2013 British Columbia General Election Thread

[sj-roc]

Hey all,

Yeah....that was umm....the Alberta election replayed.

My riding was a safe NDP seat, so I cast a protest vote for the Conservatives first thing this morning (the was no Green in my riding). I'm kinda glad the Liberals won --but man --if you thought Christie Clark was insufferable before, it is gonna be a shrill four years.

Wouldn't it be nice to have politicians you could happily vote for in BC, as opposed to voting against politicians/parties in election after election?

Voter turnout was really, really low. They're talking about mid 40% range. It looks like 250k fewer people voted in this election than in 2009. Sad. I've never been one for mandatory voter schemes, but I'm starting to think not voting should be a 500 dollar fine, or maybe even steeper. Call it a self-centered tax. Use the money to fight the debt. Lemme see: 1.8 million eligible voters that didn't bother, times 500.oo.....that's just shy of a billion.

Cheers,

James

Most political devotees are familiar with Australia's mandatory voting laws; according to wikipedia the no-show rate is typically around 5% and the fine is about $20.

[South Pender]

As someone who predicted--without my usual caution--a complete wipe-out of the provincial Liberals not two months or so ago (and on this forum), I can't recall a time I've been happier to be wrong. And whether or not you like her, Christy Clark carried the Liberals to victory. She's a terrific politician and deserves the lion's share of the credit for this astounding result. So, I think that that is Point 1: she radiated smarts, passion, and energy, and poor Adrian Dix looked like a dead fish in comparison, radiating no leadership ability and articulating a very fuzzy and ill-conceived platform. (Her own loss is not hard to understand; being leader and traveling all over the province, she was seldom in her own riding and was running against a strong NDP candidate. This is a minor blip. She'll run again in a safe Liberal riding and win.) So whether it should or not, charisma (or whatever you'd like to call it) was a major factor. Point 2: it's about the economy, stupid. Surprisingly, given their really poor poll numbers (like 20% down) about when the writ was dropped, Christy Clark and the Liberals were still able to convince the voters--correctly, in my opinion--that they would do the things necessary to exploit the province's ability to stay more economically healthy than would the NDP. Although the dippers will talk about the need for soul-searching (a cliche used by every party that loses an election; cf. US Republicans since November), it now appears that there were essentially only two things wrong with them in the minds of the voters: (a) their leader and (b) their platform. I suspect that the platform (run the province into the ground economically) will stay (and will continue to cause defeats at the hands of voters who remember the three economically-disastrous NDP regimes of the past), but I wouldn't be surprised to see Dix go.

In following the results on TV last night, I was surprised at how lacking in graciousness the NDP panel members were--particularly the one on the CBC coverage. The losers seem to be harping on two points, as though the populace really prefer them, but they were robbed of victory by (a) low voter turnout and (b) mean attack ads. As for voter turnout, the percentage of eligible voters was 52%. This is actually a 1% increase over 2009. The corresponding percentages of eligible voters actually voting in 2001 and 2005 were 55% and 58% respectively. So yesterday's turnout is not really out of line with that of recent BC elections. Further, although low voter turnout is unfortunate at all times, it cannot be seen as a reason for the NDP's dismal performance. Why would they think that had the turnout been higher, those extra votes would have gone their way?

We're also hearing a lot of talk about mean-spirited attack ads. (See the earlier link to sore loser, Bill Tieleman's piece.) To be honest, I didn't see the ads, but I understand that one theme the Liberals stressed in their ads was the poor financial management of previous NDP governments. Why should this be seen as an "attack ad"? What's wrong with reminding voters that voting the NDP into power is likely to result in serious economic woes not too far down the road? That's been the result of previous NDP governments. It's certainly not wrong to point out the shortcomings of the opposition as part of pointing out why the voters should vote for you. As I mentioned, I didn't see the ads, and if the Liberals crossed the line and got too personal, then that's not good, but merely pointing out that Adrian Dix would be a lousy premier doesn't seem out-of-line to me.

[sj-roc]

We're also hearing a lot of talk about mean-spirited attack ads. (See the earlier link to sore loser, Bill Tieleman's piece.) To be honest, I didn't see the ads, but I understand that one theme the Liberals stressed in their ads was the poor financial management of previous NDP governments. Why should this be seen as an "attack ad"? What's wrong with reminding voters that voting the NDP into power is likely to result in serious economic woes not too far down the road? That's been the result of previous NDP governments. It's certainly not wrong to point out the shortcomings of the opposition as part of pointing out why the voters should vote for you. As I mentioned, I didn't see the ads, and if the Liberals crossed the line and got too personal, then that's not good, but merely pointing out that Adrian Dix would be a lousy premier doesn't seem out-of-line to me.

I think this was one of the more notable "attack ads" from the Liberals, which was released in the last week of the campaign.

[video][/video]

[South Pender]

Just a couple of other points that occurred to me after reading Tieleman's piece. First, the present Liberal Party of BC is closer to the center than was the party under Gordon Campbell. It has, for the last 15 years or more, really been a coalition of Liberal and Conservative members (as Christy Clark alluded to in her victory speech last night). Christy Clark has directed the party closer to the traditional Liberal position in the political spectrum--and this prompted John Cummins to try to provide a far-right alternative, with truly astonishing ineptitude. Tieleman's statement that "Clark's team ran the most right-wing Republican-style campaign Canada has ever seen" is just silly. Second, Tieleman seems to be suggesting that scandal (albeit not of Clark's making) is a Liberal hallmark, apparently conveniently forgetting about the Glen Clark scandals.

[South Pender]

We're also hearing a lot of talk about mean-spirited attack ads. (See the earlier link to sore loser, Bill Tieleman's piece.) To be honest, I didn't see the ads, but I understand that one theme the Liberals stressed in their ads was the poor financial management of previous NDP governments. Why should this be seen as an "attack ad"? What's wrong with reminding voters that voting the NDP into power is likely to result in serious economic woes not too far down the road? That's been the result of previous NDP governments. It's certainly not wrong to point out the shortcomings of the opposition as part of pointing out why the voters should vote for you. As I mentioned, I didn't see the ads, and if the Liberals crossed the line and got too personal, then that's not good, but merely pointing out that Adrian Dix would be a lousy premier doesn't seem out-of-line to me.

I think this was one of the more notable "attack ads" from the Liberals, which was released in the last week of the campaign.

[video][/video]

Thanks for that video. I don't know how I missed all the ads. That one certainly goes after Dix, suggesting that he has no firm platform, vacillating with his perceptions of voters' preferences. Is it the fact that it is done dramatically via a video containing Dix himself that makes it an "attack ad"? What if the Liberals had simply put up an ad without Dix's physical presence in it suggesting that he is a weak leader because he doesn't evince a coherent plan for the future and changes his position in response to what he sees as the popular sentiment? Would that be an "attack ad"? Didn't the NDP attack Christy Clark? Did they do it in a seemingly more "fair-minded" way. So far, I can't see this excuse of "we took the high ground, and they used right-wing attack ads" as being the reason they lost. A lousy platform and fuzzy message seem to be the more likely determinants. Christy Clark and the Liberals had a well-focused message that they stayed with.

[notahomer]

The 'Christy Crunch' ad was a purrfect example of what Dix said his campaign was NOT going to do (and they didn't). To run a successful campaign, IMO, you do have to throw mud (attack ads). Everyone says they hate them but they work and that is why they are run.

Just like the six o'clock news. If there were not lots of stories (all true) about the murders, deaths and wars would it get the ratings it does? Not so sure. I'll even admit, like many people, I'm a plan for the worst, hope for the best type person.

Regardless of whether it was attack/non-attack that won the Liberals the election, what stuns me is how WRONG the polling was. I worked in market research 20 years ago and I'm just stunned how off kilter this polling was. Obviously Alberta election result was not the black swan it was made out to be.

[KnowItAll]

although the libs got 20% more seats, they got only 4.92% more votes. Thats not so much of a surprise considering the trend of the polls leading up to the election.

[sj-roc]

The 'Christy Crunch' ad was a purrfect example of what Dix said his campaign was NOT going to do (and they didn't). To run a successful campaign, IMO, you do have to throw mud (attack ads). Everyone says they hate them but they work and that is why they are run.

Just like the six o'clock news. If there were not lots of stories (all true) about the murders, deaths and wars would it get the ratings it does? Not so sure. I'll even admit, like many people, I'm a plan for the worst, hope for the best type person.

Regardless of whether it was attack/non-attack that won the Liberals the election, what stuns me is how WRONG the polling was. I worked in market research 20 years ago and I'm just stunned how off kilter this polling was. Obviously Alberta election result was not the black swan it was made out to be.

Perhaps the easiest explanation is that the polls were constantly sampling a large part of ~50% of eligible voters who never turn up at the ballot box. I participated in a lengthy anonymous online poll — which was explicitly identified as part of a non-partisan, political science academic research project — that included all sorts of differently worded questions designed to capture people's views in this election. Questions ran the gamut, covering the issues, the parties, the leaders, etc.; others required demographic information. Some questions involved choosing from a list of options, others were more open-ended and required written answers in your own words.

Most germane to my point here, there was also a question asking how likely the respondent was to actually vote — I forget if that one was 1-10 scale or qualitative ranging from def not voting to def voting — but it seems they were trying to get a handle on the views of those who are most likely to vote. It will probably be sometime early next year by the time the results are published — presumably in a paywalled academic journal of the type that can only be accessed at subscribing post-secondary schools — so I'll likely have forgotten about it by then. I'm not really sure where to watch for it anyway but if I do happen to stumble on it I'll try to post it here.

It may not accurately capture the voter mood because this poll was non-scientific — participants were not randomly selected in any fashion, but rather completely voluntary respondents — and it's not certain that a person who has little intention of voting would be truthful about this in an interview, even an anonymous one (although it might be argued that voluntary online poll respondents are perhaps the people most likely to vote anyway).

[Sir Purrcival]

One might wonder if the successful HST referendum factored into the election. Did this opportunity allow voters to take out their frustration on the incumbent Liberals, an opportunity that they would otherwise have been denied until last night? Did the result of the referendum allow things to cool off by the time the election rolled around? Would the NDP have won had there been no referendum and the HST remained through the election as a visible reminder of voter frustration?

Certainly you would think that this might play some role as did the departure of Gordon Campbell, Kevin Falcon and others. In some ways, it seemed like a different Liberal party. In some ways..... I think it is also fair to say that the NDP committed a couple of unforced errors. The vague, non committed semi evasive responses of Dix left people wondering just what the NDP actually planned to do if elected. The flip flop on Kinder Morgan was a massive blunder. To the resource business community, it would be seen as a some of the rhetoric about the NDP coming true. Far better to have stuck to his position of waiting for assessments before making a decision. A very reasonable POV by most standards. The flip was seen as proof of the "secret agenda" that the Liberal ads were pushing. In truth it was more likely an ill conceived attempt to grab some of the Green votes but it drove away some of the non committed voters who were leaning NDP. It is also fair to say that the Green Vote hurt the NDP more than the Liberals. In Coquitlam - Maillardville, Selina Robinson lost by some 100 votes. An NDP riding for the last two terms, one has to wonder how many votes she might have gotten if there had been no Green candidate who took 1600 votes. Same with Port Moody. Joe Trasolini who took the riding in a 2011 by-election lost by 500 votes while the Green Candidate took 1500. Joe was no small potato. A a popular career politician and former Mayor of Port Moody. I don't think he has ever lost and election in 20 odd years of various campaigns. His defeat is nothing short of amazing here in PoMo where he has been king for so many years.

And last but not least, some credit has to go to Christy Clarke. She was much more polished than Mr. Dix. She performed well at countless public appearances and also showed well during the televised debates. In short, she looked confident and sure of herself in comparison to Dix's somewhat tentative, sometimes uncertain portrayal. In short, he did not look strong and she did. It may also be that the "infamous back dated email' may have had more of an impact than appearance might suggest. While it is one thing to be reelected to ones seat after such an event, the role of Premier is another thing altogether. It certainly came up enough and I think did damage Mr. Dix's credibility.

At the end of the day, I guess the voter's anger at and distrust of the Liberals was not enough to overcome the voters apparent mistrust of the NDP and their core philosophies.

[TheLionKing]

Clarke now needs to consolidate her leadership. She need to put her stamp on the party weed out the Campbell loyalists who didn't support her in her leadership bid.

[South Pender]

Clarke now needs to consolidate her leadership. She need to put her stamp on the party weed out the Campbell loyalists who didn't support her in her leadership bid.

I think that the election results and her performance in the campaign have already consolidated her leadership. I don't know that it would be wise for her to punish those who didn't support her initially. Good leaders are gracious and extend the olive branch and win over their former opponents. Christy Clark would be wise to do that; a sign of goodwill would produce great benefits. As premier, she will undoubtedly put her stamp on the party (already quite different from Gordon Campbell's Liberals) and on BC politics and progress over the next 4 1/2 years.

[Toppy Vann]

Pollsters will be getting out the knives for some in their firms now as they were so freaking far of the mark I was suggesting that if Christy won even 30 seats she was owed a pass for all the sins of the LIB gov't and there are many!!! Some LIB friends said 25 max and spoke of 801.

What I honestly hope for - wishful thinking - is that Premier Clark will recognize how they dodged many deserved daggers to the heart and they come back in and clean up their own messes. I am very concerned about the contracts they have committed the province to in future as this adds essentially to what is owed by taxpayers. Can she put a team of good policy people in place to tackle these negatives from BC Hydro that successive gov'ts have milked for years (now milking ICBC policyholders too) to the pipelines. The LNG solution to develop riches for BC by selling to the Chinese using their money for infrastructure is just the kind of deal we need to fear. Not the fear of China per se but how they do business. They set up this stuff all over the world then drop the prices. Australia is a good case in point. I am not anti-China at all but we in Canada can't give away the farm.

We have got to stop these LIBS giving our jobs in BC public institutions to Americans and foreigners from the Aud. Gen to President of Capilano University, BC Ferries and VPs at ICBC. One of my EMBA classmates from SFU was Canada's Auditor General. Mark Carney is now going from Head of Bank of Canada to Bank of England head. We have the talent here in BC and certainly in Canada. We need our people who have talent to take on these roles. They exist. Our BC universities and colleges are second to very few anywhere for teaching and producing talent.

But one caveat. Govt is in BC is just about balancing the books to pay for health and education and taxpayers (younger ones) are being harmed the most as they are struggling to balance their books. Ideally we need now ideas here as well as better jobs for our underemployed kids.

It is plausible that the fear of an NDP landslide helped the LIB cause big time as well as all of sudden Dix not coming out clearly and of course the Kinder Morgan pipeline turnaround was a poor choice. The weather vane ad etc helped too. It is equally plausible the nervous and jerky Adrian was a turn off. I wonder if there was a bit of a sympathy vote for Christy across the province as despite all the LIB failings including her office ethnic scandal she didn't deserve the apparent non-support from her own party. She is a good person in my view.

But the biggest silly move seems to be how Adrian decided to travel LIB stronghold ridings and roll out his platform gradually by doing this in LIB Ministers' ridings - again strongholds except for first minister, Christy Clark.

Instead Dix should have worked ridings like mine - Coq-Burke Mountain where that one was '" too close to call" by all pundits yet the incumbent beat a guy my family voted and Chris Wilson is a very popular community guy and ex SFU wrestler - Chris Wilson. He lost by a decent margin.

I think Adrian who did a very good job as Opposition Leader is going to be a target. As the former AG Alex McDonald said and quoted in Vaugh Palmer's column wher Vaughn referred to the 801 group now comes into play for Adrian. Remember it was not scandal that drove Harcourt out - he did nothing wrong - it was the Glen Clark - Moe Sihota collective that seemed to be behind the leader change.

Who to blame? I guess Adrian Dix who chose to make his policy and platform pronouncements in LIB cabinet ministers ridings as well as stomp all over the interior LIB strongholds. That was silly and dumb. You ignore those areas and focus on the winnables.

But a reminder of a timeless observation from Alex Macdonald, the former NDP attorney-general, on the difference between opponents and enemies.

“In politics,” he once said, “your opponents are on the other side of the legislature. But your enemies are all around you.”

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/Vaughn+Palm ... z2TPyKWEq2

[notahomer]

Dix tried lots of things that just ended up not working results-wise. For e.g. there was a lot of effort to reach out with business. Of course it obviously ended up having no real impact. Dix's last day speed-dating version of campaigning was also out of the norm. Apparently the campaign bus hit lots of stops and Dix was campaigning pretty much upto the opening of polling stations. This sounded so strange, especially since him/NDP were supposedly winning. I don't see this strategy being copied and the reporters on the NDP campaign bus looked EXHAUSTED. And last, but not least, the attempt to steer clear of 'personal' attacks. It is a mark of successful campaigns. Dix tried to not get personal. It would have been EASY to attack due to the 'red light' but he didn't. That is exactly the type of campaign thing you don't want to have to deal with. It was a firestorm for a day/two but then dissappeared (as it should have).

This will make for interesting post-election too. Clark has to get a seat and it HAS to be a safer type riding. How the economy plays out will have some impact on things, I'm sure. For e.g. if the bottom falls out of the LNG, do the Liberals get a free pass on the balanced budget, no debt scenarios?

One other surprising thing, IMO, is the chatter about whether Carol James was the better leader. No, IMO, as she lost two general elections. Usually, IIRC, when a leader loses a general election that is it for them as leader. I don't think James would have 'won' this election whereas Dix fumbled it. Who really knows, I guess. I just don't see James being successful where Dix wasn't. I don't see why a similar campaign with James as NDP leader would not have failed too. IMO, the voters in BC accepted the concept the BC Liberals are the economic choice to run this province and now they will get that chance due to earning it via another majority government.

[South Pender]

I'm willing to bet that Clark loses the by-election, whenever it is called.

Hey James, do you really think that she'd run in a riding in which she could possibly lose? There are lots of completely safe Liberal ridings, some in the greater Vancouver area. Why would the voters in such a riding all of a sudden vote NDP, when yesterday they mostly voted Liberal? In addition, the fact that she was the most significant factor in orchestrating the big Liberal win should make her even more popular in a basically-Liberal riding, shouldn't it?