A more detailed prediction of the 2009 election

Here is what I see happening at the moment:

• Liberals - 865 000 votes and 63 seats - 47%
  
• NDP - 680 000 votes and 21 seats -37%
  
• Greens - 235 000 votes and 0 seats - 13%
  
• Others - 60 000 votes and 1 seat

This is based on the new ridings, the trends I can see in polls in the province and the application of the idea of the impact of non voters to the process.

I see the NDP winning seven of their seats by less than 5%, the Liberals 14 and Vicki Huntingdon win hers by less than 5%. This is 22 ridings that are close.

The range I see possible for the parties:

• Liberals - 53 to 69
• NDP - 16 to 31
• Ind - 0 to 1
• Greens - 0 to 1

I see no scope for an NDP win in this election.

What 2005 election would have looked like with the new boundaries

The UBC ESM is working hard to get the data in place to allow us to use their election forecasting tool with the new ridings in BC.

Looking at the results from 2005 transposed to 2009 shows something interesting, the NDP is up four seats and Liberals are only up two. I am not 100% sure about this data yet, there may be some errors, but I do not think there is anything major.

The next version of their voter transition matrix will include the ability to look at non voters in the mix.

So what places had theoretical NDP wins in 2005 with the new boundaries?

• Kamloops North Thompson
• Burnaby North
• Maple Ridge Mission

The Liberals do pick up as well

• Saanich South

I know there should be more "pick ups" for each party, but these are the ones I found for ridings that are largely the same as last time but "changed sides" with redistribution.

An interesting riding is Nanaimo. In 2005 the NDP won 51.9% to 34.0%. With the new boundaries this changes to 45.4% NDP and 42.5% Liberal

What would the NDP have won in 2005 with the new boundaries?

1. Alberni-Pacific Rim

2. Burnaby-Edmonds

3. Burnaby North

4. Cariboo-Chilcotin

5. Cariboo North

6. Columbia River-Revelstoke

7. Coquitlam-Maillardville

8. Cowichan Valley

9. Delta North

10. Equimalt-Royal Roads

11. Fraser-Nicola

12. Juan de Fuca

13. Kamloops-North Thompson

14. Kootenay West

15. Maple Ridge-Mission

16. Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows

17. Nanaimo

18. Nanaimo-North Cowichan

19. Nelson-Creston

20. New Westminster

21. North Coast

22. North Island

23. Port Coquitlam

24. Powell River-Sunshine Coast

25. Skeena

26. Surrey-Fleetwood

27. Surrey-Green Timbers

28. Surrey-Newton

29. Surrey-Whalley

30. Vancouver-Fairview

31. Vancouver-Hastings

32. Vancouver-Kensington

33. Vancouver-Kingsway

34. Vancouver-Mount Pleasant

35. Vancouver-West End

36. Victoria-Beacon Hill

37. Victoria-Swan Lake

Interesting Website

Here is a website for a bunch of economist that disagree with increased government spending at this time. A small sign of rationality and sense in a sea of utter panic.

THE STATEMENT

We economists would like to alert our fellow citizens to the inefficiency involved in increasing public expenditures in order to counter the on-going recession. Under the excuse of a false consensus and the pressure of political considerations, governments ignore the long-term consequences of their interventions.

The massive programs of expenditure and regulation that the federal and Québec government are pushing are essentially meant to satisfy the demands of organized interests.

In the light of economic theory and history, we think that those measures, far from rebooting the economy, will mortgage the taxpayers’ incomes, make producers even more dependent of the state, provide stimulus for protectionism, and set the scene for even worse turmoil in the future.

If their real goal were to promote economic growth, our governments would instead choose to shrink the impediments to investment, work and production, especially by reducing the fiscal and regulatory burden of individuals and businesses.

The Election Gag Law

I am not really happy with this law, as of tomorrow there will be strict limits on what third party groups can spend on the provincial election. I am mainly bothered by any restriction on freedom of speech, even paid freedom of speech.

On the other hand I believe that only those eligible to vote in elections should be allowed to take part in the election. Last time I checked, no businesses or unions or industry lobby groups or environmental groups can vote in the election. It is not the role of these groups to take part as groups in the election. The election is for the citizens of BC and for no one else.

I would stop all non-citizens third party paid advertising during the election campaign but have no restriction on individual citizens.

One implication of my view is that landed immigrants would not be allowed to donate to the election campaigns or work for a candidate. I think that is only right, if someone is not yet a Canadian, or has not yet chosen to become a Canadian, they have no business taking part in the election.

The length of the restriction is too long in my opinion and not restrictive enough on third parties that are not eligible to vote. The law allows a group to spend $150 000 province wide and $3000 in each riding - that is a total of $405 000 total. Ten public sector unions could cooperate and spend $4 000 000. Ten businesses could cooperate and spend $4 000 000. It still remains too easy for non-voters to spend money to influence the election.

Also, if used well and not in a ham-fisted sort of way that the public sector unions have normally done, $405 000 goes a very, very long way, especially with new media. 1.4 million adults in BC have facebook accounts. In 2005 1.762 million people voted. The odds of someone voting in the 2009 election in BC having a facebook account is very, very high. A smart third party campaign would focus on social networking where $405 000 will go incredibly far.

The $405 000 that groups can spend is more than 50% of what will be spent by either side in the referendum campaign. Realistically Yes and No on STV will end up spending around $700 000 each.

So, the restrictions are too broad but at the same time not strict enough.

UBC Election Stockmarket - BC Provincial Election

I highly recommend the UBC Election Stockmarket for the up coming provincial election. The market opens on March 16th. My plan is to be a trader. I had wanted to take part in the federal one, but the things happening in my life did not allow me to take part.

If enough people are taking part in the ESM, it becomes a very good predictor of how the election is going. It can track mood changes must faster than polls manage to. It also does a good job of estimating the seats parties will win.

The site also has a nice election forecasting tool in the voter migration matrix, but the tool does not reflect the work done by Werner Antweiller. Really there should be tracking of the people that did not vote as another 'party' and allow for transition to and from non voters as an option. I think it would better reflect the reality of what happens.

Election Results in Israel

The results are more or less in for the election in Israel and it does not look good.

Big winner of the night is Likud, though this is not the Likud of the past but a more hawkish party than before. They are up to 27 seats, possibly 28, from 12. I have been concerned about Benjamin Netanyahu for years.

Yisrael Beiteinu also did well in the election, going from 11 seats to 15 and are the third largest party in the Knesset. One of their big planks in the election was to require an loyalty oath from all citizens - a measure seemingly aimed at disenfrancising non-Jewish citizens of Israel. While I am not certain they are facists, they certainly seem to be tribalist and economically interventionist, both of which are normally part of facist party platform.

The biggest loser on the night was GIL, a pensioners special interest political party. They surprised everyone in 2006 by winning 7 seats in the Knesset, last night they were shut out.

Labor continues to decline, they went in with 19 seats and have come out with 13.

Kadima has remained roughly where it was before the election. As have Shas and the Arabic parites.

Who can form a government? You need 61 members of the Knesset to form a government. Clearly Likud and Kadima are the leaders of the opposing sides. Labor seems will be willing to continue working with Kadima. Likud seems to be able to rely on the support of Yisrael Beiteinu. This leaves things at Livni with 42 and Netanyahu with 43.

The 13 seats held by Meretz and the Arabic parties are not going to side with Likud, though may not agree to a coalition with Kadima either. If Livni can get Meretz, Balad and Hadash to support her, she is at 52 seats, though I am not convinced this is highly likely. Certainly the pure Arabic parties have never been in government.

The 12 seats held by the three religious parties are more likely to go with Likud and leave their coalition at 55 seats.

It all comes down to Shas. Can Likud bring Shas into a government? Shas was in the Olmert Kadma government but could not come to terms with Livni. Shas has enough seats to make Livni or Netanyahu Prime Minister. Shas is in a strong position to demand a lot of either side to support them in a coalition.

I would lay the blame for the early elections on Shas as they made rather unreasonable demands of Livni to remain in the coalition.

I believe that a Kadima lead government would be of benefit to the region while a Likud lead one would cause more problems. On the other hand, Netanyahu is nationalist enough that he might be able to pull off some sort of settlement with the Palestians without having his political standing destroyed.

Close to 20% of the population of Israel is Arabic, but their role in the politics of the nation has not been as strong as it should be. Only the Druze, who only number about 120 000 in Israel, have managed to have a have a political weight in proportion to their population. Kadima, and Likud before the Kadima split, have had Druze members of the Knesset.

With 20% of the population and a pure list PR electoral system, the Israeli Arabs should be able to have about 20 to 25 members of the Knesset. The best the Arabic Israelis have done is 13. The nationalism or religion is a defining factor in the majority of political parties in Israel. This means that there is little or no space for others to be part of a party.

Long term Israel needs to become a secular state and not allow political parties that are based on religion or ethnic origin. Major parties like Likud, Labor and Kadima need to make sure that there are Arabs on their list, every fifth person. Israel also needs to make sure Arabs are in the civil service at levels equivilant to their part of the population and all Israelis need to serve in the military on the same basis. The exemption from conscription of the Arabs does not build a stronger secular state.

Israel needs to eventually see an Arabic Prime Minister and an Arabic head of state if the country is to transition into a more stable and inclusive secular state. The US elected Obama, BC and Alberta have both had Jewish premiers, these are in signs that externalities such as race and religion are not relevant to governance.

Bute Inlet Power Projects

Plutonic Power is proposing a series of green energy projects in the Bute inlet area. There is a lot being made of these projects by the environmental community. One of their big issues seems to be the the Grizzlies, but they do not seem to be in trouble in that area.

They are not listed under SARA. BC's map of the area shows the bears to be secure and the area seems to have about 260 bears.

The bigger picture is being missed in this case - there is a need and demand for CO2 free power production. Opposition to these developments means increased CO2 emissions. Finally industry is going green in a big way, the paradigm shift so many have wanted and there is opposition to it!!?!?!?!?!

2009 Election - some thoughts

What will be the biggest defining issue of the 2009 election? At this point I have to see it as being the economy for a large segment of the population in BC.

If the economy does remain the big issue, it is the Liberals that will benefit. In general they are seen as being better with economic issues than the NDP.

What will really decide the elections is not people changing who they are voting for, but who comes out to vote. Werner Antweiler has done some interesting work looking at the impact of non-voters on elections. Not everyone votes in every election and it is these occasional voters that are very important to elections. What changed for the NDP from 1996 to 2001 to 2005 is how many of their supporters chose not to vote in 2001. This had a much bigger impact on the NDP vote than anything else. In fact it was also the most important aspect of the Liberal vote as well in these elections.

What this means is that the election will be decided by the people motivated to come out and vote versus those that sit it out this time around. If the economy is the issue, I do not see any strong move from the Liberals to non-voter this time, but I can see a reasonable number of New Democrats voters from 2005 moving to non-voting this time. At the same time the Liberals should regain non-voters from 2005. My estimate of this is that there will be a large gap between the NDP and Liberal votes on election day. A big enough gap to allow for a very large Liberal victory on May 12th. 47% Liberal versus 37% NDP is roughly in the range I estimate the vote to end at.

A lot of the issue campaigning will end up convinving people not to vote because the party they woud support has been tarred as too awful to support. The issues do not look like they will be core to the election, but in pushing people's buttons, it will make them stay home.

Other Issues:
Environment/Climate Change
This issue has fallen dramatically in how important it is for people in BC, there is still a segment out there that sees this as the most important issue. In general, anyone that places green issues at the top is most likely to be supporting the Greens as the NDP has dropped the ball on the issue and most traditionally green people are suspicious of the Liberals.

This is the one biggest source of 2005 NDP voters that are likely to stay home.

Healthcare
People care about this a lot when they are personally pissed off with the system but otherwise have a low grade frustration with the system. The issue will not be swaying many people, but will be voiced by a lot of strong NDP supporters as to why the Liberals are bad.

In honestly do not believe that anyone out there really believes either party would do much better with this issue.

Privatization
Many people on the left that will never vote for the Liberals will bang this drum over and over again. They will convince themselves of their righteous anger but will have very limited impact on the election. It is a bizzare issue since the BC Liberals have actually done very little privatization. Though wierd things are refered to as privatization such as BC Ferries and the building of green private power projects.

Crime
The right side irrational drum beating issue.

Schools
There is a lot of anger out there from the NDP friendlies about this issue, but once you get away from the BCTF are their ilk, there is no strong burning anger out there. The BCTF will bang this drum to very little impact.

The Global Economy

OK, things are looking worse than I had expected. I read the Economist every week and have done so for more than 22 years now. There are few media sources out there that are as even handed and fair as they are. They cover the world every week and cover stories long before the mainstream western world media pays attention. I say all this because they are also the source of the best global snapshot economic statistics going out there. They are never alarmist.

This week they have their data from economist predictions for major countries around the world. This comes out once a month and the February numbers are bad. The predictions for GDP in 2009 are all uniformly down. Every country is down, the best only down by 0.4% points, the worst is Japan at down by 1.8% points.

The only country not predicted to have their economy shrink in 2009 is Australia.

When you look at the longer set of statistics, it looks bad all over. Only about half a dozen countries out of 55 will have a decent GDP growth. Hong Kong is predicted to have GDP shrink by 3%, Taiwan by 3.5%, Singapore by 2.9% and South Korea by 2.8%. These are the crucial developed Asian economies. They are all headed into severe recessions.

Clearly this recession is headed to be a bad one, a very bad one. I am normally a moderate person and take doom and gloom with a grain of salt. I am depressed now.

My concern now is that we are headed towards economic nationalism. This will increase unemployment and poverty in Canada, but not as dramatically as the impact will be on developing countries.

The quickest route to an end to the recession will be to reduce trade barriers and reduce barriers to businesses operating around the world. Clearly we are all suffering because in the US there has been a lack of regulation and oversight over business. In Canada we have good regulation and did not have the problems the US has had, but their downturn is pulling us under. The bad governance of the Bush era is harming us in Canada. Removing trade barriers and getting rid of red tape does not mean getting rid of regulation and oversight.

I am 99% certain that national governments will play to the yelling of the crowds to adopt economic nationalist policies. I am already depressed enough that borrowing a lot of money has been the response of governments everywhere. Governments should be using the time now to drop as many wasteful programs and sell as much as they can. Certainly the governments in Canada have the room to meet all the new program demands if they cut the non core programs.

Learning how to campaign

Too many people that choose to run for office at any level simply do not have the experience and knowledge they need to make the most of their campaign. Running for office is not something you do out of no where and with no concrete knowledge of how to do it. I think it is important for anyone considering running for office in any election to learn about campaigning.

During the municipal elections I met a lot of the candidates running for office. Many of them were very good candidates but a lot of them were simply out of their depths with respect to the campaigning process. To that end, here is a good place for women candidates, or potential candidates, to learn about the process.

Women's Campaign School March 27th-29th 2009 @ SFU Harbour Centre in Vancouver.

BC Ferries Foot Passengers

I am trying to figure out if the number foot passengers on the Tsawwassen - Swartz Bay Run has more foot passengers this year. Anecdotally it looks like there are a lot more than in the past. Anyone know? Drop me a line.

Which party is greener, the BC Liberals or the BC NDP?

The simple reality is that the current Liberal government in Victoria is the greenest government we have seen in BC history. The next best is the Mike Harcourt era of the NDP.

What the Liberals have in their favour:

• Promotion of the development of the greenest power in North America.
• First Carbon Tax in BC
• Biggest investment in transit in BC history
• Making climate change a government priority

What the Liberals have against them:

• An image of being opposed to best environmental practices
• Building more roads - but then every government will do this
  

The simply reality is that the Liberals may have looked like a party that would not be strong on the environment, but they have a proven track record of being ahead of the curve on environmental issues. People on the left and with the environmental movement may hate Gordon Campbell, but there has never been a premier that has done more for the environment. This is as good as it has ever been.

What the NDP has in their favour:

• Strong environmental rhetoric but without detail
  

What the NDP has against them:

• Opposition to carbon taxes
• Opposition to green power production
• Lack of any real plans or ideas to do with the environment
• Ignoring climate change

There is nothing that would convince me that the NDP will actually take any sort of leaderhship on environmental issues. The certainly are not making it the cornerstone of their election platform.

The NDP waffles about the Port Mann, about transit investments, about bio fuels and just about anything. The clearest stance they have taken on the environment is to oppose the carbon tax - the one thing climate scientists are saying governments need to do.


If you disagree, please post your thoughts in the comments. I am interested in a serious debate on this.