Continued from here: http://www.rabble.ca/babble/western-provinces/bc-election-aftermath
B.C election aftermath part II
Mon, 2009-05-18 14:28
#1
B.C election aftermath part II
Mon, 2009-05-18 14:38
#2
remind
what now we have 6 threads?
Mon, 2009-05-18 14:45
#3
I was going to leave this lie since nobody else seemed to care enough to start a second thread, but since two of the final comments were responses to my posts, I thought I should reply.
Frank wrote:
"AdamT,
The problem with run of rivers is that its private companies raping a pristine environment and the past suggests that private companies are not exactly the most environmentally friendly when that goes up against profits."
1.I think your attitude is expressed right away with extreme language like 'raping a pristine environment'
2.My understanding is that run of the river projects have been around in B.C for at least a decade, having started under the Glen Clark NDP government. Do you have any specific incidences of these projects being badly run, or are your views entirely based on fear and suspicion?
3.Unless you are an absolutist who claims that there is no need for energy production and everything can be done through conservation, we need new energy projects. Practically all serious environmentalists say that run of the river projects are the cleanest way of generating new hydro production.
4.To the extremists who say 'a lot of this energy just gets exported'. Yes it does, and the taxation from the profits and work generated from that help to pay for social programs as well as creating jobs for people in the interior. I found it amusing that Carole James sold herself as the person for the interior because Gordon Campbell has done nothing to help the forest industry, and then turned around and opposed every proposed industrial development in the interior mostly on envrionmental grounds. It's no surprise to me that the NDP failed to make any breakthroughs in the interior (they did gain one seat in Stikine).
"We don't want to look back in 20 years and say yes things were done badly but we've learned a lesson. We think it should be done well right off the bat or not at all."
And I suppose the 'right way to do it' is through the publicly owned B.C Hydro which, coincidentally, employs public sector union workers. Of course, this is the same B.C Hydro that is so environmentally sensitive they got their start by destroying the environment to put up the dams that we get the Hydro from.
" The NDP stance on run-of-rivers does seem to represent a large part of the population."
I disagree with that entirely. It was such a weak argument that the NDP dropped the 'take back your province' slogan midway through the campaign.
Mon, 2009-05-18 14:47
#4
what now we have 6 threads?
I don't see a second thread on this anywhere. Maybe you just like to complain.
Mon, 2009-05-18 15:13
#5
" The NDP stance on run-of-rivers does seem to represent a large part of the population."I disagree with that entirely. It was such a weak argument that the NDP dropped the 'take back your province' slogan midway through the campaign
I don't think that's true. In Powell River, where there is a run-of-River project up the coast in Toba inlet(there have also been several deaths so far in its construction), the BC NDP MLA won by a much wider margin and wasn't hurt at all.
I don't think the BC NDP shed the slogan either, I believe the ads I saw combined it with the 'Everyone Matters' slogan tagged on.
Anyways, that the BC Liberals were selling out the province and its smaller communities to big private interests was one of the few memes that resonated with voters and probably one of the main reasons why the election was as close as it was. While watching hockey I met a few people who decided to vote NDP after watching the ads protesting the 'sell off' of BC.
Mon, 2009-05-18 15:14
#6
Stockholm wrote:
""Gary Doer has also neutralized the issue. Here, though, it plays big time."
He neutralized it by finally winning after losing three elections in a row and then by governing competently - up until then, the knock against the NDP in Manitoba was exactly the same as the knock against the NDP in BC."
I'm not an expert on the NDP in Manitoba (and I suspect Stockholm isn't either), however
1.The NDP had a much better track record in Manitoba than they did in B.C, having won 4 of 5 elections believe 1969 and 1986 and I believe were generally regarded as pretty competent until the failed MTI contract (though the right tried to bash the Ed Schreyer govenment for too much spending). Once people put the MTI contract in context, the NDP regained a good deal of its support.
2.Even then, however, I gather Gary Doer made a number of moves to shift the NDP to the center. Again, I'm not an expert on what happened there. Finally, Gary Filmon shifted far to the right for the 1999 campaign promising, like all right wingers, massive tax cuts that mostly benefit the already wealthy. That mistake opened the door for Doer which he successfully walked through and hasn't looked back.
3.I never said the NDP would never win here in B.C. I said the track record so far is that they get one term every sixteen years. (They lucked out in 1996 with Gordon Campbell running far right and still having the vote split on the right, especially in the interior). If the NDP doesn't change, sure they'll get back into power again probably in 2017, and then they'll be back in the opposition again from 2021 until 2037. (Assuming the world doesn't end in 2012). Gary Doer didn't just shift the party to the center to run an election campaign, he also did it so that they could govern successfully and get reelected. And I don't think there is much dispute that he has shifted the party to the center, we can find lots of threads on Babble of Manitoba New Democrats here complaining about how centrist Doer is.
" The British Labour Party lost four elections in a row and was also seen as unable to "manage the economy" and people said in the early 90s that Labour could never win again etc.."
I find it quite amusing that you keep bringing up these examples that you think defend your precious NDP, but in the end really just prove my point. First you brought up Saskatchewan, and I pointed out that the opposition to the NDP did, in fact, rebrand itself as the Sask Party in order to remove the taint of the Grant Devine government (I'm not sure why the people of Saskatchewan fell for it, but that's another matter). Now you bring up Labour in Britain. Let's see:
1.Tony Blair rebranded the party as 'New Labour'
2.They had to remove the famous 'Clause 4' and I think they also distanced themselves from the unions a fair bit (I can't remember exactly what they did) in order to get back in power. You make it sound like in all these places there was just a natural back and forth of governments, yet in both Saskatchewan and the U.K, the opposition parties, in reality, had to substantially rebrand themselves before getting back in power, something the B.C NDP has not done. I think I've now accurately pointed that regarding both situations. So, please stop with these faulty and factually incorrect comparisons.
3.In addition, 'New Labour' also had to promise to follow the Conservative government budget plans for at least their first year in power, if not for the entire first term.
4.Finally, it took a currency collapse for the Conservative government to lose their luster of being seen as 'good government managers'.
It took all of that for Labour to finally get back in power after 18 years in opposition. I haven't seen anything like that in B.C.
I'm not sure what happened in Australia to taint the Labor Party there (they had been in government quite a lot in the 1980s and 1990s and I thought were seen as pretty competent), so I really don't know what happened there, but I would, again, remind you that it took for Kevin Rudd to basically put out a platform in the recent election that completely mirrored that of the National Party platform. So again in Australia, Labor did not simply get back into power because people tired of the Howard government.
'Time for a change' is always a strong argument after a government has been in power for a long period of time, but it doesn't guarantee victory (the NDP here basically ended up campaiging on that with their '8 years is enough' slogan), and it certainly doesn't help a party to get reelected.
Mon, 2009-05-18 15:19
#7
" The NDP stance on run-of-rivers does seem to represent a large part of the population."I disagree with that entirely. It was such a weak argument that the NDP dropped the 'take back your province' slogan midway through the campaign
Anyways, that the BC Liberals were selling out the province and its smaller communities to big private interests was one of the few memes that resonated with voters and probably one of the main reasons why the election was as close as it was. While watching hockey I met a few people who decided to vote NDP after watching the ads protesting the 'sell off' of BC.
And yet the B.C Liberals were reelected in all of the ridings with small communities except, as I've already mentioned, Stikine. I don't know what the issues were in that riding. I believe, but I could be wrong, that there may have been redistribution between Stikine and Skeena as the NDP were reelected in Skeena by a smaller margin than in 2005. So, it's possible some very NDP communities were switched from the Skeena constituency to the Stikine constituency.
Other than that, there were, as of yet, no changes in the Interior. The NDP may lose one Cariboo riding when the absentee votes are counted, though Chuck Wyse pulled out the absentee vote in 2005 and I suspect he'll do it again.
Mon, 2009-05-18 17:54
#8
And yet the B.C Liberals were reelected in all of the ridings with small communities except, as I've already mentioned, Stikine.
I don't have time to do a detailed comparison but from the look of it, the majority of the ridings with private power projects tended to vote NDP.
I think the NDP MLAs did a good job in this case of sticking up for the concerns of their constituents and they were reelected, often by wider margins.
I think the NDP needs to become more responsive to its grassroots and less run by a small cadre of executive strategists who ignore and even campaign against resolutions passed by the membership. In this case, I the NDP successfully responded to grassroots concern and won the majority of ridings where this was an issue.
Mon, 2009-05-18 19:18
#9
Weren't most of those ridings held by the NDP before the election so very little has changed.
Mon, 2009-05-18 19:48
#10
Frank wrote:
4.To the extremists who say 'a lot of this energy just gets exported'. Yes it does, and the taxation from the profits and work generated from that help to pay for social programs as well as creating jobs for people in the interior.
[/quote]
Unfortunately, this power will mostly have to be exported during spring run-off, when Hydro already exports surplus power. The prices then are far lower than the prices at which BCHydro has contracted to pay the IPPs. The program, therefore, involves a substantial transfer from BC taxpayer (Via Hydro) to the private operators (such as GE) and US electricity consumers. The same subsidy, devoted to any number of things (more housing, higher education grants, more hospitals, increasing rather than cutting parks staff, etc. etc) would benefit British Columbia residents instead. No better example of the Campbell/BCLiberal mentality could be imagined. I agree, though, that the NDP didn't do a good job of bringing this out. The failure of the press (honourable exception being the G&M) to use readily available info on the issue to educate the public was also deplorable.
Mon, 2009-05-18 20:38
#11
quote from #2 here needs to be addressed, (i'll figure out the quote function one day)
"And I suppose the 'right way to do it' is through the publicly owned B.C Hydro which, coincidentally, employs public sector union workers. Of course, this is the same B.C Hydro that is so environmentally sensitive they got their start by destroying the environment to put up the dams that we get the Hydro from."
decisions made in the past by a public operation are decisions made in the past by a public operation.
at least the public can still make the decisions in a public operation, and make different decisions in future if the public so chooses.
the problem with a private operation is that private players make the decisions. decisions about where to source power from, where to sell it, when, at what prices, with what damage to ecosystems in the process, are made without input from the public at all in any kind of democratic process. Decisions are made by those with money- those with money who own the system and those with money who buy the private product. Those with money who run the system charge higher and higher prices- as much as they can, and exploit as much of the environment as they can, and sell it to as many people as they can, wherever they live, because that is how they generate profit for their own pockets. So a system is created where even consumers with money have less and less say about how or where energy is produced and sold. There is simply nothing environmentally friendly about this scenario at all. yet some people persist in promoting private over public power. i don't get it.
aside from the fact that its completely undemocratic and ordinary people would long ago have been left out of the equation entirely, in Ontario there are already many who can't afford electricity.
Mon, 2009-05-18 20:58
#12
remind
Run of the River is only supported by those who stand to make money from either the project itself, or from the the support of it by way of funding for their orgs. And no serious environmentalist worth a grain of salt is on board with it, the gig is up, and they are exposed for what they are, sell outs of the environment for their own pockets.
The environmental impact from the projects themselves will be significant, say nothing of the additional roads and hydro transmission lines.
The taxpayers do not benefit from this, only the companies. The small amount of roaylties paid to the taxpayer are peanuts given the fact that the private companies will be making billions off of exploiting BCers water and lands, parasites that they are.
Mon, 2009-05-18 21:40
#13
Weren't most of those ridings held by the NDP before the election so very little has changed.
When did sticking up for your constituents become a bad thing?
Tue, 2009-05-19 01:55
#14
I think that the NDP in Bc has had the misfortune of twice having governed during really bad economic times (1972-75 and agin in the 90s) and so people have this crazy idea that the NDP isn't good at managing the economy. In reality they were just unlucky in being in power at very bad times. Next time they will govern in good times and people will suddenly hail them as having changed and moved to the centre etc,,, when in reality all that will have changed will be their luck.
Tue, 2009-05-19 02:23
#15
N.Beltov
The aftermath of this election will be: more Liberal sell off of the priceless resources of BC to their friends; more environmental destruction and long term harm in the course of this disgrace; calculated attacks on workers, especially and mainly government workers; a ramping up of the police state prior to the Olympic Games next year; war on the homeless and poor people; increased impoverishment of British Columbians as the province's status as the child poverty capital of Canada flourishes and continues; more raw logs sold off as small resource based towns are further decimated by Liberal atrocities; an orgy of feeding at the public trough by friends of the government; and so on.
What role the provincial opposition NDP play in fighting back against this remains to be seen. They will probably be more concerned about getting themselves elected next time and will likely try to channel any fightback energies in that direction. Nevertheless, a fightback will be needed and therefore political leadership will be needed. The labour movement - a primary target of the Liberals - and the other social movements will need to display creativity and, hopefully, some alternatives such as organizations like the CCPA has offered in other provinces (at least).
Gordon Campbell's boot in the face of a hungry child. That is what I see for BC without some kind of fightback over the next years.
Tue, 2009-05-19 02:29
#16
Well. We can only hope so. But If the economy improves in say 2011, or even next year, then they'll have missed their chance and we won't ever really know. Besides most of us will admit that most of the media, especially the largest media (Can West), is terribly anti-NDP in their coverage. So seeing as they're probably going to go bankrupt (and we'll all be dancing on their graves) the NDP will clearly win the next election. Right? Right! Look, four years is far too far in the future to be able to tell what will happen. For all we know the next election could be a carbon copy of the last one and if that's the case then we could be in the same position on May 18th (19th if you're in any other time zone) 2013. Not that the NDP should make any crazy moves right now or anything (the next convention is in November, right?), but clearly since the party didn't make any advances even the most partisan supporters on this board can recognize that they need to make some reforms if they want to win the next election? What those are though... well obviously that will be contentious.
Tue, 2009-05-19 02:33
#17
Actually, I shouldn't even say partisan. I should say the most hardcore, the NDP can do no wrong, suppoters would have to admit that the party didn't run a perfect campaign and ought to be able to modify some things.
Tue, 2009-05-19 02:39
#18
N.Beltov
One view that has been put forward is that the NDP will need to move to the right to grab those %age of Liberal voters needed to help put the NDP over the top next time around. However, sounding even more like the Liberals doesn't come across as political wisdom to me. But what the hell do I know? I'm just some leftist, right?
After the Olympic circus is over, collective agreements will come up for renewal and I expect the province to carry out further attacks on provincial government workers. The BC teachers, and some others, have shown some signs of a fightback but there is a long way to go.
Tue, 2009-05-19 05:42
#19
I think that the NDP in Bc has had the misfortune of twice having governed during really bad economic times (1972-75 and agin in the 90s) heir luck.
Neiither of these periods were "really bad" times in BC. The early 70's had low employment although there was a recession in 1974. Unemployment was actually higher in the late 70's under the Socreds. There was of course high inflation but that was everywhere.
As for the 90's, your Ontario bias is showing. The early 90's recession barely affected BC. Unemployment in BC declined from 10.1% in 1992 to 7.7% in 2001 - far lower than the previous decade.
The fact is the worst unemployment by far in BC was in the 1980's under the Socreds. Unemployment was in double digits from 1982 through 1988.
The problem is not that the NDP governed during bad times but that it was perceived as a bad economic manager. Note I said perceived.
Tue, 2009-05-19 09:20
#20
" The early 90's recession barely affected BC."
That's true and that's part of why they were re-electd in 1996 - but the late 90s - as a result of the "Asian flu" BC did worse economically than the rest of Canada.
I agree with a lot of the criticisms of the strategy in the NDP campaign, but given that after a campaign that was hobbled by poor strategy - the results were still quite close, my conclusion is that the BC NDP needs better strategists next time. I don't buy into this idea that because they got 42% and the Libs got 46% - the party needs to dissolve and reconstitute itself as something totally different from what it is either by ditching the very few teeny weeny vestiges of social democracy and moving to the right or by becoming a Trotskyist party. The changes that the party has to make have nothing to do with ideological positioning and everything to do with strategy and communication.
Fri, 2009-05-22 00:54
#21
I gather Gary Doer made a number of moves to shift the NDP to the center. Again, I'm not an expert on what happened there. Finally, Gary Filmon shifted far to the right for the 1999 campaign promising, like all right wingers, massive tax cuts that mostly benefit the already wealthy. That mistake opened the door for Doer which he successfully walked through and hasn't looked back.
Actually, Filmon's government was as ideologically right-wing as any other, and I thought the additional spending on such things as health care and education leading up to the 1999 election were moves to the left. That election was, as Stockholm points out, a case of a government defeating itself, and the NDP just happened to be in the right place at the right time. People were angry about privatisation of MTS (the NDP still won't let voters here forget that 13 years after the fact), hallway medicine (Doer had a list of promises to the electorate, "end hallway medicine" was at the top) and accusations that the Tories had funded independent Aboriginal candidates to siphon off NDP votes and come up the middle in some ridings.
Fri, 2009-05-22 06:45
#22
I see Ms. James is staying on for 2013, so I guess 8 more years for the Liberals..sigh...
Fri, 2009-05-22 10:49
#23
While she has stated her intention to stay on and fight another election won't she face an automatic leadership review at the Party's next convention.
Fri, 2009-05-22 11:37
#24
Automatic leadership reviews are in practice not all they are cracked up to be.
Carole James will have to make the case for her continued leadership, and that in itself poses as much of a challenge as a formal leadership vote.
Fri, 2009-05-22 12:07
#25
Now that the election is over:
[url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ndp-will-no-longer-donate-p... MLAs will no longer donate pay raises[/color][/url]
New Democrat MLAs are ending their caucus-wide policy of donating controversial pay raises for politicians, scrapping a practice that Leader Carole James pointed to as recently as the televised election debate.
In an interview with The Globe and Mail, caucus chair Jenny Kwan said yesterday she expects that donation policy - under which NDP members donated their extra pay, but kept their increased pension benefits - will not be continued, adding caucus intended it to last only until the election.
However, two years ago, Ms. James said that if her party formed a government, her preference would be to appoint another committee to re-examine the pay raises of 54 per cent for the premier and 29 per cent for MLAs, adding "there is no one I have talked to who says that is a reasonable increase."
Fri, 2009-05-22 12:15
#26
At every NDP convention, there is a leadership contest and anyone can run against the incumbent leader - so if anyone wants to get rid of Carol James they are free to run against her. Mind you I've noticed that the people who whisper negative things about her - never seem to want to actually run against her. Part of the reason why she's leader in the first place is that all the big shots thought that being leader of the BC NDP post-2001 was not a prize worth winning so they let her have the job by default - then to their horror she had a very successful first election in 2005 and they were stuck with her.
I think that she could easily win next time. I think she's a pretty good leader and that if there are changes to be made its more about getting new strategists as opposed to her being the problem.
That being said, I don't read much into her saying she will run again in 2013. She has to either resign on the spot or say that she will stay on - otherwise she becomes a lame duck and a behind the scenes leadership race goes on for the next two years. Some of the people touted as possible leadership contenders aren't ready to run yet - so it would be better to pick a new leader in 2011 or 2012 - as opposed to in the next six months.
Fri, 2009-05-22 13:07
#27
At every NDP convention, there is a leadership contest and anyone can run against the incumbent leader-
Not exactly. When you have one member one vote leadership contests cannot be at every Convention. You have to write in an automatic review process [we dont have one in NS, and neither does the federal party I'm pretty sure].
Technicaly, you could amend Constitutions to have OMOV under particular set condidtions [first of all when existing Leader resigns], and still have a leadership vote by the delegates at every other Convention. But those kind of tradional every time leadership votes are at any rate, in practice totally pro forma exercises.
The automatic leadership reviews [under particular set condidtions] have more substantive effect to them. But I stand by my point that whether or not BCNDP has them- James has to make the case for her continued leadership. If she doen't have confidence, she's finished no matter what the formalities.
That said, I agree its too early to say whether she really intends to stay until 2013 election. She had to say either that, or tsay right now she is finished. Nothing in between is tenable.
Fri, 2009-05-22 13:08
#28
She probably wants to see what Gordo does after the Olympics - if he retires the party would want to see who the successor is and how she would stack up against him/her.
Fri, 2009-05-22 13:23
#29
remind
I would say they are correct to discontinue it, after all the electorate that voted for Campbell and re-elected him, apparently sees nothing wrong with the raise, so why should the NDP slap them in the face? :D
Fri, 2009-05-22 13:58
#30
so much for a workers' MP on a worker's wage
Fri, 2009-05-22 16:00
#31
Its just so cynical to immediately end the donation policy after the election and after touting their policy during the debate. You get the feeling the NDP has a very low opinion of the electorate's intelligence. It is the kind of thing you would expect from an "opposition" party that is perfectly happy with the status quo and low voter turnout.
Fri, 2009-05-22 16:24
#32
I would say they are correct to discontinue it, after all the electorate that voted for Campbell and re-elected him, apparently sees nothing wrong with the raise, so why should the NDP slap them in the face? :D
How come she forgot to mention that before the election?
I thought parties breaking their promises once they come to power was bad enough. Breaking their promises after losing is really innovative.
Reminds me of the Reform Party under Manning condemning MPs pensions - until they got to be MPs, that is.
Fri, 2009-05-22 16:39
#33
Now that the election is over:
Yes, Liberal BC will still own the highest percentage of child poverty of any province in the middle of a neoliberal ideoligically driven recession. And second only to Liberal Ontario with the largest number of children living anywhere below the poverty line.
And Bay St will continue supporting tin pots like Campbell and McGuinty with anywhere less than 24% of registered voter support in either province. God help us.
Sun, 2009-05-24 22:53
#34
to tell you the truth, BC MLAs were very underpaid before the raise. My issue is with the principle of raising MPPs salaries while not raising the minimum wage - but I was actually surpirsed at what a pittance BC MLAs were making before theyt got the last raise - considering what the life of an elected official is like.
Sun, 2009-05-24 22:57
#35
I generally agree, Stock, and I have no problem with raising MLAs' wages. I do have a problem with broken promises.
Sun, 2009-05-24 23:27
#36
Did the BC NDP ever promise to donate the raise to charities forever and ever until the end of time and keep their salaries frozen for the next two hundred years even if inflation eroded them to a penny a year?
Mon, 2009-05-25 00:01
#37
Of course Canwest and other right wing media outlets want Jame to continue as leader but James is not staying on. She says what she is told to say, period. After a reasonable amount of time has passed, she'll do the right thing and throw in the towel. She's a good team player, just not the leader required to take us over the top.
Mon, 2009-05-25 09:58
#38
remind
No, they promised to donate until the next election and if they won they would revist the wage hike. Now that the Liberals have won, as apparently BCers do not care about the wage hike, so again just why would the NDP MLA's keep on donating 1/2 million a year to charities?
Mon, 2009-05-25 12:44
#39
Counting of the asbentee ballots and official vote starts today - any one think that any of the close ridings will change - there are over 800 absentee ballots in Delta South - any one hear how many in Cariboo - Chilcotin - two other ridings mentioned are the Maple Ridge - Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge Mission ones - unlikely any change there unless there were a large number of votes from one particular part of those ridings that heavily favored one candidate over the other.
Mon, 2009-05-25 13:54
#40
remind
Going back to my previous post on the counting of special and absentee ballots, Vicki Huntington had a relative 1.3% positive difference compared to Val Roddick in the 2005 election; since there were 736 ballots to be counted in this fashion, it would suggest that Huntington would have a 9.6 vote edge (minus the three votes that Wally Oppal is currently ahead) if the same numbers were true in the 2009 election. However, these are dealing with very small numbers and percentages and I would not put any statistical weight on this. My estimate would be that Vicki Huntington has about a 55% chance of winning and Wally Oppal has a 45% chance of winning.To put 45% in perspective, this is like throwing two standard dice and rolling a 6, 7, or 8.
Now we will examine Cariboo-Chilcotin, where the vote margin is currently 23 votes; NDP MLA Charlie Wyse has a slim lead over BC Liberal candidate Donna Barnett.
The analog riding is Cariboo South; in the 2005 election we had:
Total results (15,823 valid votes cast):
NDP Charlie Wyse, 45.99%
LIB Walter Cobb, 42.27%In advanced balloting:
Charlie Wyse 998 / 2022 = 49.36% [+3.37%]
Walter Cobb 896 / 2022 = 44.31% [+2.04%]In special/absentee balloting:
Charlie Wyse 445 / 883 = 50.40% [+4.41%]
Walter Cobb 363 / 883 = 41.11% [-1.16%]Charlie Wyse has a clear showing of outperforming in the special balloting in the 2005 election. If we were to translate this into the 2009 election, combined with the fact that he has a 23 vote lead, he is likely to win his seat. There would have to be at least a 2.6% underperformance by Charlie Wyse, relative to his BC Liberal rival, in order to lose his lead. While the possibility of this happening cannot be entirely eliminated, I would estimate Charlie Wyse has a 90% chance of retaining his seat. I have checked Cariboo North as well, and the NDP candidate (NDP MLA Bob Simpson) outperformed by 2.48% in special/absentee balloting, while the BC Liberal candidate Steve Wallace underperformed by 4.87%
4 other ridings to watch
Saanich North and the Islands
Cariboo North
Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows
Burnaby-Deer Lake
Maple Ridge-Mission
Mon, 2009-05-25 14:02
#41
[url=http://www.socialistproject.ca/bullet/bullet221.html]NDP, and Working People, Lose Out in BC Election[/url]
Mon, 2009-05-25 14:13
#42
remind
From LP's link:
Building a movement for social change
How can working people win a government that defends democratic rights and social justice? This is a question on the minds of many in the wake of this latest, lamentable electoral outcome. The election provides some clear answers to that question that should be discussed throughout the trade unions, social movements, and NDP in the months ahead.
- Right-wing governments with universal backing from the capitalist class, such as that enjoyed by the BC Liberals, cannot be defeated through electoral routine. The electoral process and the surrounding mechanisms of big-business media are too strongly weighted against working people for the simple casting of a ballot to bring about meaningful change.
- A party of the working class must firmly defend the interests of its constituency. The NDP and the unions will never convince big business leaders to join the rest of the human race in making the world a better place. Capitalist and working-class interests run in opposite directions. The social and political organizations of working people need to organize accordingly.
- The fight for social justice and progressive government can only be advanced by bringing the social power of workers and our allies into action, through political education, street mobilizations, workplace actions, and all other forms of popular action. A party of the working class must be active and mobilized throughout the year, not just in time of elections.
NDP members and unions affiliated to the party should organize to challenge the party and the unions to adopt such a perspective.
Socialists and other working-class fighters face the challenge of raising our voices and program more forcefully. The voices of socialism were heard only faintly during this election. Fresh approaches to political organization and greater left unity are overdue. •
Mon, 2009-05-25 20:46
#43
Some revised although NOT FINAL numbers show some surprises:
Wallyboy is now 13 votes behind in Delta South and Charlie Wyse is now 59 votes behind in Cariboo-Chilcotin - apparently these are the corrected figures and possible acceptance of some rejected votes from on election night - the absentee votes are still to be counted.
Apparently in Cariboo-Chilcotin the an 82 vote error in favor of the NDP at one polling station has been resversed thereby giving the Liberal the lead. Go to www.bc2009.com if you want to see some of the changes in the numbers that happened today.
It is also harder to compare Delta-South numbers easily because there is more than one independent candidates and the numbers are combined.
So far no changes in any other ridings.
They expect to announce final results tomorrow - perhaps as early as noon.
Source of this story is both CTV and BCTV early news.
Mon, 2009-05-25 21:11
#44
The latest from Delta appears to be 14 vote lead for Vicki with 531 Absentee votes still to be counted - if I understand it there were over 800 absentee ballots at the start so she has gained one vote so far so it appears to be breaking her way.
Tue, 2009-05-26 11:17
#45
Apparently Vicki Huntingdon has a lot of federal Tory connections. If she gets elected, maybe she can take over the leadership of the provincial Conservatives in BC and start building them into a real party that will run candidates in all ridings. Wouldn't that be nice!!
Tue, 2009-05-26 11:41
#46
That is one theory that I alluded to a previous post on another thread but how about using her name and possible MLA connection for a federal run in a few years when John Cummings either retires or gets kicked out of the Cons.
Tue, 2009-05-26 13:10
#47
remind
Wow, looking at the recount numbers from politics101 link above is mind boogling, how can that many errors be made? 100's of votes in a couple of ridings counted for the GP or Independants that were NDP's for example.
If they are not recounting all the ridings they should be!
Tue, 2009-05-26 14:45
#48
Remind - all poll results will be rechecked - Sasha didn't have results from many of the ridings so that is why it might show no change - on election night in the haste to get done and get out you might write the numbers in the wrong column - in the Vancouver Point Grey example I suspect that someone put votes in John Ince ( Sex Party ) space instead of Mel Lehan - without checking the candidates names in that riding they were probably next to each other on the reporting sheet and no one catch the mistake until now - there are parts of Point Grey where a small # of votes for Mel wouldn't necesary trigger any alarm bells. Also that mistake could have been noticed by a scrutineer and the party alerted Elections BC but the rules are fairly well laid out that you must wait until the final count to correct mistakes. That is why it is sometimes wise not to collect on your election bets until the final results are known.
Another riding that has tighten is Maple Ridge Pitt Meadows it is now under 150 - still a long shot.
Also on election night a voting officer may reject a ballot if he is unsure of whether it is a proper vote but the more experience finall count people might accept the ballot.
Hope this explains some of the post.
Tue, 2009-05-26 14:54
#49
You can get up to the minute results on the Elections BC web site of the final vote tallies:
http://www.elections.bc.ca/docs/stats/2009-ge-ref/fc/GE-2009-05-12_Party...
In Delta South there are two independents so the total lead for Vicki is harder to determine without going inside the actual riding page.
Current lead for Liberals in Cariboo-Chilcotin is 94 votes
Maple Ridge - Pitt Meadows is complete and the NDP took the vast majority of the absentee vote and increased there margin.
One that is complete is Maple Ridge - Mission which has tightened to less than a 100 vote victory for the Liberals - wonder if a possible recount might be in the works there.
Tue, 2009-05-26 14:57
#50
You can get up to the minute results on the Elections BC web site of the final vote tallies:
http://www.elections.bc.ca/docs/stats/2009-ge-ref/fc/GE-2009-05-12_Party...
In Delta South there are two independents so the total lead for Vicki is harder to determine without going inside the actual riding page.
Current lead for Liberals in Cariboo-Chilcotin is 94 votes
Maple Ridge - Pitt Meadows is complete and the NDP took the vast majority of the absentee vote and increased there margin.
One that is complete is Maple Ridge - Mission which has tightened to less than a 100 vote victory for the Liberals - wonder if a possible recount might be in the works there.
Tue, 2009-05-26 15:05
#51
12 noon update shows Cariboo Chilcotin completed and Donna Barnett the winner by 88 votes
Final margin in Maple Ridge - Mission is 68 votes for the Liberals
For some reason the margin in Delta South seems to be stuck at 14 vote lead for Vickie