Your prediction on the BC Election May 12, 2009

114 posts / 0 new

Tue, 2009-05-05 18:15

Politics101

With a week to go I thought it might be a good idea to start a thread on everyone's prediction.

Perhaps you might want to include what you think you happen provincially, in your own home riding and predict a riding where you think a major upset might take place.

Also whether you think STV will get the required 60% vote.

I am having a hard time figuring out just what might happen - here in the Lower Mainland there doesn't appear to be any great anti-government feelings BUT outside of the region there is more concern.

Are we looking at a 1996 scenario where the Liberals will win the popular vote and the NDP take more seats.

I don't see the Greens winning everything and think Wally will win a nail-biter in Delta South.

Here goes:

Liberals 48

NDP 37

STV - will pass but not by the required 60%

My home riding is Vancouver False Creek which will go Liberal

As for upsets

Liberals will win back Vancouver Fairview and Lois Boone may lose Prince-George Valemount.

Tue, 2009-05-05 18:30

remind

Louis Boone? Are you serious? LMAO...she hasn't been in politics for a long time. So much for fingers on the pulse.

Shirley Bond is the BC Liberal incumbant, and Julie Carew is the NDP candidate.

Tue, 2009-05-05 18:44

Stockholm

I'd like to see some post-debate final polling before i venture a guess.

Tue, 2009-05-05 20:06

ghoris

I think I too would like to see some more polling. In Michael Smyth's column today, he suggests that although James won the debate hands-down in his view, the NDP is still behind the Liberals. He notes that "some NDP insiders" told him that they did not believe the race was as tight as the Reid polling suggested, and apparently the Libs' internals show a 10-point lead (which pretty much splits the difference between the two). If I had to guess, I'd say the Libs are sitting on something very similar to last time - about a 5-7 point spread.

I think we will see an end result very similar to last time with the Liberals coming in at around 45-50 seats and the NDP at around 35-40. I think the NDP will steal a few Liberal seats (one or two in Burnaby, Kamloops-North Thompson, possibly Kootenay East) but at the same time will be hard-pressed to hang onto seats like North Island, Vancouver-Fairview, Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows and Surrey-Fleetwood.

Tue, 2009-05-05 20:59

Ken Burch

If the NDP strategists could actually do something to inspire enthusiasm, they could make it close They still don't seem to want to excite people though, and will choose to lose in order to be sure to look "safe".

The base will work as hard as it can for them, but still be blamed if things don't go well.

I'd be glad to be wrong and see an NDP upset though. It would be an improvement to have Gordo gone.

BTW, did they ever explain why they chose to make their campaign sighs Tory blue?

Tue, 2009-05-05 21:08

Boom Boom

Campbell will win again, and he'll be even more insufferable than ever. Why people vote this goon in is beyond me.

Tue, 2009-05-05 21:25

Wilf Day

Politics101 wrote:
Are we looking at a 1996 scenario where the Liberals will win the popular vote and the NDP take more seats.

STV - will pass but not by the required 60%

Okay, I'll bite.

Carole James does a repeat of 1996, winning with fewer votes than the Liberals.

BC-STV gets 59%.

The new caucus and cabinet contemplate how undemocratic it will look to stall electoral reform for another eight years by starting from scratch in the purported hope of getting some as-yet-unspecified MMP model adopted - - and decide that 59% is enough to implement BC-STV.

You heard it first here.

Tue, 2009-05-05 21:48

Fidel

NDP by a nose with 43% of the vote. Liberals 2nd place with only 46%, and Greens elect no one with 10%

STV will suffer defeat with just 57.5% in favour, but as Wilf says, James and the NDP will nudge it over the finish line.

And a whopping 59% voter turnout

Tue, 2009-05-05 21:55

ReeferMadness

Wilf Day wrote:

Politics101 wrote:
Are we looking at a 1996 scenario where the Liberals will win the popular vote and the NDP take more seats.

STV - will pass but not by the required 60%

Okay, I'll bite.

Carole James does a repeat of 1996, winning with fewer votes than the Liberals.

BC-STV gets 59%.

The new caucus and cabinet contemplate how undemocratic it will look to stall electoral reform for another eight years by starting from scratch in the purported hope of getting some as-yet-unspecified MMP model adopted - - and decide that 59% is enough to implement BC-STV.

You heard it first here.

I like the way you think.

Tue, 2009-05-05 22:07

#10

Assembly Talker

The public will be prime for electoral reform if we get another wrong winner NDP government.

Tue, 2009-05-05 23:07

#11

Ken Burch

or a wrong-winner Liberal government.

Tue, 2009-05-05 23:09

#12

ReeferMadness

Maybe.

I did a bit of reading on some things that were said during and after the MMP campaign in Ontario.

It's just too complicated. Parties will have too much power. Sure we need change but not this system. After the election, we should have another vote on a different system.

For some reason, it sounds awfully familiar.

Tue, 2009-05-05 23:17

#13

Politics101

Your right Remind - I meant to type Shirley Bond but for some reason this old mind Lois name came first.

Fidel - are you suggesting that the NDP will win more seats but lose the popular vote.

Wilf - you bring up an interesting scenario that I don't think is all that far fetched

Wed, 2009-05-06 00:10

#14

skeiseid

Politics101 wrote:

STV - will pass but not by the required 60%

Brian White, at least, will be happy if this prediction comes to pass.

Wilf -- so you believe that two near misses will translate into a mandate to reform? You are indeed a perennial optimist.

Hey, this is Canada. We have playoffs here. It'll come down to a best of seven for sure.

Wed, 2009-05-06 20:26

#15

Can't imagine who's going to win. But I predict things will get a bit calmer on babble once the election's over.

Wed, 2009-05-06 22:01

#16

Aristotleded24

Ken Burch wrote:
If the NDP strategists could actually do something to inspire enthusiasm, they could make it close They still don't seem to want to excite people though, and will choose to lose in order to be sure to look "safe".

It sounds like those strategists figured that the NDP was going to tank after the election, so they deliberately threw it in order to pin the crash on the Liberals and then clean up in 2013.

The worst thing about this is that the NDP seems to be in control of strategists who like to play games who have no regard for the consequences these games have on real people.

Wed, 2009-05-06 22:23

#17

remind

BS, aristotled, that sounds like the BC Liberals, not the BCNDP, we are firmly aware of the consequences people are experiencing and there is no game playing. BC has laready crashed and is burning down and there is no one else to pin it on other than the BC Liberals.

And I agree with wilf's synopsis too. Should the NDP get in, which is looking more and more promising, and STV is close to 60% they will nudge it over.

Wed, 2009-05-06 23:54

#18

Aristotleded24

remind wrote:
BS, aristotled, that sounds like the BC Liberals, not the BCNDP, we are firmly aware of the consequences people are experiencing and there is no game playing. BC has laready crashed and is burning down and there is no one else to pin it on other than the BC Liberals.

For the record remind, I was referring specifically to the NDP bureaucracy and not the rank-and-file members who do all the work. As bad as Campbell is, James doesn't seem that inspiring at all, and I've seen how the NDP stifles the efforts and intentions of the membership. The sense I get from reading the comments section on websites, aside from the unpopularity of the Campbell government, is the sense that none of the politicians seem to care.

Having said that, what I stated was just a guess on my part, so if my point was wrong I'm prepared to concede that.

Thu, 2009-05-07 00:41

#19

melovesproles

Quote:
As New Democratic Party Leader Carole James was telling laid-off forestry workers this week she would help them reclaim their jobs, the industry's top executives were preparing an unusual frontal assault on her ambitions to be premier.

The forest industry has never hidden its preference to see Gordon Campbell's Liberal government re-elected on May 12, but the bold direct attacks unleashed yesterday were outside the norm.

“If the government was to change, heaven help us,” said Jim Shepard, president and CEO of Canfor Corp. Usually, Mr. Shepard prefers to send cheques to his party of choice and leave the politics to industry associations.

And given the latest polls that suggest the Liberals have a comfortable lead heading into the final week of the campaign, why would he stick his neck out now?

“This is so critically important we felt we had to step out front, we are not going to stand behind the associations,” he said in an interview yesterday. “I see an industry on its knees being taken advantage of by a party that is playing politics.”

The forest companies are worried about what the NDP would do to reform the system of awarding harvesting rights, and their talk of reviewing the Canada-U.S. Softwood Lumber Agreement.

“The biggest threat to any worker is if the investment community decides forestry is not the place to put their money,” he said.

Duncan Davies, CEO and president of Interfor, said the New Democrats could have avoided an election-eve confrontation had they spent more time talking to business.

“If Carole had talked to any of us, we could have put her on the right track,” he said.

Wow, talk about arrogance. That seems to bode well for the NDP that these guys are that scared.

Thu, 2009-05-07 10:08

#20

remind

No shit, of course they are scared, the BC Liberals took the timber rights ties away from the communities in which the timber is grown. What this did was allow the corps to havest the timber, and ship it off in raw log form to other countries. They can take all the profits from the timber without having to pay workers, to whom the wood actually belongs, to process it, thus the lay off of 10's of thousands of workers.

Our forests are being cut down faster than ever with no benefit to BC, and it's communities and workers, only the corps are benefiting. The real threat to those still working in the industry, few that there are nowadays, is the increasing rates of shipping raw logs out. Really they are stealing BC timber and making huge profits. At the same time silvaculture is not happening on any replacement scale that was formerly required, because it cuts into profit margins too.

The BCNDP are on the correct track, when they talk of tying the timber back to the communties. The corps are only worried about the significantly higher profit margins gained from shipping BC people's trees out unprocessed.

The forest industry multi-nationals are the ones playing politics, to keep their ever increasing profit margins going. People like Pat Bell, who own logging trucks are the only ones making any money, as they carry BC's raw logs away from BC people.

As for the industry "associations", they are directly funded by the forest industry giants, to be their political arm.

There are many small investors, who would love to be able to access timber in their communities to process, but they can't, because the corps have all tenure rights now sewn up for 75 years.

This is especially disturbing given the standing dead that could be manufactured here into flooring, furniture and pellets, but cannot now be because the forestry giants will not allow it.

Thu, 2009-05-07 11:07

#21

Golbez

Prediction: More of the same.

Too many BCers are apathetic and/or incredibly stupid. No matter how much Gordo sells out BCers, how matter how much of BC's natural resources the Libs give away, no matter how much of an a-hole Gordo is, the NDP just won't capture enough middle-of-the-road voters to win. While the NDP campaign has been better of late, it's a case too little too late. The NDP has really failed to prove that it is a viable alternative. All I see from the NDP is negative campaigning.

I hear it time and time again from people I know. My co-worker yesterday said, "Yeah, Gordo is a jerk, but the NDP will ruin the economy".

As much as they hate Gordo, they don't think the NDP will do much better. These people don't delve into politics past the newspaper or TV, so don't expect them to know any better.

The Big Lie <- It still works

As for STV, It'll probably just be about 55%. Again, too many apathetic and lazy people will default to "it's too complicated", especially when so many people don't know much about this referendum. Sad, but true. Apathy benefits the Powers That Be.

Thu, 2009-05-07 12:58

#22

Politics101

"it's too complicated", especially when so many people don't know much about this referendum"

Yesterday while working as a scrutineer at the advance poll the only questions being asked of the elections officials was regarding the BC STV - it was also hard for the election supervisors to explain it and keep it non-poliitcal. Even I and I have tried to understand the system didn't know the answers to some of the questions being posed. Only perhaps a 12 or so of the 600 who voted at our polling station actually sought advice on this matter - so people either know about it or just couldn't be bothered and didn't mark the ballot and of course we won't know how many until some time on Tuesday evening.

Thu, 2009-05-07 13:29

#23

Frank_

Actually the NDP have proved themselves a viable alternative. They have a better economic record than the Liberals do. How much more viable can they get?

Thu, 2009-05-07 15:10

#24

canuquetoo

The NDP have a "better economic record than the Liberals do"? I doubt the majority of BC voters agree with you. BC will enjoy another majority term of Gordon Campbell and his 'Liberals' for better or worse because they won't drive investment in BC away.

Forestry in BC is a sunset industry because the triumvirate of industry, government and unions refused to face reality 40 years ago, prefering a dysfunctional status quo that supposedly protected jobs and communities but essentially robbed Peter to pay Paul.

The forest industry stakeholders still think they can stand in a bucket and lift themselves by the handle.

No-one is willing to take the measures necessary to bring the industry back to life - starting with the huge deficit in silvicultural enhancement created by the triumvirate's short-term fixation on local community entitlements and jobs on the part of local government and unions; low cost profitability on the part of industry and sacrificing sustainability for political gain on the part of provincial government - all of them for the last 40 years.

Thu, 2009-05-07 15:50

#25

Loretta

It's time to put that old canard to rest -- from The Tyee:

BC's Economy: Whose Was Best?

Thu, 2009-05-07 16:34

#26

Golbez

Loretta,

How many people actually read The Tyee? Those who do are more inclined to be NDP voters, anyway (Especially since the site has shaken all pretense of what it supports).

I love The Tyee, but it's far from mainstream. The Big Lie works because the mainstream media keeps trumpeting it. It doesn't help the NDP's cause that James and company cannot fight fire with fire... the NDP has basically ceded the Economy issue to the Libs (Apart from their last attack ad), so The Big Lie will continue onwards and upwards.

The middle-of-the-road voter is going to be, most likely, a CanWest zombie. Most apathetic types just don't search out other news sources, and get their fill from soundbites and whatever dailies are out there.

I did forward that Tyee link to a few middle-of-the-roaders I know. Maybe one of them will have the lightbulb go off in their head, but I doubt it. It's hard to change somebody's mind with just one action.

Thu, 2009-05-07 18:01

#27

madmax

Election Prediction.... Straw poll here on BC Election and STV.

Current votes...

Will you be voting for STV
YES [ 9 ]   [47.37%]
NO [ 10 ]   [52.63%]

Which Party Will you Support?
Liberals Gordon Campbell [ 8 ]   [42.11%]
NDP Carole James [ 7 ]   [36.84%]
Green Jane Sterk [ 2 ]   [10.53%]
Conservative Wilf Hanni [ 2 ]   [10.53%]

Thu, 2009-05-07 18:48

#28

Loretta

Golbez wrote:

Loretta,

How many people actually read The Tyee? Those who do are more inclined to be NDP voters, anyway (Especially since the site has shaken all pretense of what it supports).

...

I did forward that Tyee link to a few middle-of-the-roaders I know. Maybe one of them will have the lightbulb go off in their head, but I doubt it. It's hard to change somebody's mind with just one action.

I agree that The Tyee isn't widely read yet but we need to keep chipping away at these fallacies that have been promulgated. I send them to my friends as well, in moderation, since they might just consider some of what's said when things get rough for them personally, which for most, they will.

Thu, 2009-05-07 19:01

#29

Frank_

The forest industry is dead because Campbell allowed the big companies to take the wood and ship it out of the country instead of having to mill it locally. Small operators couldn't get wood and the value-added industry died too.

All those mill and value-added jobs went with the raw logs, out of the country.

No matter how hard you try to say that forestry is dead because of workers the fact is its dead because of a government's ideology.

Thu, 2009-05-07 21:37

#30

V. Jara

NDP loses by two seat. Angus Reid wins the pollster sweepstakes.

Fri, 2009-05-08 10:55

#31

remind

Frank_ wrote:
The forest industry is dead because Campbell allowed the big companies to take the wood and ship it out of the country instead of having to mill it locally. Small operators couldn't get wood and the value-added industry died too.

All those mill and value-added jobs went with the raw logs, out of the country.

No matter how hard you try to say that forestry is dead because of workers the fact is its dead because of a government's ideology.

Exactly correct, and now we see absolute cutting, as opposed to selective logging and leaving trees standing you do not have a market or license for. When stumpage fees were chucked, so were selective logging practises and silvaculture.

The destruction of the forest industry has not equalled saving of the environment. It in fact has made it worse.

Fri, 2009-05-08 15:06

#32

canuquetoo

That great BCer J. Pattison is the driving force behind the consolidation of Canfor as the holder of much of BC's timber rights. Mr. Pattison is well connected,provincially. He hired Glen Clark as a VP when Mr. Clark's political career fell apart. I doubt the hiring had anything to do with ideology though. Industrialists are not concerned with who makes what speech, their only concern is weilding power.

Fri, 2009-05-08 19:52

#33

Politics101

I believe you will find that Glen Clarke now sits on the Board of Canfor as one of Jimmy's appointee's.

Fri, 2009-05-08 20:32

#34

remind

Uh...nice fabrication! Not a Glen Clarke in the bunch.

http://www.canfor.com/company/biographies/directors.asp

Fri, 2009-05-08 22:16

#35

Politics101

Perhaps Remind if you had done a google you would have found out that indeed he was appointed and here's a link to prove it - it's near the bottom of the article so scroll down -

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/090430/business/canfor

Fri, 2009-05-08 22:50

#36

ghoris

Well, the last round of polls is out. Mustel has the Liberals up by 9, 47-38, Ipsos has them up by 8, 47-39 and Angus Reid has the Liberals up by just 2 points, 44-42. In all cases the Greens are polling around 10%.

I don't have a lot of faith in that Angus Reid poll, sadly. I suspect Mustel and Ipsos are closer to the mark. Mustel was by far the most accurate pollster in 2005. Their last pre-election poll was Libs 45, NDP 40, Green 12, and the final numbers were Libs 45.8, NDP 41.5, Green 9.1 (basically they were on the money except some Green supporters didn't bother to get out to the polls).

Assuming the final numbers are something like 48-40-8, I expect that for the most part the status quo will be preserved, although there are incumbents in both parties who are threatened. On the whole, I expect we will see a net loss of a few NDP seats. So my guess is:

Liberal 51

NDP 34

Green 0

Fri, 2009-05-08 23:35

#37

remind

Why should I do a google? I went straight to Canfor's site for first hand sourcing, but seeing as how this happened 8 days ago, I guess they have not updated their website. Thanks for the info, sorry for the statement.

Perhaps Jimmy wants someone at the table who actually know how a forest industry should be working, as opposed to what it has become?

Certainly Glen could not be a worse influence than what they have had, in fact, perhaps that is why Canfor is starting some operations back up in July, or so I hear that they may, but that might be an election promise too.

Fri, 2009-05-08 23:51

#38

brookmere

remind wrote:
Uh...nice fabrication! Not a Glen Clarke in the bunch.

Why don't you learn how to spell his name correctly? That would be a start.

And people complain about the media being inaccurate.

Sat, 2009-05-09 00:51

#39

remind

Glen Clark has a right take employment with whomever, without his political creditials being questioned or used as an attempted smear.

But you are correct about Jimmy and Canfor, and the desire to export logs without manufacturing, and to keep the timber out of the hands of small concerns who actually provided employment.

Sat, 2009-05-09 00:54

#40

remind

Huh? I am not the media and have absolutely no obligation to spell anything correctly, not even Glen Clark's name. :)

Sat, 2009-05-09 00:56

#41

remind

Oh, and the media, is just not inaccurate they are in fact forces of anti-democracy.

Sat, 2009-05-09 07:46

#42

Basement Dweller

My prediction: what ghoris said

Earlier in the campaign, I was thinking something more along the lines of 60 to 25. But CJ saved many NDP seats in the TV debate and the Greens have had an abysmal campaign.

Myself, I voted NDP after my wife chanted "lesser of two evils" over and over again, as we drove to the advanced polls in Coquitlam-Maillardville. I hate BC politics.

Sat, 2009-05-09 08:15

#43

remind

I don't know, the youth vote may surprise us all.

Sat, 2009-05-09 11:22

#44

munroe

There are more then one election taking place. Will McMartin has a very good analysis in the Tyee. It appears to me that McMartin is correct and that the outcome will be decided in the North, Kamloops and the North Fraser communities. Where it really counts, the NDP have put on strong campaigns. If Burnaby, Prince George and Kamloops flip, it will be a bright new day.

Sat, 2009-05-09 12:00

#45

canuquetoo

remind wrote:

Glen Clark has a right take employment with whomever, without his political creditials being questioned or used as an attempted smear.

But you are correct about Jimmy and Canfor, and the desire to export logs without manufacturing, and to keep the timber out of the hands of small concerns who actually provided employment.

The default defensive position regarding Mr.Clark isn't needed. The point is how the major forest players co-opt ANY source in order to maintain their stranglehold on BC's timber supply. Political alliegiance or ideology is immaterial.

The 'communities and workers' continually fall into the trap of supporting industry initiatives to maintain or provide jobs in periods of economic uncertainty. Initiatives that undermine their own interests.

A classic example of this trap is the wonderful news that Canfor is working to re-open their Mackenzie mill on one shift - ostensibly to'save the dying town'. The reality is that Canfor has successfully manipulated the 'community and workers' into providing the political capital necessary to support the Ministry of Forests to amend Canfor's five year plan allowing Canfor to highgrade the best wood at the expense of sustainability.

Canfor's announcement that they are manufacturing a superior product to attract home suppliers such as Home Depot is crafted to appear as support for value-added products but in reality is just a smokescreen to run the best sawlogs through the breakdown mill into dimension lumber without regard for the value added potential of the prime logs, leaving the poorer quality timber standing.

Getting concession in one area will merely allow Canfor to remove the highest cost production elsewhere in a continual race to the bottom.

The demise of the forest industry in BC has nothing to do with party alliegiance because all the past governments are equally guilty - along with the communities, workers and unions who are unwilling to endure the pain necessary to forge a forest industry that can create a sustainable resource and the prospect of long-term jobs.

All the stakeholders sacrifice this vision for the same old, same old, trainwreck of self-interest followed by acrimonious finger-pointing while the industry falls apart. Industry may be the culprit but the provincial/local governments and unions/workers are the enablers- and equally guilty.

The forest industry is immaterial to this election as it is in all elections because the people of BC don't have the stomach to take on the challenge of a sustainable industry and the provincial politicos of all stripes know it.

Sat, 2009-05-09 12:34

#46

madmax

remind wrote:

I don't know, the youth vote may surprise us all.

Can you vote from your ipod??? ;)

Look, the Youth vote, couldn't make a difference in the 60s when there was a TONNE of activist youths running around. Todays youth are neither large in numbers nor is there any kind of "activist" movement that has them wanting to find a polling booth. The surprise would be if they voted, but that hasn't been happening from any of the most recent elections I have been following. People under 30 don't vote, although they do have opinions and some even agree/support political parties, but not enough to actually mark a ballot.

Youth mobilization is a gig for facebook friends. Maybe one day, and maybe its happening in BC. I would like to see the youth get involved, its their country that is being sold down the river. They should get interested someday.

Is there a campaign to get out the youth vote???

Sat, 2009-05-09 15:54

#47

remind

canuquetoo wrote:
The point is how the major forest players co-opt ANY source in order to maintain their stranglehold on BC's timber supply. Political alliegiance or ideology is immaterial.

Are you asking how? or why?

Quote:
The 'communities and workers' continually fall into the trap of supporting industry initiatives to maintain or provide jobs in periods of economic uncertainty. Initiatives that undermine their own interests.

A classic example of this trap is the wonderful news that Canfor is working to re-open their Mackenzie mill on one shift - ostensibly to'save the dying town'. The reality is that Canfor has successfully manipulated the 'community and workers' into providing the political capital necessary to support the Ministry of Forests to amend Canfor's five year plan allowing Canfor to highgrade the best wood at the expense of sustainability.

Yes, I completely agree, and I predicted that this move in Mackenzie, would be announced just before the election too, way back in January, or perhaps earlier than that. This actually was not a "prediction" come to think of it, as I know exactly how they are being manipulated, how far back the stage was set for this manipulation, and know exactly down to every detail, why they have done it, how they have done it, and will continue to do it time and again, until their iniatives are met.

Quote:
Canfor's announcement that they are manufacturing a superior product t... is just a smokescreen to run the best sawlogs through the breakdown mill into dimension lumber without regard for the value added potential of the prime logs, leaving the poorer quality timber standing.

Getting concession in one area will merely allow Canfor to remove the highest cost production elsewhere in a continual race to the bottom.

I know the Mackenzie forestry industry and political components intimately, I cannot stress that strongly enough, and there are more factors in play than you realize.

Quote:
The demise of the forest industry in BC has nothing to do with party alliegiance because all the past governments are equally guilty - along with the communities, workers and unions who are unwilling to endure the pain necessary to forge a forest industry that can create a sustainable resource and the prospect of long-term jobs.

All the stakeholders sacrifice this vision for the same old, same old, trainwreck of self-interest followed by acrimonious finger-pointing while the industry falls apart. Industry may be the culprit but the provincial/local governments and unions/workers are the enablers- and equally guilty.

You are over looking, many factors that have caused "the enablers" to enable without realizing what they were doing. Yes, I concur they are guilty to a degree, but for the most part they do not comprehend the depths of manipulations of local community "leaders", at all levels, upon themselves, and that the community "leaders" have long been co-opted and placed by industry concerns, to rape the resources, while pretending to be concerned about job losses. And you have no idea how far this actually extends outwards and to what levels of global geo-political activities, it is being actioned in, or should I say initiated from.

Thus this comment below:

Quote:
The forest industry is immaterial to this election as it is in all elections because the people of BC don't have the stomach to take on the challenge of a sustainable industry and the provincial politicos of all stripes know it.

BC people do not yet have the stomach to take on the actual challenge, as the forest industry is but a bit player, of ridding themselves of the incidious corporate control of their self serving local community leaders, and take back control of BC, for future generations of BCers, instead of allowing the continued colonialization of crown lands into fiefdoms, and exploitation schemes.

BC people in the majority would love to have sustainable industries, and long term job creation, however, they do not know how to get to that position and what is exactly blocking it, every time they try. Provincial politicos, may all know certain things, however, the difference arises within the framework of what is being done with that knowlege of "things". And of course, with how many actually do know, the truth of things, as politicos. They may know some truths, but not other truths.

Thus there are 2 camps of knowing politicos in BC, ones who know and want to stop "things" and those who know and want to further "things". Those who don't know are merely political pawns in global geo-political strategies. I think this election will be a watershed moment in BC, no matter what transpires, but perhaps not in the way most would think.

Sat, 2009-05-09 16:39

#48

Stockholm

I'll tell you one thing for sure - whoever wins the BC election is going to be winning a chance to drink a poisoned chalice filled to the brim with arsenic. It has been CONSERVATIVELY estimated that the actual deficit is going to be about $4 billion and not the fictitious $500 million that the Liberals had in their budget. BC is being particularly hard hit by the recession and there will be a huge economic and psychological letdown after the Olympics. As much as i'd like the NDP to win, I fear that if it happened Carol James would end up having a Bob Rae-like experience as Premier (I don't mean that she would bring in a social contract or bolt to the federal Liberals, just that she will almost certainly become extremely unpopular within about 6 months of taking power). Whoever wins is going to have to do some combination of DRASTIC cuts in social spending, big tax increases or running a huge deficit that could be politically unpalatable and either party will almost certainly have to break just about all their promises.

If the BC NDP does well, but loses, one person who might have a secret sigh of relief will be Jack Layton and all the federal NDP Mps from BC. In every federal election held while the NDP was in power provincially in BC, the federal NDP has been almost wiped off the map. The last thing the federal NDP needs would be to go into a federal election in Spring 2010 saddled with a hated NDP provincial government in BC and watch the number of NDP MPs from BC drop from 9 to 2 or 3. Better to let Campbell become the most hated man in BC and let the Liberals become the lightning rod for the intense anger we will see over the coming year.

In some ways, the most ideal result would be if the Liberals got 43 seats, the NDP 41 and then Vicky Huntington was elected as an independent in Delta South. That way Campbell has to dodder along for another year while the shit hits the fan and the NDP is poised to move non-confidence the moment one Liberal MLA is absent or drops dead!

Sat, 2009-05-09 16:42

#49

remind

madmax wrote:
remind wrote:
I don't know, the youth vote may surprise us all.

Look, the Youth vote, couldn't make a difference in the 60s when there was a TONNE of activist youths running around. Todays youth are neither large in numbers nor is there any kind of "activist" movement that has them wanting to find a polling booth. The surprise would be if they voted, but that hasn't been happening from any of the most recent elections I have been following. People under 30 don't vote, although they do have opinions and some even agree/support political parties, but not enough to actually mark a ballot.

Youth mobilization is a gig for facebook friends. Maybe one day, and maybe its happening in BC. I would like to see the youth get involved, its their country that is being sold down the river. They should get interested someday.

Is there a campaign to get out the youth vote???

In today's polarized political environment, only a small portion of the youth vote is required to tip the balance in either direction.

And no there is not a campaign to get he youth vote out, that I know of, other than amongst youth themselves who are becoming interested, and it seems they are through, and/or, because of, social networking mediums, such as twitter, facebook and 2nd Life.

I will never under estimate the power of moblized grass roots, and if in this occassion and in the future, it is through said mediums, that is fine with me.

Sat, 2009-05-09 16:54

#50

remind

Stockholm wrote:
In some ways, the most ideal result would be if the Liberals got 43 seats, the NDP 41 and then Vicky Huntington was elected as an independent in Delta South. That way Campbell has to dodder along for another year while the shit hits the fan and the NDP is poised to move non-confidence the moment one Liberal MLA is absent or drops dead!

For the most part, in the larger scheme of things, I agree with most all you have stated. Hence my prediction of 42 42 with 1 Independant, I have been watching Delta south closely and now that Wally O is being sued by the gentleman from PQ, perhaps Huntington has a bigger chance, if indeed she is using it. If she isn't the NDP candidate should be in last couple of days. It may not get votes for the NDP but it could turn voters to Huntington.

That would be the dream ticket. Gordo forms government with no power and thus will wear the seeds of his destruction of the BC economy, without doing too much more damage.

Sat, 2009-05-09 18:13

#51

Spectrum

Remind wrote:
Those who don't know are merely political pawns in global geo-political strategies.

This is a very telling statement of awareness that needs to be put before those that are "sleeping their way through life." Get involved to know the issues, and what you will find will utterly shock you into waking up.

Your prediction on the BC Election May 12, 2009

Pages