BC Political Discussion - BC Election 2017 May 9th

[Stingray2004]

The old adage that a day, or even a week, can be an eternity in politics certainly does ring true at times. The Throne Speech and subsequent "Confidence of the House" vote is still at least 2 weeks away.

Step back to the negotiations between Weaver/Greens & Horgan/NDP resulting in the GreeNDP accord. Weaver requested the assistance of Norman Spector at the bargaining table as an advisor. Spector heard/knew what was spoken thereto inclusive of future Green/NDP political strategies.

Spector seems to be leaking out internal strategies as time progresses.

Upthread I posted a Tweet by Spector from last Thursday:

Norman Spector‏ @nspector4 Jun 8

Speaker issue is a hole Horgan and Weaver dug for themselves [it gets deeper if they fail 2 get a Lib 2 cross as they expected]

Certainly raised eye-brows at the time. Late this afternoon, Spector provided a further clarification Tweet on same:

Norman Spector‏ @nspector4

Weaver-Horgan 44-43 agreement predicated on defection from Liberal caucus

The key word therein is "predicated". Synonyms include "dependent upon", "founded upon", "established upon", "grounded upon", etc. IOW, the foundation of the GreeNDP accord rests upon a BC Lib defecting to either the NDP or Greens or as Speaker. Obvious from today, that just ain't gonna happen.

Then begs the question... Will the GreeNDP accord survive during the "Confidence vote" on the Throne Speech without a Lib "defector"?

Global BCTV's legislative bureau chief, Keith Baldrey, even chimed in a couple of hours ago on Twitter with astonishment:

Keith Baldrey‏ Verified account @keithbaldrey 2 hours ago

Wow.

Norman Spector @nspector4
Weaver-Horgan 44-43 agreement predicated on defection from Liberal caucus

As an aside, over the last few weeks I have posted, on several occasions, about the constitutional "stability" test required by the LG concerning the GreeNDP accord. Tonight, in his weekly column, Global BCTV's Keith Baldrey essentially corroborates what I have previously posted herein:

OPINION: B.C. legislature's future is unclear
Keith Baldrey / New West Record

JUNE 12, 2017

Perhaps the biggest uncertainty of all is know precisely how Lt.-Gov. Judith Guichon is viewing all this and how intends to respond to various scenarios that could unfold.

It is common wisdom that, if the Clark government does indeed fall, that she turn to NDP Leader John Horgan to see if he can form a stable government.

The key word here, from Guichon’s point of view, is “stable.”

That’s all she really cares about. She wants to see strong evidence that whoever she turns to can provide that stability on an ongoing basis.

Can a one-seat majority provide that stability?

In weighing an answer to that question, consider how the B.C. legislature operates. The house spends most of its time in the “committee” stage to examine and debate pieces of legislation and the spending estimates of government ministries.

But under the rules of the Westminster parliament system, the Speaker doesn’t sit in committee and in fact leaves the chamber. When that happens, the B.C. Liberals will have the same number of MLAs – 43 – as the combined forces of the NDP and the B.C. Greens.

But the NDP and Greens would need to appoint a deputy speaker to chair that chair that committee. Suddenly, the B.C. Liberals would have a numerical advantage: 43 seats to 42 (the deputy speaker only votes in the event of a tie).

Does that kind of scenario provide stability?

According to B.C. Green leader Andrew Weaver, his side is toying with changing the rule that says the Speaker must not sit in committee. During those negotiations his party had with the NDP, Weaver disclosed to reporters that changing the “standing orders” (the legislature rulebook) was very much on the table.

But an arbitrary change of such a fundamental rule may be seen as a naked power grab, and who knows how the Lieutenant-Governor would view such a move. Maybe another election hovers into view (or maybe not).

For two parties with the smallest majority possible to start changing the rules governing how the legislature works to suit their political survival clash with public opinion as well (which may explain NDP leader’s John Horgan’s refusal to give me a yes/no answer last week when I asked him if his side was going to try to change those rules).

http://www.newwestrecord.ca/opinion/....kEsjdHPA.dpuf

[waves]

It does certainly feel like an eternity. I had enough of all the guessing games by now; I just want Jun 29th to arrive.

[logicbomb]

I feel like more people are now open to the idea of another election. Granted, that's largely because the media is pushing for it. The Libs are really stockpiling for their campaign which has seem to already begun.

I am not the biggest fan of the NDP but I feel like they at least deserve a chance to govern for the next bit. To say that another election is required because we need 1 party to unilaterally ram through legislation and dictate the future of the province is ludicrous; and goes against what democracy is.

That said, I do feel like we're going to see another election soon and the end result will be the Liberals gaining a majority. It would be way easier to achieve that goal if they jettison Christy Clark but I think they're hell bent on riding her.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by logicbomb

I feel like more people are now open to the idea of another election. Granted, that's largely because the media is pushing for it. The Libs are really stockpiling for their campaign which has seem to already begun.

I am not the biggest fan of the NDP but I feel like they at least deserve a chance to govern for the next bit. To say that another election is required because we need 1 party to unilaterally ram through legislation and dictate the future of the province is ludicrous; and goes against what democracy is.

That said, I do feel like we're going to see another election soon and the end result will be the Liberals gaining a majority. It would be way easier to achieve that goal if they jettison Christy Clark but I think they're hell bent on riding her.

Why would there be another election? We have a a NDP Green majority, they won the election and will govern. Their policies align closely enough, and more importantly the Greens absolutely need to eliminate first past the post elections and they will put up with just about anything to get that. That will happen in 2019, then give it two years to enact. We wont see another election until 2020 earliest and likely not for the full 4.5 years. Once first past the post is eliminated we wont see a Liberal majority any time soon, if ever again. The entire political landscape will change.

I do agree that our media, which by the way is on its death bed and losing relevance every day, is definitely pushing a agenda. Its gotten pretty bad. But I suppose if it cant make money for its owners it might as well push their agenda for them.

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by cornholio

Why would there be another election? We have a a NDP Green majority, they won the election and will govern. Their policies align closely enough, and more importantly the Greens absolutely need to eliminate first past the post elections and they will put up with just about anything to get that. That will happen in 2019, then give it two years to enact. We wont see another election until 2020 earliest and likely not for the full 4.5 years.

It's pure propaganda they're foolishly trying to spout here.

[Stingray2004]

Agreed that the LG won't grant dissolution of the House, which must be requested by her 1st minister, any time soon.

Whatever the LG decides, any minority gov't will be in a precarious position and will likely last 12 - 18 months at most.

As an aside, Ipsos-Reid came out with a new opinion poll today, which shows a statistical dead heat. Of more interest, was the response to this question therein:

As you may know, the Green Party has entered into an agreement to support an NDP minority government in BC.

On a combined basis, the NDP/Greens have 1 more seat in the Legislature than the BC Liberals (44 vs. 43). There is an open question of who will serve as Speaker and whether the Speaker will need to vote in a partisan manner to break possible tie votes. Some have suggested we should have another election to produce a more decisive outcome. Under a scenario where the Speaker must come from the NDP or Green Party (i.e. the BC Liberals do not agree to provide a Speaker), which of the following two options do you prefer?

1. 41% - Have an NDP minority government supported by the Greens, even if the Speaker needs to vote in a partisan manner to break tie votes.

2. 39% - Have another election that might produce a more decisive outcome.

3. 20% - Don't know.

[Bcasey25raptor]

Gotten awfully quiet in this thread lately.

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

Of more interest, was the response to this question therein:



1. 41% - Have an NDP minority government supported by the Greens, even if the Speaker needs to vote in a partisan manner to break tie votes.

2. 39% - Have another election that might produce a more decisive outcome.

3. 20% - Don't know.

How is this interesting? The minority of British Columbians who aren't happy with the result want another election, shocker.

[waves]

Originally Posted by Bcasey25raptor

Gotten awfully quiet in this thread lately.

I think its just a general tiredness of all the skepticism, rumours, guessing games ect. ect. We've been going since May 9th and the only "news stories" coming out are opinion columns.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Bcasey25raptor

Gotten awfully quiet in this thread lately.

Nothing happening other than the Liberals pretending they are still governing, dragging their heels, and trying to sow dissent in the NDP/Green coalition.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by Bcasey25raptor

Gotten awfully quiet in this thread lately.

Just like the Liberals and their contempt for the election results by playing all of these delay tactics. "Oh we won't elect a Speaker." "Oh we'll wait a month before the Throne Speech." "Oh we'll have ten days of debate after the Throne Speech."

Meanwhile shit needs to get done that's not getting done because of this lack of action from the Liberals.

[Stingray2004]

Biggest political bombshell from last few days has come from Weaver in his interview with Mike Smyth of the Province:

Mike Smyth: There could be trouble brewing in NDP-Green paradise

Victoria, we have a problem.

The NDP-Green power-sharing agreement appeared to show cracks on Tuesday over the crucial issue of who will serve as the speaker in a minority parliament.

That was evident in a conversation I had with B.C. Green party Leader Andrew Weaver, who said the New Democrats assured him in negotiations they would convince a Liberal to serve as speaker in an NDP-controlled legislature.

“The NDP essentially made us understand that they had been in conversation with some B.C. Liberals and that it would be no problem for them to find a speaker from within the B.C. Liberal ranks,” Weaver said.

He said the NDP “approached a couple of people” about the job, adding Liberal MLAs Linda Reid and Sam Sullivan were considered prime targets.

“A bunch of names were mentioned,” Weaver said. “Sam and Linda were two obvious ones.”

But it now appears no Liberal is willing to take the speaker’s job if the NDP seizes power — something Weaver said could create trouble for the NDP-Green alliance.

“Would it be a problem with our agreement? It would certainly make us pause and reflect upon the conditions of our agreement being met,” he said.

The selection of a speaker is crucial because the party standings in the 87-seat legislature are so tight after the razor-close May 9 election.

The NDP-Green alliance has 44 seats, while the governing Liberals have 43. The NDP and Greens have agreed to defeat Premier Christy Clark’s Liberals on a non-confidence motion in the legislature, which resumes sitting on June 22.

Weaver said it would then be important to get a Liberal in the speaker’s chair so the NDP-Green alliance doesn’t give up a crucial vote in the legislature.

“What I have said all along is certainty is very important to us,” Weaver said.

“Certainty and the agreement come hand-in-hand with there being a speaker coming from the Liberals.”

Christy Clark indicated a Liberal MLA will take the speaker’s job when she faces the legislature next Thursday. But it appears all bets will be off if the NDP and Greens gang up to defeat her government.

Judith Guichon, the lieutenant-governor, would then have the option to invite Horgan to form an NDP minority government, propped up by Weaver’s three Green MLAs.

But it appears no Liberal MLA — including Sullivan — will let their name stand for speaker with the NDP in power.

“On the speaker’s role, I can confirm that I have not been asked by the NDP or the Green party,” Sullivan said. “Were I to be asked, I would say ‘no.’ ”

A Liberal official said none of the party’s MLAs wants the job with the NDP in power.

That could force the New Democrats to put one of their own MLAs forward to be the speaker.

But that could create a problem, Weaver said, because the speaker doesn’t vote except to break a tie, which could become the norm in the deadlocked legislature.

“We’ll have a situation where it’s 43 to 43, with the speaker breaking the tie,” Weaver said.

“The speaker would have to make a decision as to whether they vote ‘yes’ on a bill to make it law. Typically, a speaker might be concerned if there wasn’t a majority on the floor already.

“One of the things we need is to ensure we give people certainty in the province of British Columbia. That is what we were looking to get.

“Certainty to us meant that the speaker wasn’t going to be voting to pass each and every bill. I don’t know how they’re going to deal with that.”

Weaver, however, said the Greens still support their agreement with the NDP, the text of which said nothing about a Liberal being the speaker.

“We’re committed to following through on our agreement, but we want to see what they’re going to do with the speaker,” he said.

“We would have to see if they have a plan in terms of how we can keep the legislature functioning with certainty. This is not our problem. That is the NDP problem.”

http://theprovince.com/news/bc-polit...green-paradise

Sounds like Weaver is getting cold feet moving forward. Then yesterday, Weaver stated that a "constitutional crisis" would ensue if the Liberals would not put forward a Speaker in a GreeNDP gov't. Sounds like a hint of desperation to me.

Remember that the LG is following all these matters in the media like the rest of us. Weaver's "big mouth" will undoubtedly impact her decision in accepting a GreeNDP gov't as "stable" that could last for at least one year.

One must also remember that constitutional expert Ron Cheffins is possibly advising the LG (Cheffins has advised 5 previous BC LGs). Cheffins was already on the record as calling the GreeNDP accord "a mess" and favours dissolution.

Would be kinda ironic if the GreeNDP bring down the incumbent gov't with the Throne Speech vote, then attempt to persuade the LG to allow them to form gov't. If the LG finds the GreeNDP "unstable" over at least one year and rejects their accord, then likely only alternative is dissolution/new election. BTW, even Horgan has admitted that the LG might reject the GreeNDP accord.

Under that scenario, who will the voters punish for the new election? Likely NDP and Greens.

[whatnext]

I hope Christy does try and trigger another election. The voters will punish her for that, not the NDP or Greens.

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

Under that scenario, who will the voters punish for the new election? Likely NDP and Greens.

Nope.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by whatnext

I hope Christy does try and trigger another election. The voters will punish her for that, not the NDP or Greens.

So let's put shoe on other foot. Let's say NDP had 43 seats v. 41 Libs + 3 Greens (or whatever). Incumbent gov't was NDP and allowed to govern. Libs and Greens (or whatever poli party) decide to form accord to defeat NDP at Throne Speech.

Both Libs & Greens (or whatever) both know that their accord might not be accepted by LG but still proceed. LG rejects accord, which results in dissolution.

So you are telling me, under that scenario, that the electorate would punish the NDP as a result of the Lib/Green (or whatever) actions, which precipitated a new election?

[Stingray2004]

Constitutional expert on Westminster system Philippe Lagassé‏ has been approached by many in BC (media et al) on his views on the current BC constitutional scene.

FWIW, Lagassé is of the overall opinion:

Dissolution would preempt legislature’s prerogatives. Keeping legislature alive until demonstrably fails proper course.

Nevertheless, Lagassé understands that the incumbent gov't has advantage in Westminster system. His overall take recently on Twitter stream:

Key question for the LG now in BC is stability. Is a stable government available? If so, it should be given a chance. If not, a dissolution.

The key issue for LG is stability. If she believes an NDP government backed by the Greens would work for a year or more, she should let it.

LG's decision then rests on her opinion of a NDP/Gn Speaker option, her perceived stability of their pact, and her view of her discretion.

Suffice to say, NDP/Greens better start showing more fortitude, confidence, and solidarity.

A lot rests on who's advising the LG, too. If she brought in Cheffins, chances of her accepting a dissolution are high.

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

So you are telling me, under that scenario, that the electorate would punish the NDP as a result of the Lib/Green (or whatever) actions, which precipitated a new election?

The majority does not want the BC Liberals in power. If it was the opposite of reality then yes, of course.

[240glt]

^ it's sounding that way. The electorate may punish the liberals simply for calling an election.

[djmk]

Originally Posted by 240glt

^ it's sounding that way. The electorate may punish the liberals simply for calling an election.

Why would the Liberals call for an election? If the Libs looses a confidence motion (which the NDP/Greens are threatening), the election is entirely in the hands of the LG at that point. And if the coalition does form, the next forced election is because the coalition fails.

I can't see how any of this falls of the Liberals.

[WarrenC12]

My prediction if a new election is called: Public punishes Libs. Votes will swing strategically away from the Greens to the NDP to ensure a real majority.

The BC Libs can actually bow to the "will" of the people here and let the NDP/Greens have a shot. The NDP-Greens are a seat short of being able to force the issue themselves.

There's no way the blame doesn't fall squarely on Clark's shoulders.