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

165 posts / 0 new
Last post
kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

This little story highlights the small town "non-partisan" politician. Imagine someone sending constitutional advice to  the LG on behalf of 42 communities without talking to a constitutional lawyer. 

The North Central Local Government Association is apologizing for a letter it sent to B.C. Lt.-Gov. Judith Guichon expressing concern over the constitutionality of an agreement between the provincial NDP and Green Party leaders.

...

The letter expressed two primary concerns: the effect a change in government could have on resource-based communities in the north and whether the NDP-Green agreement was constitutional.

"Undisclosed side agreements and informal understandings are not uncommon in government," Wilbur wrote. "But when the informal contracts and discussions involve a major shift in governance, it leaves communities unprepared and vulnerable."

"Respectfully, if the Crown acts in reliance on the agreement, we are concerned that the Crown could be condoning an unconstitutional scheme."

...

Wilbur, who is staying on as president, directed interview requests to the NCLGA office.

However, in a previously circulated letter to members she apologized to anyone upset by the letter and reiterated that she had meant to advocate on behalf of the north and not for any political party.

She also acknowledged she is a member of the B.C. Liberals but said that personal affiliation did not affect her decision to raise concerns.

"My only concern was the structure of the contract in question and not at all on anyone's plans for the future of the province," she said.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/andrew-weaver-john-horgan...

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
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.

I see.

So the Chief Electoral Officer is appointed by the LG.

The LG, in turn, is appointed by the GG.

The GG seeks the advice of the PM for this.

The PM in turn consults with the Premier (who is a Liberal!!).

Therefore, as NorthReport repeatedly asserts, Elections BC is solidly in the pocket of the Liberal Party. 

"I'm going to recommend Judith Guichon when Harper asks, so that he'll recommend her to David Johnston.  Then, when she's LG, she'll appoint Keith Archer to be Chief Electoral Officer, and when the chips are down for me he can arrange some faulty ballots and we'll win the smallest possible plurality of seats.  Then when Judy declines to order me to step down, victory is mine once again!"

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..more subtle not so clunky magoo. the first parts the fed parts require only letter exchange. electronic exchanges between administrative aids more likely. and authorized with electronic signatures. and the last part the ceo part is entirely plausible if you consider the bc liberals as one of the most corrupt parties around. again done with a subtle touch.

..i'm not saying it happened but it is not as astounding a proposition as you make out.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Therefore, as NorthReport repeatedly asserts, Elections BC is solidly in the pocket of the Liberal Party. 

The fact that North Reports assertion that Elections BC is completely controlled by the BC Liberals is unsupportable does not change the fact that the LG is in the real world a political appointee of the BC Liberal government just as her predecessors were. Personally I have no cause for concern about her doing her role in an honest and honourable manner.  In BC it is mostly a ceremonial role and given more to honour community service than to overtly partisan political actors.

Given the fluidity of the topic of what contitutes a precedent and should be followed I would expect her to be getting expert advise. If I was to wonder about the decision making process around what constitutional precedents she should follow I would wonder who is advising her and who appointed them not the LG herself.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

So tell me Magoo are you really asserting that the LG actually chose the Chief Electoral Officer and didn't just appoint the Premiers choice for the job?

The election in BC was rigged to favour the BC Liberals. The redrawing of the boundaries under terms of reference  that frooze 17 ridings in the BC Liberal stronghold won them the election. In Peace River North 12,883 people voted and in Peace River South 8,171 for a total for the two ridings of just over 21,000. Two MP's for two of the 17 frozen ridings. In comparison the rural riding on Vancouver Island where I live that is an NDP stronghold had just under 24,000 voters.  The now infamous Courtenay-Comox riding had over 29,000 voters.  The Liberal area was 10,500 votes per MLA. using that number the two Island seats should have recieved 5 MLA representatives not 2.

Yes some of us who believe in democracy are fed up with the corrupt government and the lying media that supports them.

If a left wing Latin American government had sunk to this level of corruption you would be all over it. But I guess your ideological lens only lets you see the sins of left wing governments.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
So tell me Magoo are you really asserting that the LG actually chose the Chief Electoral Officer and didn't just appoint the Premiers choice for the job?

How would I know?  How would you?

I'm not asserting the the LG's choice for CEO wasn't informed by anyone else. 

What I am asserting is that the choice of CEO based on the choice of LG being based on corruption, and also being the "real" reason why the NDP/Greens haven't already been sworn in is pretty thin soup.  Like, pure water with a tiny piece of celery thin.

Quote:
If a left wing Latin American government had sunk to this level of corruption you would be all over it. But I guess your ideological lens only lets you see the sins of left wing governments.

"this level of corruption"?  Seems to me one of them cancelled inconvenient elections, let the Supreme Court take over the Legislature for a day, and recently announced plans for a brand Assembly whose electoral boundaries are every bit as jerrymandered as any in BC could ever be.  What does YOUR ideological lens ever have to say about any of that?  If you think you're living under a corrupt government, go tell Venezuelans all about it.

 

quizzical

kropotkin1951 wrote:
This little story highlights the small town "non-partisan" politician. Imagine someone sending constitutional advice to  the LG on behalf of 42 communities without talking to a constitutional lawyer. 

The North Central Local Government Association is apologizing for a letter it sent to B.C. Lt.-Gov. Judith Guichon expressing concern over the constitutionality of an agreement between the provincial NDP and Green Party leaders.

...

The letter expressed two primary concerns: the effect a change in government could have on resource-based communities in the north and whether the NDP-Green agreement was constitutional.

"Undisclosed side agreements and informal understandings are not uncommon in government," Wilbur wrote. "But when the informal contracts and discussions involve a major shift in governance, it leaves communities unprepared and vulnerable."

"Respectfully, if the Crown acts in reliance on the agreement, we are concerned that the Crown could be condoning an unconstitutional scheme."

...

Wilbur, who is staying on as president, directed interview requests to the NCLGA office.

However, in a previously circulated letter to members she apologized to anyone upset by the letter and reiterated that she had meant to advocate on behalf of the north and not for any political party.

She also acknowledged she is a member of the B.C. Liberals but said that personal affiliation did not affect her decision to raise concerns.

"My only concern was the structure of the contract in question and not at all on anyone's plans for the future of the province," she said.

">http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/andrew-weaver-john-horgan...

hell without talking to the membership let alone a constitutional lawyer. they've recinded the letter and apologized but you can see the fingers of the BC Liberals in local politics here in the interior.

the propaganda is bad. it could really tear communities apart it's so ugly.

NorthReport
NorthReport

Oh, my!

 

B.C. election: little immediate impact, but plenty of future political risk for federal Liberals, say pollsters

 

https://www.hilltimes.com/2017/06/07/b-c-election-little-immediate-impac...

bekayne

kropotkin1951 wrote:

So tell me Magoo are you really asserting that the LG actually chose the Chief Electoral Officer and didn't just appoint the Premiers choice for the job?

The election in BC was rigged to favour the BC Liberals. The redrawing of the boundaries under terms of reference  that frooze 17 ridings in the BC Liberal stronghold won them the election. In Peace River North 12,883 people voted and in Peace River South 8,171 for a total for the two ridings of just over 21,000. Two MP's for two of the 17 frozen ridings. In comparison the rural riding on Vancouver Island where I live that is an NDP stronghold had just under 24,000 voters.  The now infamous Courtenay-Comox riding had over 29,000 voters.  The Liberal area was 10,500 votes per MLA. using that number the two Island seats should have recieved 5 MLA representatives not 2.

Yes some of us who believe in democracy are fed up with the corrupt government and the lying media that supports them.

If a left wing Latin American government had sunk to this level of corruption you would be all over it. But I guess your ideological lens only lets you see the sins of left wing governments.

Are you as outraged over the number of voters in North Coast and Stikine as in Peace River?

NorthReport

Democracy is one person one vote, and no one's vote should be worth more than anyone else's vote, and every riding should have as close as possible the same number of voters. 

With 21st century technology what's not to understand about that!

 

All these rural ridings that have hardly any voters is just another con job by the right-wing to try and rig the election against the citizens of BC. 

bekayne, you need to address the basic problem instead of cherry picking this or that riding.

NorthReport

!

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

bekayne wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

So tell me Magoo are you really asserting that the LG actually chose the Chief Electoral Officer and didn't just appoint the Premiers choice for the job?

The election in BC was rigged to favour the BC Liberals. The redrawing of the boundaries under terms of reference  that frooze 17 ridings in the BC Liberal stronghold won them the election. In Peace River North 12,883 people voted and in Peace River South 8,171 for a total for the two ridings of just over 21,000. Two MP's for two of the 17 frozen ridings. In comparison the rural riding on Vancouver Island where I live that is an NDP stronghold had just under 24,000 voters.  The now infamous Courtenay-Comox riding had over 29,000 voters.  The Liberal area was 10,500 votes per MLA. using that number the two Island seats should have recieved 5 MLA representatives not 2.

Yes some of us who believe in democracy are fed up with the corrupt government and the lying media that supports them.

If a left wing Latin American government had sunk to this level of corruption you would be all over it. But I guess your ideological lens only lets you see the sins of left wing governments.

Are you as outraged over the number of voters in North Coast and Stikine as in Peace River?

Absolutely its about fairness and my vote being reasonably equal to any other citizens vote. We already allow a large variance to offset the areas with large geography and  low populations.  However the freeze meant that effect was substancially magnified. You did point out the 2 of 17 ridings that were not Liberal. I call that a very ineffective fig leaf meant to hide a rotten borough.

Mr Magoo, I unlike you complain when my politicians are corrupt. If I lived in Venezuela and I thought the government was corrupt I would be pissed as well. But I don't have your certainty that I know everything I need to know to have an informed opinion. I don't know what really happens in that country compared to my far more intimate and extensive knowledge of BC politics. The BC Liberals are as corrupt a government as this province has ever seen.

NorthReport

More Liberal lies but what else would you expect from right-wingers!

http://vancouversun.com/business/energy/one-year-delay-of-site-c-dam-pro...

brookmere

Mr. Magoo wrote:
The LG, in turn, is appointed by the GG. The GG seeks the advice of the PM for this.

No. The constitution says that the LG is appointed by the "Governor General in Council", which is constitutional language for the Federal Cabinet. This is the same as for Federally appointed judiciary.  The GG does not seek any advice, but simply signs the appointment that the cabinet (in practical terms the PM) has decided upon.

This reflects the original intent of the BNA Act making the provinces subservient to the Federal Government.

NorthReport
NorthReport
NorthReport
Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
No. The constitution says that the LG is appointed by the "Governor General in Council", which is constitutional language for the Federal Cabinet. This is the same as for Federally appointed judiciary.  The GG does not seek any advice, but simply signs the appointment that the cabinet (in practical terms the PM) has decided upon.

Fair enough; thanks for the intel.

So rather than being "appointed by the Liberals", the LG/BC was essentially chosen by the Conservative PM and/or his Conservative cabinet.

Boy, there's just NO END to the Liberal trickery.  Impersonating the PM and his cabinet is a new low, even for them.  And all for what?  So that the LG will appoint a CEO who will then print up some ballots with little dots on them that have to be replaced, which naturally ushers in another decade of Liberal rule.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Magoo keep it going it is good for a laugh watching someone beat the shit out of straw.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

I wish it were straw.  Have you been reading babble lately?

Seen anything about how "the Liberals" have done everything from appointing the LG to appointing the CEO to ordering misprinted ballots to instructing the LG to not tell Clark that she must leave now?

Any of that ring any bells?  That's the completely silly-ass, wooly-headed, paranoid "straw" I'm countering.  If nobody were saying it with a straight face, I wouldn't be pushing back and trying to restore a bit of logic and common sense here.

NorthReport

Liberal Christy Clark’s Dangerous Site C Propaganda War

 

https://www.desmog.ca/2017/06/07/christy-clark-s-dangerous-site-c-propag...

NorthReport

!!

NorthReport

Let's clue in to who we are dealing with here:

Harper - Clark - Guichon

Nuff said.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

I wish it were straw.  Have you been reading babble lately?

Seen anything about how "the Liberals" have done everything from appointing the LG to appointing the CEO to ordering misprinted ballots to instructing the LG to not tell Clark that she must leave now?

Any of that ring any bells?  That's the completely silly-ass, wooly-headed, paranoid "straw" I'm countering.  If nobody were saying it with a straight face, I wouldn't be pushing back and trying to restore a bit of logic and common sense here.

Actually you are extending a stupid side issue that no one takes seriously. In the real world of politics BC is different than most provinces. Because the NDP has always been the government in waiting it is free enterprisers against the socialist hordes provincially. Federally until last election the choice for those voters was the Conservatives. Harpers minions and Clarks minions have gone back and forth in adminstrations and in election campaigns. They are the same people and the Calgary oil oligarchy supports them equally. Given the level of corruption we have seen it is commonplace for people to believe it is all rigged. I don't think it is a straight line collusion I think it is a systemic corruption that oozes out of BC Liberals and federal Tories. 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Actually you are extending a stupid side issue that no one takes seriously.

Very well.  But it honestly seems to me that these ridiculous side issues make up at least one fifth of all babble posts these days.   Did you read the post right above yours?  That's the new norm.

Should these side issues hog the microphone?  Or are there real issues that shouldn't be drowned out by loopiness?

NorthReport
NorthReport

Anticipating B.C.’s ultimate knock-knock joke

Former deputy speaker Raj Chouhan (right, with NDP colleagues Harry Bains and Bruce Ralston) might have to repeatedly cast tie-breaking votes if he becomes the next speaker in the B.C. legislature.

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

No doubt, that is what most voters might expect from Clark. Damn the torpedoes and full steam ahead, as long as there are "commies" to kill and a nuclear option at the ready.

Already she has essentially thumbed her nose at the people by ignoring their wishes for her to change her overly partisan ways.

"British Columbians sent a very strong message to all sides of the legislature," Clark said. "They want us to work together collaboratively and across partisan lines."

Yes, they did. And so they do.

Had Clark respected the people’s message and honoured their wish, even after the election, her party might not have lost the confidence of the three Green MLAs. They were not persuaded by the Clark government’s inadequate and half-hearted overtures to bridge the partisan divide.

Had Clark truly got that message, she would have recognized that a majority of the people’s elected representatives lack confidence in her government.

She would have already acted to facilitate those 44 members’ unanimous support for a new NDP government, ideally, without undue partisan resistance from her 43-member minority party.

Had the premier really taken the people’s direction to heart, she would have acted to ease the transfer of power that the NDP-Green majority is committed to affecting, instead of doing everything in her power to make it as difficult as possible.

She would have acknowledged that her B.C. Liberal party received 330,821 fewer votes than the combined vote won by the NDP and Green party, which together accounted for 57 percent of the vote, as compared to her party’s 40 percent.

Had Clark really got the voters’ message, she would have conceded that the 1,566 more votes and two more seats that her party won over the NDP should not trump that party’s one-seat majority alliance with the Green party. Which frankly, should have already been asked to form a government.

It is Clark who has chosen to put that alliance to the test with a confidence vote in the legislature.

She is the one who has deliberately fanned the flames of speculation about the prospect of an NDP speaker whose first act would be to depart from parliamentary convention and vote with the opposition to bring down the government.

Bring it on, Clark & Co. seem to be saying.

Indeed, all 43 B.C. Liberals now seem intent on playing more partisan games to frustrate the 44 members’ majority will. They are apparently hoping to create chaos and ongoing uncertainty that will soon force another election that is widely unwanted by British Columbians.

The words "working collaboratively" and "across partisan lines" are simply not in the Liberals’ playbook.

Is there no one among them who is willing to stand up and say, enough is enough, I’ll put my name forward for speaker: to help preserve the independence of that office, as far as possible, and to help avoid a crisis of confidence that is so obviously not in the public interest?

Reid, of all people should feel the special weight of that moral obligation to rise above her perceived personal political interests.

Then again, none of the Liberals are really fit for the speaker’s job, if they are so keen to be complicit in needlessly debasing the independence of that office. They know full well that their refusal to help diffuse the situation will only oblige a New Democrat to do that job in an inescapably partisan way, as an active and routine legislative tie-breaker.

Christy Clark (seen with B.C. Liberal caucus member Mary Polak) could face a backlash from the public if she forces another quick election.

There's a solution at hand

My hunch is, the closer we get to that day of reckoning, the more public pressure will grow on Clark’s Liberals to be reasonable and responsible.

Indeed, it might be wishful thinking, but I would not be surprised if Premier Clark inevitably bows to that pressure, in a great show of magnanimity. Which, in the final analysis, she will correctly deem to be in her party’s best political interests.

Why?

Because I can’t imagine that Clark or her party would want to have to defend their reckless obstinacy in frustrating the people’s will, whenever the next election might occur. Least of all anytime soon.

I can’t imagine that she would really want to turn the speaker into an overt partisan—an unnecessary consequence for which she would truly bear the most responsibility, by dint of her penchant for partisan gamesmanship.

Rather, I expect that she may well want to look like a constructive and responsible opposition leader, by making the ultimate "sacrifice" of "allowing" one of her own caucus members to stand as speaker.

If Clark really has the long game in mind, a more politically prudent move might be to flip the speaker conundrum on its head by further elevating and assuring the independence of the speaker.

She might take her cue from what is happening today in Australia. There, the Liberal/National coalition government now also holds a one-seat majority, in the 150-seat House of Representatives.

As the Guardian recently reported, the coalition’s speaker, Tony Smith, "has signaled he will not use his casting vote to hand the Turnbull government a majority on legislation if the government fails to command a working majority on the floor. …he said on legislative debates, or on no-confidence motions, you don’t, from the Speaker’s chair, use your casting vote to manufacture a majority that doesn’t exist on the floor of the chamber.

" 'If it’s a question about whether a bill should be amended or not, you generally leave it in its current form,’ [speaker Smith said.] Smith says the idea of a no-confidence motion proceeding in the current parliament is ‘highly hypothetical’ but he says the precedents and practice is clear. ‘If in the final vote there is not a majority, you don’t vote to give it one.’ "

Wow, right?

That would obviously not work for the NDP, in the current context.

Not if it had to devote one of it members to the speaker’s chair. For that would virtually assure an ongoing 43-43 tie in the legislature, which would prevent the government from passing almost anything that the Liberals resisted.

But what if Clark offered to put up Reid as the speaker, on set terms that forever changed the speaker’s role?

What if Reid or some other Clark nominee only agreed to serve in that capacity on the explicit undertaking by all parties that B.C. would act to embrace the Westminster model that Australia’s Smith seems keen to embrace?

The obvious choice for house speaker would be the previous one, Linda Reid, who was reelected as a B.C. Liberal in Richmond.

LINDA REID

Australian model offers lessons

Consider these tidbits from Australia’s decidedly independent new speaker in this podcast interview:

[In the U.K., speakers] "are entirely independent. So, what that means is, there’s a compact, really. And that is, when you become speaker, you leave your political party.

"Then at the subsequent election, or every election, you’re there as speaker in your constituency. You’re not opposed, so the parties agree to that. You stay speaker through a change of government and you also agree that that will be the last job you have. You won’t go back. And they’ve had that for a long period of time.…It relies on everybody abiding by it."

In the Westminster system, the speaker does not vote to break ties on bills, or even on confidence motions. He or she only votes to break ties in the interests of allowing debates to proceed.

It would be an easy enough model to apply in British Columbia, especially under a mixed-member proportional representation electoral system.

Under that model, one of the "top-up" seats that are reserved for ensuring greater proportionality in translating each party's popular vote into elected representatives could be allocated to the speaker.

Those "party list" seats are not geographically distributed. So the speaker's seat would not have to be dedicated to any constituency, as such. He or she might just be a common designate from each party's slate of candidates. To ensure that no individual becomes permanently entitled to holding thatoffice, a new neutral candidate/speaker might be agreed to perhaps every two or three elections. 

Point is, it is a model that the Mother parliament already employs under its electoral system. If there was a will to make it work, we could readily find a way to embrace it in B.C.

Suppose Clark and the B.C. Liberals embraced that model and insisted on all parties supporting changing the provincial Constitution Act to adopt it, as a prerequisite for giving up one of their members to serve as speaker.

Sure, that would serve to preserve and slightly strengthen the NDP’s government’s razor-thin legislative majority. Without the speaker available to vote in that scenario, it would effectively give the NDP-Green alliance a two-seat majority.

That result might seem as preposterous as it is counterintuitive for Clark to consider.

But in the long run, it could be a boon to the Liberals, and also a real service to our democracy.

First, it would resolve the uncomfortable prospect of any speaker having to vote non-confidence in the government, in the event of a tie, as it would also reduce the potential for tied votes.

Second, it would put a Liberal speaker in the chair for many years yet to come. If someone like Reid accepted the post, a mutual agreement by the parties to not run candidates against her in the next election would ensure she wasn’t unduly punished by angry Liberals who might think she was a "traitor". The risks of serving would be all but eradicated.

Third, it would strengthen the speaker’s optical independence, and would probably increase the likelihood that rulings on opposition-sponsored motions would succeed as they never would today, given the speaker’s ongoing, unspoken allegiance to the government.

That could be huge on matters that could seriously hurt the government, politically. The speaker would have new leeway to side with Liberal or Green opposition requests for emergency debates that are now routinely quashed by the speaker, and in determining whether opposition motions are in order.

It could really shake things up on motions of privilege. A speaker’s ruling that a minister deliberately misled the legislature or was guilty of any other alleged parliamentary offences could have dire consequences for the government. Today, the outcome of those decisions is virtually pre-ordained.

In the short run, that added degree of true neutrality might serve the Liberals’ interests, as it would also help strengthen the speaker’s licence for objectivity.

Fourth, in practical terms it would not actually change that much to disadvantage the Liberals.

As I previously explained in the Straight, even in the event that the NDP government loses a confidence vote, it would not necessarily precipitate an election. That fact still seems lost on many pundits.

The government would be free to simply ignore the odd lost confidence vote, as other governments have done in similar situations. Particularly if it was an "accidental" loss that might be rapidly corrected by a subsequent vote of confidence, to demonstrate the true will of the legislature.

Unless or until it became clear that the Green MLAs wanted to abandon their confidence and supply agreement and bring down the Horgan government, the government would not fall unless Horgan saw fit to ask the lieutenant-governor for a dissolution.

Under the Liberal speaker scenario I propose, if those three Green members ever decided to side with the 42 voting Liberals, they would still form a clear 45-seat majority that would easily topple the 41-seat NDP government.

Fifth, and perhaps most importantly, taking this bold path to shore up the speaker’s independence and to resolve the current impasse would be roundly applauded by most voters.

It would do much to assist Clark’s desperate road to rehabilitation, positioning her as someone who actually internalized the message she mouthed that the voters gave her.

It would create stability that most voters want. It would reduce the chances of an immediate election that most voters do not want.

It would look to be, and actually be, a gracious and appropriate act of leadership that would warrant voters’ respect.

It would defy most voters’ expectations of the uber-partisan Clark in a welcome way, one which newly positions both Clark and her party as a constructive force for more responsible government and for broadly supportable parliamentary reform.

When hell freezes over, you say? Certainly you would not be alone in that opinion.

I am not so sure. Never underestimate Clark’s willingness to survive. If nothing else, she is politically resilient and canny.

I say, she will be even less likely to survive if she is so reckless and stupid as to cause a crisis that might result in another snap election. It would probably see the NDP elected with a solid majority—not something I would especially fear, if I were John Horgan.

If Clark is to survive, her best bet is to demonstrate her undeniable prowess as an effective force in opposition. Her smartest play is to give the NDP-Green alliance enough rope to hang itself, as the weight of its wonderfully transformative, but politically challenging agenda sinks in.

The B.C. Liberals do have most of the mainstream media in their corner, after all. They can count on those outlets to make short work of Horgan’s honeymoon.

For Clark, patience is a virtue, whether or not she has already determined as much.

Might a new knock-knock joke be in the making?

Knock, knock.

I am Linda.

Linda who?

Linda who’s happy to be your speaker, and to open the door to change my party can count on.

Ha, ha, ha, ha! Gotcha!

http://www.straight.com/news/921736/martyn-brown-anticipating-bcs-ultima...

NorthReport

 

 

Typical right-wing fear-mongering nonsense.  

Someone needs to tell this clown that they have not even taken over the reigns of power yet.  

http://theprovince.com/opinion/op-ed/chris-gardner-voters-who-backed-ndp...

NorthReport

May 9th.

Tick tock, tick tock.

How many weeks / months will it be before she steps down?

The clock is ticking loudly and quickly on the doomsday Liberal Christy Clark scenario.

Who does Christy Clark and the V Sun think they are kidding with this charade! Hopefully the citizens of BC get the last laugh on these arrogant right-wing Liberal types.

http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/christy-clark-will-be-sworn-in-a...

NorthReport

The citizens of BC must be royally pissed at the Liberals making a mockery of the Legislature by now!

http://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/vaughn-palmer-barely-a-twinkl...

NorthReport

Meanwhile all this Liberal game playing is going to cost taxpayers a pretty penny!

Christy Clark’s ‘caretaker cabinet’ will make some bonus bucks

 

Christy Clark said Monday her new cabinet will operate in “mostly caretaker mode” with few new initiatives coming from a government that appears doomed to defeat in the legislature.

So why does she need 21 cabinet ministers and 13 parliamentary secretaries all racking up extra salary while they twiddle their thumbs and wait to get fired?

That’s a whole lot of caretakers making a whole lot of taxpayers’ money when Clark could have sent a fiscally prudent message to the public with a smaller cabinet.

Cabinet ministers get a 50-per-cent salary bonus on top of their $105,881 base salary as an MLA. That means each cabinet minister pockets an additional $52,940 a year.

Parliamentary secretaries bag bonus bucks, too: An additional $15,882 a year.

Who knew being a caretaker could pay so well?

It will only be a short-haul gravy train, of course. Clark has recalled the legislature for June 22, and her minority Liberal government is expected to be defeated on a confidence motion by the opposition NDP and Green parties in the days that follow.

But even if the Clark government lasts only another couple of weeks, it means taxpayers will be on the hook for more than $50,000 in bonus salary during that period.

Clark could have cut her cabinet in half and saved the public tens of thousands of dollars.

http://theprovince.com/news/bc-politics/mike-smyth-christy-clarks-careta...

 

NorthReport

Bingo!

Christy Clark leaves 'honey-do list' from hell for likely premier John Horgan

 

All in all, Christy Clark may be very glad to leave the honey-do list from hell for John Horgan but there’s no way she and the B.C. Liberals can avoid responsibility for their reckless and damaging behaviour.

And they should fear, not welcome, any snap election.

http://vancouver.24hrs.ca/2017/06/12/christy-clark-leaves-honey-do-list-...

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:

It was a troubled relationship from the very beginning — they were just so different — and it only got worse with time.

She called him names in public; used angry, hurtful words; told friends she didn’t trust him and disliked his new friends, who shunned her; and now she’s leaving their house forever.

But before she leaves the premier’s office, B.C. Liberal leader Christy Clark has left the “honey-do list” from hell for NDP Leader John Horgan.

Wow.  So they're like an unhappily married couple. 

Nice.  All that's missing is the metaphor in which Clark spent the family budget on makeup and nail extensions.

NorthReport
NorthReport
NorthReport
NorthReport
Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Any thoughts on how Clark got to be the naggy wife, tho?

NorthReport

!!

NorthReport

!!

NorthReport

BC's Shady World of Election Spending Liberal Style

http://theprovince.com/opinion/op-ed/dermod-travis-b-c-s-shady-world-of-...

NorthReport

Why the B.C. Liberals should suck it up and offer a Speaker

Voters have decided how they want the assembly divided. Why undermine the tradition of a non-partisan Speaker?

http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/why-the-b-c-liberals-should-suck-it-u...

NorthReport

Hey CBC, what kind of principles would those be, eh!

You should have listened to the Liberal supporting right-wing talk shows  today in Vancouver, as the phoners and analysts spared no mercy in pillorying the Liberals again and again and again.

This is the worst possible thing the Liberals could have done. If there is a snap election now the Liberals will get crushed. 

B.C. Liberals adjusting principles for a shot at power

Throne speech expected to include major changes to long-standing Liberal policy

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/b-c-liberals-adjusting-pr...

JKR

As Clark’s Liberals Dither and Stall, BC Faces Life or Death Issues

The Tyee

by Bill Tiellman

https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2017/06/20/Clark-Liberals-Stall/

And here’s what that Speaker should do: break every single 43 to 43 tie vote in the legislature by voting in favour of the BC NDP government backed by Green Party MLAs.

Because — get this straight BC Liberals — it’s still majority rules, over and over. Period.

There are no laws or regulations that stop the Speaker from voting their conscience on every piece of legislation to ensure its passage.

In fact, it’s clear that voting to break ties is the Speaker’s obligation — to think otherwise is to deliberately misread parliamentary history and guidelines going back centuries.

“If the numbers in a division [a vote] are equal, the Speaker, who otherwise does not vote, must give the casting vote. In the performance of this duty, he is at liberty to vote like any other Member, according to his conscience, without assigning a reason...” says Erskine May’s definitive 1844 parliamentary practice guide.

And Section 49 of Canada’s Constitution Act states: “Questions arising in the House of Commons shall be decided by a Majority of Voices other than that of the Speaker, and when the Voices are equal, but not otherwise, the Speaker shall have a Vote.” 

The new NDP Speaker will have campaigned on the NDP platform and signed the confidence and supply agreement with the BC Greens, so they have a duty to vote to support their commitment to constituents and the province.

 

cco

It seems to me that Clark is undermining her own position with those "adjusted" principles (not that I'm complaining). If she wants to force a new election soon, the "instability" line is the one she'll be touting -- but let's say, as we're expecting, that her government falls on the throne speech and Horgan/Weaver take power. The smart thing for the NDP to do, in that case, is to make the first few bills stuff like campaign finance reform, social assistance, and transit -- stuff that the Liberals resisted when they were in power but flip-flopped on after they lost their majority. At that point, either the Liberals vote in favour of the NDP bills, and they pass unanimously (making it a lot more difficult to call the government chaotic and in constant danger of falling), or they admit they only supported those things for a few weeks when it looked like they might be able to cling to power.

NorthReport

Bingo!

The one good thing is that this right-wing Liberal Premier is now making a complete fool of herself in front of all the citizens of BC and Canada

https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2017/06/21/Please-Advise-Christy-Clark-Promises/

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

They Ledge actually starts meeting tomorrow, right? This is out of the "indefinite hiatus" stage, isn't it?

NorthReport

The say anything to get the right elected CBC will now join the say anything right-wing Liberals

https://www.google.ca/amp/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.4174203

NorthReport

Pages