Author
|
Topic: BC NDP will get whacked in the upcoming May, 2009 election
|
NorthReport
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15337
|
posted 30 October 2008 08:57 PM
which is unfortunate.Unless there is a major change in the NDP's approach to politics in BC that is. The by-elections mean dick, as the opposition always win the by-elections in BC, or at least have for a very long time. And also in spite of the latest interesting research surrounding the drawbacks to the current carbon tax. Carbon Tax Whacks the Poor, Later Three years out, wealthy take smaller hit than low income BCers: study. http://www.thetyee.ca/News/2008/10/30/CarbonTax/?utm_source=daily&utm_me dium=email&utm_campaign=301008
[ 30 October 2008: Message edited by: NorthReport ]
From: From sea to sea to sea | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
TCD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9061
|
posted 30 October 2008 09:29 PM
Hmmm.Here's what I've observed. The BCNDP was sitting about ten points behind in the polls this Spring when Campbell introduced his carbon tax. The NDP opposed it and everyone said they were doomed. They went up in the polls. Then Gregor Robinson quit and everyone said the NDP was doomed because Vancouverites loved the carbon tax and Campbell had superstar candidates for the by-election. They won the by-elections. So why are they doomed now?
From: Toronto | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790
|
posted 30 October 2008 10:07 PM
Carbon tax is coming, and anyone who has a serious grasp of environmental issues, knows that a direct tax on polution is probably the only effective market based mechanism for dealing with the issue. Some people seem to think they can get away with having their cake and eating it too, but the fact is the only ways to actually confront the growing climate change problems are going to have an economic impact, one way or the other.Of course, in a neo-liberal capitalist context this is going to arranged so that it hits the most marginalized first, but if you are serious about the environment the reality is clear. Our present standard of living can not be supported by this planet. Anyone who is trying to make it sound like it can be done, is willful blind or lying. The Federal NDP's support for the "Bait and Switch" environmental program of Carbon Credits, amounted to so much green coloured packaging, and it did nothing for the NDP at all, other give them the opportunity to say they had an "environment plan." Poll results prove this conclusively, since the NDP did not increase it share of the popular vote. People in Vancouver are probably more environmentally concious than the majority Canadians. Greenpeace was founded there for example. One can expect that they are well aware of the superiority of directly taxing poluters as a means curbing the increase of CO2 and the flaws in the Carbon Credits system, so overall, BCNDP will probably benefit in the long run. Cap and trade DID NOT get the Federal NDP an increase in vote share in the last federal election. Therefore there is no reason to be wedded to it. [ 30 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
NorthReport
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15337
|
posted 30 October 2008 10:37 PM
The BC NDP are on the wrong side of the following issues:The environment First Nations Agricultural land reserve Electoral Reform And tell us BC NDPers, what are your plans for the Labour Relations Board the day after you are elected? Campbell and the right wing sure had a plan when they got elected? Does the BC NDP even have a plan?
From: From sea to sea to sea | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 30 October 2008 10:38 PM
An Exhausting War on Emissions Norway's Efforts to Contain Greenhouse Gases Move Forward -- and Backfire quote: In 1991, Norway became one of the first countries in the world to impose a stiff tax on harmful greenhouse gas emissions. Since then, the country's emissions should have dropped. Instead, they have risen by 15%.Although the tax forced Norway's oil and gas sector to become among the greenest in the world, soaring energy prices led to a boom in offshore production, which in turn boosted overall emissions. So did drivers. Norwegians, who already pay nearly $10 a gallon, took the tax in stride, buying more cars and driving them more. And numerous industries won exemptions from the tax, carrying on unchanged.
Variables for fluctuating prices for carbon seem to have been a factor. Even with a tax that has priced carbon for fifteen years at twice the price in EU ETS markets, Norway's CO2 emissions have risen significantly. Federal Liberals should probably compare Canada's energy/fossil fuel exporting economy with that of Norway and not Sweden. Canada is said to produce 2% of global GHG emissions. The USA, our neighbors and largest importer of Canadian fossil fuels, produces somewhere around 22% of global GHG emissions. The Problem: USA(massive consumer of carbon)<<-->>Canada(massive supplier of carbon)
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790
|
posted 30 October 2008 11:06 PM
quote: And numerous industries won exemptions from the tax, carrying on unchanged.
As does "cap and trade". Cap and trade merely sytemitizes the exemptions as a pseudo-commodities market, and shifts the burden to the have-nots in the rest of the world. Does we really need to turn the environment into a commodity in order to save it? In anycase, rather than talking points discussions based in defending "cap and trade" against "carbon tax" you should really be thinking about possible other ways of framing the issue, so that you can create effective means of controlling CO2 emmission, and doing something to shift the burden onto those who most benefit from the expensive luxury lifestyles that a huge amount of our waste products are aimed at sustaining. Hint: Move away from dubious market mechanisms as the primary lever of controlling co2 emissions. Even politically, "cap and trade" really did not do anything for the NDP. Therefore, there is no reason to be wedded to it, nor is it necessarily the case that carbon tax will sell any better, for the reasons it has been pointed out. [ 30 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Centrist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5422
|
posted 30 October 2008 11:21 PM
NorthReport: quote: BC NDP will get whacked in the upcoming May, 2009 elction
I don't get you. During the federal election you were described by someone as an NDP version of Marg Bedore (the NDP cheerleading was a bit excessive and unreasonable), yet you now seem to be the anti-thesis of same here in BC. What gives?
From: BC | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 30 October 2008 11:23 PM
quote: Originally posted by Cueball:
As does "cap and trade". Cap and trade merely sytemitizes the exemptions as a pseudo-commodities market. Does we really need to turn the evironment into a commodity in order to save it?
A carbon tax does exactly that - treats the environment as a secondary benefactor of a tax gimick which may or may not have any positive effect. No one knows, because ~"a carbon tax has never been used before to solve an air pollution problem" - Fred Krupp, Environmental Defense Fund(U.S.), whereas a cap and trade system has been successful in North America to reduce SO2 emissions causing acid rain. The problem is that capitalists and government do not account for the environment or social costs when doing capital budgeting. Marx to Polanyi said that to neglect to do so is very unscientific. We need a full accounting of the economy which necessarily must include the environment as well as what Canadian William Krehm termed the "social lien." quote: .Hint: Move away from dubious market mechanisms as the primary lever of controlling co2 emissions.[ 30 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
A legal cap has nothing to do with free markets and everything to do with placing the onus for enforcing it on democratically-elected governments not Exxon-Imperial and friends of the two old line parties. Ultimately, how effective either carbon tax or cap&trade is to be depends on governments taking a pro-active role for the sake of an improving environment. Canada's CO2 emissions did only one thing with Liberals in power for twelve years, and while neglecting the existing carbon tax in place on home heating fuel, 4%, and gasoline at 10 cents a litre, and that was increase every year the Liberals were in government.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
madmax
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15139
|
posted 31 October 2008 08:42 AM
quote: Carbon tax is coming, and anyone who has a serious grasp of environmental issues, knows that a direct tax on polution is probably the only effective market based mechanism for dealing with the issue.
A hard cap is coming if you want to deal with emmissions. A tax does nothing. The BC NDP will not win or lose the election on their environmental platform. Its the economy..... The NDP will have to convince BC voters that they can be trusted to manage the province finances.
From: Ontario | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ghoris
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4152
|
posted 31 October 2008 09:32 AM
madmax hits the nail on the head. I know it's unpopular to say this among progressives, but the environment is not, and never has been, a 'kitchen table' issue that will swing a lot of votes. Canadians fret about the environment and tell pollsters they're worried about the environment when the economy is doing well and there's nothing else to worry about. I well remember the 'Earth Day' crazes in the mid- to late-80s, when recycling was suddenly in vogue, everyone was terrified of acid rain and the hole in the ozone layer, and suddenly governments couldn't ban CFCs fast enough. Today's "climate change" was the 1980s' "greenhouse effect". Then the 1990s recession hit, and (surprise, surprise) suddenly nobody cared about the environment anymore. When people sit down at their kitchen tables after they've put the kids to bed, they worry about their jobs, taxes, paying the bills, paying for Grandma's medication, paying for university, etc. Those are the kinds of issues that motivate people to vote - not endless estoeric debates about cap-and-trade vs. carbon tax.The plus side of these periodic 'flare-ups' of environmentalism is that they are good for raising general awareness of environmental issues among the public, and often leave at least a bit of a concrete legacy. Thanks to the ozone layer/greenhouse effect discussions of the 1980s, CFCs were banned and municipal curbside recycling programs are the norm. All this is by way of saying - let's not kid ourselves that the NDP is going to stand or fall on its environmental platform in the next election. There is a golden opportunity for the NDP to tarnish Campbell's image as a good economic manager as things continue to go south, but people also need to be convinced that the NDP won't drive the economy into the ditch if elected. Rightly or wrongly, that is the widespread public perception (ie that the NDP are incompetent economic managers) that needs to be overcome.
From: Vancouver | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
keglerdave
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5839
|
posted 01 November 2008 08:05 AM
There are alot of problems within the BCNDP right now. Some are self inflicted, some are as a result of the downturn in the economy, and some are just plain circumstancial. People point to Carole James and are now pulling out the knives and sharpening them up for post May 2009. She's the leader and will be held accountable for what happens on election day, no doubt, but most of what's going to cause the negative results in 2009 are not of her own doing.They are the result of individuals (eg Sue Hammell) pursuing personal ideologies and beliefs at the expense of the greater good, and finding sympathetic ears to listen to them in the backrooms of the party (see provincial office). Let's be honest... the BCNDP doesn't truly represent "labour" any more. If you talk to the average union person in BC, who's not public sector (and believe it or not, they do exist) you will find increasingly that there is a HUGE disconnect between them and the BCNDP, on a wide variety of issues. Perhaps the leaders of their unions (see BCFED)are full pullers for the party (some of them), but the rank and filers themselves... I think that its a fallacy that they blindly vote the way the union tells them too. More and more "union families" are middle to upper middle income earners. And more and more of those people are becoming more and more conservative in their viewpoints. Its not necessarily their fault, because as is apt to happen in society, they sometimes forget where those good wages and benefits come from, and what it took to get them. Strategically, the party is constipated. They let Jim Sinclair lead out ahead of them, time and time and time again. On the economy, on worker's safety issues, on social issues, on just about everything, Sinclair is ahead of the BCNDP in the media. When they were reduced to 2 MLAs, and shafted by Campbell, no doubt Sinclair came along and called himself and the BCFED the "unofficial" opposition, and he is to be congratulated for doing that when it was needed, and helping to rebuild the party to a credible opposition. The problem is however, he never did what other leaders would have done, which was to take the thank yous and the way to gos, and to melt back into the background and allow the party to continue its momentum towards beating Campbell in 2009. The Fed has their issues, like minimum wage and the like, but the BCNDP is MORE than just the BCFED, and to get elected, has to resonate with the general populace, and this includes (hold your ears and close your eyes).... business. Campbell's mistake in 2001 was he went waaayyyy to the right. In 2005 he got smacked for it, but still won. Afterwards, he moved begrugingly somewhat, to the centre again, but has now once again, started that abdication of the centre, to which most voters and citizens actually ascribe to. At the NDP convention in 2007, a special interest group within the party, hijacked that convention, and pushed through an equity mandate, that in all respects DOES NOT resonate with the people of BC. They'll point to Jenn McGinn and say they succeeded. Not necessarily true, though, as it was a by election, and historically, govts of all stripes in BC don't do well at all, not too mention the pitiful turnout numbers etc etc. At that convention there was lip service paid to the economy and how to work with business people on improving all our lives. And in terms of setting up substantive policies that you can go public with and campaign on, most of those were shelved on the agenda to be dealt with at Provincial Council. So for example, while increasing the minimum wage got a long hearing with lots of pro speakers and no con speakers, and passed, the corresponding proposal to cut the small business tax by 1 percent, was not debated, and left to be decided at the Provincial Council. A chance to resonate with a group looking for help and workable solutions.... gone. A chance to work at shedding the view that the BCNDP are anti business, and know nothing except to increase taxes... gone. The equity mandate, all I'll say is that no one truly knows in the BCNDP just how much resources and cash has gone to prop up this thing. But I'll say this, using members money, whether they support or are against the equity mandate to hire organizers specifically for the Joy's List thing, that's highly offputting. Enough said. Some of whats led to where the BCNDP is know isn't of their own doing, however. Campbell scrapping the fall sitting (and having to bring it back, long after the civic elections have passed and just before the "gag law" takes effect) was strategically smart at the time. Why would he subject himself to question period given all the crap he's caused? Before people set their hair on fire, I'm talking straight strategy. Of course its not the honourable thing to do, but strategically less than a year out from an election, it was a way to try and reduce the amount of hits you would take. With the downturn in the economy, the BCNDP absolutely needs to come up with viable solutions, and ideas. And somehow, overcome that perception that when the BCNDP are in power, economic ruin isn't far behind. Can it be done in 7 months? Realistically... no. But what ticks me off is the fact that they had 19 months to do it, not 7. And literally threw the opportunity away. And its truly sad as well. With the right long term strategy and planning, I believe that the BCNDP had a solid chance to form government in 2009. Unfortunately, those planners and strategists for the most part have had their heads up their asses and have screwed over the party. And they're still there. Sad.
From: New Westminster BC | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
keglerdave
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5839
|
posted 01 November 2008 06:44 PM
Jeez Ken, aren't we all supposed to be out supporting and singing about how enlightened we are because we in the BCNDP have an equity mandate? Isn't that what Sue Hammell and Angie Schirra want all the good little NDP'ers to be doing. Let it go already??? I was merely pointing out that the fact that member's dues monies have gone forward to pay for organizers and party hacks to push forward the mandate. Has anyone noticed how bloated the provincial office has become lately? Please don't forget that 50% of what you give to a provincial NDP executive goes straight into the provincial office coffers, and straight into those "strategists" salaries.Everyone's talking like the by elections were some kind of "upset" or unpredicted win. History does not back that up. Not too mention the pitiful turn out for both by elections. Sorry if some of us don't wear rose coloured glasses and think that anything with the provincial ND*P symbol on it is all great and glorious. And what about the Axe The Tax thing? Just what would the BCNDP do if they were in power, with regards to climate change? There's been a deafening silence on what would really happen in that case, other than the talk about cap and trade. How does one in a downward economy, with declining revenue, maintain the tax cuts given by the Campbell Fiberals, while cutting the "carbon tax"? If the answer is that you tax "at source" those costs will be passed down through the line to the consumer, so that's not really the answer. I bet you anything that somewhere deep in the catacombs at BCNDP HQ, there was a plan to introduce a carbon tax and that the BC Fiberals beat the BCNDP to the punch. And now all you're getting from the talking heads at HQ is SPIN SPIN SPIN, while they try and come up with something else. Here's an idea, why not turn the economic strategy planning over to the people who really pull the strings in the BCNDP, Sinclair, Schirra and Hammell. More and more the BCNDP is alienating average BC'ers by pandering to special interest groups, at the expense of those who are truly taking it from 8 years of Campbell mismanagement. If the party is doing so great, how come no comeback to Colleen Hansen's baldfaced lies about how great the Fiberals have been from Day 1. Everyone seems to have forgotten how Gang Campbell there racked up 3 consecutive massive deficits, including 2 record back to back deficits in his first 3 years in office. All the while giving everyone a huge 25% tax break, and then gutting the crap out of complimentary medicine (physio, massage, chiro, homeopathic) and introducing massive increases to MSP premiums, and nickel and diming everyone to death. What took the BCNDP 10 years to do (add 7 billion to the provincial debt) took the Fiberals only 3, not too mention selling off of crown assets etc. Is anyone talking about that??? Nope. Not a single phone call calling Hansen on his bullshit on the open line. We're all sitting here celebrating 2 so called tremendous victories in 2 by elections. Wanting to hear how great a job the party is doing. Up and down the party, its a joke. In my riding, there has been NOTHING done to support the MLA in the last god knows how long. I got involved, and did my best, but quickly realized.. its the BCNDP way. Sit around and wait for some miracle to happen that's going to drop a tonne of cash into your coffers out of nowhere. But then again, when provincial office poaches 50% of what you raise, why go through the effort. And contrary to some of the lurkers around here who like to sit and tsk tsk whenever people like me criticize, I criticize because frankly I AM INVOLVED, I do roll up my sleeves and do the work, and do fight for what I believe in. That gives me the right I believe to present my views and ideas, and arguments as well.
From: New Westminster BC | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TCD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9061
|
posted 01 November 2008 07:01 PM
quote: Originally posted by NorthReport: The BC NDP are on the wrong side of the following issues:The environment First Nations Agricultural land reserve Electoral Reform And tell us BC NDPers, what are your plans for the Labour Relations Board the day after you are elected? Campbell and the right wing sure had a plan when they got elected? Does the BC NDP even have a plan?
Not sure I see the doom and gloom.A recent poll indicates that Carole James is far more trusted on the environment than Campbell - despite her opposition to the carbon tax. I'm not sure what the "wrong side" of the ALR would be given that most people don't know what it is. Etc. I understand that you don't LIKE Carole James but I don't see the argument that she's in trouble holding much water. [ 01 November 2008: Message edited by: TCD ]
From: Toronto | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
madmax
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15139
|
posted 02 November 2008 08:08 AM
Campbell has come out swinging against the NDP. They fully intend to fight this on the economy. quote: Campbell slams NDP, offers more economic measures at Liberal convention 16 hours agoWHISTLER, B.C. — B.C.'s Opposition New Democrats were Premier Gordon Campbell's frequent targets during a 50-minute keynote address to 1,050 delegates at the BC Liberal's biennial convention Saturday. The gathering was held at the posh Chateau Whistler hotel this weekend. Still smarting from two Vancouver byelection losses Wednesday, Campbell made it clear the campaign leading up to the province's May 12 general election is in full swing. "So warn your children, warn your friends!" he counselled. "If the NDP's knockin' on your door, don't answer." Campbell predicted a New Democrat government would take more and more away from ordinary British Columbians.
From: Ontario | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
brookmere
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9693
|
posted 02 November 2008 10:24 AM
The BC economy has been in a bubble driven by inflated house prices and excessive consumer debt since 2001, exactly like the US, and will suffer the same consequences.The problem is that at no time has the NDP ever pointed this out. Has any NDP MLA ever said that BC house prices were too high and that a real estate crash, which is now underway with a speed and ferocity which will make the US bust look tepid, was inevitable? Only Gregor Robertson has even touched on the issue and that was after he had left his seat to run for mayor. Thus Campbell will be able to blame BC's problems on the mess south of the border, when in fact BC is in the same mess for the same reasons. Had the NDP been forthright earlier about the unsustainability of this bubble, at least it could say "we told you so". [ 02 November 2008: Message edited by: brookmere ]
From: BC (sort of) | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138
|
posted 07 November 2008 03:46 PM
quote: The real estate crash which is already under way in BC is not the problem, but the solution to the problem.
Tell that to people who now have negative equity in their homes or people who took out loans based on the value of their houses and are now facing foreclosure. I don't think the NDP will gain very much by expressing joy at a crash in real estate prices that is causing a lot of ordinary working people to get pulled under water by the undertow. That is like saying that you are cheering for an economic depression because higher unemployment and less economic activity will mean less greenhouse gas emissions!
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Aristotleded24
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9327
|
posted 08 November 2008 07:10 PM
quote: Originally posted by Stockholm: Tell that to people who now have negative equity in their homes or people who took out loans based on the value of their houses and are now facing foreclosure.
I think brookmere does make a valid point. While the disruption that a housing market crash will cause isn't something to celebrate, there is a real problem. So many middle-class Canadians have bought into the idea that they can make money by going into real estate. The problem is while housing prices generally go up, nothing is guaranteed. The main reason to buy a house is so you have a place to live, and if you buy a place you intend to inhabit long term (which is the only time it makes sense to buy a house) you should be okay. Put succinctly, a house is a home, not an investment. ETA: Having said that, like you, I'd like to know what, if any, role the provincial government can play in the real estate boom. [ 08 November 2008: Message edited by: Aristotleded24 ]
From: Winnipeg | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|