# BC Election report.



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

We are now a few days into the first pre-scheduled Provincial election in Canadian history. It is also the first time in recent BC memory that an incumbent party has gone into an election while riding high in the polls.

If Gord Campbell were to be re-elected, it would be the first time any leader of ANY BC party has been re-elected since 1983. Right now, it looks like he will be.

Meanwhile the NDP, which was virtually wiped out in the 2001 election, is already stumbling badly. Carol James, their brand new leader, is currently trying to explain the fact that one of her NDP MLA candidates actually testified _IN FAVOUR_ of the mass murderer Slobodan Milosivec in the not so distant past.

YIKES!

She is also attempting to distance herself and her party from the Big Unions. That ought to play well with her main handlers and campaign staff...many of whom are major players from the Big Unions. Much of her financial support is also coming from Big Labour. (surprise) And the only real core of support that wants to see the NDP back in charge is also...wait for it...Unions.

Meanwhile, British Columbia is doing rather well these days. Far FAR better than it ever did under the decade of NDP rule.

It's gonna be a long hard slog for Carol James and the NDP, methinks.


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

As a whole we are alright, regionally in BC there are haves and have nots. If you are a forester and live on the coast or the island, you are a dying breed. In the interior it is balls to the wall. 

Surely the NDP can't do as poorly this time around as they did last time? I agree that they should have gotten booted last time, but to that extent is just not bad for Legislature dynamics. A humble majority would be better for the people of BC than an asskicking a la the last election.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

According to one very seasoned political reporter on Global (Keith Baldrey...who has covered the BC Legislature beat for about twenty odd years) the NDP are hoping and praying for thirty seats. That would put them into a healthy opposition status. Currently they are not even an officially recognised party with only two sitting MLA's. One of whom has already retired.

I suspect that they will get closer to twenty. And even that will take some good luck and fair winds.

They could get as few as twelve. But nobody expects the kind of landslide wipeout that they suffered with in 2001.

But...who knows? This is British Columbia, after all. Anything can happen in politics out here.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

The BC Green Party is also hoping for one or two seats...just to gain a voice in the Legislature.

BUT....if they can't get a Green elected in a totally "Green" place like Salt Spring...and they can't...then what are the hopes?

Not much, I'd say.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

MacNutt said:


> BUT....if they can't get a Green elected in a totally "Green" place like Salt Spring...and they can't...then what are the hopes?


It's worth mentioning that Salt Spring is only ~7000-8000 votes in a riding of over 100,000.

I wonder if the new party will get any seats. They already have one or two from Liberal defectors: http://www.drbc.ca/

From what I've read, they make up a more middle ground between where the Liberals and the NDP stand, which might appeal to quote a few people.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I'm not saying the Greens don't have a shot at it, PB. But It would surprise the heck out of me if they got a seat in this riding. Especially since it has always voted to the right. Both Provincially and Federally. Always.

And the riding comprises a LOT of "Green" types on several differnt islands. It has quite a green contingent in the Saanich area of Vancouver Island, as well. Which is where the bulk of the people are.

But I'll bet you a beer that there will be no "Green" seat here, after the election. And if they can't get one here...then what's the chances of turning Richmond or Burnaby? Not much.

Especially when you take a moment to actually look at their policies. They are wayyyyy out there.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacNutt said:


> According to one very seasoned political reporter on Global (Keith Baldrey...who has covered the BC Legislature beat for about twenty odd years) the NDP are hoping and praying for thirty seats. That would put them into a healthy opposition status. Currently they are not even an officially recognised party with only two sitting MLA's. One of whom has already retired.
> 
> I suspect that they will get closer to twenty. And even that will take some good luck and fair winds.
> 
> ...


I heard the speculation placing their seats at 28. Carol James made a huge mistake in not making herself known before this election. A big percentage of BC doesn't even know who she is. As soon as the HEU and other union leaders start spouting off, a lot of NDP supporters will realize that they are the same old party as before. They haven't moved further to the centre and they have no time for sound fiscal management.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Agreed. The NDP needs to wake up and move into the future. Which is somewhat to the right of their leftish past, after all.

To the credit of Carol James, she seems to want to drag the party into the future. And, as I have already noted, she has now publicly criticised the old NDP/Big Labour alliances as "an unbalanced approach". (No sh*t sherlock)

After this election and it's almost inevitable outcome, I suspect that we will see an NDP convention and a major review of all of their policies. On EVERYTHING.

And the old socialists will be tossed onto the ash heap. The next version of the NDP will be far more progresssive and respsonsible with the public purse, and less beholden to their Union masters.

At that point they _MIGHT_ have a chance at being elected back into power. At that point we might not be able to tell them from a right wing business-oriented party, either.

More of macdoc's "centering to the right", eh? 

The whole world is doing it these days. It's all the rage.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacNutt said:


> After this election and it's almost inevitable outcome, I suspect that we will see an NDP convention and a major review of all of their policies. On EVERYTHING.
> 
> And the old socialists will be tossed onto the ash heap. The next version of the NDP will be far more progresssive and respsonsible with the public purse, and less beholden to their Union masters.


I think it will take longer for the NDP to re-invent itself. I think the old socialists will be around for a few more elections anyways. They will get their 20 to 30 seats this election and will claim a great victory. They will mistake this level of support as something they can build on. After a couple elections at 20 to 30 seats, it might sink in that a more moderate position is what will make them competitive again.


----------



## jicon (Jan 12, 2005)

MacNutt said:


> Agreed. The NDP needs to wake up and move into the future. Which is somewhat to the right of their leftish past, after all.
> 
> To the credit of Carol James, she seems to want to drag the party into the future. And, as I have already noted, she has now publicly criticised the old NDP/Big Labour alliances as "an unbalanced approach". (No sh*t sherlock)
> 
> ...


Amen brother!


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

If the NDP are 'desparately hoping' for 30 seats then they are already doomed. If they want to succeed, the need to proceed with a little more confidence than that. 

The problems with the Greens has always been that they are a one issue party. I realize that they have gotten more rounded over the last number of years, but the are still perceived that way. Everyone who classifies themself as 'green' would have no problem voting for them on their proposed environmental policy, but what about Health care, education, child services etc. Not gonna happen.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

The NDP may or may not get their hoped for thirty seats. I suspect less....but we must remember that BC is the most difficult political climate in Canada to predict.

Anything can happen. And probably will.

In these early days of the Provincial election, it actually looks like Carol James and the NDP are already stumbling badly. They have been lambasting us with negative advertisements at a period when most British Columbians feel pretty good about their current situation. And the NDP are already losing candidates to minor scandals. They lost one today, as a matter of fact.

If this keeps up for the next few weeks and if the Campbell Liberals don't make some huge and unexpected misstep.....then I bet the NDP will only get a handful of seats. Less than twenty. Perhaps as few as twelve.

If that comes to pass....then the NDP will be confronted by a cruel reality even sooner than many of us have predicted. They will HAVE to make some very tough decisions about what sort of policies they will be running with in the very near future. And they will also have to put some serious distance between themselves and the Big Unions if they want to continue.

Or they will face permanent political oblivion. As opposed to the temporary political oblivion that they now find temselves in. 

However it shakes out, this should be an interesting election. Perhaps even a pivotal one.


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

You know, I was determined not to say anything in this thread, but the Nutters professed wisdom just got to me somehow. So, for you Easterners that even bother to follow our BC elections...
This current BC Liberal government is among the most vindictive, dishonest, arrogant bunch ever assembled. I have to think back to Grant Devine in Saskatchewan to even find somewhat of a comparison in provincial politics. So don't think that the NDP are dead, or that any party can be counted as dead in BC. It's all on up for grabs in BC politics, it just goes in stages. Right now this dastardly group of BC Liberals has the upper hand. Anyone who takes it as seriously, or thinks they understand it as much as our resident Nutter does, should buy this wonderful bridge that I have for sale. Cheap.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

We had the Harris PCs in Ontario, gwillikers, and we're still trying to recover. They sold Ontario to the lowest bidders. Even the resident right-wingers don't seem willing to defend the Harris era. The problem is that Dalton McGuinty is also lacking in many respects (primarily in the area of doing antyhting instead of whining). But at least he isn't a drunk-driver. Good luck.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

MacNutt said:


> I'm not saying the Greens don't have a shot at it, PB. But It would surprise the heck out of me if they got a seat in this riding.


I'm not saying that they don't have a shot either, what I am saying is that saying <i>"if they can't get a Green elected in a totally "Green" place like Salt Spring</i> is dumb when you consider that Salt Spring (and all the Gulf Islands, really) are just a small part of a much bigger riding.



MacNutt said:


> Especially when you take a moment to actually look at their policies.


Have you actually looked at their policies? Some of them are actually pretty interesting. For example, their policies on health care include not only spending on our existing system but setting up (or rathe re-instating and expanding) a system that emphasizes prevention as well as treatment.

They're also pretty much the only party (at least, from what I've seen so far) that's talking about campaign finance reform, which is a good thing especially since we've had set election dates implemented.

It's kind of a shame that they are perceived as a one issue party, because they really aren't.



Vandave said:


> Carol James made a huge mistake in not making herself known before this election. A big percentage of BC doesn't even know who she is.


Couldn't agree more.



Carex said:


> If the NDP are 'desparately hoping' for 30 seats then they are already doomed. If they want to succeed, the need to proceed with a little more confidence than that.


This is probably true. To be honest though, I am not sure I really want the NDP sitting with more than 30 seats, so there you go.

But in truth all I really want from this upcoming election is for the referendum to pass, and for us to end up with a legislature that isn't made up of only one party. The lack of opposition is now, and has always been, my biggest concern with the BC Liberals since they got elected. It leads to shady practices as well as just plain arrogant ones.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Odd....

I don't recall saying that the "NDP are dead in BC". And I DO recall saying that "anything can happen in BC politics and probably will".

As for "dishonest and arrogant and vindictive"...I agree. The NDP are all of that and more. Stealing money from charities (BingoGate) and then making a sick old former MLA take the fall for it...replacing a leader once the previous one was arrested for corruption(Glen Clark) with a new leader who we NEVER voted for and then continuing on until the last days of their mandate before allowing us to have our say...blowing the whole billion dollar ferry budget on a silly pipe dream that ended up being sold for scrap while actively prosecuting the whistleblowers who told all of us it wouldn't work (The Fast Ferries disaster)...not to mention destroying the BC economy and making us into a "have-not" province for the first time in modern history. While presiding over the worst period of labour unrest that the west has ever known.

THAT is the sad legacy of the NDP.  

Which is probably why Carol James is trying so desperately to distance herself and her party from it's immediate past. Probably a good idea. Memories are still fresh and the wounds are still raw.

The polling numbers are all indicating a Campbell Liberal win at this point. This is not just my wishful thinking. It's reality. The only question in anyone's mind is "how many seats will the NDP get?"

Insiders say about thirty. I say it might be closer to twenty. Perhaps even less.

But...as I said before...this is a BC provincial election. Anything can happen.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

BCTV News...the biggest and most popular TV news in this region...has just let all of us know that there will be a special half hour program on tomorrow. It is reported to be a major trashing of the Campbell Liberals. And it apparently cost upwards of 150 grand to bring to air.

Guess what? It was wholly financed by Big Labour. The unions are bitterly dissappointed at the fact that they were so soundly ejected from power four years ago and they are ready to do almost anything to discredit the current success of the Campbell Liberals. While trying to tell all of us British Columbians that "things are not really as good as they seem to be".

So far...no one seems to be buying it. And I suspect that the only people who will actually watch this bit of televised electioneering by the Big Unions are the Union bosses themselves.

After all, in order for the NDP to have suffered such a terrible wipeout in the last BC provincial election...then there MUST have been a whole lot of the Union rank and file voting _AGAINST_ the NDP. 

Now that things are going so well in this province, it would be a little silly to think that rather a lot of these anti-NDP Union members are going to suddenly turn back to the old ways. No matter what their shop stewards order them to do. 

Lots of these people actually think for themselves, and make their own decisions. They know what's good and what's not. And what works and what doesn't. They will be a big part of the upcoming reality for the failed NDP.

Watch and see.


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

*I Couldn't Resist Posting This Here*

Gordon Campbell was invited to address a major gathering of the Indian
Nation last weekend in Kitimat. He spoke for almost an hour on his future
plans for increasing every First Nation's present standard of living. He
referred to his career as Mayor of Vancouver, how he had signed "YES" -
for every Indian issue that came to his desk for approval.

At the conclusion of his speech, the Tribe presented the Premier with a
plaque inscribed with his new Indian name - Walking Eagle. The proud
Campbell then departed in his motorcade, waving to the crowds. 

A news reporter later inquired to the group of chiefs of how they came to
select the new name given to Campbell. 

They explained that Walking Eagle is the name given to a bird so full of
**** it can no longer fly.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

gwillikers said:


> He spoke for almost an hour on his future
> plans for increasing every First Nation's present standard of living.


If we want to increase the standard of living for Natives, we first need to do a major audit of the Department of Indian and Northern Afairs. The amount of waste and mismanagement in that department is phenomenal.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacNutt said:


> Now that things are going so well in this province, it would be a little silly to think that rather a lot of these anti-NDP Union members are going to suddenly turn back to the old ways. No matter what their shop stewards order them to do.
> 
> Lots of these people actually think for themselves, and make their own decisions. They know what's good and what's not. And what works and what doesn't. They will be a big part of the upcoming reality for the failed NDP.


The union leaders (Jim Sinclair and Deb McPherson) are so busy attacking the provincial Liberals and Gordon Campbell that they don't do anything for their members. 

I know a number of nurses and teachers that cannot stand their unions. They do absolutely nothing for their membership and don't deal with the issues. It is clear to them that their leaders are just a bunch of hacks.

So, I definately agree that many union members are going to vote Liberal. The private sector unions all know that a strong economy and job creation is good for their members. We still have a ways to go before this sinks in with the public sector unions.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I think the union members are not the real problem. It's the Union Bosses who are way out of date in their thinking. They are still mired in the sixties "us against THEM" mindset.

Union members...who have no real choice about belonging to the unions, after all...seem to have moved on from that old way of thinking. Many will vote for whomever they feel is capable of doing a good job.

My guess, based on recent history, is that many many of the union rank and file will be voting Liberal in this upcoming Provincial election. Despite what their Union bosses tell them to do.

Should be an interesting race.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Well, here we are at the end of the first week of Canada's very first pre-scheduled provincial election.

So far, the NDP has spent large amounts of money on attack ads and has lost one candidate to a minor scandal. The Campbell Liberals are still well ahead of the NDP in the polls and many British Columbians still don't know who Carol James is (she is the NDP leader).

Just about three weeks to go and no major surprises so far. Is it possible that Gord Campbell could be the first BC Premier since 1983 to win a second term?

If that happens (and it looks likely at this point)...will that lead to a long term right wing dynasty a-la Ralph Klein in Alberta?

And will this incense and frustrate the left/lib types no end?? Drive them absolutely batty?

Stay tuned. It's BC...anything can happen.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacNutt said:


> Just about three weeks to go and no major surprises so far. Is it possible that Gord Campbell could be the first BC Premier since 1983 to win a second term?
> 
> If that happens (and it looks likely at this point)...will that lead to a long term right wing dynasty a-la Ralph Klein in Alberta?
> 
> And will this incense and frustrate the left/lib types no end?? Drive them absolutely batty?


Campbell win definately win. This election is going very well for the BC Liberals.

I'm helping out in one of the closely contested ridings and we are doing well so far.

I have always predicted that the BC Liberals won't be challenged for a few more elections. 

With the new election platform, they are planning a move to the political centre, which will take away from some of the traditional NDP support. The five core goals are to make BC the: 1. best educated jurisdiction in NA; 2. the most fit juridiction; 3. best support for special needs people and seniors; 4. lead the world in sustainable environmental management; 5. create the most jobs per capita in Canada.

That's a pretty moderate platform. Kind of takes the wind out of the NDP and Green platforms and really exposes them for having a lack of vision.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Vandave said:


> Campbell win definately win. This election is going very well for the BC Liberals.
> 
> I'm helping out in one of the closely contested ridings and we are doing well so far.
> 
> ...


This is what I'm seeing as well. Even here on totally "Green" Salt Spring Island there doesn't seem to be any real momentum for the Greens or the NDP. Things are going far to well in this province to change horses right now. Only the real NDP die hards are wailing and beating their chests in anguish against "Campbells cuts"

And no one seems to be listening.

BTW...has anyone noticed that Carol James turns out to be a very poor public speaker. Her cadence is like a funeral dirge full of negativity. At a time when the province is booming and times are good. No wonder no one seems to know who she is.

Or...maybe they just don't care.


----------



## mbaldwin (Jan 20, 2003)

I like the Federal Greens a lot more than the BC Greens for the fact that the Federal version has become much more centrist/libertarian - much to the dismay of the environmentalist types.

And personally, I can live with the BC Liberals because they are basically Red Tories in the Progressive Conservative mold. I'm cool with that (philosophically) and I can get over the fact I have little respect for the figureheads in the party.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Good take on it all mbaldwin. That's what I'm hearing too.

Say...perhaps the more radical enviro types will break away from the federal Green Party and form a "REALLY Green Party" or something? 

Meanwhile, the Campbell Liberals are still well ahead of everyone and it certainly looks like a second term majority for them. At least at this point.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

I don't think there is any doubt that the Liberals are going to win again, the only question really is "how much of an opposition will they have?"

Like I've said in the past: "As long as they have this one, I'm not sure it matters."

Just be sure to vote yes in the referendum.


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

> Just be sure to vote yes in the referendum.


Because...


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Because it'll help eliminate strategic voting.
Because it will help make MLAs more accountable to their constituents rather than their party.
Because the proposed system will help provide a more accurate reflection of who the people want sitting in the legislature.
Because even if STV isn't that super, it's a hell of a lot better than FPTP.


----------



## jicon (Jan 12, 2005)

We need more discussion on the referendum.

From my point of view, if it passes, I think we have a much greater chance of having minority governments in the future.

I'm really scratching my head trying to determine if this is a good thing or not.

It may make government more accountable, but on the other hand, maybe this will ensure debate after debate on useless trivial internal matters (See Ottawa), with less (If that's possible) actually done in the legislature.

Opinions? I really would like to know.


----------



## mbaldwin (Jan 20, 2003)

One good thing about minority governments (in my mind) is that it will force different parties to cooperate and moderate their views. It will be ugly at first, but it could lead to less partisan sniping.

I greatly dislike the elected dictatorships we usually endure.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I dislike minority governments because they often remain in power by catering to some small interest group whose tiny number of seats is the only thing that keeps the government from being defeated.

This is NOT good government, in my mind.

And we are being told that Canadians do not want a "whole bunch of elections" these days. Places with constant minority government rule and fractured politics are ALWAYS having elections.

I vote no in the upcoming BC referendum.

BTW...it's less of an institutionalised dictatorship if everyone knows exactly when the next election will be held. When the sitting government can chose exactly the right moment...or run the mandate wayyy out to it's final days (as the BC NDP did)...even when the electorate has long since become totally fed up with them...then _THAT_ is not a true democracy. It's like one, but not really there yet.

BC now has set election dates. The very first in Canada. Many other provinces are looking at this "innovation" as well.

Hopefully we will get around to this at the federal level. Eventually.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

See, I think STV can work in BC for a couple of reasons.

Firstly, and most importantly, we basically live in a two party province. It <i>might</i> turn into a three party province if DRBC gets their crap together. In other words, I think it'd be hard to elect a minority in this province.

Secondly, we won't end up in situations like the election before last where the Liberals won the popular vote but the NDP won more seats. That is, after all, the whole reason that the Liberals formed the assembly to look into other voting systems.

Thirdly, it can make parties work together, and co-operation is a good thing. If nothing else, it'll help dispel all the partisan bickering that goes on here.

Either way, how can you deny that FPTP is a ****ty system? Or that STV is better? It's not like it's impossible to win a majority of the seats in a PR type system, you just have appeal to the most people 

On a final note, a word on set election dates. They have their ups and their downs. Yes, we know exactly when we're going to be able to get rid of whoever is in power, but it also makes for ridiculously long campaigns. Technically speaking, actual campaigning can only start within a certain amount of time, but the posturing and whatnot start way, way early.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

They've been dealing with (and complaining about) the long election campaigns for about two hundred years, just to the south of us.

On the other hand...at least they know how long it is until they can toss the bums out. And there is none of that three year sudden election call when the other guys get caught with their pants down having a whizz. That sort of political behavior is both despicable, and quite predictable, in any British style system such as ours.

I also remember the interminably long wait that the BC NDP forced us to endure when their leader got nailed for suspected corruption, they had squandered the ferry budget on pipe dreams and they'd also given us a new leader that no one seemed to want. One that nobody voted for, once they had finally been given the chance.

That was a loooong year. 

I think that the STV would encourage all sorts of fractous groups to form their own self-interest parties and we would then be dealing with all sorts of stuff...like the "bald taxi drivers party" or the "save the spirit bear and give BC to the natives" party. This is what has happened in other jurisdictions when something like STV was adopted.

These tiny parties campaign on single issue platforms and, while they might only bring a small number of seats or votes to the table, it can often be the tiebreaker in a fractured legislature.

Israel often is goverened by as many as a dozen or more wildly differing political groups working in a loose coalition. They have elections a lot more often than we do because some small group is always witdrawing their miniscule support (couldn't get their way) and bringing down the government.

If we were to modify our current system in any meanigful way, I'd prefer that we adopted the idea of runoff elections between the two highest scores, if any single party got less than fifty per cent of the votes.

That way, the final vote would guarantee that the ruling party had a clear mandate from more than half of the people in the region.

(We should note here that the Federal Liberals were elected to rule over us by only 18% of the eligiable voters in Canada.)

STV=NO for me. I suspect it won't be passed either. Least that's what I'm hearing.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacNutt said:


> BC now has set election dates. The very first in Canada. Many other provinces are looking at this "innovation" as well.
> 
> Hopefully we will get around to this at the federal level. Eventually.


I don't like fixed election dates. I think it leads to campaigns that last forever (e.g. the US). I think if a government fulfills its mandate, then it should dissolve the Legislature or Parliament and get a new mandate.

The final 1.5 years of the NDP was painful and they had clearly gone well past their mandate and the electorate punished them for this.

Also, it's unconstitutional since the LG or GG can only call elections.

I don't know how a minority government would work with a fixed election date. Imagine if we had to wait another 3 years to kick the federal Liberals out of power.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Thank goodness we don't!


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

Posterboy, this one's for you!! 

http://www.cbc.ca/bcvotes2005/features/stv_results.html

Give it a read and let me know what you think. It is kind of relevant to your suggestion.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

What would happen with forty three flavours, I wonder?


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

MacNutt said:


> They've been dealing with (and complaining about) the long election campaigns for about two hundred years, just to the south of us.
> 
> On the other hand...at least they know how long it is until they can toss the bums out.


 And on the other hand, they only get about 3 years of work out of a presedential term, and then a <i>year</i> of campaigning. 



MacNutt said:


> I think that the STV would encourage all sorts of fractous groups to form their own self-interest parties and we would then be dealing with all sorts of stuff...like the "bald taxi drivers party" or the "save the spirit bear and give BC to the natives" party. This is what has happened in other jurisdictions when something like STV was adopted.
> 
> These tiny parties campaign on single issue platforms and, while they might only bring a small number of seats or votes to the table, it can often be the tiebreaker in a fractured legislature.


 Where, exactly? You're also forgetting that there are a **** load of parties already. If you think we really need to worry about the <i>Annexation Party of BC</i> or the <i>Natural Law Party of BC</i> or the <i>Party Of Citizens Who Have Decided To Think For Themselves And Be Their Own Politicians</i> (note, unlike your examples, mine are real parties), well, I think that you don't give people enough credit.

Of course, this all assumes that in PR systems you always have minorities, which just isn't true.



MacNutt said:


> If we were to modify our current system in any meanigful way, I'd prefer that we adopted the idea of runoff elections between the two highest scores, if any single party got less than fifty per cent of the votes.


 I'd prefer instant run off voting in single member ridings, too, but given the choice between FPTP and STV, I'll take STV.



MacNutt said:


> (We should note here that the Federal Liberals were elected to rule over us by only 18% of the eligiable voters in Canada.)


 22.2% of eligible voters, 36.7% of people who voted. You should really, you know, look that kind of thing up first.



MacNutt said:


> STV=NO for me. I suspect it won't be passed either. Least that's what I'm hearing.


I'm hopeful that it will, but the realist in me thinks it won't be. Not because people don't like it, but because no one seems to know about it.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Sorry about the scrambled electoral number PB. They were just talking about it on TV the other night and I could have sworn that the figure was 18%.

Not that 22% is much of a mandate. It's more of a testament to voter apathy. Probably caused by long term fatigue at the ongoing criminality and incompetence of so many of the people whom we elect.


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

Because it's not status quo or what most voters (read the older portion of the populace) are familiar with unless they have lived in another country. 

Question. Is STV a 'sign of the times' idea because of recent relatively even splits in the popular vote (as per the example PB used above wherein the NDP received less than 50% but formed government) or is it just something that we should try? I ask wondering whether these types of popular vote issues have occurred in teh past and the STV was brought up then as a solution or a change.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

HEY! I've just discovered that there is a walk-in STV clinic in downtown Ganges! I'm gonna hop in the pickup and rush down there right now! I need to find out more about this stuff.


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

Gerry, you may be in for a surprise!! Oh, wait, you lived through the '70's you should be ok??


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I don't remember much about the seventies, to tell the truth.

And I just got back from that STV clinic. Hmmmm....not much about voting or politics (they didn't care about that stuff at all)...but I got some really cool pamphlets out of the deal.

They gave me a handful of free condoms, as well. Not sure what to make of THAT.


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

Protect yourself before you vote?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Yeah...I might get knocked down in the lineup at the polls, but I sure won't get knocked up, eh?


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

I actually have enjoyed the tone of this thread, despite the fact that I kinda snapped at MacNutt's viewpoints. (but hey, he's good at bringing out the best in us)  The STV factor is interesting just by the fact that nobody really understands it fully.

Although I'm not a big fan of the current regime (duh), and although I recognize that they'll be with us for a good while, I can't help but be amazed at BC politics...
I moved here in '89, not long after Bennet was criminally convicted. Then came Vanderzalm, also criminally convicted. Then came Harcourt, followed by Clark, who was alleged of wrong-doing, but was aquitted. None the less, Clark ruined the NDP name with gross incompetence. Now we have Campbell, also criminally convicted.

I realize I haven't gone into any detail with this, but doesn't it seem odd when you look back? Personal ideologies aside, at what point do we just break down and laugh like hell?  

BC politics, nothing quite like it in the industrialized world.


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

I moved out at about the same time as you ('88) and have been amazed in the same way that you have. It is one of the most entertaining places politically to live. And past history is even more colourful as I understand.


----------



## jicon (Jan 12, 2005)

I've been surprised/sickened by the sheer number of people polarized in their political views here. A lot of hardcore Liberals and NDPers.

On top of that, the amount of protests I see being staged around Victoria is just a bit too much for me.

I'm sure the side-scandals, and pressure from protest groups would cause at the very least, a nasty explitive filled outburst to a fellow MLA, protestor, media, or lobbyist if I ever had made it to politics.

Campbell found pissed out of his mind in Hawaii.... Who wudda thought?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Wait till you read about "Amor de Cosmos"! Stranger than any fiction, and it's all true.


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

Yes, Amor de Cosmos, our own Calligula. Nice name too. 

Had a representative phone me from the local NDP office last night. 

"Will you be voting?"
"Of course."
"How will you be voting?"
"The household is undecided."
"So you won't be voting for our candidate?"
"We are undecided."
"I can't convince you to vote for our candidate?"
"Not today."
"So I can put you down as...?"
"Undecided."

The woman was polling and wanted me to vote for her NDP candidate WITHOUT ACTUALLY GIVING ME ANY INFORMATION ABOUT THE CANDIDATE. One black mark against the local NDP for using stupid volunteers.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Their leader, Carol James, isn't faring too well with the buying public either. 

Did you see her get booed off the stage in Campbell River yesterday? Her handlers bundled a shaken James out of there and left the local NDP candidate to face the angry crowd. She folded up like a cheap cardboard box in a brisk wind. Pretty lame.

I'm beginning to think she just doesn't have what it takes to be a leader of a major provincial political party.  

Anyone remember Bob Skelly?


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

Carol McNamee was the candidates name. I have looked up information about her on her web page. Nothing. An announcement about opening her campaign office. Some rhetorical bull about how bad the liberals are (aren't you supposed to tell us how good YOU are before you resort to berating others?). Seems early but that may be one party off the list already. One down, 15 or so to go.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

gwillikers said:


> Although I'm not a big fan of the current regime (duh), and although I recognize that they'll be with us for a good while, I can't help but be amazed at BC politics...
> I moved here in '89, not long after Bennet was criminally convicted. Then came Vanderzalm, also criminally convicted. Then came Harcourt, followed by Clark, who was alleged of wrong-doing, but was aquitted. None the less, Clark ruined the NDP name with gross incompetence. Now we have Campbell, also criminally convicted.
> 
> I realize I haven't gone into any detail with this, but doesn't it seem odd when you look back? Personal ideologies aside, at what point do we just break down and laugh like hell?
> ...


BC also holds its politicians to the highest standards in the industrial world. Mike Harcourt resigned over a relatively small amount of money that was misappropriated. Glen Clark resigned because he got a cheap deck from a neighbour. Vanderzalm resigned because he mentioned personal business while on an oversees trade mission. 

The rest of Canada doesn't hold its politicians to the standard BC does. If Martin lived up to Harcourt's standard, he should have resigned over a year ago.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Carex said:


> (aren't you supposed to tell us how good YOU are before you resort to berating others?)


Funny, that's the same problem I've had with the federal Conservatives...


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

And if Jean Chretien were to turn himself in and confess his crimes....then Paul Martin wouldn't be in such a bad pickle right now. We might not be staring a Federal election in the face, either. 

Meanwhile, back to the BC election campaign:

After seeing the major stumbles by the NDP in the first third of this election...and noting that the polls are still favoring Campbell by a rather wide margin...

Does anyone want to start making book on how many seats the NDP will get? They want thirty, I think it will be closer to twenty or perhaps even less. (out of 70 odd available seats in BC.)

Anyone else want to make a prediction?


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

Perhaps I am naive (no funny rebuttals please), but is this the current game plan of the underdog/continual opposition party. I guess you have no choice but to hack away at existing perceived poor governance if you do not have any personal experience. It would be refreshing for some underdog party to just come out and say "Here is our plan". Make it well thought out and researched and based on "what you have heard from the people". Make some unpopular choices pre-election. Defend them intelligently. 

It's nice and comfy in my cell today. Hey, there goes a butterfly.


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

If the polls are any indication (haven't seen the recent numbers) and all you need for a landslide is about 45-50% of the popular vote, I'd put $5 on the NDP coming out in the 10-15 range.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Carex said:


> It would be refreshing for some underdog party to just come out and say "Here is our plan". Make it well thought out and researched and based on "what you have heard from the people". Make some unpopular choices pre-election. Defend them intelligently.


Amen.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Okay...here's the score so far:

-The inside word is that the NDP knows they haven't a hope in hell of getting a majority and taking power from the Campbell Liberals. Apparently they are hoping for thirty seats out of seventy odd available. Which would make them a solid opposition party with a fairly loud voice in the BC legislature.

-Carex has bet that the NDP will come out somewhere around the 10-15 seat range.

-I have predicted twenty or less. Perhaps as few as twelve. Giving myself some wiggle room here, but not so far off what Carex has predicted. 

Anyone else want to step up and make a guess at post election NDP seat numbers? While remembering that BC politics are very volatile and that the electorate are prone to wild swings from right to left...sometimes at the very last minute?

Anyone else got the nerve to test their luck here? (C'mon...this could be fun!)


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacNutt said:


> Anyone else want to step up and make a guess at post election NDP seat numbers? While remembering that BC politics are very volatile and that the electorate are prone to wild swings from right to left...sometimes at the very last minute?
> 
> Anyone else got the nerve to test their luck here? (C'mon...this could be fun!)


I quickly went through each riding and I guessed there would be about 19 seats for the NDP. Going with my gut feeling, I will say 23 seats.

I would love to see Jeff Bray defeat Carol James. But its not very likely with all the government types in that riding.

The Liberals are very organized for this election. When the NDP comes out with a false statement, the Liberals have been very quick to counter it. The NDP also doesn't appear to have much of a budget given the lack of signs and TV commercials. Meanwhile, the Liberals are probably sitting on a good pile of cash that they can draw on at the end if need be. 

My only concern right now is that the Liberal supporters are going to be content thinking the Liberals will win no matter what causing a low turnout. Or some people will want to vote strategically to give a little more voice to the opposition.

The Liberals are also having difficulty getting enough volunteers.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

I'll guestimate that the NDP will get 18 to 24 seats.

DRBC will get one, maybe two.

Liberals will take the remaining 53 to 60.


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

I'd like to see a healthy opposition of around 30 seats, but I'll bet 20 or less will be the final result. Hope I'm wrong though.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

So far the low twenties seem to be the general consensus of opinion on this thread. Which is about where I had it pegged back when we first began the election campaign.

I wonder if the notoriously volatile BC political scene will somehow surprise us at the last moment? Or will voter apathy play a part in the final count? (Polls are one thing, actually making one's way down to the polling booth to vote can be quite another).

Will the NDP get their hoped for thirty seats? Will they get the twenty or so that most of us seem to think is closer to reality? Will they be deeply humiliated by only getting a dozen or less? Or will the final results surprise everyone?

Here's a wild thought....what if some of the less engaged voters who haven't been paying much attention somehow link all of the bad press about the Federal Liberals with our BC Liberal Party?? What happens if they go into the voting booth and can't bring themselves to check the box with "Liberal" written on it?

What then?

Stay tuned. We are only about at the halfway point of this provincial election. Anything can happen in BC! And often does!


----------



## jicon (Jan 12, 2005)

Saw a bit on the referendum question on CBC this morning. 

Neither Clark or McPhail seemed to have the greatest interest in it passing. 

NDP want some sort of reform to the process, and I think Clark (or was it the host?) voiced concern that with the way votes are passed to candidates, it is a lot more difficult to know who will win for one, and two, there is a fear that the whole process will bring a lot of confusion for voters who won't necessarily know whom to blame or call to get action on items concerning them in their particular riding.

Clark noted:
At least now, voters know who to call and blame.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

This week's local newspaper carried interviews with both the NDP and the Green party candidates. The reason I bring this up is because both of those candidates had something to say about "vote-splitting".

The leftish leaning types in BC (and there are a LOT of them!) are apparently quite concerned by this right now. And rightfully so. The memories of the disatrous decade of the NDP are still fresh and it seems that rather a lot of the traditional NDP voters are either preaparing to vote for the BC Liberals again, or are thinking about going down the food chain a bit and voting for the Greens.

If enough of them do this, then there could be a nasty surprise for the NDP on May 17th! BTW...this scenario is becoming far more plausible lately, due to NDP leader Carol James' poor performance on the campaign Trail so far. She is just not "wowin the crowds". To put it mildly.

This doesn't necessarily translate into any big wins for the Greens, either. They could come in a close second while annihilating the NDP...and still not win any seats, thanks to the FPTP system.

No wonder these lesser parties are so totally comitted to reforming the system with a Single Transferable Vote. It could be their only chance at ever gaining any sort of power.

Especially after almost a decade of common sense conservative style reforms have transformed this province back into the powerhouse that it used to be.


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

We haven't had these yahoos for a decade have we?? Have I been sleeping? I thought Campbell just got in.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I was just projecting forward, Carex. It looks like we will, indeed, have "these yahoos" for about a full decade by the time of the next election. 

At this point, the outcome of the current BC provincial election seems to be another Liberal win. Prehaps even another big one.

Personally, I have no problem with that. Things seem to be MUCH better than they were in the dark days of the NDP nineties.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Have any of you heard about the UBC School of Business that sets up a stock market for people to 'bet' on each political party? It has called the last two BC elections to within 1 or 2 seats. Right now, the Liberals have a 91% chance of success.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Does that translate into a 91% chance of attaining a majority in the BC Legislature? (this outcome, by the way, would seem to be a no-brainer at this point). 

Or...does it mean that the Campbell Liberals will get 91% of the SEATS in the BC Legislature?  

Which...at least at this point...doesn't seem to be so terribly impossible, either.


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

> Things seem to be MUCH better than they were in the dark days of the NDP nineties.


Meh. The problem with the polictical scene here is that the pendulum swings too far one way or the other. The NDP were likely too green (hard for me to say that) and sociall oriented. The Liberals went the other direction. We don't bother worrying about corruption and scandal in BC, we just accept that it will happen. It would be wonderful to have a party come down somewhere in the middle for a change here.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Bottom line, Carex, is that we were in serious hard times under the NDP. They took us from first to worst. And we also had much more labour strife and major strikes under that Union-dominated party than we have seen before or since.

Property prices were falling, people were moving away to Alberta, Companies were pulling out of the province, hospitals were closing, schools were running out of money, and the debt was increasing exponentially. The whole ferry system was in a major crisis because they had squandered all of the shipbuilding budget on a silly pipe dream that they'd been told wouldn't work.

Forestry was in trouble. Mining was almost nonexistant. The oil and gas sector was choked with over regulation. Roads didn't get built. Mills and factories were closing all over the place.

It was the worst decade that BC has ever seen. Bar NONE! The whole province was dying on the vine...while the rest of the world was experiencing the longest and largest sustained economic boom that the planet has ever known.

It was a dark period in BC history. For sure.

But things are MUCH better now! And the future is very bright for BC. For the first time in more than ten years. Everyone can see this...no matter what their chosen ideology might be. 

Hard for the NDP to convince anyone to turn their back on this renewed prosperity and return to the old ways at this point.

Don't you think?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacNutt said:


> Does that translate into a 91% chance of attaining a majority in the BC Legislature? (this outcome, by the way, would seem to be a no-brainer at this point).
> 
> Or...does it mean that the Campbell Liberals will get 91% of the SEATS in the BC Legislature?
> 
> Which...at least at this point...doesn't seem to be so terribly impossible, either.


91% chance of a majority. Check it out;

http://esm.ubc.ca/BC05/index.php


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

I think the biggest problem we have is that those who lean left think that social responsibility is the only thing worth measuring, while those on the right think that economic growth is the only thing worth measuring.

Worse yet, both sides seem to think that the two are mutually exclusive.

Too bad it's not true.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

PosterBoy said:


> I think the biggest problem we have is that those who lean left think that social responsibility is the only thing worth measuring, while those on the right think that economic growth is the only thing worth measuring.
> 
> Worse yet, both sides seem to think that the two are mutually exclusive.
> 
> Too bad it's not true.


You've mentioned this before PB, so I thought I should deal with it. Here goes:

The left always seems to think that social reposibility takes precedence over economic reality. If we need something, then we buy it. Damn the torpedoes and all that.

The right, on the other hand, realises that the only way to afford to buy those things is to see that the fiscal house is in order first. And that usually means cutting a bunch of stuff to get the economy into shape and the province or country back into a position where it has a bit of a surplus to work with.(until fairly recently, most governments have run up large debts in order to provide the social services that the Canadian people have demanded. So there is almost always some clean up to be done before moving forward)

You might find, if you check, that Klein's Alberta has some of the strongest social programs in the whole nation. It also has the highest paid doctors and nurses. Alberta is devoting rather a large amount of money into social programs these days...and it can afford to do this because it has eliminated the provincial debt. Without those debt-servicing costs (interest on the money borrowed in the past) Klein can spend that saved money on lots of good stuff.

BC is beginning to reap the same sort of benefits after several years of cost cutting (although we have some ways to go before we are debt free).

The Campbel Liberals have spent a far larger percentage of their available cash on hospitals and schools and the homeless than the NDP ever did. A point that has been made during many of Carol James campaign stops....to her great embarassment.

Had the BC NDP continued on the way they were going, eventually ALL of the money that they spent on ALL of the social programs would have had to be borrowed. And, at some point, no more can be borrowed.

THEN what do you do? And you will still be paying huge interest as well...but you won't have any social safety net at all. Just costs left over from the past.

Conservative right wing values say "get the business straightened out FIRST....then spend the profits".

It's the other way around with the left. Tha might be why they are in failure mode pretty much everywhere you happen look these days.


----------



## jicon (Jan 12, 2005)

I'm not claiming either NDP or Liberal will put BC in a better position, but there are a few items that stick in my mind:

1. When I moved to BC in 2000, I was in shock as to how many hoops it took me to obtain the simplest forms of ID and care. 
-Four letters from Manitoba to determine I was eligible for a BC driving license (Triplicated letter in one case, as ICBC has a bit of trouble with the English language). I needed to supply proof that I was now a Canadian Citizen, and medical tests.
-Applying for my MSP card was a bit easier, but again, proof of Canadian Citizenship was required.
-In what can only be considered obsurd... Being a diabetic, I have a certain strategy that keeps me ticking in this world. Insulin is a must. Okay, doctor can prescribe that. Except the MSP doesn't cover the type of insulin that works best for me, so I have to shell out $100 a month for the insulin, plus $60 for the MSP plan.
Fine. BC is somewhat behind the times.
Rediculously, I must also get a form signed out in triplicate from a specialist (Whom easily earns $120k a year from the government) that I know how to test blood sugar... thus MSP will cover a majority of my testing supplies.
The rediculous bit being, those over 65 don't need such forms filled out, and they were absolutely hammering the government expenses by loading up on said supplies.

A little fact:
Starting to test 8 times a day at 65 isn't going to extend your life. Three times a day at the age of 24, very smart and proactive thing.

2. Again, another case of beaurcracy gone wild:

After applying for a position with the government, you can get shortlisted:

Two letters in the mail verifying this. Four weeks later, three letters from individuals indicating that the post is closed. One letter is good enough guys.


I don't know how much better or worse such elements are run in BC today, but the NDP had this province running in a horrible manner.


Mr. Campbell and his wife were/are heavily involved with the school systems, both carried jobs within our education systems in BC. I'm sure Mr. Campbell has some very keen insights to the education system in BC, and here's hoping it can be improved, and give my TOC wife a chance of obtaining a job within a schoolboard.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

You can't _IMAGINE_ how hard it was to get my spring licenced to sell bottled water under the old BC NDP govrenment.  

-The spring originates on my land, and the water stream it produces ENDS on my land. No one else is involved downstream. 

-It doesn't contain any fish and it doesn't feed into any ecological preserves.

-The spring flows naturally under its own pressure. We use no pumps of any kind and we couldn't posssibly affect any aquifers by using any of the water from this spring. All we can do is to divert a small percentage of it.

-This spring, and the water licence for it, has been a part of this particular piece of property since the 1930's. It is grandfathered in to pretty much every single regulation on the books. And THEN some.

-This spring produces 7000 gallons of incredibly pure water every single day. We were asking to be able to sell less than 1000 gallons per day at peak production (a high point that we have yet to reach after four years in business, by the way)

-The water from this spring actually comes from the Mt Baker glacier, according to the hydrologists. This means that the water is actually from the USA! It has NOTHING at all to do with any aquifer that might exist here on Salt Spring Island.


But...when the BC NDP were in charge of the regulatory process, we had to jump through all sorts of flaming hoops in order to be able to sell this natural spring water to people who wanted to buy it! 

Three years of intensive and repetitive studies...often by the very same hydrologists who had just done the _PREVIOUS_ studies! And then we had to do them all over again! At our own expense, of course.

And, all the while they kept on telling us that "eight out of ten of these sort of natural springs NEVER get approved" for bottled water sales. They tried to shut us down at every single turn. 

But, being stubborn Highland types...we just kept on going. And we just kept on paying the exorbinant government fees that they said were oh-so necessary to licence this natural spring for public consumption.

And...eventually...they threw up their hands and said, and I quote "Well! There is nothing else we can do to PREVENT you from selling your water. So we will have to allow it."

You'd think we were trying to start up a car battery recycling plant in the middle of a National Park or something.  

You want to talk "unnecessary beauracracy under the BC NDP"?

Let me show you almost FOUR YEARS of huge expenses and massive paperwork! 

But...strangely enough...one of my neighbors also has a spring in the same area. he didn't seem to have much trouble getting licenced to sell water at all. In fact, he sells some of his water without the proper licence!

But, then again, HE'S a major player in the BC NDP Party, after all. I'm guessing that he _MIGHT_ just have some sort of inside track here.

Gee...do ya THINK?


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

MacNutt said:


> The left always seems to think that social reposibility takes precedence over economic reality. If we need something, then we buy it. Damn the torpedoes and all that.
> 
> The right, on the other hand, realises that the only way to afford to buy those things is to see that the fiscal house is in order first.


'fraid you've got it wrong there. The difference is that the left is willing to run a deficiet to keep social programs going, whereas the right is willing to cut social programs to try and run a surplus. The problem is that neither plan is balanced, and neither side thinks that their ideas are compatibile with one another.

As to the rest of your campaign propoganda, I wasn't talking about Liberals vs. NDP, I was talking about left vs. right and the inherint flaw in their reasoning.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

The reason the right wants a surplus is because then they will have something to work with. The surplus is not an end unto itself.

Budgetary surpluses allow the government to pay down previous debts, and eliminate that portion of the interest paymenst that dog almost all governments...therefore freeing up even more money for government spending programs.

A surplus isn't just a nice nest egg in the bank. It is used to provide services or to cut taxes. Alberta is the only province without a debt, and they are putting their surplus into all sorts of public programs. While having some of the lowest tax rates in all of Canada. Which means more money in Albertan pockets. 

Borrowing money and going into a deficit is just the opposite. It means that, next year, the government will have to spend more on interest payments. Which means less of the budget will be available for social programs. Which means more borrowing to make up the difference. Which means bigger interest payments next year, and so and so on. 

As long as an economy is growing a brisk pace, deficit financing can stay just ahead of the inevitable. But, if your governmental revenue begins to drop off, as most people are predicting will happen when the baby boomers all begin to retire en masse, then the accumulated debt from all of those yearly deficits will begin to eat up huge chunks of the money that we would normally spend on things like health care and roads. It becomes even more necessary to get rid of large interest payments if that same retiring generation is about to make huge new demands on the public health care system. The budget will be getting attacked from both ends at that point.

This is the economic version of slow death by starvation.

Deficit financing of social programs, especially in light of the looming demographic bombshell that is just around the corner, is simply setting yourself up for a giant fall.

Those same programs will have to be cancelled across the board when the interest payments begin to consume all of the shrinking budget. And there will be no way out by then. Like making monthly payments on an expensive vehicle that has already been repossesd. Payments which are so large that you cannot afford a replacement vehicle.

It's far better to plan ahead and try to eliminate the debt before it eliminates YOU.

Eventually, even the leftists will have to face up to this bit of cruel reality. Some of them already have.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

I know why the right wants to constantly run surpluses, I know why the left is willing to run deficits. You're still missing my point though, whilst espousing your personal mantra.

My point is that the right will pretty much always cut back social programs (among other things) to make sure and run a surplus, whereas the left will always overspend to make sure that social programs stay running as fat and happy as can be.

There is of course more to it than just that to dislike on either side. The right tends to sell assests off to the highest bidder in order to save money, but often at the expense of of keeping local business local. The left tends to try and over finance economic growth where it really isn't necesary, sure it encourages growth to spend money in the economy but uncontrolled spending is just as bad as not spending enough.

There is a flaw in both schools of logic, that either is the correct way of doing things. Especially in a country like Canada, where you have such a diverse mix of right and left leaning citizens.

And to deny that there is a middle ground, where fiscal and social responsibility work together, is just foolish.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

So...why are all governments pretty much everywhere moving towards the right and away from the old long-held principles of the left?

Especially the leftist (socialist/NDP) ones?? They are moving faster and farther to the right than anyone ever thought possible, just a few decades back!

When I was a kid, socialists were proud to say that they were committed to clamping down on business and that deficit financing was a cornerstone of their stated poicies. They wanted to nationalise and unionise pretty much everything bigger than a pop stand. That would make the world a better and more equitable place, they claimed. And screw the costs. It's only paper money. We can always print more.

My how times have changed.

Nowadays, you can hardly tell a successful "leftist party" (like Tony Blair's Labour party of Britain) from a right wing conservative party of two decades ago.

The BC NDP will also be "centering to the right" (as macdoc often says) right after their next defeat. Carol James is already trying to drag them in this progressive direction. She just needs to silence a few of the bigger dinosaurs in the Union movement in order to do it.

Or...she could just wait them out. They ARE becoming an extinct species, after all.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

It's still looking like the NDP is only going to get about 20 seats. Carol James hasn't made a big impact on voters and the NDP is starting to look desperate.

If they get 20 or less, it will be a big defeat for them. In order for them to declare a victory they will need upwards of 30 seats. Unfortunately, unlike MacNutt I don't think the NDP is going to change their stripes (e.g. acknowledgment of sound economic policy, ditching the unions) for at least a couple more elections. 

The BC Liberals have moved towards the centre and will continue to govern this way. People are going to be even happier after another 4 years of effective governance. Unless a major scandal were to occur, I don't see the BC Liberals being pushed from power for at least another 12 years.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

OK, I don't normally do the seat prediction game, but I'm bored and I've been looking at some of the prediction sites, so here goes ...

Vandave, I think 20 seats is too low. The Election Prediction Project has a very good track record and at this point they're calling for 24 NDP, 41 Lib and 14 too close to call. If the NDP pick up even a few of those too close ridings, they're heading towards 30.

Will McMartin, writing in The Tyee.ca has finalized his predictions today and he's calling for 28 NDP and 51 Lib. One place I disagree with his analysis is in Vancouver Fairview, where I think Gregor Robertson, is a very appealing candidate for the NDP. Owns a very successful local business and very environmentally conscious as well as being good looking. For these reasons he'll take votes away from the Libs and chip away a lot of the 16% that the Greens got in that riding, last time.

I also noticed that nobody called for the conservative independant Vicki Huntington to win Delta South. They say that Delta South would elect a ham sandwich if it had a neo-con tag on it and she fills the bill there. She's been in Delta politics for a while. But the Liberal incumbent there, Val Roddick, is pretty well hated by a sizeable contingent. 13,000 people put their names on a recall initiative that came close to having her tossed out, over the Liberals decision to downsize their local hospital. I don't think a lot of people forgave her for not standing up for her constituents against her caucus. Huntington is as conservative as Roddick, so I think she has a good shot at taking it. I was in Ladner a couple of weeks ago and the Huntington signs were everywhere.

Most people are giving Adriane Carr's riding on the Sunshine Coast to the NDP, but I think she's got a better chance there than people think. They have a history of electing independents and the riding has a pretty eclectic mix of unusual rural folk. She's also got a lot of name recognition in this election, more than she's ever had. Of course Carr could just split the vote there and send the Lib up the middle, so I think that one is definitely a toss-up.

So my extremely hedged prediction is NDP 28 to 31, Lib 47 to 50, 1 independent and possibly 1 Green. I won't make a prediction on the STV referendum, I'm just too close to that to be rational about it. 

I really haven't analyzed a lot of the ridings myself, or know enough about most of them to do that, so I don't put a huge amount of stock in my predictions. But the Libs will win it, I don't think there's any doubt of that. If their supporters are really sure it's in the bag, a lot of them may not show up, which could hurt them a bit, but I hear voter registrations are up, so who knows.

I don't have the energy or time to get into a big political debate right now, but I don't see how the NDP winning less than 30 is a defeat. They currently have 3 seats. How could winning less than 10 times their current total be a defeat? The Liberals stand to lose anywhere between 25% and 45% of their seats. *That* might be called a defeat. It certainly shows that a sizable chunk of people are not terribly happy with the neo-con agenda of the Libs. 

BC is a conservative province, - of course, not as much as Alberta, but it's in the same league. The only time the NDP wins here is when the right splits their votes, as happened under Barrett in the 70s and Harcourt in the 90s. The Glenn Clark win was an anomaly of first past the post, because the Libs had more votes that time. Plus the right wing support still hadn't completely solidified under the Libs in '96, so that took some edge off their total. Reform BC had two sitting members (former Socreds) who won their seats. Campbell had been expected to win that contest and it came as a shock to many that he didn't.

I think all along the NDP have been focused on 2009 and didn't seriously expect to win this election. This is probably why a lot of the NDP back-room types have been so busy throwing up red herrings in the media about STV. The NDP power mongers hope to be able to game the system in 2009, when the environment is sure to be a huge issue, after 4 more years of Liberal neglect and cuts. They'll be able to say to those who care about the environment in BC, it's our way or more freeways under the Libs, so even though we called you "enemies of the province" under Glenn Clark, we and our logger buddies are your only hope. The powerful IWA types in the party know that a red-green coalition situation under a PR system would mean they'll be right out of the loop.

Also, I think that Carole James is the real deal. I'd never heard her speak before the debate and I think she mopped the floor with Gordo. She looked confident and calm under pressure, but still managed to rant without sounding bitchy, like Joy McPhail always does when she's pissed off. She's an excellent public speaker and never seemed lost for words, which is a rare commodity these days. 

What really impressed me though was that the pressure on a first time leader doing the only TV debate of the campaign, has got to be enormous, yet she didn't once look nervous. Campbell, on the other hand, who has a ton of experience, looked shifty and like he badly needed a drink. 

Let's hope he's got a designated driver after his victory party.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I don't have the energy or time to get into a big political debate right now, but I don't see how the NDP winning less than 30 is a defeat. They currently have 3 seats. How could winning less than 10 times their current total be a defeat? The Liberals stand to lose anywhere between 25% and 45% of their seats. *That* might be called a defeat. It certainly shows that a sizable chunk of people are not terribly happy with the neo-con agenda of the Libs.


The last election was an anomoly, so this can't be used as a baseline. Many traditional NDP supporters voted against them and most people knew a change was needed. It was a one time event that won't happen again unless major corruption springs up. I think the prior two elections are a lot more relevant for comparison. I never said 30 seats, I said upwards of 30 seats. I'll draw the line at 27. If they get less, I think it is a defeat for them. If they get more, I'll admit they were successful.



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Also, I think that Carole James is the real deal. I'd never heard her speak before the debate and I think she mopped the floor with Gordo. She looked confident and calm under pressure, but still managed to rant without sounding bitchy, like Joy McPhail always does when she's pissed off. She's an excellent public speaker and never seemed lost for words, which is a rare commodity these days.


Gordo didn't go there for a big debate. He sat back to look like a gentleman. When a male goes against two females, he simply can't go on the attack. It doesn't play well with people. So, in my opinion, Gordo won the debate in that he accomplished what he wanted to. I say James lost because the NDP numbers didn't change after the debate. I have been working for my local MLA and working the phones. The feedback I got from some people is that James was a #%^&#.


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

Vandave said:


> Gordo didn't go there for a big debate. He sat back to look like a gentleman. When a male goes against two females, he simply can't go on the attack. It doesn't play well with people. So, in my opinion, Gordo won the debate in that he accomplished what he wanted to. I say James lost because the NDP numbers didn't change after the debate. I have been working for my local MLA and working the phones. The feedback I got from some people is that James was a #%^&#.


So it was fine for him to go on the attack in the radio interview but not on TV? And it's a coincidence that the Liberal campaign got nasty right after the TV debate?

As for who won the TV debate, it's pretty safe to say that the political correspondents covering this election are a lot less biased than the Liberal supporters you had on the phone. The correspondents all thought James did very well.

What really gets my goat, is that you come very close to suggesting that if a female politician plays hardball she's a bitch, but when a Liberal male politician does it, he's a good tough politician. You can say it was just your callers that suggested that, but the inference is yours. What's even worse is that when your leader gets taken to task in a debate, looks nervous and on the defensive throughout... he's being a gentleman. Pulleeze!


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

gwillikers said:


> So it was fine for him to go on the attack in the radio interview but not on TV? And it's a coincidence that the Liberal campaign got nasty right after the TV debate?


Radio's a different format from TV and I think you can get away with more. Also, CKNW has a right wing audience so it plays better there. You aren't going to see TV clips of a radio interview. But if Campbell came across as mean on TV and one the women were taken aback, it would get replayed over and over.

I don't think the Liberals have gotten that nasty. I anything its the NDP that has turned to more negative advertising. So far, it has been a fairly clean election without much dirt coming from either side. Quite refreshing actually. I am surprised the NDP never personally attacked Campbell. But then again, I guess it didn't work for them over the last 4 years.



gwillikers said:


> As for who won the TV debate, it's pretty safe to say that the political correspondents covering this election are a lot less biased than the Liberal supporters you had on the phone. The correspondents all thought James did very well.


What's the point of having a debate? Ask yourself this first. Is it to win the debate or to win votes? I would suggest the latter. From that perspective and from the perspective of achieving desired goals going into the debate, I say Campbell won. His goal was to not rock the boat and to not to go on the attack. James had to go on the attack and she did. But, the debate didn't move the polling numbers. So, in my opinion, James lost. That was her chance to get some momentum and sway voters. But she didn't do it. Why would Campbell go into the debate with guns blazing? He has a substantial lead. 

If James is such a good debater, she should have run in the Surrey byelection so that she could debate in the legislature. We'll see how well James debates when the fall sitting of the legislature starts. My bet is not very well. 



gwillikers said:


> What really gets my goat, is that you come very close to suggesting that if a female politician plays hardball she's a bitch, but when a Liberal male politician does it, he's a good tough politician. You can say it was just your callers that suggested that, but the inference is yours. What's even worse is that when your leader gets taken to task in a debate, looks nervous and on the defensive throughout... he's being a gentleman. Pulleeze!


I didn't suggest this at all. You might want to re-read my post. You're infering things that aren't there. 

What I am suggesting is that if a male debates against two females, he can't attack them in the same way he could against other males. It's human nature. People don't like to see men yelling at women.


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

Vandave said:


> Radio's a different format from TV and I think you can get away with more. Also, CKNW has a right wing audience so it plays better there.


I'll say you can get away with more... the phone board was stacked with Liberal supporters. That's not too surprising really, but what is surprising is when those callers pretend to be businessmen and parents, when they're neither.  Plus, they were volunteers in this Liberal campaign.


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

Vandave said:


> I didn't suggest this at all. You might want to re-read my post. You're infering things that aren't there.


What did you say to the callers that referred to her as that though? 
I think she's a smart lady with a track record of honesty, she doesn't deserve a nasty label for taking the Premier to task. Just mentioning that in your post got me on the defensive. My apologies, but I'd do the same for any female politician that didn't deserve that label.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

gwillikers said:


> What did you say to the callers that referred to her as that though?
> I think she's a smart lady with a track record of honesty, she doesn't deserve a nasty label for taking the Premier to task. Just mentioning that in your post got me on the defensive. My apologies, but I'd do the same for any female politician that didn't deserve that label.


I think it is wrong to throw mud when it isn't deserved. Like I said, I think this has been a reasonably clean campaign. 

What makes you think the people that called into CKNW are campaign workers? They have tonnes of callers, so no party can totally swamp their lines. But, you're correct that Liberal supporters know who is going to be on what TV or radio show on any given day.

The funny thing I found about this campaign is how Liberal supporters have used some of the NDP's tactics against them quite well. One example, is all the protests that James has gotten. The NDP is used to organiziing protests, not being protested against. James has looked quite uncomfortable with this. Another example, is having your supporters call into talk shows. The NDP and unions have used this tactic for quite some time.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Vandave said:


> The funny thing I found about this campaign is how Liberal supporters have used some of the NDP's tactics against them quite well. One example, is all the protests that James has gotten. The NDP is used to organiziing protests, not being protested against. James has looked quite uncomfortable with this. Another example, is having your supporters call into talk shows. The NDP and unions have used this tactic for quite some time.


Dave, I don't watch a lot of TV news, but I didn't see any evidence that James wasn't able to handle any of the Liberal hecklers. This is in contrast to Campbell and the Liberals who have so tightly controlled their events and not told anyone but a few selected supporters where the leader will be, so that the great unwashed couldn't even get close to the guy. And I've read that scores of Liberal candidates didn't even bother to show at all candidates meetings.

As far as supporters calling in to shows, I believe it has been common since the advent of talk radio for parties to alert their supporters and party members when their people will be on a particular show. So if I'm a member of party X and I call in to throw a softball question to my party leader, or to attack the opposite guy, so what?

The big difference here is when paid staff call in to radio shows and when asked for their name, lie and give a fake one, so they won't get bounced from the show or identified by the host as one of the the guy's paid assistants. That's a big difference and that's unethical. That Campbell would excuse that sort of behaviour or give a juvenile excuse like, well they do it too, shows what he's made of.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> This is in contrast to Campbell and the Liberals who have so tightly controlled their events and not told anyone but a few selected supporters where the leader will be, so that the great unwashed couldn't even get close to the guy.


That's the strategy and so far it has worked. The point is to avoid protests organized by the NDP and their union friends.



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> As far as supporters calling in to shows, I believe it has been common since the advent of talk radio for parties to alert their supporters and party members when their people will be on a particular show. So if I'm a member of party X and I call in to throw a softball question to my party leader, or to attack the opposite guy, so what?


I agree. That was my point. The NDP has been well organized in the past about getting their supporters to call in.



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> The big difference here is when paid staff call in to radio shows and when asked for their name, lie and give a fake one, so they won't get bounced from the show or identified by the host as one of the the guy's paid assistants. That's a big difference and that's unethical. That Campbell would excuse that sort of behaviour or give a juvenile excuse like, well they do it too, shows what he's made of.


I agree. Paid staffers shoudn't call in. One guy that was about to get a job in the PO did it and got caught. It had nothing to do with Campbell or the Liberal party. I thought he resigned anyways.


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

Vandave said:


> That's the strategy and so far it has worked. The point is to avoid protests organized by the NDP and their union friends.


I'm biting my tongue. I really am.


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

Well I'm glad my earlier prediction of less than 15 seats (it was close to that anyway) did not come true. The people of BC made a conscientious, intelligent decision for balanced government. The last majority was a little too ridiculous. This will be better (crosses fingers). Campbell also gets another term to come up with his scandal of choice. It's not like any premier of this province ever goes out by losing at the polls. He's got to do something really stupid to make headlines.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Gordo claims he got a mandate to carry on with the direction that they were going. That's complete and utter BS.

54% of the people of BC voted against him and where he was going. 

That's no bloody mandate for anything.

If a mandate was given for anything, it was a mandate that British Columbians voted massively against our first-past-the-post system and want something else, so that liars like Gordo can't stand up and claim he got a mandate.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Gordo claims he got a mandate to carry on with the direction that they were going. That's complete and utter BS.
> 
> 54% of the people of BC voted against him and where he was going.
> 
> ...


And 60% of people didn't vote for your party, but they still have a large number of seats in the leg.

You're just mad that STV didn't pass and that your party lost.

46% is a very strong level of support. I would call that a mandate.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Apparently the STV is still alive according to an interview with Campbell today :clap:


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Vandave said:


> And 60% of people didn't vote for your party, but they still have a large number of seats in the leg.
> 
> You're just mad that STV didn't pass and that your party lost.
> 
> 46% is a very strong level of support. I would call that a mandate.


Dave, my party is not the BC Liberals, but I don't have a party. I'm prepared to support anyone whose policies makes sense to me.

Damn right I'm mad. I'm mad that democracy under first past the post is a sham.

So tell me Dave, how low does the support have to go for it to still be a mandate? If 46% support is enough to claim that the public gave you a mandate, is Tony Blair's 35% majority a mandate? 

So if 46% is a strong level of support, but 54% is not a strong indication of non-support, then does 2 + 2 = 5?

Using that logic Quebec would have already separated with a "strong level of support".

So does the fact that a majority of the voting public didn't vote for Campbell mean that the majority actually endorsed him and his record since 2001? Because that's exactly what he's saying. Were alright, no need to change our direction one bit, we have our mandate from the people.

Hogwash.

Campbell doesn't have a mandate, he has more seats in the Legislature, through distortions inherent in our antiquated voting system. This is not fair and this is not democratic. He won in a game where the rules are wrong. You can call that winning, but that wouldn't be right.

But I guess if he thinks he really got a mandate, using that twisted logic, he can also ignore that 57% of the public, who voted against first past the post, think that his majority is not fair or democratic either.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> Apparently the STV is still alive according to an interview with Campbell today


It better still be alive, or at least some form of proportional representation, because the YES vote was overwhelming.

57.38% in total voted YES (still not official), but the 60% bar was not reached. It won at least a 50% majority in all ridings except 2. They both came in at 49%.

If STV were a political party that would win them every single seat in the Legislature. But it's 2.62% short of the overall super-majority required. And jubilant people on the NO side are saying, "See, British Columbians, just didn't like STV." I actually heard the main left-wing bimbo, Bill Tielman, who brought in a lot of the NO votes on the left, saying this today. What an ass! What is it about FPP supporters, did they all fail at math or something?

And the NO side thinks that all of us are just going to slink away now, saying "Oh well, we lost." Not a chance.

This was an overwhelming positive vote for electoral reform. It's on the agenda now and I would suggest that those in power who attempt to ignore it, will do so at their peril.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> So tell me Dave, how low does the support have to go for it to still be a mandate? If 46% support is enough to claim that the public gave you a mandate, is Tony Blair's 35% majority a mandate?


It depends on the number of parties that are running. With a three party race, I think 40% is a reasonable boundary to draw the line at. 46% of the vote is pretty good when you consider the number of parties that ran in the election. With a two party state, such as the US, then the line would be drawn at 50%.



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> So if 46% is a strong level of support, but 54% is not a strong indication of non-support, then does 2 + 2 = 5?
> 
> Using that logic Quebec would have already separated with a "strong level of support".


Wrong. There are only two options for separation, which are yes and no. For the election in BC, there were a lot more than two options. The party that got the highest level of support won the election. The party that won the highest number of ridings won the election. Seems reasonable to me. They were only 4% short of having a majority vote! 



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> But I guess if he thinks he really got a mandate, using that twisted logic, he can also ignore that 57% of the public, who voted against first past the post, think that his majority is not fair or democratic either.


I’m not convinced people knew what they were voting for with the referendum. I’m glad it failed for that reason. I think people need time to understand what is being proposed before we make a big change. I agree with you that people probably want change. The vote definitely says that. Like I said before, I think this should have a second chance in the next election. My only condition would be that the government and the Citizens Coalition take more time to inform people, which means spending money on ads, etc…

Also, I think a lot of the concerns I raised before need to be seriously addressed.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Vandave said:


> GratuitousApplesauce said:
> 
> 
> > So tell me Dave, how low does the support have to go for it to still be a mandate? If 46% support is enough to claim that the public gave you a mandate, is Tony Blair's 35% majority a mandate?
> ...


You're mixing up the arguments, Dave. You were insisting that 46% voting for and 54% voting against equals a mandate. It doesn't matter that the 54% is composed of two other parties or ten, they all disagreed with the Liberal agenda otherwise they would have voted Liberal. So therefore more people disagreed with the Libs than agreed. Not a mandate. 

You're just making up the rules here. Either someone votes for Campbell, saying they agreed with the policy and the record or they don't.


Vandave said:


> GratuitousApplesauce said:
> 
> 
> > So if 46% is a strong level of support, but 54% is not a strong indication of non-support, then does 2 + 2 = 5?
> ...


Again with mixing the arguments. Either you support the Libs or not. Only 46% did. 54%, a majority, did not give the Campbell government their support. How is that a strong level of support?

It may seem reasonable to you, but it only turns into a majority and can be misconstrued as support under the distortions of FPP. Under a system that gives support based on a percentage of votes received, the Libs are looking at forming a minority government, not looking a being able to pass anything in the Leg that they choose. And this FPP electoral model does not have a strong level of support in BC, since yesterday. Unless you understand math differently.


Vandave said:


> I’m not convinced people knew what they were voting for with the referendum. I’m glad it failed for that reason.


Hey Dave, I'm not convinced that a lot of people who voted for the Liberals knew what the hell they were doing either. I've been trying hard to tell them, but some just ain't listening.  That doesn't really matter, for better or worse any idiot can vote and many do.

But, that being said, the YES side did better, the more informed people became. That's what the polls showed and I spoke with one of the Citizen's Assembly members who confirmed it personally. So if you had your wish (and my wish, too) that more people had been informed and that the Liberal government had allocated much more money for getting the info out there, STV would have been the winner, yesterday.

As far as your issues with it being addressed, there are thousands of web pages out there with millions of words, both pro and con. Somewhere your issues were addressed, but if you were hostile to PR in general, I doubt if any answer would be good enough.

The thing is, that it's good enough for the majority of people who delve into it.

Dave, if you disagree with PR, you had better get ready, because the fight in BC has only just begun. And most people are deciding they want the answer to be YES.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> You're mixing up the arguments, Dave. You were insisting that 46% voting for and 54% voting against equals a mandate. It doesn't matter that the 54% is composed of two other parties or ten, they all disagreed with the Liberal agenda otherwise they would have voted Liberal. So therefore more people disagreed with the Libs than agreed. Not a mandate.


I think we have had to agree to disagree here. I understand what you are saying, but I still feel that 46% is strong support. So is 40% mind you and that's why the NDP have the number of seats they do.




GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Hey Dave, I'm not convinced that a lot of people who voted for the Liberals knew what the hell they were doing either. I've been trying hard to tell them, but some just ain't listening.  That doesn't really matter, for better or worse any idiot can vote and many do.


Ya, but with the general election, most people that vote have payed attention to the issues that affect them. So, they are generally making an informed decision. I worked as a scrutineer last night and quite a few people didn't know anything about the referendum. Yet, only a small number of ballets were discarded by people (on par with the number of discarded general election ballets). Therefore, a large number of people made an uniformed decision on this issue.

But, that being said, the YES side did better, the more informed people became. That's what the polls showed and I spoke with one of the Citizen's Assembly members who confirmed it personally. So if you had your wish (and my wish, too) that more people had been informed and that the Liberal government had allocated much more money for getting the info out there, STV would have been the winner, yesterday.[/QUOTE]



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Dave, if you disagree with PR, you had better get ready, because the fight in BC has only just begun. And most people are deciding they want the answer to be YES.


For now, I don't support STV. I will however, read up on it and see if my concerns can be effectively addressed. My mind definately isn't closed. I just don't see a big problem with our provincial system. It's the federal one that needs some major reform.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

I think you're both missing the point here. In a FPTP electoral system you don't get a mandate from having the most people vote for you, you get a mandate from having the least people not vote for you, especially when there are more than just two parties in the running. This is also severely affected by the amount of polarization at any given time, which is pretty frigin' high at the moment.

It's sad, but it's true.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

A plurality is most not a "mandate" tho popular vote is only a guideline for a gov - look at Bush he took -1% as a mandate 

Some systems require a run -off when there is no majority - awkward in my mind.

Winning a majority but a reduced one as with Tony Blair and Campbell offers a warning to the leader and the party. 
Going from a small majority to a larger one I would say could be seen as a mandate to leader and party that the direction is right. 
Momentum does count in both cases.

I'm still uncertain how a fixed election date would play if that vote had been significantly closer ala the Feds.
Can you imagine having to deal with 4 years like the last few weeks in Ottawa ....federal OR provincial. 

Tell me something...... if there was a real lock up in BC could the legislation call an election and under what circumstances???


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

I found these definitions of the word mandate:

1. An authoritative command or instruction.

2. A command or an authorization given by a political electorate to its representative.

Now to be technically correct, under our laws, any party that can form government, even a minority government, has a mandate. They have the legal authority to act on the behalf of the electorate.

But when Gordo last night claimed to have a mandate from the people of BC, he wasn't talking about that technical usage, that would be simply stating the obvious. Everyone knows he has the legal authority to act. When politicians are elected and claim to have a mandate, that is done in the context of a strong win. When 40% of your MLAs are told to take a walk, that's not a strong win. What they mean is that the electorate have approved of our direction and actions in the past and/or approved of our stated goals for the next years to come. They mean that they were given a *command* from the voters.

To make that claim when a majority did not give any such command or approval is what I'm objecting to. It may be common usage, but that doesn't make it accurate. In the last election Gordo could have made that claim, they got 57% of the popular vote, almost 2 out of every 3 votes. I didn't give him that command, but I was out-voted.

This time Gordo didn't get that, his party didn't even get a simple majority. I don't care whether it's FPP or not, a majority of voters did not approve of his government, nor command him to carry on with those actions.

He got the most seats, yes. He has the legal authority to govern, yes. Does he have the approval from a majority of the electorate of his government's past actions and stated directions for the future? Obviously not. Has he been commanded to act the way he did since 2001? Nope.

But he has the power under our current FPP system to act as if a majority telling him he was wrong doesn't matter. And he will most certainly try to pretend that his fake FPP majority equals actual majority approval, even though it obviously does not.

He'll carry on and pretend as if he is acting with majority approval, when he starts the sell-off of BC Ferries routes, finishes the privatizing he started with BC Hydro, and figures out how he can hand over ICBC to his pals. When he carries on with fish farming and destroys what's left of the wild salmon, he will cite the mandate he was given. When his government continues pimping for expanded gambling and slot machines while cutting services to deal with those who become addicts he will claim it was with the approval of the electorate, look, he was given a mandate.

When Gordo says "strong support" and "mandate", this is what he's talking about. And it's BS.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

[quote='Doc]Tell me something...... if there was a real lock up in BC could the legislation call an election and under what circumstances???[/quote]
I'm only guessing here, but I think that the fixed election dates only apply to majority governments. If a fixed election date was used to protect a government that was voted out from falling I think that would be going against our parliamentary system.

I don't know what the rules are on the fixed election dates. It could be something that the Liberal's just decided they would do themselves. When they got in in May 2001 they said there will be an election in May 2005 and there will be another one in May 2009. I don't know if the NDP would be legally bound to honour that if they had gotten in.

I don't actually have a problem with the fixed election dates. I think it has added some stability and predictability to the process. So far I think it is a good idea.

(See Vandave, I gave the Libs credit for 2 things, the fixed election dates and the Citizen's Assembly  )


----------

