Skip to content
Join our Newsletter

Andrew Weaver's house of cards

Playing a good hand as if it's a great hand is a rookie mistake in poker. Being dealt a pair of queens in Texas Hold 'Em is a fine hand but its value is in jeopardy when an ace and/or a king are flopped on the board. B.C.
edit.20170524_5232017.jpg

Playing a good hand as if it's a great hand is a rookie mistake in poker. Being dealt a pair of queens in Texas Hold 'Em is a fine hand but its value is in jeopardy when an ace and/or a king are flopped on the board.

B.C. Green leader Andrew Weaver is playing poker with far more experienced political sharks in Christy Clark and John Horgan. How Weaver plays his cards could determine his political fate and even who gets to be premier.

Since May 9, Weaver has been referred to as a kingmaker because of the position he found himself on provincial election night. Weaver and two fellow Green candidates won their Vancouver Island seats. Meanwhile, Clark's B.C. Liberals won 43 seats and Horgan's NDP were right behind with 41.

With no majority by the top two parties, the counting of the absentee ballots that should finish today may change the results, particularly in Courtenay-Comox on Vancouver Island where the NDP candidate won by just nine votes.

If the Liberals take that riding away, Clark will have her majority by the hair on her chinny-chinny-chin.

If nothing changes and the election night results are confirmed in a recount, Weaver and his two Green chums would hold the balance of power in either a Liberal or an NDP government. In other words, they can't govern without him.

Yet his position far more precarious than the simple notion of horse trading for votes in the Legislature would appear.

Politics is no different from poker or life in that there's no relationship without a partner. As it stands, Clark remains the premier until she and the Liberals would be defeated in a vote in the Legislature. In that vote, the Greens would have to side with the NDP. On the surface, then, the Liberals need Weaver's support to hold onto power and to pass legislation. That means they'll have to give him major concessions in exchange for those votes.

That's one way of looking at it.

The other way would be for Clark and the Liberals to offer little or nothing to the Greens.

This tactic worked just fine for Stephen Harper during his first two terms as prime minister, with his Conservatives sitting in a minority government situation. Every significant vote before the House of Commons was a game of chicken where he dared the federal Liberals and the NDP to join their votes together, defeat his government and trigger another election.

If the Greens side with Horgan, Clark would have a field day pointing out that a vote for the Greens is a vote for either the second provincial election of the year, wasting another $45 million of taxpayer dollars or for propping up an illegitimate NDP government that didn't win the most seats nor the most number of votes on May 9.

Weaver's bargaining power is similarly weak with Horgan and the NDP.

On the surface, Horgan's only path to the premier's chair is through Weaver. He must get Weaver to side with him to defeat the Liberals in the Legislature and assure the lieutenant-governor that calling another election would be wasteful because he and the Greens are able to form government. That suggests he must give Weaver everything he wants and keep doing so, even once in power.

That's one way of looking at it.

The other way would be for Horgan and the NDP to offer little or nothing to the Greens.

That tactic worked great for David Peterson in Ontario. Although Peterson's Liberals won four fewer seats than the Conservatives in the 1985 provincial election, Peterson struck an informal deal with Bob Rae and the NDP to defeat the Conservatives and support a Liberal government, which the NDP did for two years. Rae didn't get a seat in cabinet or any other perks. It was simply a marriage of political convenience for both sides, allies only because they shared a common enemy.

If the Greens side with the Liberals, Horgan would a field day pointing out that a vote for the Greens is a vote for pipelines, increased oil tanker traffic out of Vancouver, Mount Polley and politicians bought and paid for by wealthy donors.

This tactic could potentially force Weaver and his two MLAs to side with Horgan for nothing in return - no official party status, no promises on electoral reform, pipelines, Site C or anything else.

In that light, both Horgan and Clark's take-it-or-leave-it offer to Weaver would be identical: "side with me and I'll get some things done you might like or side with my enemy and I'll crucify you politically for it."

In either of these scenarios, Weaver is no longer a kingmaker but a political slave, fearful of being a one-hit wonder kicked to the curb of B.C. political history and whipped into line by a political adversary holding better cards, unafraid to call his bluff.

Over to you, sir. Bet or fold?

-- Managing editor Neil Godbout