Three Byelections Called

347 posts / 0 new

Tue, 2012-11-27 02:23

Debater

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Debater wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Debater, spin it any way you want. you guys should have done better, and you didn't. You need to break through in BC, because Alberta isn't about to go Lib. And you didn't. You know, if you keep it up, all that spinning is going to make you dizzy.

I'm not spinning anything any more than you are. Shouldn't your party have done better tonight?

As I said above, NDP support dropped significantly in VICTORIA, fell to the bottom in CALGARY CENTRE to 3.8% and only marginally increased in DURHAM, despite having a much stronger candidate than in 2011.

In a moment of objectivity on another thread, you admitted yourself when you saw the VICTORIA results that they were not good for the NDP compared to what they should have done tonight. Questions will be asked about Mulcair.

Anyway, all 4 parties will claim a win tomorrow! That's the politics of all this. No one had the perfect result they wanted.

Yep, we should have done better. I am not discounting that. But you guys are supposed to be "Canada's Natural Governing Party". North Report has already explained, and you have already ignored why the Ontario result was so bad. You guys will never break through in Alberta, and unless you can make in roads in BC, you are going no where. And besides, you guys were running on Trudeau's coat tails and it did you no good. Nope, as bad as the results were in some way for the NDP, as others have explained better then I, they were worse for the Libs. Everyone here, except you, knows it.

As I said before, all that spinning is going to make you dizzy. Justin has NO coat tails.

JUSTIN IS NOT LEADER!

Tue, 2012-11-27 02:24

#303

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Good night Debater. All I said is if the Libs were to win, she'd cross the floor.

See you later.

Tue, 2012-11-27 02:25

#304

Debater

David Young wrote:

Debater wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

Let's just say that finishing in 1st place in BC, and in 2nd place in Ontario is a lot better, compared to finishing in 4th place in BC, and 3rd place in Ontario.

Let's just say that dramatically increasing your support in one riding (Calgary Centre) and staying basically the same in the other 2 (Victoria & Durham) is better than collapsing in 2 (Calgary Centre & Victoria) and only marginally increasing in 1 (Durham).

Strange, Debater, that you call tonight's results an increase in support, when the Liberals held Durham and Victoria before the Conservatives, and yet tonight could only manage a 4th place finish in Victoria and 3rd in Durham.

It's that kind of thinking that helped to create the $600 billion debt we're up to right now.

Conservatives 2, NDP 1, Liberals 0.... 'nuff said!

The Liberals haven't held those ridings in years and weren't expected to win them tonight. I'm not saying anything different from what you'll hear most people saying this week.

The NDP is now the 'Official Opposition'. Why wasn't it able to pick up a new seat? And why did it collapse in 2 others?

Tue, 2012-11-27 02:26

#305

Debater

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Good night Debater. All I said is if the Libs were to win, she'd cross the floor.

See you later.

Maybe she'll cross to the NDP some day, or the Conservatives. The Liberals don't want her so she's not becoming a Liberal.

Happy Hannakah if I don't see you before then.

Tue, 2012-11-27 02:30

#306

Policywonk

Interesting that the turnout in Victoria was significantly greater than Durham or Calgary Centre. The turnout in Calgary Centre was pathetic. I think a lot of Conservatives stayed home rather than vote Liberal or Green.

All polls in now in Victoria and a lead of 1151 votes. Turnout almost 44%.

Tue, 2012-11-27 02:31

#307

jerrym

jjuares wrote:

May is very anti-NDP. She seems at times to be a stalking horse for the Libs. Maybe she resents the NDP beause they have the supporters that she feels she is entitled too. Or maybe her conservatism has had her develop a viseral dislike for the NDP but whatever it is, it is palpable

The following biographical comment may help to understand Elizabeth May's attitude towards the NDP. This was several years before she became a senior advisor to the Mulroney government.

"In 1980, disillusioned with the federal election sparked by the loss of confidence vote on Prime Minister's budget, May launched a political party to raise environment and anti-nuclear issues. The party, dubbed "the Small Party" and based on the ideas in E. F. Schumacher's book, Small is Beautiful, ran 12 candidates in 6 provinces, in the 1980 federal election. They made no pretense of attempting to win seats, calling the effort a “beau geste” to raise awareness." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_May)

She is a classic conservative focused on achieving small government, while the problems generated by climate change require local, provincial or state, national and international government actions on a wide range of issues to prevent or mitigate the effects of global warming.

Don't forget that May was Senior Policy Advisor to federal Environmental Minister Tom McMillan in the Progressive Conservative government of Brian Mulroney.

"In June 1988, she discovered that the minister had broken the law approving permits for two dams in Saskatchewan (Rafferty and Alameda dams on the Souris River) without environmental review. She resigned on principle, but did not make her reasons for resignation public. In September, the Winnipeg Free Press broke the story of her resignation on the front page, unleashing a storm of anger from Manitoba residents, who were downstream from the Souris. The day after the story broke, the Manitoba Legislature held an emergency debate on the issue. The Canadian Wildlife Federation brought a lawsuit against the decision to grant permits without environmental review. The Federal Court of Canada ruled the permits had been granted illegally."

Despite this, "As one of her last major acts in this post she participated in a poll of experts that determined that Brian Mulroney was Canada's "greenest" Prime Minister for an award presented by Corporate Knights magazine".

During the 2008 federal election, she made a deal with Liberal leader Stephane Dion not to run a Green candidate in Dion's riding in return for the Liberals not running a candidate against her in Central Nova. "May had attempted to talk to NDP leader Jack Layton about ways to cooperate to avoid Harper’s party forming government. Layton refused to meet and attacked May for agreeing to a “leader’s courtesy” agreement with Dion. When the May-Dion deal was announced, it was criticized by the Conservatives and NDP, with Layton describing it as "backroom dealing", while former NDP leader Ed Broadbent said that it deprived voters of choice."

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_May)

This should tell you where her political sympathies lie and why she is unlikely to look favourably on the NDP.

The Green Party has strong environmental policies but favours tax shifting from higher income and corporate taxes to environmental taxes, thereby increasing the burden on the middle and lower class and in many ways is closely linked to the old Progressive Conservative value and political system. The Wikipedia summary of the Green Party of Ontario policies and Green Party of Canada leader Elizabeth May make this clear.

"Although the party has generally been perceived as being left-wing, the party combines ecologically and socially reformist policies with strong respect for the free market and entrepreneurship. Many key members are recruits from the former centre-right Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, including Elio di Orio, who was a protégé of former Canadian Prime Minister Joe Clark, and Peter Elgie, son of former Ontario Progressive Conservative cabinet minister Robert Elgie. The party's newly chosen Chief Financial Officer, David Scrymgoeur, was the National Director of the former Progressive Conservative Party of Canada.

Under Frank de Jong, the Green Party of Ontario has emphasized policies typical of both left- and right-wing parties. In the words of de Jong, the GPO tends to favour policies that are "socially progressive, fiscally conservative, and environmentally aware". As such, policies in areas such as education, health, environmental protection and social equity are notably progressive, while policies on income & property taxation, market regulation, and industrial subsidisation are more conservative in nature.

GP policy proposes a concept known as green tax shifting which it classifies under the broad context of ecological fiscal reform. In general, the party proposes gradual but significant reductions in all income and corporate taxes (or taxes on so-called 'earned income'), funded by the introduction of new resource-based taxes applied at the point of entry into the economy (for example, carbon taxes)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Party_of_Ontario

Debater should worry about the Greens because they could replace the Liberals with their conservative fiscal policies and liberal environmental approach.

Tue, 2012-11-27 02:33

#308

jjuares

Debater wrote:

David Young wrote:

Debater wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

Let's just say that finishing in 1st place in BC, and in 2nd place in Ontario is a lot better, compared to finishing in 4th place in BC, and 3rd place in Ontario.

Let's just say that dramatically increasing your support in one riding (Calgary Centre) and staying basically the same in the other 2 (Victoria & Durham) is better than collapsing in 2 (Calgary Centre & Victoria) and only marginally increasing in 1 (Durham).

Strange, Debater, that you call tonight's results an increase in support, when the Liberals held Durham and Victoria before the Conservatives, and yet tonight could only manage a 4th place finish in Victoria and 3rd in Durham.

It's that kind of thinking that helped to create the $600 billion debt we're up to right now.

Conservatives 2, NDP 1, Liberals 0.... 'nuff said!

The Liberals haven't held those ridings in years and weren't expected to win them tonight. I'm not saying anything different from what you'll hear most people saying this week.

The NDP is now the 'Official Opposition'. Why wasn't it able to pick up a new seat? And why did it collapse in 2 others?

One of the "collapses" Debater is talking about was a NDP victory. Too bad the Liberals didn't have some "collapses" like that!

Tue, 2012-11-27 02:34

#309

Debater

Policywonk wrote:

Interesting that the turnout in Victoria was significantly greater than Durham or Calgary Centre. The turnout in Calgary Centre was pathetic. I think a lot of Conservatives stayed home rather than vote Liberal or Green.

All polls in now in Victoria and a lead of 1151 votes. Turnout almost 44%.

So the NDP won by 3% of the vote over the Greens.

If I were to be melodramatic the way North Report likes to be, one could say this was a near disaster for Mulcair. He was expected to easily win this riding.

Does this mean the Green Party is now a major force in Canadian (perhaps more likely BC) politics?

http://enr.elections.ca/ElectoralDistricts_e.aspx

Tue, 2012-11-27 02:36

#310

Debater

jjuares wrote:

Debater wrote:

David Young wrote:

Debater wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

Let's just say that finishing in 1st place in BC, and in 2nd place in Ontario is a lot better, compared to finishing in 4th place in BC, and 3rd place in Ontario.

Let's just say that dramatically increasing your support in one riding (Calgary Centre) and staying basically the same in the other 2 (Victoria & Durham) is better than collapsing in 2 (Calgary Centre & Victoria) and only marginally increasing in 1 (Durham).

Strange, Debater, that you call tonight's results an increase in support, when the Liberals held Durham and Victoria before the Conservatives, and yet tonight could only manage a 4th place finish in Victoria and 3rd in Durham.

It's that kind of thinking that helped to create the $600 billion debt we're up to right now.

Conservatives 2, NDP 1, Liberals 0.... 'nuff said!

The Liberals haven't held those ridings in years and weren't expected to win them tonight. I'm not saying anything different from what you'll hear most people saying this week.

The NDP is now the 'Official Opposition'. Why wasn't it able to pick up a new seat? And why did it collapse in 2 others?

One of the "collapses" Debater is talking about was a NDP victory. Too bad the Liberals didn't have some "collapses" like that!

You're not being objective in the slightest. But that's up to you. If you think finishing with only about 3% of the vote in Calgary and almost losing Victoria is a good thing, that's your right.

As I said, all parties will put their own spin on these results, as you are doing now.

Tue, 2012-11-27 02:38

#311

jerrym

Final results from Victoria gave Rankin a 37.2% to 34.3% win.

VICTORIA:

Candidate Party Votes %

Green Party Donald Galloway 13368 34.3

Conservative Dale Gann 5633 14.4

Libertarian Art Lowe 194 0.5

Christian Heritage Philip G. Ney 191 0.5

NDP Murray Rankin 14519 37.2

LiberalPaul Summerville 5092 13.1

Polls reporting: 256/256 Voter turnout: 38,997 of 88,886 registered electors (43.9%)

Tue, 2012-11-27 02:39

#312

jjuares

Debater wrote:

jjuares wrote:

Debater wrote:

David Young wrote:

Debater wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

Let's just say that finishing in 1st place in BC, and in 2nd place in Ontario is a lot better, compared to finishing in 4th place in BC, and 3rd place in Ontario.

Let's just say that dramatically increasing your support in one riding (Calgary Centre) and staying basically the same in the other 2 (Victoria & Durham) is better than collapsing in 2 (Calgary Centre & Victoria) and only marginally increasing in 1 (Durham).

Strange, Debater, that you call tonight's results an increase in support, when the Liberals held Durham and Victoria before the Conservatives, and yet tonight could only manage a 4th place finish in Victoria and 3rd in Durham.

It's that kind of thinking that helped to create the $600 billion debt we're up to right now.

Conservatives 2, NDP 1, Liberals 0.... 'nuff said!

The Liberals haven't held those ridings in years and weren't expected to win them tonight. I'm not saying anything different from what you'll hear most people saying this week.

The NDP is now the 'Official Opposition'. Why wasn't it able to pick up a new seat? And why did it collapse in 2 others?

One of the "collapses" Debater is talking about was a NDP victory. Too bad the Liberals didn't have some "collapses" like that!

You're not being objective in the slightest. But that's up to you. If you think finishing with only about 3% of the vote in Calgary and almost losing Victoria is a good thing, that's your right.

As I said, all parties will put their own spin on these results, as you are doing now.

Well I guess we can't all be as "objective" as you.

Tue, 2012-11-27 02:43

#313

Ippurigakko

voter turnout in Victoria 44%, Durham 36% and Calgary 29%

comparison 2011 vs by-election 2012 vs forum research

Durham
2011 CON 54.5%, NDP 21.1%, LIB 17.9%, GRN 5.4%, OTH 1.0%
2012 CON 50.7% (-3,8), NDP 26.3% (+5,2), LIB 17.3% (-0,6), GRN 4.1% (-1.3), OTH 1.7% (+0.7) (by-election final)

Forum1 CON 46%, NDP 24%, LIB 20%, GRN 6%, OTH 4%
Forum2 CON 42%, NDP 26%, LIB 22%, GRN 7%, OTH 3%

Calgary
2011 CON 57.7%, LIB 17.5%, NDP 14.9%, GRN 9.9%, OTH 0.0%
2012 CON 36.9% (-20.8), LIB 32.7% (+15.2), GRN 25.6% (+15.7), NDP 3.8% (-11.1), OTH 0.9% (+0.9) (by-election final)

Forum1 CON 48%, LIB 28%, GRN 11%, NDP 8%, OTH 5%
Forum2 CON 32%, LIB 30%, GRN 23%, NDP 12%, OTH 4%
Forum3 CON 35%, LIB 30%, GRN 25%, NDP 8%, OTH 2%
Forum4 CON 37%, LIB 32%, GRN 17%, NDP 12%, OTH 2%

Victoria
2011 NDP 50.8%, CON 23.6%, LIB 14.0%, GRN 11.6%, OTH 0.0%
2012 NDP 37.2% (-13,6), GRN 34.3% (+22.7), CON 14.4% (-9,2), LIB 13.1% (-0.9), OTH 1.0% (+1.0) (by-election final)

Forum1 NDP 47%, GRN 20%, CON 16%, LIB 16%, OTH 1%
Forum2 NDP 47%, GRN 26%, LIB 14%, CON 12%, OTH 1%

Tue, 2012-11-27 02:48

#314

Hunky_Monkey

Paul Summerville ran in Victoria? lol

Anyways, we all know byelections mean little especially this far from 2015. Remember the Winnipeg North byelection? Liberals were giddy after that though not so much when the next general election was over :)

Tue, 2012-11-27 03:08

#315

Debater

It's all about the narrative, and I just found this headline from the National Post, and look what it says:

Tories eke out narrow 4% victory in formerly safe Calgary Centre riding

When even the National Post is acknowledging that the Liberals amost won a Conservative stronghold, you have to admit that's a good headline for the Liberal Party in this morning's papers:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/11/27/calgary-centre-byelection-result...

I'm sure there will be similiar headlines for the NDP, except they will say the opposite: "NDP holds off Greens in a squeaker".

Btw, the Winnipeg North by-election did end up being significant in one way - Lamoreux ended up holding it in the general election! Kind of ironic, though, I admit.

Tue, 2012-11-27 06:32

#316

felixr

The Liberal spin tonight is ridiculous. They got slaughtered everywhere but Calgary Centre, where two of the party's great stars (remember David McGuinty or his brother were both touted as potential leadership candidates), helped to deep six the party's chances with their comments.The Liberal polling numbers stalled, and the result was a close loss. When it comes to Western politics, the current Liberal caucus is all left feet!

The only media outlet covering the Victoria byelection was the Times Colonist. On the other hand, there was saturation coverage about the byelection in Calgary Centre.

Tue, 2012-11-27 06:45

#317

nicky

Three points.

1. In the last election, Victoria and Calgary Centre were both among the Greens' very best seats. In Victoria they recorded their sixth best result in the whole country, in Calgary C. Their seventh best.
Although they did well in both by-elections the point remains that they lost under optimal conditions - strong local candidates and concentration of resources. If they cannot win in these seats under these conditions commentators should be asking where can they evr win an additional seat? And if they can't, why should the country take them seriously?
On this point, it is noteworthy that recent polls have not recorded any gains for the Greens. I think it is ffair to say that the Greens had their best shot at a breakthrough in these by-elections and have shot their bolt.

2. Some of you have said that the Liberal showing in Calgary indicates that Justin's remarks did not have an effect. They finished second by about 5 points just like the polls suggested. But I think the momentum going into the final stretch was with Locke and the uproar over Trudeau may have broken it.

It is also worth noting that Trudeau campaigned extensively in both the other tidings and that the Liberal vote fell in each of them.

3. The Conservatives were the only party whose vote fell in each of the three by-elections last night

Sat, 2021-11-20 11:55

#318

jfb

Tue, 2012-11-27 08:06

#319

Ken Burch

If nothing else, the Greens have given the NDP a huge issue to use against them in B.C., both federally and, more crucially, in the provincial election this spring.

It's hard to see the BC Greens holding any of the temporary antitax votes they gained tonight in races where they're up against both the BC Liberals and the rising BC Conservatives.

It gave them a bump tonight...but it will bump them big time down the road.

Tue, 2012-11-27 08:22

#320

kropotkin1951

The voters have spoken and they said; "Who gives a fuck?"

Calgary Centre 29.4% turnout

Victoria 43.9%

Durham 35.8%

By elections are always low turnout but under 30% is getting ridiculous. The NDP in Calgary polled within the margin of error 19 times out of 20.

http://enr.elections.ca/ElectoralDistricts_e.aspx

Tue, 2012-11-27 08:44

#321

addictedtomyipod

Watching the campaigns unfold was almost unreal to me in Victoria. Elizabeth May was all over the media. If there was any sort of commercial on TV or radio, she was the focus, not Galloway. At least 75% of the ads were her voice or picture. It is definitely May that brought those numbers up and I am sure if her choice in candidate were to campaign on his own, like most grown-up politicians have to, then his result would not nearly have been as high. The ballot box last night reflected Victorians on the sewage treatment plant issue alone. No one wants to pay higher taxes and that is the reason the NDP vote lost ground. The Greens were only to happy to ride this wave to the finish. The fact that if the plant were to be built is better on the environment was totally lost on them. Their sewage treatment plant is not federal or provincial jurisdiction, but local, and the feds only throw money in to help pay for it. I am disgusted at the Green position to 'study' it some more, somehow convincing the city that there are better ways to go forward. After 30 years of this issue being on the table, I guess it is safe to say that to do the right thing by the environment will not happen but can always be punted down the road if you just keep looking.

Tue, 2012-11-27 10:08

#322

NorthReport

Poor losers just can't help themselves with their personal attacks. Too bad!

Debater wrote:

Policywonk wrote:

Interesting that the turnout in Victoria was significantly greater than Durham or Calgary Centre. The turnout in Calgary Centre was pathetic. I think a lot of Conservatives stayed home rather than vote Liberal or Green.

All polls in now in Victoria and a lead of 1151 votes. Turnout almost 44%.

So the NDP won by 3% of the vote over the Greens.

If I were to be melodramatic the way North Report likes to be, one could say this was a near disaster for Mulcair. He was expected to easily win this riding.

Does this mean the Green Party is now a major force in Canadian (perhaps more likely BC) politics?

http://enr.elections.ca/ElectoralDistricts_e.aspx

Tue, 2012-11-27 10:30

#323

theleftyinvestor

kropotkin1951 wrote:

The voters have spoken and they said; "Who gives a fuck?"

Calgary Centre 29.4% turnout

Victoria 43.9%

Durham 35.8%

By elections are always low turnout but under 30% is getting ridiculous. The NDP in Calgary polled within the margin of error 19 times out of 20.

http://enr.elections.ca/ElectoralDistricts_e.aspx

Indeed, one could argue that vote-splitting prevented all three ridings from getting the empty seat they were clearly voting for in overwhelming numbers last night.

It would be interesting to go through the 2011 election results and assign the number of non-voting eligibles in each riding to "The Nobody Party". In how many ridings would the Nobody Party win with more votes than the original winner? Would the Nobody Party form a majority in the HoC?

Tue, 2012-11-27 11:58

#324

socialdemocrati...

If the Liberal party even cracks the headline of "incumbants all hold their seats", it will be a headline about how a bunch of Liberal elites took a dump on Alberta and then lost Calgary as usual. That includes the Kim Kardassian of Canadian politics, who said the country belongs to Quebec and blamed Albertans for everything. I'm sure Liberals love seeing his quote repeated and analyzed, just in case people were too busy to see it the first time.

Tue, 2012-11-27 19:43

#325

adma

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:
That includes the Kim Kardassian of Canadian politics, who said the country belongs to Quebec and blamed Albertans for everything.

Funny: metaphorically speaking, I'd think of a different "Kim" (i.e. one known for her shoulders, not for her backside)

Tue, 2012-11-27 20:39

#326

Ippurigakko

I cant wait to see Canadian election Atlas blogs on CC, Durham and Victoria map in party's colours.

O'Connor got most voters in Brock which he used to be mayor in there, and 1990s provincial NDP ? i'd like to see comparison in 1990 to mayor year and 2011-2012

Tue, 2012-11-27 21:49

#327

Aristotleded24

Lest anyone think that a Liberal resurgence is imminent, remember that when Ralph Klein retired the Liberals took that seat in the following by-election, only for Allison Redford to take it back for the PCs.

Wed, 2012-11-28 07:55

#328

adma

Ippurigakko wrote:

O'Connor got most voters in Brock which he used to be mayor in there, and 1990s provincial NDP ? i'd like to see comparison in 1990 to mayor year and 2011-2012

Except that Brock isn't in Durham riding (then again, parachuting didn't hurt Pelham's Malcolm Allen in Welland). The only part of the present Durham that was in O'Connor's former constituency is Uxbridge.

Fri, 2012-12-07 13:16

#329

jerrym

The large increase in Green Party support during the Victoria byelection appears to have had little effect on provincial Green Party support in BC according to a new Ipsos Reid online poll conducted between November 26th and 30th (the Victoria byelection was on November 26th). The poll with a margin of error of 3.1% found the NDP holding statistically constant at 48% (down 1%). The Green spike in support during the byelection is likely a result of the strong focus on the local issue of whether hundreds of millions should be spent of sewage treatment for the city. The Greens, along with the Cons and Libs, were against this, unlike the NDP, despite the severe environmental consequences, and attracted support among those concerned about a resulting increases in muncipal taxes. The BC Greens, on the other hand, despite their good showing in the Victoria byelection, have only risen a statistically insignificant 1%.

The NDP continue to lead in all regions of the province and have a 29% lead among women voters (56% to 27%). Dix's performance has 53% approval amongst polled voters while 34% disapprove. By comparison, Premier Clark's performance has only 34% support while 59% disapprove. The anticharismatic provincial Green Party leader, Jane Sterk, leaves no impression on 55% of voters while her positve ratings (24%) roughly equal her negative ratings (22%).

Dix (39%) has a 16% lead in best choice for Premier over Clark (23%), while Sterk trails badly at 3%.

http://www.ipsos-na.com/news-polls/pressrelease.aspx?id=5915

Fri, 2012-12-07 20:02

#330

addictedtomyipod

The big question is how much will Elizabeth May be interfering in the provincial election? She cannot seem to help herself, so passionate is her desire to obtain power. She single-handedly took on the Victoria by-election with all her might and I don't trust her to not do anything provincially. She'll be there dissing the NDP all the way....

Maybe the Greens will keep the sewage issue alive to pander to the 'no treatment' voters.

Fri, 2012-12-07 21:04

#331

jerrym

addictedtomyipod wrote:

The big question is how much will Elizabeth May be interfering in the provincial election? She cannot seem to help herself, so passionate is her desire to obtain power. She single-handedly took on the Victoria by-election with all her might and I don't trust her to not do anything provincially. She'll be there dissing the NDP all the way....

Maybe the Greens will keep the sewage issue alive to pander to the 'no treatment' voters.

Elizabeth's May can have some influence in a provincial election but it will be limited by the fact that the uncharismatic Jane Sterk is the provincial leader and voters will be looking at how she stacks up. So far she has flatlined and shows no evidence of having the skills needed to attract a significant number of voters. The sewage issue is a Victoria concern that if overemphasized in a provincial campaign will backfire elsewhere in the province since it has little to no relevance there (this is also true for a federal campaign in BC). In fact, it may be a problem provincially because taxpayers in other areas of the province may not think highly of an allegedly environmental party that refuses to support sewage treatment in a city of 300,000 when the taxpayers in these other areas are not paying much of the costs involved.

It is one thing for May to use her coattails to help candidates in their federal election, but, in a provincial campaign, this must be balanced against making their provincial leader look weak when the federal leader intervenes too much. Knowing May's personality, I strongly suspect she will try to overplay her role in the provincial election, thereby becoming a mixed blessing for the BC Greens and Sterk.

Sat, 2012-12-08 01:07

#332

theleftyinvestor

I think with May elected to the HoC and Adriane Carr elected to the Vancouver city council, the Green movement in BC has basically already used up its two best-known faces. Sterk is terribly uninspiring.

Sat, 2012-12-08 06:16

#333

felixr

They still have Andrew Weaver, who is a good fit for Oak Bay. Some of the better known environmentalists in the province are also in their camp.

Sat, 2012-12-08 09:02

#334

nicky

Jerrym makes the point that the Victoria byelection result does not seem to have buoyed the Greens in the provincial polls.

The same point pertains to federal politics. All recent polls have the Greens at modest levels of support, usually 4-5%. Certainly they do not relect the elevated results in Calgary and Victoria. Mid-term polls in the previous Parliament often had the Greens in low double figures. Recently they are stuck just about the 3 3.8% they received in the last election. They also declined slghtly in Durham.

There is good reason to think that the Victoria and Calgary results reflect local factors rather than national ones.

Sat, 2012-12-15 22:48

#335

Brachina

An interesting after note, apparently Bryant tried to recruit Andrew Weaver to the NDP and Andrews acting like its an NDP scandal. Meanwhile the Greens think its okay when they do it.

.http://richardhughes.ca/cowichan-conversations/greens-hypocritical-over-...

Sun, 2012-12-16 06:01

#336

felixr

Brachina wrote:
An interesting after note, apparently Bryant tried to recruit Andrew Weaver to the NDP and Andrews acting like its an NDP scandal. Meanwhile the Greens think its okay when they do it. .http://richardhughes.ca/cowichan-conversations/greens-hypocritical-over-...

Another gaffe by the illustrious Michael Byers. He is a nice guy but always seems to stick his foot in it. He parachuted into Vancouver Centre, with Jack Layton's endorsement, because it seemed eminently winnable and drove the NDP vote down. Jack Layton tried to backstop him during the campaign with personal visits and street canvassing and it didn't work. Byers lost a nationally televised town hall on environmental issues, badly. They polled the audience before the debate and after and the NDP dropped like a rock. Byers personal numbers were bad. He also derailed the national campaign for a couple of days with his comments that the tar sands should be shut down. His vote percentage in the riding remains the worst of any candidate during the Jack Layton period (worse than Svend Robinson's attempted comeback, and Karen Margo Shillington's [telephone interviewer] last minute candidacy). Byers almost ended in 4th place behind the Greens, beating them by less than 2000 votes.

I would venture that Byers was behind Mulcair making a big hoopla out of Andrew Weaver's endorsement, when Andrew Weaver is well known to be mostly a Green and certainly a very fairweather friend of the NDP, not to mention a very self-important individual. Even on Artic sovereignty, where Byers has put his great writing talents to work, his views rarely puncture the surface in the Ottawa bureaucracy. His points are nice, well-taken, but far from the current discussion. That is useful in an academic, but not a politician.

Sun, 2012-12-16 07:50

#337

addictedtomyipod

Mulcair does not need Weaver's endorsement. Anyone that shills for Gordon Campbell and his corrupt BC Liberal party is not anyone that I would want to support the NDP. Weaver is definitely a confirmed right-winger that likes the environment. That is why he fits into the Green Party so well. They are but a Conservative Party that flys a green flag. BTW, the Greens don't necessarily put the environment first on their priority list, it is money.

I see the rise of this party like the rise of a pyramid scheme. Eventually when everyone finds out the truth behind their facade it will all come tumbling down.

Sun, 2012-12-16 13:03

#338

nicky

I wondered how Andrew Weaver went from backing Tom Mulcair for the leadership to endorsing the Greens in the byelection and running for them in Oak Bay.

Thanks for the insight and for any further information you can provide.

Sun, 2012-12-16 20:20

#339

grangerock

Andrew Weaver is right wing and fits in well with Greens--E May pretends she is an umbrella party--but is fiscally right wing--believes in reducing progressive income taxes and increasing consumption taxes--that is why Greens do well in high income ridings. Andrew Weaver said he felt bullied by David Shreck on twitter when David asked him about his previous support for nuclear power and independent power projects and asked him what his position is now.

Sun, 2012-12-16 21:35

#340

nicky

T.C. Norris argues that the Victoria and Cagary Centre byelections were in fact setbacks for the Greens:

Quite unusually the November 26 federal by-elections produced a set of outcomes that managed to deliver bad news in one form or another for all the parties including the Green Party, which actually won large shares of the popular vote in Victoria and Calgary Centre representing large gains over 2011. However, these two constituencies previously featured the sixth and ninth best performances by the Green party in the 2011 election. Having just three by-elections to contest therefore was as about as good an opportunity as one could ask for to break through and win another riding. But the first-past-the-post electoral system in Canada is remorseless. Big increases in popular vote in two of your strongest ridings that don't produce victories represents a setback. It is not surprising that the Greens are enthusiastic supporters of cooperation among the non-Conservative parties: they would have the most to gain.

http://tcnorris.blogspot.ca/

Mon, 2012-12-17 05:04

#341

felixr

Andrew Weaver endorsed Gordon Campbell and his Liberals when they brought in a carbon tax. He endorsed Tom Mulcair over his cap and trade plan. He is right wing on economic affairs (and who knows what else). He is well off. Otherwise, he has been Green in his political affiliations. His previous political posts include work with the Uvic faculty association and on the UVic board of governors. He takes himself very seriously, particularly as one of the more reknowned faculty at Uvic. Normally, a person like this might eventually end up with the Liberals but the Liberals are too far from power to seduce him. For the moment, he carries his one-issue campaign (the environment) mixed in with economic conservatism to the ballot box.

Tue, 2012-12-18 08:20

#342

addictedtomyipod

I have just realized that this whole Weaver Twitter flap was staged. The Greens are attempting to frame the NDP prior to the election...

Claiming that he felt bullied and that he was warned. Really? Warned by whom exactly? Warned about asking questions about what you stand for? Bullying is one of the political sensitive issues of today and to make the NDP wear this label is good for votes to come your way. Secondly, saying that Byers offered him a job makes the NDP look underhanded and not trustworthy.

The fact that he recanted on these two things means very little as the media doesn't focus on facts but rhetoric and gossip. These Greens are unbelievable and are playing very dirty politics here. The NDP should be calling for an apology for this type of slander.

Tue, 2012-12-18 13:32

#343

felixr

addictedtomyipod wrote:

I have just realized that this whole Weaver Twitter flap was staged. The Greens are attempting to frame the NDP prior to the election...

Claiming that he felt bullied and that he was warned. Really? Warned by whom exactly? Warned about asking questions about what you stand for? Bullying is one of the political sensitive issues of today and to make the NDP wear this label is good for votes to come your way. Secondly, saying that Byers offered him a job makes the NDP look underhanded and not trustworthy.

The fact that he recanted on these two things means very little as the media doesn't focus on facts but rhetoric and gossip. These Greens are unbelievable and are playing very dirty politics here. The NDP should be calling for an apology for this type of slander.

The Greens have been playing dirty politics in BC since Joan Russow left. The local NDP should be used to these tactics by now.

Tue, 2012-12-18 13:57

#344

kropotkin1951

The Greens are going to run against the LNG plants and fracking in the Interior. Both things that the NDP should also be opposed to. However since the oil and gas industry in the North is seen in the party hierarchy as an NDP economic achievement they seem to have developed a blind spot. This leaves an important environmental issue where only the Greens will be on the right page. I hope Adrian and company get the message from the polls and decide to take this issue away from the Greens.