There could be trouble brewing in NDP-Green paradise

[LordEd]

IS that why? Proof?

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/british-columbia/political-donations-following-the-money-in-b-c-politics-1.4076285

The Greens' biggest donors are all individuals, with former party and fundraising chair Roy Ball in the top spot.
...
The Green Party received almost all of its funding from individuals, reaching a peak of nearly $500,000 last year.

Why is everything a conspiracy theory?

Because stuff like that is on the approved thinking list. It was said on the internet therefore it must be true.

[Urbane]

From Gary Mason:

The prevailing view seems to be that Ms. Guichon has no choice but to give the NDP the opportunity to govern. Personally, I’m not so sure about that.

To sanction a scenario in which the Speaker effectively becomes just another government MLA whose vote is constantly necessary to pass legislation in a one-seat majority is a dangerous precedent. It could make a mockery of centuries-old parliamentary traditions and rules.

Rather than chance throwing the B.C. legislature into disrepute, Ms. Guichon could force another election. And I believe many in all three parties have a creeping sense that this is precisely what could happen.
Full column: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/br ... icle+Links

[Smurf]

Could very easily happen. Too bad Andrew Weaver had not had the strength to stand his ground, stay neutral and try to make it work. Along with all the other pressures I think he has a greed for power and grandeur ideas that somehow he is going to force the NDP to do what he wants to keep power. I'm scared these two power hungry idiots are going to make some really bad decisions just to keep power, nothing to do with what is good for BC. Problem is I believe most governments have fallen into that scenario. It is no longer for the good of the country but all for the good of the party and their followers.

[Barney Google]

...It is no longer for the good of the country but all for the good of the party and their followers.

I totally agree with you, Smuf. Except that I think it's more for the good of a FEW in the party and

placating to keep what followers they have.

We are in interesting times.

All over the World citizens are divided and at odds and yet united in their distrust of government

and bureaucracy.

Edited to add:

BC voters need to break this stalemate situation and elect a government that can function efficiently.

[maryjane48]

bring it on. if the libs think they are going to win.


my responce to that is

[hobbyguy]

MJ - another election would be unpredictable, just as the last one was.

However, you do need to keep in mind that the bulk of the negatives since the election have involved the NDP/Green coalition.

Some are small, but significant in that they affect swing ridings. One that sticks in mind are the comments from some Surrey swing riding voters about the bridge toll issue. When told that the bridge tolls would be gone by the NDP, they voted NDP. After the election, when told that yes, the NDP will scrap the bridge tolls BUT they will be replaced by mobility pricing, the folks were really upset, roughly paraphrasing, "Gone is gone. That's what we voted for. NOT gone but replaced by something else!"

You also can not discount the fact that after the election, the dynamic has changed:

Before the election: A vote for the Green Party = a vote for the Green Party

After the election: A vote for the Green Party = a vote for the NDP

THAT has all kinds of repercussions and permutations. Very unpredictable.

All we do know is that prior to the election the polls showed that the Liberals lost 20% more votes to the Green Party than the NDP did. Will those votes, or portions thereof "go home"? Will some NDP voters look at the superior Green Party platform and switch over expecting an NDP/Green coalition??

Liberal voters - how many were not very energized by a campaign that lacked a "big ticket" change like LNG (never mind that is a cooked goose) and complacent that the Liberals would continue on - and so did not vote? Would those blase Liberal voters become energized over the prospect of the NDP/Green coalition and turn out in greater numbers as a backlash??

I suspect that the last election saw the zenith of energy/turnout for NDP and Green voters - will that energy wane with the NDP/Green coalition looking like a mess? Some in the NDP, notably the powerful BCTF, are not very happy with Andrew Weaver, and the prospect of having him anywhere near the halls of power.

The only reasonable prognostication of another election in BC is that it would be unpredictable.

[Merry]

Sadly, unless the Libs and the NDP can find a way to work together for a minimum of a year (and cut out the Greens entirely) I don't see any other solution than calling another election (groan).

But if we do have another election (double groan) I predict the Greens will be voted into oblivion. Not because people are mad that the Greens chose a side, but just because people want to see a clear result, with either the NDP or the Libs firmly in power (at this point I think some of them no longer care which, they just want a clear result). No more uncertainty.

Many of those who voted Green did so because they were tired of "holding their nose" and voting for a Party they felt had lost touch with it's electorate, and has become both arrogant and corrupt. Yet they couldn't bring themselves to vote NDP. So voting Green seemed to be the perfect "protest vote". But voters who felt that way are going to be switching back to voting Liberal as a way of trying to make sure the NDP stays out of power.

On the other hand, left leaning Greens may decide to return to the NDP fold, just to make sure the Libs don't win again. And, in fact, if they truly do want the Province to be more "green", voting NDP will be a much more likely way of achieving that goal than wasting their vote on Weaver.

So, at the end of the day, the numbers of voters that abandon the Greens are probably going to decide the next election.

[mr.bandaid]

Call an election, get rid of Christy, Mike and Rich and the Liberals could win in a landslide. You want to believe that the last two are just itching to get their hands on that leadership position and if they do it will change nothing. Liberals need a leadership enema.

[KenL]

Here's a quick lesson for those who believe in NDP / Green Party policy, and it's happening right now.

Venezuela was a prosperous, thriving and secure nation just a mere decade ago, but has quickly turned into a socialist, third-world nightmare. All because of big-government, left-wing policies that included higher social spending, taxes, and a downward spiraling economy.

This has led to businesses and professionals leaving the country in droves. There has been widespread unemployment, starvation, violence and civil unrest, as well as shortages of basic necessities, such as food and even toilet paper.

Just like every other socialist government, it promised a workers’ paradise on earth but instead delivered the earthly version of hell.

It's important to be nice and help others, but in every case the economy comes first.

[hobbyguy]

Merry - the NDP can NOT work with the Liberals. The NDP is a coalition in and of itself. Part of that coalition includes the knife wielders who are happy to be the tail that wags the dog. The BC NDP has such "tails" in a Marxist element, a LEAP element, a die hard Unionist element, and the divisions/conflicts between them are wider than those the Liberals have.

Perhaps the best example of that is how it came to pass that Horgan changed his position on site C. When Horgan supported site C the ideologues came out of the closet. One of the diehard ideologues, who had been a knife wielder in destroying Carole James leadership, threatened to leave the caucus if the party supported site C. So we have a knife wielding organic vineyard anti-GMO activist, who thinks a couple of thousand climate challenged hectares can feed a million or more people, setting energy policy for the NDP. Huh?

(The Greens have the same problem. Andrew Weaver, in following scientific analysis as is his wont, supported site C - until he became party leader, and the ideologues "wagged the dog" and switched positions with the flimsiest [and scientifically baseless] of reasons.)

The NDP would have to have a cohesive policy position in order to work with anyone. Their platform is an uncoordinated collection of grievances, and mostly without any solutions offered, with no costing, no budgeting, no taxation plan - but attack after attack (many of them personal) on premier Clark listed on virtually every page of the 118 pages. IF you have no plan for governance, how do you participate in governance???

(The Greens do not have that problem. Their platform is a plan for governance. So in the absence of an NDP plan for governance, the coalition would have to lean heavily on the Green platform. If not, I can not see how the coalition lasts, trying to govern without plan does not seem to be an acceptable outlook to the Greens, who's platform was policy/solution heavy, costed, budgeted and with taxation plan.)

So I honestly do not see how the NDP can work with anyone to provide governance, as they can not even govern their own party.

[Urban Cowboy]

Call an election, get rid of Christy, Mike and Rich and the Liberals could win in a landslide. You want to believe that the last two are just itching to get their hands on that leadership position and if they do it will change nothing. Liberals need a leadership enema.

I agree with you, but don't forget the NDP are in dire need of the same, given who actually pulls the strings within that party.

[Merry]

Call an election, get rid of Christy, Mike and Rich and the Liberals could win in a landslide. You want to believe that the last two are just itching to get their hands on that leadership position and if they do it will change nothing. Liberals need a leadership enema.

If Mike de Jong ever becomes leader the Liberals will lose a lot of support because, bad as people may think Christy is (and I don't feel that way myself), Mike is even worse - his arrogance often knows no bounds IMO.

If the Liberals ever hope to gain the Public's trust back, they need to dump people like him and find some new faces to lead the Party.

[Merry]

Merry - the NDP can NOT work with the Liberals.

I respectfully disagree hobbyguy, because I truly believe that "where there's a will, there's a way". And we are, after all, only talking about them working together on a temporary basis, in order to avoid having another election so close to the last one.

With the possible exception of the Liberals (who may think they'll benefit from a snap election call), the Parties would probably like a bit of a breather before having to hit the campaign trail again. And I'm certain that most of the Public would like a bit of a break as well.

If the two main Parties could work something out where the most contentious issues are put on the back burner for a few months, I think they may be able to hobble something together that will work, even if it's only for a very short time (even 6 months would be better than going straight back into an election right now). But, as most politicians tend to put their own narrow partisan interests above the best interests of their country, I'm not holding my breath waiting for an agreement between them to happen.

[Urban Cowboy]

Even six weeks of an NDP government is too much.

[Merry]

Even six weeks of an NDP government is too much.

Even though you're comment made me chuckle Techie, I have to disagree. I think a temporary pause (6 months to a year) before holding another election would give everybody time for some "sober second thought".

But it's a moot point anyway, because unfortunately the people in this Province have become so polarized in their politics that the kind of compromise I envision is probably impossible. Which is too bad, because at the end of the day we all want the same thing - a better British Columbia.