Your prediction on the BC Election May 12, 2009

ghoris wrote:

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.

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.

Rewind,

I see you changed your sub-title to "is now undecided re STV"  had a change of heart?

AT

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.

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.

Frank_ wrote:

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.

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.

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.

ghoris wrote:

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

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.

canuquetoo wrote:

. . . unless the NDP plan to tax BC's largest industry: Marijuana.

The recession made me do it. Interesting. Might even Gordon Campbell surprise us all and do that too?

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?

"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.

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.

melovesproles wrote:

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.

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. ;)

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

B.C. LIBERAL PARTY 42

NEW DEMOCRATS 42

INDEPENDENT 1

Different provinces have election day on different days. In ontario, provincial elections are always on a Thursday.

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".