aGENT Posted May 29, 2017 Share Posted May 29, 2017 23 minutes ago, DonLever said: Yes, that is what will happen. Clark will recall the legislation and try to govern. When she and the Liberals are defeated in a non-confidence which is guaranteed now, they will go to the LG and ask for a new election. Then it will be up to the LG to either call a new election or ask the NDP and Greens to form government. The question then becomes whether the LG will call an election or let the opposition form government. Because it is such an unstable government with a virtual tie, maybe the LG will allow for a new election. Who knows. The LG is largely a ceremony position except when it comes to rare instances like this. She got a lot responsibility now. Generally it's preferred, when at all possible, to lean towards trying to form government (in this case a coalition) rather than just heading back to the polls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted May 29, 2017 Share Posted May 29, 2017 1 minute ago, goalie13 said: I was listening to an interview on the radio with UVic Professor Ron Cheffins. Apparently he has consulted for several LGs in the past. He said that if he was counselling the LG he would recommend she should accept the request from Clark and send us back to the polls. Interesting.... What was the reasoning? I was under the understanding that if at all possible, governance was the preferred route vs another election unless the LG has very little faith the other parties can actually work together long term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goalie13 Posted May 29, 2017 Share Posted May 29, 2017 1 minute ago, J.R. said: Interesting.... What was the reasoning? I was under the understanding that if at all possible, governance was the preferred route vs another election unless the LG has very little faith the other parties can actually work together long term. He kept referring to Lord Byng who faced a similar situation and instead of sending Canadians back to the polls he asked the opposition to form government instead. Apparently it was a disaster. The thing is, it was almost 100 years ago. I haven't looked into the whole scenario, but I can't imagine why it would still have this much influence 100 years later. On the other hand, he's a highly respected professor and really knows his stuff. I always enjoy when he's on the radio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted May 29, 2017 Share Posted May 29, 2017 10 minutes ago, goalie13 said: He kept referring to Lord Byng who faced a similar situation and instead of sending Canadians back to the polls he asked the opposition to form government instead. Apparently it was a disaster. The thing is, it was almost 100 years ago. I haven't looked into the whole scenario, but I can't imagine why it would still have this much influence 100 years later. On the other hand, he's a highly respected professor and really knows his stuff. I always enjoy when he's on the radio. He asked the opposition to form government? That's different (and an important distinction IMO) than the opposition asking to form government IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonLever Posted May 29, 2017 Share Posted May 29, 2017 13 minutes ago, J.R. said: Generally it's preferred, when at all possible, to lean towards trying to form government (in this case a coalition) rather than just heading back to the polls. Yes, that's true but that is only if is a strong coalition government exists like what happened in Ontario in 1985. The PCs won a minority government but the NDP and Liberals formed a coalition with a majority of 22. Here in BC it is a majority of one: 44-43. Or a tie if you throw in the speaker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goalie13 Posted May 30, 2017 Share Posted May 30, 2017 20 minutes ago, J.R. said: He asked the opposition to form government? That's different (and an important distinction IMO) than the opposition asking to form government IMO. I looked it up. It was sort of the other way around. MacKenzie King called an election, but his Liberals only won 101 seats while the Conservatives got 116 and the Progressive Party had 28. As nobody had a majority, the Liberals stayed in power as a minority government, even though they had fewer seats than the Conservatives. Lord Byng let King know that he wouldn't grant another election without the Conservatives being given the chance to govern first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonLever Posted May 30, 2017 Share Posted May 30, 2017 33 minutes ago, goalie13 said: He kept referring to Lord Byng who faced a similar situation and instead of sending Canadians back to the polls he asked the opposition to form government instead. Apparently it was a disaster. The thing is, it was almost 100 years ago. I haven't looked into the whole scenario, but I can't imagine why it would still have this much influence 100 years later. On the other hand, he's a highly respected professor and really knows his stuff. I always enjoy when he's on the radio. McKenzie King had a minority government in 1925 and Lord Byng the GG, refused King's request for a new election and asked the opposition to form government instead. It was a big scandal back then because Lord Byng was British and ruled from England. After the Westminster Act 0f 1931, the GG no longer ruled from England. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted May 30, 2017 Share Posted May 30, 2017 56 minutes ago, J.R. said: Interesting.... What was the reasoning? I was under the understanding that if at all possible, governance was the preferred route vs another election unless the LG has very little faith the other parties can actually work together long term. I don't think a coalition of losing parties is good for democracy. Also the seat count would be so close that it's not even a strong coalition. This may be a bad move for Weaver as we could see B.C back to two parties, B.C liberals and the Ndp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted May 30, 2017 Share Posted May 30, 2017 4 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said: I don't think a coalition of losing parties is good for democracy. Also the seat count would be so close that it's not even a strong coalition. This may be a bad move for Weaver as we could see B.C back to two parties, B.C liberals and the Ndp. Again, I am curious as to how you will react should the UCP party win in Alberta. 2 loser parties needed to form a coalition to win... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted May 30, 2017 Share Posted May 30, 2017 Based on the number of seats between the parties, it seems that British Columbians are getting exactly what they voted for. A minority government. Horgan and the NDP will absolutely allow Kinder Morgan to happen. Horgan will be able to point to potential revenue but will also have an NDP government in Alberta, and the possibility of having the west ceded to the NDP for multiple terms would appeal to both him and Notley, as well trudeau will be pushing to ensure it goes through. All in all I find this really intriguing. There are sections of all 3 parties' respective platforms that benefit all of BC; here's to hoping that these parties can actually work together instead of bickering and demanding a secondary election in short order Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted May 30, 2017 Share Posted May 30, 2017 8 minutes ago, Warhippy said: Again, I am curious as to how you will react should the UCP party win in Alberta. 2 loser parties needed to form a coalition to win... They will win during an election. Big difference how do you not see that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted May 30, 2017 Share Posted May 30, 2017 6 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said: They will win during an election. Big difference how do you not see that? I'm not so sure. They're already a huge mess man. The NDP might not be big in their mid terms, but the UCP doesn't have a leader; is coming out as quite wacko and have 0 platform after "The NDP did it, we'll undo it" Not sure how that one will fly really, especially the last one when the things they'll undo have to do heavily with education, health, kids and housing. Not sure "carbon tax is bad" shouted from Fildebrandts rooftop will get the job done in that case Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted May 30, 2017 Share Posted May 30, 2017 15 minutes ago, Warhippy said: I'm not so sure. They're already a huge mess man. The NDP might not be big in their mid terms, but the UCP doesn't have a leader; is coming out as quite wacko and have 0 platform after "The NDP did it, we'll undo it" Not sure how that one will fly really, especially the last one when the things they'll undo have to do heavily with education, health, kids and housing. Not sure "carbon tax is bad" shouted from Fildebrandts rooftop will get the job done in that case I'm confident the conservatives will win but I meant If they win it will be by an election not two parties that lost an election stealing power. Honestly imo Weaver may have hurt the future of the green party and the ndp may swallow up their voters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurn Posted May 30, 2017 Share Posted May 30, 2017 2 hours ago, Chicken. said: Is this where Andrew Weaver fulfills his promise to not agree on anything until money (excessive corp/union donations) is taken out of politics ? Forget how many times he's mentioned that... The NDP were going to ban corp and union donations anyway, so they agree. I believe the ndp and greens could agree on an updated election system so as to avoid the whole first past the post. Maybe time to dust off the "transferable vote" proposal from a couple decades back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted May 30, 2017 Author Share Posted May 30, 2017 1 hour ago, goalie13 said: The speaker isn't appointed. The speaker is elected. And the speaker doesn't have to come from the governing party. So if the NDP & Greens were to form government, they could elect a Liberal speaker and then it would be 44 - 42 as the speaker only votes in the event of a tie. https://www.leg.bc.ca/learn-about-us/speaker yah but why would a Liberal do that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goalie13 Posted May 30, 2017 Share Posted May 30, 2017 Just now, S'all Good Man said: yah but why would a Liberal do that? That? As in be the speaker? I don't think they can decline it. Besides, is it better to be a back-bencher or the Speaker of the House? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted May 30, 2017 Share Posted May 30, 2017 2 minutes ago, goalie13 said: That? As in be the speaker? I don't think they can decline it. Besides, is it better to be a back-bencher or the Speaker of the House? Pretty sure they can decline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted May 30, 2017 Author Share Posted May 30, 2017 5 minutes ago, goalie13 said: That? As in be the speaker? I don't think they can decline it. Besides, is it better to be a back-bencher or the Speaker of the House? yes. And of course they can refuse it, you have to put your name forward. And if they somehow did do that, then you'd have a person with a grudge in a key role. its going to be interesting to watch this thing... one by-election or someone crosses the floor and Weaver might regret his decision. But it makes sense, he needs to convert more votes from the NDP than the Libs, so I'm sure part of the calc is showing borderline NDP'rs that he's a reasonable dude from their pov. I'm already wondering who the next leader of the Lib's might be... I'm hoping they go for an outsider who doesn't have the stink of some of Clarks mistakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingofsurrey Posted May 30, 2017 Share Posted May 30, 2017 oio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goalie13 Posted May 30, 2017 Share Posted May 30, 2017 25 minutes ago, S'all Good Man said: its going to be interesting to watch this thing... one by-election or someone crosses the floor and Weaver might regret his decision. But it makes sense, he needs to convert more votes from the NDP than the Libs, so I'm sure part of the calc is showing borderline NDP'rs that he's a reasonable dude from their pov. I'm already wondering who the next leader of the Lib's might be... I'm hoping they go for an outsider who doesn't have the stink of some of Clarks mistakes. The first part that will be interesting will be to see what the LG does. Clark is still the Premier. If she does invite the NDP/Greens to be government, I agree, they will have to be very careful. Ruling parties traditionally don't do well in by-elections. But if Clark asks her to dissolve the government and we wind up with another election in the fall, then anything is possible. As for Clark, even if Courtenay-Comox had flipped and the Liberals had their narrow majority, I think she had already reached her best-before date. The Liberals need to start re-branding themselves if they want to get back in charge. In some ways it's funny. Clark did well because she was an outsider (of sorts) that could distance herself from the Campbell Liberals. Now they need someone new to distance themselves from Clark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.