Two polls in two days, with more to come. I thought it might be time for a BC polling thread.
March 24. Ipsoid Reid. 800 polled.
BCL: 46%
NDP: 35%
GRN: 15%
http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=4320
Today Angus Reid released their poll of 800 people. You'll notice they include the BC Conservatives.
BCL: 43%
NDP: 37%
GRN: 13%
BCC: 4%
I could see the Cons getting that much and the BC Libs will have less support than last time. As those polls suggest, the NDP will probably drop 4-6% from last election with the Greens getting a nice bump. Its going to be a sad result but thats what happens when you have an opposition that cares more about CanWest editorials than its own natural base. Hopefully, something good comes out of it, (STV would be great but the antidemocratic threshhold is pretty steep)either the NDP finally wakes up or the Greens become a credible progressive alternative.
When it comes to the so-called Greens - take what the pre-campaign polls say and then divide by half and that is what they will get. if their leader running in a byelection in October right spalt in the middle of the granola belt of Vancouver - was only a ble to get 7% of the vote that speaks volumes.
The Green leader is still an unknown to voters. She could fizzle, or she could come out of nowhere to contention. Stranger things have happened in BC. The public is starting to get in a volatile mood with the worries over the economy and Olympic debt.
If an election were held today, roughly ten seats would switch from NDP to Liberal.
Mebe, I've met a lot of people who plan to become first time Green voters lately though and the BC NDP is on a roll punishing their candidates for saying the word 'Zionist', doesn't exactly look like momentum to me.
Do you seriously think that 99.999% of BC voters know or care about what "Zionism" is?? Talk about a tempest in a tea pot. Maybe someone should ask the green leader if she has a policy on zionism as well?
Getting back to the polls - on the bright side - the trend line is looking good, the Mustel poll conducted in early February had the BC Liberals 16 points ahead, the Ipsos poll conducted in early March sliced that to an 11 point lead and now the ARG poll done just in the last couple of days has it down to a 6 point lead with the NDP actually ahead by 1 point among those who are likeliest to vote. So hold on to your hats.
From what I've been reading from a distance, the BC Rail-Patrick Kinsella-Basi-Virk issue could be the real wild card for the BC Libs, and not in a good way.
Although I'm all for fixed election dates, you can really see why they can be risky for governing parties, when freak storms can gust up from simmering issues at just the wrong time!
We do tend to downplay the bad polls and play-up the good ones. But a six point difference does not seem that unsurmountable, given the current economic situation, assuming the BC NDP can give people something positive to vote for.
Do you seriously think that 99.999% of BC voters know or care about what "Zionism" is?
No, of course not, but I think they do notice when a party is easily bullied, even if they don't understand what they're being bullied about. There's some hard times coming down the pike and any party that can't seem to take a little heat is not going to look too attractive to the electorate. As time goes on, the BC NDP just looks more and more like a pushover. In the last election, I think a moderate stance was the proper one to take, and the party came very close to winning with it. If they'd been just a bit more aggressive about disrupting the Liberal's prosperity message, we'd have an NDP government right now. But that was then. The BC NDP needs to build itself a backbone and start kicking some ass. It's the only way we have a hope in hell of winning in May.
The Green leader is still an unknown to voters. She could fizzle, or she could come out of nowhere to contention. Stranger things have happened in BC. The public is starting to get in a volatile mood with the worries over the economy and Olympic debt.If an election were held today, roughly ten seats would switch from NDP to Liberal.
If the public is worried about the economy and the olympic debt it makes no sense that the NDP would lose 10 seats.
"The Green leader is still an unknown to voters. She could fizzle, or she could come out of nowhere to contention."
By all accounts she is a much weaker leader than Adriane Carr and she was was pretty dreadful to begin with. In any case, people don't vote Green for the leader, they vote for the vague international brand "green". In the last Ontario election they got 8% of the vote with a totally unknown leader who got zero media coverage. Under the tediously over-promoted Elizabeth May, the federal greens got the same % in Ontario.
I totally agree with Jacob Two-Two, the NDP should be worried about the fact that after two terms of rule by a complete rightwing ideologue, people are slumbering into giving them another term. I think its because a lot of people who voted NDP last time feel like they didn't get their money's worth from the party in opposition and figure that the NDP isn't able to shift the debate in a progressive direction so are looking elsewhere.
From what I've been reading from a distance, the BC Rail-Patrick Kinsella-Basi-Virk issue could be the real wild card for the BC Libs, and not in a good way.
Sure, its on page five and six for the wonks but I'm not seeing alot of real public outrage or even interest. People want to hear what the NDP would actually do in power, so far apart from killing electoral reform, pandering to Province readers on crime and punishment, and enforcing CanWest's editorial bias on foreign policy upon its candidates, I'm not sure what that is.
Obama obviously has a lot of faults but he was able to pick a few strong progressive positions and rally the base, James seems to be going the Kerry route of letting the right totally dictate the terms of debate. I'm glad Stockholm is excited about the NDP polling four to six percent behind where they were last election with the clock ticking but really its inexcusably pathetic.
If the public is worried about the economy and the olympic debt it makes no sense that the NDP would lose 10 seats.
Yes it does, because the great majority of voters believe that the Liberals are the best economic managers. And that's because they think that BC's apparent prosperity over the past 8 years was due to Gordo's leadership, rather than a giant RE and consumer spending bubble. And that's because the NDP has failed to demontrate this to the voters.
I'm not sure how you "demonstrate" to people that the economy is terrible when for most people up until a couple of months ago it wasn't. And, to the extent that there is an economic crisis in BC - it is no worse than what people see happening in Ontario or in all of the US and in the rest of the world for that matter. Do you seriously think that people are suddenly going to think that BC has the worst economy in Canada and that the entire global recession is all Gordon's Campbell's fault - just because Carol James gives a few speeches saying - "there is a recession in BC and its all because of Campbell"?
"the NDP should be worried about the fact that after two terms of rule by a complete rightwing ideologue, people are slumbering into giving them another term."
It wouldn't be the first time. In 1983, Bill Bennett who was the ultra rightwing ideologue of that era was running for a third term. The NDP had come very close to beating him in 1979 under Dave Barrett and by 1983 BC was being very hard hit by a recession and Barrett ran a lively economically populist campaign from one end of the province to the other talking about nothing but economic "bread and butter" issues - and rightwing idelogue Bennett won a third term and increased his majority - so go figure.
" Barrett ran a lively economically populist campaign "
Well, yeah. That's just it. What is there about the current provincial party that is either lively or populist?
Barrett also kept running these "lively, economically populist campaigns" and he lost three straight elections - including the one in 1983 which should have been a slam dunk.
After 1979's ohhhhh so close election with the NDP's 46% high water mark, Barrett further repositioned himself to the centre by wearing blue pin stripe suits and declaring himself as a "fiscal conservative", which received alot of media attention.
A good strategic move for the NDP to move to the centre in order to catch some more of the middle ground from the Socreds.
In late 1981, BC's economy fell off a precipace... 20% interest rates and skyrocketing unemployment reaching well into the double digit levels. Foreclosures, business shutdowns were the norm everywhere thereafter.
1 and 1/2 years later heading into the May 5, 1983 election, the NDP was well ahead in the polls and the Socreds were looking at a dog's breakfast for a political outcome at the outset of the campaign.
Barrett was focusing upon Keynesian economics to stimulate the economy.
It was a slam dunk election for the NDP.
Then Barrett made a fatal strategic error a couple of weeks later. While on a radio talk show in Cranbrook, Barrett stated that he would get rid of the 5% and 6% wage hike limits for the public service in response to a caller to the talk show.
BCTV also had a new mobile news van with a satellite dish in Cranbrook and had John Daley reporting back LIVE as the first story on the evening 6 o'clock news. I will never forget that moment.
All Barrett had to do was remain noncomittal and say that "we may review it" under the existing mini-depression economic environment. Instead Barrett said he would "scrap it".
Biggest fatal strategic political blunder I have ever seen scaring away some of the middle electorate. Thereafter, momentum shifted dramatically with the Socreds and media hounding Barrett on the issue.
The NDP lost seats in the 1983 election as a result.
After 1983, the Socreds then began their deep government cost-cutting resulting in Operation Solidarity/Solidarity Coalition and the rest is history.
So, in other words Barrett lost the election because he unwisely played too much to his base and threw them some red meat and it turned off the critical swing voters in the middle. (though it seems strange that so many people would change their vote at the thought of not putting a set cap on wages for public service employees - seems kinda trivial to me). I guess this is a cautionary tale for people who think that all Carol James has to do is give some soapbox 60s style socialist fire and brimstone speeches and she will be home free.
My usual rule of thumb is that if an NDP politician is saying all the things that most people on babble like to hear - it is probably turning off about 85% of the electorate.
To me whether you have a "cap" or not - wages for the public sector are something that is negotiated. Right now there is no official "cap" at all on salaries in the public service - but I can assure that no one is going to get anywhere near a 5% raise this year.
To me whether you have a "cap" or not - wages for the public sector are something that is negotiated. Right now there is no official "cap" at all on salaries in the public service - but I can assure that no one is going to get anywhere near a 5% raise this year.
I assume you are talking provincial civil service (since this is a BC thread) and not federal, where there certainly is a legislated wage cap, that was in the budget.
though it seems strange that so many people would change their vote at the thought of not putting a set cap on wages for public service employees - seems kinda trivial to me.
Remember that was an era of COLA (cost of living allowance) clauses in union contracts. People today would think one is talking about Coca-Cola.
Even private sector unions back then were willing to see wage reductions in order to see jobs preserved.
Put it into this context: People were losing their homes enmasse, losing their jobs enmasse, and also seeing large reductions in wages/salary at the time.
Today is a piece of cake in BC compared to that era. It was brutal back then.
Now, in that context, look at how the electorate/taxpayer would view the public service being capped at 5% and 6% wage increases compared to everyone else losing their jobs and seeing wage reductions.
Barrett was obviously feeding some "meat" to the BC Fed, since BC Fed head (a hothead) Jim Kinnaird was lambasting those public sector wage caps.
That's how one should view same looking back in time at that era... "with those lenses".
"Today is a piece of cake in BC compared to that era. It was brutal back then."
Give it a couple of years. The 80s will look like the good ol' days.
Barrett just misunderstood the mindset of many private sector workers in hard times. If the public sector workers keep getting ahead with wage increases, it hurts for those who may not have a job at all (or face pay cuts). Its more emotional than ideological.
I think the NDP could do well with a populist left platform that didn't seem to favour its political allies. The way I see it, they are heading to a crushing defeat the way things are, so why not take some risks. For instance, a focused campaign against poverty and homelessness. It has reached such extreme levels in BC, that it will strike a chord.
I'm not sure how you "demonstrate" to people that the economy is terrible when for most people up until a couple of months ago it wasn't.
You point out:
- the continuing deindustrialization of BC.
- the continuing loss of head offices
- the fact that all job growth in BC has been tied to the real estate bubble, and that the government ought to take measures to stop the bubble.
- the -8% savings rate.
In other words, you point out that the BC economy is just a house of cards like the US, and will collapse for the same reasons.
The NDP should have been pointing this out for years. Then our stand would have been proven right by the economic crisis, and Gordo's strategy proven wrong. It's far too late now - it would just look like opportunism.
A year ago if the NDP had spent all its time on that stuff you would have said they were crazy and that the only issue that mattered was the environment. I don't think people were ready to hear a "we're going to hell in a handbasket" message a year ago when things "seemed" to be booming. I think that - whether rightly or wrongly - the current economic crisis is widely regarded as a global crisis and maybe even as a North American crisis - but people don't see BC as doing worse than any other place on the continent - if anything people probably think "thank god we aren't California or Ontario".
I'm not sure what "measures" a provincial government can take to stop a housing "bubble". The one sure fire way to do that would be to significantly raise interest rates - but only the Bank of Canada can do that. I suppose another way would be to say "an NDP provincial government in BC will demand that banks stop issuing mortgages to people who don't have 25% down payments and good credit ratings".
I just read an analysis in the Gold River Record about how costly public private projects are. The real cost is hidden because of tricky accounting. Why isn't the NDP on this?????
I'm glad Stockholm is excited about the NDP polling four to six percent behind where they were last election with the clock ticking but really its inexcusably pathetic.
Stocko boy doesn't have to live here after the election's over, so he can just keep on being a backseat driver butting his nose in where he isn't wanted.
As for me, I feel the Basi-Virk affair could get traction if the NDP hammers on it a hell of a lot more than they have been. This Zionism crap is a red herring that, as Jacob Two-Two points out, makes the NDP look like a bunch of pushovers. Pushovers don't exactly get remembered for strong stances on anything.
One of the reasons why the NDP got visibility in the last federal election was because Jack Layton cleverly took the "Strong Leader" motif Stephen Harper tried to use and inverted it for the NDP's own judo move on the Cons.
We need something similar in BC and the Basi-Virk thing could do it.
All it takes is the NDP drawing a line in the sand and saying "no more pandering to people who have no interest in voting for us anyway, and no more sneaky privatizations".
Basi-Virk is showing that the rot goes right to the top in the BC Liberal government, and just like the Devine Tories in Saskatchewan, it's clear that top BC Liberal officials are, at the very least, tainted by association with people who misused government funds for their own purposes. I mean, my god, are we a banana republic or a real province?
Banana republics have kickbacks, bribes, and influence peddling, not real provinces.
" I guess this is a cautionary tale for people who think that all Carol James has to do is give some soapbox 60s style socialist fire and brimstone speeches and she will be home free. "
But that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm all too aware that the party would shoot itself in the foot by trying to send a message that would appeal to my personal politics. I would never advise they do that. I'm saying they need to be seen to be fighting about something, and not back down at the first sign of trouble. Can you name one issue where this can be said of the provincial party? That they took a fierce stand and faced down the inevitable criticism? I'd like to hear it.
I'm not sure what "measures" a provincial government can take to stop a housing "bubble"
You impose a speculation tax, like they do in Germany. It works.
And by the way, why the quotes - are you the last person on the planet who does not think there is a housing bubble?
there sure isn't a bubble now.
I'm not sure what "measures" a provincial government can take to stop a housing "bubble"You impose a speculation tax, like they do in Germany. It works.
Was that at the national level in Germany? That would be the equivalent of Canada doing that, not British Columbia.
I know this isn't the point of the thread, but anything that lowers demand or raises supply of housing might work to stem a bubble:
1.The B.C government lowering the property tax rebate (that would sideswipe a lot of housing owners)
2.The B.C government selling land to housing developers (that would work rather slowly though).
3.At the municipal level, muni governments can increase density. Of course, that might further raise housing values in areas zoned for single detached housing.
Was that at the national level in Germany? That would be the equivalent of Canada doing that, not British Columbia.
If such a tax is imposd at the national level, it's effecteive at the national level. If imposed at the provincial level, it's effective at the provincial level. What matters is how much tax the speculator pays, not which level of government it's paid to.
Your items 1 and 3 would have some effect, 2 less as the provincial government no longer large enough holdings to make a difference in the market. But measures affecting supply or density work only in the long term and do not prevent price bubbles in the short term. Look at places like Florida which had virtually unlimited supply.
The most effective tool to prevent excessive housing prices is restricting mortgage financing, which Germany also does, but which cannot be implemented at the provincial level.
Of couse the BC housing market is crashing just like the US, and for the same reasons - high prices, oversupply, and the global recession, so such measures are really moot now. But they would prevent a similar debacle in the future.
Was that at the national level in Germany? That would be the equivalent of Canada doing that, not British Columbia.
If such a tax is imposd at the national level, it's effecteive at the national level. If imposed at the provincial level, it's effective at the provincial level. What matters is how much tax the speculator pays, not which level of government it's paid to.
Your items 1 and 3 would have some effect, 2 less as the provincial government no longer large enough holdings to make a difference in the market. But measures affecting supply or density work only in the long term and do not prevent price bubbles in the short term. Look at places like Florida which had virtually unlimited supply.
The most effective tool to prevent excessive housing prices is restricting mortgage financing, which Germany also does, but which cannot be implemented at the provincial level.
Of couse the BC housing market is crashing just like the US, and for the same reasons - high prices, oversupply, and the global recession, so such measures are really moot now. But they would prevent a similar debacle in the future.
1.I meant that if Germany had the bubble in just one region, like if the housing bubble was just in B.C and not in the rest of Canada, could that political region impose a speculation tax? Obviously the British Columbia government can not impose a speculation tax. I realize that in reality the housing bubble occurred throughout much of Canada, and not just in B.C
2.The best method for dealing with asset bubbles is raising the capital gains tax, where applicable. This is, of course, a form of a speculation tax.
While the supply siders and libertarian economists will tell you that the best answer for everything from depression to hangnails is to lower taxes, the lowering of the capital gains tax in the 1990s in the United States was almost certainly the main reason for the bubbles first in tech stocks and then in the housing market in the late 90s and the 00s.
That said, I'm not 100% sure that profits from flipping houses are subject to the capital gains tax in the U.S, I think they are. If they aren't, it wouldn't surprise me if whatever taxes they are subject to were lowered as well.
I agree that longer term effects such as changing density rules probably won't prevent a bubble. They may ease it a little though in some areas while adding to it in areas unaffected by the density changes.
Again, sorry for being off topic.
In regards to the topic, the polls are a little strange.
All we here from the media is that the Liberals are in danger of losing seats in Burnaby, Kamloops and possibly Prince George. Yet, the polls, while they obviously don't show the regional breakdowns (and any regional breakdown would have too large an area rate to be meaningful with the given sample size) suggest that the Liberals have at least as large a lead as they won the last election by (45.8-41.5: 4.3%).
There must be some NDP seats that are in danger of flipping to the Liberals.
Campbell leads on Ecomony, James leads on Ethics
VICTORIA — For many, the outcome of the upcoming provincial election in British Columbia is a forgone conclusion. Premier Gordon Campbell and the Liberals are going to win – yet again. After all, poll after poll puts them ahead of Carole James and the New Democratic Party.But a fresh opinion survey is sending a different message. While it still shows the Liberals ahead, it also reveals that Mr. Campbell is far from universally loved. And that the public finds him wanting in important leadership qualities.
Veteran pollster Angus Reid last weekend asked 800 British Columbians which of the two party leaders they considered most honest and trustworthy. Only 19 per cent said Mr. Campbell, while 41 per cent said Ms. James.
In Mr. Reid's analysis, this becomes important if new questions swirling around Mr. Campbell's involvement in the sale of BC Rail back in 2003 continue throughout the campaign, which kicks off in a couple of weeks.
A court case related to the sale recently heard the suggestion that Patrick Kinsella, a key Liberal strategist and friend of the Premier, was simultaneously working for BC Rail, the Crown corporation selling the rail line, and Canadian National, the successful bidder.
Economy Vs Ethics.
Parties and leaders should play to their strengths.
As long as the economy sits higher in the minds of present day voters, then the BC Liberals hold the edge.
If the Public starts doubting the current government and they believe they can trust the NDP with the economy, then that 6% difference in voter preference may be overcome.
Trust and integrity isn't the only area in which Mr. Campbell is in trouble, Mr. Reid's poll indicates.
The Premier's personal approval rating is horrendous, the pollster said. Fifty-one per cent of those surveyed did not approve of the job he is doing, compared with just 34 per cent who did. Nationally, Mr. Reid said, only Rodney MacDonald of Nova Scotia has worse approval numbers than Mr. Campbell among Canadian premiers.
Ms. James, meantime, doesn't have a lot to cheer about herself on the approval question. Forty-three per cent of those polled disapproved of the job she is doing, compared with 29 per cent who approved.
And what about this number: 54 per cent said it's time for Mr. Campbell to go, compared with just 30 per cent who wanted him to stay.
Mr. Campbell does have some things going for him, however – the economy in particular. Of those surveyed, 43 per cent said Mr. Campbell is best able to manage the economy, compared with only 19 per cent for Ms. James. And what is the most important issue heading into the campaign, according to the Reid poll? The economy, by a country mile.
Looks like with James not being overly like either, and the economy holding the voters interest. That descrepancy of 43% vs 19% indicates that the NDP is viewed with no confidence on economic matters.
That said, I'm not 100% sure that profits from flipping houses are subject to the capital gains tax in the U.S, I think they are. If they aren't, it wouldn't surprise me if whatever taxes they are subject to were lowered as well.
Rules are a bit different in US and Canada. In Canada you don't pay capital gains on a principal residence. In the U.S., if a home has been your principal residence for 24 months out of the last 5 years, you can exclude up to $250,000 of house profits from the gains tax. But on the other hand, mortgage interest is deductible in the U.S. and not in Canada.
I think the deductibility of mortgage interest helped to make the US bubble worse - more people viewed it as "good debt" to be in.
But a fresh opinion survey is sending a different message. While it still shows the Liberals ahead, it also reveals that Mr. Campbell is far from universally loved. And that the public finds him wanting in important leadership qualities.
This is no surprise, Cambell is not well liked in the province and the Liberals will likely bleed votes this time out but it probably won't be enough because the NDP looks set to do the same. The NDP's low rating on the economy is totally predictable as well, a pretty significant portion of my graduating class ended up moving to Alberta last time the party was in power. Not the party's fault in my opinion but that doesn't mean the public perception isn't still negative.
The BCNDP should have been trading on the perception of them as a more ethical and principled party by making proposals which display these qualities, get people talking, and highlight the absence of these qualities in the BC Liberals. A principled position on the STV referendum would have been an easy hit, a progressive populist response to Gordo and Harper's expensive and draconian militarized war on pot agenda would have shown some guts too. The important thing is that the pary reminds people they will fight for something.
I doubt relying purely on a Liberal scandal will be enough, after a very lacklustre term in opposition, people want to hear about the NDP's positive vision and not just about the BC Liberal's corruption which really by this point can't be surprising to anyone. The NDP should have crafted a few progressive and interest generating policies which would appeal to the NDP/Green switch voter (which polls indicate represent most of the movement in intentions from last election, which is interesting if the economy is the number one issue)because right now it looks like this province is going to sleepwalk into another term with Gordo in the captain's chair.
Regardless of who wins, I predict that the so-called greens will be lucky to match the 9% they got last time and will not be much of a factor.
We'll see, maybe you'll be closer with your estimate than you were on the Green's support in the Ontario election. Perhaps you were just too close to the action
The so-called green party in Ontario got 8% of the vote in Oct. 2007 - the BC greens would do well to match that. Let's keep in mind that in Oct. 2007 environmental issues were at their peak - now they have vanished off the face of the earth. Also, the Ontario Greens got some protest votes from Tories who didn't like religious school funding - there is no single issue for the greens in BC to exploit.
But a fresh opinion survey is sending a different message. While it still shows the Liberals ahead, it also reveals that Mr. Campbell is far from universally loved. And that the public finds him wanting in important leadership qualities.
Reminds me of the guy that everyone claimed not to like, yet who always won at election time. He also happens to be Gordo's role model. Why did people vote for him? Why do you think people vote for Gordo?
The NDP had/have a prime chance to capture this election, but already blew it by not getting rid of their weak noodle leader. The NDP will NOT win the election. Guaranteed.
While people hate Gord, many simply fear or do not like the NDP. There is still the perception that the NDP is and was a poor manager of finances, and Gordo, with the help of his media pals, has always used this as his #1 scare tactic. I know quite a few people, especially those that don't follow politics that closely, who that aren't fond of Campbell, but will not vote NDP. Why?
1. Still can't get over the negative perception from years ago. The NDP has done little to progress themselves or present new ideas.
2. Don't know or don't like Carole James.
3. Still think the Libs can manage the economy better. The bad economy seems to be a boon for the Liberals, so they can now claim they, and not the NDP, can weather the storm.
4. Simply don't care. So many apathetic people in this province. It's amazing how much crap people put up with.
5. See the NDP doing dumb things like affirmative action, voting for pay raises alongside the Libs, not protecting the ALR, etc ... simple response 'Sure the Liberals suck, but the NDP certainly don't look much better'
Do you work for the BC Liberal party?
Do you work for the BC Liberal party?
Can I presume that this was a trollish comment?
FYI, I have volunteered for the NDP in the past and probably will in this election (one particular candidate).
Just because one criticizes the NDP doesn't make them a Liberal sympathizer. The failure of NDPers to see the failings of their own party is why they will fail. I'm merely pointing out the reasons why many will not vote for the NDP despite being less than enamoured with Gordo and his minions.
I'm all for constructive ideas, but I guess i get suspicious of people who join babble for the first time weeks before the BC election and just post ad hominem insults at the leader and repeat rightwing talking points about the NDP and make it sound like no matter what the NDP does - it will ALWAYS be hopeless because people will NEVER trust the NDP to run the economy.
If that's the case, what do you suggest? Dissolve the party and stop contesting elections because every election will inevitably be unwinnable??
As for Carol James. She took a job no one else wanted after the party was annhilated in 2001. She took the party from 2 seats to 34 seats and to a higher percentaage of the popular vote than even Harcourt or Clark ever got. If things go badly in this election (and i still think the BC NDP has a good chance of winning) the time for recriminations will be AFTER the election. But I've never heard of any party ditching a leader after one election where they far exceeded expectations. Its out of the question.
Well, I don't have time to write an essay for you. Sorry :)
If you know about leadership types, then you know that a Transformational leader to get the NDP over the hump. Yes, the NDP has a negative perception about the party that needs to be overcome in the minds of many.
I see James as a transactional leader who has done a solid job of weathering the storm, but not the type of leader who connects well with the majority nor can inspire them to switch sides. Since James has little charisma, she needs another hook.
Some quick and dirty ideas
1. Pick a position and stick with it! James has flip-flopped on many issues: Salaries for MLAs, Port Mann, ALR. I'm especially miffed about this, since the NDP is supposed to be fighting for what is 'good for the people'.
2. Be stronger, period! James cannot afford to play nice, especially against an opponent like Campbell. The NDP is being bullied, and needs to fight back even harder. James seems particularly prone to being pushed around by the media, and even her own party. This was no more apparent than during his backtracking on the MLA salary/pension issue.
3. "Axe the Gas Tax" - Make this an election issue. People are paying needlessly for something that actually reduce gas use.The NDP could easily just say "we know this is a simple cash grab, so we'd remove it."
I like what Jacob Two-Two said above, too. The NDP needs to have a real identity other than "Gordo is a big fat poopyhead". What my middle-of-the-road friends want to know is, "Why should I vote for the NDP? What will they do to improve BC?"
"I'm saying they need to be seen to be fighting about something, and not back down at the first sign of trouble. Can you name one issue where this can be said of the provincial party? That they took a fierce stand and faced down the inevitable criticism? I'd like to hear it."
well to address you 3rd point first. I don't know what you're complaining about. Its seems like most of what I hear from the BCNDP is "axe the carbon tax" - to the extent that it has some of the NDP base in the "Granola belt" up in arms!
I don't know enough about the details of the pensions issue or the Port Mann Bridge - though with regard to the ALR, it gets to be a very touchy issue when you have a negotiated land claim treaty with First Nations vs. a few local pressure groups who don't want any development on the land and all of a sudden you can't be all things to all people.
I'm usually the last person to start screaming "sexist" everytime a woman is criticized for anything, but in the case of Carol James I really have to wonder. Over and over again people say "she's too nice", "she doesn't go for the jugular and is 'weak'". I can't help but think that if she had a penis instead of a vagina - we would hear far less of those kinds of criticisms...instead we would hear about her being an Obama-like post-partisan and all her character traits would be cast in positive terms.
You wouldn't hear less of them from me, but then it's the party as a whole I'm criticising, not James particularly. She actually has a nice moderate way about her, and people clearly like it, but that alone won't win the election.
The party is playing this all wrong. Faced with the NDP/Liberal = ethics/economy divide, they want to run with the ethics angle and completely cede the economy territory. This might work in some circumstances, but it didn't work last election when things were much better and it definitely won't work now that the global economy is in freefall. The economy is all anyone will be thinking about and letting it go as an issue is the same as throwing the election away. I know this is an uphill battle for the NDP. I know as soon as they start trading punches on this they are going to take a lot of hits, but standing there and taking it is not a viable option.
Have you seen the latest Liberal ads? They talk about taking BC from the worst economy in the country to one of the best. This is a blatant lie but if nobody in the party shows the balls to stand up and say so to the electorate then the election is as good as finished. Sometimes when a battle is hard you can choose a better one and go around it, but sometimes when a battle is hard you have to grit your teeth and slug it out because people aren't going to let you switch to another playing field. This is definitely one of those times. This is the issue that this election will be won or lost on, and the NDP has to get in there and play to win it. If they had faced this head-on last election, they still might have lost (personally I think they would have won) but they would have at least laid some ground work to keep fighting it now.
Campbell's message of economic supremacy has been unchallenged for eight years because the party kept wanting to fight battles that were more favourable to them. meanwhile the public's trust in this crucial matter just keeps slipping further and further away. The time to stop this is now. Take it on the chin and tell people plainly that Campbell has mismanaged this economy by selling the farm, greasing rich palms and taering down the social safety net that is so desperately needed in these hard times. Yes, it opens us up to attack. Take the attack and come back swinging. Show people that this party is not a pushover and has a plan to weather this storm and is willing to fight to implement this plan. Demonstrating that campbell is corrupt is not sufficient to win this. There has been no end of evidence to this effect for years and anyone who cares about it is already convinced.
Agreed with Golbez and Jacob Two-two.
This should be the BCNDP campaign theme:
"There was a party...you weren't invited...but you'll get the bill."
This appeals to both the NDP low-income base and the disaffected middle class at the same time. I think it reflects where the public mood is heading right now.
Well, considering the price of oil is at $40-some US a barrel and gas prices are still at a buck a liter I'd say the NDP has a sure-fire win if they promise to drop the carbon tax and if it can be translated into ~75 cents a liter gasoline post-election.
I think that the NDP can win on the economy if the question is framed the right way. If the question is "who do you think is most competent to MANAGE the economy?" then rightly or wrongly - people will probably say the Liberals. If on the other hand the question is "who will be most likely to protect you and your family during an economic downturn?" all of a sudden the NDP does much better.
Also, the Ontario Greens got some protest votes from Tories who didn't like religious school funding - there is no single issue for the greens in BC to exploit.
Single issues for the B.C Greens to exploit:
1.Electoral reform (likely a very minor issue)
2.New Democrats who support the carbon tax and dissaprove of the NDP's shameless grandstanding against it. (possibly a moderately big issue on Southern Vancouver Island)
3.Other environmental issues over the NDP flip flopping on the Port Mann bridge and other such things. Could hurt the NDP in parts of the lower mainland.
4.The big one: drug legalization/decriminalization. The Green Party has taken a clear stand on this issue while Carole James and the NDP has typically flip flopped and been afraid to say anything.
The B.C Marijuana Party got 3.22% of the vote in 2001.
Carole James of the BC NDP has stated in the media that she is opposed to marijuana legalization, most recently herehttp://www.news1130.com/news/local/more.jsp?content=20090220_144947_1572
This failure on James' part to abide by even her own party policy is disgraceful, and exactly why we are working with the Green Party on the BC Election, May 12 2009!
http://bcmarijuanaparty.com/v2/node/48
I am not affiliated with either the Green Party (federal or provincial) or the Marijuana Party (federal or provincial), so don't accuse me of trolling.
This issue cuts across ideological boundaries as it matters to both Von Mises Libertarians and granola crunching 'socialists'.
All the NDP need to say is that they will abandon the 11% hydro increase coming this year and the increase in ferry fairs. Plus the carbon tax.
