"Humble" Poor Loser Liberal Christy Clark Refuses to Do the Right Thing and Resign

190 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthReport

Tieleman is getting seriously boring.

Is this the best the BC NDP can offer up for media spokespeople?

 

Christy Clark is done

For the good of her party, she must go

https://ipolitics.ca/2017/05/30/christy-clark-is-done/

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Two new posts in 8 minutes.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Whoops.  Three in ten.  You're too fast for me.

Doug Woodard

pookie wrote:

 

Our conventions are clear.  Clark is premier until she (a) resigns (b) loses a confidence vote or (c) is dismissed. The results of the election have no bearing on her constitutional position.  She is entirely within her rights to seek confidence. 

To adapt a US-ian phrase: There is only one First Minister at a time, and there must be continuity in that position. Hence the rule of incumbency.

pookie, what is your view on the constitutional propriety of the Lieutenant-Governor summoning the legislature at once, with Clark as the sitting premier?

To my mind, it would be just a long-overdue refinement of responsible government. I don't see how giving "Parliament" the opportunity to make a decision could be seen as a usurpation of power by anyone with the possible exception of Stephen Harper. I don't see how the precedent could be used destructively in the future.

NorthReport

Christy Clark is not the only pitiful poor loser it seems!

What a windbag!

http://www.nsnews.com/opinion/columnists/lautens-in-search-of-b-c-ndp-me...

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Basement Dweller wrote:

So were they a puppet of the NDP? Most of them ran in battleground ridings, like Courtney-Comox and Richmond-Queensborough. Not that I mind. :)

NorthReport wrote:

Another possible winner are the BC Conservatives - let's hope so anyways, eh!

The BC Conservative candidate in Courtenay faced exactly that libelous attack. She ran against a corrupt government that she could not support despite ideolgical similarities. She wrote a letter to the editor about it after the campaign. I for one think that she was slandered by the nasty BC Liberal machine. Of course it meant that disgruntled Liberal voters had both the Greens and the Conservatives to vote for and was part of the dynamic in the riding. In the federal election the Liberals ate part of the Conservatives vote and the NDP won.

If the next election is under a PR system I suspect that the Conservatives will be running candidates everywhere to try meeting whatever the threshold is set at for seats.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

pookie wrote:

Our conventions are clear.  Clark is premier until she (a) resigns (b) loses a confidence vote or (c) is dismissed. The results of the election have no bearing on her constitutional position.  She is entirely within her rights to seek confidence. 

That highlights the absurdity of not having proper rules. What you posted would also be true if the NDP had won 44 seats. The crooks in power voted six months of supply so the government could be on cruise control until the fall.  The fact that a defeated government can stay in power for months needs to be rectified.

bekayne

NorthReport wrote:

Hopefully the BC elections results in a minority government in Ottawa next time around

http://www.straight.com/news/916541/liberal-mps-bc-could-be-among-bigges...

What an amazingly idiotic article. 

"Imagine if the Greens and NDP divided up Vancouver along these lines: New Democrats run in Vancouver Granville (26.87%), Vancouver Quadra (10.85%), and Vancouver South (13.97%) without Green opponents in return for letting Green councillor Adriane Carr run unopposed by any New Democrat in Vancouver Centre. It might leave former NDP Vancouver Centre candidate Constance Barnes feeling left out, but she didn't even come close to beating Fry in 2015." (Closer than the Greens though: 20.01>5.81)

...

"A green-orange partnership could also leave Liberal MP Joyce Murray vulnerable, given her party's support for the Kinder Morgan pipeline." (Combined NDP-Green vote over 43% behind Murray)

...

"The Greens would also love to elect Lynne Quarmby in Burnaby North-Seymour, where Liberal Terry Beech is likely to lose because of the pipeline. Let's say the NDP chose not to contest this riding in return for running unopposed by Greens in Burnaby South, Burnaby-New Westminster, Surrey Centre, and Surrey-Newton.

The NDP isn't going to want to let North Burnaby go, but sometimes you have to give up something to get other things in return."  (Quarmby got 5.67%, the NDP 29.61%)

...

"The Greens could also be given a crack at West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast-Sea to Sky Country without having to face an NDP candidate. The NDP is never very competitive in this federal riding. " (The Greens even less so. The combined vote is still 37% behind)

...

"I'd recommend that the NDP run a candidate in Delta, particularly if Jagmeet Singh becomes the next leader, because the NDP peformed so well in North Delta in the recent B.C. election." (The 3.17% Green vote could really swing things.)

 

 

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Pondering the Speaker gets the tie breaking vote even on confidence motions. Hard to see which ex BC Liberal the NDP would trust with that job.

 

My understanding is that if an NDP or Green member takes the position they lose the majority position in the house. How powerful a position is it? How would a speaker be able to obstruct the government?

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

kropotkin1951 wrote:

The problem is we have no set rules only historic precedents and precedents from other legislatures. I would hope that along with PR the new NDP government would introduce clear rules to guide the LG. I believe New Zealand enacted that kind of legislation. The only certain rule we have currently is that the majority of the MLA's determines who governs by voting confidence in a Speech from the Throne. 

I actually don't wish this. The BC constitution stipulates that the L-G decides who may present a throne speech. No ammount of historical precedent allows anyone to present a throne speech without the request of the L-G, who is entirely within her rights to disregard historical precedent if she wants to (not that she necessarily will). And unless it is done in the form of a constitutional ammendment, writing up rules for the L-G to follow wouldn't stop the L-G from exercizing her powers as stipulated by the BC constitution.

What I wish is that the policitians and media pundits would acknowledge the method of forming a government that actually exists under our consitution, in which thye L-G can choose to send BC down paths other than those that have a historical precedent.

Aristotleded24

Mr. Magoo wrote:
In other words, if the incumbent clearly and undeniably lost and could never have the confidence of the house, would the first opportunity to try to form a government and win confidence go to Clark, or to Horgan/Weaver, or is there just no precedent?

I think technically the incumbent government retains the right to meet the House first, but in practice, whenever a party has clearly lost an election they have always resigned their government on election night. To use the federal example, after Trudeau won his majority, what realistic point would there have been for Harper to try and meet Parliament and present a Throne Speech? He fought very hard to maintain control and power and was one of the most dictatorial Prime Ministers we've ever had, but even he understood when the game was up and there was no point.

jas

In Clark's case, it is absolutely in her advantage to wait. We would certainly encourage the NDP to do the same if the situation were reversed.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

jas wrote:

In Clark's case, it is absolutely in her advantage to wait. We would certainly encourage the NDP to do the same if the situation were reversed.

And there is the reason the BC NDP has been in the wilderness for so long. You haven't attracted many new voters in a decade because no one trusts you to be any different than the other guys. That is why the Greens won three seats running on a platform that looked like the NDP but included the idea of doing politics differently. 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Left Turn wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

The problem is we have no set rules only historic precedents and precedents from other legislatures. I would hope that along with PR the new NDP government would introduce clear rules to guide the LG. I believe New Zealand enacted that kind of legislation. The only certain rule we have currently is that the majority of the MLA's determines who governs by voting confidence in a Speech from the Throne. 

I actually don't wish this. The BC constitution stipulates that the L-G decides who may present a throne speech. No ammount of historical precedent allows anyone to present a throne speech without the request of the L-G, who is entirely within her rights to disregard historical precedent if she wants to (not that she necessarily will). And unless it is done in the form of a constitutional ammendment, writing up rules for the L-G to follow wouldn't stop the L-G from exercizing her powers as stipulated by the BC constitution.

You also acknowledge that the LG can do what ever she wants to. It is time to give her some rules. You are placing a lot of faith in a cattle rancher. The MLA's have the power to make constitutional changes although the H of C and Senate would have to agree. So far no province has been refused an amendment that they passed.

Who gives the throne speech is the minor piece it is the potential to delay long enough to allow BC Hydro to spend more money on Site C that is the problem. New MLA's are ready and willing to go to work this week and that is what should be happening. 

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Left Turn wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

The problem is we have no set rules only historic precedents and precedents from other legislatures. I would hope that along with PR the new NDP government would introduce clear rules to guide the LG. I believe New Zealand enacted that kind of legislation. The only certain rule we have currently is that the majority of the MLA's determines who governs by voting confidence in a Speech from the Throne. 

I actually don't wish this. The BC constitution stipulates that the L-G decides who may present a throne speech. No ammount of historical precedent allows anyone to present a throne speech without the request of the L-G, who is entirely within her rights to disregard historical precedent if she wants to (not that she necessarily will). And unless it is done in the form of a constitutional ammendment, writing up rules for the L-G to follow wouldn't stop the L-G from exercizing her powers as stipulated by the BC constitution.

You also acknowledge that the LG can do what ever she wants to. It is time to give her some rules. You are placing a lot of faith in a cattle rancher. The MLA's have the power to make constitutional changes although the H of C and Senate would have to agree. So far no province has been refused an amendment that they passed.

Who gives the throne speech is the minor piece it is the potential to delay long enough to allow BC Hydro to spend more money on Site C that is the problem. New MLA's are ready and willing to go to work this week and that is what should be happening. 

I have no problem with ammending the BC Constitution to put some rules in place to restrict the role of the L-G.  What I am saying is that there are presently no such rules, and since no such rules can be implemented until a government is formed, the L-G can do as she likes for this go-round at at least.

Media pundits, plus Christy Clark, are acting as though historical precedent amounts to a set of rules that the L-G must follow. I'm arguing that this is irresponsible, and that Christy and the media should recognize reality as it presently is, not as they want it to be..

ETA: I may be mistaken. I've been going on the assumption that a John Horgan throne speech could be presented and passed while Christy Clark is still premier, simultaneously removing her and making Horgan premier. It may be that Christy Clark needs to be removed as premier before Horgan presents a throne speech. In which case the L-G would not have the option of asking Horgan to present a throne speech until after Clark loses a confidence vote in the legislature.

NorthReport
pookie

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Our conventions are clear.  Clark is premier until she (a) resigns (b) loses a confidence vote or (c) is dismissed.

That does make some sense.

This is a total aside, but there'll never be a better time to ask:  would it be different if (let's just pretend) the Conservatives were the incumbents, and lost hard, with the results that BC recently saw.  Would Clark still have the likely first shot? 

In other words, if the incumbent clearly and undeniably lost and could never have the confidence of the house, would the first opportunity to try to form a government and win confidence go to Clark, or to Horgan/Weaver, or is there just no precedent?

The rule of incumbency trumps the electoral results.   The LG only invites someone else to try and obtain confidence once there is no longer a First Minister. Obviously there would be powerful political pressures on an incumbent Premier who clearly lost an election and they almost certainly would indicate a willingness to resign.  But, until that choice (or LG dismissal) s/he remains First Minister the day after Election Day.

pookie

Doug Woodard wrote:

pookie wrote:

 

Our conventions are clear.  Clark is premier until she (a) resigns (b) loses a confidence vote or (c) is dismissed. The results of the election have no bearing on her constitutional position.  She is entirely within her rights to seek confidence. 

To adapt a US-ian phrase: There is only one First Minister at a time, and there must be continuity in that position. Hence the rule of incumbency.

pookie, what is your view on the constitutional propriety of the Lieutenant-Governor summoning the legislature at once, with Clark as the sitting premier?

To my mind, it would be just a long-overdue refinement of responsible government. I don't see how giving "Parliament" the opportunity to make a decision could be seen as a usurpation of power by anyone with the possible exception of Stephen Harper. I don't see how the precedent could be used destructively in the future.

Doug, I think doing so would be tantamount to a dismissal.  Absent truly extraordinary, and thus far unprecedented, circumstances, the sovereign's decision to recall parliament must follow advice of the First Minister.  Personally, I don't think that a delay of a few weeks qualifies.

ETA: It might be possible to change our conventions in this regard, but we haven't ever really confronted how to do so, since they arise organically over long periods of time.  At the very least, it would require broad political agreement, and must emanate from political actors, not the Crown itself.

NorthReport

Clark should have stepped down by now.

All this does is provide the Liberals with enough time for the shredding of their documents. If you are around the Legislature keep your eye open as I'm sure the shredding trucks will be around.  

NorthReport

Clark blew the negotations by not realizing the importance of the discusions and sending others to do her bidding. And then she phones long after the deal was in place.  

Inside the negotiations to determine B.C.’s next government

The BC Liberals came close to forming an alliance with the Green Party that would have salvaged Premier Christy Clark’s government. But in the end, it was an arrangement many Greens simply could not stomach, reports Justine Hunter

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/how-a-deal-with-th...

NorthReport
brookmere

kropotkin1951 wrote:
 The MLA's have the power to make constitutional changes although the H of C and Senate would have to agree. So far no province has been refused an amendment that they passed.

You are confusing changing the Canadian Constitution in respect of a single province (e.g. Quebec getting rid of separate schools) and changing a province's constitution, e.g. BC's Constitution Act. Provinces can amend their constitutions at will except they cannot eliminate the office of L-G.

NorthReport

Clark has only 43 seats compared to the Horgan-Weaver combo of 44 seats.

Clark only received 40.4% of the vote compared to the Horgan-Weaver combo of 57.1%

Will Clark be respectful to the voters of BC?

Liberal Clark's true nature will soon be on display for everyone to see. 

B.C. legislature to face off over Speaker question

In Sossin’s view, it is incumbent on the Liberals to respect the will of the voters, who elected more NDP and Green members than Liberals, and to put forward one of their own as Speaker so as not to be obstructionist.

http://globalnews.ca/news/3501221/b-c-legislature-to-face-off-over-speak...

NorthReport

The title should have said political demise, but regardless.....

The irony in Christy Clark’s demise

Christy Clark is going down. Sunk by her hubris and by her bad bet on Big Oil.

----------------------------

To fully appreciate the scale of that irony, you have to go back to 2011.

Almost from the first moment she became premier, Clark’s government started distancing itself from Gordon Campbell’s climate action plan. It basically tubed Campbell’s serious commitment to reducing fossil fuel emissions.

Many, including myself, viewed Clark’s abandonment of B.C.’s globally lauded climate action plan as a hare-brained error. It was as environmentally reckless as it was politically short-sighted.

In retrospect, it was probably more responsible than anything else that Clark did for creating the new political reality that we have today.

Consider what Andrew Weaver said last Tuesday, in explaining his party’s new strategic alliance with the NDP. [Emphasis added.]

"Some will ask, why did the B.C. Greens ultimately choose to work with the B.C. NDP over the B.C. Liberals. There’s many shared values that we have with the B.C. NDP. Most importantly, I go back to what got us into politics in the first place. When I entered politics, back in 2013, I did so because I could not stand by and watch the dismantling of our climate leadership here in the province of British Columbia. I could not stand by and watch the dismantling of an economy that was growing in the new 21st century fashion.

"With the B.C. NDP, I find a partner that will actually position British Columbia in the new economy, create distributed jobs, from north to south and east to west, in a bottom-up fashion, putting people first. And that, ultimately, in the framework of climate leadership brought the B.C. Greens here today, to work with the B.C. NDP."

The Green party that Clark hoped would only splinter the NDP coalition also grew at the Liberals’ expense.

Her government’s indifference to climate change and to voters’ legitimate opposition to the threats to our environment posed by bitumen exports, by increased fracking, and by a massive increase in natural gas extraction activities, alienated those of all ideological stripes who are committed to the goal of green economy.

Were it not for the Clark government’s obsession with fossil fuel development and its support of projects like Kinder Morgan or Pacific Northwest LNG, Weaver’s party would not have won the seats it did.

At least 100,000 previous B.C. Liberal supporters voted Green this election. They were largely motivated by Weaver’s leadership and by his party’s unflagging commitment to fighting those and other projects, to fighting for renewable energy and for a green economy, and to reclaiming B.C.’s global leadership on climate action.

And here is the thing: the mainstream media also got it wrong in misjudging how Clark’s so-called "pro jobs" crusade would play out.

It, too, only saw that wedge issue as being mostly problematic for the NDP.

It spent four years pushing the false narrative that the NDP had lost the 2013 election because of then leader Adrian Dix’s opposition to the Kinder Morgan project.

Brilliant Christy, the pundits all said. Poor, dumb Dix. "Everyone knows" that jobs trumps the environment at the ballot box. Elections are "always" about jobs and Premier Hardhat was so shrewd to pit Weaver and Horgan against each other in vying to lead the "forces of NO."

What a genius Christy was in splitting the NDP vote! What a master stroke it was of her to force Horgan ever further to the left, in an effort to keep his green caucus onside!

WRONG.

The environment and climate action are issues that cut across ideological lines. They are neither "left" or "right", as such, any more than the issues of affordable housing, child care, health, education, transit, tolls, and the cost of ICBC premiums, MSP premiums, BC Hydro rates, or BC Ferry fares are.

With the exception of regional bridge tolls in Metro Vancouver, all of those issues were amplified by the Greens, in tandem with the NDP.

That only happened because of the credibility that Weaver brought to the Greens, which in turn only happened because he felt obliged to get political in fighting Clark’s betrayal of the climate action plan that he had helped to develop.

In the midst of the 2013 campaign, then NDP leader Adrian Dix surprised many observers by declaring his opposition to the Kinder Morgan project.

STEPHEN HUI

Kinder Morgan has been Ground Zero for that fight since at least 2013, after it was clear that Northern Gateway was mercifully stone-cold dead.

I had always maintained that Dix was right to oppose the so-called Kinder Morgan project.

His mistake was not in taking a firm stand against that Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, which proposes to increase pipeline capacity from 300,000 to 890,000 barrels of oil per day, and to increase oil supertanker traffic by 700 percent in the Strait of Juan de Fuca.

His mistake was not to reject that widely opposed project that will so threaten B.C.’s land and marine ecosystems, and that is resolutely disapproved of by so many local governments in Metro Vancouver, by so many First Nations, and by so many voters of all political persuasions.

Rather, Dix’s mistake was mostly in how he announced that position, in the middle of an election, seemingly in conflict with his earlier statements on the issue.

His mistake was not the policy, but rather his "Kinder surprise". And also, his mistake was in not making his opposition to Kinder Morgan a cause célèbre.

I maintain, he would have won that election if he had campaigned hard on that issue. Something that neither Horgan nor Weaver really did either, this past election.

To his great credit, however, Horgan did not allow himself to be sucked in by the mainstream media’s post-2013 election narrative.

He did not abandon Dix’s position on Kinder Morgan. Instead, he doubled down, much to my delight.

He stood up strongly against the Petronas precedent, against the flawed Pacific Northwest LNG project, and for a renewed commitment to climate action that, if anything, didn’t go far enough in matching Weaver’s worthy war on climate apathy.

Still, the NDP’s position on that issue was not dissimilar to that of the Greens.

If climate change was the catalyst that drove Weaver to run for the Green party, who breathed new life into that party as an exciting and credible new political option, it also indirectly shaped the NDP’s campaign platform in other ways.

With the Greens suddenly a real and growing threat, it forced the NDP to take a bold leapto the left on other issues, which it could not afford to let Weaver own.

Hence the symmetry between the Greens’ platform and the New Democrats’ platform, which served to form the basis for their "confidence and supply" accord.

That common NDP-Green commitment to bold strokes for change and to a concerted vision for sustainable growth was utterly rooted in a low-carbon economy.

It put people and the environment front and centre.

Ultimately, that was a bridge too far for the B.C. Liberals to accept, in competing for the Greens’ support in forming a minority government. Because Clark positioned herself and her party as the anti-NDP, anti-Green party—the party that paid lip service to climate action and that got paid, big time, by Big Oil to "get to yes", come hell or high water.

The difference between Horgan and Clark is that he listened, learned, and acted to address his party’s perceived shortcomings on climate action, whereas she did the opposite.

Unlike Clark, Horgan actually did personally reach out to Weaver. She let her minions do the talking.

In so doing, he bridged the relatively minor cracks between the NDP and Green platforms that were unwittingly minimized because of Clark’s boon to Big Oil and to Big Money.

From her first day in office, she was too clever by half.

Instead of driving a wedge in the NDP, Clark obliged the NDP to take winning positions that were mostly aligned with the Greens.

Instead of hurting the NDP—as she thought that her all-in gambit on LNG and Dix's opposition to Kinder Morgan had succeeded in doing—she actually obliged it to take winning positions on those and other issues that were clearly popular in Metro Vancouver.

Instead of only diluting the NDP’s support, by essentially pitting the election as a false contest between jobs and the environment, Clark also drove many former Liberal supporters to the Greens.

She lost the ballot question in the process.

The issue for most voters in the 2017 election was not the economy. It was the need for change.

That was always the NDP’s winning issue. It was the one issue the B.C. Liberals could not afford to let become the ballot question.

Clark made the word "green"—and all of the values it suggests—the central pivot point of the campaign.

Green meant change, including for disaffected Liberals, especially those who cared about climate change and doing things differently in Victoria.

The Green-NDP dichotomy put those two parties’ competition front and centre.

And the slight differences in their positions always contrasted to the Liberals’ "status quo" agenda, which was fundamentally anathema to their opponents’ change agenda, for social democracy.

All of that was the result of Clark’s initial and ongoing strategic misreading of the Green phenomena. Which she ironically unleashed by motivating Weaver to political action, because of her government’s inaction on climate change.

It was that trigger, indirectly, that ultimately led to the policy convergence between the NDP and Greens. Without Weaver, it wouldn’t have happened. The Greens would have continued on the far fringes.

That NDP-Green policy convergence was largely prompted by those two parties competing for market share. Those populist, centrist, and socially responsible policies also proved to be attractive to many a former Liberal.

I call that irony.

The double irony is this: if the NDP and Greens are successful in winning public support to put a new system of proportional representation in place, we might expect their minority governments to rule for quite some time.

We might expect that to result in the further fracturing of the Liberals’ coalition. An outcome that could deny them power for many years to come.

Then again, that assumes that Horgan and Weaver continue to play it smart in consolidating the combined support base they have won.

The fight for B.C. on Kinder Morgan will be unlike anything Canada has ever seen. I suspect it stands to make both leaders much more popular, if they play their cards wisely.

Aboriginal Canadians will have much to say about that. Don’t forget, over 100 First Nations and tribes have pledged that the project "will never see the light of day".

The president of the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs, Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, reiterated that vow just last Friday. My money’s on him. Big time.

Grand Chief Stewart Phillip and David Suzuki have been two key voices mobilizing the public against the Kinder Morgan pipeline.

STEPHEN THOMSON

The NDP and Greens have many tools at their disposal for fighting that project, however much Justin Trudeau or Clark want it to proceed.

Case in point: in the election campaign, Clark committed to putting an industry-specific carbon tax on thermal coal exports—an idea that Trudeau promised "to consider."

Why not do the same thing on bitumen exports?

Why not put a special carbon tax rate on emissions from fossil fuel extraction, including those associated with building the Trans Mountain pipeline?

That would be one way for Horgan and Weaver to continue driving their right and popular position on that issue, in reasserting B.C.’s leadership on climate action. I would love to see them make the B.C. Liberals vote against that bill in the legislature.

We know Clark is resilient. She will be the first to tell you that the rumours of her death as premier have been greatly exaggerated.

Time will tell whether that is true or not, in the long run.

But my hunch is, she will do herself and her party no favours by continuing to stick her head in the (oil)sand(s) and ignore the damage she inflicted upon herself by turning her back on climate action and by continuing to shill for projects like Kinder Morgan.

As the Straight's Charlie Smith has so aptly observed, both Clark and the B.C. Liberals will be doomed if they don't do an about-face on climate change.

Weaver is bang-on to highlight the urgent need to get vocal and dead-serious about climate action, in view of Donald Trump's shameful decision to have the world's largest climate polluter walk away from the Paris agreement that it had committed to honour.

Partnering with the Pacific Coast Collaborative states and others subnational governments was a key part of the Campbell government's climate action plan. It should play an even bigger role on the incoming government's climate action strategy, leaning on Weaver to help spearhead that initiative

At this point, in a Houdini sense, Clark has nothing to lose but her chains. Specifically, those that bind her so completely to Big Oil and Big Money.

If she is smart, she will free herself of that straightjacket that has all but sunk her government.

Regardless, her government is going down in short order.

And for that, we should all be grateful.

Postscript: To be clear, I am not at all arguing above that the issues of climate change or the Kinder Morgan project were the key election issues at the ballot box. As I wrote, "change" was the winning issue for both the NDP and the Greens, along with issues of affordability that were so central to both the NDP's and Greens' populist platforms.

This analysis was aimed at highlighting the IRONY of the role that climate change, KM, and other related issues played in motivating Andrew Weaver to enter politics, and in the change of events that largely flowed from that event, which all can be traced back to Christy Clark's abandonment of her predecessor's climate action plan. 

My main point, which has apparently been lost on some, was not to suggest that the election was about climate change or any environmental issue per se. Rather, it was to note the irony inherent in how that pivotal event of Weaver's entry into politics came to be, and how it served to shape the Greens' success, as it also indirectly served to inform the content of the NDP's bold and popular platform, and the NDP-Green alliance that led to the Clark government's likely demise.

Apologies if I was unclear.

 

http://www.straight.com/news/918991/martyn-brown-irony-christy-clarks-de...

Doug Woodard

pookie wrote:

Doug Woodard wrote:

pookie, what is your view on the constitutional propriety of the Lieutenant-Governor summoning the legislature at once, with Clark as the sitting premier?

To my mind, it would be just a long-overdue refinement of responsible government. I don't see how giving "Parliament" the opportunity to make a decision could be seen as a usurpation of power by anyone with the possible exception of Stephen Harper. I don't see how the precedent could be used destructively in the future.

Doug, I think doing so would be tantamount to a dismissal.  Absent truly extraordinary, and thus far unprecedented, circumstances, the sovereign's decision to recall parliament must follow advice of the First Minister.  Personally, I don't think that a delay of a few weeks qualifies.

ETA: It might be possible to change our conventions in this regard, but we haven't ever really confronted how to do so, since they arise organically over long periods of time.  At the very least, it would require broad political agreement, and must emanate from political actors, not the Crown itself.

pookie, I agree that we have had a convention that the sovereign follows the advice of the prime minister or premier. However, it seems to me that the convention rests on the assumption that the first minister represents Parliament/the legislature. If the first minister uses the convention to evade answering to the legislature and almost certainly disobeying the as yet unexpressed will of the legislature, it seems to me that the convention of obeying Parliament is a higher one and should supersede the convention of following the first minister's instructions. I can stomach the sovereign rejecting the first minister's advice in order to seek that of the legislature.

It's true that we haven't dealt with this contradiction yet, and that to do so other than by a motion of the legislature might be painful. However, constitutional change usually seems to arise out of crises. I notice that in this case Clark, unlike Harper, is not claiming that a minority NDP government supported by the Greens would be unconstitutional, and the other two party leaders have already reached an agreement to co-operate. It seems to me that we are as close as we are ever likely to get to the necessary political agreement.

In any case, I believe that an NDP minority government supported by the Greens ought to deal with this question by legislation regardless of how long we have to wait for the change in government.

NorthReport

When unions, which are democratic institutions, have elections, the newly elected take over immediately, following the vote count.  That way there is much less chance of the previous office holders being able to hide anything. As the results, or rather the mostly non-results of FOI requests have shown, we need the same rules as the unions have, for the changing of the governments in our Parliament and Legislatures in Canada. The reason there is such in equality in Canada is that there is a massive operation within our governments, in cahoots with the corporate lobbyists, to keep as many things as they can secret from Canadians. Secretive Canadian and Provincial Governments are the number one reason there is such a massive gap between the rich and the poor in Canada.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
That way there is much less chance of the previous office holders being able to hide anything.

If you had something that needed hiding, wouldn't you just hide it well before the election, then??

"Oh, gosh, we'd better preserve these incriminating e-mails until the last possible moment.  Wait? What??  We lost?  Oh well, too late now..."

NorthReport

Quick now, someone dig our the many, many  pictures of the shredders outside legislature buildings after a government has been defeated. I know, I know they just want to leave the place neat & tidy for the newcomers. 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/watchdogs-investigate-docu...

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Quick now, someone dig our the many, many  pictures of the shredders outside legislature buildings after a government has been defeated. I know, I know they just want to leave the place neat & tidy for the newcomers.

It's funny that I've NEVER, EVER heard any incoming government say "but we can't govern now!  All the previous contracts that we're expected to honour have been SHREDDED while the public watched and said NOTHING!!!"

Again.  If you and your government have incriminating paper evidence of your sins, is there:

a) some reason you need to retain proof of this in any case?

b) some reason you need to wait until the day after you lose the election to dispose of that proof?

NorthReport

Liberals, eh!

Will Clark take defeat with dignity or try a last-minute trick?

http://theprovince.com/news/bc-politics/mike-smyth-will-clark-clark-take...

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
That way there is much less chance of the previous office holders being able to hide anything.

If you had something that needed hiding, wouldn't you just hide it well before the election, then??

"Oh, gosh, we'd better preserve these incriminating e-mails until the last possible moment.  Wait? What??  We lost?  Oh well, too late now..."

After their last win they became even more arrogant and full of hubris. This is the party that has had staffers charged for doing the triple delete but not until the it was too late. They then hired an Ontario politico who is facing criminal charges for the triple delete stunt. 

When you are dealing with known criminals the proper precautions need to be taken. That is primarily because real crooks act different than amateurs. The rules for your run of the mill government leaving office are one thing but when the BC Rail scandal people need a few more weeks I will bet it is too hide the bodies.

voice of the damned

It's not clear to me why Clark is morally obligated to quit.

Mighty Middle

THIS JUST IN - BC Liberal party spokesman said their MLA all agreed not to take the job of speaker. If NDP & Greens follow suit it means another elxn

voice of the damned

Mighty Middle wrote:

THIS JUST IN - BC Liberal party spokesman said their MLA all agreed not to take the job of speaker. If NDP & Greens follow suit it means another elxn

Hm, I don't think anything like this has ever happened in my forty some odd years of following Canadian politics, or even before that. 

One thing about the British parliamentary system, as far as entertainment value goes, is it occassionally brings up these weird procedural quirks that you don't get in an American-style separation-of-powers deal. Though the American system does make it easier to remember when a particular president came into and left office. 

NorthReport

Duff Conacher of Democracy Watch was on CKNW today suggesting that the Legislation in BC be changed so that a Speaker does not have to an elected MLA to take the politics out of the role like the federal Auditor General. In this particular situation perhaps it is better if the Speaker does come from the NDP. Worth exploring.

http://globalnews.ca/news/3501221/b-c-legislature-to-face-off-over-speak...

NorthReport

Appointed by the Liberals you say!

Sounds like it's probably way overdue time to bring in some new blood at Elections BC, eh!

NDP to Raise Concerns with Elections BC about ‘Mishandled’ Ballots

 

https://thetyee.ca/News/2017/06/05/NDP-Raise-Concerns/

NorthReport

What is really refreshing is that the BC NDP don't give a tinker's damn about the following right-wing media:
The CBC News Dept
CKNW News
Vancouver Sun
Metro Vancouver
The Province
CTV
Global News
North Shore News

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Appointed by the Liberals you say!

For the second time, actually appointed by the LG.  Who is in turn appointed by the GG.

NorthReport

Canda's right-wing media such as Mcleans, CBC News Dept, Globe & Mail, Global TV,  CTV, North Shore News, Times Columnist, V Sun & Province are promoting their usual bullshit. It's unfortunate to see such right-wing opposition to the newly and duly elected BC NDP & Green MLAs whose parties garnered 57% of the vote by the citizens of BC.  Too bad the right-wing only likes democracy when they win and hate democracy when they lose, eh!

Why a BC NDP-Green Government Will Last Longer than Pundits Think

Predictions of doom, trickery and legislative stalemate are all wrong.

 

https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2017/06/06/BC-NDP-Green-Government-Will-Last/

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Can you take just one moment to answer my answer to your "appointed by the Liberals" post?

No worries if this is a bad time.  I can re-ask you as often as needed.  Let me be your Siri.

NorthReport

Send her packing?

Vote early and help get Christy a new luggage set!

Ask for the resignation of Premier Christy Clark

In light of the recent disaster in BC's interior, which the govenment did nothing to prevent, Christy Clark should step down as Premier of British Columbia. The gov't not only knew this industrial disaster could happen, they also knew that it would happen if certain measures were not addressed immediately. The only preventative measures they took were to write letters to the mining company. With the knowlege that this disaster was a real possibility, the mine should have been shut down and this disaster would have been thwarted. I would ask the people of British Columbia to stand up against this govenments abuse of our precious natural waterways. Call for the Premier to step down. 

https://www.change.org/p/the-concerned-citizens-of-british-columbia-ask-...

NorthReport

Judy Guichon just fell out of the sky, nobody knew her, she just happened to be there, so they made her LG.

Amazin', truly amazin'!

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Judy Guichon just fell out of the sky, nobody knew her, she just happened to be there, so they made her LG.

By "they" do you mean the Liberals?  Or are you just making an effort to not assume the Governor General's gender?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Magoo do you know of even one incident when a Premier told the GG who their pick for LG is and then had it refused?  Yes we technicalities and we also have reality. The Liberals told the GG to appoint the person they wanted in the LG post and the GG, like they do in every instance, agreed.

What exactly is your point that she wasn't really a person chosen by the sitting government because the GG formally appointed her?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

You (or NorthReport) had better log in to Wikipedia and fix this error then.

Quote:
Judith Isabel Guichon, OBC,is the 29th and current Lieutenant Governor of British Columbia. Her appointment as Lieutenant Governor was made by Governor General of Canada David Lloyd Johnston on the Constitutional advice of Prime Minister of Canada Stephen Harper, on October 1, 2012, to succeed Steven Point.

NorthReport

She's basically usedless in the scheme of things. As soon as she received the NDP-Green accord letter she should have immediately called Clark in, told her the jig is up, that she lost the election and that Clark needed to resign forthwith It is time to explore abolishing these useless trappings that belong to the rich and powerful one percenters, and put a system in place that actually represents the winners ,the 57% of the voters of BC.  Does the LG take BC citizenry for fools?

NorthReport

Is the Speaker chosen by a secret ballot of all MLAs? 

Is the following what will probably happen?

A Liberal MLA is chosen Speaker by secret ballot of all MLAs

The Throne Speech is presented

The Throne Speech is defeated

The Liberal Speaker resigns

Another vote is taken for Speaker and this time a NDP Speaker is elected.

The NDP begins to govern

I think it's important for the 2nd Speaker above to be a NDP Speaker

The NDP legislation will pass because the Speaker's vote will put them over the top when there is a tie vote.

And the NDP, with Green support for any confidence vote,  will govern for the  next 4 and 1/2 years

What's not to like about this?

NorthReport

Bingo!

Well said krop

kropotkin1951 wrote:

jas wrote:

In Clark's case, it is absolutely in her advantage to wait. We would certainly encourage the NDP to do the same if the situation were reversed.

And there is the reason the BC NDP has been in the wilderness for so long. You haven't attracted many new voters in a decade because no one trusts you to be any different than the other guys. That is why the Greens won three seats running on a platform that looked like the NDP but included the idea of doing politics differently. 

NorthReport

If Clark is really that concerned she needs to resign immediately so that we can get on with the assessment of Site BC. What a bullshitter she is!

 

http://www.theprovince.com/news/local+news/christy+clark+letter+fires+ba...

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

You (or NorthReport) had better log in to Wikipedia and fix this error then.

Quote:
Judith Isabel Guichon, OBC,is the 29th and current Lieutenant Governor of British Columbia. Her appointment as Lieutenant Governor was made by Governor General of Canada David Lloyd Johnston on the Constitutional advice of Prime Minister of Canada Stephen Harper, on October 1, 2012, to succeed Steven Point.

Or maybe you could acknowledge the reality of who choses. Here is your answer from the same Wiki page. Please cite me any sources you have that say Harper appointed someone who the BC Liberal government did not chose. I don't remember it but I am sure at the time their must have been lots of stories about this snub by Harper.

The lieutenant governors are appointed by the Governor General of Canada on the advice of his or her prime minister, usually in consultation with the relevant premier,[11][12][13]

Pages