Qualified people shy away? If you don't have they stomach for it then we don't need you anyway.

If that is her decision it's a wise one. That Party is finished. The only important unknown now is which Party will provide the next 'label of convenience' for the current so-called 'BC Liberals' to coalesce under. Whichever one it is, it'll soon be as un-principled as they were in their previous incarnations. Hope it's the Conservatives, they're already half-way there.

I'm curious if the Liberal party will start to splinter apart, since they are a coalition of Liberal, Social Credit, and Reform BC party members.

Running for leader would be a good job at this particular time. It would entail little or no work at all---sorta like Carol James does. Hmmm - I might try to get in there myself.

Go for it Supertech. Make us all a bunch of good promises. Then after you're selected Leader and Premier, you can tell us all, "Well, I know I said we'd do this or that, but WE JUST DON'T HAVE THE MONEY...." And we'll let you off the hook. Happens every time.

"I'm curious if the Liberal party will start to splinter apart, since they are a coalition of Liberal, Social Credit, and Reform BC party members."

Me too. I think that they have to say good-bye to a few more than just the leader. The real colours of a few will show during the campaign. It will be interesting to see which colour the membership will elect.

I think if they shift to the right they will be toast for sure.

They've already started to splinter apart, Pylot Project. But they won't go back to what they were, because they never really were "Liberals", or "Reformers", and especially not "Social Crediters". To them, those were just 'labels of convenience'. Names to try to get elected under. The PRINCIPLES that were once behind all of those names, and again, especially "Social Credit", were long ago forgotten or consciously ignored.

Gus:-"I think if they shift to the right they will be toast for sure."
-----------------------------------------

What we badly need (again) is, "Neither a Party of the right, nor of the left, but a genuine middle-of-the-road, grassroots, free-enterprise, Movement. With equal opportunity for all, and special privileges for none. Where what is physically possible, socially desirable, and morally correct, should always be capable of being made fully financially possible."

When we had a government that endeavoured to live up to the promise contained in the words above, we had good government.

The Liberal machine sent a clear message to Watts by changing the rules for electing the next leader, and reducing her chances. The fight for power has already started.

But it is getting very interesting watching their downfall unfold.

RUEZ: "Qualified people shy away? If you don't have they stomach for it then we don't need you anyway."

Sadly, I can not blame many for staying away. If you had a good job, and a future, and a family life still, would you want to quit that to run for Premier? To lose your freedom, privacy? To put a huge strain on your family, possibly to lose that family? If your neighbour gets caught for impaired driving does the whole province get to comment on it? Do you want a job where half the electorate thinks you are a crook? That you're only doing it to benefit yourself? Those are only a few considerations. People talk often about the huge raise the MLA's and Premier got a year or two ago, yet they never consider that before this our Premier's pay was only more than the Premier of PEI, all others were above. Did that make sense?

I have thought for many years now that we should be much more thankful for the efforts made by our politicians. Most get into politics with good intentions, whether or not you agree with there policys. And, as we all bitch about how much our politicians make, consider that an MLA like Robin Austin (Kitimat Stikine, NDP) could be making more money working at Alcan. If we want quality people to run our Province we need to pay them and treat them fairly.

"Candidates will have to pay $25 thousand dollars for their shot at the post of Liberal Party Leader, and can spend as much as $450 thousand dollars to try and win that race."

Obviously, this is designed to filter out the riff raff. Whoever is chosen as the new Liberal leader and Premier will have forked over these amounts just to get in the race. I think it emphasises what appears to be the underlying principle of the party; that money is the basis for decision making. If the Liberal executive truly wanted the "best" candidate for the job, then surely they would have made it easier for ordinary people to run for the position instead of limiting it to those who are wealthy and have $25,000 cash hanging around, or who have corporate sponsors who are willing to underwrite up to half a million dollars. As the saying goes, "It is impossible not to communicate", and this speaks volumes.

That argument dates back at least to Dave Barrett's time as Premier, theviewuphere. When "fat little Dave" raised his own salary to more than that of the Prime Minister of Canada. While his MLAs, and those in Opposition, too, were to become full-time professional politicians.

People who would not only tell us WHAT we wanted done, whether WE wanted it done or not, but also tell those charged with actually doing it HOW to do their jobs.

Did we get better government as a result? Obviously not, "fat little Dave" was gone in three years. Unfortunately, the trend he initiated didn't go with him.

Does anyone who has the slightest experience in the administration of anything believe that some elected, second-rate, pseudo-expert (at his or her very best), can successfully direct a professional, experienced, actual first-rate expert in "how" to do his job?

If they do they're dreaming in technicolor.

The job of the elected is to convey the wishes of the electorate as to the RESULTS it desires from those who should be competent enough to obtain them for us ~ the civil service. And to arrange for their oversight. And replacement if what is desired isn't achieved.

That isn't what we have today. We have had, at least since Dave Barrett's time, a profusion of highly paid apologists for failed and failing POLICIES dictated to them by their Party's largest financial backers. Is it any wonder they receive the heat and suffer the derision they're currently subjected to? And we should pay them MORE for THAT? BRING IT BACK TO WHAT IT SHOULD BE, WHERE THEY TRULY ARE "REPRESENTATIVES" OF THE PEOPLE. Because they are then "of the People", not some annointed permanent class above them.

ammonra:-"If the Liberal executive truly wanted the "best" candidate for the job, then surely they would have made it easier for ordinary people to run for the position instead of limiting it to those who are wealthy and have $25,000 cash hanging around, or who have corporate sponsors who are willing to underwrite up to half a million dollars. "
-------------------------------------------
I quite agree, ammonra. But then if the NDP truly wanted the 'best' candidate in each riding it wouldn't have dictated that 'best' would limited by a gender quota. 'Best' would be 'best' ~ man OR woman who, by their own merits and abilities is 'best' qualified to do the job.

I did not, and still do not, agree with gender quotas in elected positions.

Me neither. But I wonder if the NDP leadership realises just how many potential supporters a policy like that has cost them? My next-door neighbour, for instance, a life-long NDPer, absolutely refuses to vote for them again, no matter what, as long as that 'quota' is in place. Do they have a wish to continually snatch defeat from the jaws of victory?

I don't know what the motivation was for the quota, other than the obvious - to ensure more women and minorities were selected, and it was not just to focus on women. Still, I do not agree with it.

Personally, I think it was completely unnecessary anyway. If any party is committed to equality of opportunity for all I would expect it to be the NDP. After all, our leader, Carole James, was elected despite running against some men. Obviously her gender made no difference. I would expect that each constituency association would make similar non-discriminatory choices. I do agree with a campaign to encourage more women and minorities to put their names forward, as often they do not, presumably from early conditioning not to rock the boat.

i think more people should look into gender studies.

Canwest, cum Postmedia, has been playing up Watts for years. She is always photographed in action, to make her look like a hard-worker. She is also credited with supposed police cleanups in Surrey. However, reality dicates: municipal politicians cannot direct day to day operations of police services. Watts is a media baloon, blown up to prop the cop-lobby agenda, which is all powerful in BC.

You need to know this: the percentage of the dozens of convictions of BC cops that were generated by private exercises of complaint, since the Charter regime commenced in 1982, equals: ZERO. What better example do you need to confirm the widespread notion that the 99.5% of the public who are not court-officers, are treated as persona non grata by the hired help.

I despise the Libs, but I am not an NDPer. On Justice system issues, that party allows an absolute monopoly to 4 members: James, Krog, Farnsworth, and Kwan (a criminologist and former cop tool). Hence, the pathological lack of effective criticism of cop abuses. In addition, the NDP indulged the jobs-for-the-boys benefit from the new Supreme Court Rules.

Voting NDP is better than poking your eyes with a stick, but not much. I am not voting because my MLA is one of the filthy-four.