BC Polling Numbers Static - Mustel

There is a pretty consistent pattern in BC polls that in between elections the Green party gets about double the numbers it ever gets on election day (i.e. 15% compared to 8%) and the NDP tends to pick up most of that. That was the pattern for most of the last few years. Through most of 2006, 2007 and 2008 and early 2009, the BC Liberals were consistently in the mid 40s and the NDP in the mid to high 30s and the Greens in the mid-teens - but then when the votes were counted the Greens got only 8% and the NDP got 42%.

I think that the most important number right now is the fact that BC Liberal support is only 35% - that is a bit of a new floor for them - and that Campbell's disapproval ratings are so high - even though all the "Olympic fever" is getting revved up etc...

Campbell steps aside and Liberals provide a mea culpa to win another election in 20**.  Its along time away to the next election.

Parking votes is a tradition in the offseason.  The Green Party had these numbers heading into by elections and while 15% doesn't get anyone elected, its not a bad tally.  Unfortuneately 4% and 5% are more the norm when it comes time to cast the ballot. Probably another 15 to 20 years before the GP of BC sees a seat, if ever.

Angus Reid Stategies have also just come out with their own BC poll:

NDP: 47%

Lib: 33%

Grn: 10%

Con: 7%

The 14% spread is the same spread that ARS had in their early September poll.

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Democrats+hold+double+digit+lead+over+L...

Now, we can start the coundown before the usual Carol James hating malcontents say "Carol James has to go, she's ONLY 14 points ahead and she hasn't gained any ground since she was 14 points ahead in the last poll!"

I know it's cliche, but it's true: the only poll that matters is the election, when James did poorly. The NDP had a realistic shot last go around and they blew it, and with the next election being held in 2013, there is loads of time for the Liberals to turn the tables. That's a long time in politics. If we think back to how this time last year it looked certain that Harper was on his way out, and things changed.

I don't live in BC, but I can't imagine that BCers are happy with the "moral victory" of being ahead in the polls at a time when the Campbell government has a solid majority and 3 and a half years left to inflict massive damage on the province.

We will never know whether if the BC NDP had been led by anyone else, they would have won last May or lost by the same margin or lost by a far bigger margin.

But you can be sure that if the NDP was 14 points BEHIND in the polls right now - the usual suspects would using it as fodder to dump Carol James. Instead because the NDP is far ahead, they will try to just dismiss the polls. I believe the BC NDP has a convention this week. I expect James will get a resounding vote of confidence.

The knives are fully out at the constituency level. Eight or so (some of them relatively significant riding associations) have submitted resolutions for the next convention trying to open up a leadership race. The knives have nothing to do with current polls or even Carole James' continually improved performance in the popular. Instead the knives are out over having lost the last election and felt that it was poorly run. Carole James needs to concede this points and come back fighting with some pretension of a plan to win next time around or she is finished. Such is the nature of BC politics. Assuming she can come up with some sort of a convincing vision, I hope she will come out and fight for her job. She has gotten close to the Premier's office and with the right vision (a positive one) and strategy mix (both in opposition and during the campaign) she can win.

If the Campbell retires though, it is a completely different ball game. With Campbell gone, so go a lot of the BC Liberals' negative optics.

I remember a few polls showing the NDP ahead in the lead-up to the 2009 election, so it's a good possibliity. Then the spotlight is shone on James, and lo and behold, NDP numbers tank. Coincidence? She lost an election during economic insecurity and against an unpopular premier.

The fact that many BCers on this board can't stand James tells me that there is something very unappealing about her to the BC public.

James is finished as leader, rest assured of that, but it is not going to happen right now, nor should it. There are more important things right now on the agenda.

What's probably the most significant thing to see in these polling numbers is that the Con vote is growing. We should probably all throw a few bucks their way to ensure they continue to grow.

The fact that two or three (literally) people post on babble dumping on Carol James means sweet fuck all to me. Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but it tells me nothing about what most people think. Especially since the couple of predictable critics never seem to be able to name anyone who they think would be better.

There are also two or three people who post on babble who think Jack layton is a disaster. They are also entitled to their opinion - but I think it would be stretching things (to say the least) to say "gee, two people are posting on babble who are leftists who hate Layton - I guess he's got to go!!"

There was exactly ONE poll that had the NDP slightly ahead of the BC Liberals about a year ago when gas prices were sky high and anger about the carbon tax was at its height. But its not as if Carol James was an unknown quantity back then. She had led the NDP in 2005 and done well.

I don't claim to know all the ins and outs of the BC NDP - but here is my theory FWIW, in 2002, NOBODY seemed to want to become leader of the NDP in BC. The party had been reduced to 2 seats and it was debatable whether it could even survive as a political force. Carol James was the one and only person of any note who was willing to step up to the plate. All these other ambitious people, thought "Let Carol do all the thankless heavy lifting, she's get a little dead cat bounce in the next election and go from 2 to 12 seats and then she'll quit and THEN I can take over". Well it didn't turn  out that way, James exceede all expectations and took 34 seats and came surprisingly close to winning in 2005. All of a sudden the job of BC NDP leader didn't seem so thankless anymore and all of a sudden all the people who couldn't be bothered to run for the job in 2002 were all kicking themselves for it.

So now they take pot shots at Carol James, but i think they are really just mad at themselves for not running against her in '02.

The leadership is not the focus at this point.

That will be addressed in due course.

Pretty good summation...

Sometimes one wonders about the "whisperers" in riding associations, and elsewhere, and whether they really have best interests in their consideration, or if it is just men wanting to exploit women's endeavours?

It's true that in some sense, Carole James was a victim of her own success in the 2005 elections, as it created expectations that were perhaps, in retrospect, unrealistic. People tend to forget that unlike Manitoba and Saskatchewan, the B.C. NDP cannot claim to be the 'natural governing party' - in fact quite the opposite. Historically the NDP has only won elections when the 'free enterprise' vote has been divided (1972 and 1991). The NDP has formed government with as little as 39 percent of the vote (1972, 1991 and 1996) and has lost elections with as much as 46 percent of the popular vote (1979). It all depends on what is happening on the other side of the ledger. Right now, not only is the 'free enterprise' vote more or less united under the Liberals, the Greens continue to siphon off votes that might otherwise go to the NDP.

All of this is by way of saying that it's a bit ridiculous to suggest that Carole James somehow "blew" the 2009 election. I think she's basically a 'neutral' factor, myself - there are no real negative feelings toward her out there, but at the same time there is no real enthusiasm for her among the general public either. Contrasted with Campbell, who has high negatives (which to some degree goes with the territory of being the incumbent). Some people in the NDP simply assumed that voters were going to take out their anxiety over the two big issues in the 2009 election - the economy and crime - by punishing Campbell, forgetting that these are the two areas where the public trusts the Liberals far more than the NDP. If the election issues had been health care or education or poverty, the NDP probably would have won, but when the main issues on people's minds are areas where your party is perceived to be weak or incompetent (and with respect to the economy, let's face it, has a less-than-stellar record), then it's pretty hard to win, even if people don't really like the other guy.

Carole James gets it - Ignatieff doesn't

Doomed Ignatieff Broke Political Golden Rule

I think Stockholm is more or less on track although when James ran for the leadership there was a widely held view that the BC NDP was finished - possibly forever. So heavy lifting then meant pall bearing for many. After 2005 people started to kick themselves but there is also opposition to James for several other reasons. One, I'm sad to say, is that she is a woman. There is a macho complex among some BC NDP members and there are those that think a woman can't get the job done. Another is there are different people that don't feel James is "tough" or "strident" or "radical" enough. Then there are people angry about opposition to the carbon tax. Then there are people that thought the last campaign was too negative, or had no real vision. There are also holdouts who are still angry at the BC NDP from its time in government: see certain NDPers turned Greens, NDPers turned BC Liberals, NDPers turned stay-at-homes. There are fewer (voting) holdouts each election that passes. There are also people that feel the last election was unprofessionally run and that the BC NDP has no excuse because it had 4 years to prepare. There are those that just don't think James has the political judgment or leadership skills to hold the party together and get things done...and all these concerns conspire to cause her problems.

The one thing James has going for her is that the BC public probably like her somewhat more than does her party. In fact, the moderate, sharp, but usually mild spoken James comes across as more moderate than the usually strident and almost grating NDP. It may help that she looks more like a soccer mom than a power politician. Her professional background also doesn't suggest blood ties to the unions and that probably reassures some swing voters.

I think those are all possible reasons for her problems. Though I disagree that people like her somewhat more than the party. Her approval rating is 33% according to the polls. Her disapproval is around 40%. Granted, it's harder to get attention than the Premier, it's a little disconcerting that her approval/disapproval is still so dismal after six years as leader. It's incompetence at worst and worrisome at best. People ought to know who she is.

And no, I don't have an "alternative" leader in mind. But the point remains that her leadership obviously doesn't fill British Columbians (Stockholm, have you moved recently or something? Oh, of course not, but the view from Toronto is quite rosy) with confidence. It really speaks volumes that at least eight constituency associations are calling for a leadership review, despite the fact that the party holds a lead right now. But who knows, this could be a repeat of the early 80s where Bennett became really unpopular, the NDP trained its guns on him, like they are on Campbell right now, the Liberals (like the Socreds before them) replace Campbell with someone dynamic and newer and run circles around the NDP in the 2013 election.

Is there a list of the eight constituencies that want a leadership review or is this just a rumour? I didn't realize you even needed constituency resolutions to get a leadership review. I thought that it was an automatic feature of all NDP conventions to have a vote on whether or not to have a leadership contest?

In the early 80s the NDP did train its guns on Bennett when he became unpopular - the problem was they also decided that they needed a new leader and got stuck with a forgettable man named Bob Skelly who lost to VanderZalm.

There is no point constantly changing leaders just for the sake of changing leaders - that doesn't seem to be doing the federal Liberals much good is it? I'm also glad that the Manitoba NDP didn't decide to get rid of Gary Doer after he lost in 1988 and 1990 and 1995.

If there is an ALTERNATIVE to Carol James who people think would genuinely be a zillion times better than she is - by all means present that person. I'll even happily jump on the bandwagon if such a person exists. But as long as its just "let's get rid of Carol James because we're bored with her and we don't have anyone particular in mind to replace her with..." then this is a waste of time.

Here's a list of the riding associations. I have not been following the rumblings carefully, but they are serious. As to who would be better? The answer is there is no answer, but there are almost certainly several eager suitors waiting in the wings. The BC NDP had a solid stretch in power in the 90s so the post of leader will attract applicants just because of the perception that the Premiership is there for the taking. Also added to James' woes, the party is once again (this has happened for several election cycles now) massively in debt.

I have almost never heard of any party not being in debt in the immediate aftermath of an election. That's almost a given. Elections cost millions of dollars and parties almost always have to borrow to pay for them and then have a repayment schedule to pay back the loans. Its like taking out a mortgage on a house. If you want to drive the BC NDP even further into debt - a good way to do would be to have a leadership contest with half a dozen candidates each needing to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars in order to be able to compete.

From my reading of the article that is linked to above, there are only two ridings (out of 85) that put forth resolutions explicitly calling for a leadership convention. The others have a variety of resolutions calling for an updated procedure for having regular secret ballot leadership reviews at party conventions in general - which makes sense to me and would make sense no matter who was in charge.

I've been to enough NDP meetings in my life to know that meetings to propose resolutions to conventions are usually attended by about 5 or 6 people. That's how those freaks from the Socialist Caucus always manage to get a few absurd resolutions on the agenda at federal NDP conventions.

Again, if you have someone better in mind - give us some names. As long as its Carol James vs. person X - I'll take the devil I know.

Opportunity beckons for B.C. Tories

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/11/23/raphael-alexander-opportunity-beckons-for-b-c-tories.aspx

Carol James reminds me of Gary Doer. As NDP leader Doer lost 3 elections before he became Premier. Just like Carol, many people wrote Doer off.

No one suggested that so I'm not sure why you're so insistent upon asking it like it was a question. Also, your point about Bob Skelly just makes my point. James is a Skelly-esque leader. She's mentally a lot tougher than him, and I respect her for that. But she's just as milquetoast, in the sense that she's uninspiring and hasn't done much to improve the NDP's poor image as economic managers. This is clearly proven by the continued decline in overall voters for the BC NDP, despite the population growth we've experienced and the party's inability to make gains despite anxiety over the economy. If there's a third repeat of Campbell vs. James, I'll bet on James, due to Campbell's self-inflicted wounds. But if it's someone who took a bit of a break, like Carole Taylor, it'll be hard to bet on the NDP. Especially if the BC Conservatives don't get their act together.

The mayor of Canada`s largest city, Surrey, will be the Liberal leader next election.

We are now comfortably 14% ahead in the polls. Carole has higher leadership ratings that Gordo. Gordo's deceit continues to haunt him. We are now in the driver's seat. Let's just all relax and chill out!

The election is still 3 1/2 years away. In 2 - 2 1/2 years we will see what the political landscape is then. Carole will be smart enough to look after the interests of the party at that time. And if a leadership convention is what will happen (likely), then we will be able to reap the publicity closer to the election. But that's still conjecture and speculation right now.

Again, we are way ahead in the polls, so just sit back and enjoy our current position. We haven't been this far ahead since 2001!

Would that be the same Gary Doer who's now Stephen Harper's huckster in Washington, peddling tar sands oil?

With one exception, Doer came out of every general election significantly ahead in seat count than going in. James, in her second campaign, actually ended up losing a seat the NDP had won in 2005 with no other improvements. Apples and oranges.

so they each have "one exception"

The NDP picked up Burnaby-Deer Lake, and Stikine, as well as hanging on to Vancouver-Burrard after the by-election win there. Cariboo-Chilcotin was lost. Not quite fair to say there were 'no' improvements, even if technically the % of seats won did drop.

I guess I am one of the 2 or 3 people remaining on Babble who are critical about the current state of uninspired leadership within the BCNDP.

The 51% of IDENTIFIED NDP VOTERS  that the mid-summer Angus Reid poll identified as wanting a change of leader are doing other things....

Some are going to Convention. As an active member, I know there is MASSIVE discontent within the Party membership, for reasons summarized here: http://politicsrespun.org/ .  That discontent will be aired at this Convention.  

Whether there are 2 or 8 resolutions calling for a leadership review matters little at this point. The David Schreck (remember him?) resolution calling for a 2011 leadership review will be the Convention focal point. It will be a proxy vote on her leadership. North Report is correct, at this point the leadership question doesn't really matter, unless Carole decides to "go Rogue" and squander the Party for the sake of personal ambition. I really doubt she will do that, but you never know....

I believe the resignation is a done deal, it's only a question of timing. Some of the competing resolutions at Convention will want a 2010 review (not realistic for a bankrupt Party). What this convention is all about is forming the next Provincial Executive who will have to address the problems of debt, an uninspired membership, and the leadership question.

Not attending convention but if I was he lost my vote with this criticism (my emphasis):

"Carole James - bad leader, woman, not inspiring, lacks vision or passion, been around too long"

That is absolutely correct: convention will decide on the Carole James issue. It will decide on whether to do the housekeeping to clean up some contradictory language in the constitution about how the leader is elected. It will decide on a leadership review process and a timeline.

The next executive, which I wish to help lead, will definitely have to address an uninspired membership and leadership tone.

And here's what Carole James had to say yesterday supporting my ideas for member engagement:

http://www.publiceyeonline.com/archives/004507.html [33]

Stephen Elliott-Buckley

for BC NDP Vice-President

http://PoliticsReSpun.org [34]

So is there something wrong with Carol James being a woman? Apparently the main critic of her leadership lists her gender as one of her liabilities.

Please read my piece more carefully:

http://politicsrespun.org/2009/11/bc-ndp-convention-minus-4-days-why-we-... [37]

It isn't my criticism. It is a listing of popular reasons why people think we lost the election. The only of the 9 reasons that I fully agree with is #9 because it's my reason.

In fact, the paragraph just before that "woman" item in my piece contains this sentence: "Here is a short list of many of the most popular explanations for why we aren't in government right now, in no particular order."

Lots of people in BC believe a woman shouldn't be premier. Lots of people in the party may be OK with a female leader but think she's a bad bet because the sexists in the province won't vote for a party led by a woman. I figure those who don't think women should be premiers probably wouldn't vote NDP anyway, so no loss there.

I think it's inappropriate to decide to not vote for me because I happen to mention that many people think we lost the election because she is a woman. It is disturbing, but it is true. I've heard it from NDP members and non-members and it made me wince.

There is precious little public discussion about the sexism and racism in BC politics. I believe the racist tone in BC is the reason why Carole James didn't put a higher profile on her Metis roots, which she should have celebrated.

If we don't actually talk about sexism in politics, how will we ever eradicate it?

Here you can read some of my previous ideas about how sexism has hurt Carole James and the NDP:

http://politicsrespun.org/2009/05/regrets-super-human-gordon-campbell-wont-tell/ [38]

http://politicsrespun.org/2009/05/gordon-campbell-fires-himself-during-the-leaders-debate/ [39]

and this most important one:

http://politicsrespun.org/2009/04/some-justification-for-ndps-gender-policies/ [40]

And as in my previous post, you can watch Carole James explain what she thinks of my ideas of party reform here:

http://www.publiceyeonline.com/archives/004507.html [33]

And you can read Sean Holman's account of my views of Carole James' gender just posted here:

http://www.publiceyeonline.com/archives/004509.html [41]

Stephen Elliott-Buckley

for BC NDP Vice-President

http://PoliticsReSpun.org [34]

I hope you're not talking about me being that main critic. If so, see my post immediately before this one.

Stephen Elliott-Buckley

for BC NDP Vice-President

http://PoliticsReSpun.org

I guess you must be just DEVASTATED that two polls came out just before the convention showing the BC NDP with a big lead. It would have been so much better of the polls showed the opposite and then you could launch your little "putsch" but no such luck.

Question: Is there any particular resolution of election of officials at the convention that will be somewhat of a proxy for how much support James has in the party?

BTW: If Alberta Tories were willing to give a dingbat like Ed Stelmach a 77% vote of confidence, its clear that its rare for parties to turf leaders. - esp. when they are way ahead in the polls.

The Stelmach tories are still way ahead of their nearest opponents as per Albertan "democratic" tradition dating back to 1971.

As for how many seats the BC NDP picked up, the easiest way to asses that is by noting that there were 79 seats pre-election and the NDP won 33 of them in 2005, whereas the Liberals won 46. In 2009 there were 85 seats and the NDP's total seat count went up to 35, whereas the Liberals won 49 and an Independent (Val Roddick) won one. This is hardly much of a change.

Anyways though it's hard to predict this far away from the election, I bet James would beat Campbell. But would she beat, Diane Watts, especially as Watts cleans up Surrey? I doubt it.

Who are you talking to?

Stephen Elliott-Buckley

for BC NDP Vice-President

http://PoliticsReSpun.org

Please see Vansterdam Kid's response.

Stockholm: As for Gary Doer's "exception?" I thought I didn't have to spell it out, with you being an expert on politics in all provinces, but here it is: The one election where Doer failed to win more seats for the NDP than he had going in was 1988. At that time, "NDP" was a four-letter word in Manitoba, and he was handed the reigns of the party when it was in freefall. The NDP was going to lose seats that year no matter what, regardless of what Doer did. So what's Carole's excuse for not improving the seat-count last spring?

Well it is pretty bad with all the HST outrage the NDP is not a lot higher than they are. They have not gained. Give it two years and the libs will be back ahead. BC Voters have short memories.

The Green support is not as high as the numbers state. They poll higher in between elections but come election day their 'support' drops right off.

Carole James is the Ignatiuf of BC Politics. The damage has been done and she is not electable. She ran a piss poor campaign, flipped flopped. She is done and so are the NDP if they do not get rid of her.

Diane 'Develope everywhere' Watts will unfortunately be th enext Liberal leader from the sounds of it and win it for the libs, especially if there is not a third party to split the vote so the NDP can win (like the only 3 times they ever won) and if they keep Carole 'Ignatiuf' James they are doomed until 2017 but realistically 2021 or even 2025 if Watts is leading the libs as expected.

BC has always voted right wing, unless there is a split. heck even Campbell when he lost to Clark received more votes.

The NDP need to somehow find a leader that can win without a 3 way split and beat Watts.

But the NDP needs to get a message/platform, and keep at it and do not sway or flip flop like during the last election and changing leaders would not hurt either.

They need to get that message out but when most of the media is owned by the right like CKNW, CTV, and Canwest-Global (Sun, Province, most community papers and the very bias Global BC TV network) it is hard to do that.

"I bet James would beat Campbell. But would she beat, Diane Watts, especially as Watts cleans up Surrey? I doubt it."

Actually, if you look at the riding by riding results in Surrey in the last BC election, there are 8 seats in Surrey and the NDP took 4 and the BC Liberals took four. of the 4 NDP seats - three of them were won by absolutely colossal margins - Surrey-Whalley (NDP had a 40 point margin of victory), Surrey-Newton (NDP by 41 points!), Surrey Green Timbers (NDP by 48 points - ie a 3 to 1 margin). The closest thing to a marginal NDP seat in Surrey is Fleetwood and even that went NDP by 10 points). The other fouyr Surrey seats are the opposite with 3 being supersafe BC Liberal seats and 1 having gone Lib. by a 10% margin. Saying that Diane Watts will lead to BC Liberals winning seats like Whalley, Green Timbers and Newton in Surrey is as absurd as to say that because Gordon Campbell was once mayor of vancouver, the BC Liberals are suddenly going to win Vancouver-Mount Pleasant or Kingsway or Hastings etc...

I read your whole piece and, while I did realize you weren't saying you didn't support Carole James because she's a woman, you are using the sexism of others to undermine her as a credible candidate for Premier.

Yep and enabling it.

There is an interesting article in the Globe today about Carol James and the NDP

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/bcs-ndp-a-...

I'm trying to figure out whether her detractors are from the far left of the party who want a more doctrinaire platform etc... or if they are more centrist Blairite Third Way type who want a NEW New Democratic Party - or a bit of both. The article implies that the change the NDP needs is to be more centrist than it currently is etc...

Actually, my motivation in commenting on the sexism in BC politics was not to undermine her candidacy. How could you know my motivation?

So to avoid inadvertently undermining her as a candidate by mentioning the sexism that exists, should I then simply not refer to the sexism in BC politics and how it damages progressive reform?

If we don't talk about the festering sexism, how can we ever address it in our political culture?

Stephen Elliott-Buckley

for BC NDP Vice-President

http://PoliticsReSpun.org

Strikes me that alot of that article is Craig Keating's view of the NDP. This is the same guy that backstabbed Leonard Krog to throw his support behind Carole James at the leadership convention. I'd take whatever he says with a healthy dose of skepticism.

SEXISM IN BC POLITICS

In the 2009 campaign media it was Norman Spector (of all people!) who called out the issue of sexism in BC Politics. I agree with Stephen, this is an issue that needs to be debated rather than ignored.

Spector's piece in the Globe and Mail, May 13:

From the opening bell, Mr. Campbell set the tone of the campaign: "Ms. James doesn't have a lot of business experience. She clearly doesn't understand a lot of the challenges."

Then, under fire during the leaders debate, he let slip, "Ms. James, you should understand - this is a big job and it is hard to get a handle on it."

Many in the media criticized the comment as "patronizing"; in the context of the Liberals' 2009 election campaign, "sexist" would have been a more appropriate word.

It's not clear when business experience became a qualification for the job of premier or prime minister. Mike Pearson had no business experience. Nor did Tommy Douglas nor Ralph Klein. Stephen Harper has none to speak of. And, in the recent plethora of coverage of Mr. Ignatieff, I can't think of a single mention of his business experience, or lack thereof.

Why the difference? Let's be frank: None of the gentlemen mentioned above was or is a woman.

Notably, Mr. Campbell's business experience is thin, and what there is of it is decidedly unimpressive. Notably, too, he did not run this kind of sexist campaign against Ms. James in 2005."

As per babble tradition your tendency to know better than us locals has caused you to embarrass yourself. I was talking about her record in cleaning up the city itself due to her job of being Mayor (things that will reflect well on her like urban renewal in Whalley, shedding Surrey's negative reputation, etc). Not her ability to magically win hard core NDP seats in northern Surrey, which obviously she wouldn't be able to do.

She's even gotten begrudging respect from my fellow Vancouverites who like to look down on Surrey and make it the butt of all regional jokes. She is one of the few political figures with a positive approval rating in this province, she would even mop the floor with (Vancouver Mayor) Gregor Robertson who has a minus 9 approval rating.

So yeah, her province wide appeal would translate into her winning swing-seats throughout the province. She isn't seen as particularly partisan, so if she were to run for the Liberals the NDP would have a hard time pinning her with Campbell's record (that said, it's hard to say where she stands on the political spectrum... I'd assume centre to centre-right, but that's not entirely clear). Not to mention that unlike Campbell she's actually likeable as a human being, as in someone people would "like to have a beer with" and that sort of thing.

Edit: BTW not that she's unbeatable or anything, there are many areas (environment, homelessness, lack of provincial experience etc...) that should she run as a Liberal I think she could be attacked on. But she would be a formidable opponent.

Then again, Diane Watts is a woman and supposedly, people don't trust a woman to manage the economy. If the Liberals are led by a woman as well - then suddenly the knock against Carol James gets neutralized!

Of course there is also the issue of whether all the big "C" conservatives in the BC Liberal coalition would tolerate a leader who wasn't a rightwinger etc...

Putting partisanship aside, Carole Taylor was a woman as well as the minister of finance who was quite highly regarded across the spectrum and was the heir apparent to despised Campbell until she retired. She also had the same polling numbers as Watts.

FWIW, I don't think it has much to do with gender but more to do with persona and respectabilty. On top of that, both Taylor and Watts are/ were seen to be non-partisan.

Gregor Robertson is also seen to be non-partisan in that mold, which opens up the tent to a wider voting base.

Calling Carole Taylor non-partisan is absurd IMO. She is a neo con always was a neo con and as a BC cabinet minister always ruled on behalf of her close friends on Howe Street.  Prior to that as head of the CBC she was one of the instrumental people in its demise as a public broadcaster and its emergence as a state media parroting the American corporate ideology.

She is non partisan only if you believe that neo conservative ideology is a neutral political force.

"non-partisan" is one of those American-style political terms that doesn't really fit in Canadian politics with our westminster style political system. Its hard to be "non-partisan" when you lead a party and you have knock down drag out fights in the legislature every day. Its also easy to be "non-partisan" if you have a 20 point lead in the polls and everyone's happy - then suddenly the opposition starts to nip at your heels and you have to become very PARTISAN and very negative very quickly.

Last year, Stephane Dion seemed to try the non-partisan thing federal and it turned into a demolition derby.

There is also the whole issue of how when a woman who leads a party tries to be less confrontational and more conciliatory (like Carol James has tried to be) then you get hit with a flood of condescending comments about not being "tough" enough and not understanding that politics is a blood sport etc...

Strictly speaking, "non-partisan" is supposed to mean someone who is not a member of any any party and who tries to govern by consensus (good luck finding that outside of Nunavut and few small tpown city councils). To govern is to choose. Sometimes people will use a term like non-partisan incorrectly to describe someone who might actually be hyper-partisan who who has a pleasant personality and smiles a lot.

I wouldn't worry about Campbell's replacement.  Their first priority will be to keep their coalition together, and something tells me that will very difficult to do after the leadership race.  None of the so-called front runners to replace the Premier have the ability to hold the party together. They all lack the iron fist needed to keep both urban liberals and rural conservatives together.  I do not believe that Diane Watts has this ability.  I am willing to wager that the united right will splinter in BC in the next few years.  The cracks already starting to show.

I don't know about that seeing as her political party, Surrey First is a loose coalition that includes lefties and righties. She's shown an ability to bring ideologically disparate people together. I'd say that she may have that ability when it comes to the Liberals, who are a lot more ideologically cohesive than Surrey First (which includes, Conservatives, Liberals and NDP'ers). Now maybe if the BC Conservatives run a full slate next time that could have somewhat of an effect in hurting whoever the Liberal is... assuming they're able to average 4-8% across the province.

As many people have learned, provincial politics is a totally different kettle of fish from municipal politics. Its easy to put together people from different parties when you're mayor of a suburb and most of the issues are things like speed bumps and zoning etc... when you get to the provincial politics you have to start taking stands on divisive controversial issues and the stakes are way higher. You can't get away with just having group hugs.

Craig Keating finished last in the leadership race Carole James won. He received something like a dozen votes and went up to the stage for his speech with around 5 or 6 people. I have nothing against Keating and think he had some good perspectives (he is currently an elected city councillor in the NDP dead zone of North Van and I wouldn't mind seeing him run federally for the NDP), but his word is not the be all and end all of BC politics.

As for who has the knives out for James, it is people on the hard left and the "centre." The centrists have a bunch of the "kicking themselves" crowd and also curry favour with the media. The hard left folks are radicals and leftist dogma police. In BC, the NDP is an uneasy coalition of traditional leftists and "centrist," Third Way types (among other groupings). The majority/most dedicated part of the party is in the leftist camp. Right now, James has to defend herself on both flanks. She has historically relied on the left party base for her support. The biggest ideological threat to her is potentially the radicals (because if their criticism is heeded it can eat into her base), and the biggest strategic challenge is the crowd on the NDP's "right" (they hold the media's favour, house would-be-king-killers, and know how to sometimes scare up votes).

V. Jara,

I would boil down even more to those that want govern and those that prefer to be a voice for change.  The centrist types want to govern and follow the successful models in Saskatchewan and Manitoba.  The hard left would prefer to force their dogmas on the party and are content being a strong voice.

It also bears mentioning that besides BC, the party's recruiting grounds for staffers has been Alberta and Ontario.  Not the strongest places for the party.  I believe that having never governed, or come close, these staffers lack in insight to use their skills to win. This includes Laura Nichols the "outgoing" Prov. Secretary.

Why would we recruit from Alberta instead of Sask or 'Toba?

The old guard's message to the NDP:

I find it ironic that all the "old guard" people are trotting themselves out as "saviours" for the party, when they're largely the reason the NDP has so many crediblity problems. It's kind of like when Dick Cheney acts as a top Republican surrogate. They'd probably do best to A) go away, or B) attack the Liberals as opposed to actually offering advice.

I also find it interesting that they throw around buzz words like "centrism" and "sustainability", which tend to mean nothing, because they're so obsessed with living up to them that they become afraid that they'll be tarred with other "epithets" like "out of touch socialist." Yet ironically, these are the same people who during the 90's through their fancy budgeting procedures managed to undermine the NDP's image on the economy.

Look, the NDP needs to be honest with itself with regards to the thing they want to emphasize. If the NDP believes in wealth creation, that's great and necessary. Then again, I was always under the impression that they DO believe in this BUT it is NOT the be all and end all of governance. The fact of the matter is that for there to be social equity between groups of differing wealth you are going to have to re-distribute some wealth from those who have to those who don't have, which of course people with wealth see as inhibiting "wealth creation" because they do not get to keep all of their money. So no Mike, you can't have both things at the same time... the wealthy being magically happy to redistribute some of their wealth with higher taxes AND social "sustainability." Although I think he was arguing that there not be any more redistribution of wealth and social "sustainability." But yet again, this is not possible.

The question remains, if you cut taxes, or are unwilling to raise revenues somehow, how do you expect to pay for your programme of social "sustainability." It doesn't make any sense. It promises everything and will deliver nothing except continued problems for the BC NDP in establishing an image as credible fiscal managers. The NDP in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, despite their recent (ie. from the 90s) "centrism" fetish have always been credible fiscal managers and THAT is why they have more credibility on "the economy" than the BC NDP, whose fiscal record is not very credible. Frankly, the BC NDP has been just as "centrist" as the Sask NDP and the Manitoba NDP for the last 20 years or so. It's problem is that it's not fiscally responsible and therefore it doesn't have the trust of the people, and won't be able to make itself a "natural governing party."

I wish the NDP well in its pursuit of middle and upper income voters to become the new sustaining base of the party.  Those of us who actually are socialists obviously have no party that speaks for our views.  Fair enough but just don't fucking ask me for any more of my money to make your liberal dreams of governance come true.  Go ask a liberal. 

Glen's party was fiscally conservative.  They froze any new programs  for developmentally disabled adults for a period of almost two years.  Doesn't sound too bad right?  The only real problem I had was that my son turned 19 at the time and when we went to change his services from youth to adult we were told sorry no new programs.  I contacted my NDP MLA and I got a letter back telling me how good a job they were doing and didn't I know that balancing the budget was a necessary thing. Anyone remember the BC Benefits cuts?  The NDp tried to be fiscally conservative and liberal last time and they still get beat up in the MSM for being too leftist .  If you are going to get tarred with the brush anyway why not at least provide services to the most vulnerable when you are in office? 

The largest single group in BC politics are poor people who say "who cares they all the same."  That group will grow larger as the NDP chases the votes of people who spit every time they say the name.

If you can motivate those people to come out and vote Communist - then you might be on to something. Even in Europe where they have proportional representation and parties on the far left with long histories of being in parliament etc...the percentage of people who vote for parties far to the left of the mainstream social democratic parties in most countries is usually in single digits - or occasionally 12% like with the Linke party Germany because they have a vestigial regional support base in the former East Germany where voting Linke is like voting BQ in Quebec.

The thing is that with our geographically based electoral system, even if you got way more very poor people to vote - it might not give the NDP any additional seats because it most of the ridings in BC that have high concentrations of low income people already elect NDP MLAs and it does no good to win place like Vancouver-Mount Pleasant 80-20 instead of 70-30. The seats that the NDP needs to gain in order to form a government are largely middle class suburban places like Saanich North, Oak Bay, Burnaby North etc...

Upper income, I don't think so. We'll leave the 10 per centers to the Campbell Liberals. But any party that does not pursue the middle class votes will be relegated to the trash bins of history.

You are right the idea of a social democratic future for Canada and BC is a fool's dream.  Given our FPTP system, voting NDP in most of Canada has always been a statement about the world a voter would like to see not a vote to elect an MLA. I understand now that kind of voting is just really stupid and hopefully people who know they are in ridings where the NDP has little chance get the message as well and don't waste their time, effort and votes on such a hopeless cause. 

Good luck to the BC NDP with its ongoing and decades old strategy to become the party of choice for people have never voted for them in the past and in fact have voted for right wing parties.  I just wish you would all start a party that does not have the first line in its constitution that states it believes in socialism because it tends to make people like myself think you might actually believe in socialism when it is obviously a fools pipe dream to even contemplate.  Lets not imagine a better world lets imagine one much like we have now but where our corporate masters agree to share the wealth with the marginalized in our society.

I hope that soon the BC NDP will revamp their constitution so that people will understand who they really are.  Can you imagine how stupid the start of the constitution looks to middle class liberals.  The Preamble is a good place to start.  It needs to be stripped out immediately to ensure the middle class are not confused by what the party actually stands for.  I know when I was younger it was those kinds of statements that attracted me to the party but I have learned the hard way that anything that says that the NDP are socialists is a lie and socialists are actually not welcome in the party except as money pits, envelope stuffers and other activities suitable for naive dupes.

PREAMBLE 

The New Democratic Party believes that social, economic and political progress in Canada can only be assured by the 

application of democratic socialist principles to government and the administration of public affairs. 

The principles of democratic socialism can be defined briefly as follows: a) the production and distribution of goods 

and services shall be directed to meeting the social and individual needs of people and not for profit, b) the 

modification and control of the operations of monopolistic productive and distributive organizations through economic 

and social planning, towards these ends, and c) where necessary, the extension of the principle of social ownership. 

The New Democratic Party holds firm to the belief that the dignity, freedom and equality of the individual is a basic 

right that must be maintained and extended. 

The New Democratic Party is proud to be associated with the democratic socialist parties of the world and to share in 

the struggle for peace, international co-operation and the abolition of poverty. 

"

The New Democratic Party is proud to be associated with the democratic socialist parties of the world and to share in 

the struggle for peace, international co-operation and the abolition of poverty. "

These would include the British Labour Party, the Australian Labor Party, the Israeli Labor Party and the Social Democratic parties of Germany, France, Spain, etc...Most of these parties are quite electorally successful - while Communist parties always LOSE.

BINGO     

Actually, Keating dropped out of the race before the 2003 leadership convention. You might be remembering someone else at convention who came in last, etc.

madmax wrote:

Vansterdam Kid wrote:

I find it ironic that all the "old guard" people are trotting themselves out as "saviours" for the party, when they're largely the reason the NDP has so many crediblity problems.

BINGO   

Have some issues with this and with th e accounting stub of it at wiki...too

All of which have abandoned those principles and adopted the neo-liberal consensus, driving down voter turnout in many countries. In Germany and Israel for example, the parties you menitoned have reached historic lows in popular support, and the British Labour Party is set to lose the upcomiong elections badly.

As for why the Communist parties lose, in a PR system it is rare that one party wins an outright majority so coalitions have to be formed. While parties farther to the left never win a large chunk of the vote, often they can become kingmakers and have sway on public policy that way. Additonally, they serve as an "anchor" for the centre-left parties. The centre-left parties know they have to appeal to those on the left or they risk losing large amounts of support towards the farther end of the spectrum (as happened in Germany).

Then fact remains that if you buy into the argument that people want a radical far-left Trotskyist alternative (as some seem to advocate) we would see a big growth in support for far left parties in these countries and I don't see it. The French Communist Party is near death, the remnants of the Italian Communist party didn't meet the threshold for seats in the last Italian election and so on...if you could prove to me that running on a communist platform was actually popular, i might be willing to listen - but there is no evidence of that.

Here's a strange poll, done by Innovative Research for the Canadian Restaurant & Food Services Association:

Lib      22%  

NDP    25%  

Con    14%  

Grn     11%  

Oth      4%

DKnow  19%    

http://www.crfa.ca/aboutcrfa/newsroom/2009/british_columbians_do_not_wan...

Forget about Diane Watts for a moment.

Out of the blue today, it is being reported that Carole Taylor has her eyes set upon the premier's chair after Gordo takes a hike. During her finance minister tenure, Taylor did have some broad appeal within the general electorate, which is a bit disconcerting. Apparently, Watts is also set to join her team when the time comes.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/hst-may-spell-the-end-for-bc-premier/article1398193/

http://alexgtsakumis.com/2009/12/12/breaking-news-the-return-of-carole-taylor [79]

Which gets me back to Carole. While she has brought us back from the dark ages, sooner or later I think she needs to move on and my personal preference for replacement would be the affable John Horgan.

So if an election were held today, Carole James and the NDP would win by a landslide. I guess people are turned off the Liberals in BC.

I am very much opposed to corporate domination and the market economy. as long as the ndp continues to embrace those two fundamentals they will never again get my vote. last provincial election i voted for the work less party. a party that believes we produce to much stuff. so we need to work less..with no loss of income. this to me is a real solution even though it has little chance of coming into being in the foreseeable future. when i voted ndp i never knew what i was voting for because platforms are very different than parties in power.  

There is an alternative happening that does not hitch hope on any political party. i buy the food i eat locally. my clothes are second hand. i use transit or i bike. a percentage of the taxes i owe is withheld because i don't support military aggression. i continually look at every aspect of my economic life and try to find ways to get around an economic system that i do not support. this may not be for everyone but i don't care. it is for me. it's true that this doesn't cover issues such as education, medical or a slew of others but i continue to find ways through direct action to be heard on these issues. i am not alone.

It's too bad Bay Street and the rightwing Vancouver make-believe think tank don't embrace the NDP, or we'd have had a federal NDP government for the first time in Canadian history.