babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » from far and wide   » bc, alberta, saskatchewan   » What does June '04 mean for May '05?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: What does June '04 mean for May '05?
mijawara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4590

posted 02 July 2004 01:24 PM      Profile for mijawara   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
A few thoughts:

1. The Cons share of the BC vote plummeted 13.7%from the Alliance total in 2000, and 20.5% from the combined Alliance/PC total. Meaning one-third of the right-wing base abandoned Harper on Monday.

2. Urban BC rejected the Cons outright, with the Burnaby-New West area going back to its orange comfort zone, and North Surrey (minus Cadman) seeing an NDP surge. Even in places like Dewdney-Alouette, Fleetwood-Port Kells, Langley, and Newton-North Delta, the right lost as much as 20% of its vote.

3. Rural BC showed real signs of life for the NDP. A razor-thin margin of victory delivered Southern Interior and Vancouver Island North to the Cons, while New Democrat Nathan Cullen won maybe the most exciting victory of the day in Skeena-Bulkley Valley.

4. The NDP trailed the Liberals by exactly two percentage points in the popular vote, yet they won three fewer seats. The Green vote also showed it can't be ignored. If all the Green votes cast in BC had gone to the NDP (which is, admittedly, improbable), the NDP would have won an extra 9 seats (6 from the Cons, 3 from the Liberals).

5. A number of federal candidates who lost this week have shown themselves to be worthy potential provincial contenders. Especially Brent Bush, Randall Garrison, Jennifer Burgis, Nancy Clegg, and Charley King.

Overall, my sense is the federal election should be viewed as a huge boost to Carole James' fortunes, and an extremely worrying signal of public discontent for Gordon Campbell and his minions. Might a Dump Gordo movement be in the works soon?


From: Ottawa Centre | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
Screaming Lord Byron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4717

posted 02 July 2004 02:04 PM      Profile for Screaming Lord Byron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
We've recovered our historical strength in the City of Vancouver and the Burnaby-New West-Coquitlam axis. We've come up from a low base in the Port Coquitlam-Port Moody area, and the Dewdney-Alouette result was fantastic (up 21 pts)
The largest rises were in Surrey, Southern Interior and Vancouver Island North. There are very few areas now in BC where we are not a real presence, even in the Okanagan.
Imagine if the next election were June next year, and this momentum takes us to the Provincial election, which takes us straight into another Federal election. Fantastic.

From: Calgary | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
leftcoastguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5232

posted 02 July 2004 02:07 PM      Profile for leftcoastguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
BC's Big 'No' to Conservatives

This is an excellent analysis however the New Democrats need some green signs. Apparently there are going to be Separatist candidates as well as Green party candidates in 2005. Where is the CHP when you need them?


From: leftcoast | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
mijawara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4590

posted 02 July 2004 02:29 PM      Profile for mijawara   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Much of the data in my post came from that article, should have linked it . . . !
From: Ottawa Centre | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 02 July 2004 04:51 PM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The BC Liberals are in trouble, no doubt. We can expect some token upticks in spending over the next 8 months or so, trumpeted far and wide.

I don't think anyone actually believes their projection of a 'balanced' budget, when the numbers will all come in after the next election.

Rural BC, or at least significant parts of it, is afire with hostility to Campbell. Heartlands?

The next election is ours to lose. Let's not.


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Amy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2210

posted 02 July 2004 05:16 PM      Profile for Amy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I just heard on the radio that the competition bureau was ok with the deal to "lease" the rail lines to CN. How do people think this will play out for the Libs?

BC Rail Takeover to go Ahead

What about the predicted "boom" in the economy? The article kind of highlights the unsustainable practices that this government has been relying on to 'grow the economy' but it's worded in such a euphamistic way... I wonder if people will take "streamlining regulations" to mean "gutting environmental regulations" or not?

[ 02 July 2004: Message edited by: wizkid ]


From: the whole town erupts and/ bursts into flame | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Vansterdam Kid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5474

posted 02 July 2004 06:13 PM      Profile for Vansterdam Kid   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The Unity party could possibly pose a threat for the Liberals next election. I think most centre-left and left voters won't buy into what the Liberals have to say -- even if they try to "buy their votes". This will be somewhat important because right-wing voters may become somewhat turned off by that and vote Unity instead of Liberal -- especially in the Interior or the 'Heartland's' as Gordon Campbell 'lovingly' referred to it as so long as the Unity party presents itself as more than just a fringe party and has results somewhat similar to BC Reform in 1996. Especially if Unity can present itself to right-wing interior voters as a more palatable *for that constituency* than the more Vancouver centric BC Liberals (and I only say that because of the school, hospital, etc closures that affected the Rural areas of the Province a lot more than the Lower-Mainland and to a lesser extent other urban areas ).

[ 02 July 2004: Message edited by: Davidbcalec ]


From: bleh.... | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 02 July 2004 09:56 PM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The Wildcard in the next election will be the Referendum on whatever the Citizen's Assembly recommends.

If there is a recommendation to some form of PR (which I think there will be), and it is successful, whoever wins the election will likely be obligated to make the arrangements and call another election within the year.

To do otherwise would rightly be seen as clinging to power, and would likely cost them the next election, whomever they are.

So, the next election is only going to be incidentally about the Liberal record, as much of the media and discussion will focus on the referendum and electoral change.

Not necessarily a bad thing, but we can't expect there to be as much hostility to the Liberals and there otherwise would have been.


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Dagmar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5444

posted 22 July 2004 03:52 AM      Profile for Dagmar   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Davidbcalec:
The Unity party could possibly pose a threat for the Liberals next election. [ 02 July 2004: Message edited by: Davidbcalec ]

I think they will continue to bleed vote, though I'm not sure whether they will do this any more than last time.

The real wildcard here is the Greens. It looks to me that the Greens took away some Conservative vote too. Will they do this to the Liberals next year?


From: Santa looks a lot like Daggy! | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Lefty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3697

posted 24 July 2004 04:47 AM      Profile for West Coast Lefty     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
The Wildcard in the next election will be the Referendum on whatever the Citizen's Assembly recommends.
If there is a recommendation to some form of PR (which I think there will be), and it is successful, whoever wins the election will likely be obligated to make the arrangements and call another election within the year.

To do otherwise would rightly be seen as clinging to power, and would likely cost them the next election, whomever they are.


Arborman, I disagree for two reasons. First, it would take much longer than a year to set up a totally new PR system and educate voters, parties, media and candidates about how to run it. Second and more fundamentally, we have fixed election dates in BC and the election after next will be in mid-May 2009 - Gordo has mused about making it the fall of 2009 instead of spring, but both him and Carole are in full support of fixed-date four-year mandates. It's extremely unlikely that you'd see a snap election in 2006 for these reasons.

With one exception, the federal results are great news for the BC NDP. First, the rural NDP vote came back for the first time since 1988, even with an "urban leader" from Toronto/ Second, all of the urban voters (mostly women) who went to the Liberals to stop Harper at the last minute will hate Campbell even more and virtually all of them will NDP provincially to get rid of him.

Third, Nathan Cullen won Skeena despite his vigorous opposition to offshore oil exploration - thus proving that this supposed "wedge" issue will not hurt Carole in the regions as much as many feared.

The one major concern is the Green vote. They will have more presence than ever over the next few years with the public financing from the federal campaign, and they do have that anti-establishment vibe that the NDP has lost forever. It's not obvious what strategy will work against the Greens - their supporters don't buy "strategic voting" arguments for the most part, and most Green voters don't know or care about the Green party platform anyway. Something to work on over the next 10 months for sure!


From: Victoria, B.C. | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 24 July 2004 10:17 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Maybe the trick to dealing with the Greens is to actually promote them as the logical party to vote for if you are a right of centre person who hates Campbell! Let's face it, with Campbell's approval ratings below 30%, if the next BC election was purely a referendum on Campbell, he would lose 65% to 35%! But realisticaly, the NDP just has too much negative baggage to have any hope of winning over 50% of the vote. I would like to see the Greens flourish as a place for dissident Liberals to park their votes. That way the NDP can still win with 40% of the vote.

Forget about the party names. The NDP is the NDP, the BC Liberals are really the Conservatives and the Greens are carving out a niche like the Liberals did in BC in the 80s. (ie: 10-15% of the vote from free-market social liberals)


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Amy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2210

posted 24 July 2004 12:13 PM      Profile for Amy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by West Coast Lefty:

The one major concern is the Green vote. They will have more presence than ever over the next few years with the public financing from the federal campaign, and they do have that anti-establishment vibe that the NDP has lost forever. It's not obvious what strategy will work against the Greens - their supporters don't buy "strategic voting" arguments for the most part, and most Green voters don't know or care about the Green party platform anyway. Something to work on over the next 10 months for sure!


Don't they just have the "anti-establishment vibe" because very few of the green party candidates have ever been in office? I mean, I think that they take advantage of this in some sense by saying "oh, hey, everyone else lies to get into power, so vote for us, we won't do that" even though we don't have any reason that they won't water down policies in order to stay in office if they ever do get there (not that they'll have to stick to any real policies if they only get one seat.)

I do think that it will be an important part of our campaign is to clear up the misconception of the greens as a leftist party, like Stockholm said.


From: the whole town erupts and/ bursts into flame | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Panama Jack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6478

posted 25 July 2004 01:57 PM      Profile for Panama Jack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by wizkid:

I do think that it will be an important part of our campaign is to clear up the misconception of the greens as a leftist party, like Stockholm said.

By "clear up", do you mean "slander and belittle"?

If that's the case, I think it will backfire, as the media will love to focus on NDP/Green bickering.

Honestly, I think the best course for the NDP Provincially is to ignore the Green's as much as possible: don't for a second get distracted on your real target. This means getting quality candidates that can just outclass the Green candidates in all candidate meetings without coming across as an "arrogant NDP jerk"-- take the high road, be the nice guy or gal, and stress over and over again the central joint goal by both parties in removing the Campbell government from office. The more bickering done between the parties, the more the LIberal team will be able to divide and conquer.

Just a point of reference: Green's don't want to be associated as a "lefist" party, with "moving beyond old left/right thinking" a central part of their party rhetoric. Hence, their belief in "free enterprise" as well as "social justice".

Speaking of which: does the NDP have any policy on the issue of "tax shifting"?


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Amy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2210

posted 25 July 2004 02:28 PM      Profile for Amy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
no, that's not what i mean. i mean make it clear that the greens do not consider themselves leftist. that's all.

also, i have my doubts that "free enterprise" the way that they propose it can co-exist with social justice.

[ 25 July 2004: Message edited by: wizkid ]


From: the whole town erupts and/ bursts into flame | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 25 July 2004 05:52 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Honestly, I think the best course for the NDP Provincially is to ignore the Green's as much as possible: don't for a second get distracted on your real target.

I agree. Let's borrow a page from paul Martin's strategy on dealing with ther NDP. He did not (for the most part) insult or denigrate or attack the NDP. Instead he killed the NDP with kindness. He said, that Liberal values were the same as NDP values while an ocean separated both parties from the Alliance Conservative.

The BC NDP can do something similar. Use a softsell approach with NDP-Green swing voters that is something along the lines "the NDP has most of the same values as people who are tempted to vote Green. The BC Liberals have to be stopped at all cost..

The message has to be that the Greens are people with good intentions who are sadly misguided and need to be brought down to earth before they get duped into helping to reelected Gordon Campbell.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Panama Jack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6478

posted 26 July 2004 01:52 AM      Profile for Panama Jack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:

The message has to be that the Greens are people with good intentions who are sadly misguided and need to be brought down to earth before they get duped into helping to reelected Gordon Campbell.

Careful there!!! Don't talk about those Green Party members who are passionate, dedicated, thoughtful people as "midguided"... your targetting the VOTERS, not the organizers...

Stress how NDP and Green goals are similar (just acheived by different means)... sort of like Ujjal's committment to putting his "social democractic values into action" by jumping ship.

Also: focus on the idea of working with the Green's in a PR filled electoral wonderland... many Green voters are primarly individuals voting for electoral reform (a central Green princple for far longer than the NDP Provincially), as well as some general feelings towards social libertarianism, don't be surprised if Green support splinters once PR comes in as well, as various schools of thought bloom a hundred-flowers...boy that will be fun.

[ 26 July 2004: Message edited by: tomlovestrees ]


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Panama Jack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6478

posted 26 July 2004 02:00 AM      Profile for Panama Jack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by wizkid:
also, i have my doubts that "free enterprise" the way that they propose it can co-exist with social justice.
[ 25 July 2004: Message edited by: wizkid ]

Essentially, Green Party philosophy calls for "tax shifting" as the central, market-based mechanism for getting rid of things you don't like within a free-market system, and encouraging things you do like. So far, it's only come out in the form of "carbon taxes" in Germany the UK in order to spur on renewable energy development...

I'd really like to see some thoughtful NDP policy ideas in this area... for example, have BC Hydro's mandate changed to mimick the Bonneville Power Authority (Columbia/Snake River hydroelectric dams owned [gasp!] by the US gov't) which has a seperate Environmental Foundation that invests into renewable energy projects throughout the region -- recently even buying some Vision Quest wind power from the Pincer Creek region in Alberta. BC could witness a boom in renewable energy if proper and prudent public-private partnerships were allowed with our still publically owned electricity utility.

Any idea when the NDP will be releasing their party election platform?

[ 26 July 2004: Message edited by: tomlovestrees ]


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 26 July 2004 08:41 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I've seen two basic flaws pointed out with respect to tax-shifting.
First, there's a leftist problem in that much of the shift seems to be towards regressive consumption taxes which bash the poor. They also probably fail to address the structural issues involved in the reasons most capitalist firms end up polluting. I'm not convinced the approach will be as effective as the Canadian Greens think.

Second, there's a difficulty in that taxation of bads could lead to dependency on bads. After all, what happens if you're taxing gas in the hopes of making gas consumption decrease, and gas consumption in fact decreases? Your revenues go down. And the thing is, governments tend to get attached to their revenue sources. Can we say GST? So while from an economic perspective (within a market-oriented framework) it may make some sense, from an institutional perspective it could be dangerous.

For my money, better to subsidize/enable good things, like with Layton's plan to make everyone's homes energy efficient with assessments and low-interest financing.


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Lefty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3697

posted 27 July 2004 04:12 PM      Profile for West Coast Lefty     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Rufus, those are good points but they are not insurmountable problems. As long as gas costs less than bottled water, we will keep over-consuming it and this will lead to more pollution, congestion, smog-related health issues, higher GHG emissions, etc. all of which hurt the lower-income folks much more than raising gas taxes.

The progressive potential of tax shifting is that you can take the $$ from the higher gas taxes and use it to give free bus passes to everyone below a certain income-level for example, or increase transit service, etc. I'd only support tax shifting if it was done progressively along those lines. Basically, I want polluters to subsidize the sustainable alternative and I want that alternative made available at little or no cost to those who couldn't afford it otherwise.

As for your 2nd point, in the pure tax-shifting theory, the tax shift is revenue neutral across the broad spectrum of government budgeting. If people drive less, that means less road maintenance, less traffic enforcement, fewer accidents, less pollution, etc. all of which will save government mega-$$ in the long run. It's the same logic as tobacco taxes - by discouraging smoking, we'll save so much on health expenses (both for smokers and for inhalers of second-hand smoke)that it will revenue neutral even as the tobacco tax revenue declines over time.


From: Victoria, B.C. | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Panama Jack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6478

posted 27 July 2004 04:16 PM      Profile for Panama Jack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Rufus:

Yup, those are the typical arguements against Green tax shfiting, however, sin taxes work in a similar sort of fashison, and we certainly don't see liquor sales plummenting.

Also, there is an inherent flexibility with tax shifting, as you are taxing something you DON'T want, thus, lowered gas consumption is good because the money raised is supposedly focused on specific line items in a budget (say air pollution) and NOT thrown into general revenue. Once your "bad" is gone, you shift to to something else you don't like. I'll admit, it does make budget forecasting more difficult, but it's the act of empowering consumers to make smarter choices, and reward them for it.

As for energy efficency, the most effective mechanism is to continually raise standards, rewarding early adopters and punishing laggards by making certain standards mandetory once a certain marketshare is established by the newer energy device your talking about. [The debate then lies on what that marketshare is, NRCan's practice is around 60% I believe...]

As for subsidies... they're quite problematic, because they're typically given out NOT on merit or need, but on the political optics that such a subsidy gives to politicans. Tax shifting, if done correctly (and again I'll admit this is hard) can serve the same function as a subsidy.

All of this kind of stuff could and should be discussed on an Environment Forum.... what's up with that?


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Erik Pool
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6137

posted 27 July 2004 08:22 PM      Profile for Erik Pool     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by West Coast Lefty:

Third, Nathan Cullen won Skeena despite his vigorous opposition to offshore oil exploration - thus proving that this supposed "wedge" issue will not hurt Carole in the regions as much as many feared.

The one major concern is the Green vote.



You're right about the Greens, but not about offshore oil. Don't confuse a win in a three party split with a win in a straight two party match-up.


From: Burnaby, BC | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Amy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2210

posted 27 July 2004 08:28 PM      Profile for Amy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You're a BC "Liberal" too?
From: the whole town erupts and/ bursts into flame | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca