Feb. 3rd 2018 BC Liberal leadership race megathread

[mileslunn]

I would say the possibilities are as shown below

Andrew Wilkinson - From Lower Mainland where the party needs to win back lost seats and fairly competent minister, but may be seen as too closely tied to the former Clark government

Sam Sullivan - Also from Vancouver, former mayor seems reasonably likeable, but his term as mayor was less than stellar

Jas Johal - Visible minority which could help them in winning back seats in Surrey, media personality (and as we know with Justin Trudeau image matters a lot), from Lower Mainland, but lacks the experience so maybe needs to grow a bit more in his role as MLA before taking the plunge.

Kevin Falcon - Has lots of experience and comes from Surrey where the party needs to do better, but being a federal Conservative could limit his ability to gain votes as its mostly federal liberal not federal conservative votes the party needs to do better amongst.  Also too tied to the Campbell administration and I think the party would be better to have someone not too closely tied to either.

Diane Watts - Very popular mayor of Surrey which is a place the BC Liberals needs to gain.  Fairly moderate and also female.  Considering the Tories aren't likely to win in 2019 (or at least I think the BC Liberals have a much better chance at winning the next provincial than federal Tories winning the federal) she might want to return to provincial politics where her chances of being in government in the next five years are better.  That being said Harper was pretty hated in BC and anyone who ran under his banner will have that somewhat weighing them down.

James Moore - A competent cabinet minister federally and well liked in his riding.  Could use this as a stepping stone for a later federal run.  Being a cabinet minister not just candidate for the Harper government though will be his biggest albatross.  Besides with the issues with one of his daughters not sure he wants to run.

George Abbott - A moderate consensus oriented one so could appeal to those who found the party a bit too much of a turnoff.  He does however come from the Interior where the party is already strong not the Lower Mainland where it needs to gain.  Also said he has left politics for good.

Peter Milhobar - Successful mayor of Kamloops and up until recently Kamloops was a bellwether city that whomever won there won provincewide.  Low profile and may have weaknesses we do not know about.

Todd Stone - A strong cabinet minister, but probably too closely tied to the Clark government

Shirley Bond - An experienced cabinet minister and well respected amongst her colleagues.  Her main disadvantage is too tied to past administrations.

Some possible dark horses

Lois Jackson (mayor of Delta), Ellis Ross (First Nations leader who won in a traditional NDP riding), Mike de Jong.  Actually as a BC Liberal supporter myself I think Ellis Ross would be a very interesting one as First Nations and good at negotiations.

[mileslunn]

Former Finance Minister and Deputy Premier Kevin Falcon not interested in leadership bid.

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/bc-liberals-new-leader-should-be-an-outsider-former-politician-says/article35918468/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&

That is probably a good thing as I think the party should probably choose someone not too heavily tied to the past.  Also he doesn't have a seat meaning someone would have to step aside giving the NDP-Greens a leg up.  I do though wonder why Clark didn't wait until the next leader was chosen as she is in a very safe riding so I thought it would have made more sense for her to go then and if the new leader didn't have a seat they would run there.

[mileslunn]

It's Insights West... and it's also still the dog days of summer... but their poll today on potential BC Lib leadership candidates still corroborates my above post about Dianne Watts...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://insightswest.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/NextBCL_Tables.pdf

Interesting although at this point I think whom is best or not is more name recognition.  If the NDP does a good job they will win no matter what, while if they do a lousy job all that will matter is how big a majority the BC Liberals get.  Diane Watts being from Surrey where she was a popular mayor helps in winning back seats there, but being a federal Conservative is somewhat a negative as Harper was quite disliked in BC and I suspect Scheer who is very similar to Harper will be too.  At the same time she was never a member of the cabinet and always more moderate than most of her party so not the same baggage as say if James Moore was chosen.  Also not being a member of either the Clark or Campbell government is an asset.  Interestingly enough her seat probably would have gone Liberal federally if not for her (yes it usually goes Conservative no matter what but Harper was so hated in BC by 2015 that you saw Liberals winning many ridings they wouldn't normally win) and likewise there will be a lot of pressure from caucus not to resign until the Tories rebound in BC as right now I suspect the Liberals would win a by-election in her riding if she vacates it.  Also without a provincial seat that could mean someone else has to stand down unless she jumps in before Kelowna West is filled thus giving the NDP more breathing room to pass legislation thus that might be the other reason they want someone already in caucus so they don't give up a seat for 6 months.

[mileslunn]

I won't be Sam Sullivan or Michael Lee, but between the other four my thoughts are:

Mike de Jong - Status quo relatively experienced and inoffensive to most although doubt he will come in first on the first ballot but could pick up enough second choices to put him over the top.

Todd Stone - Definitely has a decent chance, especially considering he should do well in the interior, but I wouldn't go as far as to call him the frontrunner.

Diane Watts - She has the most name recognition and despite lack of endorsements definitely could win.  Her problem is lack of policy and I've heard has performed quite poorly in the debates so while she was the frontrunner at the beginning, now I think she has fallen back a bit but not out of it.

Andrew Wilkinson - If I had to pick a frontrunner, I would pick him, but still has chances of winning are probably under 50% although higher than the others.

As for myself, I am still undecided although it won't be Sam Sullivan (he is my MLA and has some good ideas, but not the best choice overall).  My plan is to read each of their platforms carefully and whichever I think is the best overall I will choose.

[mileslunn]

A leadership election in Canada that doesn't take three years to complete? What is this insanity?

BC has a minority government too so they need to have a leader sooner in case the government falls.  Generally leadership races when there is a majority take longer as there is no urgency and better to do it right whereas when a minority government they are quicker just in case the government falls sooner than expected.

[mileslunn]

Those are general poll numbers amongst the general population not members.  Watts is the most popular amongst the general public whereas Wilkinson and De Jong maybe less so with the general public but far more amongst the committed members.  Todd Stone cannot be ruled out and Michael Lee does well amongst younger voters and signed up many new ones.  Actually I expect this to take at least three ballots and the only prediction I will make is Sam Sullivan is knocked off after the first ballot.

[mileslunn]

Those are general poll numbers amongst the general population not members.  Watts is the most popular amongst the general public whereas Wilkinson and De Jong maybe less so with the general public but far more amongst the committed members.  Todd Stone cannot be ruled out and Michael Lee does well amongst younger voters and signed up many new ones.  Actually I expect this to take at least three ballots and the only prediction I will make is Sam Sullivan is knocked off after the first ballot.

Watts is at 30% amongst the Liberal Party Leadership electorate, not the population at large. It doesn’t say anything about her leading amongst the general population, just the leadership electorate.

It is amongst BC Liberal supporters but not necessarily members.  I would ignore polls here for a few reasons.

1.  It is only members that matter and accurately surveying them is tough never mind typically only 1/3 to 1/2 of members vote so tough to figure out who will and won't.

2.  This will go to multiple ballots so trying to work out all the possible outcomes and everybody's second, third, and fourth choice is very challenging.  The person who comes in first on the first ballot won't necessarily win, in fact the third place candidate could quite possibly end up winning if he or she gets a lot of second choices.

3.  Each riding is worth 100 points so overall support is irrelevant, so winning 60% in a riding with only 10 members has the same impact as that in one with 10,000 members even though the former is 6 votes the latter is 6,000 votes.  Membership numbers vary greatly between ridings so doing well in the ridings with few members is a lot more efficient than doing well in those with a lot of members.

If it were a one member one vote and only two candidates I might take the polls half seriously, but due to the way it works, I ignore them.  In the case of the Saskatchewan NDP, I agree Ryan Mieli will likely be the next leader but for the Saskatchewan Party and BC Liberals, I would not put too much stock into those.

[mileslunn]

I want Watts, who's actually competent
But seriously how's the vote going now

Hello, it starts tomorrow and we won't find out until it closes on February 3rd.

[mileslunn]

1st Ballot results are

1.  Diane Watts
2.  Michael Lee
3.  Andrew Wilkinson
4.  Todd Stone
5.  Mike de Jong
6.  Sam Sullivan

Quite tight as expected amongst the first five, but I am going to go out on a limb and see Michael Lee wins this.  Interesting the top two are both outsiders suggesting people feel someone least tied to past leaders is best.

[mileslunn]

De Jong out on second ballot so that is probably good news for Wilkinson. Now a fight between establishment and outsiders with outsiders ahead.

[mileslunn]

Lee is now out so down to Wilkinson or Watts.  I think Watts might win this as Lee is an outsider so I could see a lot of his support going to Watts instead of Wilkinson.  I suspect it will be close either way.

[mileslunn]

Talk about a close one as expected.  Whether the party made the right or wrong choice only time will tell.  He was not my first choice, but I think he is a reasonably decent person.  Admittedly for the BC Liberals, the results of the PR referendum will be critical.  If PR passes, I would say they have a very steep hill to climb to win the next election, but if it fails, their chances are much better although not certain.

[mileslunn]

Mainstreet has Dianne Watts ahead with 29.9% amongst decided and leaning BC Liberal voters. Other candidates as follows:

Andrew Wilkinson - 21.3%
Todd Stone - 19.6%
Mike de Jong - 16.3%
Michael Lee - 10.5%
Sam Sullivan - 2.4%

This is the fourth party leadership contest in a row that Mainstreet has attempted to poll and got totally wrong...though not quite as totally wrong as last weeks Sask Party leadership. Honestly why do they even bother trying to poll leadership contests? They get it dead wrong every single time and it’s bad for their already damaged reputation

It's impossible to poll leadership elections unless you have what you did in the last federal Liberal leadership race where someone runs away with it.  What you can do is poll how each candidate would fair in a general election, otherwise whom would be best for the party to choose but that doesn't mean they will follow.  The problem is in most leadership races, less than half of the members actually vote.  Also you have to ask about second and third choices as those play a major role (Just think if Michael Lee only got a few more second choices of Stone and De Jong he would have knocked off Wilkinson and probably won it).  Also every riding has equal weighting so a riding with only 10 members has the same weighting as one with 1,000 members so pretty much you would have to survey every member to even get a slight indication.  Otherwise unless there is a clear favourite, its a crapshoot.  Now I think in the last federal Liberal leadership race where Justin Trudeau got 80% on the first ballot, a poll would pick that up, but that was a blowout not close like the recent races have been.

[mileslunn]

Could the housing crisis have been avoided?

Not really, the government could have acted sooner and lessened the impact but not easily avoidable.  While this hurt the BC Liberals, I think their failure to get a majority was a combination of many things.  Considering how close they came, a few tweaks here and there would have put them over the top.  Mind you losing this time might be a blessing in disguise since I think had they won in 2017, they would have faced a strong route in 2021 whereas being losing at least they should at minimum form a strong opposition even if they don't win.  I think while choice of leader matters (and Wilkinson certainly was not the best choice), BC is so polarized that it only will make a difference by a few points in either direction.  What is the biggest issue is does the PR referendum pass or not.

If PR passes, I think the NDP/Greens are highly favoured to continue even if the BC Liberals do win a plurality of votes.  If PR fails, I think the BC Liberal chances are a lot better.  Their main risks are the Green vote declines and most of that goes over to the NDP thus even if they gain a few votes, NDP gains more.  The other is the BC Conservatives get their act together and win 5-10% of the popular vote which will came almost exclusively from the BC Liberals thus denying them a win even if the total right wing vote goes up.  If it goes to PR, eventually the BC Liberals will return, but the party will probably fracture between its Liberal and Conservative wings and you will likely see a BC Liberal-BC Conservative coalition, but probably not until 2025.  Never mind with the loss of the Conservative wing, the Greens would probably be more open to forming a coalition with them if they were more like the federal Liberals as I think the strong conservative element in the party is the main barrier.

[mileslunn]

Miles, that's total crap! If Vancouver had much more public housing and didn't have zoning that benefits long lines of single-family houses in very very trendy, well-speculated land, housing would not be nearly the issue it is now.

It could have been lessened but not eliminated, any big city with limited space is going to have cost issues.  See New York City, Toronto, San Francisco, Paris, Sydney, London etc which have similar issues.  On Zoning, more forsight could have been used in terms of more high rises but you can only build in vacant spaces which there isn't much of unless you want to scrap the ALR, which wouldn't go over well and would hurt on food security.  In terms of social housing, unlike the UK and many European countries, social housing is actually quite limited in Canada in general for reason I am not exactly sure why, but never really become common like it did in much of Europe.

[mileslunn]

Miles, that's total crap! If Vancouver had much more public housing and didn't have zoning that benefits long lines of single-family houses in very very trendy, well-speculated land, housing would not be nearly the issue it is now.

It could have been lessened but not eliminated, any big city with limited space is going to have cost issues.  See New York City, Toronto, San Francisco, Paris, Sydney, London etc which have similar issues.  On Zoning, more forsight could have been used in terms of more high rises but you can only build in vacant spaces which there isn't much of unless you want to scrap the ALR, which wouldn't go over well and would hurt on food security.  In terms of social housing, unlike the UK and many European countries, social housing is actually quite limited in Canada in general for reason I am not exactly sure why, but never really become common like it did in much of Europe.

Vancouver has less than 1 million people, so it seems strange that it is such an issue. I understand what you're saying, though.

Greater Vancouver has 2 million people.  Also it is the most beautiful city in Canada, while asides from Victoria only other city where temperatures are generally above freezing in the winter.  To make matters worse it is geographically limited on how far it can expand outwards.  Ocean to the West, mountains to the north, US border to the south so only eastward but because that is some of the best farmland in BC and food security is desired much of the Fraser Valley is part of the ALR thus off limits to development.  So while not as big as most expensive cities, it cannot expand as far and also the climate.  Another barrier is height restrictions on skyscrapers.  Since Vancouver is known for its beautiful mountains, building high rises is heavily restricted to certain areas so the focus would have to be on more multi unit low rises.  Perhaps also out in the valley they could open it up for more high rises (Richmond is off limits due to proximity to airport).  Also better rapid transit could help as then people could move further eastward out into the suburbs.  If you go out to Langley, prices while still very high, are not quite as ridiculous but due to long commutes no one wants to live that far but if you had a good rapid transit system like the Go Train in Ontario I think more people would move further afield than do now.

[mileslunn]

Miles, that's total crap! If Vancouver had much more public housing and didn't have zoning that benefits long lines of single-family houses in very very trendy, well-speculated land, housing would not be nearly the issue it is now.

It could have been lessened but not eliminated, any big city with limited space is going to have cost issues.  See New York City, Toronto, San Francisco, Paris, Sydney, London etc which have similar issues.  On Zoning, more forsight could have been used in terms of more high rises but you can only build in vacant spaces which there isn't much of unless you want to scrap the ALR, which wouldn't go over well and would hurt on food security.  In terms of social housing, unlike the UK and many European countries, social housing is actually quite limited in Canada in general for reason I am not exactly sure why, but never really become common like it did in much of Europe.

Vancouver has less than 1 million people, so it seems strange that it is such an issue. I understand what you're saying, though.

Greater Vancouver has 2 million people.  Also it is the most beautiful city in Canada, while asides from Victoria only other city where temperatures are generally above freezing in the winter.  To make matters worse it is geographically limited on how far it can expand outwards.  Ocean to the West, mountains to the north, US border to the south so only eastward but because that is some of the best farmland in BC and food security is desired much of the Fraser Valley is part of the ALR thus off limits to development.  So while not as big as most expensive cities, it cannot expand as far and also the climate.  Another barrier is height restrictions on skyscrapers.  Since Vancouver is known for its beautiful mountains, building high rises is heavily restricted to certain areas so the focus would have to be on more multi unit low rises.  Perhaps also out in the valley they could open it up for more high rises (Richmond is off limits due to proximity to airport).  Also better rapid transit could help as then people could move further eastward out into the suburbs.  If you go out to Langley, prices while still very high, are not quite as ridiculous but due to long commutes no one wants to live that far but if you had a good rapid transit system like the Go Train in Ontario I think more people would move further afield than do now.

Interesting - thanks for that information. I imagine in another reality being able to expand more to the South would be a big help.

Do you think the housing situation will have a big impact on population growth in the future, or a lack of it?

Yes in many ways housing prices are a sign of supply and demand so when more people want to live somewhere than it can accommodate prices will rise.  The problem is for those born and raised in Vancouver it might force many of them out so will be interesting to see what happens.