The Proportional Representation Referendum, I have no idea how I will vote

This referendum is making feel like I need to choose between losing a leg or losing an eye.   All the outcomes are bad and will not benefit the people of BC.

I have been interested in improving the voting system we have federally, provincially and locally for about 35 years.   At times I was very active in the electoral reform movement - REALLY involved.   In 2004/05 it was the fundamental focus of my life. 

I have looked at the history of voting systems and how they have been used around the world   We have a bad system for our federal and provincial elections but not the worst possible.   In BC our local elections use one of the worst possible ones.

What I want out of a voting system are the following values:

• The results fairly represent public will
• Power sits more with elected representatives than with political parties
• The voting system encourages moderation and cooperation
• We have a clear and stable government that follows through with a program that has majority support from the public

First Past the Post does not manage to reflect any of these values well but two of the proposed alternatives (Mixed Member Proportional and Dual Member Proportional) do no better than First Past the Post and the third (Rural-Urban Proportional) really fails on the first value.

I have a real problem with the two part referendum.   You can vote No and then decide which PR system we should adopt  - people who do not want PR will be able to decide what to change to.    That is just wrong.   We needed a clear choice between two systems fully fleshed out.

What also bothers me about the referendum is that we are being asked to vote for a new system without knowing how that will be implemented.   Mixed Member Proportional is a very complex hybrid system (it is not a real proportional system) but how it is implemented makes some serious differences in how it plays out.   The options could really screw over large parts of the province and effectively leave them without representation.   It also normally means shifting a lot more power to the leadership of political parties from the voters.   The government is saying "trust us to design the details after the referendum.    Of course we will be completely fair and ensure that in no way it benefits the NDP or the Greens.".    I do not trust elected officials to create a voting system that benefits the public or preserving their own high paid job.

As much as I worked my ass off to get PR in 2005 and 2009,. it feels wrong to me to have a vote again on the issue.   I feels unfair given the public decided to go with the status quo even though it was not beneficial for them.    People have a right to vote against their best interest and that decision should be respected.   We really should not be having another referendum on this subject so soon again.

I also really dislike both sides of the campaign.    The Yes side is approaching it as if this is a way to ensure the centre right in BC could never be in government again.   The No side is just using disingenuous fear based arguments and doing nothing to explain how our current system works and what it is OK for the minority to rule over the majority.

How will I vote?  I am not sure.   I am certain for the system I will only vote for Rural-Urban Proportional even though it really badly screws people in rural BC. 

 As to Yes and No.   I want to vote Yes because I have spent more than a generation on the issue but I worry that the system we will get because of it will be worse than what we have.   Voting Yes or No would be so much easier if I knew what a Yes outcome will look like.    It should have been a clear question on two systems.

I may end up voting Yes because of the No side and how they are using Trumpesque type campaign tactics.   I feel like voting No would make me feel complicit in a fundamentally destructive campaign.    But I have to balance that against my fear of getting Mixed Member Proportional, a system I see as corrosive to politics from watching German politics since the late 1970s.

Maybe I will not vote Yes or No and only vote for the system?

Overall I am resigned to a bad outcome no matter how the vote goes. 

I am retiring from active political engagement

I have reached a point where I do not have the passion for politics any longer.   The discourse in politics is one that is negative without facts or ad hominem.  I have put in a lot effort to try stop treating those they are not agreement with as the enemy but I am done.   I have harmed my mental well being and financial well doing this.

For 38 years politics has been a core of the "Bernard von Schulmann" brand.  I have been a part of 54 electoral campaigns and almost never let an election go by without being actively involved, but no longer.   I have made a lot of changes in my life and giving up politics is the next logical thing to do.

I am still going to be active online, my focus will be history and cultural things.  I suspect from time to time I will delve into analyzing some data that could be called political and posting that online but I am not going to be in a political debate or be involved with any campaigns.   I may choose to not vote.

BC Environment Minister George Heyman will not talk about protecting orcas

Women premiers in Canada by time in office and relative political power

I have looked at this a number of times.   A few weeks back we passed nine straight years of at least one woman being a premier in Canada.  

 This is the list by time of the women that have lead governments in Canada

1. Christy Clark      BC      2319 days Liberal
2. Eva Aariak         Nunavut 1827 days non-partisan
3. Kathleen Wynne     Ontario 1755 days Liberal
4. Nellie Cournoyea   NWT     1469 days non-partisan
5. Catherine Callbeck PEI     1353 days Liberal
6. Kathy Dunderdale   NF      1148 days PC
7. Rachel Notley      Alberta  923 days NDP
8. Alison Redford     Alberta  898 days PC
9. Pat Duncan         Yukon    884 days Liberal
10. Pauline Marois     Quebec   581 days Parti Quebecois
11. Rita Johnson       BC       217 days Social Credit
12. Kim Campbell       Federal  132 days PC

Bold=won a general election

Underline=currently in power

Here is the list by person days governed, the number of people multiplied by the days in office.   I do this because I think it is a much better measure of the political impact of each woman

1. Kathleen Wynne     Ont 23,868,000,000 Lib
2. Christy Clark      BC  10,435,500,000 Lib
3. Pauline Marois     Que  4,582,000,000 PQ
4. Rachel Notley      Ab   3,826,760,000 NDP
5. Kim Campbell       Fed  3,786,000,000 PC
6. Alison Redford     Ab   3,273,000,000 PC
7. Rita Johnson       BC     715,500,000 Socred
8. Kathy Dunderdale   NL     590,700,000 PC
9. Catherine Callbeck PEI    149,000,000 Lib
10. Nellie Cournoyea   NWT     92,000,000 na
11. Eva Aariak         Nu      58,300,000 na
12. Pat Duncan         Yk      24,800,000 Lib

When I first looked at this in 2011 Kim Campbell was way up on this list representing more than 70% of the person days on the list.   Now she only represents just over 7% of the person days.  Kathleen Wynne dominates with 45.5% of the person days.

Since 2010 we have moved in Canada from women being only a small footnote in political leadership to a normal and ongoing part.

I also looked at this on:

• November 23rd 2015
• January 22nd 2015
• October 1st 2013
• February 25th 2013
•  January 2nd 2013
• June 14th 2011

Where things go now in BC

We are in a unique situation in Canadian political history.   There are only a couple of examples I know of where the government was reduced to a large minority or a bare majority.

• Ontario 1985 - the PCs won 52 seats, the Liberals 48 and NDP 25.   The Liberals and NDP cut a deal and replaced the PC government after it was defeated on a vote of non-confidence.  With the change in government the Liberals provided the speaker and the PC speaker resigned.
• Saskatchwan 1999 - NDP won 29 seats, the Sask Party 25 and Liberals 4.  The NDP government continued in a coalition with the Liberals with a Liberal being the speaker.
• New Brunswick 2003 - PCs 28, Liberals 26 and NDP 1.   With the speaker the numbers were tied in the house but the Liberals decided to let the the PC government continue to rule.
• Ontario 2011 the Liberals won 53, PCs 37 and NDP 17.   A PC member almost ran to be speaker until it was pointed out to him this would allow the Liberals to govern as if they had a majority.  The government lasted 32 months as a typical minority.

Only in the Ontario situation, where the opposition clearly had many more seats than the government, did the government change.   Interestingly in 1975 the Ontario PCs were reelected with a minority but the Liberals and NDP could not come to a deal to replace the government.

We had our election on May 9th but did not have the final results until May 24th which is the day I am starting on.

May 24th - election results are completed
May 25th to May 28th the Greens negotiate on who they will support
May 29th - NDP announces they have come to an agreement with the Greens
May 30th - 1:30 pm Christy Clark addressed the province and said she would meet the legislature in June
May 30th - 2:00 NDP and Greens sign their deal - this is many ways is the functional end of the 2017 election

June 22nd - Legislature returns and Throne Speech is read.   Is this a reasonable time to meet the legislature?  I would argue yes.   We are only talking just over three weeks between the end of the election process and the Throne Speech.  In Canadian terms this is relatively fast.   It is only a few days longer than it took in Ontario in 1985.

When will we get a vote of confidence in the government?   If every member spoke as long as they were allowed the vote would take place on July 5th or 6th.   The soonest the vote could happen is on the afternoon of June 29th.

Let us say the vote is on June 29th and the government is defeated.   Christy Clark would then resign and the Lieutenant Governor can call on John Horgan to try and form a government.   Horgan would most likely be sworn in on Friday July 7th.  

John Horgan said he would meet the legislature within a month of being sworn in which would be most likely Tuesday August 8th with a vote on August 16th or 17th on confidence in the government.   This would be the first vote of the NDP speaker to keep the government in power - yes, it will be an NDP Speaker.   The house will be tied 43 to 43 with the speaker as the 87th member.

The Speaker of the House votes only if there is a tie.  They vote for confidence in the government but against any new laws or amendment of the laws.    This is not only the convention but is alluded to in the law in Section 43 of the BC Constitution.

The problem at this point is how does the NDP manage to pass any laws when the house is tied?   The conventions that guide how the speaker votes is not one that works well for a new government trying to do anything.   Unless the Liberals agree, the NDP would not be able to pass any laws or even change the standing orders of the Legislature.

I assume the NDP would try to bring forward a budget in mid to late August.   What this budget would look like on final reading is very much in question.   During the committee stage, the point at which any bill is considered clause by clause, the Speaker does not take part and the government provides a chair who does not vote.    This means during the committee stage the NDP would have 39 votes, the Greens 3 and Liberals 43.   The Liberals would have a majority and could amend the bills as they like.   This means the Liberals could alter the NDP budget, though there are limits within the standing orders to how far the changes can go.

When the bill comes out of the committee stage in an amended form, this is what now goes forward to the 3rd and final reading.   The NDP does not have the votes to amend the bill at this point.   The NDP would have to pass a budget as amended by the Liberals even if the Liberals voted against it because the budget is a confidence motion.   Based on the NDP/Green agreement the Greens would expected to vote for the amended budget as well.

The NDP could withdraw their budget after the committee stage but this is not a good way to go.  Interim supply would only last for three months after the NDP government is sworn in.   They would have to pass a budget by early October or go to an election.

This all applies for any government bill.   $10 a day childcare?   Liberals can amend it at the committee stage.   Changes to the voting system?  Liberals could alter at committee stage.   Political donations?   Liberals could change to a form they would like to see.    Everything depends on the Liberals if it comes to the legislature.

The NDP budget is likely to be passed in mid September with some amendments from the Liberals.  Once it passes I expect the NDP to end the sitting of the house and not resume till February.   There is no reason the NDP would want to have the legislature sit more than the minimum.   I have to wonder how well the NDP/Green agreement would fare over the five winter months when the NDP is governing but the legislature is not sitting.

The NDP would bring forward a budget in February 2018.   I think this budget will be defeated because the NDP wants a new election to try and get a majority.  We will most likely have an election in late March 2018.

John Horgan is not going to be willing to govern for any length of time having to cooperate with the Liberals all the time in the house.    He will not be able to implement his political agenda.

A few things to look out for if/when the NDP is government:

• Problems with some NDP cabinet ministers - a new government has teething pains in their first year, normally you have four years in power to the teething pains are long gone
• Liberal and Green cooperation to amend government acts in the legislature 
• A possible serious fillibuster by the Liberals at some point
• More discord between the NDP and Greens
• Anger by people that the government is defacto governing by Orders in Council
• Loud opposition to the actions of the NDP government from business interests and from construction unions
• Discontent from the public sector labour movement because the government will not deliver anything close to what they are seeking
• A possible Liberal leadership race over the winter with a new leader by February 2018.   Christy Clark would not resign her seat
• Death of any Liberal MLAs.   If a Liberal MLA were to die the NDP has a six month window in which to govern 43 to 42 before a by-election is held.   I would expect the legislature to be recalled rather quickly after the death of a Liberal to pass as much of their program as they can.  Ralph Sultan is 84 years old though a very fit 84 year old.
• Death of any NDP MLAs.   This gets really tricky if it were to happen because now the NDP and Greens would not have a majority even with the speaker.   If the death happens while the legislature is sitting the Liberals could easily pass a non confidence motion.

2016 Census Numbers

Prov/Terr      2016      2011      Pct  Pop per MP
Ontario     13,448,494 12,851,821  4.6%  111,145
Quebec       8,164,361  7,903,001  3.3%  104,671
BC           4,648,055  4,400,057  5.6%  110,668
Alberta      4,067,175  3,645,257 11.6%  119,623
Manitoba     1,278,235  1,208,268  5.8%   91,303
Saskatchewan 1,098,352  1,033,381  6.3%   78,454
Nova Scotia    923,598    921,727  0.2%   83,963
Van Isle       799,400    759,366  5.3%  114,200   
New Brunswick  747,101    751,171 -0.5%   74,710
Newfoundland   519,716    514,536  1.0%   74,245
PEI            142,907    140,204  1.9%   35,727
NWT             41,786     41,462  0.8%   41,786
Nunavut         35,944     31,906 12.7%   35,944
Yukon           35,874     33,897  5.8%   35,874

BC and Alberta need more MPs because as smaller provinces they should not have worse representation that larger provinces.   BC needs 3 more MPs and Alberta 5 more.   To put Nova Scotia in their right place in the list they should have one more MP

New BC program for first time house buyers is a very good policy decision.

I firmly am convinced that the new BC government for first time house buyers is very good for BC economically and the single best thing that can be done for millennials

Last week the BC government announced a program for first time house buyers in BC in which they can get a no interest matching loan to cover up to 5% or $37,500 of price of the house as a down payment.   I personally think the program is an interesting way to make house ownership an option for millennials.   People opposed to the BC Liberals have come up with a number of reasons this program is a bad idea but I am not convinced of any of them.    

News Release

A major problem in buying the first house at the moment is coming up with the 10% down payment.   Saving the money to manage to get to $50,000 down payment for a $500,000 house will take a young couple a long time because there is not a lot of spare money around to save at that point in their lives.   If they can put aside $5,000 a year it will take them 10 years to get a down payment together.  It is long enough to discourage people from ever trying to get in the housing market, ten years at age 28 is longer than the adult life they have lived.  The government no interest loan changes the money you need to save from $50,000 to $25,000 and that time frame drops to five years.   A five year time frame is one that people can think about in their 20s.

Repayment of the loan starts in five years at which point in almost all cases the ability to cover the repayment is much more manageable, that $25,000 becomes a $104 a month payment.   Remember there has been no interest on this loan but the value of the house has probably risen*.

The program limits support for houses priced up to $750,000 but that is much too expensive for almost all first time house buyers to afford.  A much more realistic price is $500,000 which means a monthly mortgage payment of about $2300 with a 10% down payment.   Most people making use of this program will be using a lot less than the maximum they are in theory allowed to access.  

In the Lower Mainland this means almost all the purchases will be of condos and townhomes and this is a part of the Metro Vancouver real estate market that has not risen unsustainably over the last 18 months.

Making it possible for a lot of younger people to buy houses is good for the BC economy.  A crash in the Metro Vancouver real estate market would cause a major recession in the province.  We need the market to cool and come down but if it falls too fast the whole economy goes down.  .Well timing government intervention like this program should be able to soften or even stop a recession caused by the crash of house prices.   The fall of house prices in the US were the primary reason for the Great Recession.

All residential real estate markets need a constant and steady influx of first time 30 year olds buying.  This has not been happening in Metro Vancouver or Greater Victoria.  Saving the down payment takes too long.   This program will in the short term speed up the decision for many to enter the market.   These new buyers replace people downsizing, moving away or dying..   If the people leaving the market are not replaced there will be to many houses on the market and not enough buyers.   It may sound insane to many people at the moment but the market in Vancouver is already showing signs of not enough first time house buyers.

The biggest complaint I have heard is that the influx of new buyers could be inflationary but in this case that is not likely happen because the market is teetering on a rapid decline,  The short term large influx of new buyers will cushion the market for the next year or two and help stave off a recession.

As a program it actually costs the government very little.   The only cost is administration and the interest lost.   This program will not require new government taxation to pay for it.   This is not a grant but a loan and secured against the house, there is almost no capital risk to the government.    It is a clever way to turn a small cost to government into a huge economic benefit.

 The timing of the program is close to prefect for the larger macro economic needs.

For the millennials, this is a chance to do what previous generations have done and have a significant capital asset.   Delaying getting into the housing market from about 30 to close to 40 will create a whole generation of people who do not have access to the financial resources other generations have had.   Borrowing against the value of a home has many important roles in people's lives.

An example, most people that start up a new business at age around 40 use their primary residence as the security to get the financing they need.  If many fewer people have houses they own there are many fewer people that can be entrepreneurs, we can not afford that as a society.

Another example, a house functions as a family social safety net.   It provides a source of financial resources if things go wrong.   For many families it is a effectively an insurance policy against the unknown.

House ownership creates a stronger middle class.   Everyone talks about supporting the middle class, this program will help large numbers of people aged 25 to 40 get into the middle class.   I know people this age that had resigned themselves to never being able to own a house that are now calculating when they could buy with this program.   It works well for my kids because over the next five to fifteen years they will start to own houses and this is not something anyone expected`

This program is one of the only serious government programs that moves wealth from the older generations to the millennials.   Simple generational fairness alone should be a reason to support this program.

From the political side this is a very smart move the government.   The single big target demographic in this coming election are the millennials.  Trudeau won the federal election only because of them and no knows how they will act in the BC election,  I think this policy will move a large number of them over to supporting the government.  What is good for a winning election does not have to be at odds with good policy.

All in all I think this is program is not only a very good idea but it truly bold and innovative   I do not expect it to be perfect but it can be altered as glitches are seen.  I can not think of the last time government has decided to start this large a new program

* I bought a house at age 33 and in the next seven years it lost 55% of its value.  At 51 I am unlikely to ever own a house again

Will the surplus from balanced budgets become a central 2017 election is...

Disagreeing with someone in politics does not mean you need to hate them

Leadnow is using Trump to fundraise

These are two fundraising emails from Leadnow:

Dear Bernard,

Donald Trump was elected President of the Unites States of America last night.
It’s hard to find the words to express how many of us are feeling today: sadness, anger, rage, frustration, fear.Fear about what Trump’s election means for the world. Fear for our friends down south - especially the minority communities whose dignity, rights, and safety are threatened the most. Fear about the worst parts of Trump’s politics getting a mandate from the most powerful country in the world.
If you’re feeling that way too, you’re not alone.
The Brexit vote and Trump’s election both call on us to take a long, hard look at the institutions that are failing so many people. When we look, we can see a hunger for change in the face of uncaring elites. We can also see loud voices stoking racism for crass political gain. These same currents are getting stronger in Canada. This morning one of the most high profile Conservative leadership contenders sent an email congratulating Trump and committing to “bring his message to Canada.”¹ We’ll talk about that more in the coming days.
For now, the point is that politics is changing around the world, but Trump’s politics aren’t the change that most of us hope for. He will keep doing what he always does: lie constantly, attack entire communities, and break important promises.
There is another kind of politics that is growing around the world: a politics that sees the crises we face, and places its faith in the collective action of many people, not the strong arm tactics of one man.
Trump’s election means new fears and new uncertainties that can only be countered by reaching out, digging deep, and finding new hope.
Today we feel hope when we think about you - all of the times members of the Leadnow community have shown up together, dreamed together, and fought together to turn our shared values into a lived reality for families and communities from coast to coast to coast.
We don’t need to have all the answers today. Today is a day to process how we’re feeling, and find people to connect with. In the next few days we’ll reach out with next steps to counter the worst parts of Trumps politics before they get stronger in Canada.
As one of our American friends has said: "We are going to fight. We are going to get through this, come what may. Today we despair, tomorrow we organize.”
With hope and respect,
Brittany, on behalf of the Leadnow.ca team
Sources:

1. Kellie Leitch latches on to trump’s victory, http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/kellie-leitch-latches-on-to-trump-victory/

This is the second one

 Dear Bernard,Here’s our take on Trump: he’s a dangerous fraud who is going to betray the people who voted for him, while stoking racism and hurting minorities. Do you agree? Disagree? And what do you think we should do about a powerful politician who wants to bring his tactics to Canada?Civil rights groups in the US are reporting a surge in racist acts since Trump’s election - graffiti, vandalism, street harassment and intimidation inspired by Trump’s race-baiting tactics.[1]We’ve seen this story before: cynical politicians position themselves as outsiders to tap into people’s legitimate economic insecurity and then point the finger at elites and minorities. You can already see that Trump’s being insincere about taking on elites. He’s appointed the head of the establishment Republicans to be his chief of staff in Washington.[2] But while Trump won’t really take on elites, he will do real harm to minority groups.Unfortunately, these ugly trends don’t stop at the border. Earlier today a man was filmed saying “Go Trump!” while hurling racist insults at another man on a Toronto streetcar, and a woman who runs a Jewish prayer centre in Ottawa woke up to find a swastika spray-painted on the front door of her home. [3-4]It’s going to get worse: Conservative leadership candidate Kellie Leitch is promising to use the same race-baiting tactics that defined Trump’s campaign. Now, Leitch is pulling ahead in the Conservative leadership race.[5]What do you think? We want to know what you think about Trump’s election, and if you think Leadnow should stand up to Kellie Leitch’s race-baiting tactics. Will you take our 2-minute survey?Take the survey nowIn the last week we’ve received hundreds of emails from Leadnow members sharing their feelings about the election. Many of you are feeling sadness, anger, rage, frustration, and fear, and we want you to know you’re not alone. The Brexit vote in the UK, and now Trump’s election, both call on us to take a long, hard look at the institutions that are clearly failing so many people. Around the world, people have had enough of the status quo. When we look, we can see a real hunger for change in the face of uncaring elites. But we can also see loud voices stoking racism for crass political gain.We need to come together, and decide what’s next. Time and again, we’ve seen that US politics influences the political debate here in Canada -- and we’re seeing it again now, with Kellie Leitch’s Trump-style race-baiting in the Conservative leadership contest.Let us know what you think about the US election, and how Leadnow should respond to Trump-style politics in Canada.http://www.surveygizmo.com/s3/3181588/Your-feelings-about-the-U-S-election-and-what-s-next?email=snassillahie@gmail.comWe’re in this together,Jolan, Britt, Jamie, Matthew and Amara on behalf of the entire Leadnow.ca team[1] Racist incidents are up since Donal Trumps election (Time). http://time.com/4569129/racist-anti-semitic-incidents-donald-trump/[2] Donal Trump picks Reince Priebus as Chief of Staff and Stephen Bannon and Strategiest (New York Times). http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/14/us/politics/reince-priebus-chief-of-staff-donald-trump.html[3] Ottawa woman wakes up to find anti-Semetic graffiti spray-painted on her home (CBC). http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/rabbi-ottawa-racist-graffiti-1.3851350[4] Video shows man hurling racist insults, threats on Toronto streetcar (CBC). http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/toronto-streetcar-incident-1.3851108 [5] “Throwing out the elites”: Why Donald Trump’s victory could upend the Conservative leadership race (National Post). http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/trumps-message-of-throwing-out-the-elites-needs-to-be-delivered-in-canada-says-kellie-leitch

Confessions of a Failed Election Prognosticator

PEI had a Plebiscite on Electoral Reform but will anything happen?

Yes I was at the BC Liberal Convention - it was well run and good for me to be there

I am back with the BC Liberals again.  I joined them the first time in late 1999 when a friend ask me to run his nomination campaign in the Yale Lillooet riding.   I went to the 2016 convention and I have a number of personal and political observations.

The Political

• This convention was bigger than past BC Liberal ones I went to
• The age of the people at the convention was much younger than I had expected.   At 51 I often still feel young at political events.   At the BC Liberal convention I felt old for the first time.   The representation of millennials was significant
• This is not Gordon Campbell's Liberals.  In the past no serious man would have gone to the convention in anything but a suit.   I arrived in a suit on Friday and I felt overdressed   It was also a much more grass roots feeling event than in the past.   
• The Liberals are better organized than I have ever seen them, frankly better organized than any BC party I have ever seen.   The convention theme was "Team" and it was very much how the event felt.
• The convention was very well organized and the details well though out
• The convention was a very positive event.   People were happy and even energetic.   
• I have never seen as many or as well attended hospitality suites as I did on Friday night

  The Personal

• As you may or may not know I am suffering from severe clinical depression.  And I went to the convention with some anxiety about how I would do because I tend to dislike crowds of people when I do not know a lot of them.   I did not need to worry.
• In general the event was very welcoming for me.  Within in 10 minutes of being there I had run into five people I had not seen in years.   Over the weekend connected with a lot more people than I had expected.
• The very positive atmosphere at the event was very good for me.   No one was talking negatively around me and that helped my mood.  It made me realize I need to not engage with negativity when it comes to politics and simply ignore the angry people online
• The most important thing for me was that I got a lot of positive validation from the people at the convention.   I had a number of people that I really did not know come up to me and ask me how I was doing, how was the depression, how was I after the fire at the old house and more.   I several MLAs and one MP seek me out to meet me in person.  
• Once again dissenting opinions are ok with the BC Liberals if you are expressing yourself rationally   I liked that I could talk to people I disagreed with on issues and feel like we could both hear it each other and find points of commonality

Some Ranking of the Conservative Leadership Candidates

There are 12 candidates formally in the race and three more declared, a huge field,  A number of people I know are concerned about Kellie Leitch and considering joining the Conservatives to stop her becoming leader.

To help understand the race I quickly did some ranking of the candidates.

Ranking by relative strength of campaign -  remember this is just my approximation

1. Kellie Leitch - leading in the polls and has raised the most money
2. Maxime Bernier - has a strong grassroots organization and is the only real libertarian the race
3. Andrew Scheer - has the backing of the most MPs
4. Lisa Raitt - strongest 2nd tier candidate or weakest 1st tier candidae
5. Erin O'Toole - personable but limited experience in politics
6. Steven Blaney - not personally popular
7. Michael Chong - if he catches on with non Conservative members and they join the party support him he could do well.  He is not all that popular with many Conservatives
8. Chris Alexander - a boringly alright MP
9. Andrew Saxton - MP from BC.  I am not sure why he is running
10. Deepak Obhrai - his heart is not in it and really wants Peter McKay to run
11. Brad Trost - MP going for the very social conservative vote
12. Dan Lindsay - no idew why he is running
13. Adrienne Snow - has not yet filed
14. Pierre Lemieux - has not yet filed
15. Rick Peterson - has not yet filed - lost the BC Conservative leadership to Dan Brooks which says he can not organize at all

Ranked from most social conservative to least

1. Pierre Lemieux -  strongly anti abortion
2. Brad Trost - strongly anti-abortion
3. Adrienne Snow - a pragmatic social conservative
4. Kellie Leitch 
5. Steven Blaney
6. Rick Peterson - mainly based on an anit immigrant stance but I suspect he is pandering
7. Andrew Scheer - middle of the pack because I have no idea where he stands on the issues
8. Dan Lindsay - middle of the pack because I have no idea where he stands on the issues
9. Andrew Saxton  - middle of the pack because I have no idea where he stands on the issues
10. Erin O'Toole
11. Chris Alexander - supports settlement of First Nation treaties and increased immigration but was part the barbaric cultural practices stuff
12. Lisa Raitt
13. Deepak Obhrai - supports more immigrants
14. Michael Chong - supports reform to how parliament works
15. Maxime Bernier - libertarian

I would rank them on the environment but only Chong seems to have any green creds of any sort.   I am not certain but I think Maxime Bernier, Lisa Raitt  Erin O'Toole and Chris Alexander would not be actively trying to harm the environment.

Here are the candidates someone that is not a conservative might be able to back ordered from best to worst

Michael Chong

Lisa Raitt

Maxime Bernier

Chris Alexander

Deepak Obhai

Has the World Ended? No, but the Potential For Shitty Times is High

Trump won and for a host of reasons this is not going to be good

Canada and Trump
From Canada's perspective the single big issue is "what will be do with NAFTA?"  More NAFTA trade is between Canada and the US than the US and Mexico.   I suspect to Trump NAFTA only means Mexico.   I am not sure what he thinks needs fixing but from how he has talked.  Do not forget that NAFTA can be cancelled with six month notice.

Loss of NAFTA would be devasting to Canada because trade is so important to our country.  Canada's economy grows by around $40,000,000,000 per year in a typical year.   The loss of free access to the American market would likely be in the range of $75,000,000,000 to $150,000,000,000.in exports.   If it is anything like this scale it would mean the most severe recession Canada has seen in close to 90 years.   Many Canadian companies would have to shut up shop.  Anyone wanting to import machinery to make things would see their costs rise.

If the Canadian part of NAFTA survives, something that may become an issue is that becuase of CETA it makes sense for European companies to base themselves in Canada so they get access to the US market.  At the same time many US companies could move to Canada to be able to get better access to the EU, and in the case of some business leaders to get out of the US.   If Trump and crowd get what CETA means something will be done to harm the benefits to Canada.

Whatever happens with NAFTA I suspect that there will be no deal for softwood lumber unless Canada agrees to utterly surrender to the US.

The next thing that impacts Canada is the US dollar.    Canada really thrives where there is along term stability between the two dollars.  The purchasing power of the Canadian dollar is about 80 cents American.   If their dollar drops Canada becomes noncompetitive - the film and television business would be hard hit by that.   If the US dollar rises our food costs will go up as will the costs of things like phones, computers and other equipment.

Ultimately I suspect Trump has not thought about Canada at all and the one thing that will benefit is that Trump is awe of celeberties and Justin is currently the only celebrity political leader in the world.

Within the US
Within the US the first and foremost problem comes from the relationship between Trump and Congress.   Yes they are both GOP controlled but the agenda's are different.   A number of points in Trump's plan go counter to what the GOP Congress wants.  At his heart Trump is not a conservative.   He has a lot less political capital with Congress than a new president normally has.   There are high expectations that Congress will do as Trump asks, I am skeptical of that happening.

Trump is well known for holding grudges.   He is not going to let the slights against him in the election go, he is going to seek ways to exact his revenge against people.   He will end up diminishing the presidency through personal vindictive agendas.

This brings up the press and Trump.   He does not have the skills to communicate with the press and as president should be treating them differently than he did during the campaign but if he does not the media will spend years looking into him in more detail.   He will lose control over the narrative.   He will likely flip out without just cause.  He will become an embarrassment.

The budget - I honestly think he is going to try and pass of any responsibility for it to someone else.  Within his plan he is calling for tax cuts while at the same significantly increasing spending on the military.   This is not a way to balance the budget and will only lead to higher deficits.  It also becomes a political nightmare for the GOP because it will be 100% under their control.

Obamacare is gone but no plans for what will replace it and Trump says he wants to replace it   The easiest and most affordable model is the Canadian one but that is going way too far for the GOP.  Also last time I checked the GOP wants there to be nothing at all.

Trump and the World
I honestly can not tell you what Trump will do and during the election he made it clear over and over again that he knew nothing about the issue and had no ideas at all.  All he has made clear is that he has an irrational fear of people that are Islamic and that he wants to destroy ISIS.

How do you destroy ISIS?  It would take a dramatic increase in US military intervention.   Think Iraq on steroids

I worry how he will interact with Putin because I worry he may need to prove himself tough.  It may sound crazy, but Trump puts nuking Moscow on the table

Iran - I have no idea what he will do
Isreal - maybe he will stand with the country?   He sort of said so
NATO - the alliance is more important than ever before because of the threat of Russia towards NATO members.   He wants more military spending by NATO partners.  In the case of Canada he would expect the country to go from $18.6 billion in military spending to $46 billion per year.
China - I see a trade war coming and that could plunge the global economy into a recession

Trump as a Social Conservative
One big reason social conservatives voted for Trump is because of the US Supreme Court.    Ttump is not a religous man and has never shown himself to engaged in the US culture wars.  Sure he will appoint a conservative to the Supreme Court but whoever he appoints will not be as awful and fundamentally incompetent as Scalia.

As it comes out he is not a social conservative he will lose support on the right in the US and feel betrayed by them.   A cornered Trump lashes out unpredictably.

Victory for the Elites
Trump's win was a win for the political elite in Washington and Wall Street.   There is nothing in his plans or the statements from the GOP that will actually improve things for the average American.   Not a single thing they have talked about will add jobs.

Trump as a person has always tried to only hang out with the elites of society.  He has gone out of his way to court celebrities and powerful people while at the same time not blinking for a second as he destroys honest small business people

All the names floated for the Trump cabinet are multi-millionaire Washington insiders.  Even worse, the people being suggested for cabinet are either unqualified, deeply flawed, mean spirited, or vindictive - in most cases almost all of it applies.  We are looking at an insider cabinet that does not care for the people in the United States

A Confusing NDP Photo

This picture came out yesterday from the NDP to show the party's position on the environment and the economy after some confusing comments from John Horgan about the Kinder Morgan pipeline on Tuesday.

The wording is odd because of how it can be read:

A strong economy means a healthy environment

The way I read the words is that if we have a strong economy we will have a healthy environment.   To me this is the most logical reading of the sentence.

Replace healthy environment with more income or early retirement and read the statement again.   As soon as you do that, it becomes clear the second phrase is intended to derived form or caused by the first.

I am certain this is not what the NDP intended because I asked some of them.   The NDP was trying to saying a strong economy comes from a healthy environment, which ultimately does not have to be true.

The NDP already has a problem with ambiguity because they are refusing to give the public any sense of how they would govern and what their priorities are for the province.   Releasing this ambiguous photo does not help people come to clarity on the NDP

I think what they wanted to say is a strong economy requires a healthy environment, but then again maybe they like the wording not being clear so there is nothing to hold them to?

 

Fundraisng Email from the BC Greens

I thought it would be interesting to post copies of fundraising emails from parties in the 2017 BC Election.

First one is a request from the BC Greens to lease a larger office for the party HQ - an interesting very specific ask that says "we are growing so fast that we need your help to manage the success"

Dear Bernard, We’ve made great strides in the last few months. New staff members, new volunteers, new supporters… Just one problem. Our office has become a sardine box. Today I’m asking you to join 50 other donors to secure a new lease on a bigger office. Every week, our team of staff and volunteers squeeze into tight corners to roll up their sleeves and get to work. It’s my job to set them up for success, but the lack of space around here is really slowing everyone down. Your donation today will give our outstanding team the space they need to succeed on a whole new level. It floors me to see what they accomplish day in and day out. Take Dekan, for example. He’s been volunteering in the office since May. He has 2 young kids, runs a small business, plays in a band, and (in his “spare time”) works on various BC Green volunteer projects—public events, phone banks, data entry, recruiting new team members… He also returns dozens of phone calls every week, making sure you hear from us every time you call. I love that he always has a contagious smile on his face! As of this week he shares a desk with 3 other people who are working just as hard to elect Greens. I can’t wait to tell them you donated so we could move to a bigger office. If you join 50 others by pitching today I can secure a new lease in time for November. Ready make that happen? Here is the link: https://bcgreens.ca/donate Thank you so much, Laura -- Laura Lavin Executive Director BC Green Party P.S. If you become a monthly donor, your donations will set us up for success every single month. It’s the easiest way to support this amazing team. Simply click the option to set up an automatic monthly donation plan, and we’ll take care of the rest.

Donate

Prefer to donate by phone? 1-888-473-3686 Open 9-5 Pacific time Or by cheque: Please make cheques out to "BC Green Party" PO Box 8088 STN Central Victoria BC  V8W 3R8

Are BC Wildfires Evidence of Climate Change?

Since 2003 we have seen a significant shift in the area burned in BC wildfires.   Is this evidence of climate change?   It seems the most plausible explanation of what is going on.

To note on the graphs below:

1. Steam trains caused a lot of fires in BC and were phased out in the 1950s
2. The 1958 season was dramatic and part of that was the Kech fire which burned about 270,000 hectares
3. Wildfire fighting technology improved rapidly from the 50s though to the 80s.   A lot of fires were caught early and extinguished

Here is a table of area burned by year going back to 1920 which is the first year there is relatively complete data

Year Total Hectares

2016 98,462 - season not year over

2015 280,445

2014 369,169

2013 18,259

2012 111,645

2011 12,604

2010 337,149

2009 247,419

2008 13,240

2007 29,440

2006 139,265

2005 34,588

2004 220,518

2003 265,053

2002 8,539

2001 9,677

2000 17,673

1999 11,581

1998 76,574

1997 2,960

1996 20,669

1995 48,080

1994 30,310

1993 5,183

1992 30,453

1991 24,709

1990 75,783

1989 25,380

1988 11,482

1987 33,850

1986 17,260

1985 236,252

1984 19,908

1983 67,378

1982 348,663

1981 106,593

1980 65,578

1979 29,447

1978 50,081

1977 3,796

1976 57,020

1975 24,911

1974 21,728

1973 33,422

1972 26,087

1971 351,890

1970 105,688

1969 164,688

1968 13,519

1967 99,016

1966 177,268

1965 62,833

1964 3,135

1963 18,756

1962 18,461

1961 115,667

1960 285,820

1959 110,735

1958 835,848

1957 66,724

1956 190,060

1955 18,896

1954 4,172

1953 15,368

1952 61,677

1951 170,354

1950 343,274

1949 58,902

1948 155,544

1947 57,775

1946 122,780

1945 142,811

1944 204,831

1943 38,381

1942 180,710

1941 62,681

1940 198,297

1939 19,730

1938 78,292

1937 288,057

1936 22,196

1935 176,904

1934 19,372

1933 258,464

1932 122,005

1931 170,790

1930 402,646

1929 243,889

1928 368,103

1927 43,913

1926 67,035

1925 414,305

1924 162,767

1923 63,778

1922 634,772

1921 59,017

1920 157,762

British newsreel footage of the 1958 fire season in BC

Early Political Ads in the 2017 BC Election Cycle

I am going to try and look at all the various ads that come out in this election cycle.

Here is an NDP ad from this spring.   Clearly a strong negative campaign against Christy Clark.  This sort ad can work well in suppressing the BC Liberal vote by discouraging their supporters from voting.  It does very little to improve the NDP vote.
The danger of this is approach is that the focus becomes the other party and unless you can control the narrative there is a chance you will do much worse in the election.

Here is BC Liberal ad from August 1st    It is very boring and looks like a bland corporate video, but what it does do well is to put out a positive message about Christy Clark.   This is aimed at people that have supported the BC Liberals in the past and is intended to give them the comfort to vote for the party again.

You want a good ad, this 2012 ad is what people should be looking at.  If you are going to go negative it is best to do it with humour.   Even supporters of the BC Liberals can see the humour in this ad.

Kootenay East - is this a Bill Bennett seat or is it now right of Centre?

I am looking at Kootenay East because I was asked why I had not included it and Cariboo North among the 21 most competitive in the province given the circumstances in 2017 will be very different in these two ridings than the 2013 election.

Kootenay East is an interesting riding to look at because in the last 13 elections since 1966 it has been won by the NDP six times, Liberals four times and Social Credit three times.

Kootenay East Election Results from 1966 to 2013

	Socred/Ref/Unity	Liberal	Conservative	NDP	Green	others
2013		10252		6023
2009		8404	1612	5844	549
2005		8060		7339	1389
2001	651	10206		3038	1287	718
1996	3718	5887		6398	363	215
1991	5014	3450		7352
1986	7649	539	499	8000
1983	8829	347		8245
1979	6167		975	5350
1975	7915			7223
1972	1615	4267	4169	6065
1969	4267	2604		4282
1966	3070	2123		3605

The election that really stands out is 2013 because the Liberals won it with more votes than the 2001 NDP blow out election.  This I believe is due to the personal popularity of local MLA Bill Bennett.   So what happens now that Bill is retiring?

The riding was historically competitive between the right and left, it was certainly within range of the NDP to win.   Erda Walsh's strong come back in 2005 gave people hope the NDP could win the seat in 2009 but even with the BC Conservative party leader running there the Liberal vote rose and the NDP vote fell.   Bill Bennett's 2009 win is in fact the third largest margin anyone has won by.   The only better margins are Bill's 2001 and 2013 wins.   This very much speaks to this being a strong vote for Bill Bennett

Bill Bennett is known to have a very strong personal following in the riding and has a strong local BC Liberal organization that is loyal to him.   I think the election results bear this out.

So, what happens in 2017?   

Factors at play:

1. The NDP has never managed to win a majority of the votes when they won while the Socreds and Liberals managed to win more than 50% of the vote five times.    This says to me that without some form of third party cutting into the Liberal vote the NDP will have trouble winning - that 3rd party could be a Conservative, Green or strong local independent
2. Bill Bennett will be active in helping the BC Liberal candidate win.   I think a good part of the support for Bill will follow onto the BC Liberal candidate in 2016.
3. The NDP seems to be getting weaker in rural BC.   They have lost ground over the last three elections.   It is very hard to judge how the NDP could do in Kootenay East when I do not have the fainest idea what the party's election strategy is for 2017.
4. In the 11 elections since 1972 only once, 1986, was it not won by the government.

I suspect the BC Liberals will hold this seat but with a reduced majority and there is no danger of the NDP threatening to win the seat.