Andrew Weaver is going crazy on Twitter

[Leifer]

And it's not a 'coalition'.

"A political alliance, also referred to as a political coalition, political bloc, is an agreement for cooperation between different political parties on common political agenda, often for purposes of contesting an election to mutually benefit by collectively clearing election thresholds, or otherwise benefiting from characteristics of the voting system or for government formation after elections.

A coalition government is formed when a political alliance comes to power, or when only a plurality (not a majority) has not been reached and several parties must work together to govern."

I dunno....coalition seems like a good enough description to me.

What would you call it?

[Cactusflower]

And it's not a 'coalition'.

"A political alliance, also referred to as a political coalition, political bloc, is an agreement for cooperation between different political parties on common political agenda, often for purposes of contesting an election to mutually benefit by collectively clearing election thresholds, or otherwise benefiting from characteristics of the voting system or for government formation after elections.

A coalition government is formed when a political alliance comes to power, or when only a plurality (not a majority) has not been reached and several parties must work together to govern."

I dunno....coalition seems like a good enough description to me.

What would you call it?

I call it what it is........an alliance.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-diffe ... -coalition

[Leifer]

Ugh.
Never mind.
I should know better....

[alanjh595]

Directly from the link posted above.

A coalition is a mission oriented joining of forces where there is an established opposing entity that is in conflict with the alliance that the coalition is part of.

[Muzza]

Coalition is a synonym for alliance. So basically the meaning is the same as synonym means equivalent.

[Hassel99]

They (NDG) Specifically avoided the word Coalition as it binds them together. CF is correct in this regard.


http://www.news1130.com/2017/05/30/bc-n ... coalition/

So, why the reluctance on behalf of Green Party Leader Andrew Weaver to fully endorse the NDP and form an actual coalition government?


“During the whole process he has said he has no interest in a coalition because he sees that as handcuffing his ability to advocate for the Green Party platform,” explains Justin Ling, a political reporter with VICE News. “It’s a bizarre strategy because he’s not actually supporting a government, he’s tacitly allow one to survive over the other.”

He points out that’s how it works throughout Europe, much of Asia and in Australia. “The reticence of the Green Party to actually enter join a coalition is beyond me. Really you can do more for your constituents at the Cabinet table than you can as the third party with no real responsibilities

Agreement is better for weaver, he had no real work or responsibility to preform and it allows the greens to destroy the government at their whim.

[alanjh595]

That puts the NDP on a very narrow fence to sit on.

[Walking Wounded]

Agreement is better for weaver, he had no real work or responsibility to preform and it allows the greens to destroy the government at their whim.

Absolute BS that any party with only 3 seat in the legislature can bring down the government. Weaver will keep the NDP propped up till he gets PR. Then I would bet we see an election as soon as he can get one.

[hobbyguy]

Weaver knows that coalitions are often bad news for the junior partner in the coalition. The way the confidence and supply agreement works, he and the little green curly tail can wag the dog mightily - and without the downside.

Weaver chose the NDP because:

1. They're dumber than the Liberals (the Liberals CAN play chess, the NDP struggle with checkers).
2. The NDP voter coalition contains factions that Weaver can easily convert to stalwart Green voters.
3. He knew the NDP were broke and would send the Green's a ton of stolen taxpayer money.
4. He knew the NDP would do ANYTHING to usurp power, including the Trojan horse of PR (which would turn Vancouver Island mostly green and blue).
5. The confidence and supply agreement route allows the Greens to take potshots at the NDP to strip away factions like the LEAPers, and to disavow policies that while necessary for good governance are not "ideologically pure" (like site C) and also take shots at bad policies like the bridge toll removal and correctly call them "reckless".

Every tweet and every interview is designed by Weaver to split off protest factions that are part of the NDP voter coalition. It would actually be to the NDP's advantage to call a snap election before the PR referendum, and before a new Liberal leader can gain any traction.

[Urban Cowboy]

Whatever we may think of the current NDP Government, continually bringing up stuff from the 90's to either support or denigrate them is just plain daft. The past is past; dead and gone. Time to move on and judge the Government for what they're doing in the here and now. That's just it though, the past isn't dead and gone. These guys have only been around a few short months, and every move they make is reminiscent of the 1990's which is why they keep getting brought up. How many studies alone have been implemented in the last couple of months? Studies that shouldn't be at all necessary, had the NDP been doing their homework while in opposition. Studies that cost us money, and provide needless jobs for NDP supporters. They'll stoop to any level necessary, to achieve the same end result they are always pursuing, that of putting more of their people on the government payroll.

For my part, there are some things I don't like that the current Government is doing (like hurting the Canadian economy with their constant delay tactics re Kinder Morgan), and there are some things they've done that I approve of (removing the bridge tolls for example). But, so far, my overall impression is that they're taking things "slow and steady" in an attempt to ensure they make the "right" decisions. And I applaud them for that. What you call "slow and steady" some would simply call the result of not having a plan.

Andrew Weaver is the "wild card", because he could make unreasonable demands in return for not defeating the Government. But that would have applied even if he'd supported the Libs. It'll be interesting to see how the NDP deal with any such demands.Truth of the matter is without each other, both parties lose, so they have little choice but to suck it up and endure each other.
The only possible way I could see this government being defeated, is if by some odd circumstance, the Liberals outnumbered the GreenDP during a vote, and were able to play the non confidence card. Probably a slim chance, but with the numbers this close, the possibility does exist.

It's early days yet, and my initial favourable impression could easily change depending on the decisions they make going forward. But so far, so good. Oh give it time, if there's one thing the NDP has proven over and over again, it's that they are really good at shooting themselves in the foot.

[Urban Cowboy]

And it's not a 'coalition'.

"A political alliance, also referred to as a political coalition, political bloc, is an agreement for cooperation between different political parties on common political agenda, often for purposes of contesting an election to mutually benefit by collectively clearing election thresholds, or otherwise benefiting from characteristics of the voting system or for government formation after elections.

A coalition government is formed when a political alliance comes to power, or when only a plurality (not a majority) has not been reached and several parties must work together to govern."

I dunno....coalition seems like a good enough description to me.

What would you call it?

I call it what it is........an alliance.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-diffe ... -coalition

I call it what it is too, a plot to screw over the people of BC, as much as possible, before the next election.

[The Green Barbarian]

What would you call it?

I'd call it an axis of evil, but that's giving the parties involved too much credit. More like an axis of stupid.

[The Green Barbarian]

Whatever we may think of the current NDP Government, continually bringing up stuff from the 90's to either support or denigrate them is just plain daft. .

Sorry Merry, but this is pure garbage. The only thing "daft" is trying to pretend that the "past is the past" to try and sell the giant pile of BS that the current NDP isn't the same incompetent bunch of bungling boobs we had to endure during their last reign of terror in the 1990's. They even have a lot of same simpletons in government, like the memo-forging moron Adrian Dix, architect of the disgusting 1998 back-room deal with the BCTF. That clown should have long ago been retired to a cubicle at the CCPA or the decrepit Broadbent Institute, designing disgusting and purposely flawed "studies" to release to NDP mouth-breathers. Or even better, a "contributor" to horrible leftist propaganda organs like the Tyee. The fact that *bleep* is still in government is a testament to just how awful the NDP truly is.

[ferri]

[Veovis]

:topic:

Fine fine.

The actual topic is dear old Andrews behavior and what it might mean.

Personally, nothing. That's my opinion, he is nothing more than a political version of a yappy little dog that constantly goes yip yip yip yip, but knows he has nothing to back it up. He made it clear what he was and it wasn't change, or better governance, it was "write me a cheque and I'll give you my votes"

When it ends it will end, he may end it in some pomp way to try to not have the green party returned to oblivion but I don't quite think that will be prevented, as we have seen his change, what the NDP are and have been for 30 years without evolution, and the other option which is just an unfortunately far better *bleep* than the others.