There could be trouble brewing in NDP-Green paradise

[Rwede]

Mike Smyth: There could be trouble brewing in NDP-Green paradise

MIKE SMYTH
More from Mike Smyth
Published:
June 14, 2017


Victoria, we have a problem.

The NDP-Green power-sharing agreement appeared to show cracks on Tuesday over the crucial issue of who will serve as the speaker in a minority parliament.

That was evident in a conversation I had with B.C. Green party Leader Andrew Weaver, who said the New Democrats assured him in negotiations they would convince a Liberal to serve as speaker in an NDP-controlled legislature.

“The NDP essentially made us understand that they had been in conversation with some B.C. Liberals and that it would be no problem for them to find a speaker from within the B.C. Liberal ranks,” Weaver said.

He said the NDP “approached a couple of people” about the job, adding Liberal MLAs Linda Reid and Sam Sullivan were considered prime targets.

“A bunch of names were mentioned,” Weaver said. “Sam and Linda were two obvious ones.”

But it now appears no Liberal is willing to take the speaker’s job if the NDP seizes power — something Weaver said could create trouble for the NDP-Green alliance.

“Would it be a problem with our agreement? It would certainly make us pause and reflect upon the conditions of our agreement being met,” he said.

The selection of a speaker is crucial because the party standings in the 87-seat legislature are so tight after the razor-close May 9 election.

The NDP-Green alliance has 44 seats, while the governing Liberals have 43. The NDP and Greens have agreed to defeat Premier Christy Clark’s Liberals on a non-confidence motion in the legislature, which resumes sitting on June 22.

Weaver said it would then be important to get a Liberal in the speaker’s chair so the NDP-Green alliance doesn’t give up a crucial vote in the legislature.

“What I have said all along is certainty is very important to us,” Weaver said.

“Certainty and the agreement come hand-in-hand with there being a speaker coming from the Liberals.”

Christy Clark indicated a Liberal MLA will take the speaker’s job when she faces the legislature next Thursday. But it appears all bets will be off if the NDP and Greens gang up to defeat her government.

Judith Guichon, the lieutenant-governor, would then have the option to invite Horgan to form an NDP minority government, propped up by Weaver’s three Green MLAs.

But it appears no Liberal MLA — including Sullivan — will let their name stand for speaker with the NDP in power.

“On the speaker’s role, I can confirm that I have not been asked by the NDP or the Green party,” Sullivan said. “Were I to be asked, I would say ‘no.’ ”

A Liberal official said none of the party’s MLAs wants the job with the NDP in power.

That could force the New Democrats to put one of their own MLAs forward to be the speaker.

But that could create a problem, Weaver said, because the speaker doesn’t vote except to break a tie, which could become the norm in the deadlocked legislature.

“We’ll have a situation where it’s 43 to 43, with the speaker breaking the tie,” Weaver said.

“The speaker would have to make a decision as to whether they vote ‘yes’ on a bill to make it law. Typically, a speaker might be concerned if there wasn’t a majority on the floor already.

“One of the things we need is to ensure we give people certainty in the province of British Columbia. That is what we were looking to get.


SNIPPPPPPPPPPPPP



“We would have to see if they have a plan in terms of how we can keep the legislature functioning with certainty. This is not our problem. That is the NDP problem.”

NDP Leader John Horgan was asked about the issue Tuesday after Norman Spector, an adviser to the Greens, tweeted that the NDP-Green deal was “predicated on defection from Liberal caucus.”

“I don’t recall that,” Horgan said, adding he’s just anxious to form a government.

But Sullivan, freshly appointed to cabinet by Clark, said he thinks the unusual situation could force another election.

“What is happening right now is highly unstable,” Sullivan told CKNW’s Simi Sara.

“The numbers just don’t work. The only thing I can conclude is there probably is an election coming.”

That election call could come from Guichon, the lieutenant-governor. If she decides the NDP and Greens can’t make their deal work, she just might decide it’s better to go back to the people and let them decide.


http://theprovince.com/news/bc-politics ... n-paradise

[Smurf]

It's not that I want another election but I would laugh myself silly if this blew up in liar Horgan's face. Better yet if Weaver went to the Liberals and made a deal cutting Horgan out completely. It's going to get interesting as I don't believe Weaver wants to go to an election and chance loosing a seat or two. This is probably his only chance for any real power.

[erinmore3775]

Green Party MLAs Sonia Fursteanu, Andrew Weaver and Adam Olsen have an opportunity not only to make history but to actually influence legislation. The only way they can do that is to allow the Liberals to form a slim minority government of 42 seats, elect a Speaker, and present a Throne Speech. Then as their first requirement require the House to grant the three Green MLA's full party status. Then they will have the resources to accurately analyse any proposed legislation.

During the period of time before the Throne Speech debate, the Green's would then outline their conditions of support and their required legislative timetable. If they supported the Throne Speech, they would then have the ability to influence legislation concerning housing, social services, and transportation. Each of those legislative items would be considered a Confidence Motion since they would involve significant budgetary items or tax policy.

Motions of confidence traditionally deemed to be motions for the granting of supply money, motions concerning the budgetary policy of the government, and motions respecting the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. If Sonia Furstaneau is a true parliamentary historian, as she says she is, then she will know that under these circumstances the Gree's can exert more influence through consensus and collaboration than through the calling of an immediate election. She will also be aware that the Lieutenant Governor, Judith Guichon, is under no obligation to call a government to power that cannot or will not provide an independent Speaker.

If the Green's remain independent of an NDP coalition they can then have the opportunity to demonstrate good governance and the strength of their policies. A Liberal government moderated by Green policies is the best alternative under the premise that the Green's wish to demonstrate that they are more than an isolated fringe party. If they stick with the NDP coalition they are doomed to oblivion.

[LordEd]

“What I have said all along is certainty is very important to us,” Weaver said.

For a guy with his doctorate, math isn't his strong suit. 43 vs 44 is nowhere near as certain as as 46 to 41

There is another option: Green could decide the speaker issue was a surprise and join the liberals, if he didn't burn that bridge.

The agreement is also based on "should the NDP be called to form a government". If Weaver supports the liberals throne speech, then the agreement doesn't come into force. However, I'm sure that would be a "surprise" to the NDP.

So should it go to election, who will the voters punish for the mess?

[Jonrox]

I had liked Weaver's performance in the leader's debate, but I severely misjudged his political prowess.

He made a huge strategic error in partnering with the NDP. He had the chance to advance his party and their agenda with a Liberal partnership, but missed the boat entirely. He would have been able to force everyone's hand had he partnered up with the Liberals - just the math alone would have given him the power he needed to see his platform move forward and effect real change in the province.

I'm still stumped as to why he didn't see that. Now he's running a huge risk of another election where I just don't see the Greens winning much - people aren't going to "waste" votes on the Greens when it could risk their vote meaning the difference between one of the major parties winning.

He had achieved the best case scenario with this election and then squandered the opportunity. It was just a huge, huge mistake.

[bob vernon]

In another election, Green party members will flock in huge number to Christy and her staunch environmentalist policy.

[LordEd]

In another election, Green party members will flock in huge number to Christy and her staunch environmentalist policy.

Or they'll say "I voted green because I didn't like the liberals, but I can't risk the NDP in power".

[Jonrox]

The hardcore supporters will still vote Green, but many of the gains they saw in the popular vote came from people unhappy with both of the other choices. Those votes will go back to those two parties as people make a decision about who they really want to run the province, by choosing whoever they see as the lesser of two evils.

My prediction is that we'll end up seeing another Liberal majority by quite a large margin if this goes to another election.

[Urbane]

From Mike Smyth's column:

But that could create a problem, Weaver said, because the speaker doesn’t vote except to break a tie, which could become the norm in the deadlocked legislature.

“We’ll have a situation where it’s 43 to 43, with the speaker breaking the tie,” Weaver said.

Weaver's just figuring that out now???

NDP Leader John Horgan was asked about the issue Tuesday after Norman Spector, an adviser to the Greens, tweeted that the NDP-Green deal was “predicated on defection from Liberal caucus.”

“I don’t recall that,” Horgan said, adding he’s just anxious to form a government.

LOL. Yes, he looks a little too anxious to form a government.

[LordEd]

http://globalnews.ca/news/3522581/ndp-l ... tion-poll/

More Green Party supporters seemed to have had a change of heart. Seventy-five per cent of respondents who backed the Greens in last month’s election said they would do the same in the next election. Thirteen per cent of Green supporters said they would switch their vote to the NDP while 11 per cent would support the Liberals, though those numbers had a small sample size.

It wouldn't matter losing 25% of the votes for Weaver's seat, but his other winners would lose out to the NDP losing 25% redistributed even-ish to liberal/green

But on those stats, a new election could be 2 seats to the benefit of the NDP.

43/43/1...

[Merry]

Regardless of WHICH of the major Parties form Government, I hate to see a group of only 3 individuals calling all the shots. Because the fact is that the majority of British Columbians did NOT vote for the Greens (and there's a reason for that).

If the only thing the Greens were demanding in return for their support was Official Party Status and a referendum on electoral reform, I could go along with that. But insisting either of the major Parties change key parts of the platform they were elected on, in return for support, is going way too far IMO.

Voters who voted NDP did not vote for Andrew Weaver's view of the future (if they wanted that they'd have voted Green in the first place). Ditto for voters who voted Liberal. So, if the Greens want to have all the say about major Platform promises, then I think we ought to have another election (much as it pains me to say so).

[mr.bandaid]

I think that if there is a new election the liberals could win it if, and it is a big if, they kick Christy to the curb. She has caused this problem for the liberals and from what I have been reading, they may be out to get her. Let's hope.

[rustled]

Wow, what a difference a week makes. Take a look at their expressions in the photo accompanying this news story:
https://www.castanet.net/edition/news-s ... htm#199488
Quite a far cry from the smugness in the photos of the two of them at the rugby match, and announcing their weird "it's not a coalition" partnership deal.
Reality bites, fellas.

[rustled]

I think that if there is a new election the liberals could win it if, and it is a big if, they kick Christy to the curb. She has caused this problem for the liberals and from what I have been reading, they may be out to get her. Let's hope.

There are posters here who loathe Clark. They'll blame her for anything and everything, and find fault with her every action. They really do remind me of the mean kids in high school, who simply decided which person to heckle and taunt and mock, and they have others going along with it because it's the thing to do. Honestly, I'm not sure what their issue with Clark actually is. The few who have tried to explain it use a lot of emotional language and an incredible amount of vitriol, exaggerating as though anything bad that happened is entirely her fault (right up to and including placing full blame on her, personally, for someone committing suicide).

So I'm curious as to how she caused this problem. Did she cause it by not stepping down when the NDP started targeting her personally? Or was there a genuine reason she ought to have stepped down a couple of years ago?

To my mind, she's shown no less integrity, grace or gumption over the past three weeks than Horgan or Weaver. (It seems to me she's recently shown more than the two of them combined, but I'm sure I'll be told by the ABC club here how wrong I am...)

[Urban Cowboy]

From Mike Smyth's column:

But that could create a problem, Weaver said, because the speaker doesn’t vote except to break a tie, which could become the norm in the deadlocked legislature.

“We’ll have a situation where it’s 43 to 43, with the speaker breaking the tie,” Weaver said.

Weaver's just figuring that out now???

NDP Leader John Horgan was asked about the issue Tuesday after Norman Spector, an adviser to the Greens, tweeted that the NDP-Green deal was “predicated on defection from Liberal caucus.”

“I don’t recall that,” Horgan said, adding he’s just anxious to form a government.

LOL. Yes, he looks a little too anxious to form a government.

I've been saying this all along, and Weaver's just catching on?

He seriously thought a Liberal would roll over and hand him the reigns to a government he did not win?

In this instance the Liberals would be flat out insane, if they provided Horgan with a speaker, even more insane than Horgan who led Weaver to believe that was a done deal.

A Liberal/Green coalition could move forward and honestly say they have a mandate from the people, whereas the NDP not so much, not that I see that happening either.

My gut tells me we're looking at another election.