2017 British Columbia election

[DL]

Imho the BC Liberals under Christy Clark do get some vestigial support from federal Liberal types because it's common knowledge that Christy and her dead-beat ex-husband and most of her inner circle all dyed in the wool federal Liberals. She is constantly playing up her close ties to Justin Trudeau and on top of that stylistically with her flashy clothes and smug sh**t eating smile, Clark looks like a classic federal Liberal.

What happens if the next BC Liberal leader is a right wing federal Conservative like Kevin Falcon who is from central casting as a Tory? I wonder if that would be a signal to a lot of federal Liberals who still have some "brand loyalty" to the Liberal part of BC Liberal that the charade is over and that the party really is just another Conservative party?

[King of Kensington]

Also Vancouver-Quilchena and in the 2015 Federal election the Liberals won North/West Vancouver by large margins.

Again, said Harper's Conservatives in 2008 and 2011.

[136or142]

Also Vancouver-Quilchena and in the 2015 Federal election the Liberals won North/West Vancouver by large margins.

Again, said Harper's Conservatives in 2008 and 2011.

Oops. Sorry

[adma]

To be precise, I think you were the only person here who took him seriously before this.

Lotuslander owes you money, remember.

[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/

[136or142]

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.

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/

1.I never said I reside in the Richmond neighborhood of Hamilton.  The first part of analytical skills is being able to take in information correctly and you can't even do that.

Given that you trolled me earlier on twitter, I suspect you may be on some other fishing expedition here.  I'm not the type to hide in a safe space, but I am suspicious of what you're up to here.

Again, I ask the mod here, please ban this troll Lotuslander.

2.I thought this was a very good letter to the editor in the Richmond News, Friday May 12, 2017

Dear Editor,
So yet another vitriolic B.C election is over, and the NDP, despite coming so close, appear to have fallen short yet again.

Despite the fact that Premier Christy Clark (a person, who, in my opinion, is totally devoid of empathy, has no morals or ethics, has been totally corrupted by big money, and is on loose terms with the truth and facts) appears to have, subject to recounts and absentee votes, at minimum, secured a minority mandate, the NDP may be better off coming up a bit short.

Take the economy.

B.C has led the country for the last two years in economic growth.  During the election, Clark was claiming that the Conference Board of Canada indicated that B.C would also lead the country in economic growth at 2.4%, in 2017.  This statistic was also quoted by the Vancouver Sun in their endorsement of Clark the day before the election.  However both the Sun and Clark (again showing her loose association with the truth) failed to acknowledge that the Board had revised their growth prediction for B.C to 1.9% (fourth in the country.) It should be noted that the current budget is pedicated on growth of 2.3%

The reduced growth projection for 2017, and subsequent years, will result in less government revenue and reduced (if any) job growth.  This, of course, will mean a deficit budget or reduced expenditure (with the Liberals this means cuts to the most vulnerable in society.)

Under Clark, both ICBC and B.C Hydro have been reduced to financial basket cases.  Both are losing massive amounts of money.

It has been speculated that ICBC rates could increase as much as 42% over the next few years.

B.C Hydro may be in even worse shape, given that Moody's Investments Services is considering downgrading its investment rating.

Under the Liberals, Hydro has created deferral accounts that now total almost $6 billion, by far the most of any North American utility.  That money eventually needs to be repaid.

The deferral accounts give the allusion that B.C Hydro is making a profit and thus need to pay a dividend to the government.  The fact is Hydro does not make a profit and has to borrow money (from the government) to pay the government a dividend.

The NDP's election promise to freeze hydro rates for a year may be good politics, but it is incredibly bad policy. The bills eventually have to be paid.

A day of reckoning is coming for both ICBC and B.C Hydro.  The result will be massive cost increases to British Columbians regardless of who is in power.

The Vancouver Convention Center, B.C Place Renovation, South Fraser Perimeter Road, North West Transmission Line, Port Mann Bridge Extension and the Evergreen Line Extension are all, among other projects, initiated by the B.C Liberals that have one thing in common: they were all delivered late and massively over budget.  The same situation applies to almost every I.T project initiated by the Liberals.

Why should we believe that Site C and the Massey Bridge will be any different?

If the NDP was in government when the bills come due, they would be tarred with the fallout (after all, they are still vilified by the B.C Liberals for alleged sins in a previous century) and would spend another 20 years in the political wilderness.

The NDP is best letting the B.C Liberals take the heat for the mess they created.
-Al Williams

[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?

[DL]

I will make five quick points:

1. Even if the Liberals manage to flip a seat on a recount and get a 1 seat majority, it will be a very unstable government with the speaker always having to break ties, but then again under Christy Clark the legislature meets so seldom and the government has had such a thin legislative agenda that she could probably just have the legislature meet once a year and roll all her crap into one omnibus bill to avoid multiple votes that could bring down the government. While it's conceivable that Greens could make a deal to support a Liberal minority, there is no way they will help prop up a Liberal majority. Why would they? Clark is t going to make policy concessions to the Greens if she doesn't think she has to and Weaver already knows that if he makes any kind of deal with the BC Liberals support for his party would quickly drop to low single digits as Weaver becomes the Nick Clegg of BC

2. The kegislature has to elect a speaker before any confidence vote takes place so all parties will be taking a gamble if they let one of their people be speaker

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). If on some later date that government lost a confidence the LG would not go back to the Liberals and ask them to try again, they already had their chance. Instead it would lead to a snap dissolution. However chances are that even a short lived NDP Green govt would very quickly pass an immediate ban on corporate and union donations and likely a very very low cap on election campaign spending which would eliminate the Liberal money advantage in the next election. They may well also quickly bring in PR which would essentially lock the BC Liberals out of power forever and throw away the key

4. If Weaver does pull a Nick Clegg and backs Christy Clark, it's hard to imagine the Liberals tossing him more than a few very meager bones. The NDP can eat popcorn watching the Greens self-destruct as they face mass resignations from their members horrified to see their party prop up the hated BC Liberals

5. Let's not forget that the knives are already out for Christy Clark in her own party. She was never popular in her own caucus and party and the consensus seems to be that she blew it with a very weak campaign and that her personal unpopularity is the reason the Liberals almost lost. Her days as leader of the Liberals are likely numbered.

[DC Al Fine]

To add to what DL said it would be a ridiculously unstable government if every backbencher with a grievance can hold the government hostage.

[Hatman 🍁]

Is it possible that some of the more right wing members of the Liberal caucus may make things difficult vis-a-vis working with the Greens?

[136or142]

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?

I've explained to you three times already about when I decide to look at your posts.

[Barnes]

To add to what DL said it would be a ridiculously unstable government if every backbencher with a grievance can hold the government hostage.

You need to look no further than the Turnbull Government in Australia sitting on a one seat majority. 

Just in my opinion, a government is in a slightly better position sitting in a minority versus a tiny majority as they can (rightly or wrongly) claim they simply cannot implement their agenda on certain issues. When government backbenchers really do have the power to control the numbers on their own, they are much less forgiving of such excuses.

[adma]

I've explained to you three times already about when I decide to look at your posts.

But again...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Lotuslander's technique, as you see, is *do not acknowledge failure*.  *Do not acknowledge that you flopped in your forecast*, even if your blowhard manner of proclaiming your expertise practically *demands* greater scrutiny than the norm.  And when the flop's brought to your attention, then double down on the "NDP zealots/flakes" invective, i.e. the accusers are a bunch of loser poopy-pants.

Incidentally, on LL's 2017 election blog, he offers this

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, if he was so against-the-grain close to the mark in 2013, what happened in 2017?!?

(Then again, he clearly ran out of gas re sustaining said blog:  5 posts, including analyses of only Burnaby and Surrey, and nothing after March 5 but a CATI-cheerleading polling-methodology post from April 30.  I guess it's only within a pack of granola-munching NDP cheerleaders like ourselves that he can overcompensatingly feel like he's Grand Poobah or something)

[136or142]

I've explained to you three times already about when I decide to look at your posts.

But again...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Lotuslander's technique, as you see, is *do not acknowledge failure*.  *Do not acknowledge that you flopped in your forecast*, even if your blowhard manner of proclaiming your expertise practically *demands* greater scrutiny than the norm.  And when the flop's brought to your attention, then double down on the "NDP zealots/flakes" invective, i.e. the accusers are a bunch of loser poopy-pants.

Incidentally, on LL's 2017 election blog, he offers this

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, if he was so against-the-grain close to the mark in 2013, what happened in 2017?!?

(Then again, he clearly ran out of gas re sustaining said blog:  5 posts, including analyses of only Burnaby and Surrey, and nothing after March 5 but a CATI-cheerleading polling-methodology post from April 30.  I guess it's only within a pack of granola-munching NDP cheerleaders like ourselves that he can overcompensatingly feel like he's Grand Poobah or something)

As always, we seem to disagree with how seriously to take anything he writes.

And, as always, it would be helpful if the moderators here simply banned him because he is clearly a troll whether anything he writes should be taken seriously or not.

I note also, the moderators may not want to ban him because he seems to add some valuable points to the discussion.  In reality, I've noticed that all the stories he posts here that may seem like interesting trivia or valuable knowledge are all taken from articles printed in the day's newspaper (like the story he posted on Glen Clark being on the wrong side of the legislative door.)

[Hatman 🍁]

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?

[136or142]

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?

I agree, but there were some things that had to be cleared up first.

Like which types of polling is best and, if it's one of the reasons that the troll hasn't been banned from here, that he really isn't an expert on British Columbia political history, but that he just regurgitates trivia from the articles in the day's newspapers.

[Hatman 🍁]

Rumours the Greens and Liberals might form a coalition. LOL at all you Green leftists who were duped into voting for them!

[Holmes]

Rumours the Greens and Liberals might form a coalition. LOL at all you Green leftists who were duped into voting for them!

Well I'm shocked.

[DL]

Rumours the Greens and Liberals might form a coalition. LOL at all you Green leftists who were duped into voting for them!

If that were to happen I think it would quickly be Andrew Weaver personally selling his soul to the BC Liberals...the party could well revolt against his leadership and force him to sit as an independent. The other two Green MLAs could end up being a caucus of two.

[Hatman 🍁]

Rumours the Greens and Liberals might form a coalition. LOL at all you Green leftists who were duped into voting for them!

Well I'm shocked.

Can't tell if this is sarcasm or not. It should be though. I am not shocked in the least.

[136or142]

Rumours the Greens and Liberals might form a coalition. LOL at all you Green leftists who were duped into voting for them!

I doubt it.  Andrew Weaver is publicly keeping his options open so as to maximize his bargaining position.  That is smart strategy on his part.  He has said that he has three non-negotiable demands: 1.official party status, 2.a removal of corporate and union donations.  3.Proportional representation in some way.

Demand '3' is incorrectly not reported by some in the media, because while his first two positions are absolute, he is willing to negotiate over proportional representation to some degree.  He said that he wants a proportional representation voting system for the next election, but that he is willing to have a referendum on it, after it has been tried out for this next election.  That was the same proposal that Nathan Cullen came up with federally.

What the B.C Liberals would get in return for agreeing to this, I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised if these rumors of a coalition with the Liberals are nothing more than New Democrats trying to shame Weaver into giving up negotiating with the B.C Liberals so as to weaken the Green Party bargaining position.

[DC Al Fine]

In the same vein Adam, are those nonnegotiables actually nonegotiable? I can see Weaver overstating things so he can fall back to his actual nonnegotiables.

[DL]

If BC actually did move to proportional representation - how long before the BC Liberals would split into two parties - a Conservative party and a Liberal Party. There would no longer be any incentive for this uneasy marriage of convenience to continue

[DC Al Fine]

If BC actually did move to proportional representation - how long before the BC Liberals would split into two parties - a Conservative party and a Liberal Party. There would no longer be any incentive for this uneasy marriage of convenience to continue

IIRC there was a lot of churn in parties when NZ implemented PR. I'd guess something would break off almost immediately.

[adma]

And remember how Vision Vancouver came about, municipally speaking.