No Knockout Punch In Leaders Debate

Monday, May 04, 2009 03:45 AM

It was a TV debate, but when it was over, no knockout punches had been delivered and the best that could be hoped for by two of the three party leaders is that it helped solidify the support among the membership of their respective parties. However, the election will be hard to win if only those who are already converted are hearing your sermon.

Gordon Campbell continues to pound away at the economy, seeking support from the center and right .He has used this as his campaign theme since the writ was dropped.

Carole James, continues to attack the Liberal record on all fronts, she also did not score a home run but again was able to rally her supporters.

The Green Party did not show the same lustre, Jane Sterk , had some large shoes to fill, Adrienne Carr, the former head of the Greens in BC , had a certain presence about her and she was able to make her personality shine. Sterk came across as a Grandmother preaching to the kids.

So where does it leave it all? Very little change, although the recent poll which showed the NDP moving up in the polls has had the effect of getting the Liberal couch sitters attention and that may have increased the Liberal vote.

The last leader to score a home run with one hit was Gordon Wilson, former leader of the Liberal Party, who used a credit card to make the hit.

Ipsos Reid did a poll which indicated Carole James scored 36% to 32 % for Campbell and 15% for the Greens. That leaves 17% undecided which indicates no real winner. So heading into the final days of the race, it remains tight, including this region.

I’m Meisner and that’s one man’s opinion.

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Monday, May 04, 2009 03:45 AM in Views by Ben Meisner

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: Eagleone on May 4 2009 9:03 AM

Gordon Wilson is still at it with his latest blog yesterday attacking BCSTV with a poorly researched blog. Kind of a desperate attempt by a special interest funded politician to retain the special interest way of doing politics. Wilson is against BCSTV and doesn't allow posting by others on his blog lol.

http://myselkie.com/musings/

Posted by: diplomat on May 4 2009 11:08 AM

Are unions, including teachers' federations, etc not special interest groups? Much like business special interest groups? And what about Joe Public, the ordinary taxpayer? Where does she/he fit in?

How is BC-STV going to prevent special interest funded groups from getting the vote out for the candidates they endorse and want to get elected?

Will it lead to more special interest funded candidates from various parties getting elected into same ridings and opposing everything from happening in that riding that they don't agree with?

To them the word *compromise* would be meaningless because they would (just as they are doing it now) oppose anything that does not agree with their agenda.

I can just see how everything will be stalemated ad infinitum and even less will get done while everybody is trying to outstall and stonewall everybody else!

Good Luck with BC-STV...

BTW, I agree that Wilson's BC-STV comments are very superficial.

Posted by: Eagleone on May 5 2009 4:51 AM

Diplomat, choice on the ballot allows the voter to weed out the special interest type candidates in favor of the candidates that work primarily for the constituent, and secondary to ideological labels. That is how you get co-operation is by having candidates elected that have the interest of the province first and foremost (chosen and accountable to the voter), rather than the party that 'got them elected'.

Under BCSTV special interest could still get the vote out all they want... they just wouldn't be able to circumvent democracy with blackmail ballots that are controlled by the special interest before the voter even votes. The voter would simply have a choice to side step the special interest appointments that are presented to them and instead vote for the consensus middle working class (traditional free enterprise) candidates. These consensus candidates would have more incentive to work together because no seat would be safe any longer for party hacks, and the ideological extremists would be weeded out of the system presenting greater opportunity for win-win scenarios.

FPTP is a system designed by the elitists to act as a gate keeper to power (utterly corrupted in the last 30+ years) through a system that is easily controlled by their money and not by the real choice of voters. Join the party is their mantra and have a voice, but the facts are they control the policy of parties and thus its a sealed deal before the voter even votes under FPTP, unlike the BCSTV where the vote counts.

As for Diplomat comment, "Will it lead to more special interest funded candidates from various parties getting elected into same ridings and opposing everything from happening in that riding that they don't agree with?"

I agree that can be a problem in the larger urban ridings with 6-candidates. We may end up with a token few of those types and that is the problem with the multi-member ridings... personally I support a STV in a single member riding like what WAC Bennett and his Socred party came to power using... that is democracy IMO, but the multi member ridings is what Vancouver wanted and they make the rules in this province... at least in the north the ridings only have 2-3 candidates per riding... so are thus closer to the 52-BC election style of single member STV ballots.