BC Political Discussion - BC Election 2017 May 9th

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by a very long weekend

this is an interesting point.

Metro Van population is 2.5M
Vancouver Island (where NDP is strong) is 750k

Province is only around 4.6M. Stands to reason you can get in with these regions making up 70% of the people in BC.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Geof

Metro-One, I agree with you about slandering folks from outside the big cities.

Though my impression of the original post was that it was self-mocking, perhaps because I find it hard to imagine someone being so rude and unreflective that they would publicly suggest that people are socially or intellectually inferior because of who they voted for.

I do take exception to this, however:



It's not the far left doing this. It's the trendy liberal left, which emphasizes cultural issues (some of them real problems, some of them imaginary) in order to avoid looking at their own advantages. It was liberal Clinton, not "socialist" Sanders, who decried working people as "deplorables."

I think this election highlights B.C.'s increasing urban-rural divide as a serious problem. I think it's fine for these groups to have different interests and values: that's normal; that's why we have politics. I make no apologies for my urban interests and values, from transit to environmental issues. I don't expect folks who disagree with me to apologize for their interests or values either.

A divide on geographical lines is particularly dangerous, because it leads - as you say - to a situation where disagreements stop being about interests, which can be negotiated, and become about identity, which cannot. What worries me is the two solitudes that we see in the U.S., where (at their worst) one side sees their opponents as not "real" Americans, and the other side sees their opponents as barbarians.

This sentiment was what I was trying to get across, you just articulated it better

Originally Posted by Bcasey25raptor

I was joking. I know not everyone in the interior is a redneck. I grew up in kelowna, it's far more complex than that.

Also facts do remain. Like in Washington state. These a huge difference in political views west and east of the cascades/coast mountains.

I was not so much referring to your comment, more the one at the bottom of page 40.

[libtard]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

This sentiment was what I was trying to get across, you just articulated it better





I was not so much referring to your comment, more the one at the bottom of page 40.

That comment was poking fun at her original comment

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by libtard

That comment was poking fun at her original comment

If that is the case that is a relief.

This forum is usually pretty good with political conversations, especially compared to countless other forums and comment sections which are becoming nothing more than childish name calling and hyperboles. I want to keep it that way

It is also interesting to note that the Liberlas most significant ground in Metro-Vancouver coincides with the largest Chinese populations. So definitely more than just "rednecks" haha.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Metro Van population is 2.5M
Vancouver Island (where NDP is strong) is 750k

Province is only around 4.6M. Stands to reason you can get in with these regions making up 70% of the people in BC.

My point was rather that the NDP no longer has to try and vocally satisfy both rural resource workers/unions and urban environmentalists. That was what the BC Libs tried to attack them with ("Say Anything John"). The NDP could just concentrate on winning over middle class suburbanites in the place of those rural ridings they used to own.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Weaver may dislike Horgan, but propping up the BC Liberals will sign the death warrant for the Green Party. He also needs to see where the momentum was in the election, it definitely wasn't with the BC Liberals.

OTOH, Weaver propping up the BC NDP will be even much more of a death warrant for the BC Greens - esp. when a majority of their 2017 vote increase came at the expense of 2013 BC Lib/BC Con voters based upon overall comparative provincial vote share changes. Weaver likely won't keep these voters in the next election as the BC NDP is simply not palatable to these folk.

That aside and even if Courtenay-Comox doesn't flip after final recount, etc. a BC NDP/BC Green combination will still only add up to 44 seats v. 43 for the Libs. Such a combination will also require a speaker appointed leaving 43 - 43 tie votes in the legislature. If just one BC NDP/BC Green MLA fails to show up for a confidence vote, throne speech vote, monetary bill, etc. then the gov't falls. No stability there.

Under that scenario, if the gov't falls, that does not necessarily mean a new election. The lieutenant-governor could appoint the BC Libs as gov't if she believes they have the confidence of the house (that BC Greens will then support them).

Now some political history with narrow gov't MLA margins. Back in the 1979 BC election, the outcome 31 Socreds v. 26 NDP. With a speaker appointed from Socred benches leaving a 4 seat majority. Even then, at one point, the gov't almost fell in a confidence vote as some Socred MLAs were either sick, unable to attend, etc.

After the 1996 BC election, the BC NDP had 39 seat to 36 seat opposition. With a speaker appointed, the BC NDP had a 2 seat majority. During one key confidence vote, the 5-minute vote warning bell was ringing in the legislature. Then BC preem Glen Clark ran toward the doors of the house, but was too late. Doors had already been locked for voting - it was a tie and the speaker broke the tie.

Again, a BC NDP/BC Green combo would always result in a tie vote. An unstable proposition.

OTOH, a combined BC Lib/BC Green vote would be 46 - 41 and bring more stability. The BC Libs could also govern as a minority akin to the 2004/2006/2008 fed Con minority gov'ts. The fed Libs did not prop them up - they just abstained from voting to prevent the gov't from falling and a new election.

Here's former UVic prof Norman Ruff from earlier this afternoon:

BC Greens most likely to side with Liberals in a minority government: UVIC professor

Vancouver, BC, Canada / News Talk 980 CKNW | Vancouver's News. Vancouver's Talk
Emily Lazatin
Posted: May 11, 2017 02:34 pm

A professor emeritus of political science at the University of Victoria says even if the Greens and the NDP have more common ground on key issues, if B.C. stays as a minority government, Andrew Weaver will most likely side with the Liberals.

Norman Ruff says it all comes down to pushing through votes at legislature, adding that the Green Party will want to be part of an effective government.

He says it comes down to math, saying it’s easier to get everyone to show up at legislature when you’ve got 46 people versus 44 people if the Greens teamed up with the NDP.

He explains from the side of a Liberal-Green perspective.

“You give one out to the speaker, it makes it 45 to 41. It’s still very narrow, people get sick, or people get caught up and don’t make it and vote, so it’s still very precarious,” says Ruff.

“It means when you take a vote and everyone is in the house, the probability of winning is extremely high.”

Ruff says for the Greens it’s what makes the most sense to get things done.

http://www.cknw.com/2017/05/11/bc-gr...vic-professor/

Originally Posted by whatnext

This result is actually quite liberating for the NDP. They now see there is a path to victory by winning Metro Vancouver and are no longer beholden to rural resource ridings.

Well... not exactly... when you look at the Metro Van swing ridings that flipped to the BC NDP in 2017... many 2013 BC Lib voters either stayed home or voted BC Green (a palatable option for 2013 BC Lib voters). Swing riding numbers here:

https://www.datawrapper.de/_/SzrFX

[Sheba]

B.C. Election 2017: Green Leader Andrew Weaver keeping options open in historic breakthrough

B.C. Green party Leader Andrew Weaver revealed little on Wednesday of how he might capitalize on a possible minority B.C. government as he and his two newly-elected candidates basked in the glow of being the first Green caucus in North America.

Speaking in the Rose Garden of the B.C. legislature — a day after the Green’s historic breakthrough three-seat win — he said he looked forward to working with whichever party the Greens have the most commonality on platforms.

Not withstanding the fact the Green’s platform has more in common with the NDP — on tax reform, economic development, the environment, health, education and campaign financing — Weaver suggested he could work with the Liberals or the NDP.

If the results remain as they are — 43 seats for the Liberals, 41 for the NDP — then the Greens would hold the balance of power.

Weaver, who won the first B.C. Green seat in 2013, said there would be discussions with both parties on where their key policy goals could be met, saying they understood the need for compromise.

Weaver spoke with Liberal Leader Christy Clark and NDP Leader John Horgan on election night Tuesday, and was speaking with them each again Wednesday afternoon.

Weaver also was cautious about over-extending his hand on any kind of co-operative arrangement or coalition given there are likely to be recounts in several ridings, including Courtenay-Comox where the NDP won with just nine votes. There are also absentee ballots to be counted.

The final outcome of the election may not be known for weeks.

However, Weaver said that a deal breaker to co-operation was their policy to eliminate big money in B.C. politics.

Both the Greens and NDP have called for bans on corporate and union donations with caps on the money that can be contributed. While the NDP continued to collect union and corporate donations during this election, the Greens did not.

The Liberals have promised a non-binding panel on the issue.

Other key areas of difference between the Greens and Liberals include liquefied natural gas development, the $9-billion Site-C hydroelectric project and Kinder Morgan’s $7.9-billion Trans Mountain oil pipeline expansion, all of which the Greens oppose.

Pressed by reporters on whether he could support a Liberal government given their policy differences, Weaver said it was simply too premature to say.

“For us, the single most important thing to do is to ensure good public policy is put forward — and we are above the partisan rhetoric. We want to ensure that the values we brought to the legislature, which were clearly supported by a large number of British Columbians actually flow over into any working arrangement we have with any of the other political parties,” he said.

Weaver also suggested Site-C was an issue the Greens could compromise on.

He said the Greens oppose Site-C, the NDP want to send it to the B.C. Utilities Commission for review and the Liberals want the project to go ahead. “I think we could see a compromise position there,” he said.

Weaver also said he could work with Horgan despite a call by him for Greens not to split the vote, which angered some Green supporters.

Proportional representation is another issue the Greens will bring to the discussion table, although Weaver did not say it was a deal breaker. Proportional representation would likely allow the Greens to secure more seats.

Weaver pegged the Green’s historic breakthrough to his party giving something for British Columbians to vote for, not against — getting votes from both traditional Liberals and NDP supporters, and people who usually did not vote.

In the ridings the Greens won, a higher proportion of people voted than the B.C. average.

In Saanich and North Islands, won by Green candidate Adam Olsen, voter turnout out was 79 per cent, compared to 57 per cent for the province.

Cowichan Valley Green candidate Sonia Fursteneau said they take their mandate from the public very seriously. “We are part of history. We are the first Green caucus elected in North America. We are opening up an entire new area for politics in this country and on this continent,” she said.

University of B.C. political scientist Max Cameron said, if the minority government remains, the Greens could set the stage for a historic and fundamental shift in the development trajectory of the province away from fossil fuels to a green economy.

He said the Greens could look to Germany where the Greens formed a left-centre coalition with the social democrats that helped bring about a fundamental green change in the energy infrastructure.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

OTOH, Weaver propping up the BC NDP will be even much more of a death warrant for the BC Greens - esp. when a majority of their 2017 vote increase came at the expense of 2013 BC Lib/BC Con voters based upon overall comparative provincial vote share changes. Weaver likely won't keep these voters in the next election as the BC NDP is simply not palatable to these folk...https://www.datawrapper.de/_/SzrFX

Disagree. The people I know who voted Green consider Christy with her big resource and development funders to be the anti-christ. If somebody who voted to Save the Environment finds out they did so it order to prop up Ms. SiteC and her Kinder Morgan and LNG elves they will be livid.

You were keen to promote Weaver and his policies when it looked like they were going to poach NDP votes, maybe its time to actually give those voters credit for actually believing in those policies. It's very likely those who were
true Liberals (aka Gordon Wilson era) have finally realized the current party is just the Socred Retreads, and they've drifted away. Looks like Christy might ride the Rita Johnson elevator!

[Stingray2004]

Nada. Weaver has the highest likability factor as well as favourability ratings with the electorate. Saw it all coming. So did the BC NDP with their "A vote for Greens is vote for Christy Clark" strategy - which was effective for the 2017 election. Again, quite apparent from 2013 provincial vote share that BC Green increase came at expense of BC Libs and even BC Cons as the palatable alternative. A simple voter migration analysis.

Now Weaver is in the limelight. Yesterday he boasted that federal Liberals were his voters. Basically how I described Weaver/Greens.

Quite frankly, Weaver wants to supplant BC NDP as a centrist opposition in the long run. Ya might not know this but a civil war is extant in Greater Victoria between Greens/NDP at municipal/provincial/federal level - area where Greens obtained their 3 seats. Helluva lot of bad blood there behind the scenes.

Weaver is a very bright guy and has poli instincts. Doesn't want to align with NDP, which would alienate former BC Lib voters. Also doesn't want to align with BC Libs, which would alienate potential future soft BC NDP voters. He is looking at the long poli game strategically - aligning with any party would tarnish his "new way of doing politics" narrative.

Gonna be fun watching this all unfold.

PS. Weaver is the new Tom Uphill... in a different sense/dynamic.

[csbvan]

Interesting number crunching by a UBC economist looking at past elections. He gives it about a 60% chance of status quo, over 20% of a tie and a 10% chance of a Liberal majority:

http://www.cknw.com/2017/05/11/ubc-e...sc_ref=twitter

[WarrenC12]

The only people I know who voted Green were absolutely disgusted with Clark, and would have been typical NDP voters but looking for something fresh. And, clearly not thinking about voting strategically.

Take a look at their platform:

http://www.bcgreens.ca/platform

They are pretty much diametrically opposed to the Liberals on Transportation, Childcare/Preschool, Public Education, and of course campaign finance reform.

And that doesn't even include the environment(!).

I see those as their major pillars, and no way they are going to go along with BC Liberal plans in any of those areas, or risk losing most of the support they just gained.

Weaver has the toughest job here IMO. If he allies with the Liberals, the NDP will have a field day picking them both apart. There's an election coming up in 12 months or less.

It's always easier to be in opposition. Best case for the BC Libs would be a tie after recounts, and the Greens side with the NDP, and proceed to half-ass and bungle things for several months before the next election.

[GMD]

Just to clear up what seems to be a common point of confusion.

If the change in results in a riding since last election (for example) is as follows:

Lib: (-4%)
NDP: No change
Green (+4%)

.. you can't conclude that the Greens took from the Liberals and not the NDP. Equally likely, there was a migration of voters from the Liberals to the NDP and a migration of voters from NDP to Greens that were offsetting. In reality, there will be a combination of both and you'd need to look at detailed survey data to really know. I can easily see people tired of the Liberal corruption deciding to vote NDP as the best option to get rid of them. I can also easily see people moving their vote from NDP to Green given the strong presence brought by Andrew Weaver as leader and the easy ride on the Greens in the media and from the Liberals.


Second point, regardless of what Weaver thinks of Horgan or Clark, he'd be nuts to form any sort of coalition with the Liberals. The Green party is actually in a very dangerous situation here with respect to their long term viability, unless they can get some key things accomplished, they would be much better off (long term) not holding the balance of power. Their best bet (in a minority situation) is likely to make a deal with the NDP on three primary conditions, and then turn on them at a convenient moment once those conditions are met:

Conditions:

1) Pass a ban on corporate/union donations - this is a hugely popular stance across the electorate, with the added bonus of causing both of the Green's opponents to lose their primary funding source, and it's also good policy from an ethical standpoint - this is a no brainer for the Greens.

2) Time limited promise to move on electoral reform. This is the key to a long term future for the Greens in the province. It's a much heavier lift than the donation ban and less popular with the electorate, but doable

3) Pipeline opposition - this is another very popular position, especially anywhere the Greens might ever compete for a seat, and it is sort of a defining issue for the Greens. If a green party won't fight an oil pipeline, what good is it? If they partner with a (Liberal) government that gets the pipeline built then what future credibility can they have as a 'green' party?

The easy part is that the NDP is already on board with all three of these positions. The hard part would be knowing how and when to pull the plug without alienating too many of their supporters - that is why they need to use their current influence to do things that will help them in the long run, because the medium term is likely to be tough no matter what they do.

[WarrenC12]

^^^^^ Well said, I agree 100%

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by GMD

Second point, regardless of what Weaver thinks of Horgan or Clark, he'd be nuts to form any sort of coalition with the Liberals.

Unfortunately, you are confused right there. A "coalition" with any poli party has the lowest probability of any scenario. A lower form of "accord" even seems quite unlikely. A 2004, 2006, 2008 minority fed Con gov't situation seems more likely scenario with the fed Libs abstaining on confidence votes without any "support". That said, a few bones may be thrown to the BC Greens.

Frankly, I don't understand posters subscribing to BC NDP/BC Greens cooperating as said co-operation would already be "under-water" in parliamentary terms as I described above.

Moreover, Weaver is positioning BC Greens as centrist fed Libs and doesn't want to be tainted by closely associating with either BC NDP or BC Libs. Would undoubtedly hinder BC Green prospects in the next election, which likely will be within 18 months. Poli 101.

Have analyzed all 87 riding results for 2017 v. 2013 transposed results for new riding boundaries. Key ridings throughout BC, certainly provide evidence of voter migration at the riding level albeit different in different locales.

Now I will go into further detail/sub-level voter migration analysis. Tonight, Van Sun's Vaughn Palmer, Global BC's Keith Baldrey and the Globe & Mail's Justine Hunter provided some further information in that regard for an hour on Shaw TV.

In terms of Metro Vancouver swing ridings, just in terms of Surrey, the BC Libs lost ~20,000 2013 BC Lib voters in Surrey in 2017... some voted BC NDP, more voted BC Green, while the majority just stayed home. More complex but provides insights into Metro Vancouver's swing ridings in 2017.

[GMD]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

Unfortunately, you are confused right there.

You may notice that I wrote, 'any sort of coalition', by which I meant any sort of cooperative agreement, sorry if you got hung up on the word 'coalition'.

The simple reason for the Greens to align with the NDP is because that is the natural alignment between the two parties constituencies. Look at the platforms, look at the key issues, there's little difference between NDP/Green and little in common with the Liberals.

I'm sure Weaver does want to avoid associating too closely with either party, but he may not have much choice in a minority situation, unless he wants to be seen as the person who caused us to have another election with his unwillingness to stand up for what people assume a Green party would stand up for - that won't do him any favours either.

Muddling through can work in some minority situations, but the current arrangement does not really suit it, in my opinion. Both the Greens and NDP are too starkly ideologically opposed to the Liberals (in the minds of their core voters if not in the minds of their leaders) for it to be a good plan for either of them. I guess time will tell (if we even end up with a minority government).

[Common Sense]

There s a very detailed article crunching the numbers on whether the Greens split the left wing vote with the NDP or did the Green Vote made the Liberals lose its majority.

http://www.cknw.com/2017/05/10/greens/

The conclusion seems to be the Green Vote hurt both the NDP and the Liberals but hurt the Liberals more.

[cornholio]

I have not read everything here. But I have read the 2013 absentee ballots and if you extrapolate those to the 2017 election then Comox will stay NDP and Burke will flip leaving it a 42 42 Lib NDP split and the Greens with 3. I have it on good accord that if that happens there will be a Green with NDP coalition formed and the Libs will be rightfully out. It looks like the media and influential people are in a proactive defensive mode right now. Pretty sad to see our media being so compromised. Anyways.

Will be interesting to see what happens in 2 weeks but it looks like the odds are the Libs have lost and we will have the most interesting combination possible with a Green NDP coalition. Just look at the two's platforms and see what aligns...Some real and pretty extreme change that the NDP alone would not have brought with a majority, but a coalition will push it through as their platforms merge and compromise. Interesting mix with a even more interesting likely product.

2 weeks, we will see.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by GMD

Conditions:

1) Pass a ban on corporate/union donations - this is a hugely popular stance across the electorate, with the added bonus of causing both of the Green's opponents to lose their primary funding source, and it's also good policy from an ethical standpoint - this is a no brainer for the Greens.

You do realize that BC NDP also relies heavily upon loan guarantees by both the Steelworkers (USW) and CUPE election after election? In BC NDP bills "banning corporate/union" donations, that matter is conveniently left out. Those loan guarantees would be gone and so would BC NDP bank loans, which comprise a good chunk of campaign/election funding. Moreover, many unions provide "free labour" in terms of volunteers paid by unions. You can see same all over Twitter during the 2017 campaign. Doubt the BC NDP will ever agree to those provisions. Would kill them.

Originally Posted by GMD

2) Time limited promise to move on electoral reform. This is the key to a long term future for the Greens in the province. It's a much heavier lift than the donation ban and less popular with the electorate, but doable

BC NDP platform has referendum on any electoral reform. They don't even define same but will likely choose their own favourite. BC has already been down that road twice. Both rejected. And major BC NDP stalwarts oppose change from FPTP. Remember the BC NDP led "KNOW STV" campaigns?

Originally Posted by GMD

3) Pipeline opposition - this is another very popular position, especially anywhere the Greens might ever compete for a seat, and it is sort of a defining issue for the Greens. If a green party won't fight an oil pipeline, what good is it? If they partner with a (Liberal) government that gets the pipeline built then what future credibility can they have as a 'green' party?

Angus Reid poll from a few weeks back confirms that a majority of BCers now support KM. Feds have approved same and KM is under their jurisdiction. That matter is over except for rhetoric.

Nada. Completely disagree with your suppositions.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by cornholio

I have not read everything here. But I have read the 2013 absentee ballots and if you extrapolate those to the 2017 election then Comox will stay NDP and Burke will flip leaving it a 42 42 Lib NDP split and the Greens with 4.

Sigh. Where is the 4th BC Green seat?

BTW, you do realize that Coquitlam-Burke Mountain BC Lib winning margin increased today as a result of an Elections BC counting error?

FWIW, I love politics/elections... but man... many here don't seem to get their facts correct.

[Docere]

In addition of the expanded Green zone on Vancouver Island and a growing urban-rural divide between Metro Vancouver and the Interior was the (related to the second) further erosion of small "l" liberal support for the Liberals and the further growth of the NDP among that demographic.

Vancouver Point Grey is a great example. There, David Eby's margin of victory was larger than that of Gordon Campbell in 1996, 2005 and 2009. The NDP also easily prevailed again in demographically similar Fairview and came close in condo-dominated False Creek (a riding I didn't think they were in contention with).

The BC Liberals are more rural and populist and less urban than before. In terms of their geographic base, They look more and more like the (pre-2015) federal Conservative Party (fewer people like Ted Nebbeling, Moira Stilwell, Val Anderson etc.) In fact pretty much everywhere they won were areas that went Conservative in the Harper years except for False Creek. Meanwhile, the NDP is much more of an urban progressive party and their old union/resource base has diminished.

It used to be that the West Side latte sipper with a graduate degree couldn't vote for the "union guys" party (except for Harcourt in 1991) and voted with the "free enterprise coalition", but now the West Side latte sipper with a graduate degree is more likely to vote NDP than the resource worker.