider some of what's said when things get rough for them personally, which for most, they will.
The forest industry is dead because Campbell allowed the big companies to take the wood and ship it out of the country instead of having to mill it locally. Small operators couldn't get wood and the value-added industry died too.
All those mill and value-added jobs went with the raw logs, out of the country.
No matter how hard you try to say that forestry is dead because of workers the fact is its dead because of a government's ideology.
NDP loses by two seat. Angus Reid wins the pollster sweepstakes.
All those mill and value-added jobs went with the raw logs, out of the country.
No matter how hard you try to say that forestry is dead because of workers the fact is its dead because of a government's ideology.
Exactly correct, and now we see absolute cutting, as opposed to selective logging and leaving trees standing you do not have a market or license for. When stumpage fees were chucked, so were selective logging practises and silvaculture.
The destruction of the forest industry has not equalled saving of the environment. It in fact has made it worse.
That great BCer J. Pattison is the driving force behind the consolidation of Canfor as the holder of much of BC's timber rights. Mr. Pattison is well connected,provincially. He hired Glen Clark as a VP when Mr. Clark's political career fell apart. I doubt the hiring had anything to do with ideology though. Industrialists are not concerned with who makes what speech, their only concern is weilding power.
Glen Clark has a right take employment with whomever, without his political creditials being questioned or used as an attempted smear.
But you are correct about Jimmy and Canfor, and the desire to export logs without manufacturing, and to keep the timber out of the hands of small concerns who actually provided employment.
I believe you will find that Glen Clarke now sits on the Board of Canfor as one of Jimmy's appointee's.
Uh...nice fabrication! Not a Glen Clarke in the bunch.
http://www.canfor.com/company/biographies/directors.asp
Perhaps Remind if you had done a google you would have found out that indeed he was appointed and here's a link to prove it - it's near the bottom of the article so scroll down -
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/090430/business/canfor
Well, the last round of polls is out. Mustel has the Liberals up by 9, 47-38, Ipsos has them up by 8, 47-39 and Angus Reid has the Liberals up by just 2 points, 44-42. In all cases the Greens are polling around 10%.
I don't have a lot of faith in that Angus Reid poll, sadly. I suspect Mustel and Ipsos are closer to the mark. Mustel was by far the most accurate pollster in 2005. Their last pre-election poll was Libs 45, NDP 40, Green 12, and the final numbers were Libs 45.8, NDP 41.5, Green 9.1 (basically they were on the money except some Green supporters didn't bother to get out to the polls).
Assuming the final numbers are something like 48-40-8, I expect that for the most part the status quo will be preserved, although there are incumbents in both parties who are threatened. On the whole, I expect we will see a net loss of a few NDP seats. So my guess is:
Liberal 51
NDP 34
Green 0
Why should I do a google? I went straight to Canfor's site for first hand sourcing, but seeing as how this happened 8 days ago, I guess they have not updated their website. Thanks for the info, sorry for the statement.
Perhaps Jimmy wants someone at the table who actually know how a forest industry should be working, as opposed to what it has become?
Certainly Glen could not be a worse influence than what they have had, in fact, perhaps that is why Canfor is starting some operations back up in July, or so I hear that they may, but that might be an election promise too.
Why don't you learn how to spell his name correctly? That would be a start.
And people complain about the media being inaccurate.
Huh? I am not the media and have absolutely no obligation to spell anything correctly, not even Glen Clark's name. :)
Oh, and the media, is just not inaccurate they are in fact forces of anti-democracy.
My prediction: what ghoris said
Earlier in the campaign, I was thinking something more along the lines of 60 to 25. But CJ saved many NDP seats in the TV debate and the Greens have had an abysmal campaign.
Myself, I voted NDP after my wife chanted "lesser of two evils" over and over again, as we drove to the advanced polls in Coquitlam-Maillardville.
I hate BC politics.
I don't know, the youth vote may surprise us all.
There are more then one election taking place. Will McMartin has a very good analysis in the Tyee. It appears to me that McMartin is correct and that the outcome will be decided in the North, Kamloops and the North Fraser communities. Where it really counts, the NDP have put on strong campaigns. If Burnaby, Prince George and Kamloops flip, it will be a bright new day.
Glen Clark has a right take employment with whomever, without his political creditials being questioned or used as an attempted smear.
But you are correct about Jimmy and Canfor, and the desire to export logs without manufacturing, and to keep the timber out of the hands of small concerns who actually provided employment.
The default defensive position regarding Mr.Clark isn't needed. The point is how the major forest players co-opt ANY source in order to maintain their stranglehold on BC's timber supply. Political alliegiance or ideology is immaterial.
The 'communities and workers' continually fall into the trap of supporting industry initiatives to maintain or provide jobs in periods of economic uncertainty. Initiatives that undermine their own interests.
A classic example of this trap is the wonderful news that Canfor is working to re-open their Mackenzie mill on one shift - ostensibly to'save the dying town'. The reality is that Canfor has successfully manipulated the 'community and workers' into providing the political capital necessary to support the Ministry of Forests to amend Canfor's five year plan allowing Canfor to highgrade the best wood at the expense of sustainability.
Canfor's announcement that they are manufacturing a superior product to attract home suppliers such as Home Depot is crafted to appear as support for value-added products but in reality is just a smokescreen to run the best sawlogs through the breakdown mill into dimension lumber without regard for the value added potential of the prime logs, leaving the poorer quality timber standing.
Getting concession in one area will merely allow Canfor to remove the highest cost production elsewhere in a continual race to the bottom.
The demise of the forest industry in BC has nothing to do with party alliegiance because all the past governments are equally guilty - along with the communities, workers and unions who are unwilling to endure the pain necessary to forge a forest industry that can create a sustainable resource and the prospect of long-term jobs.
All the stakeholders sacrifice this vision for the same old, same old, trainwreck of self-interest followed by acrimonious finger-pointing while the industry falls apart. Industry may be the culprit but the provincial/local governments and unions/workers are the enablers- and equally guilty.
The forest industry is immaterial to this election as it is in all elections because the people of BC don't have the stomach to take on the challenge of a sustainable industry and the provincial politicos of all stripes know it.
I don't know, the youth vote may surprise us all.
Look, the Youth vote, couldn't make a difference in the 60s when there was a TONNE of activist youths running around. Todays youth are neither large in numbers nor is there any kind of "activist" movement that has them wanting to find a polling booth. The surprise would be if they voted, but that hasn't been happening from any of the most recent elections I have been following. People under 30 don't vote, although they do have opinions and some even agree/support political parties, but not enough to actually mark a ballot.
Youth mobilization is a gig for facebook friends. Maybe one day, and maybe its happening in BC. I would like to see the youth get involved, its their country that is being sold down the river. They should get interested someday.
Is there a campaign to get out the youth vote???
A classic example of this trap is the wonderful news that Canfor is working to re-open their Mackenzie mill on one shift - ostensibly to'save the dying town'. The reality is that Canfor has successfully manipulated the 'community and workers' into providing the political capital necessary to support the Ministry of Forests to amend Canfor's five year plan allowing Canfor to highgrade the best wood at the expense of sustainability.
Yes, I completely agree, and I predicted that this move in Mackenzie, would be announced just before the election too, way back in January, or perhaps earlier than that. This actually was not a "prediction" come to think of it, as I know exactly how they are being manipulated, how far back the stage was set for this manipulation, and know exactly down to every detail, why they have done it, how they have done it, and will continue to do it time and again, until their iniatives are met.
Getting concession in one area will merely allow Canfor to remove the highest cost production elsewhere in a continual race to the bottom.
I know the Mackenzie forestry industry and political components intimately, I cannot stress that strongly enough, and there are more factors in play than you realize.
All the stakeholders sacrifice this vision for the same old, same old, trainwreck of self-interest followed by acrimonious finger-pointing while the industry falls apart. Industry may be the culprit but the provincial/local governments and unions/workers are the enablers- and equally guilty.
You are over looking, many factors that have caused "the enablers" to enable without realizing what they were doing. Yes, I concur they are guilty to a degree, but for the most part they do not comprehend the depths of manipulations of local community "leaders", at all levels, upon themselves, and that the community "leaders" have long been co-opted and placed by industry concerns, to rape the resources, while pretending to be concerned about job losses. And you have no idea how far this actually extends outwards and to what levels of global geo-political activities, it is being actioned in, or should I say initiated from.
Thus this comment below:
BC people do not yet have the stomach to take on the actual challenge, as the forest industry is but a bit player, of ridding themselves of the incidious corporate control of their self serving local community leaders, and take back control of BC, for future generations of BCers, instead of allowing the continued colonialization of crown lands into fiefdoms, and exploitation schemes.
BC people in the majority would love to have sustainable industries, and long term job creation, however, they do not know how to get to that position and what is exactly blocking it, every time they try. Provincial politicos, may all know certain things, however, the difference arises within the framework of what is being done with that knowlege of "things". And of course, with how many actually do know, the truth of things, as politicos. They may know some truths, but not other truths.
Thus there are 2 camps of knowing politicos in BC, ones who know and want to stop "things" and those who know and want to further "things". Those who don't know are merely political pawns in global geo-political strategies. I think this election will be a watershed moment in BC, no matter what transpires, but perhaps not in the way most would think.
I'll tell you one thing for sure - whoever wins the BC election is going to be winning a chance to drink a poisoned chalice filled to the brim with arsenic. It has been CONSERVATIVELY estimated that the actual deficit is going to be about $4 billion and not the fictitious $500 million that the Liberals had in their budget. BC is being particularly hard hit by the recession and there will be a huge economic and psychological letdown after the Olympics. As much as i'd like the NDP to win, I fear that if it happened Carol James would end up having a Bob Rae-like experience as Premier (I don't mean that she would bring in a social contract or bolt to the federal Liberals, just that she will almost certainly become extremely unpopular within about 6 months of taking power). Whoever wins is going to have to do some combination of DRASTIC cuts in social spending, big tax increases or running a huge deficit that could be politically unpalatable and either party will almost certainly have to break just about all their promises.
If the BC NDP does well, but loses, one person who might have a secret sigh of relief will be Jack Layton and all the federal NDP Mps from BC. In every federal election held while the NDP was in power provincially in BC, the federal NDP has been almost wiped off the map. The last thing the federal NDP needs would be to go into a federal election in Spring 2010 saddled with a hated NDP provincial government in BC and watch the number of NDP MPs from BC drop from 9 to 2 or 3. Better to let Campbell become the most hated man in BC and let the Liberals become the lightning rod for the intense anger we will see over the coming year.
In some ways, the most ideal result would be if the Liberals got 43 seats, the NDP 41 and then Vicky Huntington was elected as an independent in Delta South. That way Campbell has to dodder along for another year while the shit hits the fan and the NDP is poised to move non-confidence the moment one Liberal MLA is absent or drops dead!
Look, the Youth vote, couldn't make a difference in the 60s when there was a TONNE of activist youths running around. Todays youth are neither large in numbers nor is there any kind of "activist" movement that has them wanting to find a polling booth. The surprise would be if they voted, but that hasn't been happening from any of the most recent elections I have been following. People under 30 don't vote, although they do have opinions and some even agree/support political parties, but not enough to actually mark a ballot.
Youth mobilization is a gig for facebook friends. Maybe one day, and maybe its happening in BC. I would like to see the youth get involved, its their country that is being sold down the river. They should get interested someday.
Is there a campaign to get out the youth vote???
In today's polarized political environment, only a small portion of the youth vote is required to tip the balance in either direction.
And no there is not a campaign to get he youth vote out, that I know of, other than amongst youth themselves who are becoming interested, and it seems they are through, and/or, because of, social networking mediums, such as twitter, facebook and 2nd Life.
I will never under estimate the power of moblized grass roots, and if in this occassion and in the future, it is through said mediums, that is fine with me.
For the most part, in the larger scheme of things, I agree with most all you have stated. Hence my prediction of 42 42 with 1 Independant, I have been watching Delta south closely and now that Wally O is being sued by the gentleman from PQ, perhaps Huntington has a bigger chance, if indeed she is using it. If she isn't the NDP candidate should be in last couple of days. It may not get votes for the NDP but it could turn voters to Huntington.
That would be the dream ticket. Gordo forms government with no power and thus will wear the seeds of his destruction of the BC economy, without doing too much more damage.
The last thing the federal NDP needs would be to go into a federal election in Spring 2010 saddled with a hated NDP provincial government in BC and watch the number of NDP MPs from BC drop from 9 to 2 or 3. Better to let Campbell become the most hated man in BC and let the Liberals become the lightning rod for the intense anger we will see over the coming year.
Easy for you to say from downtown Toronto. Those of us who actually live here and are directly affected by this government see things slightly differently, and I, for one, do not want another four years of Campbell. Frankly, I don't give a good god-damn whether it would or wouldn't be good for Layton and the federal party, because who sits in the Premier's chair in Victoria has a hell of a lot more impact on me than whether there are 3 more MPs on the fourth-party benches in Ottawa.
This is a very telling statement of awareness that needs to be put before those that are "sleeping their way through life." Get involved to know the issues, and what you will find will utterly shock you into waking up.
I do agree with this too, but things are not always mutually exclusive. The BC NDP needs to win this election, or come as close to it as they possbily can, first and foremost. And I am working very hard to have that happen.
This is a very telling statement of awareness that needs to be put before those that are "sleeping their way through life." Get involved to know the issues, and what you will find will utterly shock you into waking up.
yep, but a lot of people are resistent to waking up as of yet anyway. Plus they insulate themselves so they cannot find out anything.
Rewind,
I see you changed your sub-title to "is now undecided re STV" had a change of heart?
AT
My prediction is another win for the insert-label-here Party of Mr. Campbell. Close but decisive.
I also predict a win for the independent candidate in Delta South, Vicki Huntington, who lost the previous election by 1069 votes.
Ghoris, don't get me wrong. I would be jumping for joy if the BC NDP were to win on Tuesday. But I'm just saying that I think that anyone taking power at this point in time is almost guaranteed to become extremely unpopular extremely quickly. I guess that given that I thnk winning is a bit of a longshot on Tuesday, I'm trying to console myself with the fact that NOT being in power in Bc will be better for the federal party.
anyone taking power at this point in time is almost guaranteed to become extremely unpopular extremely quickly.
Indeed, that's what I was saying before. This is a BAD time to get elected to government. The BC economy is about to take a sh!t-kicking.
The upside is the Liberals will spend so much time in damage control that they won't pursue many of their ideological objectives.
Don't be so sure. I can easily see Campbell doing a hard right turn after the election and saying that in order to prevent the deficit from increasing at all - all social spending has to be drastically cut and public sector wages rolled back and he will be smiling from ear to ear as he does it - one thing we know about Campbell is that he takes sadistic pleasure in making people suffer.
The coming cuts are going to hurt people and the people that are going to be hurt are the ones that most need help.
I'd rather the NDP was in power and could alleviate that regardless of whether bloggers in 2021 could use it against us. They ignore facts any way.
I'd rather the NDP was in power and could alleviate that regardless of whether bloggers in 2021 could use it against us. They ignore facts any way.
As Stockholm said, that would put the BC NDP in the same position in 2009 as the Ontario NDP was in 1990. Actually not the same probably, as I think the economy will be a lot worse. That would set things up for something even worse then Campbell or Harris in 2012.
It's clear the NDP is going to lose and the best we can hope for is that it doesn't lose too badly so that Gordo doesn't have a blank chqeue. Once the Liberals' credibiity on economic management is shattered, the NDP can get on with a platform for sustainable economic development for 2012.
My prediction is another win for the insert-label-here Party of Mr. Campbell. Close but decisive.
I also predict a win for the independent candidate in Delta South, Vicki Huntington, who lost the previous election by 1069 votes.
From a progressive standpoint, would it be a good or bad thing if Huntington took that riding? What is her motivation for campaigning as an independent?
I forgot to also mention that another thing that Campbell is certain to do AFTER the votes are counted is use the recession and the deficit as an excuse to kill of what little is left of any climate change initiatives and further decimate the Ministry of the Environment. It will be interesting to see the reaction of all those shills in the pretendy-environmentalist movement try to make excuses for him when that happens.
He'll probably also cancel all the taxpayer funded junkets to environmental conferences in Geneva that he probably used as a carrot to entice some of the more "bourgeois environmentalist" to say nice things about him during the campaign. They will feel used and manipulated by him and he will just cackle in their faces.
She was the first choice to represent the riding for the Green party, the NDP, _and_ the Liberal party. Mr. Campbell himself offered her the riding, but she declined them all. The only conclusion I can draw from that is it is a good thing if she wins, no matter ones standpoint. She is running against a sitting Cabinet Minister that lives in the riding, but only ever ran in a safe seat. Her election will send a pointed message to all parties they would be wise to heed.
I can't answer the second question Ken, but my guess is she rejects partisan politics in toto, choosing to represent her constituents to the Legislature, rather than representing _any_ party and its policies to the people in her riding.
Well, the last round of polls is out. Mustel has the Liberals up by 9, 47-38, Ipsos has them up by 8, 47-39 and Angus Reid has the Liberals up by just 2 points, 44-42. In all cases the Greens are polling around 10%.
I don't have a lot of faith in that Angus Reid poll, sadly. I suspect Mustel and Ipsos are closer to the mark. Mustel was by far the most accurate pollster in 2005. Their last pre-election poll was Libs 45, NDP 40, Green 12, and the final numbers were Libs 45.8, NDP 41.5, Green 9.1 (basically they were on the money except some Green supporters didn't bother to get out to the polls).
Assuming the final numbers are something like 48-40-8, I expect that for the most part the status quo will be preserved, although there are incumbents in both parties who are threatened. On the whole, I expect we will see a net loss of a few NDP seats. So my guess is:
Liberal 51
NDP 34
Green 0
I'm pretty close to you but I think the NDP will have a net loss of 3 seats (they have 34 seats now) and Huntington will win in Delta South.
Lib 53
NDP 31
Ind 1
plays into the hands of those opposed to urgent action on warming. To suggest that a
carbon tax system would obviate the need for “highly politicized and uncertain
negotiations” and that, by contrast, “a carbon-tax model provides a friendly way for
countries to join a climate treaty” indicates that Nordhaus’ carbon tax sits comfortably
in a text book but has little relevance to the real world of climate policy.
http://www.clivehamilton.net.au/cms/media/critique_of_nordhaus.pdf
Another sip from the poisoned chalice for Ms. James should she win will be the funding struggle between an entitled parent community demanding more education resources as enrolment dwindles and the much larger older demographic demanding better services important to that community such as health care and assisted living.
Ms. James has placed herself in a vulnerable position, should she win, of having to do more with less in spite of her campaign promises. Her policy point of raising oil and gas royalties by $400 million per annum is misplaced in a BC industry comprised of mostly gas production that is selling at 50% of its production cost.
Leaving it in the ground is fine as long as one considers the industry is the only cash cow BC has unless the NDP plan to tax BC's largest industry: Marijuana. Timing a royalty increase to a period of profitability is one thing but increasing cost when industry is targeting development funding to only the most attractive areas is short-sighted.
There are a good many value added industries, and others, in BC that need to be developed, oil and gas can go away if they do not like the increase in royalities. But then of course they the oil and gas companies, are moving in to take over our rivers and lakes, anyway so, I am sure they could give a rat's ass about oil and gas, seeing as how the future is in hydro electric power.
The recession made me do it. Interesting. Might even Gordon Campbell surprise us all and do that too?
I doubt it, taxing wealthy businessmen isn't Cambell's kind of policy.
I also doubt he'll put much effort into trying to eliminate the industry, its one of the few things keeping revenue coming in throughout a lot of the province. So far the Green party are the only one's talking about that reality. The NDP are taking the ostrich approach.
So what are you saying here meloves, that the Green Party is all for cutting off one of the sources of revenue that is keeping thing going throughout a lot of the province?
Not cutting it off, taxing it. I think that would be a good idea. I think anyone who argues that the BC government is going to shut down marijuana production in BC during the economic downturn is lying.
"I can easily see Campbell doing a hard right turn"
That's not what's happening federally. I loved the look on Harper's face when he talked about partially nationalizing Chrysler. Now the Conservatives are cracking down on bank credit cards, and various other interventions that they can barely stomach.
Its the temper of the times. Reagan and Thatcher are long gone (Reagan literally), and 80s are long over. Baby boomers are getting old and worrying more about health care than taxes.
Obama, with his big spending commitments, is setting a new tone like he wants to be FDR2. Capitalism has never looked so bad, and government spending has never looked so good. All over the North America, governments will be intervening and spending more than ever, to the extent that they can. Hungry people don't stay hungry for long. The middle class cannot weather unemployment for long before it plummets into poverty.
It doesn't matter who we elect right now, the future is more "socialist". Even here in BC.
My prediction:
Seat counts unchanged.
STV - no idea. The low polls we are seeing are at odds with my in-person campaigning experience.
Sorry, BD, but that is not what the record implies. First, Harper is going through the motions. Secondly, Gordo has already taken measures to meet the crisis by cutting and not stimulating. In BC, the "Bennett solution", eliminating workers and destroying progress is already in the works.
It is only a "socialist" agenda if socialism is understood to be for those who have and who control. Cut taxes, eliminate programmes, cut payroll is his answer to the problem (with a tiny bit of deficit to do so on the side).
We as people and the workers sho produce the wealth should never be conned by the "trinkle down", Friedman economics that are part of the root cause of the crisis.
"Seat counts unchanged."
Kinda hard to do that given that there are 6 more seats due to more seats being added.
There are now 85 single member seats.
Want to give it another go.
If Huntington wins does any think that she might switch to the Conservatives and become there leader - after all her father was a well-known federal conservative.
So was Jack Layton's
Yes, taxing it has been floating around for a very long time. It is not a Green Party initiative, or idea even, it is just another thing they co-opted to make themselves appear progressive. However, the reality is, Canadian provinces are not like US states, they do not have the autonomy do such a thing.
In order for it to become taxable, it would have to be legalized federally, not just decriminalized, then introduced into federal food and drug, agricultural and industry, laws, as an commercial product, and then other laws and regulations would have to constructed around its growth and distribution by way of evironmental standards, potency contents, chemical content, and where it would be marketed, etc. A huge amount of money would have to be spent creating the whole system beyond what I have noted, as people will have to be certified in all aspects of marijuana growth in order to over see it, as such training and certification programs would have to be developed, and teachers found to teach certification. All this is no small fete and it is disengenuous to depict it as easy peasy and cost effective.
As such, it would be a while before any real gains were made making it profitable, as a net taxation gain. And the reaity is, it just isn't going to happen when governments are running a deficit and the economy is in a state of collapse.
Also, would have to happen first is that the large growers/producers/distributors would have to be recognized, as the legal producer/distributors, just like was done with alcohol. Moreover, private growing in any amounts would then be out of the question, just like growing tobacco privately is. It would be a while before, "U Grow It" industries, would become available, as that would require another level of bureacracy.
And really what you are talking about here is *gasp* economic growth. It would certainly be 'green' though. ;)
"Seat counts unchanged."
Kinda hard to do that given that there are 6 more seats due to more seats being added.
There are now 85 single member seats.
Want to give it another go.
Sorry - should have been proportions.
Libs: 49 Seats
NDP: 36 Seats
Liberal 48
NDP 37
In the last Manitoba election only 3 seats changed hands. It wouldn't surprise me if something like that occurred here (although the riding redistribution messes things up a bit).
It would be interesting to see (though I hope it doesn't occur) the political ramifications if the Vancouver Canucks lose on monday, one day before the election. I understand an unhappy electorate is usually bad news for the incumbent party.
This has some truth to it. The defeat of the Labour Party in the 1970 UK general election has been blamed, in part(and by sources inside and outside Labour circles)on the England team's failure to retain the World Cup right before polling day.
Update on Milton's election prediction site
Lib 41
NDP 37
TCTC 7
One of the undecided is Delta South but he has put Prince George Valemount in the Liberal camp - he also has them winning Saanich North but losing Comox
Some interesting predictions there. They are showing some NDP gains on the Island (Comox Valley and Cowichan Valley - a new seat), four gains in the interior (Kootenay East, Kamloops-North Thompson, Stikine, Boundary-Similkameen) and one in the Vancouver suburbs (Maple Ridge-Mission). However, they are showing NDP losses in Vancouver (Fairview, False Creek) and Surrey-Panorama Ridge. Three NDP incumbent seats in suburban Vancouver are too close to call (Delta North, Surrey-Fleetwood, Coquitlam-Maillardville) and three Burnaby seats the NDP desperately needs to win are also too close to call.
This would generally seem to mirror the polling results which shows the NDP making major gains in the interior but slipping in the Lower Mainland.
TCTC 7
All those seven are in the Vancouver suburbs and three seats have NDP incumbents.
Thorne, Gentner and Brar.
As well, the Burnaby North seat would have gone NDP in 2005.
Seems like he sees the possibility of a razor thin Liberal majority.
So what would a one or two seat majority (for either party) be like in BC? Have we ever had something like that before?
I think it will be electric.
However, I suspect Milton Chan is a bit off on his picks.
Sorry, BD, but that is not what the record implies. First, Harper is going through the motions. Secondly, Gordo has already taken measures to meet the crisis by cutting and not stimulating. In BC, the "Bennett solution", eliminating workers and destroying progress is already in the works.
It is only a "socialist" agenda if socialism is understood to be for those who have and who control. Cut taxes, eliminate programmes, cut payroll is his answer to the problem (with a tiny bit of deficit to do so on the side).
We as people and the workers sho produce the wealth should never be conned by the "trinkle down", Friedman economics that are part of the root cause of the crisis.
Yeah, that's why I put socialist in quotes.
Call it what you want, but governments of every stripe will continue intervening more than ever and soon will be dreaming up all kinds of mega projects to get idle hands busy again.
Ghoris - False Creek isn't really a loss as it is a new riding with no incumbent running and has been in the Liberal fold for a week or so.
Also there is no incumbent in Surrey Panorama as the sitting NDP member moved to a safer riding.
I didn't think Delta North would be a problem for the NDP but Campbell had a rally there today so perhaps that does means something is going on.
NDP 44 Libs 41
But I expect the Libs to win the popular vote, therefore a repeat of 1996
I think James has some momentum and I don't think the Libs have any at all. In fact, I wish the campaign had another week to go.
It'll be close, but more likely the other way. Unless the polls are wrong, the no side will suceed in defeating STV, but the question will be whether it gets enough to keep the issue alive. If it gets high 50s again there will be a debate within the NDP whether or not to bring it in, especially if we win the election.
Ghoris - False Creek isn't really a loss as it is a new riding with no incumbent running and has been in the Liberal fold for a week or so.
Also there is no incumbent in Surrey Panorama as the sitting NDP member moved to a safer riding.
I didn't think Delta North would be a problem for the NDP but Campbell had a rally there today so perhaps that does means something is going on.
Fair enough - I treated those as nominal NDP 'losses' because they were carved out of existing ridings with NDP incumbents (being Vancouver-Burrard and Surrey-Panorama Ridge, respectively). Vancouver-False Creek is really more of a new seat, as you point out. Surrey-Panorama is not truly a 'new' seat, but the boundaries have changed significantly. Surrey-Fleetwood (where Brar moved) is really the 'new' riding in Surrey, being carved largely out of Surrey-Tynehead with bits and pieces from Surrey-Green Timbers, Surrey-Newton and Surrey-Cloverdale. Sounds like Brar's in a tough fight there.
I would have thought Gentner was pretty safe in North Delta but I agree it sounds like it's going to be tight.
Heh - great minds think alike. My dad and I were discussing the election this evening (he's in Manitoba so is watching from afar) and I commented that the 'post mortem' in the papers after the election is likely to be that if the campaign had gone on for another week or even a few more days, the NDP probably would have won.
We will be pleasantly surprised election night- the NDP will receive less popular vote- but will win a slight majority- Kamloops, Kootenay East, Vancouver Island, and Prince George will be the nail biters.
POWER TO THE PEOPLE
I wouldn't read too much into the fact that Campbell had a rally in Delta as meaning anything one way or another about the NDP's chances in North Delta - I think the Liberals are more worried about saving "Stonewally" Oppal in Delta South.
Is he the Attorney General of B.C.? The one who can't seem to decide whether or not the RCMP officers involved in the taser death should be investigated?
{double post deleted}
B.C. LIBERAL PARTY 42
NEW DEMOCRATS 42
INDEPENDENT 1
It would be interesting to see (though I hope it doesn't occur) the political ramifications if the Vancouver Canucks lose on monday, one day before the election. I understand an unhappy electorate is usually bad news for the incumbent party.
I'm curious - what's the reason that the election is on a Tuesday, and not a Monday?
Different provinces have election day on different days. In ontario, provincial elections are always on a Thursday.
So they don't have to worry about it falling on the Victoria Day Monday and having to move it?
It's in the original legislation setting the fixed election date but I don't have it handy.
Record turnouts for advance polling and voter registration are very significant, and i would say have those who support the BC Liberals spinning on their "axis".
Does advance polling not usually favour those ahead in the polls at the time? (eg. in this case Campbell's Liberals)
Although, as was the case with the Obama movement in the United States last year, being able to register new voters and get them to vote can mean that a challenger is being successful in going up against the status quo of the incumbent.
Keep in mind that the rules for voting in the advance poll were changed and there also was one additional day.
Previously you were only suppose to vote at the advance poll if you were working on the elections, were going to be out of your riding on election day - now the advance poll is opened to anyone - having spend three days scrutineering at the advance poll in Vancouver False Creek many people were happy to have that choice and not have to rush to the polls on election day - interestingly - there were two advance polls in my riding - one at the Roundhouse and the other at Science World - on Day One we had over 600 while Science World had only a little over 100 - don't have the final figures for each poll.
Elections BC has been pushing voting at the Advance Poll as part of there strategy of getting the % up to around 62%.
There should also be an increase in the number of registered voters as there are more people living in the province and the rules for registering were simplified - we had a case where a youthful voter living in shelters and on the street appear at our station and wanted to vote - because he didn't have a fixed address and no acceptable ID - we referred him to a nearby shelter that he has stayed at and to our pleasant surprise he returned a little while later with the special form used for such individuals - he was signed up and given a ballot and was happy that he was able to vote.
As of Thursday morning we were the only polling location to have used one of these registration forms.
If you remember back to the US election in some of the states the advance or mail in voting was the way to go and there wasn't a lot of votes to be counted on the actual election day.
So until we see what the turnout is like tomorrow it is to early to tell if it will be a large turnout or not + the weather may be wet here in the Lower Mainland tomorrow.
In 2005 the Liberals took there vote for granted - this time they seem to be a lot more serious about getting there supporters out.
i bet it's 42-42-1, which the liberals getting a plurality of the vote. by most accounts, this looks set to be the closest bc election since i've been aware of politics. really neat.
if the ndp wins kamloops-north thompson early on, it'll probably mean government. if it takes while, the liberals should squeak it out. and if knt is lost, the liberals probably have an advantage from 7-15 seats.
Liberals-50; NDP-35.
Can continue here
And no way in hell caissa. ;)
I hope I'm wrong. My rule is to always vote for the bad guys to do better than I expect. Then I am pleasantly surprise, remind.
I predict 57 seats for the Liberals, 27 for the NDP , 1 independent (Delta South) and 0 for the Greens. I do think the Greens will take enough votes in some ridings to prevent the NDP from winning them.
I also think STV will fail.
Does anything register with voters though?
Rise in post secondary, highest child poverty wage, lowest minimum wage, 400 million over run of convention centre, a convicted criminal drunk driver for Premier (some example he is setting) court houses closed, cuts to legal aid, closed jails, increased homelessness etc etc
To me the NDP should be up 10-20 points over El Gordo with all the shenanagens but they are not and I would wager that has a lot to do with who is leading the NDP in this province..
I already voted for the NDP and 'no' to the STV.
One thing to keep in mind is that in the end elections are first and foremost a referendum on the incumbent government. If polls were all saying that 60% of British Columbians strongly disapproved of the Campbell government and only 30% approved and yet, the BC Liberal were leading the NDP by a significant margin - then I would agree that there is a problem with the opposition that is preventing them form winning. But in every poll I've seen, the Campbell government has about a 50% approval/satisfaction rating. I realize that if you travel is progressive NDP/union/green/social advocacy circles it might boggle your mind to realize that about half of people in BC actually LIKE Campbell (I wish that wasn't the case, but what can you do). You can have the greatest leader in the world and running a brilliant campaign, but if most people just don't feel that its "time for a change" then there is not much you can do.
battleground seats projection
island: NDP will win all seats they currently hold except North Island plus will pickup Comox and the new seat.
vancouver: NDP pickups Fraserview, holds Fairview and loses False Creek
Lower mainland: NDP holds all seats they curently have plus win Burnaby Deer Lake, Burnaby lougheed, other mission seat, will lose panorama ridge in surrey, will win fleetwood, tynehead, will lose burnaby north. Delta south will go independent.
interior; will hold all seats + pickup stikine, kootenay east, boundarysimalkameen, possibly kamloops seat.
Projection is NDP 43- liberals 41- independent 1 if Kamloops seat goes to NDP otherwise 42-42-1
STV will fail below 50%.
popular vote: NDP (42%) liberal (45%), green (8%), conservatives (4%), others (1%)
Elections are first and foremost a means to justify the current political and economic system. Those who can pay for it, drown the public space with their message. And not just during "elections". What a lot of myopic animal droppings, Stockholm.
Furthermore, there's always something people can do, if they're not limited by parliamentary cretinism. This message of yours is one of political capitulation - a message that serves the governing parties, whatever their political stripe, just fine - and could lead politically unsophisticated people ... not to bother to vote at all. Which is also just fine for governing parties.
"Elections are first and foremost a means to justify the current political and economic system."
So, in other words, when free elections don't give you the results you want - your response is to sulk and claim that elections are for the birds and that the only solution is to seize power at the end of the barrel of a gun?
prediction:
ndp: 44 seats
liberal: 38 seats
independent: 1 seat
conservatives: 2 seats
green: 0 seats
stv: yes 62%
- campbell loses to mel lehan
Okay we need a new prediction thread then if people are not going to continue their predictions in the BC election discussion thread, as this one is getting way too long for dial up.
Continued here