2017 British Columbia election

[Lotuslander]

Haha. Why do NDP zealots/flakes continue to troll this thread? We have "Adma", from Ontario, a 5-hour flight away from BC, who knows absolutely nothing about BC politics and has contributed absolutely nothing to this BC election thread except to troll - part of the "NDP is a church" crowd - the Christian Heritage Party types on the left. No analytical skills whatsoever.

We have "Adam T" who claims to reside in the east Richmond neighbourhood of Hamilton... yet is/was unaware that neighbouring Queensborough is part of New Westminster earlier herein - about a 15-second drive down the 91 Fwy. Every dummy in Metro Vancouver is aware of same. Sigh.

As for the poster "DL" herein, Bryan Breguet, who runs the well known site "Too Close to Call"... on Twitter today expressly told "DL":

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I will leave it at that.

Now back to the current 2017 outcome and various potential political permutations.

Even if Courtenay-Comox (which BC NDP won by 9 votes) doesn't flip from the BC NDP to BC Libs after final recount (another ~2,000 votes), 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 BC 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 legislative 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 resulting in a new election.

Former well-known UVic prof Norman Ruff from earlier yesterday, who is also known to have soft-centre-left leanings (BTW, his wife ran for the BC NDP in a Greater Victoria area riding during the 1972 BC election):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.cknw.com/2017/05/11/bc-greens-most-likely-to-side-with-liberals-in-a-minority-government-uvic-professor/

And tonight, in a Globe & Mail article, BC Green leader Andrew Weaver is quoted as follows:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There are the words again... "stable gov't".

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/weaver-charts-path-to-green-party-support/article34981079/

[Lotuslander]

1.I never said I reside in the Richmond neighborhood of Hamilton.

Haha. You are nothing more than a complete and utter flake. You incessantly post that you have "put me on your Ignore List" yet, every time I post herein... you deceive everyone... you have not put me on your "Ignore List". You always respond to my posts. Typical fringe "Jehovah's Witness Sect" NDPer. Weird and bizarre.

Now you even deceive again. The only residential neighbourhood in East Richmond IS Hamilton! Any dummy in Metro Vancouver is aware of that as well FFS.

From our discussion herein on November 11, 2015:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Google is my friend. Caught ya in another deceitful episode irrespective of your bafflegab. BTW, I have zero tolerance for both deceitful folk as well as NDP "cultists" akin to yourself. Don't EVER want to see you respond to me ever again. Capiche?

[Lotuslander]

Even a week after the BC election am still digesting the results and implications of same. The more I review the 2017 results... the more that I am drawn back to a similar minority BC gov't situation back in 1952 - 65 years ago. A good starting point thereto.

As a background, prior to the 1952 BC election, a "Coalition" gov't comprising both BC Liberals as well as BC PCs had governed since 1941. That "Coalition" had disintegrated by the time of the 1952 BC election was held. Both the BC Liberals and BC PCs ran as separate political parties during the 1952 BC election. The then BC Socreds were an unknown upstart without any member of the BC Legislature.

1952 BC election results:

Socred: 19 seats;
CCF (NDP predecessor): 18 seats
Liberal: 6
PC: 4
Ind. Labour - Tom Uphill (long-time BC poli history): 1

As the Socreds won the most seats (under WAC Bennett), they were first in line to form a gov't - a critical matter as if they are unable to have confidence of the house and are defeated, the Lieutenant-Governor requires evidence from another party that they would have the confidence of the house in order for the L-G to grant them authority to form gov't. Otherwise, the L-G has no alternative but to order a new election.

However, the then Socreds were all poli neophytes and the CCF actually slightly won the 1952 popular vote share over the Socreds. Moreover, Ind. Labour candidate Tom Uphill was expected to side with the CCF - resulting in an equal draw. And that was the argument that the then CCF leader brought to the L-G to have a first shot at forming gov't back in 1952. IOW, a 19 Socred + 18 CCF + 1 Ind. Labour equaled a tie.

The additional combined 10 Liberal/PC seats was not material in terms of the L-Gs decision.

WAC Bennett was well aware that the Ind. Labour candidate, Tom Uphill, was extremely unhappy that the CCF ran a candidate against him and that Uphill barely won by 9 votes in the election. WAC Bennett not only foresaw same but also obtained Uphill's agreement that he would support Social Credit's bid to form the government, which evidence was presented to the L-G. IOW, the Socreds had a 2-seat margin over the CCF, aside from the 10 Liberal/PC seats.

Even if the Ind. Labour candidate Tom Uphill had side with the CCF, since the Socreds had a 1-seat majority over the CCF, they still would have been called upon by the L-G to form gov't as the Socreds had the most seats back in 1952. Parliamentary tradition.

9 months later, the combined CCF, Liberals, and PC opposition voted down the Socred minority gov't on a confidence motion (which Socreds fully anticipated). The CCF then went to the L-G stating that Tom Uphill had now backed them to form gov't. To no avail. The L-G dissolved the 1952 BC Legislature and called a new election. The Socreds won a majority gov't with the voters punishing the CCF, Liberals, and PCs.

3 Key takeaways from 1952 BC election aftermath:

1. L-G will always ask the political party with most seats to attempt to form gov't;

2. If gov't defeated, L-G will not grant next party, with most votes in house, to form gov't... unless it has confidence of entire house;

3. Voters will punish any political party that attempts to bring down gov't in short term causing another election;

Fast forward to 2017 assuming that Courtenay-Comox riding does not flip from NDP (9-vote win) to Liberals next week in final count (with ~1,500 - 2,000 absentee/special ballots);

We have:

43 Liberals
41 NDP
3 Greens

Akin to 1952, the Liberals have first opportunity to form gov't due to having most seats. If the minority Liberal gov't is defeated in a subsequent confidence motion, another party has the opportunity to plead to the L-G that they have the "confidence" of the house - a much higher level "test". The key word here is "confidence". IOW, that they will have majority of votes in the house aside from Speaker.

And in BC's current dynamic of a 43 - 43 split (aside from Speaker), the L-G views the Speaker as an independent officer of the legislature (approved by majority legislative support even though elected MLA). Again, if the Liberals are defeated, the L-G views both the Liberals and NDP/Greens as having 43 seats each in the house a "tie". Ergo, the NDP/Greens will not have "confidence of House" to replace Liberals - eg. majority vote (Speaker not relevant here) from the L-Gs perspective..

Completely corroborates constitutional expert Prof Ron Cheffins (who has advised 5 BC L-Gs) analysis that if the Liberals are defeated in a confidence motion... the L-G will order a new election.

Bottom Line? Either Liberal minority gov't or a new election forthwith and voters typically punish political parties that bring fresh elections in the aftermath of a recent election based upon British Parliamentary history.

PS. Startling that BC media are all focused upon what the Greens can obtain from NDP/Liberals in terms of "comprises". At end of day... all a moot point. Nevertheless, Weaver pointed out today that the Liberals will still need their support for stable gov't if Liberals win the 44th seat (Courtenay-Comox) for bare minimum majority. Good point.

[Lotuslander]

3. If Clark presents a throne speech and the NDP and Greens vote it down and announce they have an agreement, the LG would almost certainly ask Horgan to form a government. (See what happened under similar circumstances in Ontario in 1985).

Look at the 1985 ON election results:

PCs: 52
Libs: 48
NDP: 25

52 PCs v. 73 Libs/NDP. Ergo, with a Speaker (considered an independent officer of legislature), the Libs/NDP had a 20-vote majority in the house - Lib/NDP accord had "confidence of house" to form gov't  - agreed to by ON L-G.

Now let's look at BC in 2017 (assuming Courtenay-Comox not flipped):

Libs: 43
NDP: 41
Greens: 3

43 Libs v. 44 NDP/Greens. Ergo with Speaker, the NDP/Greens have a "tie" in the legislature with the Libs. IOW, it does not have "the confidence of the house". Will reiterate again, constitutional expert Prof. Ron Cheffins, who has advised 5 BC L-Gs, stated last weekend that if Lib Throne Speech (1st confidence motion) is defeated, the L-G is more than likely to call a new election as any alternative NDP/Green accord (must be in writing) will not have "confidence of the house".

Then legislative matters gets even more interesting. With NDP/Greens appointing the Speaker (considered an independent officer of legislature)... again we have a "tie" in the house.

But what about the "Committee as a Whole" as a result? With a house "tie", the NDP/Greens must also appoint an independent speaker thereto leaving the Libs with a majority therein as a result. I trust that folk here understand the role/significance of the "Committee as a Whole"?! Probably not. The BC L-G (and her constitutional advisors) certainly will though. Grab your bag of popcorn.

Interesting times.

BTW, yesterday, BC NDP leader Horgan told the media:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.news1130.com/2017/05/18/ndp-leader-says-hes-ready-whatever-happens-next-week/

Politically dangerous based upon previous election precedents in similar circumstances.

[Lotuslander]

Guys, as a troll he is only going to be fueled by us endlessly discussing his terrible analysis. Let's just ignore him and discuss the results ok?

Haha. Comedy central. UNREAL. I have never seen such a pack of ignorant non-BC "NDP trolls/flakes" so apparently threatened by one purportedly measly poster like myself among a large posting net crowd. Just ignore me. Put me on your "Ignore List". Then all is good.

PS. The hardcore NDP "Scientology/Jehovah Witness" sects within the NDP never cease to amaze. Akin to the Christian Heritage Party of "the left".

[Lotuslander]

That means that the NDP plus Greens will have 44 seats and the Liberals will have 42 and there are unlikely to be any tie votes for the speaker to break once the NDP takes power and in any case the speaker has to cast deciding votes with the government...so I could see an NDP government with Green support last at least a few years

Ain't gonna happen for reasons posted above.. Either Lib minority gov't or fresh election. That's it.

I suspect that the Libs hope NDP/Greens bring down the gov't on the Throne Speech, which would trigger a new election. Libs have the financial resources on hand for a new election. NDP/Greens don't. Moreover, electorate typically punish political parties that bring down gov'ts very early.

Nevertheless Weaver has already stated the foregoing:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, only constitutionally possible gov't now is the Libs - whether minority or 1-vote majority. I also suspect that the Greens will abstain from voting on confidence motions to prevent a new election.

Only question now is how long the current legislature will last.

[Lotuslander]

According to the Lascelles conventions and precedents if the legislature rejects Crooked Christy's Throne Speech on Day 1 then the LG must ask the leader of the second largest party to try to form a government and only if he fails is there a new election.

Again, I will defer to constitutional expert Prof. Ron Cheffins from last weekend who has advised 5 (yes 5) BC L-Gs. If the incumbent party is defeated on the Throne Speech, any other potential gov't between NDP/Greens must be a formal accord, in writing, and must have the "Confidence of the House".

A 43 NDP/Green v. 43 Lib + 1 Ind. Speaker does not have "Confidence of the House". Moreover, the Libs would have a 1-seat majority in the "Committee of the Whole" based upon that scenario. Ergo, that scenario is already D.O.A.

[Lotuslander]

What makes you think the speaker would be an opposition MLA? Usually the party with the most seats supplies the speaker and in this case the incumbent speaker Linda Reid the Liberal wants to keep her job

I assume that you are referring to the scenario of a 43 NDP/Green v. 43 NDP + 1 Speaker? If that's the case, let's play "Devil's Advocate" here (aside from Prof. Ron Cheffins constitutional analysis).

Both sides will not cough up a Speaker to the other side. They'd be nuts esp. with a tied dynamic. Speaker's job would likely be brutal and the Parliament would be short lived in any event.

Under that dynamic, the Deputy Speaker would also likely come from the same political side - has no impact in the House, in terms of voting, but the Deputy Speaker chairs the "Committee of the Whole" and only breaks tie votes thereto.

Many here might not understand the role of the "Committee of the Whole" - after any bill is introduced in the legislature (monetary or otherwise), after 2nd Reading bills are then sent to the "Committee of the Whole" for proposed changes/amendments prior to being sent back to the House for final 3rd Reading.

At the "Committee of the Whole" stage, the Libs would have a 1-vote majority - 43 - 42 + Deputy Speaker (Speaker not present). One could literally visualize the Libs completely gutting the NDP/Green bill, with their one vote majority, and turning same into a quasi-Lib bill for final 3rd reading/vote in the House.

Under that scenario what would happen? Would the Libs then vote in favour of the bill at 3rd reading with the NDP/Greens opposing same after all Lib amendments? The Speaker's role is to preserve the "status quo". How does one define "status quo" in this scenario?

Potentially complete legislative paralysis.

[Lotuslander]

Best analysis/article to date concerning current BC minority gov't situation, with the input of constitutional expert Prof. Ron Cheffins, basically corroborating my previous posts herein:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/lieutenant-governor-could-force-new-election-if-clark-loses-confidence-motion/article35077695/

[Emphasis added]

[Lotuslander]

So the new GreeNDP gov't will comprise:

41 NDP + 3 Green v. 43 Libs. IOW it appears that votes in the BC Legislature will likely be tied 43 -  43 with the Speaker drawn from NDP ranks.

The Speaker has a casting vote to break ties. By convention, a Speaker votes to continue with the "status quo" and let debate continue in 1st and 2nd readings of bills. By convention, a Speaker votes against a tied vote in 3rd and final reading of a bill (or whatever) prior to royal assent in order to keep the "status quo".

Since 1871, only 2 Speaker casting votes have ever been made in the BC Legislature either on 1st or 2nd reading of a bill. Even in Canada's fed Parliament the 11 casting votes made were either on 1st or 2nd reading of a bill. Never 3rd and final reading.

Constitutional experts suggest that in a tied Legislature the Speaker may either bend or break convention. Unfortunately not in BC - it would be breaking the law.

Unlike other provinces though, BC has a statute entitled the CONSTITUTION ACT [RSBC 1996] CHAPTER 66. It is not a "Constitution" per se but statute law, which governs the BC Legislature and government. Speaker convention has been enshrined into law therein.

Section 43 therein is critical here:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/...6_01#section43

IOW all "Decisions" of the BC Legislature - 3rd reading of bills, budgets, etc. must be approved by a majority legislative vote and the Speaker has no casting vote in these circumstances. At all. Statute law here. Nothing to do with convention.

Moreover, BC also has another statute entitled INTERPRETATION ACT [RSBC 1996] CHAPTER 238.

Section 29 is of import in relation to the foregoing:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/...8_01#section29

Further reinforces the fact that a majority of the legislature must vote in favour of legislation, budgets, etc. at 3rd and final reading prior to royal assent - and the Speaker does not have the legal/statutory option of a casting vote thereto.

Section 44 of the CONSTITUTION ACT also provides for the following:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Now quite apparent by statute, the Speaker can break a tie vote in 1st reading and 2nd reading of bills, amendments thereto, etc. ... but it is also quite clear that the Speaker cannot cast a tie-breaking vote in 3rd and final reading of a bill or a budget. IOW, S 43 of the CONSTITUTION ACT over-rides S 44. Both S 43 and S 44 must be "read together" for full meaning and effect.

To further corroborate the foregoing, at the commencement of the new Parliament, long time Clerk of the BC Legislature Craig James advised the House as follows:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://www.leg.bc.ca/documents-data/debate-transcripts/41st-parliament/1st-session/20170622am-Hansard-n1

The BC gov't has not yet passed it's budget for fiscal year 2017-2018 - it is running on interim supply bills, which run out September 30. Ergo now appears the legislature will sit in early September and the first orders of business will be a new Throne Speech and Budget.

Superimpose the GreeNDP gov't upon same: 43 (NDP + Green) v. 43 Libs + 1 Speaker. With a tied vote, by statute (S. 43), no bills can be passed... no budgets can be passed. Not even a Throne Speech.

Horgan will then have no alternative but to visit the LG and ask for dissolution. Prime facie looks like a new October election date is in the wings.

PS. Don't yet know what's driving same but 2 new opinion polls over the past few days have the Libs with either an 11% lead (Mainstreet Research) or a 6% lead (Ipsos-Reid):

http://www.mainstreetresearch.ca/bc-liberals-lead-post-throne-speech/

https://www.ipsos.com/en-ca/news-polls/bc-liberals-go-out-on-top

[Lotuslander]

Should also note that for a good chunk of the time, Lord appointed two opposition MLAs to patronage appointments and waited a ridiculous amount of time to call the by-elections, so the vacancies gave him some breathing room. (There was also one budget vote that was conveniently scheduled for a day at least 2 Liberal MLAs and Elizabeth Weir were out of town.)

The Liberals ended up winning both those by-elections, and when the Tanker Malley debacle happened, the jig was up.

A very well written paper/thesis IMHO regarding NB Speakers Bev Harrison and Michael ‘Tanker’ Malley from the then 55th NB Legislature essentially corroborating your post...

[Lyle Skinner - Saint Thomas University - Fredericton, New Brunswick - September 30, 2008]

https://tinyurl.com/y9ec68pl

PS. Said paper also acknowledges that BC is the only province in Canada with it's own BC Constitution Act, which I referenced up-thread.

Edited: Link fixed.