Uh…why does the Speaker have to vote with the government? They usually do, but because they’re from the same party as the government. If they’re from the opposition, they can choose not to.
Where is BTRavenn when we need him most. What I have learned from the internet.
It is very rare for a speaker to have to vote to break a tie. It has happened 11 times federally. Five of those times were by Peter Milligan, a Liberal, who was Speaker of the House when Paul Martin was PM but was so popular with all members that he continued as speaker when Harper led his minorities.
Again, this is federally, but I read that the Speaker generally votes with the government out of convention. I am not sure where that convention comes from. As wmcduff points out the speaker generally is a member of the governing party so that explains a lot, but I also believe the convention only applies to votes of confidence. In other words he or she votes to maintain the status quo. I don’t believe there is a convention on other votes so the speaker could vote against the government on any legislation except the budget.
Of course I might be wrong. I suggest Jabber63 link us to something more substantial than my google searches.
Whatever the situation I suppose now that Jabber63 has pulled a Donald Trump and leaked the plot, the opposition members can refuse to be speaker and until a speaker is chosen nothing and I mean nothing (including a Throne Speech) can proceed.
Well here you go.
If you look far enough you actually find something that says exactly what you are looking for without having to piece a whole bunch of other sources together.
A Liberal speaker, likely Linda Reid, the current one, will face several tie votes. Convention holds the speaker must maintain the status quo — in some cases that could mean voting against government reforms, and in matters of confidence that would mean preventing the government from falling, Johnston says.
If I am reading this correctly, convention would say that Liberal Linda Reid would have to vote against her party on a tie vote if it meant changing the status quo. Twinning a pipeline to the coast would change the status quo so she would have to vote against any legislation that allowed Kinder Morgan to proceed.
Of course convention could be thrown out the window.
Sounds like the NDP and Greens are ready to do more than get together to watch rugby. A ‘significant’ announcement is expected from both parties mid afternoon Monday.
Wonder how Christy will react to this budding bromance?
The Greens and NDP have formally announced that they will work together to form government. The NDP caucus will ratify the deal tomorrow.
Oh great, those 2 wing nuts will cater to south west BC and the rest of BC will get screwed.
Those two “wing nuts” represent 60% of BC voters. You’re in the minority now. That’s how democracy works. A great day!
I guess one of the concessions Andrew Weaver reluctantly accepted is he can’t poke the bear (Horgan) anymore.
60% eligible voters voted so, 60% of 60% of eligible voters is still only 36% of but it is what it is, and surprise they are already going to change standing committee’s rules so they are not in the minority for legislation, but Clark will have to be defeated in a confidence vote first
If Green voters wanted to vote NDP they would have. So its not a “democracy”.
I don’t think you understand how democracy works, but, that’s okay. Coalition governments are nothing new for the rest of the World. You’ll get used to it.
We shall see how long it lasts.
Well… that’s too bad for the other 40%.
that is true but if they want to implement proportional voting without a referendum like the Green’s want then they do not have a majority of voters to do it, if i’m right a referendum to change voting methods needs 50+1% of eligible voters to pass, not 50+1% of those that voted
“We specifically did not ask for there to be a coalition,’’ said Weaver. “We wanted to maintain a minority situation to show British Columbians that it could work.’’
Interesting. Thanks. I stand corrected. It will be fascinating to see how this works.
This is great news for anyone who does not support that and wishes to see another election quicker than later.
The BC Liberals need to regroup, possibly with a new leader.
We will see what happens, but I highly doubt a peaceful Green/NDP union will be maintained for 4 years. Should be interesting for sure.
I expect our region to be completely off the minds of anyone running either of those two parties.
Christy Clark…she’s come undone…
Haha…too funny. Your original post was wrong. The Liberals still won the election in 2013 and almost had a majority in 2017.
Looking forward to Christy Clark stepping down today…Libs will need a year to find a replacement(Kevin Falcon)
I feel so clean today…Cheers