Mapping the NPA Implosion

Here is much more on the effect of populism, the $100 million loan and the red state/blue state effect on the implosion of the NPA.

In the end, Margot Paris says the NPA must reinvent itself by being more inclusive? That's just nutty. They're a corporate-owned, conservative machine. There's not much more inclusive they can become without merging with the federal Liberals in Vision.

The tragic thing is having to deal with Ken Denike's attitude nuggets for at least 3 more years.

And the sad thing is that it may take a ward system to reliably elect a reasonable number of non-white people to municipal offices. This shows a face of Vancouver that deflates my pride in my home.

loan information

"Ladner appeared to suffer most from the fallout surrounding an alleged $100-million loan the city approved to the developers of the 2010 Olympic Village. The city has yet to confirm the loan"

At the last mayoral debate, Peter Ladner told us that the city had voted to allow up to $100 million, but that the initial amount loaned was $30 million.

http://brentonwalters.blogspot.com/2008/11/loan-oops-forgot-this-tidbit.html

Vancouver 2008... #1

The NPA has been considered Vancouver's "natural governing party" since 1937, with a few exceptions (TEAM during the 1970's, for instance).

Since circa 1980, the only other alternative, COPE, was considered too "left-wing" for the middle-of-the-road swing voter, which typically trended NPA.

Even Harcourt considered COPE too "left-wing" based upon his decision to run as an "independent" during his first mayoral run in 1980 and thereafter.

The 2002 election was a watershed election in that, under Larry "Da Vinci" Campbell, COPE routed the NPA for the first time.

Campbell, now a federal Liberal, eventually became uncomfortable with the left-wing elements within COPE and broke-away with moderates Jim Green, Ray Louie, and Tim Stevenson to form Vision Vancouver, a centre/centre-"left" version of the centre/centre-"right" version of the 1970's TEAM.

That planted the seed for yesterday's victory.

Gregor Robertson is seen to be a moderate, pragmatic, photogenic, small businessman. Those teflon attributes allowed him to take away the swing middle-of-the-road voter from the NPA and those coat-tails assisted VV's council/parks board/school board victories.

VV's board has some federal Liberals and some candidates were federal Liberals/moderate Greens. Even VV councillor George Chow could be considered small "c" conservative with his background as a former director of the Shaughnessy Heights Property Owners Association.

Vision Vancouver attracted a good chunk of federal Liberal Vancouver voters. Had VV not existed, the NPA would likely have prevailed over left-wing COPE.

Vancouver 2008... #2

No polling was released during the election, unlike 2002, to actually show which way the winds were blowing and the magnitude of same.

http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=1665

Only today did I realize what was going on behind the scenes:

http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20081116/BC_bula_olympic_village_081116/20081116/?hub=BritishColumbiaHome

Gregor actually won by a margin of 58% to 42% in a straight race, other minor candidates aside.

More interestingly, SFU poly-sci prof Kennedy Stewart conducted election exit polls, which had some interesting conclusions:

VV's platform to end Vancouver's abysmal "homelessness" problem seems to have swayed the middle-of-the-road voter.

That said, I'm still not impressed with Gregor's statement at the St. Andrew’s Wesley homelessness debate:

The real world might prove to be different. That said, Vancouver city elected council still appears to be of the moderate TEAM version of the 1970's.

Nice to see Gregor wants to

Nice to see Gregor wants to end homelessness. As always the question is how to pay for it. Here is the only democratic answer.

Instead of raising taxes to pay for new housing to end homelessness the city should issue bonds to raise the necessary money. But, the bonds should not be sold through the Municipal Finance Authority. The MFA is a tool of the banking cartel. Instead, the bonds should be bought by the Bank of Canada which is owned by the people of Canada. The repayment terms should be equal to the city's ability without resort to increased taxes. The interest payments should be returned to the city as a dividend, minus a miniscule administrative fee. After all, how difficult can it be to keep track of numbers on a computer screen?

This is the answer. Indeed, all bonds issued by all levels of government should be picked up only by our Bank of Canada and never shopped out to the capital markets. This is public money for public expenditure, this is democracy, this is the end of homelessness. Money is a digit on a computer screen, banking is just a little bookkeeping, finance is dead simple. Take note Mssrs. Robertson, Dembicki, Loy, and Beers.

A couple of items of

A couple of items of interest. Actually, ROBBINS not only polled the Vision Vancouver nomination EXACTLY--we did poll Gregor Robertson ahead of Ladner some weeks ago. We never re-published for the obvious reason that his lead increased. Please note new BC NDP poll vs BC Liberal poll--who called this first--ROBBINS naturally. We enjoy being followed.

We audited the election process in Tri-Cities including Port Moody, Port Coquitlam, and Coquitlam--and attempted to publish on Vancouver Sun website--but it was not permitted by editing (under my personal name).

Port Coquitlam's process was exceptional. There were instructions on voting inside polling stations, inside voting cubicles, and scrutineers reminded voters consistently that you vote for UP TO one mayor--6 city councillors etc.

Coquitlam was a mess. We audited 10 of 25 polling stations and conducted exit polling. In all but one of the ten scrutineers routinely improperly instructed voters they MUST vote for one mayor eight councillors and four school trustees. Sometimes the instruction from one scrutineer to another (sittng side by side) varied between up to eight city councillors and you vote for eight city councillors.

The correct instruction should be--and it ought to be posted everywhere--you MUST make at least one selection for your ballot to be valid and you MAY vote for up to----one mayor, eight city councillors, and four school trustees.

Exit polls indicated many voters believed particularly following the instruction--that they were compelled to vote for 1, 8, 4. Whether purposeful--or simply negligent--this process is entirely flawed and I would suggest helps those candidates with better name recognition-to voters who believe they must choose the whole slate of eight or six as it were.

A very flawed process.

Voting ballots at some polling stations had a sheath to secure the results of the voter's choices while most did not.

Some voters were angry they could not protest with spoiled ballot as machine would not accept too many choices or no choice. Spoiled ballots are accounted for in general federal elections.

A quick note-Dan Rogers (prince george), John Horgan, BC NDP lived two house from one another and I lived about one mile away--we all went to same schools in Saanich BC.

Voter turnout continues to decline

Based on the final figures from the city, 30.8% of registered voters took the trouble to vote. I recall reading that when Larry Campbell and COPE got elected in 2002, almost 51% voted, marking a huge increase over 1999, when about 37% voted.

If civic government is the one that people say matters most to our day-to-day lives, why are people not voting?

Is there some research or polling out there to identify the root of this problem?

Are people feeling too disconnected? My 85 year-old mother-in-law voted, but only for mayor, as she didn't know who any of the candidates or incumbents were.

Its more like its a sad day for the NPA

I'm not surprised at all as Vancouver is a city with heart, miles and of miles of it as they make it their civic duty to help those destitute and in need of shelter by marking their ballot box for Roberton. I don't know about all that money spent on elections as its not necessary to win the race. Its a real problems for the environment and as much as advertisers and alike are convinced politicians need them to get elected its a new age of information sharing and no longer a necessity. If you want to get your message out their just be creative. Folks got on line to check out their various canditates and what they stood for and what they had done in their communities on the various issues to help them decide for one. So no need to spend all those dollars on campaigns as the internet opens up a world of new on line communities changing the race. Its certainly would be better for the environment and gives opportunity for new faces to enter politics without being indebted. I also don't think low rentals are the solution to housing but more the answer to creating community slums. And co ops don't do it either as 10 percent of units only need to be low rental to get funding.

Vancouver Exit Poll...

... A joint effort of the Simon Fraser University Graduate Program, the Think Society and the Vancouver Sun with a sample size of 843.

Interesting Tidbit:

Provincial Party preferences v. Mayoral Preference:

Liberal - 41%
NDP - 40%
Green - 11%
Other - 8%

Robertson Received 78% of NDP supporters, 30% of Liberal supporters, 71% of Green supporters and 48% of "Other" supporters.

Ladner received 67% of Libeal supporters, 17% of NDP supporters, 20% of Green supporters, and 31% of "Other" supporters.

In other words, the provincial Liberals would have won the entire City of Vancouver in this civic election at the same time Robertson won the mayoral race with ~58%.

Pretty funny

The NPA not only lost to Vision, they even lost to COPE.

Good times

egmont rapids...

As for the margin of error, here's the exit poll v. the actual numbers:

Robertson: 55.1% - 54.4% (.7% deviation)
Ladner: 39% - 39.3% (.3% deviation)

Not too shabby.

Don't forget that in 12 of the polling districts on Vancouver's westside, which Ladner won, voter turnout went down over 2005 (typical NDP areas provincially).

In addition, in 10 of the polling districts on Vancouver's north/east side, which Robertson won, voter turnout went up over 2005 (typical Liberal areas provincially).

Compare Vancouver's results to Surrey, the metro's second largest city:

Dianne Watts (Surrey First): 51,423 - 86%
Weisenberger: 8,465 - 14%

Additionally, Watt's Surrey First party captured 6/8 seats, one seat to the right-wing Christian fundy Marvin Hunt, and the lone centre-left SCC seat to Bob Bose.

However, one cannot obviously extrapolate provincial results from municipal results.

That said, the Vancouver exit poll with the provincial party preferences is significant.

Liberal - 41%
NDP - 40%
Green - 11%
Other - 8%

Why? Because the City of Vancouver is where the NDP's strength lies in Metro Vancouver. As noted from the June Mustel poll:

And that's when Mustel had the Liberals leading provincially by 10%. Very interesting indeed.

HOMELESS

It would be nice to see Gregor Robertson make taking care of the winter 2008-09 homeless, which temperature-wise is happening now, his first priority when he assumes his new position. The homeless are freezing this winter as they will every winter to 2015.
I'd like to see Gregor Robertson propose to the (expletives deleted) in Victoria: "Hey guys, you've saved bundles by shutting down all those mental hospital and developmentally disabled beds. How about giving us some of those dollars so that the City of Vancouver can establish some temporary beds until the permanent ones are ready for occupancy?"

one-way ticket

I watched the results on Shaw and was shocked to hear the comments offered the interviewer by Peter Ladner and Lorne Mayencourt. Ladner's comment that "we did not lie or use smear tactics" was bad enough, but then Mayencourt actually accused Robertson of leaking the document!!!!
After some of his other deplorable public performances, isn't it time Mayencourt got a one-way ticket out of our city?

Rogue Pollsters...

From Macleans:

Mustel is in the field this week and will release their results early next week. Historically both Ipsos and Mustel have had similar numbers as well as accurate numbers in terms of actual BC election results.

Change wins Vancouver

Like Barack Robama, Vision Vancouver will be worse flop than NPA. Just look at the change Robama is visiting upon the US electorate (same old insiders and certainly no real changes). When you look how Vision was forced to accept Cope and vise-versa due to NDP/Union pressure. I was at the COPE meetings when the pressure were on. Vision got lots of trouble coming its way. The expenditure of 30 dollar per voters is coming from "somebody" and this somebody will be pushing the "change" strings. The level of arrogance from the Vision/Cope deal is not going to work. It was a forced marriage made in hell.
I am still trying to understand all the hoopla...only 30% of people voted and they call this a landslide?
People that didn't vote explained that the choice was between two evils. Voting for a lesser evil is still voting for evil. Robertson is a charming good looking evil, I guess....Change will happen because the source of expenditure for the city, depends on the ability of the tax base and once the US goes financially/economically postal, Vancouver will be in a mess. Perhaps Vancouver should have a 3/4 month of a youth volunteer corp to work for free and provide services for the homeless/unemployed, laid off workers and their families.

referendun ?

Am I wrong by assuming that the City of Vancouver would need to have a referendum to borrow a hundred million for a project ?
If that's correct, would they not also need a vote to lend it !

VanCity

Wellherewegoagain, give Obama a chance before you gun him down. People get enough gunning these days.
And it is certain that Vancouver has lacked credible leadership, but to link that to US federal politics is banal.
Give the new pretty boy a chance, maybe one day you can vote for someone that is ugly and you will fell better about yourself. People are apathetic on VanCity, they deserve what they get, apathetic leaders that prefer infighting over leadership on a rand scale. Maybe they realize that the machine is so big that it will take a unique person to run and who would bother entering that rat's nest when there are more beneficial places for people of high quality? They know people like you are there to constantly nibble at the heels while they try to do their best for less than they could make elsewhere. Give them a chance first, then chew them up.