Feb. 3rd 2018 BC Liberal leadership race megathread

[136or142]

My take


The first name being mentioned is Dianne Watts, the former Surrey mayor and presently Conservative M.P for Surrey-White Rock.

Watts was a very popular mayor but her popularity dropped somewhat from her leaving as mayor to running for M.P due to a wave of gang shootings and other crime problems in Surrey that caused a re-evaluation of her tenure as mayor, and she won her election to Parliament by a narrow margin (I think 1,600 votes.)

If she doesn't run, I think most of the attention would turn first to those top candidates who ran against Christy Clark in 2011: Kevin Falcon and George Abbott. (Mike De Jong and, I think, a couple others also ran)  Abbott has said he's done with politics and is no longer a member of the B.C Liberals (I believe I read he was also once a New Democrat) but Kevin Falcon came forward to criticize Clark for her stolen throne speech stunt.

Other than them, I would look at Mike Bernier the former Education Minister who is regarded as somebody who can bring people together.  I think his firing of the Vancouver School Board would also large help him in his run for leader.  He can portray himself as a consensus builder who also has a spine.

I would think John Rustad who received very positive grades for his handling of the B.C forest fires as the person who was named the Forests and Natural Resource Operations minister for the brief time after the Liberal election loss would also be a strong candidate.

An outsider I'd like to see but has given no indication is James Moore, the former Conservative M.P and Industry Minister who was regarded as a 'Red Tory.'

From the 'who asked you to run?' list, those who are considered to want to run but not likely to garner a lot of support are the extremely book smart but hopelessly tin eared Andrew Wilkinson and the former mayor of Vancouver Sam Sullivan.  I think there may have been one or two other Liberal M.L.As who have been mentioned as wanting to run but not likely to garner a lot of support (unless, of course, nobody who would be the frontrunners decides to run.)

[136or142]

Moore left politics for family reasons. IIRC, his son has some pretty severe health problems, so I doubt he's getting back into politics.

Yes, apparently he's already said he's not interested, but he was mentioned by others and asked, which I wasn't even aware of at the time I wrote that.

The problem with your comment, which I agree is the reason he left politics and isn't coming back anytime soon, is that at the same time he stepped down from office he said something like "I plan to be back soon."

[136or142]

Here's a question for the B.Cer's. Which candidate will be the media inevitably overhype despite having poor chances with actual party members?

How often does that happen?  It happened in the Conservative leadership race, but where else?  Jagmeet Singh appears to be making genuine inroads in the NDP leadership race and Charlie Angus appears to be his leading rival.

That sort of happened in B.C in 1986 with both Grace McCarthy and Bud Smith in the Social Credit leadership race, but they were two of the four main candidates.

My new M.L.A, Jas Johal is getting some attention and could be hyped by the media because he was a former journalist himself, but on CKNW at least one political science professor has already said "he'd probably be better positioned in a few years."

If there is one, it might be Dianne Watts given that a number in the media are calling her the front-runner (if she runs) and given her declining popularity in Surrey a couple years ago, she may not be as strong as they think.

I think Dianne Watts would have won handily had she run for the B.C Liberal leadership in 2011 but maybe she's missed her chance (if she was ever interested in the first place.)

[136or142]

Here's a question for the B.Cer's. Which candidate will be the media inevitably overhype despite having poor chances with actual party members?

How often does that happen?  

When Christy Clark ran?  (Yeah, she won; but with negligible caucus support.)

As for Watts: for all her localized issues, I think her close call had more to do with the pratfallish federal campaign at large than her own deficiencies.

Yeah, the Tory vote in her seat only declined by about 8%, which was pretty close to the national average, and way better than normal for B.C. The Tories were taking 15-25% declines in most of  Greater Vancouver. Watts close result seems more due to the Liberals consolidating the ABC vote than anything else.

Maybe, but for a mayor who was last reelected with 85% of the vote and whose city council (and school board) slate dominated in the polls in 2011 and 2014 I would have expected a bigger win, something at least along the lines of what Elsie Wayne did in Saint John in 1993.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Columbia_municipal_elections,_2014#Surrey_City_Council_election

I'm certainly not claiming that she isn't still popular, but if there is additional CKNW coverage available, there was some discussion with one of the hosts of how much her popularity may not be in Surrey what it once was.  In addition to crime - and specifically the gang violence (which may have settled down since), there has also been concern with the pace of development in Surrey and one person on the program said they've heard from a number of people in Surrey who said they were former supporters of Dianne Watts that 'these things started while she was mayor.'

[136or142]

Apparently Vancouver Province political columnist Mike Smyth said that he thinks 'the NDP is shaking in their boots at the prospect of a Dianne Watts led B.C Liberal Party.'

I highly doubt that. I think, unlike him, the NDP is sophisticated enough to know that expected political juggernauts often don't work out.  The NDP should know that because they were the juggernaut that didn't work out in 2013.

Mike Smyth is such a simpleton that whenever I hear him I'm reminded of this brilliant take-down that he received from Bill Tieleman.

It went something like this:

Smyth "Yes, but Bill, isn't it a fact that teachers are well paid given that they work six hours a day for 10 months a year."

Tieleman: "Come on Mike,you know that isn't true.  Every teacher I know puts in several hours after class and they work throughout August preparing for the school year ahead.

Smyth: "They're paid for their job of working in the classroom."

Tieleman: "So, Mike, it takes you what, about half an hour a day to write up your column?"

Smyth: "It takes me a great deal of time to get the information to write up the column."

Tieleman: "Yes, Mike, but you're paid for the job of writing up your column and that takes you, I'd guess, a half an hour a day. So, I guess you should earn about $25 a day."

Smyth: "Thanks for being on the show Bill."

What was even more amusing than is possible to know from reading this is that when Tieleman asked Smyth how long it took him to write up his column each day, Smyth was completely oblivious at what Tieleman was driving at.

[136or142]

Maybe, but for a mayor who was last reelected with 85% of the vote and whose city council (and school board) slate dominated in the polls in 2011 and 2014 I would have expected a bigger win, something at least along the lines of what Elsie Wayne did in Saint John in 1993.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Columbia_municipal_elections,_2014#Surrey_City_Council_election

 Though keep in mind (and this fact's seldom if ever cited), Elsie was boosted by a Liberal split (the 1988 fed Grit candidate ran and did quite well as an independent in 1993).  Also, the PC brand was still relatively strong in and of itself in the Maritimes, and there was a bit of a "Celtic fringe" isolation factor akin to that which sustained the Liberal brand in the UK's extremities through the post-WWII years.  By comparison, whatever her municipal popularity, I doubt that a Dianne Watts running for the PCs in Surrey in 1993 would have succeeded; at best, she might have managed a quarter of the vote a la Kim Campbell.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

However, remember that Surrey's a big place encompassing several federal and provincial ridings--and the south part which Watts represents also happens to be the whitest and most "removed" from the heart of the gang-violence et al problem; it's really more of a "Greater White Rock" constituency with a touch of Fraser Valley Bible Belt-ism around the edges. Thus if her support remains cushioned anywhere, it's here.

And that she still came close to losing isn't just due to Justinmania; the Grits have always had above-average "moderate retiree" strength in White Rock.

I was not aware of that myself with Elsie Wayne. 

[136or142]

Seeing those council results in Surrey makes me very disappointed that there is no ward system there. Surrey is a very polarized city, and having one party hold every single seat in the city is just awful.

How do you get that?
Those results don't break down by area.  I think Surrey First won virtually every poll, though obviously some were closer than others.

[136or142]

Seeing those council results in Surrey makes me very disappointed that there is no ward system there. Surrey is a very polarized city, and having one party hold every single seat in the city is just awful.

How do you get that?
Those results don't break down by area.  I think Surrey First won virtually every poll, though obviously some were closer than others.

I suppose that's possible, but with a ward system, I think Surrey would quickly develop a two party system, instead of being ruled by a mushy centre-right party that holds all of the seats.

Although Surrey Mayor Linda Heppner doesn't seem to be doing as badly as she did in her first year or so in office as mayor when I thought she was just hopeless, I would be very surprised if Surrey First won every council seat in 2018.

[136or142]

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.

Other than the media is naturally more focused on the government than the opposition, I have no idea how de Jong survived the money laundering at the B.C Casinos.  Apparently the government knew about it and intentionally did nothing.  de Jong was the Minister responsible.  I would assume the other leadership candidates will hammer de Jong over this for the next month.

If de Jong were still the Minister, I can't see how we wouldn't have had to resign over this,
all though that sort of thing rarely happens anymore.

As to the others:

Andrew Wilkinson is hopeless.  Like Chris Alexander and Bill Morneau, he is a highly intelligent person completely lacking common sense. 

Todd Stone, I think he should delete, delete, delete his candidacy.  He's probably not the worst guy in the world, but he was a fairly major player in Christy Clark's 'war on Metro Vancouver.'

[136or142]

I can't remember if I posted something like this for the Federal Conservative leadership race. I know I predicted Maxime Bernier would narrowly defeat Erin O'Toole.  I'm pretty sure I read that O'Toole spoke better French than Andrew Scheer which I thought would push O'Toole ahead of Andrew Scheer.

1st Ballot
1.Dianne Watts, 28%
2.Mike de Jong, 19%
3.Todd Stone, 19%
4.Andrew Wilkinson, 17%
5.Michael Lee, 14%
6.Sam Sullivan, 2%

Assuming only Sullivan is dropped on the second ballot, skip that ballot.

3rd ballot
1.Dianne Watts, 36%
2.Todd Stone, 22%
3.Mike de Jong, 22%
4.Andrew Wilkinson, 20%

4th ballot
1.Dianne Watts, 41%
2.Mike de Jong, 34%
3.Todd Stone, 25%

5th ballot
1.Dianne Watts, 52%
2.Mike de Jong, 48%

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the first ballot I predict the 3 MLAs from Vancouver to get 50% of the points but with Dianne Watts to win narrowly in Vancouver due to the Vancouver MLAs splitting the vote. (I predict Sullivan will be a fairly distant third, so it's mainly Vancouver MLAs Wilkinson and Lee splitting the points.)

In the Vancouver suburbs, I predict Michael Lee will come in first, with Dianne Watts in second and Wilkinson to be a distant third.

In the three regions with local MLAs, I predict they'll win their regions.
In the city of Surrey I predict Watts to get just over half the points.

In the Fraser Valley, I predict deJong will get about half the points.

In the Southern Interior, I predict Todd Stone will get just under half the points.

In the North, Center and Coast, I predict Todd Stone will get the most points but that Dianne Watts and Andrew Wilkinson will also make a strong showing.

In Southern Vancouver Island, I predict that Wilkinson and de Jong will split the ex 'government insider vote' and Dianne Watts will sneak up the middle.

In Northern Vancouver Island I predict a very similar showing to the result in the North, Center and Coast.

For the 3rd ballot, I predict a good deal of Lee's support will go to Dianne Watts. For what it's worth, both of them are 'red Tories' but, more importantly, both of them are the newcomers.

Andrew Wilkinson's growth potential is limited because he's a shmuck.

For the 4th ballot, I don't put a lot of stock in the deal between Wilkinson and de Jong.  Unlike at a delegated convention, there is no way for the backers of the leading candidate to talk up the delegates of the candidate who just endorsed the leading candidate and there is no group dynamic effect.

However, as I wrote above, I do think there are obvious similarities in de Jong and Wilkinson in that they are both essentially Liberal Party insiders.  de Jong as one of the leading Ministers for the life of the B.C Liberal government, and Wilkinson as a former Party President (or Executive Director, whatever position he had.)

I also think that Todd Stone's growth potential is limited in the Greater Vancouver region (which does after all account for 48 of the 87 B.C ridings) because of the role he played (along with Peter Fassbender) in Christy Clark's 'war on Greater Vancouver.'  (I came up with that phrase, but I'm sure many people in the Greater Vancouver region, including many B.C Liberals, would agree with it.) I also think Todd Stone's growth potential is limited because he's a shmuck.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although it's possible whoever wins could grow into the job, from what I've seen and read the candidates in this race are all pretty poor and none of them are obvious future Premiers.  If the B.C NDP loses the next election, I think it will be, as it often is for them, that they've defeated themselves.

I think de Jong is clearly the most credible future Premier at this point, but he carries 25 years of accumulated baggage.

[136or142]

Voting is set to start tomorrow.  With the ICBC story and some other negative commentary, I expect Todd Stone to start sinking like his name.

1st ballot
Dianne Watts 32%
Mike de Jong 21%
Todd Stone 16%
Andrew Wilkinson 16%
Michael Lee 13%
Sam Sullivan 2%

3rd ballot
Dianne Watts 40%
Mike de Jong 25%
Andrew Wilkinson 19%
Todd Stone 16%

4th ballot
Dianne Watts 44%
Mike de Jong 31%
Andrew Wilkinson 25%

5th ballot
Dianne Watts 53%
Mike de Jong 47%

[136or142]

As a side note, I'd like it if they started the first ballot by announcing 'and the winner is La La Land."

[136or142]

Any idea how long this leadership vote is going to take?  The Vancouver Institute lecture is at 8:15 PM tomorrow and I'd kind of like to go to it, but I also want to see the 'convention.'

[136or142]

Any idea how long this leadership vote is going to take?  The Vancouver Institute lecture is at 8:15 PM tomorrow and I'd kind of like to go to it, but I also want to see the 'convention.'

Well voting concludes at 5 pm tomorrow and judging based on past elections I would guess should take an hour to and 90 minutes to announce the results.

Thanks! A tight fit.

This is the lecture:
"UNSEEN ENEMY: The risks of a global pandemic and how to prevent it" is this Saturday's Vancouver Institute lecture to be delivered by Janet Tobias, multiple award-winning director/producer.
https://www.facebook.com/TheVancouverInstitute/

[136or142]

Wilkinson is a terrible person.  He is a moron with a great resume completely lacking in common sense (or decency.)

The Liberal convention went long so I couldn't make it the lecture but the disaster horror movie 'Ants' is on television tonight.  I don't know if I'll watch it, but I think the B.C Liberals have their own disaster horror on their hands with Wilkinson as leader.

If you think this is over the top, if you can find it I'd urge you to check out the interview Wilkinson had with CKNW radio show host 'Drex' after David Eby initially released the report on ICBC.

Wilkinson commented something like "the NDP has now had a full week to say what they're going to do about ICBC."

Drex "That's hardly fair is it?  You guys had 16 years."

Wilkinson's response (or lack of one) was the radio equivalent of the deer in the headlights.

So, that's how pathetic Wilkinson is.

Edit to add: I was wrong, it's still available
https://omny.fm/shows/steele-drex/bc-liberal-mla-andrew-wilkinson-reacts-to-the-icbc

I forgot that later in the interview Jody Vance also asked several questions.  I think by far the most important question she asked is whether any B.C Liberal had read the report while the Liberals were still in government.  Wilkinson's 'no' is clearly a lie as Mike De Jong had read the report and Todd Stone read a redacted version of the report.

Edit, I listened to it again and Wilkinson sidestepped the question saying merely "I understand this report was leaked...Friday or Saturday."

I guess this raises the question: What did Wilkinson know about who in the Liberal government had read the report and when did he know it?"

[136or142]

Yeah, Wilkinson is a very socially liberal guy. He's got a gay son who I... know.

I'll be interesting. I think Wilkinson could be painted as an elitist weenie pretty easily, but he's also chill and seems approachable, so who knows what'll happen.

He's pretty fly for a white guy.

[136or142]

I'm probably going to vote libertarian in the next provincial

I hate all of them, Wilkinson, Horgan, or Weaver

nihilist!

[136or142]

I'm probably going to vote libertarian in the next provincial

I hate all of them, Wilkinson, Horgan, or Weaver

nihilist!

I'm just really not fond of the empty house tax thing, and for that reason it's at least 95% likely I vote Liberal or not vote at all

Like I can't keep a house that I owned for 10 years just because I moved abroad for work?

You can keep it. You just either have to rent it out or pay a tax on it.  I don't think that is too onerous, especially since you can hire a property management company to take care of the rental part.

For instance: http://www.easyrent.ca/

[136or142]

I'm probably going to vote libertarian in the next provincial

I hate all of them, Wilkinson, Horgan, or Weaver

nihilist!

Like I can't keep a house that I owned for 10 years just because I moved abroad for work?

That's not an accurate representation of the EHT, but yeah, you absolutely should not be able to "keep a house" you're not living in for an extended period of time, at least in an ideal world. Empty homes shouldn't exist as long as people without homes do too.

It's fully rented out, which they would also tax under their proposed plan.

On the one hand, I assume you know your situation better that I do.  On the other hand, what you write here makes no sense to me.

http://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/will-your-home-be-taxed.aspx

Properties not subject to the tax
Most properties will not be subject to the Empty Homes Tax, including those:

Used as a principal residence by the owner, his/her family member or friend, or other permitted occupier for at least six months of the current year
Rented for at least six months of the current year, in periods of 30 or more consecutive days
Meeting the criteria for one of the exemptions