Polling in Canada is garbage. But it's too delicious for the partisans to ignore. It's getting to the point that partisans would promote a "blog psychic" if one of them said they were in the lead.
haha.
I guess BC needs all the jobs it can get now though...
We also have to realize that those of us in greater Vancouver live in a bubble of sorts and that at the end of the day, BC is a fairly right wing province. We have a large urban centre in the lower mainland that is relatively liberal, mostly centre-left to centre-right. We have a mostly progressive island. And then we have the rest of the province, most of which is rednecks, cowboys, and religious social conservatives, with a sprinkling of more liberal types here and there (Nelson and Grand Forks come to mind). As Derrick said in one of his posts, there are dozens of ridings in BC where a pylon running under the "Not NDP" banner could get elected.
I think you have hit the nail on the head here. I've heard it said in the American context that while conservatives are guilty of the sin of not learning about other countries, liberals are guilty of not knowing enough about their own. I remember reading one article in 2004 about an anarchist who went undercover to a Republican area just to see what these people were thinking. Lo and behold, to the surprise of liberals, he found that they were not horrible people, they just had their own reasons for supporting Republicans. I don't know if part of it comes from living in a relatively progressive community and people can't see that other communities don't look like that, and that you need to actively engage people and win them over. But that is hard work. Much easier to remain in your own bubble and criticize people who don't vote your way.
Besides, if the NDP can win in remote costal ridings like Stikine or Skeena, there's no reason demographically why it can't win in areas like Prince George, Kamloops, or other places in the Interior.
Thank you, 6079. I am really bummed about this and felt complicit. Everybody said the NDP were a sure thing in my riding (Victoria - Beacon Hill) so I felt free to vote Green.
Your vote did not change the election result. Carole James won for the NDP and your Green candidate/leader came in second and the Liberal came in third with only 17% of the vote. As it turns out the NDP were a sure thing in your riding.
I live in one of the few good news ridings in the province. Jane Shin won last night. In Burnaby the NDP won three out of the four ridings. The MLA's are a very diverse bunch and that is also a good thing for democracy. Jane Shin, NDP, Raj Chouhan NDP, Kathy Corrigan NDP, Richard T. Lee, Liberals are our MLA's with one from each of the four largest ethnicities in our city.
Burnaby-Lougheed
Darwin Augustus Ivan Burns Green Party of BC 1,496 - 8.49%
Christine N. Clarke 1,445 - 8.20%
Ken Kramer BC Liberal Party 7,083 - 40.18%
Jane Shin BC NDP 7,606 - 43.14%
129 of 129 ballot boxes reported 17,630 100%
@ Wilf.
Yes, but they didn't get the required supermajority in '05, and they were even further away in '09.
And I think we got a lesson last night that there is only one poll (or survey) which matters. People can think however they want, but unless they act it doesn't mean a thing.
I will be very glad to move back to the Island where the NDP won most of the seats even with the Greens doing better there than anywhere in the province. The NDP is going to have an even worse time of it in the next election because Weaver is going to be the best leader the BC Greens have ever had. The MSM will give him lots of coverage and his party will likely double its vote next election.
If only there was a left wing party that spoke to poverty and youth issues in this province at least then when they lost they would have lost fighting the good fight while talking about the real issues. The NDP's campaign was basically trust us we will only take baby steps and we will not talk about the overall economic system and how it is screwing most people and destroying the planet at the same time. Incremental change is no change at all for someone who is living in poverty or who understands climate change.
Maybe its time for a Quebec Solidaire type of Eco-socialist alternative in this province since the tired old NDP is not gaining supporters and is incapable of forming government as a liberal lite party.
The only good news is that Christy Clark reminds me of Vander Zalm and he destroyed the BC Socreds.
Note that the airhead with the big smile won the election against a serious and nice policy wonk.
But this is a complete disaster. There is no reason why this should have happened, which leads me to believe that the reason it happened is because the pollsters did a bad job. It might not be their fault exactly. Perhaps it is no longer possible to consistently and repeatedly build a sample that is reflective of the population. Can online panels be reliably effective when they aren't national? Work will have to be done to determine why this is happening and how it can be avoided.
http://www.threehundredeight.com/2013/05/polling-industry-dealt-major-bl...
Surely the more competitive parties there are, the greater the chance for error. But that all the pollsters got it wrong means that it can't be chalked up to relatively new methodolgies, such as online and IVR. The problem is likely the screen to determine who will vote and who will not. As well as who will stick with the third and fourth parties when push comes to shove. Perhaps paying closer attention, and giving greater inclusion, to the undecided and "leaning" voters, will be the cure.
Getting back to the question of leadership, is it a simple matter of replacing Dix? Remember that Carole James was dumped for not being able to win in 2009, and Dix himself showed promise in the early days. What kind of structural problems does the BC NDP need to look at? The danger is that the party chooses a new leader, thinks everything is all right, and overlooks the major problems.
Incremental change is no change at all for someone who is living in poverty or who understands climate change.
Yup.
Getting back to the question of leadership, is it a simple matter of replacing Dix? Remember that Carole James was dumped for not being able to win in 2009, and Dix himself showed promise in the early days. What kind of structural problems does the BC NDP need to look at? The danger is that the party chooses a new leader, thinks everything is all right, and overlooks the major problems.
The problem is that the NDP has been fighting to win the middle class vote for two decades and it doesn't win elections for them. The BC party is tightly controlled from the central office and is not in any sense a grassroots organization. To win they need to recreate themselves into a party fighting for the marginalized and against the corporate bosses. That will not cost them their traditional base and it could get them the extra 10% they need from amongst the youth and poor who currently don't see any party addressing their issues.
Jenny Kwan would be a good leader especially if she ran on a distinctly left wing progressive platform that is designed to appeal to people who don't vote. The party must morph into an eco-socialist party if it hopes to gain power. That begins with a renewal at the top.
Lets face it the 1990's shit stuck because Glen Clark's right hand man was the Leader and Moe Sihota was the President. Moe especially is rightly seen as a back room operator with no ethics. Until those people are sent to the sidelines the party will never change.
Getting back to the question of leadership, is it a simple matter of replacing Dix? Remember that Carole James was dumped for not being able to win in 2009, and Dix himself showed promise in the early days. What kind of structural problems does the BC NDP need to look at? The danger is that the party chooses a new leader, thinks everything is all right, and overlooks the major problems.
James had two tries. Dix has only had one. I believe in giving people a second chance, although I'm not wedded to the idea that Dix must stay on as leader. That being said, I'd agree that leadership in itself isn't the only problem and it's far more important to look at everything else.
I am legitimatley surprised that people, who aren't the usual suspects, would complain about how terrible this government is, note its incompotence and then go and re-elect it because they're afraid of the 90s or something (the 90s seem pretty great compared to the present day, environmentally, socially, economically and administrativley). But go figure, cognative dissonance isn't a reason to disqualify someone's vote.
BC Libs call themselves the 'free enterprise coalition' as opposed to NDP being anti 'free enterprise'. To the average voter the idea of 'free enterprise' is appealing. I have talked to people who vote for the BC Libs just because they represent free enterprise but when asked what it means to them or how the NDP is anti free enterprise they dont have an answer. They believe it because the media repeats it over and over and since it has the word 'free' in it, it must be a good thing. This thing hurts NDP most in the working class suburbs. NDP has to somehow redefine themselves in the face of this. The middle class in the race to get rich thinks that NDP somehow stands between them and the promised land and the irony os that NDP is as much a 'free enterprise' party as their opponents. People on the left complian that NDP is moving to the right and the 'free enterprisers' think that NDP is against them, leaving the party neither here nor there.
It is interesting to read people blaming the Greens for the vote split on the left. But Greens are constantly attacked for being a right wing party around these parts. How can a right wing party be splitting the votes on the left? Shouldnt they be taking votes from the 'free enterprise coalition' if they are right wing? or maybe greens are not as right wing as we think they are and have a lot in common with the NDP hence the vote split.
And also negative campaign works.
We also have to realize that those of us in greater Vancouver live in a bubble of sorts and that at the end of the day, BC is a fairly right wing province. We have a large urban centre in the lower mainland that is relatively liberal, mostly centre-left to centre-right. We have a mostly progressive island. And then we have the rest of the province, most of which is rednecks, cowboys, and religious social conservatives, with a sprinkling of more liberal types here and there (Nelson and Grand Forks come to mind). As Derrick said in one of his posts, there are dozens of ridings in BC where a pylon running under the "Not NDP" banner could get elected.
I agree with Arististotled24. This is right on. I would pair it with the fact that when you are running on a platform of change, you need to get the vote out -- and the tepid "one practical step at a time" didn't do it. I've been saying all along that the climate has never been better to run on a platform of higher taxes, more social spending and strong environmental policies -- and the NDP flaked out. So what happened? People stayed home or voted Green. Two of the NDP's best candidates on the environment won extremely tight races: David Eby and George Heymann. That should tell you something.
[url=http://themainlander.com/2013/05/15/why-did-the-ndp-lose/]Why did the NDP lose?[/url]
Dix framed his party’s approach in both lofty and strategic terms, arguing that the new BC NDP had risen above partisan bickering and the petty politics of the BC Liberals. Supporters framed this “21st century” approach as a necessary path for winning government. Beneath the media strategy — the story went — a progressive platform was held waiting to be implemented once in power.In reality the NDP allowed itself no alternative platform from which to launch a criticism against the BC Liberal record. On each big issue the NDP chose instead to emulate the BC Liberal platform: rock-bottom corporate taxes, privatized affordable housing, health care austerity and ongoing neoliberal reforms. Instead of fighting on the basis of a progressive policy platform, the NDP message was simple: We can govern; we can oversee the status quo because we are as mature as the common-sense BC Liberals.
Left Turn's could apply to almost any urban/rural split.
Thing is, I think reducing non-progressive voters to a stereotype of rednecks and cowboys does no more to change things than the assumption that all a party has to do to win an election is run a nasty campaign.
Fact is, peoples' opinions are built on a range of issues, and not necessarily the obvious ones. And that problem of central control that k correctly points out at 262 is no less valid when it is pointed out by someone on the right.
Many social conservatives aren't going to completely change their overall world view any more than social liberals are, but it would be false to assume there isn't room to build political coalitions there. After all, rural seats do change hands on occasion. And if we take the pipeline issue, I'd wager that more than a few opponents are rednecks and cowboys. That's certainly the case down in Nebraska.
Krop, why don't you take the lead and start organizing the youth and the poor. They can start organizing and also start fund raising for the next election.I will be very glad to move back to the Island where the NDP won most of the seats even with the Greens doing better there than anywhere in the province. The NDP is going to have an even worse time of it in the next election because Weaver is going to be the best leader the BC Greens have ever had. The MSM will give him lots of coverage and his party will likely double its vote next election.
If only there was a left wing party that spoke to poverty and youth issues in this province at least then when they lost they would have lost fighting the good fight while talking about the real issues. The NDP's campaign was basically trust us we will only take baby steps and we will not talk about the overall economic system and how it is screwing most people and destroying the planet at the same time. Incremental change is no change at all for someone who is living in poverty or who understands climate change.
Maybe its time for a Quebec Solidaire type of Eco-socialist alternative in this province since the tired old NDP is not gaining supporters and is incapable of forming government as a liberal lite party.
The only good news is that Christy Clark reminds me of Vander Zalm and he destroyed the BC Socreds.
Note that the airhead with the big smile won the election against a serious and nice policy wonk.
Yep. The appetite for change was big. And the NDP didn't really offer a message of change, hoping that people would be excited enough to replace red signs with orange signs. They thought wrong.
More than anything left-right, the NDP's biggest asset is its reputation as a small-r reform party. It's all well and good to brag about competence, administration, and management. But while you're trying to improve the party's reputation with the "very serious people", make sure you don't throw out the thing that got the party this far in the first place: the idea that it's not too late to build a better world.
start organizing the youth and the poor. They can start organizing and also start fund raising for the next election.
That organizing is already happening now. Maybe they just have more immediate things to organize towards than a party that doesn't speak to their needs.
Thing is, I think reducing non-progressive voters to a stereotype of rednecks and cowboys does no more to change things than the assumption that all a party has to do to win an election is run a nasty campaign.
Exactly. I'm going to go out on a limb and draw lessons from the Manitoba municipal elections in 2010 to this context. Both Winnipeg and Brandon were at that time governed by centre-right, business friendly administrations, and in both cases were challenged by women affiliated with the NDP. Winnipeg has a strong progressive tradition, reliably sending several NDP MPs to Parliament (at least until recently) whereas Brandon is rock-ribbed Tory blue, and only ever once elected a non-Conservative MP since WWII, and even there the right-wing vote was split. In Winnipeg, Judy Wasylicia-Leis tried to play it safe, hoping that her likeability and people's fatigue with the corruption of the incumbent administration would sweep her into office. It didn't. Shari Decter-Hrist in Brandon took a more agressive approach. She openly stated that Brandon was a racist city, worked really hard to capitalize on some unpopular decisions the incumbent administration made towards the end of its time, and was very strident in painting the then-mayor as being in the backpockets of Brandon's "old boy's club." She carried every ward and won all but a few polling stations.
Many social conservatives aren't going to completely change their overall world view any more than social liberals are, but it would be false to assume there isn't room to build political coalitions there. After all, rural seats do change hands on occasion. And if we take the pipeline issue, I'd wager that more than a few opponents are rednecks and cowboys. That's certainly the case down in Nebraska.
Is that because rural areas are naturally more socially conservative, or because people give up? Brandon has not traditionally been a gay-friendly place, but there is a small gay community there, and Brandon's mayor is openly supportive of that community. Merv Tweed, the Conservative MP, presented petitions favouring abortion restrictions, [url=http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/mp-doesnt-take-sides-when-it-come... to be forced to present a petition favouring no legislative restrictions[/url] on this topic. People's minds can change.
And if we take the pipeline issue, I'd wager that more than a few opponents are rednecks and cowboys. That's certainly the case down in Nebraska.
And it was Saskatchewan's equivalent of "rednecks and cowboys" that kept the CCF in power for 2 decades. I'll also point out that in 1976, Jimmy Carter was elected on the strength of southern "rednecks and rubes" while many northern states voted for Gerald Ford, and these "rednecks and rubes" stuck with Jimmy Carter in 1980.
Left Turn's could apply to almost any urban/rural split.
Thing is, I think reducing non-progressive voters to a stereotype of rednecks and cowboys does no more to change things than the assumption that all a party has to do to win an election is run a nasty campaign.
Fact is, peoples' opinions are built on a range of issues, and not necessarily the obvious ones. And that problem of central control that k correctly points out at 262 is no less valid when it is pointed out by someone on the right.
Many social conservatives aren't going to completely change their overall world view any more than social liberals are, but it would be false to assume there isn't room to build political coalitions there. After all, rural seats do change hands on occasion. And if we take the pipeline issue, I'd wager that more than a few opponents are rednecks and cowboys. That's certainly the case down in Nebraska.
Its not a question of nasty, you don't want to pull a PM Kim Campell. Its a balanced approach and willingness to fight back, hard.
BC needed a fighter with ideas, instead it got Doormat who was too nice to fight back and to nervous to produce a bold vision.
The party will where this humiliate for months and anytime Mulcair pushes against pipelines or for the enviroment the media will use Dix's defeat.
So honestly I'm mad at Dix because its not just BC that pays the price, its the federal ndp, enviromentalism, and Canada that pays the price.
Surely the more competitive parties there are, the greater the chance for error. But that all the pollsters got it wrong means that it can't be chalked up to relatively new methodolgies, such as online and IVR. The problem is likely the screen to determine who will vote and who will not. As well as who will stick with the third and fourth parties when push comes to shove. Perhaps paying closer attention, and giving greater inclusion, to the undecided and "leaning" voters, will be the cure.
Voter screening has been used by pollsters in the US for decades, the last federal election was the first one in Canada (other than Quebec) where it was attempted. How many of the polls in BC factored in a turnout of 53%? (Media reports of a 48% turnout were premature.)
http://www.news1130.com/2013/05/15/poor-voter-turnout-continues-to-be-an-issue-in-bc/
@ Brachina
Yes, but I wouldn't put the defeat yesterday down to that one thing, nor do I think going on the offensive is going to ensure victory. The reality is that people have differing political values, and vote accordingly, and there just as many on the right who vote for the "least worst" as there are on the left. So holding the Liberals to task only gets you so far.
Getting back to the question of leadership, is it a simple matter of replacing Dix? Remember that Carole James was dumped for not being able to win in 2009, and Dix himself showed promise in the early days. What kind of structural problems does the BC NDP need to look at? The danger is that the party chooses a new leader, thinks everything is all right, and overlooks the major problems.
James had two tries. Dix has only had one. I believe in giving people a second chance, although I'm not wedded to the idea that Dix must stay on as leader. That being said, I'd agree that leadership in itself isn't the only problem and it's far more important to look at everything else.
Carole took the NDP from 22% and 2 seats in 2001 to 41% and 33 seats in 2005 to 42% and 35 seats in 2009. Dix has now taken the NDP backward to 39% and 33 seats. Big difference.
If Dix had lost narrowly but still made some progress, there might be a case for keeping him. But given this outcome, there is no way he can credibly stay on as leader.
@ Brachina
Yes, but I wouldn't put the defeat yesterday down to that one thing, nor do I think going on the offensive is going to ensure victory. The reality is that people have differing political values, and vote accordingly, and there just as many on the right who vote for the "least worst" as there are on the left. So holding the Liberals to task only gets you so far.
Oh agreed, its just one issue, but an important one.
Still all the issue will need to be explored from a boring platform, to not fighting back until it was too late, to improving debate preformance, to consistancy of message, to building some form of microtargeting, better research on voters and how they think, make decisions, not poll based research. A look at how the NDP deals with a hostile media and the flaws of the people at the top and how to rebuild the party and build condidence up after this huge drop in moral.
No doubt the Party, not just in BC, but Canada wide will need to reflect and do some soul searching. Heck federal liberals are even nervous after what happened in BC. Dix's approach too closely mirrored Justin's for them not to be nervous.
Dix should start the next legislative session by congratulating Christy. Then, he should say that many BCers are hoping that her trillion dollar LNG boom works out, but if it doesn't the NDP will be here to hold them to account. This fantasy pipedream would never have produced anything near such a boom. Now thanks to the Russia-China pipeline deal, it may be an economic disaster as the counted on much higher Asian energy prices drop as supply increases. When coupled with China's own fossil fuel production, as well as Australia's and Indonesia's (see below), most of which will be exported to Asian nations, prices will drop and supplies and carbon dioxide levels will increase well above the 400 ppm carbon dioxide level we just passed this week.
In other words, continually challenge Christy to meet her promise. If by some miracle that I see as verging on the impossible, it succeeds, the NDP will lose the next election. If it is a disaster, the NDP has the economic, trust and environmental issues to beat the Liberals over the head with in the next election. Ask her every week why she is not living up to the high expectations that she created. This approach also has the advantage of attracting green voters.
At the same time, energy prices will be driven up in this province due to the building of the LNG plants because "Much of the long term electricity load is contingent on the development of the proposed LNG projects on BC's Northwest coast. If the LNG export facilities are built, the demand for electricity in the Province could exceed 25% of the existing BC Hydro load (based on an estimated 4 LNG plants at approximate use of 4,000 GWh/year each. For context, the current BC Hydro load is approximately 60,000 GWh/year). This will make BC voters even more unhappy.
However, the NDP will also need a set of economic policies that attract voters, especially those in the Interior, where alternative employment is rare, moving to another job often means moving the family to another community, selling your home in a depressed market in one industry towns at a loss when the industry shuts down, and where these people often feel urban people do not understand their concerns.
The desire for Russia and China to boost trading ties is making China Russia’s priority market, as European demand for Russian oil decreases. Russian state-owned oil major Rosneft is tripling supplies to China to 1 million barrels a day. China is increasingly becoming Russia’s priority market, with Moscow looking to further boost ties, as European demand for Russian oil decreases. ...
Russia has been steadily increasing its oil exports to Asia as European oil and gas markets shrink due to the economic downturn. Around 15% of Russian oil exports are heading east, thanks to the new pipelines to China and to the Pacific coast.
In 2013 Russia plans to increase its oil supplies to China by 1 million tonnes via the Eastern Siberia–Pacific Ocean oil pipeline. From 2015 to 2017 Rosneft reportedly plans to send 7 million tonnes of oil to Asia by sea, according to Nezavisimaya Gazeta referring to unnamed sources. ...
China is also looking to increase its natural gas imports. With a new head of the People’s Republic it may now become easier for the two nations to reach an agreement on natural gas pipelines through Siberia, after six years of bargaining over prices. A contract stipulating terms for Russian gas supply is expected to be signed in June this year and a long-term contract will also be on the agenda, head of Gazprom, Alexey Miller said.
http://rt.com/business/china-become-russia-biggest-oil-client-667/
China and Australia top a global list of planned oil, gas and coal projects that will act as "carbon bombs" and push the planet towards catastrophic climate change, a Greenpeace report warned on Tuesday.
The Point of No Return study, by consultancy firm Ecofys for Greenpeace, calculated that the 14 giant fossil fuel projects would produce 6.3 gigatonnes of CO2 a year in 2020 – as much as the entire United States emits annually.
The largest contributors will be China's five north-western provinces, which aim to increase coal production by 620m tonnes by 2015, generating an additional 1.4bn tonnes of greenhouse gases a year. Australia's burgeoning coal export industry, already the largest in the world, is in second place due to its potential growth to 408m tonnes of shipped resource a year by 2025, resulting in an annual 760m tonnes of CO2.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/jan/22/china-australia-carbon...
Getting back to the question of leadership, is it a simple matter of replacing Dix? Remember that Carole James was dumped for not being able to win in 2009, and Dix himself showed promise in the early days. What kind of structural problems does the BC NDP need to look at? The danger is that the party chooses a new leader, thinks everything is all right, and overlooks the major problems.
James had two tries. Dix has only had one. I believe in giving people a second chance, although I'm not wedded to the idea that Dix must stay on as leader. That being said, I'd agree that leadership in itself isn't the only problem and it's far more important to look at everything else.
Carole took the NDP from 22% and 2 seats in 2001 to 41% and 33 seats in 2005 to 42% and 35 seats in 2009. Dix has now taken the NDP backward to 39% and 33 seats. Big difference.
If Dix had lost narrowly but still made some progress, there might be a case for keeping him. But given this outcome, there is no way he can credibly stay on as leader.
The growth between 2005 and 2009 was irrelevant, seeing as the number of seats in the legislature increased. Although the point about taking a step back is apt.
But should that be the measure of whether or not a leader stays or goes? If the party looses seats and votes should that be an automatic reason for the leadership to step aside? I'm not saying it should or shouldn't be, I'll have to think about that one to take a definitive position.
At the very least there ought to be performance measurements that ought to trigger automatic reviews, assuming there aren't already in place, or there aren't any that are definitivley enforced. I think there ought to be a full post-mortem in the next couple of months, followed by a full leadership review and membership wide vote within the next months on the entire leadership team, Dix and backroom leaders like Sihota, Topp, etc.
But, before people jump to the 'dump 'em' conclusion I'd have to ask who the successor would be, what their vision would be and would there be somewhat of a change in tone? Not to mention that constantly pitching leaders hasn't particularly worked out for other parties, eg. the Liberal Party of Canada and did act as a distraction for the NDP during an important time. It's something to think about because organizations that aren't stable aren't effective. There's something to be said for consquences, renewal and recognizing that repetition of ineffective tacts won't lead anywhere, but too much change in personnel leads to complete ineffectiveness.
I quite liked Dix when he was first elected and he seemed like a very effective and poignent critic, with an intellectual ability that ran circles around most previous leaders and opponents. But, as leader he became a lot more milquetoast (and dare I say, Carole James-esque) as he tried to present a "Prime Ministerial" image. Quite a shame really.
If the BC Con leader gets a federal Con nomination in a safe seat in '15, you'll know he didn't just accidentally have a bad night in the debate.
Why did the NDP lose?
quote:
No definite plan
In reality the NDP allowed itself no alternative platform from which to launch a criticism against the BC Liberal record. On each big issue the NDP chose instead to emulate the BC Liberal platform: rock-bottom corporate taxes, privatized affordable housing, health care austerity and ongoing neoliberal reforms. Instead of fighting on the basis of a progressive policy platform, the NDP message was simple: We can govern; we can oversee the status quo because we are as mature as the common-sense Liberals.
NDP’s uninspiring decision to emulate — and indeed flatter — the politics of the ruling party resulted in a record low voter turnout of 48%, down from 58% in 2005. No doubt there will be disagreement in the coming days about the extent to which the NDP, if elected, would have enshrined the historic dismantling of the welfare state, already underway since the 1980s. What is less contested is that fact that neither party in the running was planning to bolster public spending, significantly raise taxes, or reverse the rise of P3s....
.
Given how oddly deflated and dreary the BC NDP seems after this election, I'm scared that a dump-dix movement would be folloyed by a SaskaLink basement circumstance (then again, Christy's no Brad Wall)
.
.
It is interesting to read people blaming the Greens for the vote split on the left. But Greens are constantly attacked for being a right wing party around these parts. How can a right wing party be splitting the votes on the left? Shouldnt they be taking votes from the 'free enterprise coalition' if they are right wing? or maybe greens are not as right wing as we think they are and have a lot in common with the NDP hence the vote split.
And also negative campaign works.
People (and the media) think the Greens are left-wing. They talk about the environment, and localism, and such. But when push comes to shove they oppose sewage treatment and vote against climate bills. The NDP need a contingency plan to stop the growth for the faux environmentalist party.
The Liberals ran a negative campagin. They portaryed the NDP as "socialist hordes" and personally attacked Adrian. The NDP did not need to do this. But they did need to contrst their party with the Liberals and criticize the government's policies more. That's not being negative.
The Liberals ran a negative campagin. They portaryed the NDP as "socialist hordes" and personally attacked Adrian. The NDP did not need to do this. But they did need to contrst their party with the Liberals and criticize the government's policies more. That's not being negative.
I think the "Not So Great" ads the federal NDP ran in 2011 are probably the best example of how to accomplish them. They essentially told the voter what the other person was doing wrong, and what the NDP planned to do about it.
This needs to be a lesson for federal NDP -- job creation trumps pipeline environmental concerns when framed either-or. Trudeau Liberals will certainly try the same tactics in the next fed election. Fed NDP needs to find a way to successfully reframe this issue.
This is why voters vote for the Greens. The NPD can't be trusted to go against the grain.
Right autoworker. Hamiltonian is right, reframing is the issue and not either/or. Meanwhile the federal liberals are dead in the water on the environment, having signed Kyoto and done absolutely nothing except have Dion name his dog Kyoto. And emissions went up under their watch. So who can't be trusted?
The Liberals and Greens who both vote against environmental climate bills and sewage treatment. I loved Trudeau's tweet the day after the BC election in congratulating Christy Clark and saying it's a win for the "middle class" [cough, the oil corporations, corporate media and rich middle class like him].
It is interesting to read people blaming the Greens for the vote split on the left. But Greens are constantly attacked for being a right wing party around these parts. How can a right wing party be splitting the votes on the left? Shouldnt they be taking votes from the 'free enterprise coalition' if they are right wing? or maybe greens are not as right wing as we think they are and have a lot in common with the NDP hence the vote split.
And also negative campaign works.
People (and the media) think the Greens are left-wing. They talk about the environment, and localism, and such. But when push comes to shove they oppose sewage treatment and vote against climate bills. The NDP need a contingency plan to stop the growth for the faux environmentalist party.
The Liberals ran a negative campagin. They portaryed the NDP as
"socialist hordes" and personally attacked Adrian. The NDP did not need to do this. But they did need to contrst their party with the Liberals and criticize the government's policies more. That's not being negative.
I don't think the Greens are concerned with where the media ascribes their position on the political spectrum.
But the bottom line is, and many agree, that greens split the vote on the left. Generally a party reflects their voters' stance on the issues. If the greens are a right wing party then people should stop saying that they are splitting the left wing vote rather NDP should be happy that there is another right wing party splitting the right wing vote.
But the bottom line is, and many agree, that greens split the vote on the left. Generally a party reflects their voters' stance on the issues. If the greens are a right wing party then people should stop saying that they are splitting the left wing vote rather NDP should be happy that there is another right wing party splitting the right wing vote.
I think the NDP needs to reflect on its own deficiencies. If they decide to jump aboard the pipeline bandwagon, the Greens will fill that vacated space.
.
PD15, a trained parrot is right - some day someone should ask him what that means.
I am sure that Trudeau and his spin doctors don't care what it means they only care that a vast majority of Canadians consider themselves middle class. I would hazard a guess that of the people who vote upwards of 90% of the people would self identify as middle class.
I am sure that Trudeau and his spin doctors don't care what it means they only care that a vast majority of Canadians consider themselves middle class. I would hazard a guess that of the people who vote upwards of 90% of the people would self identify as middle class.
Because 90% of people think of themselves as middle class, that must be taken into account in addressing them in a diplomatic manner, even when in reality they are in the bottom 25% of the population. Many people are in denial about their economic position, just as there are many people in denial about climate change.
Does anyone know if it's possible to get voting results by poll?
It is interesting to read people blaming the Greens for the vote split on the left. But Greens are constantly attacked for being a right wing party around these parts. How can a right wing party be splitting the votes on the left? Shouldnt they be taking votes from the 'free enterprise coalition' if they are right wing? or maybe greens are not as right wing as we think they are and have a lot in common with the NDP hence the vote split.
And also negative campaign works.
People (and the media) think the Greens are left-wing. They talk about the environment, and localism, and such. But when push comes to shove they oppose sewage treatment and vote against climate bills. The NDP need a contingency plan to stop the growth for the faux environmentalist party.
As far as I can tell, Victoria's sewage emissions aren't even a problem, and several top BC ocean scientists have also come out and said that the plan is more about optics than about environmentalism and is a waste of dollars that could be much better spent finding real solutions to real problems. I don't really know enough about this issue to comment further, but I know Greens, and they are pretty dedicated to evidence-based policy in a way that, say, the NDP is not, preferring instead to pander to already existing voter prejudice (HST anybody?).
Whatever one thinks about the Greens, there is no doubt that people vote for them out of environmental concern. That concern, coupled with the NDP's utterly abysmal environmental record while in office (not as bad as the Liberals, but that is setting the bar pretty low), means that they are not going away soon. For a growing segment of the electorate, "pipeline politics" is not merely the most important issue, it's the ONLY issue. Andrew Weaver is extremely articulate and will bring the party increased credibility and visibility. This presents a challenge as well as an opportunity for the NDP to define itself going forward.
Truth be told I don't know if a labour party can even be a true environmentalist party. It is undeniable that the best thing for the environment would necessarily entail an extreme contraction of the economy - we need to produce less and consume less. For all intents and purposes, relative to what we do now, we need to cease producing. This means eliminating jobs. Lots of them. This is something no labour party anywhere has ever been able to argue for, ever, to my knowledge - nevermind that the NDP has been drinking the neoliberal kool-aid for decades now and has no economic strategy other than growth.
That said, there is room for a LOT of cooperation between the NDP and the Greens and it has to start with mutual respect, not partisan bickering. First step has to be reforming the electoral system so that the NDP and Greens can govern in coalition. I haven't heard much from the NDP on this file since dumping Carole James.
That first step (electoral reform) is going to take another two decades. The reality in front of us is another 4 years of wealth transfer from the public domain to private pockets. More 3p projects, more regressive, user-pay services , and further privatization , starting with the profitable liquor distribution branch. Site C will be built to provide cheap subsidized power for lng development, and China will get their bitumen (except for the few million litres that will inevitability make their way into our rivers and soil). Maybe some heavy oil (as christy was already calling it the day after the election - sounds better than bitumen ) spilled and unrecoverable will be enough to get a few more arses out to the polls next time. This is a done deal (looks like I have moved to the "accept" phase of my grief), 'cause right now all any of us can do is hunker down and endure. It is less about who voted and more about who didn't vote. I fully expected all the mouth breathers who voted liberal last time to do it again . What I didn't expect was that so many with such a stake in this election would stay home and surf the intertube. (whoa, still a bit of the "anger" phase there)
A nice book end to the whole "really with the polls" discussion
Behind BC's Pollster Fail: Were they foiled by the '10-second Socred'? A look at several possibilities. via The Tyee (once again. They had great election coverage)
So if you're a pollster, calling an election correctly is great publicity.
Having people say "How did the pollsters get it so completely, utterly, ridiculously, ludicrously wrong?" is not great publicity.
Does anyone know if it's possible to get voting results by poll?
Don't know, but it's now officially impossible to predict voting results by polls.
