BC NDP will get whacked in the upcoming May, 2009 election

which is unfortunate.

Unless there is a major change in the NDP's approach to politics in BC that is.

The by-elections mean dick, as the opposition always win the by-elections in BC, or at least have for a very long time.

And also in spite of the latest interesting research surrounding the drawbacks to the current carbon tax.

Carbon Tax Whacks the Poor, Later
Three years out, wealthy take smaller hit than low income BCers: study.

http://www.thetyee.ca/News/2008/10/30/CarbonTax/?utm_source=daily&utm_me dium=email&utm_campaign=301008

[ 30 October 2008: Message edited by: NorthReport ]

Hmmm.

Here's what I've observed.

The BCNDP was sitting about ten points behind in the polls this Spring when Campbell introduced his carbon tax. The NDP opposed it and everyone said they were doomed. They went up in the polls.

Then Gregor Robinson quit and everyone said the NDP was doomed because Vancouverites loved the carbon tax and Campbell had superstar candidates for the by-election. They won the by-elections.

So why are they doomed now?

Carbon tax is coming, and anyone who has a serious grasp of environmental issues, knows that a direct tax on polution is probably the only effective market based mechanism for dealing with the issue. Some people seem to think they can get away with having their cake and eating it too, but the fact is the only ways to actually confront the growing climate change problems are going to have an economic impact, one way or the other.

Of course, in a neo-liberal capitalist context this is going to arranged so that it hits the most marginalized first, but if you are serious about the environment the reality is clear. Our present standard of living can not be supported by this planet. Anyone who is trying to make it sound like it can be done, is willful blind or lying.

The Federal NDP's support for the "Bait and Switch" environmental program of Carbon Credits, amounted to so much green coloured packaging, and it did nothing for the NDP at all, other give them the opportunity to say they had an "environment plan." Poll results prove this conclusively, since the NDP did not increase it share of the popular vote.

People in Vancouver are probably more environmentally concious than the majority Canadians. Greenpeace was founded there for example. One can expect that they are well aware of the superiority of directly taxing poluters as a means curbing the increase of CO2 and the flaws in the Carbon Credits system, so overall, BCNDP will probably benefit in the long run.

Cap and trade DID NOT get the Federal NDP an increase in vote share in the last federal election. Therefore there is no reason to be wedded to it.

[ 30 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

The BC NDP are on the wrong side of the following issues:

The environment

First Nations

Agricultural land reserve

Electoral Reform

And tell us BC NDPers, what are your plans for the Labour Relations Board the day after you are elected? Campbell and the right wing sure had a plan when they got elected? Does the BC NDP even have a plan?

An Exhausting War on Emissions Norway's Efforts to Contain Greenhouse Gases Move Forward -- and Backfire

quote:In 1991, Norway became one of the first countries in the world to impose a stiff tax on harmful greenhouse gas emissions. Since then, the country's emissions should have dropped. Instead, they have risen by 15%.

Although the tax forced Norway's oil and gas sector to become among the greenest in the world, soaring energy prices led to a boom in offshore production, which in turn boosted overall emissions. So did drivers. Norwegians, who already pay nearly $10 a gallon, took the tax in stride, buying more cars and driving them more. And numerous industries won exemptions from the tax, carrying on unchanged.

Variables for fluctuating prices for carbon seem to have been a factor. Even with a tax that has priced carbon for fifteen years at twice the price in EU ETS markets, Norway's CO2 emissions have risen significantly. Federal Liberals should probably compare Canada's energy/fossil fuel exporting economy with that of Norway and not Sweden. Canada is said to produce 2% of global GHG emissions. The USA, our neighbors and largest importer of Canadian fossil fuels, produces somewhere around 22% of global GHG emissions.

The Problem:
USA(massive consumer of carbon)<<-->>Canada(massive supplier of carbon)

quote:And numerous industries won exemptions from the tax, carrying on unchanged.

As does "cap and trade". Cap and trade merely sytemitizes the exemptions as a pseudo-commodities market, and shifts the burden to the have-nots in the rest of the world. Does we really need to turn the environment into a commodity in order to save it?

In anycase, rather than talking points discussions based in defending "cap and trade" against "carbon tax" you should really be thinking about possible other ways of framing the issue, so that you can create effective means of controlling CO2 emmission, and doing something to shift the burden onto those who most benefit from the expensive luxury lifestyles that a huge amount of our waste products are aimed at sustaining.

Hint: Move away from dubious market mechanisms as the primary lever of controlling co2 emissions. Even politically, "cap and trade" really did not do anything for the NDP. Therefore, there is no reason to be wedded to it, nor is it necessarily the case that carbon tax will sell any better, for the reasons it has been pointed out.

[ 30 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

NorthReport:

quote:BC NDP will get whacked in the upcoming May, 2009 elction

I don't get you.

During the federal election you were described by someone as an NDP version of Marg Bedore (the NDP cheerleading was a bit excessive and unreasonable), yet you now seem to be the anti-thesis of same here in BC.

What gives?

quote:Originally posted by Cueball:

As does "cap and trade". Cap and trade merely sytemitizes the exemptions as a pseudo-commodities market. Does we really need to turn the evironment into a commodity in order to save it?

A carbon tax does exactly that - treats the environment as a secondary benefactor of a tax gimick which may or may not have any positive effect. No one knows, because ~"a carbon tax has never been used before to solve an air pollution problem" - Fred Krupp, Environmental Defense Fund(U.S.), whereas a cap and trade system has been successful in North America to reduce SO2 emissions causing acid rain.

The problem is that capitalists and government do not account for the environment or social costs when doing capital budgeting. Marx to Polanyi said that to neglect to do so is very unscientific. We need a full accounting of the economy which necessarily must include the environment as well as what Canadian William Krehm termed the "social lien."

quote:.Hint: Move away from dubious market mechanisms as the primary lever of controlling co2 emissions.

[ 30 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

A legal cap has nothing to do with free markets and everything to do with placing the onus for enforcing it on democratically-elected governments not Exxon-Imperial and friends of the two old line parties. Ultimately, how effective either carbon tax or cap&trade is to be depends on governments taking a pro-active role for the sake of an improving environment. Canada's CO2 emissions did only one thing with Liberals in power for twelve years, and while neglecting the existing carbon tax in place on home heating fuel, 4%, and gasoline at 10 cents a litre, and that was increase every year the Liberals were in government.

What does any of that have to do with trying to rethink the paradigm beyond talking points?

I dunno, but I'll say it again. A legal limit on how much carbon can be dumped into the air has nothing to do with free markets and everything to do with government intervention and enforcement. This is why the Liberals want no part of cap and trade - they would be responsible for enforcing something by way of visible hand policy if elected to power. Those guys sold our environment to American ownership and control. I can imagine a dozen ways in which a ruling Liberal government would continue to allow corporate USA to dictate Canada's national energy policy, like NAFTA, like SPP, deep integration, "TILMA" etc etc

Really lost you there didn't I. What part of no talking points is hard to get.

quote:The Federal NDP's support for the "Bait and Switch" environmental program of Carbon Credits, amounted to so much green coloured packaging, and it did nothing for the NDP at all, other give them the opportunity to say they had an "environment plan."

Its common knowledge that the Liberal carbon tax was a disaster for them - esp. in rural and remote areas. By opposing the carbon tax, the NDP was able to feast on the Liberal carcass and win a scad of new seats across northern Ontario and made big popular vote gains in the Atlantic provinces and in industrail towns in Ontario. If (God forbid), the NDP had adopted the so-called green party's strategy of "me-too" with the Dion tax grab plan - we probably would have been reduced to 10 seats.

Far from predicting the NDP will get "whacked" next May, there appears to be a decent chance they will form the next government. Campbell has made serious errors and wreaks of arrogance. Further, large parts of the economy have or appear to be tanking. Top of the list - forestry. I also do not agree the NDP is on the wrong side of issues such as aboriginal rights and the ALR. The one glitch was the nasty little trap cynically set by Gordo in Tswwassen.

Closer to the election, I have no doubt you will hear about mending some of the problems with the Labour Code. I hope so anyway.

quote: Carbon tax is coming, and anyone who has a serious grasp of environmental issues, knows that a direct tax on polution is probably the only effective market based mechanism for dealing with the issue.

A hard cap is coming if you want to deal with emmissions. A tax does nothing.

The BC NDP will not win or lose the election on their environmental platform.

Its the economy.....

The NDP will have to convince BC voters that they can be trusted to manage the province finances.

madmax hits the nail on the head. I know it's unpopular to say this among progressives, but the environment is not, and never has been, a 'kitchen table' issue that will swing a lot of votes. Canadians fret about the environment and tell pollsters they're worried about the environment when the economy is doing well and there's nothing else to worry about. I well remember the 'Earth Day' crazes in the mid- to late-80s, when recycling was suddenly in vogue, everyone was terrified of acid rain and the hole in the ozone layer, and suddenly governments couldn't ban CFCs fast enough. Today's "climate change" was the 1980s' "greenhouse effect". Then the 1990s recession hit, and (surprise, surprise) suddenly nobody cared about the environment anymore. When people sit down at their kitchen tables after they've put the kids to bed, they worry about their jobs, taxes, paying the bills, paying for Grandma's medication, paying for university, etc. Those are the kinds of issues that motivate people to vote - not endless estoeric debates about cap-and-trade vs. carbon tax.

The plus side of these periodic 'flare-ups' of environmentalism is that they are good for raising general awareness of environmental issues among the public, and often leave at least a bit of a concrete legacy. Thanks to the ozone layer/greenhouse effect discussions of the 1980s, CFCs were banned and municipal curbside recycling programs are the norm.

All this is by way of saying - let's not kid ourselves that the NDP is going to stand or fall on its environmental platform in the next election. There is a golden opportunity for the NDP to tarnish Campbell's image as a good economic manager as things continue to go south, but people also need to be convinced that the NDP won't drive the economy into the ditch if elected. Rightly or wrongly, that is the widespread public perception (ie that the NDP are incompetent economic managers) that needs to be overcome.

quote:VICTORIA — Premier Gordon Campbell is expected to warn B.C. Liberal Party members at a weekend convention that two Vancouver by-election losses should be seen as an ominous sign to get ready for a spring election.

While the two New Democrat victories in Vancouver ridings on Wednesday night don't dramatically change the balance of power in the legislature, political experts said yesterday that change may be in the wind.

Full article

And the key to winning is to continue to hammer away on the mismanagement and possible corruption that the Gordo Liberals have brought to our province. Pretty much any project the government is involved with is going over budget and in huge numbers. The convention centre is a prime example. Then there is the BC Rail fiasco that will likely be in the courts early next year before the election.

On the environment, CCPA's report clearly shows that using the Campbell plan for carbon taxes will mean the poorest people in BC will pay to save the planet and the rich will make money.

Those are the kinds of fiscal issues that need to be put front and centre again and again prior to next May. Given our MSM it will likely take a concerted letter to the editor writing campaign to keep the issues from being buried or not reported on at all.

There are alot of problems within the BCNDP right now. Some are self inflicted, some are as a result of the downturn in the economy, and some are just plain circumstancial. People point to Carole James and are now pulling out the knives and sharpening them up for post May 2009. She's the leader and will be held accountable for what happens on election day, no doubt, but most of what's going to cause the negative results in 2009 are not of her own doing.

They are the result of individuals (eg Sue Hammell) pursuing personal ideologies and beliefs at the expense of the greater good, and finding sympathetic ears to listen to them in the backrooms of the party (see provincial office). Let's be honest... the BCNDP doesn't truly represent "labour" any more. If you talk to the average union person in BC, who's not public sector (and believe it or not, they do exist) you will find increasingly that there is a HUGE disconnect between them and the BCNDP, on a wide variety of issues.

Perhaps the leaders of their unions (see BCFED)are full pullers for the party (some of them), but the rank and filers themselves... I think that its a fallacy that they blindly vote the way the union tells them too. More and more "union families" are middle to upper middle income earners. And more and more of those people are becoming more and more conservative in their viewpoints. Its not necessarily their fault, because as is apt to happen in society, they sometimes forget where those good wages and benefits come from, and what it took to get them.

Strategically, the party is constipated. They let Jim Sinclair lead out ahead of them, time and time and time again. On the economy, on worker's safety issues, on social issues, on just about everything, Sinclair is ahead of the BCNDP in the media. When they were reduced to 2 MLAs, and shafted by Campbell, no doubt Sinclair came along and called himself and the BCFED the "unofficial" opposition, and he is to be congratulated for doing that when it was needed, and helping to rebuild the party to a credible opposition.

The problem is however, he never did what other leaders would have done, which was to take the thank yous and the way to gos, and to melt back into the background and allow the party to continue its momentum towards beating Campbell in 2009. The Fed has their issues, like minimum wage and the like, but the BCNDP is MORE than just the BCFED, and to get elected, has to resonate with the general populace, and this includes (hold your ears and close your eyes).... business. Campbell's mistake in 2001 was he went waaayyyy to the right. In 2005 he got smacked for it, but still won. Afterwards, he moved begrugingly somewhat, to the centre again, but has now once again, started that abdication of the centre, to which most voters and citizens actually ascribe to.

At the NDP convention in 2007, a special interest group within the party, hijacked that convention, and pushed through an equity mandate, that in all respects DOES NOT resonate with the people of BC. They'll point to Jenn McGinn and say they succeeded. Not necessarily true, though, as it was a by election, and historically, govts of all stripes in BC don't do well at all, not too mention the pitiful turnout numbers etc etc.

At that convention there was lip service paid to the economy and how to work with business people on improving all our lives. And in terms of setting up substantive policies that you can go public with and campaign on, most of those were shelved on the agenda to be dealt with at Provincial Council. So for example, while increasing the minimum wage got a long hearing with lots of pro speakers and no con speakers, and passed, the corresponding proposal to cut the small business tax by 1 percent, was not debated, and left to be decided at the Provincial Council.

A chance to resonate with a group looking for help and workable solutions.... gone. A chance to work at shedding the view that the BCNDP are anti business, and know nothing except to increase taxes... gone.

The equity mandate, all I'll say is that no one truly knows in the BCNDP just how much resources and cash has gone to prop up this thing. But I'll say this, using members money, whether they support or are against the equity mandate to hire organizers specifically for the Joy's List thing, that's highly offputting. Enough said.

Some of whats led to where the BCNDP is know isn't of their own doing, however. Campbell scrapping the fall sitting (and having to bring it back, long after the civic elections have passed and just before the "gag law" takes effect) was strategically smart at the time. Why would he subject himself to question period given all the crap he's caused? Before people set their hair on fire, I'm talking straight strategy. Of course its not the honourable thing to do, but strategically less than a year out from an election, it was a way to try and reduce the amount of hits you would take.

With the downturn in the economy, the BCNDP absolutely needs to come up with viable solutions, and ideas. And somehow, overcome that perception that when the BCNDP are in power, economic ruin isn't far behind. Can it be done in 7 months? Realistically... no. But what ticks me off is the fact that they had 19 months to do it, not 7. And literally threw the opportunity away. And its truly sad as well. With the right long term strategy and planning, I believe that the BCNDP had a solid chance to form government in 2009.

Unfortunately, those planners and strategists for the most part have had their heads up their asses and have screwed over the party. And they're still there. Sad.

I'm trying to understand how it is that the day after the BC NDP surprises everyone by winning two byelections in precisely the kinds of upper income urban seats that were supposed to aghast over the axe the tax campaign (not to mention the Liberals running very very high profile candidates in each and breaking the bank on spending) and with polls showing the BCNDP could easily win the next election and with all signs pointing to the nuisance of the BC Green party being annhilated - we are supposed to be so pessimistic.

Seems to me like there is a lot to cheer about - and Carol James may disappoint a lot of here enemies WITHIN the NDP who would rather lose the election than win under a leader they don't like.

Jeez, keglerdave, you had to bring up the "equity" mandate again?

Isn't it enough that white men can get(and undoubtably will get)three-fourths of the NDP nominations?

Let that one go already, willya?

quote:Originally posted by Cueball:
Carbon tax is coming, and anyone who has a serious grasp of environmental issues, knows that a direct tax on polution is probably the only effective market based mechanism for dealing with the issue.

Therein lies the fallacy. The truth is, there is no reasonable market based mechanism for dealing with the issue. The debate over various market mechanisms is a diversion that leads away from actually doing something positive for the environment.

Hard caps on emissions, limits on extraction of carbon minerals, and rationing to ensure some degree of fairness are what is required.

Stockholm - the NDP only picked up one seat in the by-election as they held the other one.

Burrard has a history of being NDP and went Liberal in the 2001 sweep where any one would have won for the Liberals. In 2005 if the NDP had run anyone other than Tim Stevenson they would have won the seat.

Whether it is a factor or not Burrard has been represented by a gay person since Tim won the riding in 1991 and then Lorne and now Spencer - whether if the Liberal had run a gay in the by-election would have changed the result I don't know.

Fairview may have been a "hold" for the NDP, but keep in mind this a riding that has almost always gone Socred or Liberal all through its history (in various incarnations). It even went Liberal in 1996 when the NDP was re-elected. The NDP won it very narrowly in 2005 with a very strong candidate Gregor Robertson. This time, the Liberals ran a very high profile candidate and the NDP candidate was a relative unknown.

Anyways, my only point is that it seems a bit odd for someone to start screaming "the sky is falling" regarding the BC NDP the day after winning two byelections and at a time when they are leading the polls.

Jeez Ken, aren't we all supposed to be out supporting and singing about how enlightened we are because we in the BCNDP have an equity mandate? Isn't that what Sue Hammell and Angie Schirra want all the good little NDP'ers to be doing. Let it go already??? I was merely pointing out that the fact that member's dues monies have gone forward to pay for organizers and party hacks to push forward the mandate. Has anyone noticed how bloated the provincial office has become lately? Please don't forget that 50% of what you give to a provincial NDP executive goes straight into the provincial office coffers, and straight into those "strategists" salaries.

Everyone's talking like the by elections were some kind of "upset" or unpredicted win. History does not back that up. Not too mention the pitiful turn out for both by elections. Sorry if some of us don't wear rose coloured glasses and think that anything with the provincial ND*P symbol on it is all great and glorious. And what about the Axe The Tax thing? Just what would the BCNDP do if they were in power, with regards to climate change? There's been a deafening silence on what would really happen in that case, other than the talk about cap and trade.

How does one in a downward economy, with declining revenue, maintain the tax cuts given by the Campbell Fiberals, while cutting the "carbon tax"? If the answer is that you tax "at source" those costs will be passed down through the line to the consumer, so that's not really the answer. I bet you anything that somewhere deep in the catacombs at BCNDP HQ, there was a plan to introduce a carbon tax and that the BC Fiberals beat the BCNDP to the punch. And now all you're getting from the talking heads at HQ is SPIN SPIN SPIN, while they try and come up with something else. Here's an idea, why not turn the economic strategy planning over to the people who really pull the strings in the BCNDP, Sinclair, Schirra and Hammell.

More and more the BCNDP is alienating average BC'ers by pandering to special interest groups, at the expense of those who are truly taking it from 8 years of Campbell mismanagement.

If the party is doing so great, how come no comeback to Colleen Hansen's baldfaced lies about how great the Fiberals have been from Day 1. Everyone seems to have forgotten how Gang Campbell there racked up 3 consecutive massive deficits, including 2 record back to back deficits in his first 3 years in office. All the while giving everyone a huge 25% tax break, and then gutting the crap out of complimentary medicine (physio, massage, chiro, homeopathic) and introducing massive increases to MSP premiums, and nickel and diming everyone to death. What took the BCNDP 10 years to do (add 7 billion to the provincial debt) took the Fiberals only 3, not too mention selling off of crown assets etc. Is anyone talking about that??? Nope. Not a single phone call calling Hansen on his bullshit on the open line.

We're all sitting here celebrating 2 so called tremendous victories in 2 by elections. Wanting to hear how great a job the party is doing. Up and down the party, its a joke. In my riding, there has been NOTHING done to support the MLA in the last god knows how long. I got involved, and did my best, but quickly realized.. its the BCNDP way. Sit around and wait for some miracle to happen that's going to drop a tonne of cash into your coffers out of nowhere. But then again, when provincial office poaches 50% of what you raise, why go through the effort. And contrary to some of the lurkers around here who like to sit and tsk tsk whenever people like me criticize, I criticize because frankly I AM INVOLVED, I do roll up my sleeves and do the work, and do fight for what I believe in. That gives me the right I believe to present my views and ideas, and arguments as well.

quote:Originally posted by NorthReport:
The BC NDP are on the wrong side of the following issues:

The environment

First Nations

Agricultural land reserve

Electoral Reform

And tell us BC NDPers, what are your plans for the Labour Relations Board the day after you are elected? Campbell and the right wing sure had a plan when they got elected? Does the BC NDP even have a plan?Not sure I see the doom and gloom.

A recent poll indicates that Carole James is far more trusted on the environment than Campbell - despite her opposition to the carbon tax.

I'm not sure what the "wrong side" of the ALR would be given that most people don't know what it is [26].

Etc.

I understand that you don't LIKE Carole James but I don't see the argument that she's in trouble holding much water.

[ 01 November 2008: Message edited by: TCD ]

quote:Originally posted by keglerdave:
Not too mention the pitiful turn out for both by elections.

Turnout in a by-election is always low.

Campbell has come out swinging against the NDP. They fully intend to fight this on the economy.

quote:Campbell slams NDP, offers more economic measures at Liberal convention
16 hours ago

WHISTLER, B.C. — B.C.'s Opposition New Democrats were Premier Gordon Campbell's frequent targets during a 50-minute keynote address to 1,050 delegates at the BC Liberal's biennial convention Saturday.

The gathering was held at the posh Chateau Whistler hotel this weekend.

Still smarting from two Vancouver byelection losses Wednesday, Campbell made it clear the campaign leading up to the province's May 12 general election is in full swing.

"So warn your children, warn your friends!" he counselled. "If the NDP's knockin' on your door, don't answer."

Campbell predicted a New Democrat government would take more and more away from ordinary British Columbians.

The BC economy has been in a bubble driven by inflated house prices and excessive consumer debt since 2001, exactly like the US, and will suffer the same consequences.

The problem is that at no time has the NDP ever pointed this out. Has any NDP MLA ever said that BC house prices were too high and that a real estate crash, which is now underway with a speed and ferocity which will make the US bust look tepid, was inevitable? Only Gregor Robertson has even touched on the issue and that was after he had left his seat to run for mayor.

Thus Campbell will be able to blame BC's problems on the mess south of the border, when in fact BC is in the same mess for the same reasons.

Had the NDP been forthright earlier about the unsustainability of this bubble, at least it could say "we told you so".

[ 02 November 2008: Message edited by: brookmere ]

What exactly can a provincial government do to stop a housing bubble in the first place. Its not as if they could have ordered the banks to raise interest rates to cool down the housing market.

quote:Originally posted by brookmere:

Had the NDP been forthright earlier about the unsustainability of this bubble, at least it could say "we told you so".

The NDP has recommended a national housing strategy, the likes of which the federal Liberals shit-canned, for a number of years now. NeoLiberal voodoo of the day required that the Liberals make many more Canadians reliant on markets for housing. "Free markets fail" - Duncan Cameron

[ 02 November 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:Originally posted by Stockholm:
What exactly can a provincial government do to stop a housing bubble in the first place.
Is that supposed to be a joke, Stockholm?

If the provincial government levied a 100% tax on speculative gains on RE there would be no housing bubbles, ever, because nobody would be able to make any profit from flipping.

How simple can you get.

Wishful thinking I call it as the election is away off and much will unfold especially for those living in BC. I see Carol James as the next premier of the province of BC and none to late as Mr. Campbell leaves BC'S economy in shambles. Here is a man who is pushing for deregulation of the tar sands something so bad for our environment yet its the same guy who pushed the Carbon Tax which is causing burdens to low income and future job losses and hardships. I wonder what will happen once Obama and Harper get together to discuss global warming? Obama is against the tar sands operations and therefore could but a damper on Canada's economy and especially BC as province receive Billions for its involvement. Its good news for the enviroment but not so good for the economy as this is the money used to get your tax cuts, Oil that is.

And about nobody buying if you had regulations on speculative buying well its what bought the American market down as people were placed in homes they were unable to afford and as prices increased homeowners could not manage. It gotta happen here because of all the speculation, its a given.

Unfortunately the next battle will be over drilling in the Hecate Strait something that BC Liberals and the federal Conservatives are starting to push for. We will see how Obama deals with that issue since I think he is oposed to off shore drilling in Alaska i.e. Hecate Straight

And whay you mean is who would make a killing off unsuspecting homeowners? There is a great deal of money in land development without taking new homeowners to the cleaners while making owing or renting a home almost impossible for many. Regulations will need to be put into place as to prevent massive foreclosures but I guess we will just take a wait and see attitude. I'm used to being right.

The reason there are so many foreclosures and the US, and will be in BC soon, is that people bought houses for ridiculous prices they couldn't afford.

Affordable housing means housing at prices that make sense. The NDP has not advocated any policies to combat inflated house prices, which are the real problem. Or even warned people that BC's absurd house prices were going to crash just like in the US.

The real estate crash which is already under way in BC is not the problem, but the solution to the problem. High house prices are bad for everyone except the parasites in the RE and banking industries.

quote:The real estate crash which is already under way in BC is not the problem, but the solution to the problem.

Tell that to people who now have negative equity in their homes or people who took out loans based on the value of their houses and are now facing foreclosure.

I don't think the NDP will gain very much by expressing joy at a crash in real estate prices that is causing a lot of ordinary working people to get pulled under water by the undertow.

That is like saying that you are cheering for an economic depression because higher unemployment and less economic activity will mean less greenhouse gas emissions!

quote:Originally posted by Stockholm:
Tell that to people who now have negative equity in their homes or people who took out loans based on the value of their houses and are now facing foreclosure.

I think brookmere does make a valid point. While the disruption that a housing market crash will cause isn't something to celebrate, there is a real problem. So many middle-class Canadians have bought into the idea that they can make money by going into real estate. The problem is while housing prices generally go up, nothing is guaranteed. The main reason to buy a house is so you have a place to live, and if you buy a place you intend to inhabit long term (which is the only time it makes sense to buy a house) you should be okay. Put succinctly, a house is a home, not an investment.

ETA: Having said that, like you, I'd like to know what, if any, role the provincial government can play in the real estate boom.

[ 08 November 2008: Message edited by: Aristotleded24 ]

@Aristotle:

I like to tell the parable of how when I was a child, I innocently believed that Mommies and Daddies bought houses for families to live in, not so they could get rich.

[img]tongue.gif" border="0[/img]

People also don't buy houses to get poor and if you bought a single family home at the peak of the market and now its worth 30% less than what you paid for it - and maybe you need to movce and have no choice but to sell or maybe you took out a loan on the value of the house and now the bank wants its money back its.

I realize that some people might feel some weird "schadenfreude" over crashing real estate values and think stereotypically that it only affects a few land speculators and people who flip houses or the fun of it - but in reality it is affecting a lot of ordinary people as well.

Tough. I'm a renter and one of the things that's just been killing me is that the inflationary rise in land prices is driving up property taxes and with it, the amount of my rent. I'm lucky the BC Fiberal version of the Residential Tenancy Act still limits rent increases to the inflation rate plus around 2%, or otherwise I'd be sunk.

With any luck this recent implosion in the housing market will cause rents to drop as property taxes also drop (though some places will just increase the mill rate instead, but that can't be helped).

I have little sympathy for people who got dollar signs in their eyes and had the thought in the back of their head that they could claim to have a nice fancy house, even if they intended to purchase that house to live in it, not speculate.

Property taxes won't drop at all. They have nothing to do with property values since if property values all go up, the mill rate goes down and if property values go down, the mill rate goes up - municipal governments still need the same amount of revenue.

If you think that just because property values in Vancouver have gone down 20% - the City of Vancouver is going to leave the mill rate the same and just absorb a 20% drop in its revenue base - then you need to get your head examined.

Property tax rates are, I suspect, a relatively minor factor in determining rental rates. Rental rates are based on what people are willing to pay, ie good old supply and demand. The last few years have had very low vacancy rates (driven to some degree by the conversion of many apartments into condos) and as such it's very much been a 'landlord's market'. A drop in property values might lead to an increase in the vacancy rate (and hence a decrease in rent) because some current renters may feel they are finally in a position to buy rather than rent, but at the same time the banks will be much more reluctant to grant high-ratio mortgages, and thus the overall result will probably be a wash.

Rents also vary vastly within Vancouver. You will pay twice as much to live in neighbourhoods like the West End or Kitsilano as you would in just about any other area of Vancouver because those neighbourhoods are highly desirable areas with relatively low vacancy rates. Other parts of Vancouver have one-bedroom suites going for $750-800/month, which hardly seems outrageous for a large city. Of course the rents go down even further as you move into some of the suburban areas.

BTW: Getting back to the topic of the next BC election - I just saw that there is a new Angus Reid poll out that show the NDP lead over the BC Liberals growing from three points to five points - with the Greens wayyy back at 11%.

http://angusreidstrategies.com/uploads/pages/pdfs/2008.11.15_BCPolitics....

"Here is a man who is pushing for deregulation of the tar sands"

Are there tar sands in BC? I thought I knew this province pretty good or has Gordo being elected Premier of Alberta  while I have been out of the country.

Dr Conway - if your rent is going up because of municpal tax rates perhaps you should tell your friends at Burnaby City Hall to cut spending to get lower taxes.

Hardly. Housing prices in Burnaby have been galloping for the same reason Vancouver's housing proces have been galloping - real estate speculation and inflationary expectations in housing.

Property taxes have comparatively less to do with it, it's just the holding company maximizing its profit (as it usually does). It's just that they wouldn't be able to get away with it if rents for recently vacated apartments here weren't well above what I now pay, thanks to controlled rental increases.

Also, as the example of California tells us, in actual fact renters don't get any benefit from property tax limitation measures. All that happens is that the landlord gets a bigger chunk of the pie and the local government gets a hole blown in its budget.

So please spare me your snide comments about "my friends" in Burnaby City Council.

The people in Burnaby may be a good barometer of what is going to happen to the BC Liberals. If you look at the results in Victoria and Vancouver and Burnaby you see the voters not wanting to come out to vote for the Liberal farm teams. In Burnaby the TEAM candidates ran directly against the Burnaby "NDP government" and did not win a single seat on council or school board and lost the Mayoralty election by a 2 to 1 margin.

The Liberals are now facing municipal leaders in the major cities who will not fawn over everything Kevin Falcon says. In Vancouver the real story of the Olympic cost overruns will start to be discussed in advance of the provincial election. 

Time for some right wingers who don't like cronyism to run for the BC Conservative party. I like the idea of a red tory party running against the BC Liberals. If the Gordo Liberals are not worried after last nights municipal results then they are even more arrogant than I thought.

What is the BC NDP going to do about:

 1 - Labour Reations Board

2 - Labour Code

3 - WorkSafeBC

4 - Infrastructure Projects

5 - Poverty

6 - Homelessness 

7 - First Nation Treaties

8 - Health Care

9 - Seniors

10 - ALR

11 - Working poor

12 - Environment & Climate Change

13 - Forestry sector 

14 - Energy Sector 

Inquiring minds want to know

Why don't you just sit on hot coals in anticipation until the platform gets released in the near future.

I'm sure that whatever the BC NDP proposes in these areas it will invariably be better than the neo-fascist policies of the Gordon Campbell Social Credit government.

It can be dangerous for opposition parties to be too explicit about what their policies are (see Dion and Carbon Tax). Its best to just attack the hated incumbents and be as vague as possible about what you plan to do.

.

I'm with Stock.  The interest here is to ensure the 5 point NDP lead continues to grow.  No matter what, we will have better with James then Gordo and the ability to influence policy.  This from one who is highly critical of the centrist positions of the NDP.

Most everyone in BC knows that the Liberals are ahead of the NDP in voter support, and that these are bogus polls.  

Without some major changes I doubt very much that the NDP will do as well in 2009 as they did in 2005.

How exactly does anyone "know" that the Liberals are ahead in BC? Campbell and co. sure seem panicked about losing the election and we just had two byelections where the trend was against the BC Liberals. Just imagine how much worse it can get over the coming six months as the economy tanks and unemployment soars etc...

 There is nothing "bogus" about "these polls". Angus Reid is as reputable a company as any and in fact they were the most accurate in the recent federal election.

 If you know of any "unbogus polls" that make you think that Campbell and his Social Credit government are headed for alandslide re-election - please tell us about them.

Here is just such a poll, Stockholm...

Vancouver, BC – A new Ipsos Reid telephone poll taken six months ahead of the next BC provincial election could easily be mistaken for every other provincial political poll conducted by Ipsos Reid over the past two years. The latest poll shows the BC Liberals (44%, down 3 points from June) with a 9 point lead over the NDP (35%, up 2 points) among decided voters, with the Green Party in third place at 16% support (unchanged). The vote result in this poll is very similar to late year polls conducted in both December 2007 (Libs 45%, NDP 35%, Greens 16%) and December 2006 (Libs 45%, NDP 36%, Greens 16%).

Approval ratings for the two main party leaders and the BC provincial government are also essentially unchanged. Gordon Campbell has a 50% approval rating as Premier (up 1 point from June) and Carole James has a 54% approval rating as NDP and Opposition leader (down 1 point). Meanwhile, a slight majority of 53% of British Columbians say they approve of the overall performance of the BC Liberal government, up a statistically insignificant 2 points from when this question was last asked in March 2008.

When it comes to their choice of Premier, British Columbians appear to be more comfortable with Gordon Campbell. Campbell (53%, up 3 points from March) leads Carole James (37%, down 1 point) as the public’s choice as to which leader would make the better Premier of British Columbia. Campbell (56%) also leads James (34%) as the leader who British Columbians would trust more to deal with the BC economy in a time of economic downturn or uncertainty.

The full poll is at:

http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=4177#

Well, we have at least two polls showing an NDP lead and one showing a Liberal lead.

The relative glee with which people greet these polls says a lot about where people are coming from. I'm not sure why people would cheer at the prospect of four more years of Campbell but I don't live in BC.

There's even good news for James in the Ipsos poll. Compared to their previous polls she's up and Gordo's down.

Campbell's numbers on "economic uncertainty" are troubling.

I have to say that I'm curious about the motives of a few people who keep posting here who seem to WANT the BC NDP to lose and for BC to endure four more years of Social Credit rule under Gordon Campbell. If these people are rightwing ideologues who love Campbell then at least i knowwhere they are coming from. If not, then i don't know what axe they have to grind.

What is it? 

Carole James needs to get out there and be more visible. People will trust her more when they get to see her talking and discussing what the NDP will do for BC.

The problem with Angus Reid Strategies is that their poll is only their second publicly released BC opinion poll and they have no track record here in BC. Unlike others here, I prefer some certainty in my numbers be it nationally or provincially in order to come to a rational political conclusion.

Remember the Strategic Counsel poll released just before the 2005 election showing the Libs with a huge lead? It was bogus and we've never seen another BC provincial Strategic Counsel poll since.

Angus Reid also had a bogus poll (800 sample size) in Saskatchewan during the recent federal election showing the Cons leading the NDP by 5% (45% - 40%). The actual election result was the Cons led the NDP by ~55% to ~25% (around 30%).

That was a garbage Angus Reid opinion poll.

Funnily enough, both Ipsos and Angus Reid were in the field last week "at the same time" with 800 sample sizes yet Ipsos showed a spread in favour of the Libs by 9% while Angus Reid showed a spread in favour of the NDP by 5%.

Mustel is in the field this week and will release their numbers early next week. If Mustel's numbers co-relate to Ipsos then the credibility of Angus Reid future polls are tarnished (and vice versa). Since both Ipsos and Mustel have historically mirrored each other's results, I suspect that Angus Reid is the rogue.

If that's the case, they are BC's new Strategic Counsel.

The NDP should know its bread isn't buttered on the side of people who own million-dollar homes, its bread is buttered on the side of people that can't rub enough dimes together to pay the kind of rent it takes in a housing market where wages aren't keeping up with rents.

They should announce the following:

1. Immediate extinguishment of all provincial student debt and replacement of the provincial portion of a student loan with an outright grant. Based on the roughly 66/34 split between fed/prov this works out to covering tuition for students for free.

2. A tax on speculative house transfers if the purchase and subsequent resale are less than six months apart. People should buy houses to live in, not to get rich.

3. Undoing of tax cuts on he top bracket back to pre-2001 levels. If Barack Obama can win on a platform of restoring the top marginal tax rates to 35 and 39.6% (Clinton-era) the NDP can do the same for BC's marginal tax rates. 

I agree with #3, #1 would be be absurdly expensive and would add billions to the inevitable deficit. #2 is a moot points since property values are plummeting and no one is speculating anymore - you are only a speculator when you make a capital gain - not when you have a capital loss.  

"

Remember the Strategic Counsel poll released just before the 2005 election showing the Libs with a huge lead? It was bogus and we've never seen another BC provincial Strategic Counsel poll since. "

That's because there hasn't been a BC election since. They will probably do some polls in the next election in 2009.

The only way you can know who was right and who was wrong in political polling is when someone does a poll two days before the actual election and we can then compare that to the actual results. No one will ever know who was right and who was wrong in BC political polls done in Nov. '08 because we have no election now - we won't have one until May!

At this stage, what probably makes the most sense is to take an average of all the province wide polls and see what we get. Every polling company gets it just right or is off by a mile at least once. People USED to say that Nanos was the so-called 'gold standard" of polling because he was the closest in 2006 - but then he was off by quite a bit this past federal election and Angus Reid was closest - so go figure.

There is certainly reason to believe that the NDP has a very good chance of winning the next BC election. Campbell has brought in his idiotic carbon tax that everyone hates so much, the economy is in freefall, there are corruption allegations and we have just seen provincial byelections that showed a clear trend to the NDP - plus municipal elections in BC where the big winners were the people who were the most anti-Campbell.

But, I realize that - for whatever reason, there are obviously a a few people that are supposedly progressive and who hate carol James guts and wish that she would drop dead tomorrow (I wish i knew why people hate her so much - she seems like a nice enough person to me) - and these people would rather have a rightwing government rule BC for the next 25 years than have an NDP government that is led by someone they belittle and have obvious contempt for.

As far as i'm concerned, BC needs to rid itself of this far right Social Credit government and I really don't care who leads the NDP - any NDP leader would be 1000 times preferable to Campbell. 

The thread title "NDP will get whacked" is unfortunately very inappropriate and I don't know how anyone can come to that conclusion.

The May, 2009 ballot question will likely be "Has the government become too arrogant and out of touch with the average BCer"? and that question resonates.

The NDP won two by-elections and that brings momentum heading into 2009. [Partisan hat off].

[Objective analytical hat on.]

That being said, I prefer to have precise and reliable polling data (at any point in time) otherwise one can be misled and come to wrong conclusions. In that respect, Mustel has always been virtually bang-on in terms of accurate results and Ipsos is right behind.

Angus Reid's first publicly released figures in September didn't make much sense. Could the idiotic carbon tax during the summer months have turned around the political landscape by ~ a 17% spread?

As for Angus Reid, I recollect Les Leyne's column in September whereby senior new Democrats didn't believe the last Angus Reid figures and even a senior Lib was quoted a few days ago that their own internal numbers didn't jive with current Angus Reid's figures.

And there might be more anecdotal numbers in that regard. 

As I've read a few times on the net elsewhere, during last Saturday's Vancouver municipal campaign, the Vancouver Sun/SFU conducted an exit poll of Vancouver voters (843 sample size), which I was skeptical of until I saw the numbers for the mayoral race and they were actually bang on: 39% Ladner - 54% Robertson.

In that exit poll, 30% of Lib voters  and 71% of Green supporters voted for Robertson. Keep in mind that voter turnout in the west-side NPA-won polls was down and voter turnout in the east-side polls was also up.

In that exit poll, provincial party support was: (I was somewhat surprised)

Lib - 41%

NDP - 40%

Green - 11%

It is commonly held that Metro Vancouver NDP core support/strength resides in the City of Vancouver and "generally" dilutes heading into the suburbs.

That's why Angus Reid's finding that the NDP leads in the entire Metro Vancouver area (around 1/2 the sample size) by 5% is suspect.

Perhaps Angus Reid has still alot of calibrating to do regarding their BC on-line panels. That certainly appears to be the case with Saskatchewan.

Let's wait and see Mustel's numbers next week. 

Again that doesn't mean that the NDP will not win the May, 2009 election. Far from it.

"-Total outstanding 'direct' federal student loan debt now stands at $8.2 billion dollars, with some 990,000 borrowers approaching or in repayment (2007 AG's Report)."

That quote is from this website:

http://www.studentloanfairness.ca/index.php?name=FAQ&id_cat=4#q16

So no, it's not mountains and mountains and mountains. Since that's total Canada-wide, BC's portion can be taken as about 4 / 30 (proportion of population), giving us $1 billion outstanding for BC students. One-third of THAT is $333 million held provincially.

Sorry, buddy, you'll have to run that "OMG BILLIONS TO THE DEBT" line to someone else, Stocko. Maybe you should stick to butting your nose in around Toronto.

Hey DrConway, am I allowed to comment on the politics of Israel or the USA or is that unduly going against your "locals only" view?

Butting in about Israel in BC politics would be kind of annoying.

"

It is commonly held that Metro Vancouver NDP core support/strength
resides in the City of Vancouver and "generally" dilutes heading into
the suburbs.

That's why Angus Reid's finding that the NDP leads in the entire
Metro Vancouver area (around 1/2 the sample size) by 5% is suspect."

Not necessarily. The City of Vancouver is actually no more NDP friendly than the province as a whole. Right now there are 10 ridings in the City of Vancouver (soon to be 11 after the new map is in use). The NDP won 5 and the Liberals won 5 - but because the turn out is always higher in the richer areas, the Liberals got a lot more votes. There are plenty of areas in the rest of the GVRD where the NDP does very well - like much of Surrey and Burnaby, New Westminster, Coquitlam etc...

 One thing that is more believable about the Angus Reid poll is that they have the moribund BC Green Party at 11% while Ipsos has them at 16%. Given that their leader got a totally humiliating 7% of the vote in the recent byelection in the middle of Vancouver - it seems to me that even 11% is probably a gross overestimate and that they will get more like 7% - andI think that whenthe Green gets overestimated - it is probably the NDP that gets underestimated.

Doctor don't give me the blue its more like they are whacked, whacked in the head as they run the province into the ground and treat its people like they are live stock.  There are undecided voters and I wonder what they are waiting on all 33% of them.  I'll get back to you on that as I chat with the undecided voters to get the run down in the various communities.

Doctor don't give me the blues its more like they are whacked, whacked in the head as they run the province into the ground and treat its people like they are live stock.  There are undecided voters out there and I wonder what they are waiting on all 33% of them.  I'll get back to you on that as I chat with the undecided and see what they are waitin on.  I'm surprised it hasn't already been done or maybe it has.

Sorry about that doc said it wasn't posted as you see corrected my blues I guess its like a double, double trouble which was what I have been called at first sight.

Stock, when the Libs won in 2005, they won overall provincially by a margin of 4%.

In Metro Vancouver (no longer called the GVRD), the Libs won 22 seats and the New Democrats won 15 seats. (Abbottsford/Mission/Chilliwack are not included in that equation).

And the margins of victory in 2005 for the Libs in their ridings (Van City Westside, Richmond, Delta (not including the right-wing independent), West Vancouver, North Vancouver  South Surrey, Langley etc. was huge compared to the NDP's winning margins.

The Angus Reid poll now shows that Metro Vancouver's overall preference is for the NDP by a margin of 5%. It just does not make any sense from the ground.   

Conversely, Ipsos shows the Libs ahead by a margin in the metro region by a margin of 13% (albeit that's the Lower Mainland as a whole) and that makes more sense since Metro Vancouver's overall percentage of the Lower Mainland population is overwhelming. And the provincial spreads by both Ipsos and Mustel have consistently been 10% plus (compared to the 4% in the 2005 election).

While Ipsos does prompt the Greens in their poll questionnaire Mustel does not. The Greens obtained around 10% in 2005 and based upon their almost doubled support federally in BC to around ~10%, I can't seem them provincially going below that threshold on election day. The by-elections had historically low voter turnouts of 22% and 26% respectively compared to the 50% turnout in Surrey Panorama Ridge in 2004 and the numerous by-elections before that. Likely due to voter fatigue/burnout with the concurrent federal/municipal elections (and the U.S. election following).

BC's most infamous rogue pollster SCE Robbins also came out yesterday with numbers similar to that of Angus Reid:

http://www.robbinssceresearch.com/polls/poll_546.html

Although how anybody can come out with a purported 800 sample size poll with a 1.5% error margin (should be ~3.5%) is anybody's guess.  

Let's wait until Monday/Tuesday. Mustel should be the tie-breaker between Ipsos and Angus. 

Again, that's just the current snapshot. And of course the May, 2009 election is still up for grabs esp. with the ballot question stated in my previous post. 

" While Ipsos does prompt the Greens in their poll questionnaire Mustel does not."

Do you mean that Ipsos prompts for NDP, Liberal and Green and Mustel only prompts NDP and liberal and people have to volunteer Green or does Mustel do what Nanos does federally and not promts anyone - saying just "Who would you vote for?" 

I think that in a province-wide survey - you have to take the regional breakouts with a grain of salt. While you might question Angus Reid having the NDP 5% ahead on the Lower Mainland - you could also question them having the NDP only ever so slightly ahead on Vancouver Island - where they typically run up a big margin. 

The NDP doesn't have to actually be in the lead in the popular vote to win the election, they culd lose by 2 or 3% and win the election (as happened in 1996) because of the way that turnout rates tend to be higher in the fabulously wealthy areas that are Liberal strongholds - while the NDP tends to win its seats with fewer votes.

We shall see. Imagine what a blow it would be to Gordon Campbell to have to sit in the cheap seats as a mere spectator at the opening ceremonies of the Winter Olympics while Gregor Robertson and Carol James get to hobnob with the IOC and welcome heads of state to BC etc...

 The prospects for the Liberals are so dismal in central and northern BC, that I am thinking they are going to try to get the forest industry up and going before the election. In fact, just this week, a few pulp mills have announced they are starting back up, which means that the timber side maybe soon to follow in order to provide the fibre needed for paper production.

 I guess it depends on what side Jimmy is deciding to support. ;)

___________________________________________________________

"watching the tide roll away"

What are the undecided voters waiting for?  It was the environment for many but now it is the economy as they wait and see how hard we will be hit with the present global financial crisis and governments role. 

And I don't believe it will matter how much advertising and promises are made people will be feeling it and will decide on not what they are told but what they are experiencing.  Its a hard sell when folks are out of a job because there was no long term projection just short term speculation.

I do believe our Mayor is good for the city as  many will volunteer to make their city proud.  I imagine the way things are gong they will just take truck loads of the homeless, etc out of sight until the Olympics is over.  Its what they did in China as they took them out by the truck loads.  Friends of my at  China's Olympics had watched officers as they cleared the streets.  With the worlds economy and more disaster to come as its endless as America is not seen to be coming out of it's economic downturn until 2010 as markets continue to tumble with no real end in sight.  Who is going to be taking the luxury trip to an over priced city to watch an over priced event?  It is not looking good for Vancouver's Olympics as low numbers are expected to turn out.  I imagine they will be doing their advertising around the globe but even that is not going to help very much as hunger and starvation become household words around the planet.

I think it depends on how people view the numbers on the economy. During the richest resource boom in BC history the percentage of people living in poverty has grown significantly now making BC a leading province in the poverty deficit.

As well if you look closely at the Liberal books you will find they have already spent the bank and then some.  They have taken large public expenditures like the upgrade of the BC Ferry fleet and put them on the books of an "independent" BC Ferries.  Everyone knows that the government could not allow the ferry system to collapse into bankruptcy so their debt is in reality public debt. Their debt is now recorded in the billions and is growing. Oh and they built the wrong ships for the economy and the environment. The whole rebuilding off the fleet was premised on an ever growing number of car trips on board with much of the growth to come from American tourists. That is not even to get into the Convention Centre and the Basi Virk trial.

If enough of the  real story of the liberal mismanagement and potential corruption seeps into the voters consciousness they could be in very big trouble next May.

 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ From North of Manifest Destiny

I doubt hunger and starvation are going to be kitchen table talk regarding folks who are planning to attend the 2010 W. Olympics.

When Mustel goes into the field they ask a few simple questions in the following order:

1. What is the most important issue facing British Columbia today?

2. If a provincial election were held tomorrow, which party's candidate would you support?

3. Do you generally approve or disapprove of the performance of Gordon Campbell as Premier of the province?

4. Do you generally approve or disapprove of the performance of Carole James as leader of the NDP?

So, yes Mustel's unprompted party preference question is akin to that of Nanos.

OTOH, Ipsos prompts the parties with this initial question:

The BC Liberal Party

The New Democratic Party

The Green Party

Other

And I believe that you have previously stated that when a party preference poll prompts the Greens, they tend to be higher in a poll.  

Yes, most regional sub-samples should be taken with a grain of salt. That said, the 400 sub-sample size for Metro/ Lower Mainland is large enough, IMHO, to actually arrive at some relatively accurate figures.

We obviously know, through anecdotal evidence, that Vancouver Island has always been a core area of NDP strength in BC and the NDP will always lead in that region.

But out of an 800 sample size the, 124 weighted sample for Vancouver Island is too small for any accurate figures as opposed to a 400 weighted sample size for the Metro Vancouver/Lower Mainland. Actually I recall reading somewhere that any sample size under 300 is basically useless in terms of any accuracy.

Well kropotkin, forest industry people in the interior EI is running out this December, and further north it will be running out in February and March.  Leaving huge amounts on the dole. This will be a significant factor in all Prince George/Kamloops ridings, plus ridings west and north to Fort Nelson. Moreover, the cancer clinic did not happen for the north, and infrastructure is crumbling.

The BCNDP forestry plan is getting to be well known and people are saying they can finally vote NDP.

___________________________________________________________ "watching the tide roll away"

Don't forget that was when the right-wing Reform party also was a player. While they only grabbed ~9% province-wide, Reform won the two northeast Peace River seats and were receiving 20% in many other central/northern interior seats allowing the NDP to sneak up the middle.

If the BC PC's become credible (don't know about that) something similar could occur. The last time the BC PC's were credible in BC was during the 1979 election under leader Vic Stephens. They took enough votes in some ridings (10% in Comox) allowing the NDP to win seats although the Socreds still won marginally by a 48% - 46% margin.

That's when the NDP wins elections in BC, when there are other credible alternatives and vote-splitting on the right:

1972 - Socreds/PC's/Liberals

1991 - Socreds/Liberals

1996 - Liberals/Reform

If the BC Conservatives could even just have a name on the ballot in every riding - they could easily siphon off a critical 5% per riding from rightwing people who don't like the carbon tax and who regard Campbell as a "suit" who comes from central casting as a rightwing pro-business federal Liberal who rans well in West Van among the carriage trade.

Regardless of whether there is a third party "splitting votes", the NDP vote in BC is a lot more efficient than the Liberal vote. The Libs tend to pile up humoungous majorities in places like Langley, Richmond, Abbotsford, the Okanagan etc... while the NDP has very few seats that it wins in quite such an overwhelming fashion. 

The one thing  I really like about Dr Conway is that he seems to think that someone who doesn't live in the region shouldn't be commenting about what is going on in the region yet he seems to be an expert at telling those of us who actually live and vote in Vancouver how to run our affairs when he doesn't live in the City himself but in the thriving socialist republic of Burnaby where democracy is allowing one party to hold all seats.

There is a real chance that the NDP could win next May's election - during the recent by-elections in Vancouver the NDP distributed election ads outlining some of what Carole James and the NDP would do if elected - it included a reference that she would ban off shore drilling - wonder if she has spoken with former NDP Premier Dan Miller about that subject - from what I have seen lately he seems to be promotiog it more as a salvation for the Northwest economy than the current Premier.

She also needs to clearly state where she stands on Gateway given that Glenn Clark also had plans for a second bridge and resolve the differences on that matter with here Burnaby and Surrey wings.

She also stated that she wants to Save St Paul's when her own candidate in the Burrard by-election is okay with the current plan of building a new Campus of Care next to the Bus/train station while retaining some of the current services - HIV/Aids etc at a revamped and renovated Burrard St location. 

Actually, it's just Stockholm I have some issues with. :P

At least you're consistent; I bet you also complained mightily about theBC Libs' 77 seats back in 2001 :P

Personally, I have no objection to BCA holding all the seats all over; did you also notce that in Vancouver, Vision/COPE made a nearly clean sweep of the seats in council, parks and school board? Board, speck, etc.