PEI Election April 23 2019

185 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthReport

Results here tonite, starting in 1/2 hour.

http://results.electionspei.ca/provincial/results_2019/index.html

NorthReport
jerrym

A polling station for Stratford-Keppoch was closed for a couple of hours because of a threat. It was then reopened after the police checked things out. 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/prince-edward-island/pei-threat-polling-1...

 

jerrym

NDP's Herb Dickieson is in second place with 429 votes in O'Leary-Inverness, only 29 votes the Liberal leader and well ahead of Greens and PCs. Dickieson was previously elected in 1996 and led the party in 1996 and 2000 elections. Quite surprising considering the polls had the NDP at 3-4%.

jerrym

Bevan-Baker is way ahead in his riding.

NorthReport

2015 Election Results

Party / Seats / Pop Vote

Libs / 18 seats / 41%

PCs / 8 seats / 37%

Greens / 1 seat / 11%

 

jerrym

In early popularity

PC's lead with 36.4%

Libs 32.4%

Greens 25.3%

NDP 5.7%

jerrym

Libs leading in 5

PC in 4 

Greens in 2

jerrym

PCs leading in 9

Libs in 5 

Greens in 4

NorthReport

14 seats for majority

Looks like it will be a minority government

PCs / 12 seats / 37%  (Hopefully no majority!)

Libs / 5 seats / 29% 

Grns / 9 seats / 31% (Ahead of Liberals)

The District 9 by-election could be huge

Excellent showing for the Greens.

Quite a shit-kicking though for the Liberals tonite.

So will the Liberals play second fiddle to the Greens in as minority government and let the Green leader become Premier?

Or will the Greens support the PCs in a minority government?

Or....

Sean in Ottawa

NorthReport wrote:

14 seats for majority

Looks like it will be a minority government

PCs / 12 seats / 37%  (Hopefully no majority!)

Libs / 5 seats / 29% 

Grns / 9 seats / 31% (Ahead of Liberals)

The District 9 by-election could be huge

Excellent showing for the Greens.

Quite a shit-kicking though for the Liberals tonite.

So will the Liberals play second fiddle to the Greens in as minority government and let the Green leader become Premier?

Or will the Greens support the PCs in a minority government?

Or....

Or Liberals support the Conservatives.

Or A three-party agreement?

brookmere

In 2015 the Greens and NDP were virtually tied in the popular vote with 10.81% and 10.97% respectively. NDP now showing 3.1%.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

brookmere wrote:

In 2015 the Greens and NDP were virtually tied in the popular vote with 10.81% and 10.97% respectively. NDP now showing 3.1%.

Nearly impossible now to make any case for the NDP to continue fighting elections in PEI.   The party is probably extinct there.

swallow swallow's picture

The Greens caucus, on current results, will have 5 women and 4 men. 

There is one woman elected for the PCs, with 11 men. 

The elected Liberals are all men. They no longer include the first gay man to be premier of a Canadian province. 

Unionist
robbie_dee

This is, perhaps, the bigger news:

Islanders vote to keep first past the post (CBC)

 

Quote:

Islanders have voted not to change their system of voting from first-past-the-post to mixed-member proportional representation, or MMP, in the referendum April 23.

As well as voting in the provincial election Monday, Islanders cast a second ballot, voting yes or no on this question: Should Prince Edward Island change its voting system to a mixed member proportional voting system?

More than 50 per cent of Islanders voted "no." "Yes" was the popular choice in 15 ridings, but only took around 49 percent of the vote.

That means the referendum was defeated on two fronts. P.E.I.'s Referendum Act required a "yes" vote to meet two thresholds to trigger a change: the support of a majority of Island voters in the referendum (50 per cent, plus one vote), and majority support in at least 60 per cent of the Island's electoral districts (17 of 27 districts).

After the failure in B.C. last year, electoral reform would appear to be well and truly dead in Canada.

swallow swallow's picture

Unless you think Canada includes Quebec, of course. 

DistinguishedFlyer

robbie_dee wrote:

This is, perhaps, the bigger news:

Islanders vote to keep first past the post (CBC)

 

Quote:

Islanders have voted not to change their system of voting from first-past-the-post to mixed-member proportional representation, or MMP, in the referendum April 23.

As well as voting in the provincial election Monday, Islanders cast a second ballot, voting yes or no on this question: Should Prince Edward Island change its voting system to a mixed member proportional voting system?

More than 50 per cent of Islanders voted "no." "Yes" was the popular choice in 15 ridings, but only took around 49 percent of the vote.

That means the referendum was defeated on two fronts. P.E.I.'s Referendum Act required a "yes" vote to meet two thresholds to trigger a change: the support of a majority of Island voters in the referendum (50 per cent, plus one vote), and majority support in at least 60 per cent of the Island's electoral districts (17 of 27 districts).

After the failure in B.C. last year, electoral reform would appear to be well and truly dead in Canada.

 

A bit of an irony - some expected 'Yes' to win, but not take the needed 17 districts. Instead it loses, but takes 15 of 27.

One note: I think there's been a counting error in Kensington - Malpeque (look at the advance poll numbers, compare them with the general election advance poll figures and you'll see what I mean). I think that, if I'm correct on this, that the final count will be 14 'Yes' to 13 'No', with the popular vote going 52%-48% against (which means that, while my election prediction was off, my referendum forecast was a bulls-eye).

I don't think the question is 'dead' - this was not a bad showing, and certainly a big improvement over the last referendum a decade ago. It also gives some life to the cause after the worse-than-expected showing for PR in British Columbia. Quebec, of course, is set to impose such a system without a referendum, but that's rather a different case. I don't support PR myself at all (Aussie-style preferential is my dream method, though I know it almost certainly will never get adopted in Canada), so I am glad that 'No' won here, but apprehensive that it won narrowly enough to keep the embers burning and the pro-PR crowd still pushing.

NorthReport

So any word on Green-Liberal discussions or are the Greens closer to the PCs than the Liberals as one commentator said tonite?

Pogo Pogo's picture

Cats don't play second fidde to mice.  Greens will be on the outside.

NorthReport

Conservatives are busy tonight trying to persuade others that a party earning only 36% popular support and only 12 of 27 seats has a right to govern the people.

https://twitter.com/Tom_Parkin_/status/1120885967060074498

NorthReport

Tom has a point!

CBC projects minority PC goverbnment

How does the CBC know the PEI PCs have a partner party who will support them through confidence votes? Without that, this headline is nonsense.

https://twitter.com/Tom_Parkin_/status/1120856290362843136

NorthReport

T Retweeted

 3h3 hours ago

More

 

Or: Liberals could ask Liberal MLAs to vote down the Throne Speech and support a Green government.

https://twitter.com/Tom_Parkin_?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

NorthReport

The real reason the PCs will form government

I don't claim to be an expert on PEI politics but I suspect the Liberals will be only too happy to keep the duopoly going and back a PC minority gov't. They know that if the Greens form gov't its the death of the PEI Liberals

https://twitter.com/Dleebosh/status/1120842806933753856?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

Pondering

robbie_dee wrote:

After the failure in B.C. last year, electoral reform would appear to be well and truly dead in Canada.

As swallow mentioned there is still Quebec but even if it were not for that MMP is only one option for electoral reform.  

robbie_dee

I’m willing to amend my comment above to say electoral reform is dead in English Canada. But really, if the CAQ actually passes MMP despite the obvious disadvantages such a system presents for a party of its nature, I will eat my visibly displayed religious symbol.

swallow swallow's picture

Well, sure, CAQ may yet betray their promise, as is traditional. They are still promising to do it, though, and unlike federal it's a promise to implement a particular system, not vague promises of change. 

Did the PEI referendum include the riding that did not vote for a representative? Are there enough votes there to swing things?

Is PEI, where you can still meet every voter and Dr Herb Dickieson can win votes from 900 of his neighbours and come second despite his party having zero traction, maybe the best case of a successful FPTP system? 

Is Toronto jealous of the small risings and personal voter contact they permit? 

Unionist

NorthReport wrote:

Tom has a point!

CBC projects minority PC goverbnment

How does the CBC know the PEI PCs have a partner party who will support them through confidence votes? Without that, this headline is nonsense.

https://twitter.com/Tom_Parkin_/status/1120856290362843136

Apparently neither you nor Tom understand how our parliamentary system works. So here it is, in point form:

1. The Lieutenant-Governor asks the party which wins the most seats to form a government (cabinet, premier, etc.).

2. Because it has less than half the seats, we call it a "minority government".

3. It does NOT have to prove it has a partner party to bring its numbers over 50%.

4. The minority government governs, until the next election.

5. EXCEPTION: The minority government loses a vote of confidence. In that case, the Lieutenant-Governor generally calls another election - but may have the option of asking another party to form a government, if it has convincingly slapped together a coalition that has a reasonable chance of maintaining the confidence of the legislative assembly.

So the CBC headline was correct, and (as should now be obvious) you and Tom were not.

Pogo Pogo's picture

Unionist wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

Tom has a point!

CBC projects minority PC goverbnment

How does the CBC know the PEI PCs have a partner party who will support them through confidence votes? Without that, this headline is nonsense.

https://twitter.com/Tom_Parkin_/status/1120856290362843136

Apparently neither you nor Tom understand how our parliamentary system works. So here it is, in point form:

1. The Lieutenant-Governor asks the party which wins the most seats to form a government (cabinet, premier, etc.).

2. Because it has less than half the seats, we call it a "minority government".

3. It does NOT have to prove it has a partner party to bring its numbers over 50%.

4. The minority government governs, until the next election.

5. EXCEPTION: The minority government loses a vote of confidence. In that case, the Lieutenant-Governor generally calls another election - but may have the option of asking another party to form a government, if it has convincingly slapped together a coalition that has a reasonable chance of maintaining the confidence of the legislative assembly.

So the CBC headline was correct, and (as should now be obvious) you and Tom were not.

Even when there is an agreement the seat leader gets a kick at the can.  Christy Clark is the most recent example.  However to their point there is a difference between being asked to form government and demonstrating the confidence of the house.

NorthReport

So are the Liberals going to support a Green government?

Unionist

Pogo wrote:

Even when there is an agreement the seat leader gets a kick at the can.

Correct. That was my point #1.

Pogo wrote:

However to their point there is a difference between being asked to form government and demonstrating the confidence of the house.

Of course there's a difference. But have you ever heard of a G-G or L-G asking the seat leader to form a government - but making it "conditional" on demonstrating the confidence of the house? I haven't. The government governs, until it loses a vote of confidence, or until it loses an election. There is no difference in that respect between a "minority" and a "majority" government. Even a "majority" government can lose a vote of confidence under some circumstances - and then the G-G or L-G must decide whether to call an election, or call on someone to try to form a stable government. There is no  requirement or assumption in our constitutional law that all members will automatically vote according to their party label. Nor does it happen in real life.

 

robbie_dee

Any chance Joe Byrne (or another star candidate for the NDP) could run in and win the Charlottetown-Hillsborough byelection? Perhaps even by campaigning on the explicit basis that it will be a minority legislature anyways so why not give the NDP a voice in it?

bekayne

NorthReport wrote:

The real reason the PCs will form government

I don't claim to be an expert on PEI politics but I suspect the Liberals will be only too happy to keep the duopoly going and back a PC minority gov't. They know that if the Greens form gov't its the death of the PEI Liberals

https://twitter.com/Dleebosh/status/1120842806933753856?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

But why would the PCs need the Liberals when they have the Greens?

bekayne

NorthReport wrote:

Or: Liberals could ask Liberal MLAs to vote down the Throne Speech and support a Green government.

https://twitter.com/Tom_Parkin_?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

But what if the Greens refuse to take it?

Sean in Ottawa

Pogo wrote:

Unionist wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

Tom has a point!

CBC projects minority PC goverbnment

How does the CBC know the PEI PCs have a partner party who will support them through confidence votes? Without that, this headline is nonsense.

https://twitter.com/Tom_Parkin_/status/1120856290362843136

Apparently neither you nor Tom understand how our parliamentary system works. So here it is, in point form:

1. The Lieutenant-Governor asks the party which wins the most seats to form a government (cabinet, premier, etc.).

2. Because it has less than half the seats, we call it a "minority government".

3. It does NOT have to prove it has a partner party to bring its numbers over 50%.

4. The minority government governs, until the next election.

5. EXCEPTION: The minority government loses a vote of confidence. In that case, the Lieutenant-Governor generally calls another election - but may have the option of asking another party to form a government, if it has convincingly slapped together a coalition that has a reasonable chance of maintaining the confidence of the legislative assembly.

So the CBC headline was correct, and (as should now be obvious) you and Tom were not.

Even when there is an agreement the seat leader gets a kick at the can.  Christy Clark is the most recent example.  However to their point there is a difference between being asked to form government and demonstrating the confidence of the house.

I think this is a discussion of semantics.

The mechanism is close to what you say (not quite) but the result is not.

First what you missed:

The last governing party does have right to meet the house first. Often they give this up and conceed but they do not have to just becuase they have fewer seats. Otherwise you are correct.

Even so, this is still the mechanism. Declaring a minority that has not established that it can gain confidence is not really much of anything. I would prefer what happens in many country elections -- that the media declare a minority subject to partners being found. As our party system becomes more complex with more elected parties this is more realistic. Since a new election is not needed for this to occue it is a valid projection of election night as the election would lead directly to it

The reality -- not the mechanism -- is that a party without a majority needs to pass the hurdle that there is no other grouping that can put together a majority -- otherwise it will live only long enough to be defeated (and not to govern). It is seldom that a new election will be considered when a throne speech has failed and some other majority grouping has presented itself.

You can either produce a majority by coalition or agreement. You can also simply stand and dare the others to take you down at the throne speech -- and in many cases they may not want a new election. In this case you can have a horse trade with every confidence measure trading off with differnt parties. this is of course what a true minority government  is.

This is another valid criticism: we do not know if the Conservatives will govern as a majority or if they will form a coalition majority with one or both other parties.

So while technically a potential government can meet the house, under certain conditions, declaring a government I believe is unreasonable from the media when we do not have an indication that they can achieve that.

In the case of PEI, I would have been able to agree with a declaration of a minority PC government -- being the most likely -- had the rationale been not that the PCs had the most seats but that it was most likely becuase the other parties would not want to risk an election, the positions of all parties are not very polarized, the campaign was collegial, the Liberals needed a new leader, the Greens supported consensus and the PCs were so close that they would not want to support the Liberals with half the seats of the PCs if they had to support anyone, and the Greens would probably prefer to be opposition pressing the parties on their priorities. Finally that a case by case minority is more likely than a coalition.

There is another possibility here. The Greens could enter government on one condition that I could see: All three parties agree to govern for a period of time. While almost unheard of except in an emergency, this would allow the Greens to participate without choosing a partner. If I were the greens, I would present to the Conservatives three choices:

1) support case by case

2) that the PCs govern with the Liberals and the Greens sit opposite

3) A consensus government of all three parties for a term or as long as it lasts, with the Conservative leader being premier since they had the greatest number of seats and votes

Choosing either the PCs or Liberals to dance with is something I think the Greens should not do.

The present tone coming from the Liberals and the Conservatives along with the Greens makes me think this is a possibility they could consider. they also want to show a different type of government and all three parties have said they want a new way of governing

On the other hand the Conservatives are almost there and could decide simply to govern case by case. The Liberals and Conservatives would be stupid, in my view, to support each other for the same reasons that the Greens would probably not want to support either one -- alone. I think the Conservatives would be correct thinking that neither would want to take them down.

 

NorthReport

Apr 23 Election

PCs - 12

Grns - 8

Libs - 6

Total 26 seats so far

Now from which Party will the Speaker be coming from? 

And which Party is favoured to win District 9 by-election?

 

 

 

 

Unionist

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

The last governing party does have right to meet the house first. Often they give this up and conceed but they do not have to just becuase they have fewer seats. Otherwise you are correct.

I'm no expert, so please help me with some questions:

1. The election is over, the governing party gets whacked. They have a right to meet the assembly. Do they have a right to continue to govern (premier, cabinet, etc.) until they are defeated in a confidence vote?

2. The election is over, the governing party (A) gets whacked - and another party (B) wins a majority of the seats. Does party A still have a right to govern until they're defeated in a confidence vote?

3. If the previous governing party concedes, and the premier and cabinet resign, then I understand that triggers the involvement of the L-G to ask someone else to try to form a government. What happens if they don't resign - and then are defeated in a confidence vote - but they keep on trucking regardless. What triggers the involvement of the L-G? Another party leader approaches and says, "Hey, party A is still governing against the will of assembly!"? I imagine that would be the scenario, but I'm just not familiar with the unwritten rules or if there are historical precedents.

Sorry if this is thread drift, but I really didn't like Tom Parkin's stupid semantic criticism of a CBC prediction that everyone in the world understood, except apparently him.

Sean in Ottawa

Unionist wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

The last governing party does have right to meet the house first. Often they give this up and conceed but they do not have to just becuase they have fewer seats. Otherwise you are correct.

I'm no expert, so please help me with some questions:

1. The election is over, the governing party gets whacked. They have a right to meet the assembly. Do they have a right to continue to govern (premier, cabinet, etc.) until they are defeated in a confidence vote?

2. The election is over, the governing party (A) gets whacked - and another party (B) wins a majority of the seats. Does party A still have a right to govern until they're defeated in a confidence vote?

3. If the previous governing party concedes, and the premier and cabinet resign, then I understand that triggers the involvement of the L-G to ask someone else to try to form a government. What happens if they don't resign - and then are defeated in a confidence vote - but they keep on trucking regardless. What triggers the involvement of the L-G? Another party leader approaches and says, "Hey, party A is still governing against the will of assembly!"? I imagine that would be the scenario, but I'm just not familiar with the unwritten rules or if there are historical precedents.

Sorry if this is thread drift, but I really didn't like Tom Parkin's stupid semantic criticism of a CBC prediction that everyone in the world understood, except apparently him.

1) Yes --- and in this case could have offered a government where the Greens led them given that they were lower in seats. Still they could have used the right to meet first to advance a coalition where they were a junior partner. In this case it actually looked like they all might want to come together in some kind of majority. this was the most collegial election and group of speechs I have ever seen.

2) Yes -- but they never do it becuase it would not last and only alienate the voters. This is the real purpose of concession speeches. when you have no chance and there is a majority it is taken for granted but if somene wanted to be a jerk and get pulled down there is a good argument they can. they would likely get no seats in the next eleciton and lose their leadership prior to that but yes.

3) A lost Confidence vote means they cannot keep trucking. In that case they do not have to ask the LG -- the LG can simply hold talks to see if there is a possibility of a government or a new election. It is possible that a party can lose a vote of confidence as a single party and then come back with a coalition and get confidence. The LG has considerable leeway to choose a person who gives reason to believe that they can get confidence.

So in this case we had an election with the Greens which are relatively unknown. Without their consent there is no government possible. No assumptions should be made regarding greatest number of seats when balance of power is not held by the government.

In this case it is possible, even if unlikely, that no minority will exist and that the PCs may not govern alone. this is not semantic. The Greens could take the position that they want an all-party government. I think if they were to call for that then they would get their way as neither other party would oppose that.

To be specific, I think a projection that the PC leader would lead the government is more than fair. It could be a coalition majority of 2 or 3 parties or a minority Conservative government. I have to agree with Tom that this is an important distinction in part becuase too few Canadians understand our system or the fact that getting a majority to declare confidence is the test rather than the most seats. The bit about who meets when and if a government is there but cannot pass a throne speech is the part that is semantic. The reality is who will get to govern and will it be a majority or minority.

The Greens have a problem -- they cannot be seen to support one party or another. the Liberals cannot be seen to support the Conservatives given the history that these are the two rivals. there is no recent history of minorities on the Island. this means history is being made -- and it will be made by three parties that seem to show a lot of willingness to work together and reason for hesitation in choosing partners.

My best guess, as I say, is a PC minority on a case by case basis, but cannot rule out another party bringing them to a majority coalition or a three party government which would be the most beneficial for the Greens who promised to be different.

Hope this helps -- rules and practice is very complicated but I have to agree as I also spoke to people with the call saying it was premature without knowing what the parties were likely to do.

Another point here -- this could happen in October and would be a critical understanding-- Harper played this misunderstanding in the past saying a government without the plurality party is illegal -- a coup. If the Conservatives get the most seats but the Liberals and NDP have a majority between them this is not semantics. Calling a minority PC government would be dangerous.

cco

Unionist wrote:

1. The election is over, the governing party gets whacked. They have a right to meet the assembly. Do they have a right to continue to govern (premier, cabinet, etc.) until they are defeated in a confidence vote?

The cabinet has the right to continue exercising its functions until the LG/GG/Queen appoints a new one. Ministers can spend (within the limits of what the previous House authorized), and can issue orders, until they are replaced. There's an unwritten convention that a defeated government does as little as possible during the transition period, but the only way to enforce it is for the viceregal representative to issue an early dismissal.

Unionist wrote:

2. The election is over, the governing party (A) gets whacked - and another party (B) wins a majority of the seats. Does party A still have a right to govern until they're defeated in a confidence vote?

3. If the previous governing party concedes, and the premier and cabinet resign, then I understand that triggers the involvement of the L-G to ask someone else to try to form a government. What happens if they don't resign - and then are defeated in a confidence vote - but they keep on trucking regardless. What triggers the involvement of the L-G? Another party leader approaches and says, "Hey, party A is still governing against the will of assembly!"? I imagine that would be the scenario, but I'm just not familiar with the unwritten rules or if there are historical precedents.

Convention is that the defeated cabinet resigns and the GG then invites someone else to form a government, but if they don't, they're governing until they're dismissed. (Dismissal, rather than resignation, of a government is extremely rare under the Westminster system; I don't know if there have been examples in Canada. I'm thinking of Gough Whitlam.)

We've certainly had cases where the government had effectively lost confidence, but failed to convey that to the GG and managed to procedurally prevent a confidence vote. Harper took Paul Martin to task for that during his minority (until he found Belinda Stronach), but of course, Harper himself found the trick quite useful a few years later when he prorogued to avoid defeat. I was quite disappointed in Michaëlle Jean's decision to grant prorogation a decade ago. I hated the precedent it set. But in a system where the most important parts of our constitutional order are all rolled into "similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom", precedent's what we get.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

The BC Liberals lost its majority on May 13th and continued to govern for more than a month until they had to meet with the House where they suffered a defeat on a confidence vote, they then went to the LG.

As expected, that motion passed 44-42 this afternoon, meaning the BC Liberals have now lost the “confidence of the house” and according to convention cannot form a government.

Speaking in the Legislature just before the vote, Clark said:

“If this marks the end of our government then I stand here in humility and with great gratitude to the people of British Columbia.”

What happens next is up to Lt.-Gov. Judith Guichon, the Queen’s representative in BC, who Clark met with for more than an hour after the defeat.

Guichon can either dissolve the legislature prompting a new election, or ask BC NDP leader John Horgan to try to form the next BC government.

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/christy-clark-bc-legislature-vote-loses

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Here is another good article that is linked to in the one I posted above.

In the parliamentary system which we have here in BC, it is the Queen’s representative, the Lieutenant-Governor, who appoints a new Premier.

However, since the monarchy is constitutional, the decision over who to appoint is left to democratic elections.

Once the election result is known, the Lieutenant-Governor’s role is to ask the leader of the party with the support of most of the legislature to form government.

That person becomes Premier, and must go to the legislature to see if they have enough support to push through bills.

This level of support is also known as “having the confidence of the house”–which basically means that if you propose a bill, you know most MLAs will back you.

Usually, it is clear who has the support of most of the legislature, because that party has won a majority of seats in the election.

Therefore, with a strong party whip to ensure all party members vote together, they can guarantee most of the house will support their bills.

However, where there is no party with a majority, as currently, the province is left with a minority government and no clear winner.

It is therefore up to each political leader to try to garner enough support to potentially win the confidence of the house.

Until a likely candidate emerges for the position of Premier, the Lieutenant-Governor will conventionally remain silent on the issue.

(In theory, the Lieutenant-Governor could force the incumbent premier to resign, and trigger another election, but this is extremely controversial and rare.)

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/bc-premier-bc-ndp-bc-greens-agreement

NorthReport

PEI does not sound yet like it has a minority Conservative government. Maybe it will be clearer after the 3 parties talk with each other and also after the upcoming by-election in District 9 is held.

My first question though is why won't the Liberals support a Green Minority Government?

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

NorthReport wrote:

PEI does not sound yet like it has a minority Conservative government. Maybe it will be clearer after the 3 parties talk with each other and also after the upcoming by-election in District 9 is held.

My first question though is why won't the Liberals support a Green Minority Government?

Because-as I think it was you who noted above-putting the Greens into power would break the duopoly?  

NorthReport

Very wealthy folks could care less about Liberal, Conservative and now Green labels. These 3 right of centre parties can interchange their respective policies with ease, but rest assured none of them actually represent working people. This fighting for the middle class gimmick by the Liberals is just like all the other re-election gimmicks that the Liberals have used before. So why won't the Liberals support the Greens to block the Conservatives from taking power?

NorthReport

P.E.I. election has lessons for all of Canada

http://www.rabble.ca/news/2019/04/pei-election-has-lessons-all-canada

swallow swallow's picture

NorthReport wrote:

Very wealthy folks could care less about Liberal, Conservative and now Green labels. These 3 right of centre parties can interchange their respective policies with ease, but rest assured none of them actually represent working people. This fighting for the middle class gimmick by the Liberals is just like all the other re-election gimmicks that the Liberals have used before. So why won't the Liberals support the Greens to block the Conservatives from taking power?

Have you looked at the PEI Greens platform?

NorthReport

I don’t have much use for party platforms as Chrétien said the Liberal Red Book Party Platform is for election campaigning only,  to try and get elected, but once the election is over, and you form the government, the Red Book goes into the trash

swallow swallow's picture

Well sure, that's true for all aprties including the NDP. But since the PEI Greens are not going into government it does not apply. Why do you say they are right of centre? That seems to be unsupported by evidence. 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

NorthReport wrote:

P.E.I. election has lessons for all of Canada

http://www.rabble.ca/news/2019/04/pei-election-has-lessons-all-canada

Interesting Rabble article, worth the read.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

swallow wrote:

Well sure, that's true for all aprties including the NDP. But since the PEI Greens are not going into government it does not apply. Why do you say they are right of centre? That seems to be unsupported by evidence. 

Given that Off-Islanders, like me, do not have a clue who any of the Green candidates who got elected actually are one can only go by what they collectively ran on. I suspect that there are not many people in either the PEI NDP or PEI Greens who would self identify as socialists.  The pressing issues for PEI are different than for other parts of the country given they do not have large cities nor any minorities to speak of. It is the most white middle class province in Canada so I doubt whether revolutionary talk would win many votes. The new leader seems to be a classic Red Tory kind of guy.  Hie personal views on women's health services can be overridden given he does not have a majority.

I think that given the insular nature of PEI, even with the bridge, the federal election will be determined on who the parties can get to run for them.

Pages