|
From what I've read, Weaver thinks he can pull just as many votes from the Liberals as the NDP, so just hobbling the NDP and giving the Liberals even more power probably isn't ideal, and why would he agree to it anyway when he has all the bargaining leverage? I don't doubt he'll back Christy in a minority for things like budgets, but if he wants to ban corporate/union donations, my understanding is he can just do it with a private members' bill and have the NDP vote with them, or the NDP can do it, whoever gets first crack at a private bill. It's still in the NDP's best interest to vote for it.
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 20:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 14:32 |
|
|
leftist heap posted:how do you even call yourself a Green party after that. But John Horgan was mean on twitter
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 20:58
|
|
|
Being mean on twitter owns though.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 20:59
|
|
|
leftist heap posted:how do you even call yourself a Green party after that. with ease
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
if the libs end up winning the popular vote after recounts/absentees even if they tie the NDP in seats I can see Weaver backing them and I wouldn't be particularly outraged if that was his stated reason
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 21:01
|
|
|
If he wants to have any actual sway in a hypothetical NDP coalition government doesn't be pretty much HAVE to act like siding with the liberals is a real possibility, regardless of his actual intensions? Can't really go to the bargaining table with something the other party feels they can just get for free.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 21:02
|
|
|
Mr. Wynand posted:If he wants to have any actual sway in a hypothetical NDP coalition government doesn't be pretty much HAVE to act like siding with the liberals is a real possibility, regardless of his actual intensions? Can't really go to the bargaining table with something the other party feels they can just get for free. "BCLP: we're the BATNA"
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 21:03
|
|
|
E: strange double post
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 21:13
|
|
|
leftist heap posted:how do you even call yourself a Green party after that.  party
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 21:41
|
|
|
My boss has had local political radio on full blast all day and I'm going insane. It's non-stop interviews with politicians and breathless opinions from various partisans about the BC Election and "what it means". They even had E May on for like 30 min.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 21:45
|
|
|
.
James Baud fucked around with this message at 12:48 on Aug 26, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 21:50
|
|
|
The NDP promised to hold a 50%+1 referendum and campaign for Yes. That's going pretty near. You must have them confused with the Liberals again. It was the Liberals who held referenda in 2005 and 2009 that they set up to fail with a supermajority requirement, and it was the Liberals' donors, sycophants and fellow-travellers in the media who campaigned solidly against it as being too confusing and potentially handing too much power to the riff-raff. I expect that if the seat count holds Weaver will coalition with the Liberals who will promise to ban big organizations from donating (the libs can afford another election right now so its no problem for them) and hold another designed-to-fail referendum. They love those. My predictions in this and the federal election have been embarrassingly wrong though so Juul-Whip fucked around with this message at 22:30 on May 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 22:09
|
|
|
Postess with the Mostest posted:Good, spoiled kids these days with their wifi and storebought routers they should learn to run cat5 and make a router out of a garbage computer and debian. Abortions for some tiny Arduino boards for the rest!
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 23:23
|
|
|
One one hand PR would probably gently caress them over, on the other hand I figure a lot of situations exist where the greens, were they not led by Eco-Tories like Weaver, might be more willing to caucus with the NDP. Like I can't imagine Suzuki working with Clarke but then again I also don't know how he is in the field of BC politics. Also I feel like PR might force parties to define themselves on a stronger ideological basis rather than "business party", "slightly woke business party", "slightly business slightly woke party" Just put myself through the pain of watching the C16 senate commission in the background. Gad Saad's presentation was loving sad (tbh everyone was sad). Apparently next week Jordan Peterson is on the commission so this should also be somewhat entertaining. Agnosticnixie fucked around with this message at 23:46 on May 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 23:34
|
|
|
And now our hopes for less corruption and stupidity lie with the fuckin Greens, good lord
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 02:14
|
|
|
.
James Baud fucked around with this message at 12:48 on Aug 26, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 02:29
|
|
|
James Baud posted:Where else could they have possibly been before? The Communist Party. 
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 02:41
|
|
|
The sweet embrace of death.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 02:42
|
|
|
In what world are people thinking that the provincial NDP aren't helped by proportional representation? They go from the current situation where they've had power three times ever and generally hold no sway at all over the government to always being a potentially large part of a governing coalition.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 02:48
|
|
|
James Baud posted:Where else could they have possibly been before? It was a trick, there was never any hope of that in BC regardless.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 02:51
|
|
|
Scorchy posted:C'mon False Creek, boot that fucker Sam Sullivan out I grew up in Courtenay, and it was a pretty typical small town. Maybe a few more hippie types than you'd think for a Canadian Forces base town, but still left leaning. I'm happy they're going NDP.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 03:02
|
|
|
T.C. posted:In what world are people thinking that the provincial NDP aren't helped by proportional representation? They go from the current situation where they've had power three times ever and generally hold no sway at all over the government to always being a potentially large part of a governing coalition. I guess the idea is that as things stand, you'd have the Greens and Liberals in a coalition and NDP shut out forever, never able to cross 50%. I couldn't say how the party structure would change under PR though--would the conservatives break away from the Liberals and form their own party again? You might actually see an NDP-Liberal coalition then.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 04:31
|
|
|
Basically the calculus is "but what if we eventually game the system and win" which is really stupid but tends to get to a party's head when that victory happens. Like unless you're called liberals or tories (and PQ in Quebec) there's literally no reason to trust your chances of a second mandate. For the specifics of BC, I feel like the greens just happened to be a protest vote that lacked historical baggage, even if Weaver should have been baggage in his own right.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 05:02
|
|
|
The last time BC switched the voting system to proportional represetation, it was specifically to prevent the NDP from gaining any seats in the legislature. Instead it killed the provincial Liberal and Conservative parties for the next forty years. 
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 05:18
|
|
|
Technically the greens would only have to vote on confidence budget bills but then they could vote with the NDP on literally everything else. This is normally what happens and why the minority governments tend to only last a year when they give up and call an election.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 05:33
|
|
|
Has anyone ever come back to majority status after being reduced to a minority?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 05:45
|
|
|
THC posted:Has anyone ever come back to majority status after being reduced to a minority? Ontario Liberals were reduced to a minority in Dalton McGuinty's last election and then won a majority under Wynne.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 05:46
|
|
|
Federal Conservatives?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 05:46
|
|
|
ante posted:Federal Conservatives? They weren't reduced to a minority, they were first elected to a minority, then afterwards they got a majority.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 05:59
|
|
|
THC posted:Has anyone ever come back to majority status after being reduced to a minority? Harper but Ignatieff was really an amazingly garbage candidate even for the libs.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 05:59
|
|
|
Harper had two minorities then a majority so he doesn't count. Federally you have to go back a long way to find a majority-minority-majority sequence. King in the 20s might be the last one. e: actually it was Trudeau Sr. in the 70s
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 06:00
|
|
|
Harper started with a minority and got a majority 2 elections later. I'm thinking more of Paul Martin who was reduced to a minority and dispatched soon after
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 06:01
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:Ontario Liberals were reduced to a minority in Dalton McGuinty's last election and then won a majority under Wynne.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 06:02
|
|
|
What happens if its 43L-41N-3G and an NDP member vacates a seat and the Liberals win the by-election? Do they just switch over to a ruling majority in the middle of a term?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 14:50
|
|
|
DariusLikewise posted:What happens if its 43L-41N-3G and an NDP member vacates a seat and the Liberals win the by-election? Do they just switch over to a ruling majority in the middle of a term? Yes.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 14:51
|
|
|
As far as I can tell, a coalition's just an informal agreement, so yeah.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 14:51
|
|
|
DariusLikewise posted:What happens if its 43L-41N-3G and an NDP member vacates a seat and the Liberals win the by-election? Do they just switch over to a ruling majority in the middle of a term? Majority/minority aren't any official thing, it is just the state of the house. Clarke could offer some NDP member a cabinet post, have them cross the floor, and she has her (extremely weak) majority.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 14:56
|
|
|
What actually matters in the Canadian system is if a government has the "confidence of the house", which functionally means that on confidence bills like budgets they pass. If they don't pass the government doesn't have the house's confidence and the executive dissolves, usually leading to an election but occasionally in a minority situation leading to another party forming government with the confidence of the house instead. If the Liberals form government because they have the confidence of the house because Greens vote for their confidence bills, then nothing changes when they shift from a minority to a majority. They still have the confidence of the house, they remain the government, but they no longer need to give concessions to the Greens on anything. What would really be interesting would be if the NDP and Greens have an agreement and the Greens are propping up an NDP minority, and then the Liberals win a by-election, because obviously the NDP would then lose the confidence of the house and the Liberals would gain it. That could be cause for a new election because Horgan would probably want to dissolve the house and call new elections rather than just meekly cede power but practically speaking it could also result in a bizarre and unprecedented switch of government in the middle of the term.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 14:56
|
|
|
Once you lose confidence, you are just making recommendations to the Lt. Governor. It is their decision. If the Libs loss something fast, the NDP probably get a shot. Anything after is probably a new election.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 15:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 14:32 |
|
|
Well, maybe if there's another election immediately then BC leftists' tiny goldfish memories will be just big enough to remember how vote splitting hosed them and rally behind the party that almost won and that might deliver a more proportional voting system. And maybe a mega tsunami will raze everything from the coast to Hope next year, it's about as likely.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 15:55
|
|
