Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 24, 2017, 12:29:43 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Be sure to enable your "Ultimate Profile" for even more goodies on your profile page!

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
| |-+  International Elections (Moderator: Hash)
| | |-+  2017 British Columbia election
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 17 18 19 20 21 [22] 23 24 25 26 27 ... 30 Print
Author Topic: 2017 British Columbia election  (Read 41510 times)
🍁 Hatman
EarlAW
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23933
Canada


View Profile WWW
« Reply #525 on: May 18, 2017, 06:20:03 am »
Ignore

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.

The funny thing is, those three items could easily be in an NDP platform.
Logged

http://canadianelectionatlas.blogspot.com

Follow me on Twitter @EarlWashburn
136or142
Adam T
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3719
View Profile
« Reply #526 on: May 18, 2017, 07:27:03 am »
Ignore

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.

The funny thing is, those three items could easily be in an NDP platform.

Banning corporate and union donations and proportional representation are.  I'm sure the problem is that a 44-43 NDP/Green government would be very unstable.  So, I can understand why Weaver would prefer to be with a 46-41 Liberal led government as long as the Green Party gets its major demands met.
Logged



Proposed phrase for a radical centrist: Empathy for all sides, commitment to none.
🍁 Hatman
EarlAW
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23933
Canada


View Profile WWW
« Reply #527 on: May 18, 2017, 08:55:51 am »
Ignore

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.

The funny thing is, those three items could easily be in an NDP platform.

Banning corporate and union donations and proportional representation are.  I'm sure the problem is that a 44-43 NDP/Green government would be very unstable.  So, I can understand why Weaver would prefer to be with a 46-41 Liberal led government as long as the Green Party gets its major demands met.

Why not official party status too? I know it was a big deal with the Ontario NDP in the early 2000s. I remember one MPP threatened to change her name to include "NDP" in protest (so that the speaker would have to say NDP when she was called upon).
Logged

http://canadianelectionatlas.blogspot.com

Follow me on Twitter @EarlWashburn
Lotuslander
Boo Boo
Full Member
***
Posts: 209
Canada
View Profile
« Reply #528 on: May 19, 2017, 10:02:05 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged
Lotuslander
Boo Boo
Full Member
***
Posts: 209
Canada
View Profile
« Reply #529 on: May 19, 2017, 10:17:35 pm »
Ignore


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:

Quote
New Democrat leader John Horgan says he’s confident he can work with Green Party leader Andrew Weaver after all the election results are in, but he’s also ready to send voters back to the polls – if necessary.

“I’ve got a few bucks in my pocket right now and we’ll see how it goes.

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.
« Last Edit: May 20, 2017, 03:57:17 am by Lotuslander »Logged
Lotuslander
Boo Boo
Full Member
***
Posts: 209
Canada
View Profile
« Reply #530 on: May 19, 2017, 10:24:31 pm »
Ignore

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. Wink

PS. The hardcore NDP "Scientology/Jehovah Witness" sects within the NDP never cease to amaze. Akin to the Christian Heritage Party of "the left".
« Last Edit: May 20, 2017, 04:39:55 am by Lotuslander »Logged
DL
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1961
Canada
View Profile
« Reply #531 on: May 20, 2017, 07:20:58 am »
Ignore

Another small wrinkle. The legislature has to elect a speaker before anything else happens. The incumbent speaker is Linda Reid who is nominally a Liberal and has been an MLA for over 20 years. She is well liked on both sides of the house and wants to stay on. I can guarantee the if stands in the legislature don't change NO ONE from the NDP or the Greens will stand for election to be speaker against Reid. 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 ...enough time to ban corporate and union donations, drastically reduce campaign spending limits, ban all government advertising, boost the minimum wage to $15, start an inquest into all the corruption under Christy Clark that would likely lead to some arrests AND bring in proportional representation which would change the face of politics forever in BC. Of course it will take a few years to actually implement PR and that will give the Greens a huge incentive NOT to cause an early election since any early election,cation would have to be fought under existing FPTP.

Of course if the absentee count flips a seat all bets are off, but if the standings remain 43-41-3 the above is the scenario I expect
Logged
136or142
Adam T
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3719
View Profile
« Reply #532 on: May 20, 2017, 11:09:50 am »
Ignore

Another small wrinkle. The legislature has to elect a speaker before anything else happens. The incumbent speaker is Linda Reid who is nominally a Liberal and has been an MLA for over 20 years. She is well liked on both sides of the house and wants to stay on. I can guarantee the if stands in the legislature don't change NO ONE from the NDP or the Greens will stand for election to be speaker against Reid. 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 ...enough time to ban corporate and union donations, drastically reduce campaign spending limits, ban all government advertising, boost the minimum wage to $15, start an inquest into all the corruption under Christy Clark that would likely lead to some arrests AND bring in proportional representation which would change the face of politics forever in BC. Of course it will take a few years to actually implement PR and that will give the Greens a huge incentive NOT to cause an early election since any early election,cation would have to be fought under existing FPTP.

Of course if the absentee count flips a seat all bets are off, but if the standings remain 43-41-3 the above is the scenario I expect

Linda Reid is definitely not liked on both sides of the Legislature.
Logged



Proposed phrase for a radical centrist: Empathy for all sides, commitment to none.
DL
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1961
Canada
View Profile
« Reply #533 on: May 20, 2017, 11:21:42 am »
Ignore

I've heard that the NDP don't mind Reid as speaker...and of course the NDP will prefer ANY Liberal to be speaker to giving up a vote from the opposition side
Logged
136or142
Adam T
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3719
View Profile
« Reply #534 on: May 20, 2017, 11:28:09 am »
Ignore

I've heard that the NDP don't mind Reid as speaker...and of course the NDP will prefer ANY Liberal to be speaker to giving up a vote from the opposition side

That could be true.
Logged



Proposed phrase for a radical centrist: Empathy for all sides, commitment to none.
Lotuslander
Boo Boo
Full Member
***
Posts: 209
Canada
View Profile
« Reply #535 on: May 20, 2017, 01:31:52 pm »
Ignore

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:

Quote
Mr. Weaver said the Greens would assist one party with “a stable government,” and would “ensure that we would provide confidence to govern.”

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.


Logged
DL
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1961
Canada
View Profile
« Reply #536 on: May 20, 2017, 01:49:06 pm »
Ignore

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.

Btw we are all waiting for you to explain why all your predictions of how this election would go were so totally, wildly WRONG
Logged
Lotuslander
Boo Boo
Full Member
***
Posts: 209
Canada
View Profile
« Reply #537 on: May 20, 2017, 01:55:47 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged
DL
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1961
Canada
View Profile
« Reply #538 on: May 20, 2017, 02:42:04 pm »
Ignore

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
Logged
adma
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1046
View Profile
« Reply #539 on: May 20, 2017, 10:47:27 pm »
Ignore

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. Wink

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

Memo to moderator: if you need to do selective post deletion (or editing, or probationary measures) in lieu of the outright banning of Lotuslander, use posts/statements like the above as a benchmark.
Logged
adma
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1046
View Profile
« Reply #540 on: May 20, 2017, 10:52:01 pm »
Ignore

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.

You deleted the "Btw we are all waiting for you to explain why all your predictions of how this election would go were so totally, wildly WRONG" part.  Just saying.
Logged
MaxQue
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10744
Canada


View Profile
« Reply #541 on: May 20, 2017, 11:10:04 pm »
Ignore

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.

The convention only states "having the support of the House". There is no consensus between experts on what it means and one has to assume the L-G will ask multiple experts.

All in all, the final result will be influenced by why Greens vote it down and the personal opinion of the L-G (who will have to choose if there is disagreements between experts on what "having the support of the House" mean).

In any case, being a rancher, I would assume she would lean Liberal in any case.
Logged
🍁 Hatman
EarlAW
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23933
Canada


View Profile WWW
« Reply #542 on: May 21, 2017, 09:25:48 am »
Ignore

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. Wink

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

Memo to moderator: if you need to do selective post deletion (or editing, or probationary measures) in lieu of the outright banning of Lotuslander, use posts/statements like the above as a benchmark.

I see he replied to one of my posts. What's the point? I have him on ignore, so the only way I will see it is if someone else quotes him.
Logged

http://canadianelectionatlas.blogspot.com

Follow me on Twitter @EarlWashburn
Lotuslander
Boo Boo
Full Member
***
Posts: 209
Canada
View Profile
« Reply #543 on: May 21, 2017, 03:30:04 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged
adma
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1046
View Profile
« Reply #544 on: May 21, 2017, 07:44:23 pm »
Ignore

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. Wink

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

Memo to moderator: if you need to do selective post deletion (or editing, or probationary measures) in lieu of the outright banning of Lotuslander, use posts/statements like the above as a benchmark.

I see he replied to one of my posts. What's the point? I have him on ignore, so the only way I will see it is if someone else quotes him.

I thought of him upon reading this...

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/5/21/1664423/-Rightwing-Growing-Desperate-for-a-Good-Comedian-Why-Money-Can-t-Buy-Funny?detail=facebook
Logged
Lotuslander
Boo Boo
Full Member
***
Posts: 209
Canada
View Profile
« Reply #545 on: May 21, 2017, 08:46:16 pm »
Ignore

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:

Quote
Lieutenant-Governor could force new election if Clark loses confidence motion
JUSTINE HUNTER

VICTORIA — The Globe and Mail
Published Sunday, May 21, 2017 9:04PM EDT

It is a rare moment in Canadian history when a representative of the Crown is called upon to play a pivotal role in politics. In British Columbia, Lieutenant-Governor Judith Guichon is consulting with lawyers and vice-regal counterparts across the Commonwealth to assess her options if the final results from the May 9 election create a hung parliament.

The final ballots are due to be counted starting this week. Based on the preliminary results, Premier Christy Clark has to broker an accord with Green party leader Andrew Weaver in order to remain in power.

Mr. Weaver is negotiating with Ms. Clark and NDP leader John Horgan to determine which party he’ll support.


If Ms. Clark cannot muster enough support in the Legislature, it is Ms. Guichon, the former rancher who has devoted much of her 4.5 years in office promoting literacy, music and land stewardship, who will be left to make a difficult call.

The chain of events that would see the Queen’s representative directly involved in determining when British Columbians head back to the polls will be set in motion only if Ms. Clark loses a confidence motion in the Legislature.

If the BC Liberals gain another seat when the last ballots are counted, Ms. Guichon’s role will remain a largely ceremonial one: She will appoint cabinet ministers, summon the Legislature and read the government’s Speech from the Throne at Ms. Clark’s request.

If the current standings hold, however, and the Liberals have a minority of seats in the 87-seat legislature, the first test will be when MLAs are asked to vote on the Throne Speech, which outlines the government’s agenda.

“This is where Mr. Weaver has real leverage,” noted constitutional expert Ron Cheffins.

Mr. Cheffins, a former B.C. Court of Appeal judge, has advised five past lieutenant-governors in the province.

“He can either support the government, keep them going, or if he chooses to work with Mr. Horgan, the NDP and the Greens would have enough votes to bring the government down.”

In such circumstances, Ms. Clark could be expected to visit Ms. Guichon at Government House and ask her to dissolve the newly-elected Legislative Assembly. That would trigger another provincial election. The cost to taxpayers for the May 9 election is estimated to be in excess of $44-million.

This is where Ms. Guichon would face a critical decision. The most important aspect of her position is to ensure that British Columbia has a First Minister. She could grant Ms. Clark’s request, or she could give Mr. Horgan a chance to be Premier.

Mr. Cheffins, a professor emeritus at the University of Victoria’s political science and law departments, said both options are legitimate.

Mr. Cheffins was among the circle of advisers to former lieutenant-governor David Lam, who later revealed he was prepared to fire B.C. premier Bill Vander Zalm had the scandal-plagued leader of the Social Credit government not resigned of his own accord in 1991.

That would have been the first time since 1903 when the Queen’s representative in B.C. had stepped in and fired a premier.

While it is unusual for a vice-regal appointee to interfere in Canadian political affairs, Mr. Cheffins pointed to two instances that would be relevant in this circumstance.

Ms. Guichon can look at the federal Constitutional crisis of 1926, often referred to as the King-Byng Affair.

Prime minister William Lyon Mackenzie King asked the Governor General, Lord Byng, to dissolve the House of Commons and call an election to avoid losing a vote of confidence in his minority government.

However, Lord Byng refused, because there had been a recent election, and he felt there was an alternative government that could be established if the Conservatives and Progressives established an accord.

More recently in 1985, Ontario premier Frank Miller resigned after his Progressive Conservative government lost a critical vote in the legislature just weeks after taking power with a minority of seats. The Liberals and the New Democrats formed an unofficial coalition to defeat the Miller government on a vote of confidence.

In this case, lieutenant-governor John Black Aird played a critical role in the outcome, Mr. Cheffins recalled. “He sent an emissary to Mr. Miller and told him before the debate on the Throne Speech, ‘If you are defeated, I will not grant you dissolution.’”

Armed with that knowledge, Mr. Miller resigned as premier after losing the vote. Liberal leader David Peterson and NDP leader Bob Rae signed an accord that allowed the Liberals to form the government.

In both those cases, the key was that there was an alternative government ready to step up. If Ms. Clark loses a vote of confidence, it would be up to Mr. Horgan and Mr. Weaver to approach Ms. Guichon to make assurances that they were prepared to work together.

Despite those examples, Mr. Cheffins’ advice – should Ms. Guichon ask – would be to dissolve the freshly-elected Legislative Assembly and launch another election. “There is an alternative, a defensible, constitutional alternative,” he said. “But don’t get into the mess – let the electorate decide.”

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

[Emphasis added]
« Last Edit: May 22, 2017, 12:34:01 am by Lotuslander »Logged
Former Game Moderator 1184AZ
1184AZ
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3415


View Profile
« Reply #546 on: May 22, 2017, 06:03:28 pm »
Ignore

Recount in Courtenay-Comox increases NDP lead from 9 to 13 votes now absentee ballots are counted.

http://electionsbcenr.blob.core.windows.net/electionsbcenr/ed/GE-2017-05-09_Courtenay-Comox.html
Logged
136or142
Adam T
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3719
View Profile
« Reply #547 on: May 22, 2017, 06:09:11 pm »
Ignore

Recount in Courtenay-Comox increases NDP lead from 9 to 13 votes now absentee ballots are counted.

http://electionsbcenr.blob.core.windows.net/electionsbcenr/ed/GE-2017-05-09_Courtenay-Comox.html

This was the recount. The absentees will be counted tomorrow.
Logged



Proposed phrase for a radical centrist: Empathy for all sides, commitment to none.
🍁 Hatman
EarlAW
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23933
Canada


View Profile WWW
« Reply #548 on: May 22, 2017, 06:10:40 pm »
Ignore

I don't understand why they would do the recount before counting the absentees.
Logged

http://canadianelectionatlas.blogspot.com

Follow me on Twitter @EarlWashburn
Emily’s List
Bosse
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 403


View Profile
« Reply #549 on: May 22, 2017, 06:26:19 pm »
Ignore

Richmond-Queensborough MIGHT flip to the NDP from Liberals. NDP reduced the margin of victory to ~170 from ~300 with about 1,000 absentee votes counted, and approximately another 1,000 absentee to go. Will find out more in about 40 minutes, when more absentee ballots are tabulated. If it doesn't entirely flip, it might still be subject to a recount though, if the margin of victory goes down to below 100 votes.
Logged

1917: Votes for Women!
2017: Vote for Women!
Pages: 1 ... 17 18 19 20 21 [22] 23 24 25 26 27 ... 30 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines