Mediaboss Marketing

Shortly after three men with knives and a van spent eight minutes murdering and maiming people at random on London Bridge, one of the Democratic Partys leading voices on national security responded on Twitter. Chris Murphy began by criticizing Donald Trump for sounding the alarms. My god, he wrote. @POTUS has no idea that the goal of terrorists is to instill a level of fear in the public disproportionate to the actual threat. The Connecticut senator tried to put the threat in proper proportion. Terrorism is a real threat, he acknowledged, but remember that since 9/11, you have a greater chance of being killed by a falling object than by terrorists. Murphy then issued a five-point rebuttal to Trumps approach to terrorism. He did not issue a five-point plan for defeating falling objects.

Maybe Murphy didnt do this because falling objects are not equivalent to three men ramming and hacking people to death on London Bridge. Terrorists attack not just individuals but society, which makes mortality rates a poor measure of the danger terrorism poses. Falling objects attack neither. The men behind the carnage in London appear to have been inspired by ISIS, the same organization that has recently motivated young Muslim men to mow down civilians from Minya to Manchester, Berlin to Baghdad, Istanbul to Orlando, and beyond. Telling people not to be frightened by such actsthat fear is what the terrorists wantdoes not make those acts less frightening. Many people are scared by terrorism, despite the allegedly comforting statistics, because terrorism is scary. Its designed to be. And most people recognize that while terrorism takes various forms, one of the most virulent strains these days is extremist violence committed in the name of Islam. They distinguish, in other words, between wobbly furniture and jihadist terror.

The Problem With Calls for 'Resilience'

In the raw moments after a terrorist attack, people are often looking for recognition of the horror and reassurance that theyll be kept safe, not to be told that theyre overreacting or to be soothed with unconvincing arguments. Franklin Roosevelt famously told Americans during the Great Depression that the only thing we have to fear is fear itselfnameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror. Less famous is how he contextualized that message. He listed the countrys many dark realitiesthe government deprived of revenue, families stripped of their savings, the unemployed facing the grim problem of existence, and so on. The good news, Roosevelt said, was that these were merely material things, and they could be regained. Before fear could be feared, it had to be reckoned with.

Murphys reaction to the London attack captures a common line of reasoning, particularly on the left, and it recalls some of the clinical rhetoric that Barack Obama used in similar circumstances. In repeatedly resisting (with some exceptions) any language that associated terrorism with extremist interpretations of Islam, the former president provided fodder to right-wing critics who argued that he was misleading people about the nature of the problem. And in his cerebral approach to counterterrorism, Obama could come across as tone-deaf to the public mood. After attackers killed 130 people in Paris , for example, Obama scoffed at reporters questions about whether the bloodshed would change his ISIS strategy. My colleague Jeffrey Goldberg documented what happened next on the presidents overseas trip:

Air Force One departed Antalya and arrived 10 hours later in Manila. Thats when the presidents advisers came to understand, in the words of one official, that everyone back home had lost their minds. Susan Rice, trying to comprehend the rising anxiety, searched her hotel television in vain for CNN, finding only the BBC and Fox News. She toggled between the two, looking for the mean, she told people on the trip.

Later, the president would say that he had failed to fully appreciate the fear many Americans were experiencing about the possibility of a Paris-style attack in the U.S. Great distance, a frantic schedule, and the jet-lag haze that envelops a globe-spanning presidential trip were working against him. But he has never believed that terrorism poses a threat to America commensurate with the fear it generates. Even during the period in 2014 when ISIS was executing its American captives in Syria, his emotions were in check. Valerie Jarrett, Obamas closest adviser, told him people were worried that the group would soon take its beheading campaign to the U.S. Theyre not coming here to chop our heads off, he reassured her. Obama frequently reminds his staff that terrorism takes far fewer lives in America than handguns, car accidents, and falls in bathtubs do. Several years ago, he expressed to me his admiration for Israelis resilience in the face of constant terrorism, and it is clear that he would like to see resilience replace panic in American society. Nevertheless, his advisers are fighting a constant rearguard action to keep Obama from placing terrorism in what he considers its proper perspective, out of concern that he will seem insensitive to the fears of the American people.

Into this emotional void stepped Donald Trump, who on terrorism is the id to Obamas ego. He rails against political correctness, portrays radical Islamic terrorism as a grave threat to the nation, and embodies the fearful alarmism that terrorism can provoke.

Obamas stance on terrorism also contained a contradiction. He argued that the terrorist threat was much less severe than other challenges such as climate change and gun violence. But he didnt scale back his counterterrorism policies to reflect that assessment. After criticizing the excesses of George W. Bushs war on terror, Obama launched a massive drone war against suspected terrorists in several countries. He urged the government to do more on gun violence, which is responsible for far more deaths per year in the United States than terrorism is, while simultaneously claiming that the U.S. government was right to spend over a trillion dollars, and pass countless laws, and devote entire agencies to preventing terrorist attacks on our soil. Either Obama never managed to invest in counterterrorism at the level he felt it deserved, or he was tacitly acknowledging that terrorism is, in fact, a big problem that statistics only partially capture.

Murphy faces a similar dilemma. He has developed a counterterrorism strategy that includes opposing Trumps travel ban, which he claims will alienate and unfairly malign Muslims without reducing the terrorist threat; de-emphasizing military solutions to terrorism in favor of better-resourced diplomacy and a new Marshall Plan of economic assistance to the Middle East and Africa; and withholding U.S. support to Saudi Arabia unless it stops spreading fundamentalist Islam across the Muslim world.

A progressive foreign policy isnt just looking at the back-end of terrorism, but is also looking at the front-end of terrorism, Murphy told me earlier this year. And at the front-end of terrorism is bad U.S. military policy in the Middle East, is the Saudi funding of a very intolerant brand of Islam that becomes the building block of extremism, and poverty and political instability.

Which is why its perplexing that, around the time we spoke, during a visit to Yale Law School, Murphy observed that Americans are more likely to be killed in an elevator accident or by lightning than by terrorism. Why ditch the Saudis and unveil a new Marshall Plan to solve a problem thats less threatening than lightning?

Original post:
The Trouble With How Liberals Talk About Terrorism - The Atlantic

When Frances president offered his country to Americans upset by the administrationof President Donald Trump, he neglected to mention that his countrys laws dont exactly make it easy to immigrate there from a country outside the European Union.

French President Emmanuel Macron delivered the video remarks on Twitter last week in response to Trumps decision to pull out of the Paris climate accord.

To all scientists, engineers, entrepreneurs, responsible citizens who were disappointed by thedecision of the president of the United States, I want to say that they will find in France a second homeland, he said in English. I call them: Come and work here, with us, to work together on concrete solutions for our climate, our environment. I can assure you, France will not give up the fight.

Before American climate scientists start packing their bags and perusing Parisian real estate, however, they might want to research French immigration law. Syrian refugees can get in. For Western scientists, it's not so straightforward.

Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies at the Washington-based Center for Immigration Studies, said the statement was offensive.

"That was a total political stunt to say that, and it demeans the purpose of asylum," she said. "That was just trash-talking by Macron."

According to frenchlaw.com, France follows the rules set up by the Geneva Convention on asylum. The country offers asylum to foreign-born people subjected to persecution on the basis of race, religion, nationality, membership in a social group, or due to political opinions.

It seems unlikely that French bureaucrats processing an asylum claim by an American scientist would count a U.S. government environmental policy as persecution. But in this snowflake era, who knows?

There are other options. Skilled workers have an easier time getting work visas compared with unskilled laborers, according to frenchlaw.com. But the law requires high-skilled workers to first have a job. At the same time, a job posting is made at a regional French unemployment office for five weeks and then submitted to the Departmental Directorate of Labor, Employment and Vocational Training, which then rules on the would-be immigrant's application.

If approved, the application then is forwarded to a French consulate abroad. The employee must appear personally at the consular office to process the visa. Once in France, the employee must submit to a medical exam before receiving a work permit.

The process is not short or easy, according to a story that appeared this weekend in The Local, an English-language news site with editions in several countries.

"That was a total political stunt to say that, and it demeans the purpose of asylum. That was just trash-talking by Macron."

The story quoted Allison Lounes, an American writer and consultant living in France, who said that "the hardest things for people arriving in France are knowing what to do and in what order."

Jennifer Greco, a blogger living in Paris, said: "Before moving we had a very difficult time trying to get the list of required documents for our visas from the French consulate in the U.S."

American Johanna Steves said the paperwork requirements are exhaustive.

"With my friends we've joked about how just opening a bank account requires that you provide the dental history of all of your ex-lovers," she told The Local.

Food blogger Julie Nies told the website that she had several going-away parties at her former job in the United States because the visa process was so long. She said she also had to make an 18-hour drive to the nearest French consulate.

"There was so much back and forth," she said. "They must have lost my paperwork three times. I notified my job in the U.S. that I was leaving, and then found out I had to stay another month."

Several ex-pats also expressed exasperation to The Local about the maze of sometimes conflicting requirements in order to get set up with a cellphone, bank account, apartment, and driver's license.

Lounes told The Local that dealing with any government office in France from setting up utilities to enrolling children in school requires a great deal of patience.

"Americans expect things to be set up relatively quickly and easily like it would be in the U.S. or other Anglophone countries and that's just not the case," she said.

And finally, The Local warns in another story, there is "no point coming over here as a tourist and then hoping to figure it out from France they'll just send you back."

See the original post:
Macron's Asylum Offer for Triggered US Liberals a Pure 'Political Stunt' - LifeZette

A firefighter carries a woman from her car after it was caught in street flooding as a powerful storm moves across Southern California on February 17, 2017 in Sun Valley, California. After years of severe drought, heavy winter rains have come to the state and the evacuation of hundreds of residents from Duarte, California for fear of flash flooding from areas denuded by a wildfire last year. Research has shown that Californias drought was likely worsened by climate change. And climate change, as well, is also leading to heavier, more extreme rainfalls worldwide. Photograph: David McNew/Getty Images

On Thursday when the announcement hit that Trump was taking America out of the Paris Climate Accord, my social media feed predictably blew up. As an environmental journalist with a lot of left-leaning friends, you can imagine what it looked like: anger, frustration, shock, sadness, another outrage from the worlds most outrageous leader. All of a sudden every one I knew was talking about climate change; Ill admit it was a nice change of pace, but after nearly ten years of covering climate change I also knew it would be fleeting.

Liberals have been the champions of climate action for decades, but theyve largely championed it as an after thought, something that comes near the end of a long to-do list, like the brussels sprouts you conveniently forget to pick up at the grocery store (polling bears this out). When I bring up climate change during chats with left-leaning friends, I often get that pause that suspended moment when I can see someone in the group look askance. I can see what theyre thinking, Again, Jeremy, with the climate change?

And I want to yell: Yes, again! Again and again and again! Of course, again. Dont you get that this is a crisis of civilization? Dont you understand that all your other concerns will be swallowed by this one? But Im a polite Midwesterner, so after spouting my two-minute climate piece, haltingly and in eloquently, I let the topic shift to something everyone is more comfortable with like civil rights, health care, or crippling student debt.

You see, the GOP has made it too easy for liberals in the US to simply shrug their shoulders and say: its their fault we cant get anything done. And, of course, this is true. In part. Of course, the GOP is worlds only major party that still denies climate change. Of course, the GOP has been corrupted by fossil fuel industries to the extent that they willfully ignore the worlds greatest national security threat.

Let me say that again, because it so important: climate change is the great aggravator.

But Obamas 2010 climate legislation in the US didnt just fail because the GOP refused to support it. It also failed because Democrats didnt support it enough, some of the them even openly opposed it. The Democratic Party has been in general timid, conservative, and coy on climate change. Oh, at times their rhetoric has been inspiring, but their actions have no-where near measured up to the what the science demands. They include it in their platform, but rarely prioritize it. Yes, Obama got more done than any other president before but even during the administration best moments it never felt like the planetary emergency it is.

Liberals: climate change belongs on its own tier above all others, shared perhaps with nuclear war only climate change is already here and inevitable, future nuclear wars are not.

But communicating that to anyone who isnt required to spend their work days (like me) reading up on the latest climate science is almost impossible. This is not exactly surprising. Psychological research shows that people simply dont respond to a problem that is viewed as a future-oriented or too big to make a difference (neither of which is true of climate change, but it is often been communicated that way). Sure, we like to watch the civilization collapse on shows like The Walking Dead, but no one likes to confront the possibility that they and their loved ones may one day see a world melting down. Health care feels so much more present (and I get it, I have a precondition and my family wouldnt have access to insurance without the Affordable Care Act) but for all its importance, health care legislation isnt going to prevent the collapse of the world as we know it.

Climate change is the great aggravator. Let me say that again, because it so important: climate change is the great aggravator. Every single issue that liberals care particular about whether it is economic inequality, racism, sexism, injustice, war is going to be made worse by climate change. Climate change will hit people of color, the poor, indigenous, and marginalized communities hardest and first, whether they live on eroding islands or high-rises in the middle of Brooklyn. And, yes, climate change will disproportionately injure women over men. Of course, climate change will also strike what conservatives care about most. The global economy will be absolutely shattered by climate change and national security threats will popup like overheated groundhogs even the most rich and powerful will not get away unscathed.

The worst thing about climate change wont be its physical impacts; it will be what it makes us do to each other.

Imagine a world with millions of migrants escaping from rising sea waters, with agricultural systems failing and the price of food rising. Imagine a world where every nation suffers from the same water scarcity currently plaguing the Middle East. Imagine a world where hurricanes, rainstorms, wild fires, and blizzards are taking more and more steroids. Imagine a world of mass extinction, where species and entire ecosystems like coral reefs vanish from under us. Such impacts will add stressors to every society in the world; they will compound and aggregate.

What happens when a society becomes overstressed? Its not pretty. Historian Christopher Wickham, has described the period following the end of the Roman Empire as extreme material simplification: population declined, technology stagnated, conflicts erupted, the standard of living plummeted and the written record vanished hence the popular term Dark Ages. Its not just centuries ago: the unimaginable horror and stress of World War I allowed the rise of totalitarianism in both Hitlers Germany and Stalins Russia.

In especially extreme cases, civilization as we know it simply collapses in on itself: witness the mute statues on Easter Island, testament to a conflagration and ecological overreach that is lost to time. Witness the temples of the Mayans overrun by jungle or the multiple societies that rose and fell in South Americas Atacama Desert. But before this happens, extremism, xenophobia, civil war, internecine conflict are the products of a society under extreme stress. When stressors compound, majorities lash out violently. They scapegoat minority groups, whether its the Jews or people of color. Law breaks down and the rule of strong over the weak becomes the norm.

But even these impacts arent some future thing. Climatologists have linked the civil war in Syria in part to water stress exacerbated climate change. Changing rainfall patterns in sub-Saharan Africa are contributing to food crises there, increasing the chances of famine, and you can bet, the possibility of worsening civil and national conflicts, such as what we see in South Sudan. Desertification in the Sahel is resulting in rising extremism. None of this is to say that climate change is solely to blame for any these conflicts or disasters, but you have to be particularly naive to think that a hotter world wont have violent, destabilizing consequences. The US military has been studying climate-stressed conflict and performing war games for decades.

The worst thing about climate change wont be its physical impacts; it will be what it makes us do to each other.

So, what can liberals do? First off, if your understanding of climate change is only passing, educate yourself. Some good places to start: here, here and here. Learn too about off-shoots like ocean acidification, deforestation, mass extinction. Next take action: march, protest, divest your money from fossil fuel companies, use public transit, eat less meat (especially beef), trade in for an electric car, put solar panels on your house, buy carbon credits, do something, do many things.

But of course the biggest changes need to come not at the personal level, but at the societal one. So, reach out to your representatives, whether liberal or conservative, and tell them: this is a top tier issue. Tell your representative you dont vote for politicians who arent aggressive on climate change. And then make good on that in the ballot box. And if you ever get a call from a pollster who asks what your most important issues are dont say the economy or health care. Lead off with climate change. And if they say: oh climate change is not one of the issue their list, then ask them why the hell not?

Finally, yes, once you feel confidant in your knowledge, then reach out to your liberal, center, and conservative friends or families and open up about climate change. Do it respectfully, be ready to listen maybe even to some crazy conspiracy theories or really misinformed science but explain your views and have evidence at hand. Maybe theyll come around, maybe they wont but some research has shown that such one-on-one interactions with loved ones may be the best way to move the dial: candid conversations can change society.

So, yes, good on you liberals: youre on the right side of history and science when it comes to climate change. Pat yourself on the back. But heres the thing: your kids arent really going to care that you believed in climate change, if we dont stop climate change. They arent going to listen to excuses like but its the Republicans fault or but Trump, Trump. If you continue to view climate change as a lower tier issue, liberals, I guarantee you it will be the only issue for your children and grandchildren. And all those other things you cared so much about will be subsumed in a planet of storms, heat, floods, fires, extremism, xenophobia, injustice, violence, war, death, and suffering. This issue will burn away all the others.

Visit link:
Liberals have a responsibility too: make climate change a top issue - The Guardian

His name may not even appear in the text of the speech, but U.S. President Donald Trump and his policies are expected to cast a long shadow over what ForeignAffairs MinisterChrystia Freelandsays on Tuesday in the Liberal government's first major foreign policy statement.

The long-anticipated address to Parliament, which government insiders have suggested could be an annual thing, is expected to lay out in broad strokes where Canada's interests are in the world.

And "foremost among them is managing relations with our most important ally and trading partner, the United States," said Roland Paris, a University of Ottawa professor and former adviser to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

The Liberal government has done a pretty good job, in the estimation of former United Nations ambassador Paul Heinbecker, dealing with the unpredictable Trump administration.

"Obviously, Job 1for the Canadian government and Job 1for Canadian foreign policy is relations with Washington," said Heinbecker.

Experts say Freeland's speech will almost certainly be different than the one the Liberals would have given before U.S. President Donald Trump was elected. (Pablo Martinez Monsivais/The Associated Press)

Both experts say the speech Freeland will give is almost certainly not the one the Liberal government would have given a year ago, prior to Trump's election victory.

"I think every country in the world is readjusting now in the face of a mercurial president," said Paris. "The challenges of dealing with the Trump administration are significant. And it is understandably absorbing a great deal of the time and attention of policymakers in the federal government."

Government insiders have tried to position the speech as the door-opener for the even more highly anticipated defence policy review, which will set the direction for the military both in fiscal and equipment terms.

That is slated to be released Wednesday by Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan after months of pondering and consultation. It is expected to be a weighty document that the Liberals have proudly signalled will come with an itemized costing of its commitment.

By contrast, there has been no detailed foreign policy review, which Heinbecker says should not be a surprise because the portfolio is 90 per cent reactive and 10 per cent proactive.

The previous Conservative government had at one point been working on its own global affairs policy but after years of work behind closed doors, it never saw the light of day.

What we can expect to see in Tuesday's speech when not focused on machinations in Washington are extensions of the Liberal government's articles of faith on climate change, working with multilateral institutions and championing equality and diversity.

Heinbecker says establishing priorities in foreign policy is important because without them Canada will get very little done on the world stage over the next few years.

During the last couple of weeks, government insiders have suggested the emphasis will be on the so-called Three D's: diplomacy, development and defence.

That has been a popular buzz phrase in government for over a decade.

But all three suffered inarguably from cuts during the Conservative-era drive to balance the budget in 2015.

What experts are hoping to see, aside from political window-dressing on Canadian values and aspirations, is a clear plan to rebuild diplomatic ranks.

There is also the expectation of some clarity where it appears policy has been adrift.

The most high-profile example is the Middle East, where some observers have argued the Liberal government has simply continued with Conservative-era policies without much thought or intervention.

Canada's bid for a seat on the UN Security Council is something that is hanging out there, but it is not expected to be a major theme.

There has been speculation in foreign policy circles that the arrival ofFreeland as foreign affairs minister last winter was a signal Canada was prepared to take a harder line on a resurgent Russia.

Freeland is banned from travelling to Russia because of her unsparingcomments on the annexation of Crimea.

Paris says he doesn't believe the situation in eastern Europe will play more prominently with Freeland in charge.

He says the Liberal government, even under former affairs minister Stphane Dion, maintained a toughbut constructive position with Moscow and that is unlikely to change or figure prominently in the outlook.

Excerpt from:
Liberals to lay out foreign policy vision in major speech by Freeland - CBC.ca

Linda Reid, the most recent Speaker of the B.C. legislative assembly, arrives for asession THE CANADIAN PRESS/Chad Hipolito

With grins and a handshake, John Horgan and Andrew Weaver ended four weeks of mystery over who would govern British Columbiansit will be Horgans NDP, with Weavers Greens propping up the minority. Christy Clark, known forbringing a chainsaw to a knife fight, appeared to be willing to let that end her six-year premiership: Should the government fail the test in the house, as seems likely, I would be given the job of leader of the Opposition. And Im more than ready and willing to take that job on, the Liberal leader told reporters that same May 30, flashing the assembled cameras a few subdued smiles.

But in a caucus meeting that same day, Liberal MLAs decided to drag out the fight Clark appeared to cede. Her 43 members agreed that none of them would stand for election as assembly Speaker, meaning they expect one of the 41 New Democrats or three Green MLAs to be the legislatures daily referee. As ifa minority Green-NDP government wouldnt provide enough calamity and uncertainty for Canadas third-largest province, a governing-side Speaker would mean constant brinkmanship and white-knuckle tests, in a 43-43 deadlocked assembly that would routinely need tie-breaking votes by the Speaker.

Clark has grown used to taking every advantage of the rules to benefit her side, most notably by preserving and reaping the full, absurd benefits of a campaign finance system that let Liberals attract unlimited donations from foreign corporations, wealthy individuals and lobbyists. The provinces conflict of interest commissioner had a son working as deputy minister to her cabinet, while one of Clarks key campaign advisers this spring simultaneously served as B.C. Hydro chairman, by her 2015 appointment.

If Clark is indeed ceding control of government, she should at least let the new guy and his Green sidekicks govern with some form of stability, and encourage one of her members to become Speakerideally incumbent Speaker Linda Reid (or one her former cabinet ministers, if they really miss the sort of plumped-up salary that comes with a ministerial or Speakers job).

The alternative is needlessly messy, in what could already be a messy government with a healthy-sized opposition.

COUNTERPOINT: Why B.C. should just hold another electionright away

The uncodified convention in Canadian and other Westminster-style legislatures holds that the Speaker votes against felling a government, and to continue debate. But in this case, should B.C. wind up with a non-Liberal Speaker,that would require convention to be broken on the first key vote once the assembly is recalled: on the Throne Speech that Clark has essentially admitted is doomed to fail.

The Speaker would need to act contrary to his or her conventional role, not only to make the Clark government fall, but also to pass vital legislation and supply for a Horgan government, says Philippe Lagass, a Carleton University political scientist who specializes in Westminster institutions.

Its important to note, though, that convention is flexible for a reason. In a situation such as this, bending the rule would likely be necessary for the legislature to function.

Saying that conventions are flexible for a reason, though, isnt the same as saying guidelines were meant to be broken. While theres nothing in law preventing an NDP Speaker from being an eager foot servant to a Premier Horgan, such a scenario wouldcause the institution reputational damage that might carry beyond this looming carnival of political anxiety.

RELATED: How the B.C. Liberals squandered their chance to keep power

In 2003, New Brunswick elected the last razors edge assembly, 28 Tories, 26 Liberals and one NDP; a Tory served as Speaker; one columnist suggested Bev Harrison was the most partisan Speaker in the history of the New Brunswick legislature. In late 2005, Harrison voted to kill an opposition health bill on second reading, cutting off debate duty actually required him to sustain.Amid Liberal caterwauling, he refused to provide a reason for his tie-breaking vote. Months later, he quit the chair for then-premier Bernard Lords cabinet, and his successor was an Independent MLA who subsequently crossed the floor back to the Tories while still playing his supposedly non-partisan role.

That legislature survived for three years before an election, with Lords nimble management of his second term. Horgan, trying to navigate as rookie B.C. premier, would struggle to manage sowell and let one of his members perform the Speakers role as truly honest broker.

Aside from dealing with a split assembly, the new premier will face overwhelming challenges that will threaten B.C.s economic and social health: the unrelenting opioid crisis, the latest round of U.S. softwood lumber disputes, possible NAFTA renegotiation, the Lower Mainland home-price mess and the NDPs and Greens own fights againstpipelines and other energy projects. Clark and the Liberals may deplore how the left-wingers preside over this collection of challenges, but they need not add to those headaches with a gummed-up political works that can scarcely pass legislation.

RELATED: What the B.C. NDP-Green deal means for the rest of Canada

An assembly with a Liberal Speaker and 44-42 MLA split will hardly be a model of parliamentary stability. If one NDP minister is in Quebec City for a national meeting and another member is with his newborn child, the deadlock is suddenly back (assuming theres no pairing-off agreement). When bills are at committee stages, and a deputy Speaker is NDP, its a closer 43-42 split.

The other alternative is the disaster scenario of 1908 Newfoundland: neither side offers up a Speaker, the assembly cannot meet, and British Columbians are thrustinto another election. The last one cost $44 million. Facing that cost shouldnt be a dealbreaker in a province that spends $52 billion per year. But what occasion would there really be for a new election besides partisan stubbornness? Voters decided what division of Liberals, New Democrats and Greens they preferred, and those members have decided how to arrange themselves. The parties owe more to voters than a chance to change those voters minds a few months later.

Will the NDP govern well? Thats up to Horgan and, to a large extent, Weaver. Will they be given a chance to govern well? The Liberals can continue their hyper-partisanship and deny them that chance. Or if theyre so confident the Green-NDP deal will be a political shambles, they can let them rise and fail by themselves.

Read the rest here:
Why the BC Liberals should suck it up and offer a Speaker - Macleans.ca