598 replies to this topic

[tedward]

^ The Conservatives are coming apart like a Fred Asher suit.

That's the thing. Call an election in the next month and the Conservatives are dead in the water. Leave it until the "fixed" date and they have time to finish the current Putsch and install a more credible leader who might actually be backed by the federal apparatus.

[Bernard]

That's the thing. Call an election in the next month and the Conservatives are dead in the water. Leave it until the "fixed" date and they have time to finish the current Putsch and install a more credible leader who might actually be backed by the federal apparatus.

She can not legally call an early election because the BC constitution has a fixed date for the election. To do anything she has to call the legislature back and either change the constitution or hold a confidence vote and lose it.

As to the BC Conservatives, they have no money and are not nearly as well organized as they need to be. Realistically they will get the 200,000 or so social conservatives that did not vote in 2009 and some people that did vote BC Liberal, they will not have nearly as big an impact on the Liberals as people think. The bigger impact will be Liberal supporters that stay home, like NDP supporters did in 2001.

[tedward]

She can not legally call an early election...

Bwahahahaha, that part was funny. Since when has that ever stopped a politician? Harper clearly violated his own law and got away clean. I am sure Clark has an "opinion" in her back pocket that she got word for word from Campbell's AG that she can drop whenever she feels like on the slimmest of pretexts.

But seriously, I agree with you that the Conservatives appear to be in total disarray at the moment but if their corporate masters decide to back a new leader they can have a campaign machine to rival the NDP's up and running very quickly for the election that is more than six months away at this point. They likely would not win but they could come back as a reasonable opposition rather than the spoiler they are today. This assumes that they get the coup over with sooner rather than later of course.

[Hotel Mike]

If the BC Libs are slaughtered in the next election, look for the remnants of their supporters, together with the poorly organized BC Cons, to form a brand new party. Here's my prediction: The BC Party.

[Sparky]

Here's my prediction: The BC Party.

There is already a "British Columbia Party".

Graham Gifford
7665 Sapperton Ave
Burnaby, BC
V3N 4C9
Phone: (604) 526-8909
Email: ggiffy@telus.net

Elections BC might not approve an abbreviation.

[Bernard]

Bwahahahaha, that part was funny. Since when has that ever stopped a politician? Harper clearly violated his own law and got away clean. I am sure Clark has an "opinion" in her back pocket that she got word for word from Campbell's AG that she can drop whenever she feels like on the slimmest of pretexts.

Actually the way BC chose to do it and how the Feds did it made it easy for the Feds to call an early election but make it more or less impossible for someone in BC to do it.

The only way she could do it without changing the law would be to resign as premier and hope the LG calls an election on that basis. He could ask Kevin Falcon to form a government. The LG would have to appoint a new premier even if only as a caretaker.

It would mean she would not be premier during the election at all.

Remember the LG is not appointed by the Premier but by the PM

[Bernard]

There is already a "British Columbia Party".

Graham Gifford
7665 Sapperton Ave
Burnaby, BC
V3N 4C9
Phone: (604) 526-8909
Email: ggiffy@telus.net

Elections BC might not approve an abbreviation.

The British Columbia Party also owns the rights to the name BC Party and BCP

[sdwright.vic]

Read with the new cabinet that there is a mandate to now "look into" reduce insurance and electricity cost. How is that going to happen?

[Sparky]

^ By increasing the rates.

[YOYO]

Read with the new cabinet that there is a mandate to now "look into" reduce insurance and electricity cost. How is that going to happen?

What do you think the smart meters are for? They will up the rate during high usage times. Thank goodness i do not have a smart meter.

[Jacques Cadé]

UVic climate scientist Andrew Weaver will run as the BC Green candidate in Oak Bay-Gordon Head in 2013. On CFAX now.

And now there's a story in the TC too: http://www.timescolo...2850/story.html

[VicHockeyFan]

^ Oh lord. Well, good chance he has no chance of winning.

[Bernard]

UVic climate scientist Andrew Weaver will run as the BC Green candidate in Oak Bay-Gordon Head in 2013. On CFAX now.

And now there's a story in the TC too: Climate scientist Andrew Weaver to run for B.C. Greens in Oak Bay-Gordon Head

Oak Bay Gordon Head will be interesting to watch and see what happens.

In 2009 voter turn out was 66.86%
Ida Chong - Liberal 11,877
Jessica Van der Veen - NDP - 11,316
Steven Johns - Green - 2,330 9.13%

If turnout in 2009 had been more like what it was in previous elections there should have been 3000 to 3500 more votes in 2009. I think 2000 of those people are to the right of the Liberals and could no longer vote for them and another 1000 or so could not vote NDP because of their approach to green issues in 2009.

If we start with 29,000 voters in 2013:

I assume the BC Conservatives will take 3000 votes, 2000 non voters and 1000 2009 Liberal voters

I assume the Greens will take 6500 - 2300 from 2009, 1000 from the Liberals, 1500 non voters in 2009 and 1700 from the NDP.

This leaves 19,500 for the Liberals and the NDP. My assumptions have reduced the Liberals by 2000 and NDP by 1700. I also assume 1500 2009 Liberal voters will vote NDP in 2013. Liberals at 8400 and NDP at 11,100

So my current estimate of what will happen
NDP 11,100 - 38.28%
Liberals 8400 - 28.97%
Greens 6500 - 22.41%
Conservatives 3000 - 10.00%

For the NDP to lose they need to have a very significant loss to the Greens, one that seems unrealistic even with a star Green candidate. Even then it is not easy for the Liberals to win because they could then be passed by the Greens. I think the odds of a the Greens winning as higher than than Ida Chong being re-elected.


Historical data on OBGH

2005 voter turn out 73.63%
Ida Chong - Lib - 13,433 - 47.52%
Charley Beresford - NDP - 12,016 - 42.47%
Stephen Hender - Green - 2,379 - 8.41%
Lyne England - DRBC - 278 - 0.98%
Lindsay Budge - Ind - 176 - 0.62%

2001 75.54%
Ida Chong - Lib - 14,588 - 57.31%
Charley Beresford - NDP - 5,789 22.74%
Christin Geall - Green - 4,666 18.33%
Mik Mann - Marijuana - 411 - 1.62%

1996 79.49%
Ida Chong - Liberal - 12,340 - 46.59%
Elizabeth Cull - NDP - 11,700 - 44.17%
Gordon Henderson - PDA - 937 - 3.54%
Paul Yewchuk - Reform - 675 - 2.55%
Lenora Burke - Green - 566 - 2.14%
6 more candidates - 269 - 1.02%

[Bingo]

Oak Bay Gordon Head will be interesting to watch and see what happens.

In 2009 voter turn out was 66.86%
Ida Chong - Liberal 11,877
Jessica Van der Veen - NDP - 11,316
Steven Johns - Green - 2,330 9.13%

There is the potential for Chong to win again if Andrew Weaver takes votes away from Van der Veen, as the Green party did last time.

[Bernard]

There is the potential for Chong to win again if Andrew Weaver takes votes away from Van der Veen, as the Green party did last time.

The Greens did not take votes away from the NDP last time or in 2005, those 2350 people are Green voters and would likely not vote if the Greens were not on the ballot. People are more likely not to vote than vote for different parties from one election to the next.

The idea of vote splitting is not really a good way to look at any election. The 2350 people people that voted Green in 2005 and 2009 understood clearly about vote splitting but could not bring themselves to vote for the NDP. There is no way they could not have understood it but still they voted Green. One then has to ask how many of the NDP votes were really NDP voters but Green voters holding their nose?

[G-Man]

As I have said before Green voters do not sway back and fourth between the NDP and Greens. Greens would be more likely to vote liberal. To be honest the Liberals have had more green initiatives over the last few years than the NDP ever did.

[Nparker]

...To be honest the Liberals have had more green initiatives over the last few years than the NDP ever did.

Only because
a) it seemed politically expediant to them, not morally important
b) prior to the 2001 election green issues had a much lower profile
c) they had minimal impact on the Libs biggest supports (i.e. the Howe Street Boys)

Any significant green initiatives have to happen at the federal level so it's a relatively easy sell in provincial politics.

[Sparky]

To be honest the Liberals have had more green initiatives over the last few years than the NDP ever did.

The dippers have not been in power for over 10 years. Times have changed since then.

Help me out with exactly what green policies the Liberals have enacted?

Certainly the "Run of River" projects and "Salmon Farming" wouldn't qualify.

[North Shore]

Help me out with exactly what green policies the Liberals have enacted?

Well, they spread a lot of steer manure everywhere - whenever i put that on my garden, green stuff grows quite well..

[Sparky]

Here is some thoughts about our government finances that I posted on a political blog.

I don't expect everyone to agree with me.

I do expect you to correct me if you believe that my comments are wrong.



To ALEX TSAKUMIS

Let’s back the truck up for a minute.

Our federal government eliminated the “11 % manufactures tax” on manufactured goods…. in exchange for a 5% GST on “goods and services” (read the addition of a labour component.)

11-5= -6 …sounds like a savings doesn’t it?

It sounds like we are saving 6 % but when you add the fact that your are now adding 5 % on all labour charges……not so good for the end user.

They told us this was a good thing. One political party brought this in….another political party vowed to eliminate it if elected.

Didn’t happen when elected…….Too much money at stake because the GST (read value added tax) meant added funds to general revenue. (less deficit)

Enter the bait of a backpack full of money to be paid to our province from the feds, if we eliminate the 7% “social services tax” (read PST on goods) and embrace the 12% “HST” on goods and labour which was touted as “revenue neutral” tax…..plus ……we get federal cash bonus.

For the gullible out there….they would have you believe that 5+7=12.

It doesn’t.

The HST added tax on labour just as the the GST did.

This is a hoax and is not “revenue neutral.”

Now most people would put up with such a tax if it meant that we would not experience a yearly deficit and could perhaps pay down our provincial and national debt with these monies… (read ill gotten booty)

NOPE….our provincial government is still pissing it away faster than they can collect it.

What ever happened to the balanced budget legislation?

How come it took months to implement the HST, and it takes years to eliminate it?