Quote:
Originally Posted by RedHot25
Maybe some of our legal experts can chime in, but am I understanding this right - at least according to twitterverse out there - that this is likely unconstitutional? I.e. it could be party policy, but it wouldn't pass muster as an actual law?
Also, beyond trying to limit - or perhaps even decapitate all opposition parties, would this not lead to potentially 1 term premiers?
Let's say someone is a MLA, for 2 terms. They then become premier. So, as a result, do they only get 1 term as premier? Or does the clock sort of re-set itself and they get the full 2 terms at premier? And, as well, what constitutes a term? I thiink we have fixed election dates (?), but still....I bet that another election could still, in practical terms, occur say 2 years after the initial general election (for whatever reason). So, does that 2 years count as a term, or is a term designated as 4 years?
Oie....
|
Well, technically you don't actually need to be an MLA to be Premier, you just need to be leader of the party with the most seats. You can't sit in the legislature if you're not an MLA, but there's no requirement for the leader to actually do so.
http://alberta.ca/aboutgovernment.cfm
So in theory, under Stelmach's proposal, someone could be elected as an MLA for three terms, become leader of his party and become premier and then not run again as an MLA, but serve another two terms as a Premier who doesn't sit in the LA.
I think the public would be pissed off if that happens, yet arguably that sort of approach would be the only way to get a premier who's highly experienced at the provincial level under Prentice's proposal.
EDIT: And as much as I agree that this policy greatly favours the established party, I can think of at least one opportunity for manipulation by the opposition. Let's say a party wins three terms with one Premier, with the third of those terms being a minority government. The opposition parties decide they're going to take advantage of the situation and a few months into the government, they hold a non-confidence vote, and suddenly we're not only facing a new election, but the governing party needs a new leader. They've got to either do a snap party leadership race before the election, or they need to go into the election with an interim leader and then have a leadership race after the election. Neither are positive results for democracy.
Now, the problem with this scenario is that the opposition parties are shortening their own careers by holding the non-confidence vote, so they'd be unlikely to do so. But a system where politicians cannot vote against the government out of fear for shortening their own careers is a bad system.