Kevin Falcon wants it bad...very bad.
Be afraid.
He is not what he seems.
A lot of nasty in this guy.
Colin Hansen wants it too,but he won't get it..too unpopular and carrying the same dishonesty/liar stamp as Campbell.
Abbott and deJong are long shots with not enough support or charisma and Coleman...forget it.
He is not known for being a rocket scientist.
I think the Liberals have already decided who the new class clown will be.
There is likely a plan in place to try and finess the voters,given the severe unpopularity issue they are dealing with, but in the end...IMO...Kevin Falcon.
I expect some big announcements after a new leader is crowned to try and win back the voters.
Make no mistake...they will have a plan.
I would be very suprised if Christy Clark takes a run at the big chair...she knows what and who she will be dealing with.
I think she is smarter than that.
For the Campbell old guard,winning the leadership is one thing,but winning an election is another, and they know that.
Their only hope is to buy back the votes before the next provincial election and we would be wise to get our bullsh**t protectors on!

It won't make any difference who gets the job, that Party is now as much a Party of zombies as the NDP was "...at the end of the day," as Ujjal used to repeatedly say.

It couldn't change course now without tearing itself apart.

Too many of its "bright lights", (and there's an oxymoron, if ever there was one!), have let Fearless Leader do their thinking and talking for them for too long. He's implicated them all in HIS decisions, and they haven't corrected him.

And anyone else with even a modicum of talent beneath them in the Liberal caucus who might've spoken out publicly earlier has been contaminated by being included in Fearless Leader's bloated Cabinet with its vow of secrecy and solidarity.

Carole Taylor would be in the same spot Vander Zalm was in when he took over as Social Credit leader in 1986, after having previously been out of the Cabinet circle for awhile. He didn't share in the public disaffection that surrounded Premier Bill Bennett's government over the fallout from his "austerity program".

Where the over-paid, over-educated, but functionally useless, Civil Service drones at the top were rewarded with still more pay for running up the body count of the number of useful, and far from over-paid, people near the bottom they could get rid of.

Taylor would be backstabbed at every appropriate moment by the current crowd in Cabinet who want the job, but are too tainted by their close association with Campbell to ever get it.

Christy Clark was utterly hopeless when she was in government. She has that same know-it-all, "Let me tell you..." attitude that Campbell has. And she and her hubby have their own latent political scandal still lurking in the background. She's found her calling on talk radio. Better she stay there.

Sadly, for us, with that stupid "fixed election date" in place, we'll be stuck with whoever gets the job and whatever further damage they can inflict on us until 2013. Unless the Recalls are successful.

Agreed socredible,but I also think the new king of the Liberal party has already been chosen among the Campbell mafia heavyweights.
They are probably already busy dividing up the power base.
Campbell surrounded himself with these egomaniacs for a reason,and they are not going away without a fight.
They are also the keepers of the "secrets",and they are not going to let anyone from outside the circle get in to see the dirty laundry without amajor battle.
Christy Clark loves the limelight and she loves to hear herself talk.
She hates it when someone doesn't agree with her,and that may very well be why she flew the coup.
While she is not a stupid person by any means,her need for attention could delude her into taking a shot at it,but I doubt it.
I think she knows the heavyweights and insiders are not going to let it happen.
It's going to be interesting,and I still think there is a plan in place.
We should see it start to emerge very soon.
The biggest mistake we can ever make is trusting any of these clowns ever again,which is why the leadership is one thing and winning an election is another!
And you're right again...the fixed election date is killing us!
They can still do alot of damage.
Those recalls are far more important than many people realize.
While the Liberals are technically dead,they have bought the B.C. voters off before and history tells us they are capable of doing it again.

Andyfreeze wrote: "... Coleman...forget it.
He is not known for being a rocket scientist."

Bang on with that one!! I heard him on a number of occasions, when he was forest minister, go head to head with Simpson, who was forest critic at the time.

Not even a fair battle. Simpson beat him hands down. Had the statistics at his fingertips as well as a far superior strategy of dealing with the issues under discussion.
--------------------------

"I expect some big announcements after a new leader is crowned to try and win back the voters."

I do not think announcements will work. There will be 2 years to show down. They will have to prove a change in strategy over that time.

"And you're right again...the fixed election date is killing us!"

Why is the fixed election date killing us? It is not as if the BCLiberals did not have a majority.

Seats at the moment:
BCLiberals = 47
NDP = 34
Independent = 4

With both parties looking for a leader (both having such brilliantly conceived succession planning strategies) the likelyhood of an election call at any time would be very low. Possible, but very low. And only likely if the new BCLiberals leader is by some magic seen by the polls to be a much stronger candidate after the leadership convention than the NDP.

In fact, if there were no fixed election date, the NDP would be well advised to have their leadership convention pretty darn soon otherwise they could be left holding the bag running with James at a snap election call in the early spring.

Depending on how the leadership convention goes, one or more of the ousted BCLiberals might even come back into the fold.

You're right gus...the longer the Liberals go without having to face the ballot box,the better it is for them...in their self-serving minds.
But that's the problem.
They can do a lot of damage between now and then with false promises.
As soon as a new leader is in place,the bribery will start, in hopes of a popularity recovery before election time.
Like Campbell's fake 15% tax cut,anything they promise between now and then is suspect.
I think the best tool we have is to get going on the recalls.

Andy is right. The "fixed election date" completely absolves whoever is chosen new Liberal leader of seeking a mandate from "the People" for whatever course his government intends to follow.

While it is certainly acceptable under our system for the leadership of a government to change at any time without the necessity of a new election, what is completely unacceptable is the FACT that in this instance the current Premier has implemented a tax, the HST, that his government was not only never given a mandate to bring in, but denied any intentions of ever bringing in before the last election.

We can certainly cut our governmnets some slack when it comes to making decisions that change with changing circumstances, but when an overwhelming majority of the people of BC do not want this illegitimate tax shift, and are completely against the way in which it was brought in ~ and the promise of even a chance for its repeal has had to be exacted under duress of a successful, legitimate Petition that has had numerous roadblocks thrown in its way, now forcing the threat of Recall, no one claiming Campbell's position has any legitimacy as head of a government "of the People" without a general election immediately afterwards to confirm or deny that legitimacy.

"Fixed election dates" have absolutely no place in a Parliamentary sytem based, as ours WAS, on both 'Representative' and 'Responsible' government.

By 'Responsible'government I do NOT mean responsible every four years for ALL their actions collectively, but responsible to the electorate at ANY TIME FOR ANY ACTION.

In our system of democracy that's what any government must be ~ always prepared to go to the People at ANY time to renew it's right to govern. If we don't have that, if we'd sooner "save money" by having a fixed election date every four years, then lets save some more money and get rid of MLAs entirely. For if they can't be held "responsible" in their choice or refusal of one thing at a time, how in the name of all that's Holy are they ever going to be "representative"?

An old school leader like Wacky Bennett would have no doubt called an election over the HST,and he did so several times over other contentious issues.
That takes some family jewels, but it is the right thing to do.

Okay, so let's make fixed election dates the issue for discussion. Stick with a topic and don't obvuscate.

There might have been a few examples when governments in power went to election when they did not have to. By that I mean a considerable time before they had to, not just a few months earlier.

Here is the list of Prime Ministers who were not elected by the people. They were appointed by the governing party of the day.

Interestingly Piere Trudeau was the quickest to go to the people. Other than Charles Tupper, the longest ones were all Conservative.

The list is names, lib/cons, years, months, days in office, elected/lost/resigned/died

Pierre Trudeau Lib 0 2 5 Elec
Charles Tupper Cons 0 2 10 Lost
Alexander MacKenzie Lib 0 2 15 Elec
John Turner Lib 0 2 17 Lost
Paul Martin Lib 0 6 16 Elec
Louis St. Laurent Lib 0 7 12 Elec
Kim Campbell Cons 1 4 9 Lost
Mackenzie Bowell Cons 1 4 11 Res
Arthur Meighen Cons 1 5 0 Lost
John Abbott Cons 1 5 20 Res
John Thompson Cons 2 0 7 Died

So, if the individual is a current sitting member, he/she would already be elected.

If not, they should be seeking an elected seat.

We are not lving in the USA and thus do not elect the leader of the government, we elect only the local representative.

In fact, I believe it is quite possible for a coalition to be formed after an election that may select an independent to be the premier of the province.

I would be interested to hear more from a parliamentarian about the legalities of the matter.

Why would anyone want to be the captain of a sinking ship. Oh ya I almost forgot, what does a premier get for a pension?

Anyone know how long a Premier has to be in the hot seat to collect that pension?
Hey GUS, thanks for the digging, you do it well.

Any Premier, or Prime Minister, can only retain the job as long as he or she has the confidence of a majority of MLAs in the Legislature, or MPs in the House of Commons.

While it is tradition that both be Members of their respective legislative body, a Prime Minister could be a Senator instead of an elected MP. And both PMs and Premiers could also be someone who is not a Member of Parliament or the Legislative Assembly at all. It would be highly unusual, perhaps quite awkward in numerous ways, but it's only tradition that dictates Membership. That's just the way it has evolved, it's not "set in stone" anywhere Constitutionally, so far as I'm aware.

Premier Aberhart of Alberta, for instance, was the Leader of the Alberta Social Credit League that swept to power in that Province's 1935 general election, but did not personally run for office as an MLA at that time. He became Premier when his Socreds won, and was only later elected to the Legislature in a by-election when one of his MLAs resigned so he could run (and hopefully) be elected in his place. He did run then, and he was elected.

WAC Bennett was not Leader of the BC Social Credit League when it was first elected to office in 1952. In that election the BC Socreds only had a "campaign Leader", a candidate who personally failed to win election as a MLA.

The position of permanent BC Socred Leader, and who would be Premier if they formed government, was left undecided until after the election. Under an agreement made previously, it fell to those actually elected as Socred MLAs to choose a Leader (and Premier), and only from amongst their caucus, and Bennett got the job.

The beauty of our system is its flexibility. It is bound by tradition, but tradition is not the same as being rigidly bound Constitutionally, as the Americans are.

There is nothing wrong with a Premier or Prime Minister seeking a renewed mandate before his term of office is up. WAC Bennett went to "the People", on average, about every three years.

How else can you really govern successfully if you're not sure if those you're "leading" are still willing to follow?

Take the HST issue, for instance. If it is so truly vital to the well-being of British Columbia that we change to that type of taxation, it should be something on which the government proposing it is willing to stand or fall. Right now, if it raises the level of opposition that it has, not in 2013.

If it's not willing to chance a general election on that kind of a contentious issue, then put it to "the People" in a Referendum after making the case for it. And abide by OUR decision, before going any further. Don't do it the way it WAS done ~ that isn't 'democracy'.

The hamistier for premier! I'll get it done, I just need YOUR money to do it! 200 grand a year and I'll do it! Just imagine, wouldn't they be shocked. I'd sure love the pension, at least I wouldn't lie to ya!

It really all comes down to a statement attributed to Winston Churchill.

Not in his finest hour as Prime Minister. The, "We shall never surrender.." voice of a battered British Commonwealth and Empire locked in a desperate and still highly uncertain struggle with the forces of fascism.

But one uttered by him a decade or so earlier. Back when good old Winnie was Chancellor of the Exchequor, (Minister of Finance, over here), and directly responsible for policies that led to the decimation of the British military and industrial base that nearly proved fatal in the early years of the war.

Then just as now, as history unlearned repeats itself, in the name of "austerity".

"All sound finance is unpleasant finance", bespoke our Winston. And he enacted measures that brought on much "unpleasantness", but not anywhere near a corresponding amount of "soundness" to anything.

It wasn't noted that Winnie was sharing in the "unpleasantness", though. There's no record of his ever faithful Clemmie having to take in laundry to keep him in scotch and cigars. Interested parties ~ interested in benefiting from the principles of so-called "sound finance", made sure he was well supplied. But that's another story.

Now why should this ever be so? Why should "all sound finance be unpleasant finance?" Is not "finance" merely a numerical REFLECTION of physical reality? And "sound finance" then only an ACCURATE 'reflection' of that reality? What else could it be?

What had then, or has now, become in any ways "unpleasant" about a physical reality in which, at that time, just as now, there was a GLUT of just about everything imaginable on the markets of the world?

One could see it if there were SHORTAGES, if things we needed or desired were impossible to make or procure. If there was a decreasing amount of material wealth to be had, and no way to reverse the situation. But in a GLUT?

With a producing system standing behind that GLUT that was, at best, already half idle? One that was ready, willing and able, to add even MORE to it, if called upon to do so?

Now how can that ever be "unpleasant"? Only if "sound finance" is far from ever being "sound" at all. And is, in fact, NOT a REFLECTION of physical reality but a complete DISTORTION of it.