BC Premier Christy Clark ... vindicated.

[jbg]

There is no legal requirement that the Premier be an MLA. The only requirement is the Premier must be able to command the confidence of the legislative assembly. As leader of the majority party she will no problems doing that.

That said, tradition dictates that she must be an MLA and will have to run for office again at the earliest opportunity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Minister_of_Canada

Thanks for the explanation. I know little or nothing about Canada.

[BubberMiley]

I know little or nothing about Canada.

Sarcasm?

[Pliny]

Maybe so but only a true political hack would try and blame the opposition for the actions of a government.

LOL. This sequester thing is all because of republicans even if I did make the proposal.

[Pliny]

I thought their policies were pretty clear: block any project that might create jobs, raises taxes, increase spending and then raise taxes even more when they realize their spending promises cost most than they claimed.

Couldn't have said it better.

[Pliny]

I wouldn't call losing her riding vindicated.

There was simply little change since last election. Voting habits are tough to break.

The big loser is B.C.'s environment which is going to be raped as per campaign promise. To many here that's not a big deal. It would be nice if they would just go to Mars where they can all circle over the resources there without actually irrevocably harming life on earth.

Or perhaps they can go to Norway. It's closer.

[Guest Kenneth]

In theory the Premier - this term is not even official - has little significance other than being leader of the cabinet; the actual "leader" of a province is the LG, and given the repeated examples of "democracy"'s failings in this county, it would be good to see that the Crown become more involved in running our respective provinces.

[ReeferMadness]

Our political system is a relic of earlier times. The power that used to (theoretically at least) reside with elected members has been sucked into the parties. Very few people actually understand how the system was originally intended to work or why it doesn't any more. It's time for an update.

[Newfoundlander]

In theory the Premier - this term is not even official - has little significance other than being leader of the cabinet; the actual "leader" of a province is the LG, and given the repeated examples of "democracy"'s failings in this county, it would be good to see that the Crown become more involved in running our respective provinces.

Why?

[TimG]

Our political system is a relic of earlier times. The power that used to (theoretically at least) reside with elected members has been sucked into the parties.

Yet all of the proposals that you seem to favor would constitutionally entrench the party system and make things much worse.

The way to reform the system is to limit the power of parties. i.e. parties rules that prevent elected MPs from booting out a PM should not be allowed.

[ReeferMadness]

Yet all of the proposals that you seem to favor would constitutionally entrench the party system and make things much worse.

That's untrue and unfair but hey, this is the internet. Say whatever you want. Nobody's listening anyway.

The way to reform the system is to limit the power of parties. i.e. parties rules that prevent elected MPs from booting out a PM should not be allowed.

That's a very superficial approach to resolving a set of complex issues. Simply limiting the power of parties won't address them all. Parties play a valuable role in defining the political landscape. Most people vote for parties, not candidates. Parties are part of the modern reality and they are here to stay.

The objective should be to update the rules and define the appropriate role for parties within modern politics, not just try to regress the state of party politics to an earlier time.

[TimG]

That's untrue and unfair

All proportional representation systems require that the concept of parties be entrenched in the voting system because proportionality is measured based on party affiliation. So what I said it true.

The objective should be to update the rules and define the appropriate role for parties within modern politics, not just try to regress the state of party politics to an earlier time.

Just because you sneer at 'old ways' does not make them bad. We need a better representational democracy which means the individual elected representatives should have more power. We don't need a system which gives more power to fringe parties that represent a small fraction of electorate. Edited May 27, 2013 by TimG

[Pliny]

All proportional representation systems require that the concept of parties be entrenched in the voting system because proportionality is measured based on party affiliation. So what I said it true.

Just because you sneer at 'old ways' does not make them bad. We need a better representational democracy which means the individual elected representatives should have more power. We don't need a system which gives fmore power to fringe parties that represent a small fraction of electorate.

Precisely as I see it.

It is evident in the coalitions that must be formed in Europe. Governing coalitions that aid their own "special interests" giving tit for tat generally at the expense of the rest of the ocuntry.

Really, the mandate of a federal or national government should be based in the common interests of all as regards the country not the special interests of certain groups wanting entitlements and voting themselves favour or political parties centralizing power for the good of "all".

Edited May 27, 2013 by Pliny