• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Canadian PoliGAF - 42nd Parliament: Sunny Ways in Trudeaupia

Status
Not open for further replies.

sikkinixx

Member
Unless Horgan and Weaver can entice some Liberal backbencher to stand for the speakership (or cross the floor), the new coalition can't pass legislation on its own. Any major movement like electoral reform would require the Liberals' support.

The speaker votes to break a tie no?

The Speaker is neutral, responsible for making sure that all MLAs, no matter what party they belong to, are treated fairly and impartially. He or she votes only to break a tie.
https://www.leg.bc.ca/learn-about-us/speaker

Just means the speaker won't be able to attend caucus or make recommendations etc. And will have to break the tie every time. A pain in the ass but surely someone will get sick or die or step down or something in the way four years to toss things up anyway.
 

Ether_Snake

安安安安安安安安安安安安安安安
Can you say that with absolute 100% certainty though? Unless the answer is yes, its a cause for concern

Unless there was a big corruption scandal, which is very unlikely to materialize in time, yes I'm sure.

Worst comes to worst the Liberals and NDP form a coalition.
 
Unless there was a big corruption scandal, which is very unlikely to materialize in time, yes I'm sure.

Worst comes to worst the Liberals and NDP form a coalition.

Remember, in Canada you only need ~39% of the vote (technically less) to form a majority government. In the last election at the peak of the Conservative Party of Canada's unpopularity they hit 31.89% of the vote (losing only 7.73% from their majority)
 
will be pretty interesting to see what Clarke does next...

she strikes me as the go for broke type... watch her refuse to throw in the towel, drop a throne speech only for it to fail by 1 vote but use that to call a new election hhh
 

Sean C

Member
The speaker votes to break a tie no?
Yes, but how the speaker votes is based on precedent, not their own opinion. They vote to continue debate (so they could vote for a bill on its first or second reading) and, on final matters, for the status quo (so they could not vote for a bill on third reading).
 
My worry is not so much 2019's election, but the one after that (2024?)

The Conservative party will eventually win another election, and I'd prefer Scheer not to be leader when it happens.


When Scheer loses in 2019(I'm a Tory voter and I know he will), he is done. Then it will be someone different ideally someone like Michele Rempel or if he finally decides to go Federal Brad Wall and can take advantage of the inevitable Liberal corruption.
 

Pancake Mix

Copied someone else's pancake recipe
will be pretty interesting to see what Clarke does next...

she strikes me as the go for broke type... watch her refuse to throw in the towel, drop a throne speech only for it to fail by 1 vote but use that to call a new election hhh

You don't do that in a Westminster-styled parliament. She could show up and try, but after failing, the NDP would then be given a chance to command the confidence of the legislature before an election could be called.
 

lupinko

Member
Lol Harper can't catch a break, since Trump is going to reneg on the Cuban reconciliation that Obama, Pope Francis and yes even Harper worked on.

It was minor but Harper did help out.

A broken clock is right twice a day, tho Trump is just Opposite Day so he's always wrong.
 

lupinko

Member
Well, no. Women are required to wear mourning clothes when meeting the pope. Because reasons (antiquated patriarchal/misogyny bullshit).

Unless you mean his grim face?

Actually Catholic women of royal houses can wear white when meeting with the pope.

I know Justin is Catholic, and I guess Sophie too, but they're not actual royalty regardless of how much people joke about how Justin is the Canadian Emperor.
 
You don't do that in a Westminster-styled parliament. She could show up and try, but after failing, the NDP would then be given a chance to command the confidence of the legislature before an election could be called.
isn't that up to the lt. gov. tho? even before it fails as current premier, she could just dissolve government and request a new election -- lt. gov. decides (*just speaking technically; not that it's basically assumed on precedent) whether or not to grant it i thought

/edit/ it was cbc reiterate today but also what i read in maclean's ... that Clarke, similar to Harper porouging gov't, could try use the governor to dissolve gov't because technically as premier, the lt. gov. (in Maclean's mag word's) "[lt. gov. will take her counsel from the premier. If it isn't clear who the premier is, she will take her counsel from the legislature. If the legislature can't decide very soon, she will take her counsel from B.C. voters." Since technically because she still premier, I thought she still has the power to try dissolve legislature and use the lt. gov's convention of following premier's lead (same way gov. gen. followed Harper's lead) to have lt. gov. allow it.
 

firehawk12

Subete no aware
Remember, in Canada you only need ~39% of the vote (technically less) to form a majority government. In the last election at the peak of the Conservative Party of Canada's unpopularity they hit 31.89% of the vote (losing only 7.73% from their majority)
Vote percentages don't really matter though, since you don't even vote for a party here.
 

Sean C

Member
isn't that up to the lt. gov. tho? even before it fails as current premier, she could just dissolve government and request a new election -- lt. gov. decides (*just speaking technically; not that it's basically assumed on precedent) whether or not to grant it i thought
It is up to the Lieutenant Governor, but the LG wouldn't call another election unless satisfied that the new legislature was incapable of putting together a government.

Vote percentages don't really matter though, since you don't even vote for a party here.
People overwhelmingly vote based on party. Some MPs over time acquire additional cachet, and some candidates are so bad that they forfeit votes a more generic candidate might otherwise get, but by and large that's how it works.
 
When Scheer loses in 2019(I'm a Tory voter and I know he will), he is done. Then it will be someone different ideally someone like Michele Rempel or if he finally decides to go Federal Brad Wall and can take advantage of the inevitable Liberal corruption.

Have you seen Wall's poll numbers lately? He may be damaged goods by 2020. There's a reason why no premier has ever made the jump to be PM -- they accumulate too much baggage.

In Wall's case specifically, I also can't imagine a party going for back-to-back unilingual Saskatchewanians.

You don't do that in a Westminster-styled parliament. She could show up and try, but after failing, the NDP would then be given a chance to command the confidence of the legislature before an election could be called.

Enh...it's iffy. There's not a lot of precedent here. I don't know provincial political history very well, but on the federal level, the two precedents would be King-Byng (which essentially established that the Crown should listen to the advice of the PM/First Minister when the latter requests an election) and Harper's Prorogation Crisis (which confirmed that the crown listens to the PM/First Minister). In both of those cases, of course, a Speech from the Throne had been voted on, and in Harper's case, that was enough for him to say he had the confidence of the House. Obviously, Clark wouldn't have the Speech from the Throne passed, since the NDP & Greens have said they'll vote it down.

Provincially...the obvious precedent would be the 1985 Liberal-NDP accord. The crucial difference there, though, is that the Liberals and NDP combined had a clear majority of seats. The BC Greens/NDP won't. Beyond that, we're getting into Newfoundland's 1908 tie election (the government fell immediately, and they had another election). I know Sean C. awhile back had found a tied election somewhere at the provincial level, but I can't remember what it was so I can't check how that was resolved.

However this gets resolved, it's setting a new precedent, so you have to imagine the LG is consulting his counterparts across Canada and other constitutional experts.
 

firehawk12

Subete no aware
People overwhelmingly vote based on party. Some MPs over time acquire additional cachet, and some candidates are so bad that they forfeit votes a more generic candidate might otherwise get, but by and large that's how it works.
Sure, but my point is that 30% in one election can mean a completely different outcome in another election.

Maybe if we had electoral reform, 30% would mean you get 30% of the seats in parliament... but you know, it's nice to want things.
 
It is up to the Lieutenant Governor, but the LG wouldn't call another election unless satisfied that the new legislature was incapable of putting together a government.
Maclean's article (i'm not sure BTW so definitely correct me if I'm wrong) seemed to say that LG would follow the lead of premier before legislature if there was a clear existing premier (which Clark technically still is).

also if she did defer to legislature, she'd have to consider that clark still has the most seats and that it's a agreement (not a coalition?) that gives one side a 1 seat riding. there's no real precedent or automatic choice -- it's subjective based on whether she thinks Clark is clearly still premier, or if she defers to legislature ... how does she defer to legislature: based on the agreement with the most seats or leader with the plurality?

and isn't she sometimes called a harper apprentice or something lol couldn't she try avoid any votes in the first few weeks (since the longer she delays it, the more precedent for Lt. Gov. to allow her call a new election), and then taking inspiration form Harper's prorogue to NOT do a throne speech or budget to avoid a confidence failure and instead to try force the lt. gov. to allow her call a new election

clark's statement before hand pointed out her plurality so... who knows? maybe she will still try go scorched earth?
 

Sean C

Member
I know Sean C. awhile back had found a tied election somewhere at the provincial level, but I can't remember what it was so I can't check how that was resolved.
1867 Ontario general election, which was 40-40. It resulted in the Liberals and Conservatives forming an all-party coalition.

Maclean's article (i'm not sure BTW so definitely correct me if I'm wrong) seemed to say that LG would follow the lead of premier before legislature if there was a clear existing premier (which Clark technically still is).

also if she did defer to legislature, she'd have to consider that clark still has the most seats and that it's a agreement (not a coalition?) that gives one side a 1 seat riding. there's no real precedent or automatic choice -- it's subjective based on whether she thinks Clark is clearly still premier, or if she defers to legislature ... how does she defer to legislature: based on the agreement with the most seats or leader with the plurality?
Clark is still the premier. All premiers have the right to face a new legislature. But they are not entitled to a new election if they lose (that's why most defeated governments resign rather than do that; otherwise they'd have nothing to lose by just calling another vote). Granting the premier an election under those circumstances would essentially be giving the incumbent party the right to govern in perpetuity.

The clear precedent on this point is the 1985 Ontario election, where John Black Aird told Frank Miller upfront that he would not get a dissolution if he lost a confidence vote (which he did) immediately after.
 

seantos

Neo Member
Have you seen Wall's poll numbers lately? He may be damaged goods by 2020. There's a reason why no premier has ever made the jump to be PM -- they accumulate too much baggage.

In Wall's case specifically, I also can't imagine a party going for back-to-back unilingual Saskatchewanians.

The only real reason Wall's numbers are dropping at all are because he keeps threatening to sell 49% percent of the crown's. If he does he is likely done in Saskatchewan. If he would just stop talking about that I am sure his numbers would rebound substantially.

The NDP in Saskatchewan are still a mess and not really a viable alternative. If the NDP win in the next election it will simply be because people are tired of the Sask Party or they went through with selling off any portion of the crowns and not because people wanted to vote NDP. I really wish we could get a new party started in Saskatchewan because both the Liberal and PC parties are basically dead here. They need a rebrand.
 

Pancake Mix

Copied someone else's pancake recipe
isn't that up to the lt. gov. tho? even before it fails as current premier, she could just dissolve government and request a new election -- lt. gov. decides (*just speaking technically; not that it's basically assumed on precedent) whether or not to grant it i thought

/edit/ it was cbc reiterate today but also what i read in maclean's ... that Clarke, similar to Harper porouging gov't, could try use the governor to dissolve gov't because technically as premier, the lt. gov. (in Maclean's mag word's) "[lt. gov. will take her counsel from the premier. If it isn't clear who the premier is, she will take her counsel from the legislature. If the legislature can't decide very soon, she will take her counsel from B.C. voters." Since technically because she still premier, I thought she still has the power to try dissolve legislature and use the lt. gov's convention of following premier's lead (same way gov. gen. followed Harper's lead) to have lt. gov. allow it.

The bottom line is that the Lieutenant Governor will follow tradition. First session after an election and refusing to prorogue would probably be seen as the correct move in a Westminister-styled system. Let's say there's not enough precedent (because politicians have generally shown respect for institutions)...then..

..if that were to not happen, it needs to be codified so no lame duck pulls that move in the future. Any party that does that immediately after an election is also liable to lose a tonne of seats if you think about it anyway. Not like Harper where he was able to control the message with many voters, if it's literally the first thing a new legislature does after two other parties agree on a confidence and supply system prior to the legislature meeting for the first time, then voters will not be pleased.
 
yeah for sure, which is why I mentioned it was scorched earth before... even if it did work, she be likely destroying herself as much as the traditions of the system, and even more portray her as a power monger

which, also, would be in stark contrast to the fairly selfless actions of Weaver today IMO. I think for his own or Green Party ambitions, a Liberal partnership would have been better and I thought maybe he'd go that way, but to go with the NDP clearly shows he's a man of values, and rather do what's good for his 'ideals' rather than the status of his party or self. if Clark does anything other than just resign it'll be a pretty striking contrast to that.
 

firehawk12

Subete no aware
yeah for sure, which is why I mentioned it was scorched earth before... even if it did work, she be likely destroying herself as much as the traditions of the system, and even more portray her as a power monger

which, also, would be in stark contrast to the fairly selfless actions of Weaver today IMO. I think for his own or Green Party ambitions, a Liberal partnership would have been better and I thought maybe he'd go that way, but to go with the NDP clearly shows he's a man of values, and rather do what's good for his 'ideals' rather than the status of his party or self. if Clark does anything other than just resign it'll be a pretty striking contrast to that.

I still point to Nick Clegg as an example of how making a deal with the devil is never worth it. Hell, if you want to be pedantic, you could almost say Clegg is the reason why Cameron got put in a position to make Brexit happen in the first place.

The Green party would trade maybe a couple of years of being a junior partner, in which they would take the blame for everything that went wrong, and in the process undermine any belief in the party for god knows how long.

Hell, as much as everyone hates Corbyn, the LibDems are STILL a joke now and we're two elections from Clegg. lol

The NDP in Saskatchewan are still a mess and not really a viable alternative. If the NDP win in the next election it will simply be because people are tired of the Sask Party or they went through with selling off any portion of the crowns and not because people wanted to vote NDP. I really wish we could get a new party started in Saskatchewan because both the Liberal and PC parties are basically dead here. They need a rebrand.
Wouldn't the only alternative be a Wild Rose style, more right wing party?
 
Clark is still the premier. All premiers have the right to face a new legislature. But they are not entitled to a new election if they lose (that's why most defeated governments resign rather than do that; otherwise they'd have nothing to lose by just calling another vote). Granting the premier an election under those circumstances would essentially be giving the incumbent party the right to govern in perpetuity.

The clear precedent on this point is the 1985 Ontario election, where John Black Aird told Frank Miller upfront that he would not get a dissolution if he lost a confidence vote (which he did) immediately after.

The difference between 1985 Ontario and BC today is that the Liberals and NDP had a clear majority of seats, whereas the Greens and NDP don't.

The better precedent -- apart from 1908 Newfoundland -- is 1858 PEI, where the parties were so evenly matched they couldn't even elect a speaker. In that case, they dissolved Parliament, and had another election. Both Newfoundland and PEI happened pre-Confederation for the respective provinces, but one of the nice things about having a Westminster-style system is that precedent can be set anywhere they have it.

Of course, the NDP and Greens may be willing to have every tie broken by the Speaker, in which case... it'll still be unworkable, since tradition dictates that the Speaker only votes to continue debate, not that they decide the fate of the government on every single vote. I don't think there's any way this doesn't end with another election within the year.

The only real reason Wall's numbers are dropping at all are because he keeps threatening to sell 49% percent of the crown's. If he does he is likely done in Saskatchewan. If he would just stop talking about that I am sure his numbers would rebound substantially.

The NDP in Saskatchewan are still a mess and not really a viable alternative. If the NDP win in the next election it will simply be because people are tired of the Sask Party or they went through with selling off any portion of the crowns and not because people wanted to vote NDP. I really wish we could get a new party started in Saskatchewan because both the Liberal and PC parties are basically dead here. They need a rebrand.

The Saskatchewan Liberal and PC Parties are dead because they joined to form the Saskatchewan Party, no? In any case, by 2020 Wall will have been premier for 13 years. That's a long time for any leader If the CPC loses in 2019, Scheer would step aside soon after that election, which would leave Wall time to step aside and announce he's jumping to federal politics. Admittedly, that would screw over the Saskatchewan Party, since they'd only have a year to pick their own leader, and if they're still behind in the polls he would be seen as fleeing a sinking ship, but if CPC members still view him as the saviour, the timing would be doable.


In other Scheer news, not only is he a wannabe theocrat, he's also in tight with The Rebel:
Scheer’s campaign organization has a direct connection to The Rebel: campaign manager Hamish Marshall is listed as a director on the company’s federal incorporation records, which show its most recent annual general meeting was in February of this year.

Just what we needed: more Ezra Levant in Canadian politics.
 
Remember, in Canada you only need ~39% of the vote (technically less) to form a majority government. In the last election at the peak of the Conservative Party of Canada's unpopularity they hit 31.89% of the vote (losing only 7.73% from their majority)

A majority government means a majority of the votes in a majority of the ridings.
Having more than 50% of the vote would mean that there's only 2 parties of significance or the other parties are so weak you're practically in a dictatorship. With 60% of the vote, you could win all the seats.
 
So I had another thought which came on from reading about the BC minority Government. Why don't the houses Federally and Provincially allow MPs to vote on issues remotely? By allowing it, it would pretty much solve the issue of a party trying to force a vote on an issue when the other side is most weak. Someone could be sick or have family that is sick, a parent could be away on paternity leave, a leader could be away with an important meeting with a foreign dignitary, someone might have gotten screwed over on travel arrangements back to the capital.

The only reason I could think of is that they actually want MPs to show up to the houses, but they could solve that by putting a cap on the number of times they can vote remotely in a session, or only allow it on confidence votes, or if someone is sick or away for legitimate reasons.

It just seems like a weird oversite in the legislative process compared to just relying on a gentlemans agreement precedent of "if someone is sick, we'll sit one of our members out".
 
One of my coworkers is a card-carrying CPCer and was a staffer for them when they were in power. I asked her what she thought, and she just sighed, and said, "It could've been a lot worse, right?"

So I had another thought which came on from reading about the BC minority Government. Why don't the houses Federally and Provincially allow MPs to vote on issues remotely? By allowing it, it would pretty much solve the issue of a party trying to force a vote on an issue when the other side is most weak.

The only reason I could think of is that they actually want MPs to show up to the houses, but they could solve that by putting a cap on the number of times they can vote remotely in a session, or only allow it on confidence votes, or if someone is sick or away for legitimate reasons.

It just seems like a weird oversite in the legislative process compared to just relying on a gentlemans agreement precedent of "if someone is sick, we'll sit one of our members out"

One of the federal Liberals' proposed amendments to House business was that they allow electronic voting. Some people were furious about the proposed change, saying that it went against the spirit of Westminster democracy.

Now, that was just for saying MPs didn't have to stand up in the House of Commons anymore to cast their votes. How do you think it'd go over if any party proposed that the MPs/MPPs/MLAs didn't even need to be in the legislature?

I'm actually in favour of electronic voting in the House, but I think your suggestion would be going a little too far. It'd be too open to abuse (for the reasons you mentioned), but it would also a) open up questions about how to verify that it really was the MP voting, and b) take away the Opposition's ability to try and catch the government unaware/embarrass them on procedural votes (i.e. allowing MPs to vote outside the House would mean things like this wouldn't ever happen). The only benefit would be to the party in power, which is why I don't think it'll ever happen.
 

antibolo

Banned
Who cares about Sheer? He won't beat Trudeau so why waste your breath over him?

The worst that can happen is a minority Trudeau government due to some new NDP head.

After Brexit and Trump it kinda perplexes me that people would still claim that there are any absolute certainties in election results.
 
Vote percentages don't really matter though, since you don't even vote for a party here.

In practice however most people vote based on party. Very few people know about their own candidate. Thats not exactly the point I'm getting at however...

A majority government means a majority of the votes in a majority of the ridings.
Having more than 50% of the vote would mean that there's only 2 parties of significance or the other parties are so weak you're practically in a dictatorship. With 60% of the vote, you could win all the seats.

The point is that you don't need that many votes to get a majority government. In practice for Scheer to get power, he doesn't need to get at minimum 50% of the population to vote for him, rather he only needs 1/3 of the population to form a majority government. Mathematically, it is easier for him to form a majority government since the thresholds are lower under a FPTP election with 4+ candidates in every riding

You are right we can't know the actual percentage. it might be 36%, it might be 39%, it might be 42%. Hell might freeze over and we get a legitimate 50% or a paltry 25%, but in all chances it won't and will follow what happened the past couple elections and they'll only need ~39%. Mix that with the fact that there are people who will only vote Conservative because they are Conservative (yes you can make this argument for every party as well) while the Conservative candidate is completely against the overton window of the country and you have a terrifying recipe for disaster.

Hell, we thought people wouldn't vote Brexit and they did. We thought people wouldn't vote Trump and they did. Those items atleast had to get ~50% of people on board. The CPC needs to get even less to win a victory with their candidate.
 

maharg

idspispopd
Note: Trump didn't need nor get 50% of the vote. He didn't even get 50% of the 'relevant' votes. Neither major candidate achieved 50% of the vote in that election. Clinton got 48% and Trump got 46%.

US Presidential elections are not popular votes. They're districted elections of representatives who vote on the president. Basically a parliament that sits once.
 

Tiktaalik

Member
Greens/NDP scheduled a 2pm presser to present the details of the accord, and Clark has just announced that she's going to have a 130pm press conference. Drama incoming!

Considering the speaker issue the Green/NDP alliance is barely stable at all, so they're essentially asserting that the Liberals should accept that they lost and that the Liberals should either take their time in opposition with a Liberal speaker in place to allow for some stability, or risk voters' wrath by having another election.

In my opinion it is more likely than not that the Liberals would be blamed by voters and be punished if there is another immediate election.

Even if the Liberals just take the soon to be announced Green/NDP accord and make that their throne speech the Greens/NDP are still going to vote against it.
 

Tiktaalik

Member
Clark press conference over.

She's not going to resign.
She's going to test the confidence of the legislative assembly with a throne speech (probably will try to embarass the Greens with a left wing throne speech.)
She doesn't expect that she'll be successful.
She's not going to request the LT hold a new election.
 

Sean C

Member
Clark press conference over.

She's not going to resign.
She's going to test the confidence of the legislative assembly with a throne speech (probably will try to embarass the Greens with a left wing throne speech.)
She doesn't expect that she'll be successful.
She's not going to request the LT hold a new election.
That's kind of a weird announcement. She's basically just saying she's going to drag this out.
 

Tiktaalik

Member
Referendum on some form of PR for Fall 2018. Both parties will campaign in favour. There will be a process to figure out what form PR will be. Will leverage the work of the recent Federal process.
 

SRG01

Member
Clark press conference over.

She's not going to resign.
She's going to test the confidence of the legislative assembly with a throne speech (probably will try to embarass the Greens with a left wing throne speech.)
She doesn't expect that she'll be successful.
She's not going to request the LT hold a new election.

This was the way I thought it would go, TBQH. There was little to no chance that Clark would've declared a new election; she's not a moustache-twirling villain...
 

Vibranium

Banned
Clark press conference over.

She's not going to resign.
She's going to test the confidence of the legislative assembly with a throne speech (probably will try to embarass the Greens with a left wing throne speech.)
She doesn't expect that she'll be successful.
She's not going to request the LT hold a new election.

Sounds about right. Let's see how this goes.
 

Tiktaalik

Member
She's kinda wasting everyone's time. So now nothing will happen until June just so that Clark can score a few points when the Greens defeat her Throne speech, which will likely be overloaded with an absurd amount of goodies. Alternatively she could just resign.
 
But how will the Green-NDP alliance govern? Having an Opposition MP as Speaker isn't unprecedented (Milliken did it federally for Harper's first few years as PM), but it would make things pretty awkward for the governing party. The alternative -- choosing one of their own as Speaker -- creates a horrible precedent (Speakers aren't supposed to be the ones keeping a government in power), so I'm baffled as to how this doesn't end with immediate defeat of both parties, followed by an election within the year.
 

Tiktaalik

Member
There will be a Liberal speaker. I expect the current speaker will stay on the job.

Clark knows she lost. She'd likely lose worse if there was an election tomorrow. They need time to regroup.
 
For the sake of the party, I hope that the other 49% of the party will wake up and boot Scheer during a leadership review. The Rebel is essentially Trump-lite or even full alt-right now.

You'd have to watch and see whether the party starts to agree with him more or resist his extremism.

Otherwise we might have our very own Canadian version of Redumblicans.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom