The Official 2017 Provincial Election Thread

[6o4__boi]

Christy's been listening to some Kendrick

[yray]

Everybody enjoy your $15 mcdicks meals and $8 coffees.

[MrPhreak]

Originally Posted by MarkyMark

How else do you create change though? In your perfect world everyone who hated the Liberals would just not vote, and the Liberals would keep getting voted back in. Maybe now the Liberals can go back to the drawing board and find out why so many people were pissed off.

As much as I dislike the NDP, I actually have to agree with you on this point

The Liberals did ignore the housing market when they should have stepped in with calming measures. They also haven't done as much as I thought they should have when it comes to reducing the BC debt. In addition, they didn't end the practice of raiding ICBC and BC Hydro coffers that the NDP started, which has resulted in hiked rates on what is essentially a monopolized government service. Education and Health care have also taken a pretty big hit in funding over the years, all without really seeing the benefits to all of those savings anywhere else.

This Green-NDP alliance will at least give them an opportunity to reflect on some of their oversights on these important issues. Clark's dropping popularity is also something they need to rectify, selecting a new leader is critical for them to move forward.


Now realistically, if the Liberals had held on somehow or entered a power sharing deal with the Greens, disdain would have continued to grow and they would have been totally out in the next election. A majority NDP government for a full 4 year term would be a complete nightmare.

At least in this scenario, with the public so strongly divided, the NDP-Green alliance won't hold up long against intense scrutiny. The two parties will reach an impasse where they can no longer sacrifice their party values, and the agreement will likely fall apart on a critical confidence vote. My prediction is when this coalition falls apart in about a years time, the Liberals are going to walk out of it with a very strong majority, and hopefully some tweaks to the party platform that work better for residents of BC.

[Traum]

If the NDP and the Greens are willing to behave like sensible adults in a work environment, and focus on working on stuff where they share common grounds while postponing / delaying the items that they disagree on, I honestly don't see why they can't last more than 3 years as Weaver has suggested. There is a LOT of work to be done, and they share enough common ground that can at least negotiate (and hopefully compromise) on to make the government last.

Even if they can't work well together, it would be political suicide for at least either the NDP or the Greens (or perhaps both) to end the minority government in anything less than 2+ years. Voters tend to punish political parties that end parliament too early, and all parties involved know this. I suspect Weaver understand this concept quite well, and for Horgan, he has far more to lose than Weaver/Greens do, so he'd be stupid to not try hard and make this work.

[Mr.HappySilp]

Originally Posted by MarkyMark

So working 3 jobs and collecting pop bottles on top of that is what is expected of people now. Of course this comes from someone who did none of that and got a free ride until he saved up what he needed to. Sorry but if 3 jobs and fighting off hobo's to collect cans is where the average person is at at afford a place now, then maybe we do need the NDP to fuck everything up and reset this shit show.

Homeowners who bought before shit went crazy love to boast about how much they sacrificed to get where they are, where in reality if they were trying to get in the market now they would be just as fucked as everyone else.

Again that's your choice. You can just rent if you like. No one is pointing a gun to your head forcing you to buy. If you did read my post I clearly stated hie had 3 kids and a wife who only works part time. Maybe instead of having 3 kids and then decide to buy, have no kids first? Kids do cost a lot of money. May hold off having kids first?

Owing a house/apartment/townhomes is not a right is a privilege. If people want to own then they need to sacrifice something to get there. There are no free rides. I live with parents to save. Yea there are still sacrifices I have to make.

Take a min and think how many jobs/jobs sector/industry the directly or indirectly relying on the real estate market. That pops and how many people is going to lose their job. Sure the market is crush but how many people actually have a job to afford a place after? How many people actually save enough to jump into the market to buy?

[quasi]

Originally Posted by Mr.HappySilp

Again that's your choice. You can just rent if you like. No one is pointing a gun to your head forcing you to buy. If you did read my post I clearly stated hie had 3 kids and a wife who only works part time. Maybe instead of having 3 kids and then decide to buy, have no kids first? Kids do cost a lot of money. May hold off having kids first?

Owing a house/apartment/townhomes is not a right is a privilege. If people want to own then they need to sacrifice something to get there. There are no free rides. I live with parents to save. Yea there are still sacrifices I have to make.

This was my situation 13 years ago when my wife wanted a house, I gave her a choice. We could start a family and stay where we were or we could move and wait on starting a family until we were making more money. She chose the kid, down the rode once we were both making more money she got the house as well.

We chose to only have 1 kid for the same reason, kids are expensive!! Full time daycare from 1 to 10 wasn't cheap, we both work full time and always have. It's all about choices and timing, sometimes you have defer things you want until the time is right. I'd really love a new truck right now, I could afford it but it makes more financial sense to save up a bit more and either pay for it all at once or put most of the money down and take a small loan paying it off quick.

I'm all about living within my means. I have friends that all they care about is, can I make the minimum monthly payment? That's not me, I'm all about as little debt as possible. If it takes me years to save for something so be it.

[Tapioca]

I feel badly for those under 30 today. You definitely have to be more strategic about your life choices. The problem is that parenting and the education system haven't caught up with the times.

Anyway, I'm kind of eager to see how this government plays out. My prediction is that this lasts 18 months and that Christy Clark remains the Liberal Party leader and mounts a comeback.

[MarkyMark]

Originally Posted by Mr.HappySilp

Again that's your choice. You can just rent if you like. No one is pointing a gun to your head forcing you to buy. If you did read my post I clearly stated hie had 3 kids and a wife who only works part time. Maybe instead of having 3 kids and then decide to buy, have no kids first? Kids do cost a lot of money. May hold off having kids first?

Yeah because with the price of real estate going sky high rent is becoming more and more affordable here. And then you can get renovicted at any time, that is reassuring. I don't even have kids, I couldn't imagine that burden on top of all the other costs.

Owing a house/apartment/townhomes is not a right is a privilege. If people want to own then they need to sacrifice something to get there. There are no free rides. I live with parents to save. Yea there are still sacrifices I have to make.

Sorry but living with parents while saving your money is about as free of a ride as you can get, so excuse me if I don't take your hardships as serious as someone who didn't get that luxury.

[MarkyMark]

Originally Posted by quasi

This was my situation 13 years ago when my wife wanted a house, I gave her a choice. We could start a family and stay where we were or we could move and wait on starting a family until we were making more money. She chose the kid, down the rode once we were both making more money she got the house as well.

We chose to only have 1 kid for the same reason, kids are expensive!! Full time daycare from 1 to 10 wasn't cheap, we both work full time and always have. It's all about choices and timing, sometimes you have defer things you want until the time is right. I'd really love a new truck right now, I could afford it but it makes more financial sense to save up a bit more and either pay for it all at once or put most of the money down and take a small loan paying it off quick.

I'm all about living within my means. I have friends that all they care about is, can I make the minimum monthly payment? That's not me, I'm all about as little debt as possible. If it takes me years to save for something so be it.

Would you say your situation 13 years ago is anywhere near comparable to what's going on now though? Say if you guys were just starting out now, would what you have even be an option with today's prices?

[quasi]

Originally Posted by MarkyMark

Would you say your situation 13 years ago is anywhere near comparable to what's going on now though? Say if you guys were just starting out now, would what you have even be an option with today's prices?

Looking at what places are going for now I'd be in a townhouse and not a house.

[vitaminG]

Sounds to me like this coalition is headed off the rails.
I think weaver bet on the wrong horse here and will get punished if there's another election.

Mike Smyth: Weaver says NDP-Green alliance could be in trouble | The Province

MIKE SMYTH
More from Mike Smyth
Published: June 14, 2017
Updated: June 14, 2017 3:09 AM PDT
Filed Under:
The Province News Politics
Victoria, we have a problem.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Certainty to us meant that the speaker wasn’t going to be voting to pass each and every bill. I don’t know how they’re going to deal with that.”

Weaver, however, said the Greens still support their agreement with the NDP, the text of which said nothing about a Liberal being the speaker.

“We’re committed to following through on our agreement, but we want to see what they’re going to do with the speaker,” he said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Traum]

Personally, I don't see it as the coalition headed off the rails. As soon as the MLA numbers were finalized, all major media analysis has pointed this Speaker of the House issue as an expected thorn in the process.

For Horgan, Weaver, or any of their party members involved to think that they could lure a Liberals MLA into acting as the speaker, I'd say they are more than a bit naive. And with the way things are headed, if the minority government does get toppled, any reasonable follower of the provincial political news can easily and sensibly come up with a number of legitimate reasons as to why the votes in a re-election would swing one way or another.

If it does come down to yet another election in the near future, I'd suspect Horgan is going to try his best to smear the Liberals as the culprit. If they public buys his story, they will punish the Libs during the vote.

From the results of the election, what is crystal clear is that voters in this province are sick of Crusty and the Libs. The intensity of that disgust, however, is more difficult to gauge.

[adambomb]

I am not sick of Christy Clark or the Liberal party. I do not have confidence in John Horgan or any NDP MLA to lead our province. I also don't use childish names to describe people in public office.

Yes, it is difficult to the gauge level of frustration our citizens have with our provincial government. However, the use of childish names and innuendo makes it pretty easy to figure out which side people are on.

[Traum]

I make no effort in trying to hide my hatred towards "Christy Clark". In my eyes, she has been a disaster to our province, and her "leadership" is one of the primary reasons for our runaway home prices. Just as Adambomb has no confidence in Horgan or the NDP to lead our province, I have no confidence in any of the Liberals -- and especially not Christy Clark -- to lead our province again because she has already proven herself to be a failure.

Coining nicknames to name public figures may or may not be indicative of which side people or on. Pretending to be civil doesn't actually make someone intelligent either, esp when the said person has failed or refused to recognize how the votes have shifted massively from a Liberal majority to some sort of minority government.

[adambomb]

Home prices are still relatively affordable in other parts of the province. The employment opportunities are also abundant in those parts of BC and have the potential to increase with a Liberal government.

Those who feel the Liberals have been a disaster for BC tend to only live in Southern BC and have no regard for the needs of any other citizens outside Metro Vancouver.

Examples:
Citizens against the Site C dam, but have never set foot in Fort St. John. Citizens against the LNG pipeline, but have never set foot in Kitimat.

Please tell me more about how Christy has been a disaster without solely focusing on the issues that affect Metro Vancouver.

[westopher]

Originally Posted by yray

Everybody enjoy your $15 mcdicks meals and $8 coffees.

Just leverage your real estate "investments" and you'll figure it out.

[Traum]

Originally Posted by adambomb

Please tell me more about how Christy has been a disaster without solely focusing on the issues that affect Metro Vancouver.

I think that question would be better answered by BC voters as a whole, and the election results already speak for themselves on that one.

But if you want a concrete example of why Clark is a disaster for the entire province instead of just Metro Vancouver, you need to look no further than her current refusal to step down as premier. When Weaver announced that the Greens would support the NDP to form a minority government, the right thing for Clark to do for the entire province would have been to concede and step down. Instead, she is unnecessarily dragging things on, and delaying the proper function of our provincial government.

[yray]

Originally Posted by westopher

Just leverage your real estate "investments" and you'll figure it out.

You mean cars?

[MrPhreak]

Originally Posted by Traum

But if you want a concrete example of why Clark is a disaster for the entire province instead of just Metro Vancouver, you need to look no further than her current refusal to step down as premier.

I feel like you don't fully understand what is happening.

She is following the exact proper protocol in this situation, it has been commented on several times by political scientists that she is following exactly what a honorable premier in a minority government ethically should do.

If she wanted to string this out, she could delay it well into September, but she went ahead with a June 22 date and has basically said after her throne speech there will be a confidence vote where she expects to be defeated, and the government in waiting will be sworn in. That will change her role to be leader of the opposition, and likely a new leader will be elected after the dust has settled.

Ditto on the speaker. It is the duty of the government to appoint one, not the opposition. In this case, she expects to be defeated and become the opposition, so they will not be volunteering somebody to be the speaker. This is normal protocol, and not "playing games" as Weaver and Horgan were quoted this week saying. People suggesting that either think the public is so ignorant they won't know this, or they don't understand it themselves.

[6o4__boi]

Originally Posted by adambomb

Those who feel the Liberals have been a disaster for BC tend to only live in Southern BC and have no regard for the needs of any other citizens outside Metro Vancouver.

Examples:
Citizens against the Site C dam, but have never set foot in Fort St. John. Citizens against the LNG pipeline, but have never set foot in Kitimat.

Please tell me more about how Christy has been a disaster without solely focusing on the issues that affect Metro Vancouver.

BC population - 4.631 Million
Metro Vancouver - 2.463 Million
Fort St. John Population - 18k
Kitimat Population - 8k


So yeah you can excuse my slight disregard for issues outside of metro

Originally Posted by adambomb

Home prices are still relatively affordable in other parts of the province. The employment opportunities are also abundant in those parts of BC and have the potential to increase with a Liberal government. :

Lol.

[MG1]

Fort St. John has that many people?

Damn................


How much for a house there?

[Tapioca]

Originally Posted by 6o4__boi

BC population - 4.631 Million
Metro Vancouver - 2.463 Million
Fort St. John Population - 18k
Kitimat Population - 8k


So yeah you can excuse my slight disregard for issues outside of metro

Lol.

Those areas of the province are over-represented in the legislature due to population.

Any leader of a political party who ignores the concerns of these areas does so at his/her own peril.

Another way of looking at it is if you strangle the economy in those areas, people will leave and seek opportunities here in Metro Vancouver. Considering the craziness in the rental market and the strain on our existing infrastructure, do people here who already complain about high housing costs want to compete with more people for housing and jobs?

[Traum]

I am not at all suggesting whether Christy is following protocol (or not). Instead, I'm saying she is not doing the proper, prudent, and pragmatic thing. Given the current situation, the Liberals have no chance of forming the next functional government. So in my view, anything short of forfeiting premiership is wasting the province's time even if/when she is following formal protocol.

As suggested in a previous post of mine, NDP and the Greens would be quite naive to think that a Liberals MLA would be willing to step forward to become the Speaker of the House. Not only is it the duty of the government -- and not the opposition -- to appoint one as MrPhreak has pointed out, for a Liberal MLA to take up the position given the current seats distribution is the equivalent of committing political suicide. So I do not blame the Libs for not stepping up to take the Speaker position -- it is not their responsibility.

Originally Posted by MrPhreak

I feel like you don't fully understand what is happening.

She is following the exact proper protocol in this situation, it has been commented on several times by political scientists that she is following exactly what a honorable premier in a minority government ethically should do.

If she wanted to string this out, she could delay it well into September, but she went ahead with a June 22 date and has basically said after her throne speech there will be a confidence vote where she expects to be defeated, and the government in waiting will be sworn in. That will change her role to be leader of the opposition, and likely a new leader will be elected after the dust has settled.

Ditto on the speaker. It is the duty of the government to appoint one, not the opposition. In this case, she expects to be defeated and become the opposition, so they will not be volunteering somebody to be the speaker. This is normal protocol, and not "playing games" as Weaver and Horgan were quoted this week saying. People suggesting that either think the public is so ignorant they won't know this, or they don't understand it themselves.

[MrPhreak]

Originally Posted by Traum

I am not at all suggesting whether Christy is following protocol (or not). Instead, I'm saying she is not doing the proper, prudent, and pragmatic thing. Given the current situation, the Liberals have no chance of forming the next functional government. So in my view, anything short of forfeiting premiership is wasting the province's time even if/when she is following formal protocol.

As suggested in a previous post of mine, NDP and the Greens would be quite naive to think that a Liberals MLA would be willing to step forward to become the Speaker of the House. Not only is it the duty of the government -- and not the opposition -- to appoint one as MrPhreak has pointed out, for a Liberal MLA to take up the position given the current seats distribution is the equivalent of committing political suicide. So I do not blame the Libs for not stepping up to take the Speaker position -- it is not their responsibility.

I have seen it suggested by quite a few people that Clark should resign, and normally if you lose the election, that is generally what happens.

In this case, with all political bias aside, there are some pretty good reasons why that isn't happening.

First, they still technically won the most seats of any party, and that in itself entails a duty for them to do their due diligence in serving the people that voted for them. In this case, delivering a throne speech and testing the house is very reasonable.

Second, if Clark resigns, she has to give up her seat in the house, and with every seat in the house being critical to winning confidence votes, it is not in her parties interest, nor the people who voted for her, to weaken her parties influence in the house. Very likely at some point, one of the NDP or Green party people will be late, or sick, or on vacation.... and they will be able to bring the minority government down. By not resigning, she will become the leader of the opposition, and it will put the liberals in a stronger position.

Finally, this entire coalition is pretty fragile, and despite what Horgan and Weaver are saying, we may not even see it come together at all. The NDP have even issued a letter to their supporters that they should donate money in case of a sudden snap election in the next few months. What this comes down to is the Liberals need a leader ready to go in case of a snap election, or in case the Green-NDP thing falls apart even before the confidence vote. It is better if they can let the dust settle, and then try to pick a new leader afterwards.

[Traum]

Originally Posted by MrPhreak

What this comes down to is the Liberals need a leader ready to go in case of a snap election, or in case the Green-NDP thing falls apart even before the confidence vote. It is better if they can let the dust settle, and then try to pick a new leader afterwards.

Ugh... the Liberals needing a "leader" in case of a snap election... I cringe at the thought of her leading another Liberals election campaign, or worse yet, heading the provincial government for another term...

Surely if the Liberals replace her with someone else, they'd have a better chance at winning? IMO, there is a lot more negativity and animosity towards Christy Clark than there is towards the Libs.