Ah shucks all the heated rhetoric is for naught, there will be no fall election.
vancouversun.com/news/Clark+ … story.html
Ya’ll be sure to come back in the Spring with your complaints and/or ideas though!
She still has until Sept. 21st to call it without technically lying…
[quote=“Smurfette”]Ah shucks all the heated rhetoric is for naught, there will be no fall election.
[/quote]
I like it when I’m right. 
She is reeling from her recent smack down.
[quote=“hitest”]
I am going to go out on a limb and predict that Clark will not call an election in the very near future. I base this on my observations of her cautious approach to campaigning, that is, her close call in Vancouver Point Grey. I could be dead wrong on this (I’ll be impressed if she has the temerity to call an election now). I will eat crow if I’m wrong on this. The Liberals may perceive that the mood of BC voters is ugly right now. It may be prudent for Clark to wait six months or a year and put the HST smack down onto the back burner.
Interesting times ahead. [/quote]
I like it when I’m right. 
She is reeling from her recent smack down.
LOL, no I suspect she probably realizes that with some six to eight months to work with the NDP will probably have stabbed at least two more leaders in the back before picking yet another unknown quantity and then heading off to another election.
[quote=“Smurfette”]
LOL, no I suspect she probably realizes that with some six to eight months to work with the NDP will probably have stabbed at least two more leaders in the back before picking yet another unknown quantity and then heading off to another election.[/quote]
Sorry to disappoint you, my right-wing friend, but, Dix has done a good job unifying the NDP and healing wounds. I think the NDP is in good shape heading in to spring 2013. Heh-heh, I doubt that Clark is feeling a lot of love from her cabinet at the moment.
Seriously, if she were to call an early election, then what’s the point of the fixed date election law? 
lol
mustelgroup.com/voter_intention.html (Yes I know it’s a graph from few months ago)
I don’t think Adrian Dix did much to excite voters, but as long as the centre-right vote split continues he could be lucky.
[quote=“hitest”]
Sorry to disappoint you, my right-wing friend, but, Dix has done a good job unifying the NDP and healing wounds. … Heh-heh, I doubt that Clark is feeling a lot of love from her cabinet at the moment.[/quote]
I wonder when, or is it if, Bob Simpson, once one of the most effective critics on the NDP front bench, will be feeling a whole lot of love from what’s his name?
I doubt that Clark is feeling a lot of love from her cabinet at the moment.
No shit. And vice-versa too. They’re the bastards who screwed up her chance at glory with their underhanded HST bullshit.
She had no choice but to accept the vote, try no further hoodwinks and eat $1.6 billion worth of their shit!
Hah! Ask the Conservatives. It’s meant for the other guys.
when an election is called Adrian Dix has to try to get the independent voters not the hard core NDPers, you don’t think his forgery of documents to help Glen Clark will not be brought up? of course it will be, producing false evidence to the rcmp during an official investigation is a felony, so he will not be able to bring up ethics at all against Christy Clark, hell they have had the BCRail documents for how many months now and still no smoking gun. if ppl look at likeability Christy Clark is probably more likable then Dix as well
Well if Hitest is going to gloat about his prediction, I will gloat about mine from July 1.
[quote=“DWhite”]I am prepared to make a bet. Not on the outcome of the referendum but on what happens as a result of the referendum…
Christy Clark is mulling a fall election which would break the intent of the fixed election dates…
Now here is my prediction. If the no side wins and we retain the HST, Christy Clark will call an election. There will be absolutely no reason for her to do so. The referendum can be seen as a confidence vote on the part of the government. They won the confidence vote. They can continue ruling. Nothing changes.
However, seeing that they have support, they will call an election going against their own fixed election law.
Now, if the yes side wins, she will not call an election. She will see that the party does not have support and calling an election at this time would not be a good idea. However, if she is truly honest she would see that this was a confidence issue. The people (not the legislature of course) had spoken and the government should resign. In fact, with the HST defeated, it could be seen as a defeat of a budget, and the Liberals must now seek a mandate on how to go forward without the HST as part of the taxing process.
[/quote]
[quote=“DWhite”]
Now, if the yes side wins, she will not call an election. She will see that the party does not have support and calling an election at this time would not be a good idea. However, if she is truly honest she would see that this was a confidence issue. The people (not the legislature of course) had spoken and the government should resign. In fact, with the HST defeated, it could be seen as a defeat of a budget, and the Liberals must now seek a mandate on how to go forward without the HST as part of the taxing process.[/quote]
There is no law or constitutional convention that supports that contention. The purpose of a referendum is to decide a particular issue by taking the matter to the people. It’s not a confidence vote or some kind of budget vote.
Not calling an election does not call into question Clark’s honesty. To the contrary, how she is handling the outcome demonstrates her honesty. She said that the referendum would be binding on the government and she is acting on the result.
[quote=“BTravenn”]
[quote=“DWhite”]
Now, if the yes side wins, she will not call an election. She will see that the party does not have support and calling an election at this time would not be a good idea. However, if she is truly honest she would see that this was a confidence issue. The people (not the legislature of course) had spoken and the government should resign. In fact, with the HST defeated, it could be seen as a defeat of a budget, and the Liberals must now seek a mandate on how to go forward without the HST as part of the taxing process.[/quote]
There is no law or constitutional convention that supports that contention. The purpose of a referendum is to decide a particular issue by taking the matter to the people. It’s not a confidence vote or some kind of budget vote.
Not calling an election does not call into question Clark’s honesty. To the contrary, how she is handling the outcome demonstrates her honesty. She said that the referendum would be binding on the government and she is acting on the result.[/quote]
I certainly understand that. At no time did I say that she had to do anything. She was the one who brought up the early election which went against the fixed election legislation that she supported in 2001. She said she was looking for a mandate. Premiers are just leaders of the governing party. The Liberals had already received a mandate.
My point was that the outcome of the referendum which could - I emphasize could - be seen as a confidence vote would determine whether an election would be called. Had the HST been approved, she likely would have called an election which would have been unnecessary because the people would have told her that they were satisfied with how the Liberals were governing.
The defeat of the HST was like - and I emphasize like - the defeat of a budget which is a definite confidence issue. Yet she did not call an election.
That was the basis of my prediction. She waited for the referendum results and did the opposite of what would normally happen when a budget is defeated.
What’s holding up that house of cards is your premise that a referendum on a particular issue is like a confidence vote on a government’s overall performace, as happens during a budget vote. Take away that shaky premise and it all comes tumbling down.
In 2005 there was a referendum on electoral reform. Was the outcome a vote of non-confidence in the Campbell government because they put the question to the electorate? In 2009 the Campbell government again put the question to the people and electoral reform was defeated by an even wider margin, yet Campbell won the election. Referendum questions are not confidence votes in the government.
[quote=“BTravenn”]
What’s holding up that house of cards is your premise that a referendum on a particular issue is like a confidence vote on a government’s overall performace, as happens during a budget vote. Take away that shaky premise and it all comes tumbling down.
In 2005 there was a referendum on electoral reform. Was the outcome a vote of non-confidence in the Campbell government because they put the question to the electorate? In 2009 the Campbell government again put the question to the people and electoral reform was defeated by an even wider margin, yet Campbell won the election. Referendum questions are not confidence votes in the government.[/quote]
I KNOW that the referendum was a NOT a vote of confidence.
I made a prediction which turned out to be correct. I said that she would make a decision based on the outcome of the referendum. And I pointed out that the basis of her decision would be backwards to what should have happened. When I used the term confidence vote I was using it as an analogy. I am not sure why you are missing that or are you purposely trying to provoke me?
Let me state again.
If she had been seriously looking for a mandate to move forward now is the time to ask for it.
If the HST had passed, she likely would have called an election when the need for a mandate was not there.
That is my only point.
Perhaps you could enlighten me on why she was toying with an election to get a mandate that constitutionally she didn’t need. And perhaps you could tell me why she has so suddenly changed her mind.
[quote=“BTravenn”]
In 2005 there was a referendum on electoral reform. Was the outcome a vote of non-confidence in the Campbell government because they put the question to the electorate? In 2009 the Campbell government again put the question to the people and electoral reform was defeated by an even wider margin, yet Campbell won the election. Referendum questions are not confidence votes in the government.[/quote]
The referendum on electoral reform and the referendum on the HST are two entirely different situations as you well know.
The Liberals (to their credit) wanted to know what the will of the people was in terms of electoral reform. They were asking in advance of a policy decision or legislation.
The HST referendum was forced on the Liberals and was based on a policy that they had introduced and supported. That is why I likened it to a confidence vote.
By the way, had the Liberals said this about the HST back in May 2009, “We didn’t know about this opportunity prior to the election but we think the HST would be a good thing. We know it is controversial and because we didn’t campaign on it, we are putting it to a referendum” I would guess that the referendum would have passed.
And if it hadn’t, I wouldn’t be likening it to a confidence issue and we certainly wouldn’t be in the mess we are in now.
A referendum on a specific issue is not a confidence vote, and there is no precedent for it being analogous to a confidence vote. After the Charlottetown Accord was rejected in a national referendum in 1992, the Mulroney government continued on until their mandate expired the following year. Lots of us would have welcomed an earlier election, but that did not make the referendum analogous to a confidence vote. The HST vote is no different.
A government should not have to call an election for taking a major issue to the people - the ultimate in democratic governance - and abiding by the result.
[quote=“DWhite”]
If she had been seriously looking for a mandate to move forward now is the time to ask for it.
If the HST had passed, she likely would have called an election when the need for a mandate was not there.
That is my only point.
Perhaps you could enlighten me on why she was toying with an election to get a mandate that constitutionally she didn’t need. And perhaps you could tell me why she has so suddenly changed her mind.[/quote]
I did not understand Clark’s musings about calling an election. Being an independent and having voted NDP, I doubt that I have more insight into liberal party thinking than you do. She seemed to be concerned about being premier without having lead the party in an election, but I don’t think that there is much concern about that within the party or among the rest of us.
An election in the backwash of the referendum would be good timing for the NDP and its lacklustre leader, what’s his name, although I would doubt that it would be a slam dunk. The NDP has been fixated on tax issues for a long time, going back to “Axe the Tax”. Would we have an election about how many months it should take to reinstate the PST? I haven’t heard anything else of note from the NDP lately.
The days when the NDP were an inspiring party are long gone by for a lot of us. That will become increasingly apparent as the months roll by until the next election unless the NDP comes up with some fresh ideas, something that they do not seem to be in a hurry to do. Clark no doubt sees that.
Finally, ongoing fallout from the HST and election talk is not good for business and investment, which should be a concern in this part of the province especially. It really is time for the government to move on to new issues.
I am not suggesting that there is any precedent in government to call an election based on a referendum result.
All I am saying is that Christy Clark said she was going to the polls early because she wanted a mandate, something that constitutionally she didn’t require. She was looking for the opportune moment to call an election. “Looking for the opportune moment” was probably the main reason why the fixed date legislation was brought in by the Liberals and supported by then deputy premier Clark. She would have been flouting her own party’s legislation.
Instead, she has realized that perhaps this isn’t the best time to call an election and the HST result which was a repudiation of this government is the likely reason for her doing so.
I am allowed to make analogies. I didn’t say it was a confidence vote and I didn’t say it had to be a confidence vote. Just similar. Unlike your other examples, if there was ever a referendum that demonstrated a lack of confidence in a government, then this was it. Not sure why you continue to think I am saying anything different.
Clark would not have been flouting the fixed date legislation if she called an electon. Under the BC Constitution Act (section 23) the legislature can be dissolved anytime to hold an election - governments of any party are still free to choose an “opportune moment” to call an election, that hasn’t changed - but in any event an election must be held every four years from May 2009.
Governments in this country traditionally hold an election no later than after four years in office, but strictly they can stay in for five years, unless a province imposes a shorter term. The purpose of the fixed date legislation was to prevent governments from stretching out their mandate into a fifth year, like the NDP government did almost to the last day before being defeated in 2001.
This isn’t the best time to hold an election other than for what’s his name, who might fulfill his quest for power in order to do what, we’re not really sure. What we have are two parties neither of which have strong programs to present to the people, given their preoccupation with tax issues.
You say that a referendum is “similar” or analogous to a confidence vote, and that the result “demonstrated a lack of confidence”, such that an election should be held, but that you “didn’t say it was a confidence vote”. I don’t know how you can reconcile those statements.
Every four years on the second Tuesday in May. Of course the Lieutenant Governor can still prorogue the Legislative Assembly (as per a confidence vote in a minority government) but calling an election at the whim of a premier would be going against the spirit of the legislation.
And I am not even arguing whether Clark should or should not be asking for a mandate. Constitutionally, she didn’t have to. She said she wanted to (which may be fine) but now that the referendum has gone the way it did she has changed her mind (which is also fine), but I am guessing that whatever reason she is giving now wouldn’t have mattered had the vote gone differently. We would be having an election.
I didn’t say that (any) referendum is similar to a confidence vote I said that the results of this one could be considered similar to a vote of non-confidence by the people as opposed to the legislature. Of course it is not a confidence vote in the traditional sense of the term. I at no time said an election must be held. I have an easy time reconciling my statements and don’t understand why you can’t.