(Links? See sponsorship details.)
||Green Party/Parti Vert|
||Don H. Bell|
||Andres Esteban Barker|
For historical result, please see
2004 Prediction page
Put your political/campaign ad here! See sponsorship details.
||17 01 06
||James on the North Shore|
|I have a feeling that (unfortuately IMO) Cindy Silver is going to Win. What each candidate has going for them and against them (relative to the last election):|
+ Didn't piss off the film community like Ted White did.
+ Didn't piss off the Iranian community like Ted White did.
+ Didn't piss off the many people involved in community projects. Ted White would reoutinely refuse to write letters of support for grant requests for various projects, because he felt the government shouldn't be giving money to these types of things.
- Not a supporter of participatory democracy. Ted White was a very strong advocate of participatory democracy and electoral reform. This brought him a certain amount support from all over the political spectrum.
+/- not a maverick. Ted White appealed to a lot of the same people who regularly voted for Ernie Crist to Council as he was a bit of a maverick willing to say what he thought.
- Is socially conservative. She has been involved in many socially conservative movements. I think for the most part North Vancouver is socially moderate, or even progressive for a suburban municipality.
+ Campaigning a lot harder than Ted White ever did.
- A lot of Dan Jarvis supporters are still upset over her attempted coup
+ the federal conservative campaign that is aimed at suburban voters will resonate here.
+ No connection to the Reform Party. Ted White was really a Reform party member and never really accepted by some of the PC's.
+ Strategic voting. Before 2004 most thought that this seat was a safe conservative seat. Now many NDP supporters may swing Liberal to try and keep out the conservatives.
+ Urbanization. This riding is becoming more urban (and sees itself as more socially liberal)
+ With all of the Provincial liberals we are getting used to voting Liberal
- Loss of public presense. As Mayor Don Bell was a very familiar face in the NS News and I think this helped him win the last election. As MP, his presense in the Newspaper has not been as significant.
+ National Spotlight. Many regional and national editorials have talked about this riding and pointed out Cindy Silver's right wing conservative viewpoints.
+ With his allies on District council being elected/re-elected he has a lot of municipal support.
- Some lingering doubts about his record as mayor (library, Northlands golf course, landslide)
The big unknown is just how much uncomfortableness there is with Cindy's social conservative history and just where the pendulem will be provincially on January 23. However, given that the overall electoral mood of the country which seems to be swinging conservative, I have a feeling this will follow suit. However, Don Bell has pulled off some unexpected electoral wins in the past so I would not be hugely suprised if he was able to pull an unexpected win out of this.
||15 01 06
|Conservative Cindy Silver should take back this riding from the Liberals. All this talk about Cindy Silver being unsuitable for North Vancouver is Neutralised by the fact that both Don Bell, the Liberal incumbent, and Silver attend the same Alliance Christian church. Everyone in N. Vancouver knows this by now. I have seen Silver perform on TV and she is affable, confident and quite telegenic. No one would be scared of her..any more than by Bell. The fact that she is a woman boosts her profile immensely since the Conservative party is perceived to be a male dominated party.|
||13 01 06
|I think the equation to determining this election in this riding is as follows:|
If the number of people that are turned off by allegations of Cindy Silver's social conservative views is equal to or greater than the number of people who were bored or displeased with Ted White's reign, Don will win the election again.
Of course, there is always the unique tendency of BC voters to switch between NDP and Conservative. If Sherry cannot garner the type of support that John Nelson did, a lot of those votes could easily switch from the left to the right.
I have to call Don on this one though, just on a gut feeling.
||13 01 06
|Cindy Silver will win this riding with a substantial majority. The Conservatives have a well organized and effective campaign with many volunteers. The Don Bell campaign is relying upon getting endorsements from a few persons that their candidates regards as notables. That seems to parallel the (losing) approach that Ted White adopted last time. Voters are responding to the national trend to the Conservatives as well. The narrow Bell/Liberal win last time is seen more and more as an aberration that will soon be corrected.|
||11 01 06
|This riding will return to the Conservatives.|
Why did it go Liberal (for the first time in 30 years) last time? Here's my two cents: The Reformer-cum-Tory candidate Ted White:
*did not campaign (no doorknocking, no mainstreeting, nada)
*had been around a long time and had managed to tick off a few groups in the community
*now-famous film gaffe cost him big
*"Conservative" fortunes down all across BC from 2000
So, why will Cindy win? Despite M. Lunn's simplistic boilerplate postings about "suburban/urban area = residents hate conservatives" the reasons are that she's new, she wants the job, and ergo has been campaigning for it, and has to turn only 1,000 votes the other way to do it. The Conservative campaign is surging all across Canada, and North Vancouver which has been either Tory or Reform/Alliance green for 25 of the past 30 years will not be left out.
Don Bell won last time by taking most of the old PC votes from 2000. Many of White's Western populist/protest votes, on the other hand, returned to their traditional home of the NDP.
This time, the PC vote will go back to Cindy Silver. How do I know this? I'm the 2000 PC candidate for North Van and former PC riding president, 2001-2003, and I, like most (actually all) former PCs I've talked to who voted either Liberal or Green in 2004 are going to vote for Cindy this time.
||09 01 06
|I am changing my opinion from Liberal to too close to call. Cindy Silver has done pretty well. She has kept a low profile and her sign presence is good. However, her social moderate façade is beginning to crack. There has been a flood of letters printed in the North Shore News debunking what she told the North Shore News about last working for Focus on the Family 7 years ago. That said, the Liberal campaign has lost steam nationally and the Liberal war room seems to have gone into winter hibernation.|
||07 01 06
|This is my riding, and I believe strongly that it will return to the conservatives. Truth be told, this is a fiscally conservative riding. Don Bell was a high-profile local candidate, who was able to capitalize on his profile and several blunders by the previous conservative candidate. This is also an area where the BC Liberals have helped the profile of the Federal Liberals.|
While this riding is more socially moderate that the Fraser Valley, people here have historically voted with their wallets in mind.
Most of the people I know will be voting conservative, and I have seen far more Conservative lawn signs. The Liberals will receive support in Lonsdale and North Vancouver City, however the district of North Vancouver will support the Conservatives.
||06 01 06
|I am moving this back to too close to call. Up until now, every single poll has shown the Tories polling below last election, while the most recent polls are rather mixed due to a small sample. Until a clearer picture emerges I will leave this in the too close to call column. I was positive that Cindy Silver's religious fundamentalist background would prevent her from winning yet surprisingly many people seem to be ignoring this. If I was Don Bell I would start posting some of her past quotes and parts of her resume on his flyers since I don't think the residents of North Vancouver share her extreme views, but many plan to vote Tory due to anger at the Liberals. I still think the Liberals have the edge here, but it won't be a landslide.|
||02 01 06
|North Shore News December 19, 2005: “Silver adds she hasn't worked for the Focus group for seven years, and her more recent legal experience has been in environmental law for the federal Department of Justice.” |
Focus on the Family late July 2002: “The prospect - as reported in the Ottawa Citizen - that the federal government could decide to continue defending the definition of marriage but not appeal the Ontario court decision which overturned that definition is cold comfort to FOCUS ON THE FAMILY CANADA LEGAL ADVISOR CINDY SILVER. ‘You just don't want to have such a poor decision like that on the books,’ she told TFN.”
Reporter Sean Holman Nov.30 2004: “In a letter to the editor, signed under her own name, Ms. Silver wrote 'properly administered corporal punishment educates children to the dangers of disobedience, defiance, selfishness, sassiness, cruelty to others and actions that put the child's life in danger. It teaches them self-control and respect for authority - two characteristics necessary in socially responsible children.' … While Public Eye was reading that letter to her, Ms. Silver exclaimed, 'Did I actually write that? … It's funny how you change over the years. That was 1994...And that was my initial knee-jerk reaction (to the issue). And I do not advocate spanking. I advocate using all other kinds of alternatives.'"
King’s Journalism Review 2002-2003 Issue Vol. 8 “’Studies show that in a loving family, corporal discipline is more effective than any other punishment,’ Silver says. ‘There's no evidence of that, Cindy,’ Schabas says. ‘Studies show the exact opposite.’”
Strange no one has mentioned the April 2 1998 Vriend ruling. It was one the biggest cases Cindy Silver has been involved with. The Surpreme Court of Canada: "The appellant V was employed as a laboratory coordinator by a college in Alberta, and was given a permanent, full-time position in 1988. Throughout his term of employment he received positive evaluations, salary increases and promotions for his work performance. In 1990, in response to an inquiry by the president of the college, V disclosed that he was homosexual. In early 1991, the college's board of governors adopted a position statement on homosexuality, and shortly thereafter, the president of the college requested V's resignation. V declined to resign, and his employment was terminated by the college. The sole reason given was his non-compliance with the college's policy on homosexual practice. V appealed the termination and applied for reinstatement, but was refused." Needless to say, Cindy Silver and colleagues did not speak in favor of “the appellant V”
||30 12 05
|Cindy Silver isn't as "extreme" as a number of commenters here think. She's on the record as being pro-choice, and has said she is opposed to bringing the gay marriage issue back to Parliament (if that happens, she would poll her constituents to determine how to vote). With that said, everything in this race depends on the ultra-volatile B.C. electorate and each party's fortunes in the next 3 weeks. At this point, still too close to call.|
||20 12 05
|For the first time ever (I think), a major party (NDP) is running an Iranian-Cdn candidate. Don Bell won last time because the Iranian community was p.o.'d with Ted White insulting them; this time at least some Iranian votes will go NDP, throwing the riding back to the party that usually wins here.|
||14 12 05
|This a slam dunk for Don Bell. Many potential NDP and other supporters will vote for Bell if only to keep Conservative Cindy Silver out. Silver has been cited as one of the Conservatives' extreme Christian right candidates. She's on the record as supporting corporal punishment and opposing homosexuality. She was one of the lawyers for the Surrey School Board trying to censor childrens' books. Moreover, she's being supported by right-wing Christian groups such as Focus on the Family (for whom she was in-house lawyer for many years) and REAL Women. Silver is one of the reasons people don't trust the Conservatives.|
||13 12 05
|According to Cindy Silver, “homosexuality is wrong”. She describes this is as a “deeply held conviction”. She also puts her money where her mouth is. Former Conservative MP for North Vancouver Ted White “Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I would like to present a petition from Cindy Silver and 98 others where the petitioners pray and request that Parliament not amend the human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality, including amending the human rights code to include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase sexual orientation.”|
||06 12 05
|Having said that my preferred prediction is "too close to call", I will raise my objections against Koby, who predicts an outright Liberal win, without overtly derailing the whole purpose of Election Prediction, which I would have to if I were to formulate a point-by-point response...|
You may have opinionated columnists in the Vancouver Sun write about how same sex marriage and the Surrey school board incident are going to be major factors in North Vancouver, but currently, the Vancouver Sun does not officially take that for fact. The Vancouver Sun, however, does take some other things for fact.
The News section of the December 3 issue of the Vancouver Sun describes Cindy Silver as someone who her opponents will have a difficult time portraying as an extremist, for reasons that I've stated. Moreover, the Vancouver Sun states that Silver is "more telegenic" than Ted White. I didn't paraphrase these bits of information from opinionated columnists in the Vancouver Sun; these were reported as FACT.
||06 12 05
|Oh and here's some more details on my citation of the Vancouver Sun.|
Look for an article called "Robinson faces his toughest fight" (written by Peter O'Neil and reported from Ottawa) that started from page a01 in the News section.
Within that article, there's a paragraph that reads:
"But Silver is moderately pro-choice on abortion and is a far more telegenic politician than Conservative Ted White, who Bell upset last year by a narrow four-per-cent margin. More important, it will be tougher to portray Silver as 'scary' given that both Bell, the former District of North Vancouver mayor, and Silver attend the same evangelical church."
I actually don't think it's a big deal about Don Bell going to the same church as Silver. The Liberals can simply point out that Bell isn't a member of Focus on the Family.
On the other hand, I seemed to have slightly underestimated Silver in my previous post. She's not just "more telegenic" than Ted White. She's FAR MORE TELEGENIC than Ted White! So there you go.
||05 12 05
||Not a So-Con|
|I am going to contradict many of the Liberal leaning posters here and bet my money on Cindy Silver. She is not, as many would try to paint her, a social conservative, but rather a social moderate who happens to go to church, the same one, by the way that Don Bell chose to attend a couple of years ago when he decided it might be politically advantageous to cultivate the religious right. If you look back over recent history, the pendulum often swings very sharp in one direction when the electorate wishes to "punish" an incumbent, whether it's a party or an individual. It happened with the NDP in BC, it happened with the PC party when Mulroney resigned as PM leaving poor Kim Campbell to face the voters, it happened in Vancouver when residents didn't like the way the NPA treated Philip Owen, and it happened in North Vancouver when Ted White screwed things up for himself. And I would venture to guess that in the morning, after each one of these elections, people said, "Whew, I didn't mean for THAT to happen, I just wanted to send a message." And in the following election, the results were reversed. So I think that is exactly what will happen in North Vancouver this time out. Don Bell does not have the best of reputations, and I don't think that voters really want him representing him. I say Cindy Silver all the way.|
||01 12 05
|Having battled against SSM in the courts for years, Cindy Silver is well aware that BC justice system has rejected the civil union proposal as inadequate, is aware that civil unions are under provincial jurisdiction and not Federal, is aware that the Supreme Court said the rulings in favor of SSM "flowed from the charter" and the only way of doing away with SSM was to invoke the notwithstanding clause. In other words, Cindy Silver "moderate" position is not only the same as Harper's it is also so much window dressing. If her party sticks to this position, and it seems it will, Vancouver Sun columnist Peter McKnight and perceptive Vancouver commentators will again rip it shreds as they did in January and February. In the well heeled communities of North Vancouver their message bore fruit and given that by election day it will be nearly 7 months since Bill 38 was passed and more than 2 years since gay marriage became a reality in BC, their message will again find a receptive audience. Indeed, support for SSM was at nearly 70% in the spring and growing fast. It is likley even higher now. |
Of course, Silver's opposition to SSM will not by itself sink her. Her association with various right wing Christian organizations and her various public positions will. People will remember that she worked for Focus on the Family. They will remember that she has been the top speaker at REAL women gatherings. People will remember that when a child in Surrey was in danger of hearing that it is ok to have two moms "if they're nice to you and if you like them", Silver did her best to see that the book was banned from the classroom. They will remember that when the UN advocated the use of "artificial methods of contraception" and "gender equality and homosexual rights", Silver wrote an article condemning them.
Pace North Shore News's Trevor Lautens, they will also not buy Silver's argument that her work a lawyer championing illiberal causes should no more count against her than the work of a defense lawyer defending count against them. They see that defense lawyers do not condone the crimes of which the guilty are accused. Rather, they insure that the innocent are not wrongly convicted by raising doubts as to an accused guilt. In sum, they see that there was a world of difference between honouring the principle of habeas corpus and pushing to have One Dad Two Dads Brown Dads Blue Dads banned.
All that being said Watcher, I will grant you this. Silver is more moderate than, say, Conservative MP Art Hanger. However that hardly makes her a moderate; it does however speak volumes about the Conservative Party.
||27 11 05
|I think this will be a close one. However, with the Conservative fortunes in British Columbia on the decline and Bell now having the advantage of being the incumbent, I think this will be a Grit hold. The fact that three time MP Ted White was thrown out in an election where Liberals did not fare well, demonstrates that this suburban riding is not as ideologically Conservative as many suppose.|
||06 11 05
|Cindy Silver was not promoted to candidacy because of the social conservative Illuminati. In fact, Cindy Silver isn't even socially conservative!|
She supports abortion, and same-sex civil unions, although not same-sex marriage. Not everyone from Focus on the Family speak with the same voice, just like the fact that not everyone from the Liberal party supports same-sex marriage.
||01 11 05
|Just to clear things up. Cindy Silver supports abortion, and favors same sex civil unions. While this doesn't make her as liberal as her rivals, it already puts her in the moderate wing of the Conservative Party. It probably also put her at odds with Focus on the Family but I'm not sure what she has to say about that.|
It may be interesting to see her juxtaposing her thrust against Don Bell's flip flop on same sex marriage and her support for same sex civil unions.
When all is said and done though, I think it's probably better to have that ex-BC Liberal MLA, that Jarvis fellow, going against Bell, because no matter how moderate Silver is, it's going to be difficult projecting a moderate image, given all her closet skeletons. Not her fault, of course, just bad for business.
||04 10 05
|This may have traditionally been a conservative riding, but on social issues, areas such as Lonsdale tend to be progressive. Only areas like Lynn Valley are still somewhat social conservative and even then it probably isn't enough to bring about a conservative victory. Add to the fact, even though the Conservatives have somewhat re-bounded in Ontario and Atlantic Canada where they are polling roughly the same as last election, in BC, every poll has put them under 30% and many under 25% so the Conservatives will NOT gain any seats in British Columbia. In fact they will be lucky if they lose fewer than 5 seats in BC. Any gains they make in Ontario, if they do make any, will be offset by losses in BC.|
||15 09 05
||Old Political Dog|
|One poster said that North Vancouver had swung over to accept SSM by 66%. I can't believe that and would like to see the original poll, the actual results, and know who conducted it. You can achieve anything you want from a poll by how you ask the question, and who you ask.|
||02 06 05
|Bell should be in trouble. A new, inexperienced MP defending a scandal-plagued government. But the Conservatives screwed up big time when they chose a nutty Bible-thumper who is sure to piss-off the well-heeled but socially moderate voters of the North Shore. If only the Conservatives had the sense to present a business-minded, small-c conservative candidate, they probably would have won back North Van. Hello, this is not Abbotsford. Bell will win by a fairly large margin.|
||01 06 05
|Had any of the other three Conservative candidates won, they could have taken this, but nominating Social conservative Cindy Silver just handed this to the liberals. This is a fiscally conservative, but socially liberal riding, which is why the Progressive Conservatives won this in the 80s, the Reform in the 90s before anyone knew what they stood for, and the BC Liberals provincially.|
||28 05 05
|The Conservatices are in a lot of trouble in North Van. I'd say it was a mistake for her party to nominate her, but, as an observer at the event, it was quite obvious that she was her churches choice, not necessarily the party's. Simply put she does not represent the beliefs of the average citizen of North Vancouver. Let me also say that some of her comments were ridiculous at the nomination meeting and if the media had been present, the election would have already been lost. That said, the Conservatives will always have support in North Vancouver and this seat is always winnable. They lost last time because Mr. White made some well documented mistakes. They will lose this time because Cindy just isn't electable. If I were Stephen Harper I would force her into several months of candidate training, lest she accidentally implies she's a Liberal or EXTREMELY right wing, again. The Conservatives still have a chance, but it's fleeting. The demographics here are changing, in 10 years this could be a Liberal stronghold...and this may just be the second step.|
||26 05 05
|Federal campaigns in BC used to be defined by the following belief; BC is given short shift by those Ottawa. This is no longer so. Federal politics in BC, but in the Lowermainland, in particular, is increasingly defined by a cleavage between social conservatives and social liberals. This partly explains the radical shift in support for SSM in North Vancouver. A recently conducted poll on SSM indicated that just over two thirds of North Vancouverites back SSM. It also helps explain the declining fortunes of the Conservative Party in BC as a whole. In the 2000 election the Progressive Conservatives and Alliance together took 57% of the vote. In 2004 the Conservatives took 36% of the vote and they are under 30% in the polls now. This trend will continue, especially in North Van. This wealthy, well educated community has really started to cultivate an image of its self as being slightly hedonistic and bohemian, progressive, open, physically active and environmentally aware. |
Rather than let Vancouver continue to develop itself as northern version of Berkley, the Conservative Party in the Lowermainland has nominated socially conservative candidate after socially conservative candidate. North Vancouver is no exception. Cindy Silver has been involved in pretty much every fight the Christian Right has had over the last decade in Canada. She also has extensive ties to conservative American organizations, such as Dobson’s Focus on the Family. She has written in favor of the anti UN manifesto, A Declaration from the World Congress of Families to the Governments of the Globe. Among other things, the Congress noted the following: “WE DECLARE that communities in harmony with human nature exhibit common traits in custom and law that include:
- recognition of religion as a common, necessary foundation of family life;
- affirmation of marriage as a lifelong covenant between a man and a woman and the only legitimate province for sexual intimacy” One of the authors of the document, former Reform MP and current Focus on the family member Sharon Hayes, who will forever be remembered for alleging that Chinese doctors consume “human fetuses as health food” and that they consider them "even better than placentas", is listed by Silver as having backed her nomination.
Cindy Silver will not go over well in North Vancouver.
By the way, during the 2004 election campaign Ted White accused the North Shore News of bias and even went so far as to threaten to sue them.
||22 05 05
|The Torries seem to be rolling in the radical social conservatives in BC! Cindy Silver was not just a "failed candidate", she was excluded from seeking a Liberal nomination in the BC provincial election because the BC Liberals throught she was too far right!! She has now been nominated as the Conservative candidate in North Vancouver. Ms Silver is a school trustee and lawyer who led the fight against books in schools depicting same-sex families. She is also a leader in the right wing, anti-women rights group REAL Women and the right-wing religious group Focus On The Family. This would certainly not be helpful in CPC's goal to soften its far right image.|
||19 05 05
|Don Bell will win again. The pro-conservative commentators seem happy to dismiss their most recent loss of this riding all on the back of Ted White's personal unpopularity (which was well deserved, indeed), but the fact is they won't do better than to field a complete unknown (I've seen the candidate nominations and they fail to impress) who has no political experience and will need to run a couple of times before people even know who he/she is and why they should vote for him/her. Granted, the die-hards will vote conservative even with Elmer Fudd the incumbnet, but as far as luring a significant number of centrist votes to the cause...not going to happen with Don Bell the opponent. And excuse me, previous writer, the fact that this is the riding of former conservatives Doug Colins et. al. who publicly voiced intolerant redneck hatred towards gays hardly provides justification to regaining this riding for the conservative fold.|
Don Bell: 42%
Conservative incumbent TBA: 35%
||09 05 05
|I think this will be extremely close and could easily go either way.|
It will depend on the Conservative Candidate and the general mood of the electorate when the election is finally held.
Obviously Don Bell pulled off an unexpected upset last time primarily because of his name recognition and Ted White's personal unpopularity. Undoubtably, the new conservative candidate will be able to bring back some of these swing voters.
However, I think that Don Bell could gain from strategic voting. Most "progressive" residents in the riding felt this was a safe Conservative seat and therefore were more likely to vote NDP or Green (after all it doesn't matter). However, now that it has been shown that the Liberals can win this seat, I expect that some previous NDP and Green party supporters will be more likely to vote for Don Bell, not to support the Liberals, but to vote against the Conservatives.
||07 05 05
|I just have to interject what I feel is some background misinformation here about North Vancouver. (Or at least information that is seen through rose [read = Liberal] coloured glasses.|
I'm speaking of this mythology building on this site that North Vancouver is some kind of bastion of social Liberalism.
As someone who has lived here for 15 years and worked 4 campaigns in the area, let me raise a few background points about the North Shore:
1. First of all, Don Bell promised to vote against same sex marriage and then voted for it. That is going to cost him big time here. Before Ted White left, he did a poll that found 66% of the riding was against SSM.
2. Doesn't anybody remember the old North Shore News? I'm talking about the one with Doug Collins, the holocaust-denying local celebrity who was a sort of demi-god amongst the many seniors in this 80%+ WASP riding? That was the paper written by North Vancouver, for North Vancouver.
3. Doesn't anyone remember standard-bearer of the hard right PC MP Chuck Cook who held this riding from 1979-1993? Cook once openly called Svend Robinson a sexual deviant only to be applauded in North Vancouver.
4. This was one of the 1993 ridings to dump the PCs and embrace the Reform party. They didn't let go until 2004, when a socially conservative Liberal ran a great campaign against White's non-campaign, promising to get in and defeat same sex marriage and won by a scant 2,000 votes.
Look, I'm not saying this riding is Abbotsford part two. But in a sense, it has always been a kind of urban Abbotsford. While the demographics are BEGINNING to change with the gentrification of Lower Lonsdale, there are still a lot of well off, old, white, god-fearin' men around here who are about as Conservative as they come.
I'll only further say that Don won barely, certainly in part because of the fact that these demographics are changing, but mainly because he ran a far better campaign and was a local boy who promised to vote against gay marriage. North Vancouver, connected to the rest of the Mainland by just two bridges, is still pretty isolated and maintains a sort of "small town" feel. Before Don, the last Liberal to win was Raines in '74, and he only won (by 500 votes) because he was a well known broadcaster, and the PC Jim Nielsen (later Socred health minister) who had the "audacity" to run here was a carpetbagger from Richmond.
Anyways, to conclude, with Don Bell's promise to vote against SSM, this riding has been won by social conservatives or on social conservative promises since at least 1979.
||04 05 05
|The blip on the radar that was Don Bell's victory last year will not be repeated. This riding, which was PC from 1979-1993 and Reform/CA from 1993-2004 will be returned to the Conservative fold. |
Why so confident?
1. Lots of people were fed up with Ted White - and of course the now famous film industry controversy didn't help. Ted didn't run much of a campaign (little or no doorknocking, mainstreeting, etc.) - nevertheless, Ted still only lost by 2,000 votes. Last time Don was able to make the ballot box question "Who is the best representative for the community?" and was able to convince people that as the Mayor, it was him. This time, the ballot box question is going to be: "Do you or do you not approve of corruption?" The voters of North Vancouver will not be merciful towards the Liberal Party.
2. I've heard many people around here who voted for Don Bell just to get him out of District Hall for good. A la Lou Sekora, they won't vote for him federally twice.
3. The Conservatives are energized: Having been elected 3 times, increasing his vote share each time, Ted was complacent. Now, the Tories are hungry. The nomination race here brought five tory candidates forward. That's cause they know its winnable, and they have re-energized the riding association.
Like Ed Nelson, the North Vancouver NDP MP from 1972-1974, or Marke Raines the Liberal who lasted one term in 1974-1979, Don Bell too will be ineligible for a pension when this seat returns to the Conservatives on election night.
||04 05 05
|2004 Results: Liberal - 40%, CPC - 36.4%, NDP - 15.9%. The results here were similar to Richmond. In addition, this riding has "blue" Liberal demographics, which is more inclined to the "Martin" Liberal brand, less so to the "Chretien" liberal brand, and also less so to a social conservative CPC brand. With the Liberals now having incumbency status, this seat will likely remain a Liberal hold, although the CPC will place a relatively strong second.|
||04 05 05
|This is a very wealthy riding and will go Conservative. Ted White lost last time because he was a weak candidate and didn't campaign. The NDP are never a factor here, and the Liberal vote will drop from last time. This coupled with the fact that the Don Bell has been pretty irrelevant in Ottawa should spell a Conservative pick-up.|
||04 05 05
|Don Bell will likely be re-elected unless the Conservatives choose a strong candidate. This is a centre-right riding that favours lower taxes, but is not supportive of social conservatism, which is why voters are wary of the Conservatives. Also Ted White's comments on the film industry which employs 6,000 people in this riding, the Iranian community who are quite large probably cost him his seat. Don Bell was a popular mayor and the liberals haven't fallen as much in BC as elsewhere so that should help. I also heard Cindy Silver who was a failed candidate for the BC Liberal nomination in North Vancouver-Seymour is trying again. Her social conservatism set off alarm bells in the BC Liberals who were worried her views would hurt their chance at re-election. If the right-leaning BC Liberals were concerned about her, then don't expect her to be an asset for the Conservatives, this not the Fraser Valley where social conservatism is popular.|