BC Political Discussion - BC Election 2017 May 9th

[Bcasey25raptor]

Originally Posted by Pinion

So support the "capitalist" party that wants to do that instead of the one that opposes it.

Nah. I voted NDP. I just view this as an opportunity.

[Stingray2004]

Peripherally today, another material matter has come to my attention, which no media has yet reported on, which IMHO, is quite significant.

Unlike other provinces, 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.

Section 43 therein is critical here:

Decisions of Legislative Assembly by majority vote

43 All questions must be determined by a majority of votes of the members present, other than the Speaker.

http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96066_01#section43

IOW all final 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:

Expressions defined

29 In an enactment:

"must" is to be construed as imperative;

http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96238_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:

Tied vote

44 If a vote in the Legislative Assembly is tied, the Speaker has a casting vote.

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.

Superimpose the GreeNDP accord upon same: 43 (NDP + Green) v. 43 Libs + 1 Speaker. By statute, no bills can be passed... no budgets can be passed.

Again, the key issue for the LG in approving the GreeNDP accord is stability and that it lasts for at least one year. Moreover, the LG key concern is that she has a 1st minister and an alternative gov't that can pass budgets - critical matter.

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.

The LG not only has constitutional advisors but also legal advisors and I'm certain that the foregoing CONSTITUTION ACT matters will not only be brought to her attention but also materially impact her final decision.

Further reinforces my belief that we will be back in election mode perhaps by the end of next week.

Just another day in BC poli.

[retro_orange]

Read the news, BC voters want Clark out and are losing patience, whether they voted Liberal or not. The foot dragging is wasting money and time.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by retro_orange

Read the news, BC voters want Clark out and are losing patience, whether they voted Liberal or not. The foot dragging is wasting money and time.

Completely irrelevant to the LG's decision.

[jmt18325]

No one is foot dragging. Normally, a May election would have no sitting until fall. Clark is the premier right now. Get over it.

[Waders]

It doesn't matter what one poll says. The minority government situation is unstable. It is just a matter of time before another election will be held. If the 3 parties cannot build consensus, stalemate will happen.
B.C. Greens kill NDP's proposed change on unionized secret ballots

[whatnext]

For those who are fond of polls, here are the results of the Anngus Reid one referred to:

...according to an Angus Reid Institute poll, 71 per cent of respondents would rather not have another election right away.

More to the point, 63 per cent of respondents believe the B.C. Liberals should "accept defeat" rather than "use every rule and procedure in their power to prevent the NDP forming government."

Furthermore, the poll also found 62 per cent would prefer to see Christy Clark step down as the leader of the B.C. Liberals, including 32 per cent of her own party's supporters...
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-election-2017-poll-1.4168667

Given those numbers, it is not a stretch to conclude voters would punish the Liberals if they trigger another election, not the NDP or Greens.

[retro_orange]

Thank you

[dreambrother808]

I'm sure the Liberal spin doctors have another way to twist those results to their liking, no?

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by whatnext

For those who are fond of polls, here are the results of the Anngus Reid one referred to:

...according to an Angus Reid Institute poll, 71 per cent of respondents would rather not have another election right away.

More to the point, 63 per cent of respondents believe the B.C. Liberals should "accept defeat" rather than "use every rule and procedure in their power to prevent the NDP forming government."

Furthermore, the poll also found 62 per cent would prefer to see Christy Clark step down as the leader of the B.C. Liberals, including 32 per cent of her own party's supporters...
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-election-2017-poll-1.4168667

Given those numbers, it is not a stretch to conclude voters would punish the Liberals if they trigger another election, not the NDP or Greens.

Sigh. Over the years, have noticed that most media have been unable to properly interpret "poll numbers". Most media don't understand the difference in polling methodologies - CATI, IVR, and opt-in online panel. CATI is considered the "gold standard" - expensive/accurate while the other 2 methodologies are very cheap to produce and quite frequently inaccurate.

Moreover, the questions asked will always result in different answers.

To wit, both Ipsos-Reid and Angus-Reid are utilize opt-in online polling methodology.

10 days ago, Ipsos found that decided voters were evenly split (within margin of error) on this question:

As you may know, the Green Party has entered into an agreement to support an NDP minority government in BC. On a combined basis, the NDP/Greens have 1 more seat in the Legislature than the BC Liberals (44 vs. 43). There is an open question of who will serve as Speaker and whether the Speaker will need to vote in a partisan manner to break possible tie votes. Some have suggested we should have another election to produce a more decisive outcome. Under a scenario where the Speaker must come from the NDP or Green Party (i.e. the BC Liberals do not agree to provide a Speaker), which of the following two options do you prefer?

1. 41% - Have an NDP minority government supported by the Greens, even if the Speaker needs to vote in a partisan manner to break tie votes.

2. 39% - Have another election that might produce a more decisive outcome.

3. 20% Don't know.

OTOH, Angus Reid asked a completely different question. With different questions one receives different outcomes:

There has been some discussion about what should happen next. Which statement is closer to your view?

1. 29% - B.C. should hold another election right away.

2. 71% - B.C. should let the process play out.

The "process" includes the current legislative sitting as well as the final decision by the LG. Caveat emptor attempting to derive a different conclusion therefrom.

Now we have had 3 polls since the election on May 9 - Mainstreet (IVR methodology) and Ipsos-Reid (opt-in online panel). Both pollsters saw no shift in voting intentions since the election.

Angus Reid, however, now shows a slight shift happening - in favour of the BC Libs based upon drilling deeper in the detailed data tables.

http://angusreid.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/2017.06.19_Post_BC_ElectionReleaseTables.pdf

Firstly, the 2017 BC election outcome was as follows:

BC Lib - 40%
BC NDP - 40%
BC Green - 17%

In the Angus Reid poll, the respondents were asked:

Which party's candidate did you vote for in this most recent B.C. election on May 9?

BC NDP: 40%
BC Lib: 37%
BC Green: 20%

Quite obvious that the BC Lib voters were under-sampled here.

Gets more interesting. On current voting intentions:

BC Lib: 39% (+2%)
BC NDP: 38% (-2%)
BC Green: 20% (+-0%)

Gets more interesting based upon adjustment to actual 2017 voting result:

BC Lib: 42%
BC NDP: 38%
BC Green: 17%

And then gets even more interesting - 3 separate age demographics are listed therein - 18 - 34, 35 - 54, 55+. The biggest shift toward the BC Libs have been in the latter 2 demographics, which also has the highest voter turnout based upon Elections BC voter turnout data. To top it off, BC Lib numbers increase even further without CC at the helm.

BTW, Angus Reid released another opinion poll today of approval ratings for all 10 premiers across Canada - BC's CC placed 3rd/10th.

Am also now coming to the conclusion that BCers realize that the current shape of Parliament is "a mess" and won't function. In the event of a new election in the short term, doubt that the electorate will "punish" anyone.

[hollywoodnorth]

great breakdown Stingray2004!

[GeeCee]

[retro_orange]

Great breakdown GeeCee!

[Bcasey25raptor]

I'm betting on an election over the summer.

Hope in wrong though.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Bcasey25raptor

I'm betting on an election over the summer.

Hope in wrong though.

Christy certainly seems to think so, the way she has all of a sudden discovered things in the last week like: campaign donation reform, people want affordable daycare; the province's welfare rates are too low. Her Road to Damascus conversion is miraculous.

What she pointedly hasn't discovered is electoral reform because she knows the BC Libs will never have an absolute majority again if FPTP is abolished. And that's why Weaver will stick to bringing down the gov't. What will be interesting to see is how fast the NDP & Greens move toward electoral reform. As far as I know, there is no requirement to hold a referendum.

[Sheba]

Throne speech promises electoral reform referendum, sales tax cut, no tolls

A throne speech outlining what could be the final goals of Premier Christy Clark's government includes a promise to hold a referendum on electoral reform.

The speech, read today by Lt.-Gov. Judith Guichon, includes a number of planks from the NDP and Green party platforms in last month's provincial election as Clark's Liberals face a confidence vote in the coming days that could see their defeat after 16 years in office.

The election gave B.C. its first minority government in 65 years, with the Liberals winning 43 seats, the NDP 41 and the Greens three in the 87-seat legislature.

The speech says the Liberals would eliminate tolls on the Port Mann and Golden Ears bridges in Metro Vancouver, cut the provincial sales tax to offset an annual increase of $5 a tonne in the carbon tax and establish a royal commission on education.

It says a higher than forecast budget surplus allows the government to pursue innovative options, although the size of the surplus won't be released until next month.

The speech also includes recently announced government plans to raise monthly welfare rates by $100, spend $1 billion on early childhood education, and ban union and corporate donations to political parties.

The government's agenda seeks a balance between economic, social and environmental issues, the speech says.

“British Columbians voted for parties that spoke to the importance of economic growth and jobs, strengthening our social programs, and protecting our environment,” it says. “They have told us to find a better balance to move forward on all these priorities.”

The province has held two previous referendums on electoral reform, but neither changed the system when they were held in 2005 and 2009.

[Sheba]

B.C. unveils throne speech of campaign promises for potentially short-lived government

Premier Christy Clark delivered what might be her government’s final throne speech Thursday, a grab-bag of campaign promises from the other parties lining up to defeat her, and a theme of “humility” at the loss of her majority in the May 9 election.

“The May election delivered a divided result,” read Lt.-Gov. Judith Guichon in the legislature. “Your government has listened to that result and brings forward this agenda to gain the House’s confidence and, in doing so, the confidence of the people of British Columbia.

“It is submitted with humility and openness to change.”

The speech proved an almost total re-rewrite of the B.C. Liberal party election platform, with significant changes in education, social assistance, transit, environment and health care policy. It will be paid for by an “unanticipated surplus” higher than what was budgeted for in February, said the speech.

Nonetheless, the Green-NDP alliance promised to vote the Liberal speech down as early as next Thursday on a confidence vote, which would mean none of the promises would become a reality. Instead, the throne speech would more likely serve as the B.C. Liberal campaign document for a future election.

...

She said Wednesday her hope is that the other parties would be embarrassed to vote against their own ideas in her throne speech.

NDP Leader John Horgan said before the speech he would not support it.

“I’m hopeful all members will realize the sooner we put away the make-believe throne speech and come forward with a real throne speech the sooner we can get working on the issues that matter to people – education, health care, making sure we are addressing transit in the lower mainland,” said Horgan.

“Everything I’ve heard from the Liberals we campaigned on.”

Green Leader Andrew Weaver also told reporters before the speech that it’s not so much what the Liberals are promising but his lack of trust in the party’s last-minute conversion that has led to his decision to vote against the government.

“It’s a question of who do you trust to implement the measures that are being brought forward?” said Weaver.

“Do you trust a government that is suddenly, in the 11th hour, in the dying death throes of the government, suddenly change their feelings? That lacks principle. So we always argue we’re going to be principled in our decision-making, it lacks principles and conviction to suddenly switch in a desperate attempt to hang on to power. That doesn’t give me confidence, or give my colleagues confidence, that this government should continue forward.”

[trofirhen]

Hard from a distance to keep up on stuff like this, but ...
NDP Win = NO Broadway subway. Is this correct? If so, ouch!!

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Hard from a distance to keep up on stuff like this, but ...
NDP Win = NO Broadway subway. Is this correct? If so, ouch!!

That's the first I've ever heard anything like that. In fact, the opposite is true: NDP government means Broadway subway (and in all likelihood a Liberal government means a Broadway subway too, but probably with a different timeline)

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Hard from a distance to keep up on stuff like this, but ...
NDP Win = NO Broadway subway. Is this correct? If so, ouch!!

NDP/Greens are very much in favour of public transit. BC Liberals are the ones that underfund transit.

And the opposite for roads.