Jim Prentice proposes term limits for Alberta MLAs

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by Slava

LOL. This is even more amusing than the Alberta Party people who thought it was a terrible idea yesterday only to hear it was part of their policy as well.

There is a big difference between a leader saying they will do something and saying they will force it on everyone else.

You can put me in the group that is confused as to why Prentice is saying anything on the topic. I thought the party wanted the election to be really quiet and drama free. Hence the lack of open forums.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

There is a big difference between a leader saying they will do something and saying they will force it on everyone else.

You can put me in the group that is confused as to why Prentice is saying anything on the topic. I thought the party wanted the election to be really quiet and drama free. Hence the lack of open forums.

I'm wondering if Prentice doesn't have as many votes in lock step with him as external people speculate he does.

Maybe his grasp on the party is much more tenuous than most of us think?

[Harry Lime]

Originally Posted by cdutka

Term limits encourage short term governance. I would assume he is trying to solve corruption with it; however he is going about it the wrong way very wrong...

I think in order, every 4 year cycle has this in mind for each incumbent :
1) What can I do to get re-elected?
2) What can I do to ensure my income after politics?
3) What can I do to govern?

Term limits arn't the answer, but it's extremely rare to see a politician at any level actually govern. Lobby groups (in the States more than here) are more of an issue. Catering to industry is more of an issue.

Short term governance is a way of life here, and we have a party that has been in office for a million years.

Originally Posted by evman150

It's a stupid idea. Good politicians are in short supply. Why put a limit on how many times they can run?

This is all well and good for the POTUS, but for Alberta MLAs? No. Just stupid. Let the best people for the job run, period.

I'm not sure if the best people do run for the job. Voting trends towards electing the devil you know, and name recognition can keep a politician in power long after their due date. The rules for running, and the form that government processes take tend to skew towards the election of lawyers, as you travel up the political ladder. With the domination of one field of study, government tends to become very myopic.

It's not a good idea by any means, but it's a clumsy acknowledgment of a problem.

[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....

[MoneyGuy]

Terrible idea. It looks designed to further PC goals, just as the change of licence plate was. We already have a system to weed out politicians we don't want in office. It's called an election.

Does a premier even have this power? It appears that he's said he will do this, but doesn't this have to pass through the legislature, where I'm sure it would die the death it deserves.

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

Does a premier even have this power? It appears that he's said he will do this, but doesn't this have to pass through the legislature, where I'm sure it would die the death it deserves.

Well, assuming it passed through the leg, I'm sure someone would challenge it due to the below...

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?

I'm not sure. Its a bit "out there", but sometimes you wonder if he's just trying to throw his leadership bid. Just so odd (watch his campaign staff on twitter for a bit, oie....again).

[Jacks]

Main Albertan priorities are health care, education, resource development, fiscal issues and corruption. The PC's give us term limits and license plates as a distraction.

That toilet needs flushing.

[Five-hole]

Originally Posted by cdutka

Term limits encourage short term governance. I would assume he is trying to solve corruption with it; however he is going about it the wrong way very wrong...

Not necessarily. Serving forever encourages self-preservation governance, which can also be short-term focused.

[Krovikan]

Originally Posted by Five-hole

Not necessarily. Serving forever encourages self-preservation governance, which can also be short-term focused.

If that happens it is up to the people to vote them out.

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Meet the new boss
Worse than the old boss

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Canehdianman

I'm not an advocate for Smith's position, but if you can't tell the difference between halting all MLAs at 2 terms and stepping down as party leader after 2 terms as premier, then you've drank more of the kool-aid than I thought.

Because you can see the difference so clearly, let me ask you something. Why is it good enough to say that the voters should decide when to get rid of an MLA, so term limits are bad policy, but those same voters need term limits for the Premier?

[Canehdianman]

Originally Posted by Slava

Because you can see the difference so clearly, let me ask you something. Why is it good enough to say that the voters should decide when to get rid of an MLA, so term limits are bad policy, but those same voters need term limits for the Premier?

I never said (in fact, I explicitly said so) that I was in agreement with Smith's comments. I'm just not wearing blinders that make me defend anyone because of the team they are on.

But it is good to know that you can see the difference, but choose not to because it doesn't conform to your political leanings.

I suppose willfully blind is better than too stupid to understand.

[GP_Matt]

One is voluntary and the other is mandatory.

It is like the difference between Ralph Klein saying that he isn't going to drink alcohol any more and Ralph Klein passing a law that elected MLAs can't drink anymore.

The first is perfectly fine and the later is not.

Wildrose is saying that if you win twice we won't help you run a third time.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Canehdianman

I never said (in fact, I explicitly said so) that I was in agreement with Smith's comments. I'm just not wearing blinders that make me defend anyone because of the team they are on.

But it is good to know that you can see the difference, but choose not to because it doesn't conform to your political leanings.

I suppose willfully blind is better than too stupid to understand.

Nice shot in white. I can see that having an actual discussion of this is beyond you, so I will just ignore you.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

One is voluntary and the other is mandatory.

It is like the difference between Ralph Klein saying that he isn't going to drink alcohol any more and Ralph Klein passing a law that elected MLAs can't drink anymore.

The first is perfectly fine and the later is not.

Wildrose is saying that if you win twice we won't help you run a third time.

Ya I guess I see that, but the difference is meaningless really. The argument is that voters can reject MLA's at the ballot box as it stands so we don't need term limits. I don't see a difference with the premier at all? Save for the fact that few premiers have survived long enough for this to be an issue in the last few decades, why do we need this kind of policy? What's the benefit for the voter/province?

[GP_Matt]

I suppose that voters can't really eject the premier at the ballot box.
Voters in one riding out of 87 can eject the leader, but the leader can then run again in a different by-election.
Provincially though, the only option is to vote out the party. From a party's point of view it might be about self preservation to replace the leader before the population decides to. That way the party survives.

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

Provincially though, the only option is to vote out the party. From a party's point of view it might be about self preservation to replace the leader before the population decides to. That way the party survives.

You don't need term limits for that to happen.

[octothorp]

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.

[Kjesse]

Pretty odd thing for Prentice to come up with. It does nothing to solve the current problems. And here's section 3 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

3. Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.

So yeah, they could probably make it party policy that you can't run for the party if you've reached the terms limits, having term limits as an actual law would be unconstitutional. And I'm sure Prentice knows that... all the more strange that he came out saying this.

So I picked up my PC membership today to allow me to vote in this. Its becoming a choice between 3 undesirables however. Between free memberships and now this, Prentice is starting to look badly.

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by Jacks

That toilet needs flushing.

Yep. Unfortunately in my riding, the WR candidate is a known associate of Rob Anders and was on his board. Going to be a tough choice for me. Why can't the Rhino's field a candidate? At least their jokes are out in the open, with the others the joke is on us.