Keeping it Real…

Keeping it Real… header image 2

Propping up Liberals BEST Green Strategy in Minority Government

May 12th, 2017 · 67 Comments

Platforms, policies and promises all count for nothing in practical terms unless backed by POWER.

And if the Greens truly believe they can one day achieve POWER in British Columbia, their best path …. if a minority government situation does present itself in BC after the final votes are in … would be to support a Liberal government.

I know! I know! There are many more NDP policies that come closer to those of the Greens than do those of the Liberals. In fact, many voters see little substantive differences on several issues between the two.

And that’s EXACTLY why the Greens should NOT prop up the NDP and give that party a chance to government effectively.  Even if the NDP agreed to adopt/co-operate/accept some Green policies, it would still be an NDP  government in power, taking any credit and impressing the voters … maybe even enough to win a majority government within several months.

How would that help the Greens?????

In fact, if the Greens’ dream of  ultimately becoming government … they should FIRST aim at becoming the Official Opposition, giving them much more exposure than  just being a rump backing up the NDP.

And backing a Liberal Christy Clark minority government ….  NEEDING the support of the GREENS just to stay alive … would give leader Andrew Weaver a better chance (don’t call it blackmail) to achieve distinctly identifiable GREEN results, while awarding him a bigger soapbox and almost daily news coverage …. and a chance for the Greens to build the public perception that they indeed could handle the role of Official Opposition…and, yes, have the maturity/experience to even govern.

THAT should be the Greens’ next practical strategy … to become Official Opposition, replacing the NDP as the left progressive activist alternative to the Liberals.

And they won’t do that … by helping the NDP achieve or stay in power.

Harv Oberfeld

Tags: British Columbia

67 responses so far ↓

  • 1 E. Johnson // May 12, 2017 at 9:25 am

    I am not clear on how you see this playing out Harvey. By propping up do you mean that with each piece of legislation put to a vote the Green Party could decide to support it or negotiate with the Liberals to amend it to their liking or outright defeat it? Or are you suggesting a formal coalition whereby the Greens would have much more say in drafting legislation etc. and seek one or more cabinet posts?

    (Response: I don’t think the Greens would or should enter into a formal coalition with the Liberals …probably too much for their base to handle. But if there is a small minority government (and I’m not sure yet that will actually come to fruition) the Liberals would need them so much, they will not only cater to/adopt some of the Greens’ demands, but even set aside any new legislation/plans they know the Greens would NOT support. h.o)

  • 2 Hawgwash // May 12, 2017 at 9:32 am

    Counterpoint…

    http://commonsensecanadian.ca/rafe-weaver-crazy-make-pact-christy-ndp-nailed-libs-economy-lng/

  • 3 G. Barry Stewart // May 12, 2017 at 9:56 am

    Harvey: are you’re saying that the Greens have a chance of shutting down Site C and getting BIG Money out of politics, if they cuddle up to Christy?

    I can’t see that happening. For the BC Libs to cave into shutting down Site C — just to cling to power — would be fatal. (Come to think of it, that would be a pretty good outcome!)

    Shutting down BIG $$, as opposed to just “studying it,” would also be a blow to the BC Libs, as they feed off cash, rather than armies of volunteers.

    I can see the Greens and BC Libs agreeing to formulate proportional representation language. The BC Libs would then run it through a confusing public consultation campaign that would result in a “No” vote on the referendum.

    I’m not buying it. The Greens could do so much actual good, by siding with the NDP.

    (Response: I’m saying that …contrary to the short-term immediate concerns of some people … the Greens need to look at the long-term for their party … and INCREASE their credibility as possible future government…. and they do NOT do that by helping the NDP to get into office. If there is a minority Liberal government, they will have perhaps the only chance in their lifetime to not only participate in GOVERNMENT … but also push the NDP further aside…and enhance their own public status and long-term potential. Let’s keep it real: NDPers won’t like that, but I’d bet Green strategists know and understand exactly what I’m saying. h.o)

  • 4 Hawgwash // May 12, 2017 at 10:04 am

    The first thing Mr. Weaver should do is ask both Libs and NDP to grant Greens Official Status with no conditions.

    Someone in the previous post suggested CC should offer it only if the Greens support the Liberals. Dirty, dirty, Liberal style politics and exactly the mentality Kevin Falcon regrets from the past.

    The Greens have earned recognition, the right to funding and to fully participate in Question Period. They should make it very clear they will join forces with no one, without status.

    The next thing they should do, so as to not alienate their base, is to take a neutral, independent stance. Prop up none of the above. Address each issue presented on merits according to Green philosophy. Good clean, clear starting point.

    Christy will not keep any agreements made and will lie about the intent or understanding, after the fact. Mr. Weaver will become the hashtag iamandrew.

    Horgan will be very uncomfortable and worried with Weaver on side. He stands to lose more to the Greens than vice versa.

    Weaver needs to be independent and beholden to no one. Play the others against each other to the Green’s advantage That is a powerful position

  • 5 D. M. Johnston // May 12, 2017 at 10:27 am

    I disagree.

    Throughout the election, the Greens (Weaver) was seen as a Liberal adjunct, a rather unsavoury election trick and to join with the Liberals, would confirm this impression.

    It also now seems that the Greens high percentage of voters mostly came at the Liberals expense, with disenchanted Liberals voting Green, again if the Greens join up with the Liberals, they will implode.

    The other problem with the Greens and Weaver is that the two new Greens MLA’s may not want to follow him and may not do as he wants, again, toastada for the Greens.

    The real problem is that the Liberals have millions in unspent donations and raking in more and it would be best for Weaver to hold his nose, join in as a coalition government with the NDP for 3 years, pass election expenses laws, get some money and fight again in 202o/21.

    If I were Horgan, I would offer Weaver “Minister of Transportation”, let Weaver prove himself with Green projects and hope the public buys into it. Let Weaver be also Minister responsible for TransLink and let Weaver see the real world in Metro Vancouver, instead of his “Island View” which he currently has.

  • 6 Crankypants // May 12, 2017 at 10:47 am

    Holding the balance of power in a minority government may be akin to juggling dynamite. Mr. Weaver may well increase his public image politically but with many potential pitfalls. Would the hard core Green voters see cozying up to the Liberals as a betrayal to their cause and park their votes elsewhere next election? Would new voters go back to the political party they usually vote for should he back the NDP?

    Success in one election does not a movement make. Just ask the federal NDP.

  • 7 ISLAND LOOKOUT // May 12, 2017 at 11:00 am

    #4 Hawgwash. THE BIG STORM APPROACHETH

    Hogwash there, with everything you’ve submitted here so far this date.

    You are looking at only the very limited political interests of a party, Green, with the apparent leader, Mr. Weaver, accompanied by two neophytes who look like a couple of deer staring at the headlights of an oncoming CPR coal train roaring up the Rocky Mountain Trench.

    Official status for the Greens? Are you feakin’ kidding, there?

    No way. That is a likely Constitutional issue that would need legislative approval, and not some OIC.

    Harvey’s comments make perfect sense and may all well come to pass. Hope so.

    Embellishing on my above comment: to think that three apparently divergent Green MLAs can on their own,
    redirect the government, minority or otherwise, without at least a couple of full parliamentary sessions (not sittings) under their belts, is to court utter political and economic disaster for BC.

    Most of the post-election postings here show an incredible narrow-mindedness.

    You just hate the Clark libs so much that you would jeopardize the lives off the rest of BC’s citizenry. For what? John Horgan who looks like he couldn’t organize his way out of a wet paper bag?

    Most of you have stuffed yourselves into ideological boxes and you can’t get out of them.

    In your appalling ignorance what ALL of you have missed is the

    REALLY BIG STORY HERE:

    President Trump has a new Trade Representative, Robert Lighthizer, confirmed by the US Senate yesterday. Lighthizer is a major swamp creature from Washington DC. He is a legendary trade lawyer.

    He has a number of trade/negotiation notches on his gun belts dating back to the Reagan-era: China, UK, Mexico, most of Europe, Japan, and the list goes on. Scarey guy, this.

    One of his first duties will be to deal with NAFTA, followed by softwood lumber, dairy, IT, banks, the woiks.

    Canada vs Lighthizer. Looks like a yankee slamdunk to me, right now at least.

    And in light of all that you want three disparate disorganized Green MLAs wandering about the province dispensing bromides about Site C, Kinder-Morgan, “bad” Liberal donation policies, free MSP, low-cost bridge tolls, tax penalties for real estate speckers…

    Get a grip people.

  • 8 BMCQ // May 12, 2017 at 11:10 am

    First of all I believe there will not be a Minority Liberal Government.

    I believe Courtenay will “Flip”, I am guessing that the bulk of the Absentee Ballots belong to Military Personnel Stationed elsewhere and it just so happens the Liberal that trails by 9 Votes just happens to be a very popular Former Officer/Commander on the Base.

    Who do you think those Military Girls and Gals might Vote for?

    …………..

    I did state on the last Thread that I felt if the Libs felt they could Flip Courtenay they might not offer the Greens Party Status.

    I also said that if the Liberals felt they would not Flip Courtenay they might offer Greens Party Status.

    I believe there needs to be a Vote in the Legislature to change the B.C. Elections Act to accomplish the change from 4 to 3 Seats for Party Status.

    As to Weaver?

    If I was Weaver and his Minions I would take each day and each Vote in the Legislature individually and I would not enter into an agreement with either the NDP or the Liberals.

    Weaver is an intelligent Man and I believes he is bright enough and experienced enough to make the Minority Government work to accomplishment some things he considers important to what he Campaigned on.

    Not all Politicians are as thoughtful and committed to their Platform as Weaver appears to be.

    I believe he is a man of principle and I am quite impressed with what I have seen of Weaver to this point, even if I disagree with much of his Platform.

    One thing that everyone should remember and be aware of.

    If memory serves me correctly it was not all that long ago that BOTH Horgan and Weaver were in favour of a Site “C” Dam Project.

    I think many Green and NDP Supporters especially those regulars that Post here will be very upset when you see what Horgan or Weaver do about Site “C”.

    If the Libs end up with a Majority they will both still be against Site “C” but if it is a Minority Government either Horgan or Weaver will be for and the other one against Site “C”.

    That is Politics in B.C.

    Hawgwash – 4

    I think your are 100% in your Paragraph 4 beginning “The next thing they should do”.

    I disagree with you however when you say Premier Clark will not keep any agreements.

    I believe she would live up to any agreement made with either the NDP or the Greens.

    You are far too cynical.

    Even among “Thieves” there is always a little Honour.

    Is that Diane Watts I hear clearing her throat somewhere back in Ottawa?

    I miss Lew and I miss morry.

  • 9 Gene The Bean // May 12, 2017 at 12:11 pm

    All interesting and compelling arguments.

    I am more interested in what POWER we have, as opposed to what power the Greens can assert – for themselves.

    They have an unparalleled opportunity to do the right thing for US, the BCers that the Liberals have abused for the last few decades.

    If they took that attitude and shouted from the rooftops that they are doing what is right – for all of us – I would be impressed. But being politicians, as Harvey points out, they’ll probably be in it for themselves

    Would be fun to see Christy fail though – didn’t she quit before as she didn’t want to be in opposition? Her attendance record in the Legislature is a joke and now she’ll have to actually get up and go to work (for twenty weeks a year) …. poor girl.

    Interesting link from Rafe Mair too – he asked the same thing I did on this blog recently – Why didn’t the NDP go after Christy on LNG? Just another bungling by NDP brass. I like John Horgan, I thing he is an honourable man that would never do the kinds of things Christy and Coleman do on a daily basis. Too bad Horgan has little if any back room support.

  • 10 Harry Lawson // May 12, 2017 at 12:15 pm

    Harvey,

    Your reasoning is very astute. it would appear that in most cases the increased in green vote came from right.

    The greens have a chance of being seen as the voice of reason and change within in the house and both the liberals and NDP.

    Even the effectiveness of greens could possibly create a leadership change in either party. This is going to be interesting .

    (Response: Very interesting! And I believe that Clark should be looking around for new opportunities: even if the Libs eke out a small majority, she will NOT lead the Libs into the next election. Read my response to BB. h.o)

  • 11 BB fan // May 12, 2017 at 12:20 pm

    Would the Greens have enough power to insist that christy be removed as leader as one of their first conditions to align with the LIEberals?

    Would the Greens insist that Weaver be put into cabinet? environment minister?

    Would the Greens insist that the LIEberals bring in legislation at the 1st sitting of the legislature that bans all corporate/union contributions?

    The Greens need to use their “power” wisely that can get back some honesty, integrity, and REAL transparency in government to bring about positive change!

    (Response: Clark will be toast by the next election … whenever it comes …without the Greens doing anything. The Liberals (and their predecessor incarnations) have always been good at seeing the writing on the walls and ditching unpopular leaders (Bennett, Van der Zalm, Campbell) and putting forward “new” leadership to convince the voters it’s a new dawn. Weaver could perhaps swing a cabinet post, but that might be too uncomfortable for him and his party: maybe better to keep his distance and retain the freedom to pull the plug on the government when Greens decide it’s time. h.o)

  • 12 nonconfidencevote // May 12, 2017 at 1:14 pm

    Hmmmm, interesting times.
    Aaaand was it actually Bill Good himself recommending Christy Clark resign as Liberal leader on todays radio editorial?
    Bill Good. Liberal spin doctor?

    As Lyndon Johnson said upon hearing Walter Cronkites’ lambasting of the Vietnam War on the Prime Time news,
    ” I’ve lost…..”

  • 13 D. M. Johnston // May 12, 2017 at 1:48 pm

    A historical vote.

    During the dying days of WW 2, a national election in the UK was thought to be a slam dunk for Churchill, but when the military vote came in, they voted instead for Labour.

    To tie the military vote (is there a lot to make a difference) with the Liberals is a stretch and I would think the absentee votes will align with the regular vote.

    Now with a 9 vote spread on the island, that could change, but recounts have a funny way of finding new votes, which tend to go the way of the wining person.

    I think too much is made of absentee votes and why, oh why in this day in age, does it take 2 months to count them!

    (Response: Not two months…two WEEKS. And I’m not sure but I believe some may be coming from various Canadian embassies, and consular offices around the world …where they may have been cast on election day …so does not seem unreasonable tie. h.o)

  • 14 r // May 12, 2017 at 2:49 pm

    There should be a halt to all deleting and shredding of BC docs and data til vote count is finished.I dont think BC at the moment has the moral authority and social license to continue.Breach of public trust?
    Also should double security of uncounted votes .

    (Response; If there is not already such a law …there should be: banning all document shredding in government offices, agencies, elected and appointed officials homes etc. as soon as the writ is dropped! And serious criminal penalties for violating that law. h.o)

  • 15 Diverdarren // May 12, 2017 at 3:13 pm

    I think you’re right Harvey.

    Even if it riles the feathers of the NDP/ “no, not Christy!” posters to your blog Dr. Weaver can do simple arithmetic, and the numbers add up to a Liberal minority, Premier Clark and a powerful place for the Greens.

    43 libs + 3 Grns – 1 speaker = 45MLAs to 41NDP.
    Or,
    41NDP + 3 Grns -1 speaker = 43 MLAs to 43Libs.

    I’d rather have a 4vote buffer than a government that could have a bill defeated by having a member out of the house with a sniffle.

    (Response: I actually believe the 176,000 absentee ballots will favour the Liberals, which would give the Libs a narrow majority.. But even with that, or worse ..a minority … Liberal strategists and the party’s financial backers will realize the Christy brand has run its course …and a “new, improved” product will have to be marketed next time around. h.o)

  • 16 Crankypants // May 12, 2017 at 4:49 pm

    The handling of absentee ballots is a time consuming process. All such ballots are placed into an unmarked secrecy envelope and then into another envelope that identifies the voter, riding information etc. In this election that is 176,000 such envelopes. Next they are all sent to elections BC to be sorted into their respective ridings and transferred to each of the 87 ridings to be processed.

    Each of these outer envelopes must be verified as a legitimate vote such as if the voter is registered and hasn’t already voted through other means, etc.. If it is okay the secrecy envelope is removed from the information envelope and placed in a ballot box unopened. This process continues until all this information envelopes have been separated from the secrecy envelopes. The secrecy envelopes are then opened for counting purposes.

    This manner of handling the votes may seem archaic to some but it is designed to ensure that each voter has cast a legitimate ballot and the secrecy of who one voted for remains intact.

    (Response: Thanks. Luckily, we live in a country where things may take time but we can be confident our election process is run by officials in an independent, judicious, impartial manner. A couple of weeks of suspense is a small price to pay. h.o)

  • 17 E. Johnson // May 12, 2017 at 7:57 pm

    Thank you for clarifying your thoughts in response to my questions in posting 1. You may well be right about Mr. Weaver getting far more media exposure by propping up a minority Liberal government. It gives the public an opportunity to measure his leadership qualities and political skills. If he chooses to side with the NDP he may not be as visible. Having another potential alpha male vying for the spot light would likely not suit Mr. Horgan. Interesting times ahead!

    (Response: Exactly! Horgan and the NDP are Weaver and the Greens’ biggest obstacle to the Green dream of eventually getting enough “progressive” votes to take power …so it would be a really bad political mistake for the Greens to pave the way for the NDP/Horgan to govern… and perhaps impress. h.o.)

  • 18 Hawgwash // May 12, 2017 at 9:03 pm

    Maybe we’re all getting way ahead of ourselves.

    Weaver has now stated that Official Party Status is “non negotiable” and “a deal breaker.”

    That can only happen when/if the legislature sits and the liberals, at least for now, control that agenda.

    Mr. Weaver could find himself swinging in the wind until the fall or maybe even next spring.

    Without that status, he has no teeth. All he can hope for is a friendly media that will give him the time of day.

    I still have a funny feeling about him and his true colors.

    Mr. Island Lookout obviously has not met the “deer in the train lights” of the Cowichan Valley. She is a strong one.

  • 19 13 // May 12, 2017 at 9:59 pm

    So, it seems that many of us have pulled the dagger from the sheath and are aiming for MS Clark between the shoulder blades. 801 all over again. Well we really need to wait until the votes are all counted and the recounts all recounted.
    BTW I agree with HOs thesis and also Diver Darrens math. It would keep us from another election for perhaps a full 4 years and it would piss of many of my fellow bloggers. A win win win so to speak.
    BUT for the sake of argument lets assume that CCs days are not just numbered but shes done like diner. Oh my what could she ever do? Well it seems the program director at NW fancies the boy girl format of Steele and Drex in the afternoon drive.
    Christy is a proven radio personality and one of her biggest detractors has been Jon Mcomb.
    NW should hire her back and the new ad slogan would be
    Mcomb and Clark in the morning
    Drex and Steele in the afternoon.

    A ratings winner if ever there was one.

  • 20 SB // May 13, 2017 at 1:45 am

    So you think the bc liberal party wants to play nice ?
    Im old school conservative and id give anyone but the corrupted bc libs a chance many green votes i know say the same if Weaver goes Liberal he may well kill the green future.
    My kids voted green to get rid of bcs libs do you really think they want liberal sellouts the greens may never get elected again liberals msy survive but with so much damage the ship sinks

  • 21 e.a.f. // May 13, 2017 at 3:39 am

    Given the name of the blog, the post is making sense. However, this is B.C. and the B.C. Lieberzal leader is Christy Clark.

    In my opinion Weaver is all about weaver and what works for him. He’s currently so full of himself its funny. In his interview with Mansbridge he listed the environment as his 4th item. For a green that is a tad rich.

    Weaver may not be able to deliver anything but his own vote in the Leg. The new MLA for Cowichan has done a tremendous amount of work in her riding and much of it against Christy and the b.c. leiberals. She may not be so easily swayed by any one except those who voted for her.

    The two other Green MLAs made it on first past the post. They may see environmental issues as the no. 1 issue.

    of course all of this may not matter if the b.c. lieberals have a majority on the re count but in the meantime the “negotiations” may reveal a great deal about the “principles” of those involved. it will be fun.

  • 22 BMCQ // May 13, 2017 at 6:52 am

    Harvey

    I agree with you that Clark will not Lead the Liberals into the next Election.

    That is of course that Election is forced within say 18 ~ 24 Months or less, there must be time for a Leadership Change to run its course.

    Many B.C. liberal Supporters I know hold the Premier, her strategy, her persona, her smugness, several other traits and in particular “The Smile” responsible for the loss of the Seats this Election Cycle.

    Of course the Liberals could and will in my opinion scrape by with a majority after the Absebtee and Re-Counts in Courtenay but we cannot deny much of what Kevin Falcon and others have pointed out about the mis-steps made by Clark.

    Having said that Media Outlets like CKNDP were not even close to honest, fair, and balanced in their Election Cycle Coverage.

    Clark (and her Government) was vilified at every opportunity on CKNDP between 5:30 AM and 6:00 PM and very seldom did the NDP Farm Team of On Air Hosts let the Truth get in the way of a good Story!

    Having said all of that I do agree with you it is time for a change in B.C. liberal Leadership.

    I have a feeling and it is only a guess the Liberal Government will survive and serve full Term but in about two years they will need to hold a Leadership Contest and Clark can then Fall Over Onto Her Sword.

    I mentioned on the last Thread that I could hear Diane Watts clearing her Throat.

    I believe Watts is the Person to take over Liberal Leadership and the Libs should begin to Set the Table for her to do just that within 24 months.

    Watts is a Proven Leader but just as important she is a Consensus Builder, a Great Leader, and She has Proven she can work with people from all Parties.

    Perhaps even more important Watts is a Great Listener to those on Both Sides of the Isle!
    ………
    And the Post Election Coverage of the Media?

    You would think that the Liberal Seat Count had gone from 77 to 42!

    Seems that Media is really pushing the Green Agenda at this point.

    Yes it is a Big News Story but personally I would like to know about the Track Record of Weaver and his Two newly Ekected Menbers,

    Will Media ever get onto that?

    Again, Weaver himself seems to be well equipped for the Job, I am so far impressed.

  • 23 DBW // May 13, 2017 at 7:08 am

    Hawgwash is right that we are getting ahead of ourselves. We don’t even know the final count and everything else is pure speculation – as fun as that is – on our part.

    I would like to clarify something Island Lookout said about party status being a constitutional issue. According to Wikipedia

    “Rules on official party status are not laws, but are internal rules governing the legislature. Therefore, the members of a legislature may, if they choose, pass a motion to dispense with the rules and grant official status to parties that would otherwise fail to qualify. There are many examples of this practice.”

    In 2001 Campbell didn’t give party status to the NDP because they only had two seats instead of the required four. Alberta on the other hand with the same threshold has given party status to two seaters several times.

    Besides allowing for more opportunity during question period the other advantage to party status is funding for research. Both are proportional to the number of seats.

    And one more comment for Island Lookout. What ideological box are you stuck in?

  • 24 Keith E. // May 13, 2017 at 7:50 am

    Might be longshots, but the NDP are asking for recounts in 3 ridings.

    http://www.timescolonist.com/b-c-election-ndp-asks-for-recounts-in-three-vancouver-area-ridings-1.19635428

  • 25 RIsaak // May 13, 2017 at 8:03 am

    On a purely historical, political, basis, the Greens propping up the BC Liberals is in fact political suicide. In Canadian history, whenever a 3rd place finisher sides with an incumbent, minority government, the next election is a huge reset followed by a long period of irrelevance. I doubt Dr.Weaver wishes to become the next footnote in political history. Besides his 2 fellow Green MLA’s are far more environmentally engaged and they will not tote the party line if the good Dr. chooses to prop up the Liberals.

    The notion of some that Comox will flip to Liberal once absentee ballots are tallied is nonsense. The Liberal candidate never was a popular CO among his charges, this will not turn out as some wish.

    I counted over 400 vehicles in 1 days advance polling in the Richmond/Queensborough riding at the one advance poll across the street from me. The turnout for advance polls in this riding will be far in excess of the 2000 or so per riding average.

    The 801 Liberal club is convened and the knives are being honed as I type.

    Just my .02 which no doubt some will disagree with. Going to be a long few days til we know the advance #’s.

  • 26 Hawgwash // May 13, 2017 at 9:21 am

    DBW, yes on “Status” and in fact it can be given on an individual basis, ie; Green one time only Grant of Status but, as I said, it has to come via a sitting and who knows when that might be.

    Dianne Watts shot at Liberal leadership was 2011 BC (Before Clark) not 2017 AD (After Defeat).

    I do believe she misses BC and the profile she enjoyed but, as a Neo Liberal?
    Hardly.
    Too much stink there.

  • 27 13 // May 13, 2017 at 9:48 am

    Negotiations that are taking place will be a closely guarded secret until the voter tally is final. It would be suicide for any of the three to go public with much solid info. Dr Weaver depending on the control he exercises over his brand spanking new 2 member caucus even has to be careful as he has his and the GPs future at stake. If he wants a future where the Green party can govern or oppose as Harvey points out alignment with the NDP is akin to throwing in the towel. Siding with the Liberals when it suits him might be his only choice. Only 11 more sleeps till the wheeling and dealing starts in earnest.
    BTW is Dr Weaver party leader by default or do the 3 of them get to “wote on it”

  • 28 Scotty on Denman // May 13, 2017 at 10:40 am

    I suppose you’re right for the time being, Harvey.

    It might be a petty point, but it’s the Governor who recognizes the government, no matter of what seat composition, not the party leaders. It’s a bit of a guess sometimes, and, not having recent precedent with a Green party balance, she will just have to trust whatever commitments to pass bills into law in a timely fashion—her primary duty—she’ll be presented with, whatever the final proportion of seats.

    The LG does have tradition as a guide: the party with the most seats, the BC Liberals, as far as we know, should get the nod to be a minority. But tradition can be excepted if she feels the timely passage of legislation would be more likely with the lesser party being backed by the Greens. There’s precedent, but usually a break from tradition needs to make sense somehow—an emergency of some kind, perhaps (which we don’t currently have, thank goodness). In any case, the LG isn’t required to give any reason for whatever her decision is. And, naturally, parliamentary confidence remains the ultimate acid test, the heart of the Westminster system which, IMHO, makes it superior to congressional systems—it keeps the government from sandbagging, Official Oppositions on their toes as potential governments-in-waiting, and refers back to the electorate any parliamentary impasse in relatively short order (in addition, the LG has other, exceptional powers, in case of emergent urgency, that ensure the government—in its broadest sense of bureaucracy, judiciary, assembly and citizenry—can act quickly if needs).

    Interesting times, for sure. Yes, of course the Greens aim to form government by themselves, one day, but I can’t see them doing that without first becoming Official Opposition. And that means getting more seats than either one of the (currently) big parties, a dynamic that doesn’t necessarily respect ideological spectrum. Their problem, given that their best move right now is to support the BC Liberals (if the LG assents), is to maintain and not diminish the electoral support they’ve achieved.

    The environment, private and public enterprises aside, the biggest problem with BC politics is ethical, meaning, again in my humble opinion, the BC Liberals have to go: they’re beyond redemption without owning up to their many transgressions (does that mean BC voters are politico-ethically immature? Yes, it does!). That means, in my view, the BC Liberals have to be disconnected from power completely (that is, not a minority government or coalition partner that can continue to prevent the kind forensic investigations needed to redeem our bad habits of governance—many of which were inaugurated by the BC Liberals themselves); the Greens thus find themselves in a fix by supporting the BC Liberals now if they want to build support and become Official Opposition across from an NDP government at some point later.

    Personally I think the risk of BCL-contamination and associative damnation is unavoidable—that is, the Greens should probably angle for an early election that disinfects them as much as possible after even the briefest dance with the devil.

    Even more fascinating is this effective test of pro-rep—that is, of a hung parliament such that pro-rep is most likely to result in electorally. It’s going to be pretty difficult to argue both for and against the disproportionate power the Greens have in balance, with only 17% of the so-called “popular vote.” Doubly so for the problem of representativeness when Weaver will be forced to compromise on many environmental issues if he wants to dance with Christy. (As I’ve long maintained: pro-rep is neither proportional nor representative.) I found it curious—and perhaps telling—that Horgan announced at the end of the campaign that BC had “voted for” pro-rep when he hadn’t mentioned it much during the contest. Was that simply to steal some of the Greens’ wind? It seemed, so quickly raised on the big night, a ready contingency, in the circumstance.

    (Response: I believe the “default” position of the LG role in a very close situation is to let the previous government TRY to govern. The Libs need not even have a formal coalition or agreement with the Greens; just a willingness by the Greens … if they get concessions etc …not to defeat the government …at least for a while. ho.)

  • 29 Sub-Boreal // May 13, 2017 at 11:49 am

    Consider another scenario: though it deprives them of government in the short run, it would be in the longer-term interest of the NDP to have the Greens initially align themselves with the Liberals. This would be extremely divisive within the Green base, and perhaps their caucus, and when it produced little in the way of results beyond ego gratification for Weaver, the NDP could go into the next campaign saying “told ya so”.

    (Response: Very interesting perspective … and even though I would understand the long-term strategy is Weaver propped up Clark, I suspect you’re right …the Greens themselves would be divided over the strategy. h.o)

  • 30 Emily // May 13, 2017 at 6:02 pm

    What will happen this new ‘government’ will last 12-18 months (even if minority or a razor thin one seat majority), during that time the libs will replace Clark (I hope not Falcon) then have an election and the libs will get a majority. For some reason not enough people willing to elect an NDP government. Is the NDP a damaged brand? I also would expect the legislature to sit the absolute bare minimum too.

    (Response: I think your analysis may prove totally correct…. as I wrote earlier, Christy will not fight another election, even if the recounts/absentee ballots give the Libs a majority. As for the NDP, unless they can come up with a charismatic leader who can instill passion in more voters, they too face a difficult challenge. What BC really needs, as I’ve written before, is a small “l” socially liberal but free enterprise party as an alternative: I believe a party like that would have wiped out the Liberals this recent election and also the past one. h.o)

  • 31 e.a.f. // May 13, 2017 at 6:45 pm

    Weaver makes on “bad” mistake he may no longer be the leader of the greens. The Greens could be a party of one and two environmental independents. Weaver is too full of himself to really take the long view of the party’s well being.

    he’s positively preening with glee and its funny.

  • 32 nonconfidencevote // May 13, 2017 at 7:40 pm

    @#30 Emily
    Agreed
    My prediction? Todd Stone

    @#31 e.a.f.
    Total agreement

  • 33 Harry lawson // May 13, 2017 at 8:11 pm

    As Mr Weaver is about to find out no matter what he does many will consider it wrong. All that time the greens fighting for relevance, now they are more relevant than ever .

  • 34 G. Barry Stewart // May 13, 2017 at 9:41 pm

    Martyn Brown has come up with the Greens and NDP “leaping forward” on mutual goals regarding the environment.

    Martyn can out-talk our longest posters here, so length warning!

    http://www.straight.com/news/909816/martyn-brown-leap-bc-naomi-klein-friends-should-support

  • 35 13 // May 14, 2017 at 7:41 am

    Only 2 of 5 requests for recounts are going ahead. I can only imagine the conspiracy theories that will spew forth if by some chance those two both favor the BC Libs.
    Im still having a difficult time coming to grips with my new neighborhood. The two Chilliwack ridings seem to be predominantly Liberal. I must live in a classless society. It would seems that BC is split into two very obvious sectors. The interior and rural areas that have decided to support the BC Liberals and the urban centers that support the NDP.
    You would almost think that the two ideologies would place both parties in the opposite sectors.
    Ms Watts if the Libs manage to hang on long enough for her to take over would likely be able to make large inroads into the urban support of the NDP

  • 36 Gene The Bean // May 14, 2017 at 8:44 am

    Ever had that moment when someone listened to your rant and then summed it up by saying all you said but in a way that you could say at church?

    That’s how I felt when I read #28 and Scotty said this “does that mean BC voters are politico-ethically immature? Yes, it does!”

    Thanks.

  • 37 hawgwash // May 14, 2017 at 12:51 pm

    Emily raised the question “Is the NDP a damaged brand?” I think it is but I also think the Liberal brand is as well and that is why I am adamant, Dianne Watts will not think about leading them.

    Weaver?
    Who is he?
    Does anyone really know?

    I think his two new (not too new) partners have more political street smarts than AJW and that is cause for a hernia before he is even introduced to any heavy lifting. Heavy lifting that I believe will expose his weaknesses, if not motives.

    Of interest to me now, is partly what the other crowd will be doing while in limbo, but more so, what some of the bureaucrats with a conscience (if there are any) might be contemplating.

    Talking at the right time, to the right people, about the right topic could greatly enhance ones credibility, if not their future.

  • 38 e.a.f. // May 14, 2017 at 1:26 pm

    Diane Watts as the leader of the B.C. Lieberals, in her dreams.

    Todd Stone has been campaigning for Christy’s job for years. Its been entertaining, but he doesn’t have the “stones” for the job. He’d also need another hair style.

    if the B.C. Lieberals are going to go with a new leader to solidify their position, they will need some one out side the party with a little zing to them and a lot of integrity. Now one person lacking both of those qualities is Mayor Moonbeam, but the city has produced two premiers.

    The B.C. Lieberals could do some thing outrageous and choose some one from the federal Liberal party.

  • 39 13 // May 14, 2017 at 3:19 pm

    If Diane Watts wont touch the BC Libs because of their “damaged brand” how would you explain her affiliation with the Harper Conservatives?
    If my memory serves me the posters on this blog were almost as anti Harper as they are anti Clark.
    Ms Watts would be closer to home. She would be a leader not a member of the opposition and would likely beat Horgan on name recognition alone , never mind her ability to govern effectively.
    Todd Stone??????? I can only imagine that the NDP would much rather face Todd than Diane.

  • 40 nonconfidencevote // May 14, 2017 at 5:56 pm

    @#39 “13″

    Todd Stone doesnt have the “baggage” that a Rich Coleman or a Stephanie Cadieux carries around…..
    A grinning circus monkey would get more votes than Christy Clark ( waaaaaait a minute….)
    So…..Yeah
    Todd Stone

  • 41 Harry lawson // May 14, 2017 at 7:04 pm

    Ms Clark has not yet publicly decided to take the proverbial walk in the snow , or accepted a lunch from the likes of Jenny Kwan.

    There will need to be a few months of polls and discussion as to what is best for the party.

    It is interesting both the NDP , the Greens and the Liberals are more fragile than ever.

  • 42 BMCQ // May 14, 2017 at 8:38 pm

    I can only imagine how vilified I would be if I was critical of Carole James or say Jenny Kwans Hairstyle.

    YIKES!

    The B.C. Liberals have much more in common with the Federal Conservwtives than the Justin Federal Liberals.

    I believe there is a very good chance that Mayor Gregor could run for the Federal Liberals in 3 years.

    You say,

    B.C. Liberal Voters are “Politico-Ethically Immature”?

    Why wouldn’t they be, they are after all made up of lower class Low Information Knuckle Draggers and Uneducated Morons are they not?
    All 42% of us.

    As to Bureaucrats contemplating anything?

    Would would they do, cut through the Type Writer Ribbon of all Soon to be 44 B.C. Liberal MLA Members so they could not carry out Government Business?

    I think not, I for one believe that the Bureaucracy in the Province of B.C. Is made up of dedicated, professional, hard working individuals that put the People and Province ahead of Politics and I believe they are beyond reproach.

    Even if happened to end up being a Minority Government of ant makeup I am certain the Bureaucracy would maintain their professionalism and they would guide the Elected MLA’s through what could be a “Mine Field” during the next several years.

    I am quite confident that our B.C. Bureaucrats are second to none.

  • 43 hawgwash // May 14, 2017 at 9:05 pm

    I would love to see a second to none bureaucrat, who got a promotion and double income raise, grow a pair and open up about Roderick MacIsaak.

    For starters.

  • 44 13 // May 14, 2017 at 9:14 pm

    All this talk of Todd Stone makes me think the NDP support team is afraid of the consequences of Ms Watts ending up as a BC Liberal.
    But enough of the BC Libs what about Horgan . Is he going to continue to lead with name recognition that is non existent. Eby is a name that might ring the bell of a few more NDPers. Sadly his strength would be in areas that the NDP are already doing okay. Perhaps even some other deserving MLA might want a shot at the leadership.

  • 45 nonconfidencevote // May 15, 2017 at 6:02 am

    @#42 BMCQ
    “the Bureaucracy in the Province of B.C. Is made up of dedicated, professional, hard working individuals that put the People and Province ahead of Politics……”
    *******

    Govt Bureaucracy and hard working are mutually exclusive of each other especially when referring to the employees of the BC govt..
    Just try dealing with any level of govt in a timely, efficient, professional manner.
    Impossible , unless, of course, you owe them money.

    As for typewriter ribbon…..cant remember the last time I saw a typewriter let alone a ribbon.

  • 46 nonconfidencevote // May 15, 2017 at 6:06 am

    @#44 “13″

    Afraid of Dianne Watts? Hardly.
    You keep dreaming the imposible dream 13. Watts would touch the Liberal snake pit of BC provincial politics with a 10ft barge pole…why would she when she’s got a cushy federal job paying oodles for doing nothing.

    Todd Stone is actually in the party now. Not some pie in the sky dream conjured up by an unlucky number…….
    Either way, I couldnt care less.
    Just so long as Christy Clark is gone….Donald Trump could be her replacement and I’d vote for him.

  • 47 Chuckstraight // May 15, 2017 at 7:19 am

    My observation is that the BC Liberals are corrupt. Why would anyone prop them up?

    (Response: For the reason that it not only gives them a chance to affect policy and legislation but it also raises substantially their own profile and chances to eventually take power. h.o.)

  • 48 DBW // May 15, 2017 at 7:28 am

    Sorry Harvey, sometimes I can’t help myself.

    While some people will characterize Liberal supporters as “politico-ethically immature”, others – well one – claims that young people are politically disengaged because “they seem more infatuated with Social Media, They are Gamers, they worry about the Kardashians”

    I guess we can argue which stereotype is more outrageous or whether we should be stereotyping at all.

    Back to the topic.

    No matter what the outcome of the count on the 22nd, the Liberals will be in a precarious position. Even with 44 seats, they have to have a speaker who will break any 43-43 tie. That means no illnesses, surgeries, highway closures etc for the government. It means the premier might have to show up more than two times a week.

    I’m no strategist but I suspect, Weaver will allow the Liberals a chance to govern without formal support. Weaver should make it clear what he wants to see in a throne speech. Big money out of politics being the obvious. The throne speech will be read. The NDP will likely oppose but the Greens will say “Let’s at least have a look at how things go.” Then the back door politicking begins.

    The Greens could easily support some kind of budget as long as they are getting some long term changes.

    I can see the government lasting a couple of years but I am not betting on anything.

  • 49 hawgwash // May 15, 2017 at 8:59 am

    People keep talking about propping up.
    What’s to prop up without a sitting legislature?

    The Liberals don’t like to be in the “toxic environment” of the House and getting their leadership in order is the first priority. So, put your dollars on a far away sitting and budget.

    LG has already announced a willingness to allow the Libs to “try.” What does that look like?

    The NDP will bark at heels and Green will flap in the breeze until the Liberals decide how things will be done.
    —————–
    We’re at the end of this posting so, I hope I can sneak this off topic in:

    Noncon 45;
    “Just try dealing with any level of govt in a timely, efficient, professional manner.”

    Probate Division of the BC Supreme Court is operated differently in every District on the whims of (often) unskilled labour, to the point one “Registrar” came to the job from a totally unrelated industry as the only applicant.

    Even lawyers, dealing with this stuff every day, are rolling the dice on whether routine government documents are accepted or rejected, based on which clerk is working that day.

  • 50 BMCQ // May 15, 2017 at 9:49 am

    NonCon – 45

    You know I have been very hard on many different Public Sector Unions, I am critical of many of the Benefits, Pensions, and the rest.

    Like many people you and I know I am also very critical of the far too many Public Sector Workers that take advantage of the System.

    h.o. has even mentioned what you describe a time or two.

    Having said that I honestly believe that the Vast Majority of Public Sector Workers in B.C. are everything I said about them including Honest, People of Strong Character and Integrity!

    I am even quite sure that many Public Sector Workers current and retired that Post and Read on this Blog are aware of the Bad Apples.

    Again, I am vey sure we have a very high percentage of Public Workers in this Province that have an impeccable work record.

    Hey, but what do I know I am a Lower Class Individual that Supporter the B.C. Liberal Party.

    I hope you realize the Type Writer Ribbon was an injection of humour on my part.

    If people actually thought you took the comment seriously they may mistake you for a B.C. Liberal Supporter.

    DBW – 48

    Believe it or not there is a difference between calling people disengaged and “Lower Class, Knuckle Dragging, Morons, and whatever else.

    Of course even if the Libs get Courtenay which I think they will things could be dicey for the Liberal Government.

    Especially for all of the reasons you have pointed out but I believe there will be a Huge Spot Light on all Provincial Politicians and what they produce for the people of B.C.

    Honestly I feel Media is making far too big a deal about Political Contributions, both the Libs and the NDP will do away with Corporate and Unions Contributions quickly.

    I also believe they could consider making Donations Legal from only individuals and no more than $ 100.00 a year. Yes that can be manipulated with other Family Members etc. but just the same it would reduce the problem.

    Perhaps it is time to do away with Public and Private Donations all together and implement Legislation where there is a Formula that Parties get Campaign Funding that is fair, depending on the Formula.

    Horgan passing the Buck when he says he will return Site “C” for Review.

    Even a B.C. Liberal Supporter can figure out that Site “C” would almost be complete by the time the Review Agency took between 2 and 3 Years to come to a Report.

    Come On, don’t you think that is just a little bit disingenuous?

    Same for Weaver, he will not get in the way of Site “C”.

    IMHO Weaver would be crazy to sign on the dotted line with either Party.

    You have it correct on your Paragraph that begins with

    “I’m no Strategist……”

  • 51 BMCQ // May 15, 2017 at 11:01 am

    I am hoping someone on this Blog could forward the attached to Green Leader Andrew Weaver.

    http://business.financialpost.com/diane-francis/dear-british-columbians-what-were-you-thinking-ndp-influenced-provinces-are-where-the-economy-goes-to-die

  • 52 Gini // May 15, 2017 at 11:12 am

    Best case scenario: One of Christy’s contrary clowns crosses the floor and joins the Green party, giving Weaver his official party status, and effectively putting an end to the Teflon Tarts dream of another majority government.

  • 53 noneck // May 15, 2017 at 12:46 pm

    BMCQ at #50 writes:

    “Perhaps it is time to do away with Public and Private Donations all together and implement Legislation where there is a Formula that Parties get Campaign Funding that is fair, depending on the Formula.”

    I can agree with this. Levelling the playing field in this manner may force politicians to put more emphasis on policy and less on photo ops.

  • 54 BMCQ // May 15, 2017 at 4:35 pm

    Neck – 53

    I am quite sure Elections B.C. Could come up with a suitable formula soon enough. There may already be something in place in Canada or another jurisdiction that would work.

    At the same time they could address other situations that see certain Unions or Business providing Workers or Organizers to any particularly Party.

    Then of course you will have a certain number of Citizens that do not want Tax Dollars going to Fund Election Campaigns so perhaps it is not quite as simple as I would like to think.

  • 55 G. Barry Stewart // May 15, 2017 at 9:52 pm

    BMCQ at 54; “Then of course you will have a certain number of Citizens that do not want Tax Dollars going to Fund Election Campaigns so perhaps it is not quite as simple as I would like to think.”

    If the majority of the legislature (thus the majority of voters) decide to fund election campaigns with tax money, just as they do roads and schools: to heck with the detractors. Don’t worry about them.

    Elections are a cornerstone of a democracy and funding them fairly is the cleanest way to do it. I’m glad we’re leaning the same way on this issue.

  • 56 BMCQ // May 16, 2017 at 9:41 am

    Barry – 53

    Good point about Elections being a Cornerstone of Democracy!

    I suppose in our current position the Libs and NDP would be Funded about the Equal Amount perhaps by Seat Count Total when the Writ is dropped. In other words a Party would be Granted Election Funding at so much per Seat held at Dissolution.

    What would the Greens have received is then the question. And what about now with 3?

    Then what about a New Party or if the Conservatives were to all of a sudden put forward 87 Candidates.

    I believe there is a Model out there we could use to come up with our own.

    Quite simply I just want to see a Balance and Fairness.

    Perhaps a Model that included Spending Limits, that might also work if I was included in any Elections B.C. Funding Guide Lines.

    Honestly I really do not see how any one could argue with what has been discussed here.

  • 57 13 // May 19, 2017 at 3:57 pm

    So we download the cost of campaign advertising onto the tax paying public in the name of democracy. But of course all taxes are in the name of democracy arent they? Well , I whole heartedly support democracy and I am 100 % against allowing tax payers to fund the campaign. Pick a spending limit and allow that amount to be spent. Also make sure that the teachers, nurses,paramedics, cant advertise on behalf of their union to support a party. Same for all of the Chambers of Commerce. Because if we go down any path that allows third parties to spend whatever they want then the game goes on .
    Also put a lid on the advertising prior to the writ being dropped. Do whatever it takes pass as many laws as you want just dont pass the costs onto the tax payers.

  • 58 BMCQ // May 20, 2017 at 7:04 am

    13 – 57

    Very interesting.

    Somewhere up the page I mentioned that some Tax Payers might not support their Hard Earned Tax Dollars being allocated to Funding Election Campaigns and here you are.

    You remind me that I am always pointing out that it is most important to control cost and size of Government and your argument here is sound.

    perhaps you have something when you call for Spending Limits from Parties. S. L. would/should be easy enough to Police and Control with today’s Technology but then what about Third Party Campaigning and Funding?

    This year it appears the Libs had over $12 Mill and used a portion of that. The NDP raised less but they had more assistance with Union Staff, I imagine that must be policed and balanced to ensure fairness.

    You may feel that it should be a Free for All and whoever raises as much as they can should go for it but I still feel that there should be some kind of controls on Spending to guarantee a more equal Playing Field regardless of which Party one might support.

    Then there is this question. I understand that the NDP and Greens are Broke or In Debt and the Libs are in possession if lots of Cash.

    What if due to circumstance an Election is required 6 Months from now? Is it fair to allow the Libs to fight that Elections with oodles of cash and watch the NDP an Greens Shoot Blanks?

    This is a very interesting subject and Elections B.C. should be looking at answers and a solution sooner than later.

    It appears that 13 and Barry might be neighbors, perhaps the two of you could get together and form an Advisory Committee to assist Elections B.C. put a Policy in place.

    I think this is important.

  • 59 DBW // May 20, 2017 at 8:30 am

    Funny how some threads continue without most of us noticing.

    13 – We do pay with out taxes. I never donate to a political party. During this past election, I spent several hours campaigning and several more writing on local social media sites but I won’t give a dime.

    Every year I do my income taxes, I get a 29% deduction for my donations to cancer, heart and stroke, diabetes, my overseas child, etc etc. yet I could get 75% deduction if I donated to a political party. I believe the maximum individual contribution is $1000. If I cut up my pie differently and gave to a political party at the expense of my other charities, the government would lose 750-290 = $460.

    I don’t know what that total loss would be but it is still taxpayer funded.

    I do find it interesting that no matter how we get there, BMCQ, 13, GBS, and DBW all agree that election spending needs fixing.

  • 60 13 // May 20, 2017 at 9:39 am

    It seems like a limit that is inclusive of all funding sources should work. The third party money must somehow be included in the limit. To ban third party spending would be like banning free speech.
    For that matter this whole discussion on campaign spending limits and fairness is treading very close to trampling on free speech. I wonder how we will legislate these limits and how we will police the laws. I wonder how we deal with any involvement from First Nations that might want to support a certain party.
    We might need very stiff penalties for anyone that tries to cheat up to and including forfeiting votes or even elected MLAs .
    Hopefully their is a working model that can be copied and implemented.

  • 61 BMCQ // May 20, 2017 at 10:48 pm

    It is very interesting that while we were having the conversation about Election Funding and Donations the Greens were about to be “Outed” themselves for NOT being quite so Squeky Clean when it comes to accepting Donations or as Holier than Thou Green Leader likes to call it “Big Money”!

    I wonder how Green and other Left of Centre Voters feel about Enviro Hero Dream Weaver now?

    And just how is it we spell “Hypocrite”?

    Talk about a loss of credibility!

    I must admit I am quite disappointed myself.

    Somehow I get the feeling that from now on when Enviro Hero Weaver and His Minions walk on by there will almost always be the lingering odor of Mercaptan following along behind them.

  • 62 13 // May 21, 2017 at 9:34 am

    As has been stated up the page “silence on this is deafening”.
    It seems that the guilt can be spread around in a democratic fashion.

  • 63 Crankypants // May 21, 2017 at 10:04 am

    Here’s a simple fix for election financing.

    Only allow registered voters to donate to any political party. This eliminates all unions and businesses. Maximum donation per year is $1,000.00.

    Ban third party advertising that promotes or slams any political by name. I doubt that would be seen as hindering free speech.

    I also think that the spending limits that are currently in force are much too generous. That would have to be addressed by the Legislature. Elections BC only polices the terms brought forth by the elected politicians.

  • 64 BMCQ // May 21, 2017 at 2:46 pm

    Cranky – 63

    We are getting closer.

    Registered Voters only – Yes

    Maximum Donation $1000.oo – Perhaps or less

    Ban Third Party Ads – I agree with that

    Spending Limits – Yes, I tend to agree

    What would stop Third Party backing of Registered Voters that could Donate the $1000.0o or whatever Max Dollar amount to various Parties.

    That would need to be tracked and regulated with Fines or other consequences for those that cheat.

    It will be interesting to see if there is much discussion about this in the coming months or years.

  • 65 Crankypants // May 21, 2017 at 8:30 pm

    The third party using a surrogate to donate to a political party would not get a receipt for the donation and therefore no tax deduction that accompanies it. There would have to be some big pot of gold at the end of the rainbow for them to possibly sway the vote to the party they champion.

    The reason I would like to see the allowable amount a political party can spend during an election is that we may actually get a larger focus on the candidates in all the ridings rather than the leaders.

  • 66 Crankypants // May 21, 2017 at 9:07 pm

    The other issue that seems to be getting a lot of attention is a possible change to proportional representation rather than first past the post. It seems that a number of the talking heads have come to the conclusion that the province would have to add about 1/3 more seats to accommodate this. If this is so then I don’t think it is a good deal for the taxpayer.

    I would prefer they adopt a hybrid of first past the post. Start with ranked ballots where a voter marks their first choice #1, second choice #2 etc. If a candidate gets more than 50% of the vote then the decision is made. If no one reaches this level then the candidate that got the least votes in that riding gets his ballots distributed to the second choices marked on them. If this produces someone that exceeds 50% then the counting is done. This procedure would continue until someone gets the magic number.

    This would guarantee that the winner in each riding had as close to majority support as possible and I suspect would translate to the winning party getting close if not over 50% support province wide.

    I believe proportional representation methods would make the focus on political party over candidate even more pronounced than it is now. We already send too many no-names to Victoria.

  • 67 BMCQ // May 21, 2017 at 10:05 pm

    Cranky – 65

    I get the point but it still begs the question, would a wealthy individual like George Soros as an example that does everything he can to influence an Election actually care about the Tax Deduction?

    Yes the Surrogate would be eligible but……..

    I must say, the comments on the Election Funding on this thread have proved to be very interesting.

    Some great suggestions.