BC May 9, 2017 Election Results and Comments

jas wrote:

Wow. When I read Stockholm's prediction today, I thought "Dream on..." I am also happy to be wrong.

However, this is a very tenuous arrangement. Weaver still has the upper hand. If there is any collusion with the Libs, Weaver can bring down the govt on a moment's notice. With this degree of instability, I would have rather it be the Libs at the helm. Better to deep-six them with.

This would be politically dumb and electoral suicide for the Greens.

The Greens want a four year agreement in order to bring in a proportional representation system, which will take a minimum of two years, probably longer with a referendum. Such a system would have given the Greens 15 seats instead of 3 in this election. Defeat the NDP and the chance to introduce a change that would be most favourable to the Greens is gone. 

Defeating the NDP, would mean most Green voters would not trust whatever they put forward as a platform, not simply  because they did not live up to the agreement with the NDP, but because they also failed to try implement as much of the proportional representation or the environmental, educational, childcare, healthcare and transit policies as they could and that they previously said were core issues. 

kropotkin1951 wrote:

The Green's ran on Vote Change and they have followed through on it. Congratulations to them and the NDP for hammering out a deal.  For some reason this tune came to mind.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHJoj9IqeKg[/quote]

Or how about this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKR0l7odlVI

NorthReport wrote:

Another right-winger shares his point of view!

http://www.burnabynow.com/opinion/columnists/opinion-b-c-election-was-an...

He makes a good point. What is interesting to me is how it matches the rural/urban divide for the Manitoba NDP during their long reign.

And I would caution the NDP in getting complacent with its newfound urban constituency. They're a fickle bunch and I think they have the NDP on notice.

Here's hoping for a floor crosser or two from the Libs to the Greens (least unlikely scenario). I wonder if there would be any active courting going on.

Not comfortable with the single-seat margin.

NorthReport wrote:

Cabinet Suggestions Jobs Carole James Education Rob Fleming Labour Harry Bains Environment David Eby Seniors Selina Robinson Small Business Jagrup Brar Technology Michelle Mungall Health Judy Darcy Transportation Bowinn Ma Attorney General Leonard Krog or Bruce Ralston Finance Mike Farnworth or Melanie Mark Agriculture Lana Popham Visible Minorities including First Nations Mable Elmore Blue Collar Trades Raj Chouhan Universities Katrina Conroy Parks, Recreation & Sports Katrina Chen Recycling & Libraries David Suzuki

Pretty good list. I won't even attempt to guess who will get which portfolio. I fully expect that Horgan will name a cabinet with gender parity. Assuming he does, and there are no Greens in cabinet, here's who I expect will make the cut:

Vancouver Island: John Horgan, Carole James, Rob Fleming, Claire Trevena

Vancouver: George Heyman, Adrian Dix, Melanie Mark, David Eby

Burnaby / Tri-Cities / New West: Anne Kang, Judy Darcy,  Mike Farnworth

Surrey/Delta: Jinny Sims, Harry Bains, Jagrup Brar, Bruce Ralston

Interior and North: Michelle Mungall, Katrine Conroy, Jennifer Rice

I'm surprised that Christy didn't drag out her time in office until September. I will give her some small credit for not doing that. 

cco wrote:

Can any BC procedure wonks answer this question: Is the process for choosing a Speaker in BC like the federal procedure? Will Clark put forward a Liberal to be dragged to the big chair, since she's intending to meet the house?

I'm not sure about the procedure, however I don't think Clark has a choice but to accept a Speaker from within her own ranks. The NDP and the Greens both want to have power in the Ledge, so that rules out any of their members getting the post.

Christy Clark to Recall Legislature, Expects to Be Defeated

Christy Clark says her BC Liberals will move to test the confidence of the legislature rather than step aside and allow an NDP-Green coalition to take power in British Columbia.

Clark made the announcement Tuesday during a press conference in Vancouver, calling the situation one that “comes with responsibilities” to voters.

“We will live up to those responsibilities that we have,” a seemingly nervous Clark told a pack of reporters. “The responsibilities that voters have asked us to carry out. We have a duty to meet the house and test its confidence.”

She acknowledged her party will likely not last long, but said she would not ask B.C.’s Lieutenant-Governor Judith Guichon to send British Columbians back to the polls if the government is defeated in a confidence test.

NDP and Greens Promise Electoral Reform Referendum, Big Money Ban and Higher Carbon Tax

With support from the BC Green Party, an NDP minority government will hold a referendum on proportional representation, reform political donation laws, move the fixed election date to the fall and increase the carbon tax.

The details were included in a 10-page document that defines where the two parties will cooperate.

quote:

Specific commitments include:

* Holding a referendum on electoral reform in conjunction with the 2018 municipal election. The parties will consult British Columbians on the form of proportional representation proposed and if approved it will be in place before the next provincial election;

* Moving the fixed election date to the fall so that it will be possible to pass a budget before British Columbians vote;

* At the first sitting of the legislature they will ban corporate and union donations, as well as contributions from people who live outside the province. They will also place limits on individual contributions;

* Reviewing the Lobbyists Registration Act and increasing penalties for violations under the act;

* Raising the carbon tax by $5 per tonne per year starting on April 1, 2018 and extending it to cover fugitive emissions such as gas that escapes from pipelines and carbon from the burning of slash piles. They would also include rebate cheques so that the majority of British Columbians are better off after the tax has been raised;

* Referring the Site C dam project to the B.C. Utilities Commission so the independent regulator can look at the economic viability of the project and whether the timing is right to build it. The referral will be made as soon as an NDP government is sworn in;

* Using “every tool available” to stop the expansion of Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline;

* Establishing a “fair wages commission” that will work towards a $15 minimum wage, at least, and oversee regular rate reviews;

* Working with the Mayors’ council in Metro Vancouver on a transit and transportation plan;.....

NorthReport wrote:

It will be rammed though in the "national interest"

Perhaps someone who's a constitutional law expert can correct me on this, but it seems to me that even if the pipeline itself is federal jurisdiction, BC can do a lot to stop it if they decide to play for keeps. What if they ban trucks from all roads in a 50km radius of pipeline sites? Ban BC Hydro from providing power to any pipeline construction sites? Impose taxes of $10 million per pipe segment in the corridor? It'd take a pretty massive use of the declaratory power to strip BC of all its constitutional tools, and the federal court fight would take far longer than 4 years.

Ever notice that when the federal government tries to actively manage the oil resources so that they benefit the country it's Alberta's oil, but when other provinces express concerns about the impact of oil moving through their provinces it's Canada's oil?

Make no mistake, I hope Notley does prevail in 2019. But she is shooting herself in the foot by burning her bridges in the rest of the country by being so stubborn about this, especially given that she campaigned on diversifying Alberta's economy so it's not so dependent on oil exports in the first place. Especially since it's doubtful she will get any credit for any pipelines that do go through. She certainly won't get credit for Keystone, which obviously went through because of a changing of the guard in the US, not due to any lobbying efforts of the Alberta government.

I don't see a problem with what she's chosen.  I would do the same, in her shoes. That she promises to convene the house soon is respectable. She could have pulled a Stevie and waited all summer. That said, let's hope she is being genuine.

I read somewhere that waiting til June meant that the transition documents would not therefore be available to the incoming gov; that this was a comment by Horgan. Why or how would this be so? If the civil service is required to prepare such things, then they would be available whenever the transition occurs.