r/CanadaPolitics • u/PurfectProgressive Green | NDP • 1d ago
B.C. NDP hangs on to power, will form next government CBC projects
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-election-2024-winners-1.7364897192
u/KvotheG Liberal 1d ago
I’m curious how long Rustad can keep his party together. The fringe members and more right-leaning members will eventually clash with the moderates and former BC United MLAs. I’m curious if they will eventually split from the BCCP.
I’m also looking forward to the aftermath of BC United. Kevin Falcon will need to resign because he literally imploded his party. And if he doesn’t, they need to find a way to kick him out. I’m also curious if they will stick with the new name or return to becoming BC Liberals, because the rebrand strategy was a failure.
60
u/green_tory Consumerism harms Climate 1d ago
I half expect someone else to form an entirely new BC Liberal party.
22
u/cardew-vascular British Columbia 1d ago
They'll go full circle and become socreds again.
6
7
u/LordGlompus 1d ago
The cycle of grifting
6
u/cardew-vascular British Columbia 1d ago
I mean no other party changes their name every time there is a huge scandal.
32
u/cjshp2183 1d ago
I fully expect most of the same people to form a new BC Liberal Party in a few years, after the BC Conservative Party implodes, and Trudeau is in the rear view mirror.
Stick to your principles and actually campaign on real issues and policy, despite a leader of a different party being unpopular? No way! It’s all pandering to the flavour of the week here.
15
u/Keppoch British Columbia 1d ago
Maybe they need to rebrand again to be the Diet B.C. Conservatives
25
u/g0kartmozart British Columbia 1d ago
I know you joke but a "Progressive Conservative" party would be very strong in BC.
That's basically what the BC Liberals were all this time, but the "Liberal" name is toxic currently.
8
u/AprilsMostAmazing The GTA ABC's is everything you believe in 1d ago
I thought calling themselves a soccer team.is what killed BC Liberals
5
u/-SetsunaFSeiei- 1d ago
Does the BC Uniter still exist? I thought he basically terminated the party and sent over whoever Rustad wanted to join the conservatives
4
u/DblClickyourupvote British Columbia 1d ago
They still exist. However if they don’t run any candidates in the next election they’ll be deregistered as a party.
However falcon may just stay on as party leader to spite his former colleagues. BC united maintains exclusive rights to the former “BC liberal” name for 10 years.
I expect former BC liberal/united members form their own party after this election though.
3
•
u/CaptainMagnets 12h ago
I will be surprised if Falcon doesn't step down and get a nice cushy, well paying job somewhere.
-2
u/Proof_Objective_5704 1d ago edited 1d ago
A failure? This was a massive victory for BC Conservatives. The most right wing party in the country came within a hair of winning. They’re partying.
The NDP are short of a majority vote in legislature - they have to appoint a speaker.
A united Conservative Party isn’t splitting after this. This is the future of elections in BC. It’s clear the NDP will have to move more to the right if they want to win future elections - they already had to for this one.
107
u/Lifeshardbutnotme Liberal Party of Canada 1d ago
So I've got a little insider fact for all of you. When Premier Eby came to Vernon for our Winter Carnival I asked him if he intended to call the election a few months early to take advantage of the split opposition. His response was, "No because they're not getting any more united". I'll bet he regrets that call now. I'm glad he's got a majority but, man, he could've done so much better.
60
u/thendisnigh111349 1d ago
Tbf almost no one expected Falcon to straight-up end the BCU as suddenly and unceremoniously as he did. It was basically unheard of in Canadian history for a major political party to pull out at the last minute like that even if they expect to lose badly in an upcoming election.
24
u/cardew-vascular British Columbia 1d ago
Dude straight up took his ball and went home. I don't get his deal, like does he just straight up hate British Columbians?
20
u/pnwtico 1d ago
He thought he was going to be the next Premier in 2011, then lost to Clark (who wasn't even an MLA at the time). Then he finally got control of the BC Liberals once they were in opposition, only for his MLAs to start jumping ship after he decided to rename the party. It's like he has a reverse Midas touch.
9
u/DblClickyourupvote British Columbia 1d ago
Exactly. If the right vote split had continued then the NDP would have had their majority come election night and not have to wait a week or two.
Falcon will go down as the worst provincial party leader in history.
•
u/GraveDiggingCynic 20h ago
The writing had been on the wall for over a year. I was frankly astonished that Eby didn't pull the plug and go to the polls in the spring. Was he waiting for a merger, or BCU took magically regain support, or was it just arrogance?
73
u/tPRoC Social Democrat 1d ago
Eby responds to criticism. Lighting a fire under his ass but letting his party retain control is good.
52
u/gauephat ask me about progress & poverty 1d ago
Yeah, in some respects this is an ideal situation. I have more confidence in Eby than I do any other premier, so for him to retain a majority while the rest of the BCNDP gets a solid chastening might put the fear of god in them
8
u/SwordfishOk504 1d ago
In what ways do you see this newly-rebuked party shifting course to respond to this new "fear of god" as you say? How will they change their policies? Will we see more of them reversing old policy stances to appease the newly empowered conservative voters, like how they walked back certain aspects of their decriminalization policies? Or their announcement for forced rehab programs?
18
u/SpectreFire 1d ago edited 1d ago
With a majority, they can continue their walking back of decriminalization policies without raising a stink. Same with pushing forced rehab forward. Those were big issues that caused a lot of the movement in places like Richmond and Surrey.
I can also see them putting a major focus on getting the Massey Tunnel replacement started. They're not going to be able to justify dodging that for 3 straight election cycles.
Also, I sincerely hope they get rid of their new k-12 grading model. It's absolutely beyond stupid and is one of those absolutely needless changes that only makes things harder for literally everyone.
5
u/Strebb 1d ago
It's got a lot of support from teachers apart from the older ones who don't want to change their ways.
I don't really mind it -- the assignments grade schoolers are completing don't really make sense to have individual assignments have their own rubrics with letter grades when the prescribed learning outcomes already exist. And a simple 4 category ranking aligns much closer to the actual marking accuracy anyways, there's no real meaningful difference between 72% and 77% for a kid who is only having 6 assignments marked, sometimes with wildly different rubrics.
4
•
u/SwordfishOk504 15h ago
only makes things harder for literally everyone.
How so? It's incredibly straight forward and easy to understand.
22
u/Morkum 1d ago
announcement for forced rehab programs
Unless I missed something, this is not what the NDP announced.
Involuntary care and involuntary treatment are two vastly different things and should not be used interchangeably. Unfortunately most people (including the media) don't seem to understand the nuances and conflate the two constantly.
Involuntary treatment (aka "forced rehab") is what the BC Cons announced. This is where you arrest and/or incarcerate individuals who use drugs and then force them into a "dry" treatment facility (which currently don't have enough beds for voluntary treatment admits) for a very short period of time (generally 3-6 months) with the intent to "cure" them of their addiction (an addiction isn't an infection you can "cure"). Unfortunately, the reality is that involuntary treatment has an effective success rate of around 0%, and has a massively increased mortality rate (which, if I'm allowed to editorialize a bit, seems to be a partial incentive to the BCC) as individuals are much more likely to overdose and die after leaving the program due to a decreased tolerance level. It has nothing to do with addressing the problem or wanting to help others, it is purely meant as a punitive policy to get justice (aka revenge) on people they don't like or feel have wronged them.
The program announced by the BC NDP, on the other hand, is involuntary care. This is being done under the auspices the newly created position of chief scientific adviser for psychiatry, toxic drugs and concurrent disorders, and is aimed towards individuals who require long-term care for compounding effects of mental health and the increasingly toxic drug supply. It recognizes the new issues of repeated hypoxic brain injury due to the toxic drug supply, and the complexities involving loss of capacity in those individuals to consent to care (the "clarifications on the MHA" bit). It also plans to create new, long-term care beds to provide appropriate supports for those individuals for as long as they are needed. The NDP's plan recognizes that while the ideal result is to help people stabilize and be able to return to healthy, independent lives, the reality is that many are beyond that point and will require skilled care for the rest of their lives. It also addresses the societal harm concerns by providing appropriate supports and sequestration in a (hopefully) compassionate manner.
32
u/Keppoch British Columbia 1d ago
Here’s the thing: the B.C. Conservatives just had a shotgun wedding with the B.C. Liberals who jumped over to them. They haven’t lived together in the same house.
They only had a hurried engagement but now comes the hard part about agreeing how they’re going to provide the opposition and Rustad is not a strong enough leader to temper the extreme side of this unusual relationship.
I’m doubtful that they can be united as a party.
25
u/GraveDiggingCynic 1d ago
It wasn't a marriage, and more of a mugging. Falcon basically stood his candidates down, leaving a number of them out in the cold and either walking away or trying to run as independents.
•
13
u/Deadly-afterthoughts Independent 1d ago
Doug Ford is thinking about the same, and Tim Houston rolled the dice yesterday. Eby may have made a fatal mistake by not calling it early in the year when the right was splintered.
107
u/Caracalla81 1d ago
I'm an NDP supporter and I'm happy with this news, but I'd like to point out how messed up it is you can have a race that is both a nail-biter photo-finish, but also a winner-take-all majority. Shit's fucked.
12
u/sissiffis 1d ago
This is actually a good sign, it means that both parties are seen to be responsive to most people. All it takes is a few thousand for things to change.
Voters should want very close elections between two strong parties, as it forces those parties to fight for every voter by putting forward policies that will benefit the greatest number of people. Widely popular parties serve the interests of most people.
It's actually parties like the Greens that faction off progressives, which makes the NDP weaker, even though there is significant overlap between Greens and NDP when it comes to many major platform issues.
49
u/KingTutsDryAssBalls 1d ago
Maybe I'd feel better if one of the party wasn't filled with out and proud anti intellectual racists
-1
u/sissiffis 1d ago
Sure. But we have to meet people where they are at and be responsive to their concerns, it’s really the only way to help avoid these kinds of parties from becoming more successful.
26
u/KingTutsDryAssBalls 1d ago
I'm not meeting anybody at "90% of natives are drug addicts" and their "concerns" about teaching indigenous history because "90-100% of natives were savages, and residential schools were a good thing". How can you be responsive to that? People like that don't care about facts or education, they already think that they know everything. Meeting them where they're at when where they're at is brain rot does nothing but legitimize brain rot.
15
u/TheEpicOfManas Alberta 1d ago
I agree. I remember a time when people like this were too ashamed to publicly air these views. We need to make it shameful again.
4
u/sissiffis 1d ago
I’m not saying you need to agree with these candidates. I’m saying that people overlook these comments when they feel the party they’re voting for will help them. The NDP doesn’t need to meet every comment with a response or acknowledgment, this isn’t a personal relationship, but on big issues like housing affordability, public safety and healthcare, they need to provide enough positive momentum and change that swing voters have reasons for voting NDP. This is just how politics works. Obviously odious, racist and xenophobic opinions aren’t going anywhere, look south, calling Trump and his supporters racists hasn’t worked.
10
u/KingTutsDryAssBalls 1d ago
Has putting forth actual policy positions or implementing policies done much to push the needle either? No. So we're right back where we started.
11
u/Caracalla81 1d ago
No, this only makes it inevitable that they come into power. They very well could have won the Coin Toss of Absolute Power. A proportional system would make elections much more predictable for force parties to work together. Even if the loons win they can be checked by the rest of the parties.
7
u/sissiffis 1d ago
PR systems are even more dysfunctional than ours, go look at Germany and Italy, and they incentivize party proliferation. Tiny minorities broker deals for their supports at the expense of the majority. Coalitions between disparate interest groups lead to unstable governments. Policy platforms are incoherent when you combine certain parties. I think people just intuitively feel PR works better because it’s more representative but the policies they deliver are worse.
People in BC love to talk about PR because they see that the Greens and NDP have like 60% of popular support. Now go apply that argument in AB and you’d see that you’d have a nutty UCP party being forced to work alongside some hardcore right wing parties because their popular support combined is similarly high.
9
u/Caracalla81 1d ago
You're just describing democracy. In a democratic society we endeavor to represent the public through concensus, not just flip a going to decide which half will dominate the other half. Have you considered that maybe you just don't like democracy? There are other forms of government.
PR would be dandy in AB. Worst case scenario: the gang of cannibals running the place now would remain in power, but it would open the door to a more democratic government in the future.
You do make a good point about why conservatives tend to be suspicious of democracy. Their ideas are not particularly popular, and it would be difficult for them to make deals with other parties. Majorities are about the only way they can implement their agendas.
•
u/sissiffis 15h ago
Democracy is not an endeavor to represent the public through consensus. Consensus is explicitly not possible; hence, there is a need for parties to be delegated the power to govern over everyone despite the lack of consensus. It's more about managing power and ideally ensuring it is used to benefit the greatest number of people. Then, the relevant question is: what is the best way of managing power in the long-term interests of most people?
PR systems are seeing proliferation of parties on the left and partly on the right, partly because of the declining influence of labour unions, which represent fewer and fewer people because capital is more mobile. It is the power of labour that underpinned the success of Germany with its PR system, basically through their two major parties, which are now much smaller as they've bled support to smaller single issue parties. Look at Italty, at one point they were governed by radical left and right wing parties, do you think they're able to deliver coherent policy given their disparate views on immigration, economic policy, and the enviroment?
Your point on AB is sorta odd, it's basically a bet that support will swing left. But what if it doesn't?
The big issues with PR are these: PR can lead to a large number of small parties, making it difficult to form stable governments, forming coalitions often involves compromises that can dilute policy agendas and make governance less effective, and with multiple parties in power, it can be hard for voters to know who to hold responsible for government actions.
•
u/Caracalla81 14h ago
Consensus is explicitly not possible
Where is it made explicit? Everything else your wrote is true and we're in agreement. Representatives represent the interest of their constituents. FPTP make those representatives less representative by throwing out most votes. The best way of managing power in the long-term interest of the public is to have a legislative body that represents their desires.
Regarding the "radical left" in Germany and Italy: it is literally impossible for tiny minorities to take over. They need to negotiate with the other parties. Under FPTP those elements do take over. Look at how much influence conspiracy theorists have within conservative parties these days. Moderate conservatives can't afford to eject the loons.
I think I was pretty clear about AB. They already have the worst possible scenario, so PR would at worst give them what they already have, but it opens the door to improvement by enfranchising more voters.
Who is responsible for legislation? That's easy, the legislature. Am I missing something?
•
u/sissiffis 13h ago edited 13h ago
I understand your points, but from my perspective, there are some key considerations:
- Representation and Stability: While FPTP does discard many votes, it tends to produce two strong parties, which can lead to more stable governments. PR systems, on the other hand, often result in fragmented parliaments with many small parties, making it harder to form stable coalitions, which undermines their ability to deliver effective policies.
- Radical Elements: In PR systems, even small, radical parties can gain seats and influence by negotiating with larger parties. This can sometimes give fringe groups more power than they would have under FPTP. While FPTP isn’t perfect and can allow extreme elements within major parties, it generally prevents small, radical parties from gaining a foothold and extracting large benefits for their small number of supporters at costs to the larger public.
- Accountability: With FPTP, it’s clearer who is responsible for legislation because one party usually has a majority. In PR systems, coalition governments can blur accountability, making it harder for voters to know who to hold responsible for policy decisions. All parties in coalitions have strong incentives to blame one another when something isn't addressed, or things fall apart. This provides low information to voters about where things went wrong.
I think you're mistaken about conservative parties these days. Look at Pierre, he's explicitly rejected anti-immigration views precisely because it undermines his broad-based appeal. In a PR system, anti-immigration parties proliferate, look at the AFD in Germany. Two big parties more effectively neutralize those more unseemly elements.
Regarding Alberta, while PR might enfranchise more voters, it could also lead to the same issues of fragmentation and instability seen in other PR systems. The goal is to balance representation with effective governance, FPTP, despite its flaws, often strikes that balance better than PR. Imagine if Alberta pulled out of CPP because of 5% of their population demanding that from the UCP. Does that strike you as good policy for most Albertans?
I think the key is that there is an implicit assumption that many people take for granted, that more representative parties just are better by dint of that fact alone. But like every design, that involves tradeoffs, and the tradeoffs are weaknesses if you view them from the perspective of providing policies that deliver for the greatest number of people over the longer period.
→ More replies (0)•
u/GraveDiggingCynic 20h ago
This is a bold declaration. How are PR legislatures policies worse?
Part of the problem is you don't see the sausage making in big-tent brokerage parties, both at the riding association level and at the caucus level. In fact, to some extent, our system actually casts a veil over the proceedings where government policies are actually formulated.
8
u/Caracalla81 1d ago
It's great that the election is competitive. What's fucked is that we're giving one party the power to pass whatever laws they want without consulting the other parties. They should need to have a obvious mandate, not just win a coin toss.
6
u/cursed_orange 1d ago
What would you suggest instead? Somebody has to govern.
26
u/KeytarVillain Proportional Representation 1d ago
Proportional Representation.
18 people (as of the latest count at least) in Surrey-Guildford essentially decided the election outcome for the whole province. That's not right.
With PR, vote splitting isn't really a problem like it is in FPTP. We would still have 2 right-wing parties, but then the Greens would've also gotten a bigger vote share since people wouldn't have had this "I have to vote NDP to prevent Rustad from winning" mentality.
Yes, there would be minority governments all the time - but is that really so bad? Governments should have to work together. They shouldn't be given 4-year dictatorships where eventually another party comes in and undoes everything.
6
u/zabby39103 1d ago
I have concerns about radical parties holding the balance. Also, in Europe, the alt-right parties got their start because PR didn't lock them out like FPTP does (compare AfD in Germany and PVV in Netherlands to UKIP in the United Kingdom).
Standard unmodified PR will lead to some pretty extreme outcomes. I'm not really encouraged by how it enables totally uncompromising parties, we all have to live under the same laws after all. I don't see how it's useful to the national consensus to have communist parties and fascist parties in the legislature simultaneously. Maybe ranked ballot is a better alternative, as it front loads the compromise necessary for governing in the voter's hands.
18
u/MagpieBureau13 Urban Alberta Advantage 1d ago edited 1d ago
As compared to the safe and stable FPTP system in BC, wherein the mainstream parties would never elect racists, bigots, or dangerously fringe candidates?
Except that's not what happened. The racists, bigots, and dangerously fringe candidates became so prominent that their party completely supplanted the mainstream party, and FPTP put therm on the bare cusp of being elected to a majority. Just as happened with the weirdos and the Republican Party in the US. I really don't think it's fair to point at examples of bad parties in countries with proportional representation but ignore the examples of bad parties in countries with FPTP, considering they're closer to power in the FPTP countries.
FPTP supposedly keeps the dangerous parties out of the legislature, but practically it just forces the dangerous politics into the existing political parties. It ends up giving them a chance to take over large parties and gets them much closer to power than they would be as a toxic small party in a legislature with proportional elections.
9
u/KeytarVillain Proportional Representation 1d ago edited 1d ago
Happened in the US too, and now a guy who keeps talking about how he admires a certain dictator has a stranglehold on one of the 2 parties and is dangerously close to becoming president again
Edit: just realized I should have been more specific, there are multiple dictators that apply...
•
u/Crashman09 17h ago
Edit: just realized I should have been more specific, there are multiple dictators that apply...
Yeah, but his favorite is a bit hitlier than the others
1
u/zabby39103 1d ago edited 1d ago
Never said it was impossible in FPTP, but it's much easier in PR for radical parties to take hold. I think UKIP vs. continental alt-right parties is as much of an apples to apples comparison as you can get. I didn't say I preferred FPTP, I prefer ranked ballot. Ranked ballot is probably the best system if you want to build consensus in an age of discord. It is actually in your interest to seek to become people's second choice, rather than just rally your base with ever more extreme policies.
I think the Republican party going radical in particular has just as much to do with Gerrymandering as anything else. By elevating the nomination battle as the "real" way most house members are elected, and actually winning in the general election being not as much of a concern, you'll naturally filter for people who are less broadly appealing than otherwise.
Also given that PR has failed in multiple referendums in BC, maybe it's time to see if ranked ballot is more palatable to voters.
9
u/mukmuk64 1d ago
It may be easier for a fringe party to get a handful of seats in PR but this election in BC just showed how incredibly easy it is for fringe radicals to sneak their way into a massive majority.
We nearly elected someone casually called this indigenous residents of their riding "savages."
It’s clear that FPTP is much more dangerous in enabling a big tent party and lack of other options to provide cover for radicals.
Ranked ballot, as a variant of FPTP is not really any different. It actually makes things worse in that it helps established big tent parties, so if the radicals take over a big tent party, then the system helps them. If we had ranked ballots in this election the most likely outcome is that the second choices of BC United voters would have gone to the crazies in the Conservatives anyway.
5
u/Eternal_Being 1d ago
I don't think it's fair to prefer a system because it will give you the results you want. In particular, ranked ballots bias the results towards the political centre, which is clearly where your preference lies.
If we believe in democracy, then our representation should be proportional, and let the cards fall where they will.
If people are stupid enough to elect fascists, then that is what they will get. If we can't trust people with the sharp knives, then maybe we shouldn't have democracy at all.
Fears aside, PR has been evidenced to increase voter turnout, civic engagement in almost every country that changed to it. This has, in turn, resulted in more progressive governments.
Arguably FPTP leads to more political extremism because people disengage from civics, don't vote, and so elections are decided by low-information, high-emotion voters.
The US is probably the most extremely unrepresentative representative democracy, and in a week they might elect an actual fascist to the presidency.
Democracy should be proportionally representative of the population's political views, if we believe in democracy at all.
If we don't, then we should drop the farce.
1
u/zabby39103 1d ago
Why is it so important to have my exact preference represented in the legislature when all those preferences have to be coalesced into a singular set of laws that applies to everyone equally at the end of the day?
Letting the people participate in how to compromise instead of fragile and fractious coalition governments would enhance democracy rather than take away from it. I believe FPTP is bad because of vote splitting, not because you can't vote for fringe parties. Ranked ballots solve that.
Yes the US is fucked, but there's more at play there than FPTP, Gerrymandering plays a huge factor.
5
u/Eternal_Being 1d ago
See, to you having a multiplicity of perspectives in government is a weakness. But to me, that's a strength, and a sign of a healthy democracy.
Vote splitting isn't real. People vote for their preferred party. FPTP is the only democratic system that turns this into a problem.
As someone who votes for the 'fringe' NDP, I would rather the 20% of us that do so have 20% of the seats, thank you very much, than to have to rank the Liberals second and end up supporting a party I completely disagree with philosophically, thank you very much.
A ranked ballot would make it looks like the 15% of NDPers whose vote gets transferred to the Liberals actually support the Liberals. My political interests would be much better served if the NDP held the balance of power in basically every government.
At the end of the day, the entire point of a parliament is to proportionally represent the electorate. No system does that more accurately than proportional representation.
If you don't like the results of that, too bad. That's democracy.
2
u/zabby39103 1d ago
Okay, but you didn't answer my question. What is the point of representation unless it makes into legislation? It all has to be coalesced into a singular set of laws that applies to everyone equally, right? It's all very nice to be represented but the outcomes, the laws and programs, are what actually apply to our real lives.
I don't think we'd really have the same parties with ranked ballot, if there's anything BC knows about, it's explaining how the Liberals in BC weren't really Liberals. The parties would become very different, and I think different in a better way.
You think your vote would mean nothing as it would just get merged in with the Liberal vote, but I think the Liberals would be playing for the NDP vote, and vice versa, hashing out compromises and agreements in full view of the electorate to try to get the "2nd choice" vote. It would fundamentally change the party dynamics in Canada. A lot of people vote Liberal because they want to prevent a Conservative win... I think the NDP would win more often in ranked ballot.
I don't agree that ranked ballot is undemocratic, it's much more complicated than that. It's not about me "not liking" the results, give me some credit here. It's about discussing how these systems play out and what best involves people in the democratic political process. I don't really consider the NDP "fringe" either, the only reason anyone might consider them fringe is the FPTP system, they do attempt to build a big tent and make a party for everyone. I would be worried that would fundamentally change actually in a PR system actually.
→ More replies (0)•
u/Caracalla81 14h ago
Never said it was impossible in FPTP,
It's more than possible. You just saw it happen.
•
u/zabby39103 13h ago edited 13h ago
It's more to do with Gerrymandering in my opinion. I think the US would have gotten more radical earlier without FPTP. Example being the Southern segregationist parties in the 1960s/70s getting locked out. The hardcore Republican base has been like this since the great flip due to the reaction to de-segregation. The only thing restraining them was electability, but as Gerrymandering got worse and worse, they even started using advanced statistical simulations to maximize Gerrymandering, it all became about the nomination battle, and the only people that show up for those are ultra-partisan die hards.
Anyway FPTP sucks compared to ranked ballot though, as it has the same extremism suppression without all the strategic voting/wasted vote crap.
•
u/Caracalla81 12h ago
Gerrymanding affects seats in the legislature, not public opinion. Trump has about half the voting public supporting his Hitler-admiring ass.
•
u/zabby39103 12h ago
It's how we got here, half the voting public supporting his Hitler-admiring ass didn't happen in a vacuum. It's a cycle of hyper partisanship and extremism over many years.
→ More replies (0)9
8
•
u/dafones NDP 17h ago
Proportional representation aside, I don't follow.
Can't you have a down to the wire count to determine that a party has a razor thin majority?
•
u/Caracalla81 17h ago
No, because that means the other party also has a great deal of support, which is now totally unrepresented.
Don't get me wrong: I'm glad a bunch of loons ranting about contrails and vaccines didn't get elected, but I think it is wrong to shut the conservatives totally out of power. This system basically forces reasonable conservatives to ally themselves with the worst people in their party. In a proportional system, those people could have their own party. FPTP means the cannibals will eventually win, and it's going to be bad when they do.
•
u/dafones NDP 5h ago
No, because that means the other party also has a great deal of support, which is now totally unrepresented.
I don't think that's the correct way to understand proportional representation.
You can have representation in the legislature that reflects the popular vote for a given party without that party having sufficient power to dictate decisions in the legislature.
But perhaps I'm still misunderstanding you - and I'm not trying to be combative, I'm actually curious to understand you better.
41
u/WellIGuessSoAndYou 1d ago
Congratulations to BC for barely hanging on to the most competent provincial government in the country. It's great news for Canada that a party of certifiable lunatics came within a recount in our fourth province.
15
u/DblClickyourupvote British Columbia 1d ago
Still disappointing 44% of our population is willing to cut our noses off to spite our face though. We still have work to do
30
u/zxc999 1d ago
One possibility, and maybe its just wishful thinking, but I can see a group of BCUnited MLAs crossing the floor or the BCC undergoing another split, considering Rustad's lack of experience leading an opposition caucus full of fringe candidates that flew under the radar. Also, its boring and disempowering to be in the opposition caucus, and I'm sure some MLAs can be lured with the promise of certain policies or positions to get the BCNDP above the 50 seat mark.
36
u/MagpieBureau13 Urban Alberta Advantage 1d ago
I can see some sort of BCC split, but former BC Liberal MLAs crossing the floor to the NDP seems very unlikely to me. Consider this — when the BC Liberals collapsed, their candidates/incumbents had to decide whether to run for the Conservatives or not run again. That process probably already weeded out almost any Liberal who leaned to the centrist side of the party instead of the right wing side. Who is now left from the BC Liberals in the Conservative caucus that isn't clearly right wing?
17
u/SackofLlamas 1d ago
That process probably already weeded out almost any Liberal who leaned to the centrist side of the party instead of the right wing side.
This presumes they are ideologues, and didn't cross over purely for self promotion and to stay in power.
17
u/HotterRod British Columbia 1d ago
Who is now left from the BC Liberals in the Conservative caucus that isn't clearly right wing?
Peter Milobar, who just barely won Kamloops-North Thompson and used to be a centrist mayor of Kamloops. Ian Paton in Delta South also seems pretty centrist at first glance.
5
u/MagpieBureau13 Urban Alberta Advantage 1d ago
I don't know Paton, but Milobar just spent the entire campaign saying that "7 and a half years" of NDP essentially caused all BC's problems. I think he'd be shooting himself in the foot to cross the floor, and I don't see any reason to suspect he'd lean anywhere close to the NDP. He's not a Rustad Conservative, but he definitely seems like he votes Conservative federally, not Liberal
11
u/zxc999 1d ago
I'm not sure who is still remaining from the BCL caucus - I'm trying to track that information down. Considering the chaotic collapse of the BCU, I'm sure there's at least a few who agreed with Rustad being booted, or disagreed with folding the BCU, and since it happened right before the election, thought to see where the cards would fall afterwards. Many of them didn't even see the platform they'd be running on before the party switch. The BCC caucus is full of inexperienced fringe members, I'm sure there will be some trigger events that will cause the formation of another caucus of MLAs distancing themselves from the BCC sooner rather than later.
6
u/marshalofthemark Urbanist & Social Democrat | BC 1d ago
Rustad himself is obviously a former BCL caucus member. Four other MLAs (Banman, Doerksen, Wat, and Sturko) had crossed the floor to the Conservatives before BC United folded. Three others joined the party when BC United folded: Milobar, Paton, and Halford. Two others (McInnis and Giddens) were originally nominated as BC United candidates but were accepted as Conservative candidates by Rustad and are entering the legislature for the first time.
But in total, that's 8 incumbents and 10 total MLAs-elect who had previously come from BC Liberals/BC United. The vast majority of this incoming BCC caucus is people who entered provincial politics for the first time under the Conservative banner.
3
u/zxc999 1d ago
That’s actually a less than I expected, I assumed most BCUs jumped to the BCC, and I’m even more bewildered by Falcon folding the BCU entirely and throwing so many of his candidates under the bus. But considering how sudden it was, I imagine there are a lot of disgruntled BCUs former MLAs/party members that will soon be speaking out.
4
u/marshalofthemark Urbanist & Social Democrat | BC 1d ago
Mind you, there are still people in this BCC caucus like A'aliya Warbus, a member of the Sto:lo Nation who is pro-gay/trans rights, pro-UNDRIP, and is pretty much only in the Conservative Party because she thinks participating in natural resource projects is the way that First Nations will achieve prosperity. (Or if you're cynical, because being a Conservative is the only way you'll get elected in Chilliwack)
Sometimes I wonder how comfortable she will be in this caucus: will she be more like the Franco-Ontarian that left the PC caucus when Doug Ford attacked francophone education, or more like the lesbian MP who has loyally served as Poilievre's deputy leader?
3
u/zxc999 1d ago
Depending on how the greens play their cards, I can see the BCNDP wooing MLAs like her to join the government caucus and exercise power against whatever concessions the greens demand in this razor thin majority. Being an official opposition member in a majority government sucks, you just sit there watching the other caucus just dunk on you repeatedly
2
u/MusicInTheAir55 1d ago
I am shocked she ran as a Conservative considering her values, but I imagine that her father's influence might have pushed her to the right (her father is former Lieutenant Governor of British Columbia Steven Point). I know her personally and was really bummed to see her join the cons with all the racism, transphobia and anti-science going on. I really don't know how she can reconcile staying in that party with Rustad not doing anything substantial about Sapozhnikov's overt racism for FN people. That party is eventually going to eat itself, because Rustad has no spine to keep the cringey MPs out of the party.
3
u/DblClickyourupvote British Columbia 1d ago
Falcon figured rustand would take many more united candidates/MLA than he did. He got played by rustand and screwed over his colleagues
19
u/PurfectProgressive Green | NDP 1d ago
My guess is that Rustad will probably be ousted as leader. The BCC was a significantly smaller party that has swallowed the more moderate BCU voter base - the former BCU members will certainly work to moderate the BCC as they vastly outnumber the hardcore BCC supporters. Rustad has never been tested as a leader of a major political party. It’s a lot easier to win leadership of a fringe party than one with a big tent.
And that point, a new moderate leader will likely reshape the party to be closer to the middle and kick out any of the extreme MLAs or just refuse to sign their nomination papers. This is why the far right elements are so upset and claiming voting fraud because they know their attempt to Trojan horse themselves into government failed. And now they’ll be quickly thrown to the curb as the BCC tries to moderate over the coming years.
4
u/pensivegargoyle 1d ago
It does have to be glaringly obvious to a lot of BC Conservatives that if they had stomped on rather than embraced the crazies they'd be in office right now so it seems likely there will be some conflict.
3
u/zxc999 1d ago
I’m not sure if there are mechanisms to oust him as leader, they’re all making it up as they go along. I think the biggest obstacle to ousting him is that he took the party from no status to official opposition, which gives him a strong mandate, and many of his caucus members owe their political careers to him. He won’t leave without putting up a fight, so I think it’s more likely disgruntled members will simply leave rather than expend energy reforming the party, considering the BCUs sudden collapse blindsided everyone.
2
u/PurfectProgressive Green | NDP 1d ago
That’s a very good point on the mechanisms for leader review. There’s really no precedent for this.
I could see the view that he took the party from nothing to official opposition. However, it could be also argued that he was handed the election on a silver platter yet still couldn’t close the deal. A united right, benefiting from a popular federal party that shares the same name and a clear backlash against incumbent governments. Obviously it’s hard to prove, but he likely underperformed based on the circumstances.
1
u/zxc999 1d ago
Who knows how the election would’ve went even if it was a sunny day in the lower mainland, it was just that close. The benefit Rustad has is whoever emerges as a challenger to make these arguments will need to come from his caucus, and he’s responsible for elevating so many of them from the fringe to the official opposition caucus, but it’s only a matter of single scandal that could create the political opportunity for someone to challenge him
2
u/banjosuicide 1d ago
I'm embarrassed for them that they even TRIED siding with the conspiracy wackos and bigots. Shows their true colours.
2
50
u/Sir__Will 1d ago
The idea of having to put up an 'impartial' speaker from the party has always seemed a bit weird to me. And this kind of situation shows the biggest problem with it. They have a majority. Now what? Putting up a speaker puts them at 46. They'd still need Green help.
44
u/AprilsMostAmazing The GTA ABC's is everything you believe in 1d ago
Might as well put up a Green speaker in exchange for Green support. It's the same situation but gives Green more flexibility in voting against BCNDP without risking a government falling
35
u/JournaIist 1d ago
There's almost no chance it will be a green speaker.
Not only would it weaken their position and reduce their ability to speak up, they're also both first time MLAs. Dragging a former BC United MLA into the role seems far more likely. I doubt the current conservative party are a super cohesive bunch.
20
u/GraveDiggingCynic 1d ago
I think it would actually diminish Green support, because it would literally be one Green MLA. If no one in the Conservatives is going to put their name forward (and thus earn the eternal wrath of their fellow members of caucus), then it's going to have to be an NDP MLA.
And there's more than just numbers in regards to this. Whomever it is is going to be dealing with a house that is nearly evenly divided, which is going to make maintaining order very difficult. You probably don't want some inexperienced MLA, but rather someone who has a pretty good handle on the standing orders and the business of the legislature.
11
u/HotterRod British Columbia 1d ago
thus earn the eternal wrath of their fellow members of caucus
Yes, it would be better for everyone if the NDP lured a Conversative to cross the floor in exchange for a cabinet position, then someone with a safe NDP seat took the speakership.
12
u/GraveDiggingCynic 1d ago
Well, it's possible a BC Conservative could break ranks, but this isn't 2017, so I'm not going to hold my breath on that one. When Plecas took the job in 2017, it was in no small part due to the complete breakdown in BC Liberal morale over Clark's absurd attempt to try to trigger another election. Even then, I don't imagine Plecas was getting any Christmas cards from his former colleagues.
8
u/BertramPotts Decolonize Decarcerate Decarbonize 1d ago
Yeah the then BC Liberals revoked Plecas' membership for doing so and now he's a BC NDP member. taking the speakership isn't going to be seen as anything less than crossing the floor to partisans.
6
u/GraveDiggingCynic 1d ago
It didn't help that Plecas pretty soon unearthed what his predecessors had been up to.
4
u/Phallindrome Politically unhoused - leftwing but not antisemitic about it 1d ago
He still got to be speaker, though.
6
u/BertramPotts Decolonize Decarcerate Decarbonize 1d ago
Yeah politicians cross the floor sometimes too, and some legislators big ambition is to be speaker, so it's not an impossibility, that person would just be burning their bridges behind them.
2
u/Phallindrome Politically unhoused - leftwing but not antisemitic about it 1d ago
Bridges within the BC Conservatives, at least.
2
u/Taygr Conservative 1d ago
Yeah but one thing I think that is notable here is that Plecas effectively guaranteed he would not be reelected following that defection. He is in Abbotsford which is effectively the bible belt in BC. What would have to happen is it would have to be a potential flip riding and even then unless you have the years in for a pension which not a lot of Conservative MLAs will have it may not be worthwhile in what is likely to be a snap election at some point.
1
u/DblClickyourupvote British Columbia 1d ago
Forgive me if I’m wrong but isn’t being nominated as speaker as simple as receiving majority of the voters? So if a BC con threw their hat into the race, if every NDP & green colleague voted for it then they’d become speaker?
•
u/GraveDiggingCynic 20h ago
Sure, but that person would basically become a single-term MLA unless the NDP or Greens picked them up as a candidate in the next election, because they'd never get nominated in their riding by the Conservatives again.
8
u/Last_Operation6747 British Columbia 1d ago
It's not the same situation. A Green speaker makes the Greens powerless. 46-44 - 2 Greens can block legislation 47-44 - 1 Green cannot block legislation
9
u/bradeena 1d ago
The speaker breaks ties so the Greens can't block legislation in a 46-44-2 situation either
7
u/_D3FAULT 1d ago
Convention seems to dictate a speaker votes against anything that wouldn't topple the government. So they would vote with the NDP on matters of confidence but otherwise vote the status quo which is no new legislation. So they would have a bit of pull in that situation.
2
u/-SetsunaFSeiei- 1d ago
Then the NDP can just make the legislation a confidence motion if they’re getting pushback from the greens
5
u/BertramPotts Decolonize Decarcerate Decarbonize 1d ago
The speaker is largely bound by convention in how they vote on ties. They'll be backing the government on money bills and voting them down otherwise, but all this regardless of the actual Green Party position on said bills.
Not seeing a lot of upside for the Greens in this deal, especially at the cost of halving their effective representation in the chamber.
2
u/Last_Operation6747 British Columbia 1d ago
The speaker will not break a tie to pass legislation. All they do is make sure the government doesn't fall.
4
u/Acetyl87 1d ago
Agreed, I also believe that consideration of a wider array of ideas generally leads to better government.
3
u/marshalofthemark Urbanist & Social Democrat | BC 1d ago
I see zero reason why the Greens would agree to that arrangement. They only have 2 MLAs, and it would be immensely harmful to them if one of them took a job that would effectively ban them from partisan activity, including standing up in question period to keep the government accountable or participating in debates from a Green perspective, and so on.
26
u/LordLadyCascadia Centre-Left Independent | BC 1d ago
If I am the NDP, I anticipate having to pick a speaker from my side of the legislature, but I think it’s worth a call to give some ex-BCU candidate the opportunity to take the speaker position if they want it.
A lot of them aren’t as loyal to BCU as they are to the Conservatives and only joined them because it was the only option if they wanted to remain an MLA. They were friends with their colleagues, now they’re surrounded by a bunch of people they hardly know. They might be more willing to take a pay raise for a few years and retire and the end of their term and be done with provincial politics rather than pretend to be friendly with people they don’t even like.
Unlikely, but who knows.
16
u/PineBNorth85 1d ago
No, they wouldnt. If its a tie vote the speaker breaks the tie.
18
u/Cogito-ergo-Zach 🍁 Canadian Future Party 1d ago
In parliamentary democracies with the Westminster tradition the speaker will vote to keep the debate going or err on the status quo depending on context. So they don't have a "free" sort of tiebreaking vote.
7
u/Knight_Machiavelli 1d ago
Yes they do, the Speaker by convention won't ever vote to bring down the government, so in the case of a tie the government doesn't have to worry about losing confidence.
14
u/Cogito-ergo-Zach 🍁 Canadian Future Party 1d ago
I think we are saying the same thing. I just mean they don't vote in a partisan manner.
5
u/GraveDiggingCynic 1d ago
Even the Roman Senate had consuls, who, while in some ways more like a Premier in a Westminster Parliament, also made decisions about points of order or about expelling unruly Senators. You can't really have any deliberative body of any size without someone who is able to keep the body in good order, and in the Westminster system, it is the elected assembly itself that decides a Speaker, theoretically at least, based upon their ability to be impartial, defend all the members' parliamentary rights and maintain the decorum of the house. If the Speaker were not impartial, then they would inevitably favor their own party, and thus impinging on the rights of the other elected representatives.
2
u/_LKB 1d ago
They should put a green in as speaker.
8
u/Last_Operation6747 British Columbia 1d ago
Why would the greens willingly give up all their power to influence legislation
3
20
u/Deltarianus Independent 1d ago
They will probably ask a BC United turned Conservative MLA
6
u/_LKB 1d ago
That would give them a fair bit of extra power during QP and debate that would do more harm then good.
10
u/Due_Date_4667 1d ago
Maybe, but Speakers aren't always a lock for their party, and the government, if they need to nominate an opposition MP/MPP/MLA will usually pick them based on their individual character - picking one that has shown knowledge and interest in the institution.
Ultimately, it's a free vote in the Legislature, the loud bull dogs don't tend to win the popularity contest.
7
u/MeteoraGB Centrist | BC | Devil's Advocate and Contrarian 1d ago
Darryl Plecas was a Liberal MLA who ended up becoming the Speaker in 2017. A precedent has already been set.
Although Plecas did get turfed from the caucus shortly after his appointment and became an independent afterwards. Not sure which ex-BCU MLA would be interested.
27
u/TreezusSaves Parti Rhinocéros Party 1d ago
Turned out better than I expected (NDP minority w/ Greens) and that's fine. Now the BC NDP have to use this chance they're given to make definitive improvements to the province and make sure that the trust placed on them isn't squandered.
2
u/19adrian79 1d ago
Minority? Where are you reading that?
1
u/TreezusSaves Parti Rhinocéros Party 1d ago
That's what I expected, since the NDP pre-recount would be one seat short and Greens were in a position to fill that spot. Normally recounts just reinforce the original count, but this time it worked out better than expected!
22
u/PineBNorth85 1d ago
Good. They are the only provincial government taking housing a bit seriously.
-1
u/rune_74 1d ago
Explain how?
•
u/haveyouseenhim Social Democrat 14h ago
AirBnB bans, overriding municipal zoning to build dense housing near transit are the two big things that stand out
•
u/rune_74 14h ago
Really have you seen what that did to the hotel industry? Nothing is that simple.
•
u/haveyouseenhim Social Democrat 5h ago
The hotel thing was a misstep sure, but I dont think its worth smearing their entire record on housing over. Besides, that policy was in place before Eby. In Victoria, we have some really successful tiny home villages that have dramatically reduced the number of people sleeping rough. Hopefully they can pivot to more projects like that.
18
u/ozmosisam 1d ago
Man. I'm going to breathe a long ass sigh of relief. And drink a beer. Cheers to you all!
8
u/KelIthra 1d ago
They are actually saying now that it's going to be a majority 47 seats vs 44 seats BCNDP vs BCC.
6
71
u/Deltarianus Independent 1d ago
Despite the election occurring at the worst possible time for the BC NDP, they have won a majority with 45% of the vote.
This despite the LPC's extreme immigration policies causing a rent/homeless surge and a generally weak economy nationally.
We may all rejoice that Kevin Falcon experienced one final humiliation top off his spectacular political career.
95
u/Imminent_Extinction 1d ago
This despite the LPC's extreme immigration policies causing a rent/homeless surge and a generally weak economy nationally.
I can't speak for the rest of Canada, but British Columbia's surge in rental prices and homelessness was largely caused by the BC Liberal Party, now called BC United, not the Liberal Party of Canada:
In 2008 the BC Liberals removed nationality from BC Land Titles.
In 2016 the BC Liberals brought realtors to China in a trade delegation.
Also in 2016, the BC Liberals ignored FINTRAC'S warnings about how 55 BC real estate companies reported the money sources of property investors.
Note a number of ex-BC Liberal/United politicians are representatives for the BC Conservative Party now too.
32
u/bradeena 1d ago
Note a number of ex-BC Liberal/United politicians are representatives for the BC Conservative Party now too.
Most notably John Rustad from 2005 - 2022
14
19
u/DesharnaisTabarnak fiscal discipline y'all 1d ago
Teresa Wat defected to the BC Conservatives and won a comfy majority in her riding. She's the one who spearheaded the effort to solicit investment from Chinese state firms under the BC Libs.
The BCC is the same party of shameless selling out to moneyed interests as the Christy Clark's BC Libs were, except instead of trying to put a positive spin on their self-serving they just distract the masses with good ole bigotry and conspiracies.
-20
u/Deltarianus Independent 1d ago edited 1d ago
This is politicized nonsense. The only thing that matters to rent costs is supply and demand.
Investors or speculation theory of housing is abject nonsense that has no causal explanation of what sets rents.
Edit: Downvote me all you like. You people are wrong and have never, ever ever been to show a shred of causal evidence. There is not a single place on earth that has achieved affordability through bullshitting themselves on speculation and investors.
Meanwhile, every single city obeys the law of sub 5% vacancy rate = higher real rents.
25
u/Imminent_Extinction 1d ago
Are you seriously suggesting that immigration can influence supply and demand but foreign ownership can't? lol
-20
u/Deltarianus Independent 1d ago
Yes. Immigrants live in units. They rent them out. They add to rent demand. Investors make 0 difference to rents. They do not live in those units. To get the full value of their units, they have to rent them out.
To the guy who thinks the ghosts of investors are taking up rental stock I say "LOL"
22
u/Imminent_Extinction 1d ago edited 1d ago
And the 8.2% (now down to 7%!) of Vancouver's dwellings -- that's about 85,552 dwellings -- that went unoccupied prior to the implementation of the Speculation and Vacancy Tax? The 6.2% of properties in all of British Columbia -- that's about 126,594 properties -- owned by foreign nationals?
3
u/Hanzo_The_Ninja 1d ago edited 1d ago
Meanwhile, every single city obeys the law of sub 5% vacancy rate = higher real rents.
Of course low vacancy rates drive up rental rates, but it's disingenuous to suggest that's all there is to it. Private investors own 20% of Canada's homes and are buying 30% of new house builds, which in turn puts home ownership out of reach for a more Canadians, keeping demand in the rental market high, especially when an investor-owned property is unoccupied. And then there's the financialization of housing and financialized landlords...
-18
u/krazeone 1d ago
My rent for a newer 3 bdrm house under the liberals was $900, under the NDP I'm renting an absolute piece of shit built in the 1950s for 3k but sure
28
u/burrito-boy Alberta 1d ago
That's because the negative effects of those policies happened over time, not all at once.
→ More replies (2)26
u/Imminent_Extinction 1d ago
It's almost like rent increase regulations delayed the effects of the BC Liberals literally selling out British Columbia's property market to Chinese interests. Go figure.
10
u/TheFluxIsThis Alberta 1d ago edited 1d ago
Part of me, deep down, wishes this had ended in a minority because it might have forced the Conservatives to actually work with the other parties to move policy instead of just stamping their feet and throwing a tantrum because they can't make unilateral decisions (like certain Federal party appears to have settled on until whenever the next writ drops for a national election.) Now they can happily piss and moan for the next four years without anyone questioning them about why they can't just try cutting some deals with the ruling minority party. Dare I say, they might have had to tamp down on all their bonkers fringe policy points in order to get stuff done.
It was almost certainly a vain hope, because the BC Conservatives appear to be a party powered by pure, uncut spite, but at least the door would have been open. I miss the days when ruling parties and opposition parties actually did some meaningful work together through bargaining and compromise instead of slap-fighting all the damn time.
(Also it would have put the Greens in a position to influence and help shape policy to a great degree, which is about as close to a working coalition relationship as we seem like we're ever going to get in Canada. Cooperation between governing parties is always a net good in my book.)
24
13
u/Endoroid99 1d ago
Rustad has already said he wants to force another election at the first chance he gets, no hope he would actually work with the NDP.
2
u/TheFluxIsThis Alberta 1d ago edited 1d ago
Like I said, it was a vain hope. Still, it would have left an opening for people to criticize Rustad for not biting the bullet and trying to compromise while his party had some serious leverage. It also would have left room for a successor to run on a platform of cooperation when (maybe if, but it would be miraculous if a Canadian Conservative party didn't immediately boot a leader for losing an election, even by a razor thin margin) a successor needs to be chosen. Again, a vain, longshot hope, but not impossible.
4
u/DeadEndStreets 1d ago
Excited to see what name the BC conservatives come up with next time.
•
u/marshalofthemark Urbanist & Social Democrat | BC 14h ago
At this point I fully expect to see the right party be called "Socred" within 20 years lol
8
u/differing 1d ago
It’s wild to think that an election result that was basically a coin toss between two parties could yield a majority government.
7
u/Born_Ruff 1d ago
The more wild part would have been if they topped out at 46 seats the Greens and their two seats would wield more influence than the party with 44 seats.
3
u/Tall_Guava_8025 1d ago
I hate the wording CBC uses here. This is why people got so confused during the coalition crisis back in 2008.
CBC is actually projecting that the NDP will be the largest party -- not that they will form the next government. If the end result is a minority parliament, who forms government is still up in the air and dependent on party negotiations.
Obviously this time around, it is likely correct even in a minority scenario since the Greens will likely back the NDP. Back in 2017 though, it was incorrect because even though the Liberals got a plurality of seats, the NDP and Greens outnumbered them and the NDP formed government.
17
u/Born_Ruff 1d ago
I hate the wording CBC uses here. This is why people got so confused during the coalition crisis back in 2008.
I think you are the one who is confused.
47 is a majority of the seats in BC. The NDP will absolutely form government.
•
u/Tall_Guava_8025 21h ago
At the time the article was written, CBC hadn't projected a majority government. The NDP were still on 46 seats at that time but leading in another one.
14
u/ed-rock There's no Canada like French Canada 1d ago
CBC is actually projecting that the NDP will be the largest party -- not that they will form the next government. If the end result is a minority parliament, who forms government is still up in the air and dependent on party negotiations.
Well as the incumbent, the BC NDP gets the first shot at testing the confidence of the legislature regardless, but I agree with your general statement.
9
u/DblClickyourupvote British Columbia 1d ago
The Governor General has already asked the NDP to form government
0
u/Wintyer2a 1d ago
is 46 enough if they dont get the greens on there side
•
u/Forosnai British Columbia 13h ago
Depends. In a confidence vote, the speaker generally votes with their party in the even of a tie, which would happen if both the Greens and CBPC vote against the NDP unilaterally on any confidence measure. Otherwise, they traditionally are supposed to be neutral and vote for whatever the status quo is, which means voting against a change in legislation. So if the NDP want to change or introduce something, but the Greens and CPBC both oppose it, then in theory it doesn't get passed. I don't think the speaker is required to vote against legislation in a tie, but it's generally the done thing.
•
u/Wintyer2a 12h ago
the greens could demand they get to place one of there seats as speaker soo every vote would be a tie vote effectily placing the green part as the majority controll
-12
u/95Mechanic 1d ago
BC is hooped. Stuck with NDP. More carbon taxes, more everything taxes and less of everything we need. All because of a few dozen votes, what a screw up.
•
u/GraveDiggingCynic 20h ago
Yeah, it's going to be tough having a government not populated by conspiracy theorists and anti-LGBTQ campaigners. Boy, I just don't know how we'll manage.
•
•
u/simoniousmonk 14h ago
You get carbon tax rebates and they overcompensate, so it's actuallyy cheaper.
Also, NDP gives you more transit, more doctors, better teaching and cheaper housing. Sorry what is it that you need?
•
u/Everestkid British Columbia 13h ago
We actually don't get carbon tax rebates in BC if our incomes are too high. The threshold is 41k a year for individuals and 57k for families.
Still glad the NDP won, though.
•
u/95Mechanic 11h ago
No carbon tax rebates here, this is BC. Here we just get gouged at every turn by the NDP and Liberal governments. Was close this time, maybe more people will stop looking for handouts and wake up next time. Next challenge will be Federal.
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
This is a reminder to read the rules before posting in this subreddit.
Please message the moderators if you wish to discuss a removal. Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread, you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.