|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 1,978
1500+ posts
|
OP
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 1,978 |
At some point in 2005, Tony Blair will stand for a third term as Priminister. Despite his deteriorating credibility he is still likely to win because of the weakness of the two rival political parties.
In the U.S. the longest a President can serve is two terms.
Is the American model the way to go, or should we allow our leaders to stay in power until either the processes of democracy or the long knives in their own political parties oust them?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949
2500+ posts
|
|
2500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949 |
I prefer the American way myself. Yeah, it means we can only hang on to our good presidents for eight years at the most, but if we get stuck with a bad president, we know that eventually he'll be out of power, be it in four years or eight.
"Well when I talk to people I don't have to worry about spelling." - wannabuyamonkey
"If Schumacher’s last effort was the final nail in the coffin then Year One would’ve been the crazy guy who stormed the graveyard, dug up the coffin and put a bullet through the franchise’s corpse just to make sure." -- From a review of Darren Aronofsky & Frank Miller's "Batman: Year One" script
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 1,020
1000+ posts
|
|
1000+ posts
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 1,020 |
I like the British system. The idea that Blair's losing credibility is exaggerated. Almost everyone I know believes that he's still the right man, even though Iraq was a bit of a blow.
And besides, if they're a bad PM they get voted out after one term. It's as simple as that.
OOK OOK ACK EEK!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,820
cobra kai 15000+ posts
|
|
cobra kai 15000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,820 |
i'd prefer a combo, actually.
i don't think a president should be limited to two terms. however i do think a president should not be allowed to run in consecutive terms.
during the fourth year, the president spends (wastes) so much time defending his own policies, campaigning, making new promises, etc ... all of which should be time spent being president.
by disallowing consecutive terms, you can ensure that you'll get four solid years of presidenting. and, if that president is especially good and, thus, popular, you can revote him into office every other term, forever.
giant picture
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Except...
You'll end up with the guy "out of office" stopping at nothing to snipe at the guy "in office" every chance he gets.
If you think partisan bickering is bad NOW, it would be ten times as bad under the Rob proposal.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 7,587
7500+ posts
|
|
7500+ posts
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 7,587 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 13,392
[insert non-dated reference here] 10000+ posts
|
|
[insert non-dated reference here] 10000+ posts
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 13,392 |
Term limits are good, and Canada is an example of why we need them.
We had the same prime minister -- Jean Chretien of the Liberal Party -- for 12 years straight. He got reelected over and over not because he was competent or even that people liked him, but because the old conservatives had split on an east-west basis into two rival parties, neither of which could threaten the Liberal Party's reign of power. It wasn't until just a year ago that the conservatives finally got their act together and merged the two parties back together to form the new Conservative Party that the Liberals' power was ever threatened. This enabled the corrupt Liberals, headed by Jean Chretien, to retain power despite numerous scandals involving the misuse of millions of Canadian taxpayer's dollars.
I'm not saying that term-limits would've necessarily reformed the Liberal Party, but things have been much better since Chretien finally resigned and was replaced by his longtime rival, Paul Martin. And they no longer have a majority government, which is also very good.
So I do think term limits are good. You let politicians be in charge for too long, and eventually they begin thinking of themselves as royalty, as if they belong there.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,820
cobra kai 15000+ posts
|
|
cobra kai 15000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,820 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
You'll end up with the guy "out of office" stopping at nothing to snipe at the guy "in office" every chance he gets.
i can't see that as being much different than it is now, in that regard. its not like clinton went his terms in silence, or bush went without democrat commentary.
at least this way, the guy "in office" (quotes?) wouldn't have to waste his, and the nation's, time retaliating with similar mud slinging.
disco is right.
me for president.
giant picture
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949
2500+ posts
|
|
2500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949 |
Quote:
Rob Kamphausen said:
i'd prefer a combo, actually.
i don't think a president should be limited to two terms. however i do think a president should not be allowed to run in consecutive terms.
during the fourth year, the president spends (wastes) so much time defending his own policies, campaigning, making new promises, etc ... all of which should be time spent being president.
by disallowing consecutive terms, you can ensure that you'll get four solid years of presidenting. and, if that president is especially good and, thus, popular, you can revote him into office every other term, forever.
The problem with this is that people have short memories. Yeah, they'll love him for four years, but if he has to wait four years after that term to run for office, people will forget about him, unless he spends all four years campaigning - and as G-Man said, that will only increase the amount of partisan vitriol we have to put up with.
"Well when I talk to people I don't have to worry about spelling." - wannabuyamonkey
"If Schumacher’s last effort was the final nail in the coffin then Year One would’ve been the crazy guy who stormed the graveyard, dug up the coffin and put a bullet through the franchise’s corpse just to make sure." -- From a review of Darren Aronofsky & Frank Miller's "Batman: Year One" script
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 46,308
Who will I break next? 15000+ posts
|
|
Who will I break next? 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 46,308 |
Quote:
Rob Kamphausen said:
disco is right.
me for president.
Most the country doesn't even want gay marriage, let alone a gay president.
November 6th, 2012: Americas new Independence Day.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,820
cobra kai 15000+ posts
|
|
cobra kai 15000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,820 |
Quote:
rex said:
Most the country doesn't even want gay marriage, let alone a gay president.
wull there goes my hopes for you as "running mate" !
Quote:
Darknight613 said:
The problem with this is that people have short memories. Yeah, they'll love him for four years, but if he has to wait four years after that term to run for office, people will forget about him
a four year "leave" will allow the public to fully assess what that individual did as president, rather than what we have now: three presidential years, one year spent trying to make the public forget mistakes from the first three in time to start up again. thats a solid year wasted on being president.
in that fourth year, everything about the president changes. all of his speeches, even those 12 months prior to election, have a different tint to them. in modern times, we call that hope "lying," and its delightfully equal on both sides of the fence. forcing the president out after a four year period will address that directly.
further, it ensures a change in power all the time, never allowing a grouping to dominate the country for an 8 year run. at worst, a new face will take over. but as seen from reagan to bush, clinton to gore, dubya to cheney, gore to kerry, even those who are politically "like-minded" are vastly different. this will always give the public something new to push for.
giant picture
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,000
5000+ posts
|
|
5000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,000 |
Rob,
Could the president be his party's vice presidential candidate?
<sub>Will Eisner's last work - The Plot: The Secret Story of the Protocols of the Elders of ZionRDCW Profile"Well, as it happens, I wrote the damned SOP," Illescue half snarled, "and as of now, you can bar those jackals from any part of this facility until Hell's a hockey rink! Is that perfectly clear?!" - Dr. Franz Illescue - Honor Harrington: At All Costs"I don't know what I'm do, or how I do, I just do." - Alexander Ovechkin</sub>
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,820
cobra kai 15000+ posts
|
|
cobra kai 15000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,820 |
no.
in my earth, the president and vice president would both be ineligble in the subsequent term.
giant picture
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896 |
MisterJLA is RACKing awesome.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,205
fudge 4000+ posts
|
|
fudge 4000+ posts
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,205 |
Quote:
SpandexMonkeyMan said:
And besides, if they're a bad PM they get voted out after one term. It's as simple as that.
same thing in Denmark, and you know what's the best part of it?
It works!
 Racks be to MisterJLA
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,289
2000+ posts
|
|
2000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,289 |
It won’t work in Britain due to lack of credibility of the main opposition (Conservative Party) and the growing third party (Liberal Democrats) are not yet ready for power.
But I don’t know anyone who still has faith in Blair (I never did myself, I’ve found him to be false since before he was elected), the votes he stole from the Conservatives are now lost not knowing who to vote for (hence the proliferation of small far right parties with no real agenda, just a lot of frustration that is mainly led by the tabloid press), while all the Old Labour voters feel Blair has largely taken the party way from it’s core values. They are probably the reason for the rise of the Lib Dems, but are lot are still voting Labour out of habit because they can’t bear the thought of the Conservatives getting back in, and they are just praying Gordon Brown will succeed Blair.
I would limit to two consecutive terms myself. I think it’s best to have a change of leader imposed after that period, but if the people like them that much they should be able to choose them again at a later date.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,062
1000+ posts
|
|
1000+ posts
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,062 |
Quote:
Rob Kamphausen said:
Quote:
rex said:
Most the country doesn't even want gay marriage, let alone a gay president.
wull there goes my hopes for you as "running mate" !
He'll definitely be running if you make him your mate.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 1,020
1000+ posts
|
|
1000+ posts
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 1,020 |
Quote:
Steve T said:
It won’t work in Britain due to lack of credibility of the main opposition (Conservative Party) and the growing third party (Liberal Democrats) are not yet ready for power.
But I don’t know anyone who still has faith in Blair (I never did myself, I’ve found him to be false since before he was elected), the votes he stole from the Conservatives are now lost not knowing who to vote for (hence the proliferation of small far right parties with no real agenda, just a lot of frustration that is mainly led by the tabloid press), while all the Old Labour voters feel Blair has largely taken the party way from it’s core values. They are probably the reason for the rise of the Lib Dems, but are lot are still voting Labour out of habit because they can’t bear the thought of the Conservatives getting back in, and they are just praying Gordon Brown will succeed Blair.
I would limit to two consecutive terms myself. I think it’s best to have a change of leader imposed after that period, but if the people like them that much they should be able to choose them again at a later date.
That's probably a good point, but up here in Yorkshire (where exactly is Romsey, anyway?) Blair's still more popular politically that Howerd or Kennedy.
'Course, Kennedy's more personally popular than Blair cos he's Scottish and they rock, but Labour is still more popular. I don't know enough about Brown to opine on that matter, though.
OOK OOK ACK EEK!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,289
2000+ posts
|
|
2000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,289 |
Next to Southampton But posher. Charles and Di started their honeymoon here cos the Mountbatten family has a big estate.
Lady Romsey is often photographed with Prince Philip, along side lots of nudge nudge wink wink articles, look at them.
It's a Tory town really but the then Tory MP (who was very popular) died in 98 and they lost the bi-election to Lib Dem. They put in some old stereo type Tory who had never been near Romsey, thinking it would be easy, but the Lib Dems put up a local woman (ex Mayor of Romsey in fact) and won it. Her lead was narrowed at the next general election. Don't know how she'll get on next time.
She's in the shadow cabinet, representative for Women and old people I think. Her name's Sandra Gidley. She's been on Question Time and other things a few times.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,000
5000+ posts
|
|
5000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,000 |
Quote:
Rob Kamphausen said:
i'd prefer a combo, actually.
i don't think a president should be limited to two terms. however i do think a president should not be allowed to run in consecutive terms.
during the fourth year, the president spends (wastes) so much time defending his own policies, campaigning, making new promises, etc ... all of which should be time spent being president.
by disallowing consecutive terms, you can ensure that you'll get four solid years of presidenting. and, if that president is especially good and, thus, popular, you can revote him into office every other term, forever.
There is a problem with this that I did not think of. During the second term of many presidencies, if Congress doesn't like the President, they just wait him out, and don't bother to try and follow his agenda. That's why more gets done during a president's first term. The problem with this plan is that every term would be like a second term. So, if Congress doesn't want to work with the current President, they can just wait four years for the next one.
<sub>Will Eisner's last work - The Plot: The Secret Story of the Protocols of the Elders of ZionRDCW Profile"Well, as it happens, I wrote the damned SOP," Illescue half snarled, "and as of now, you can bar those jackals from any part of this facility until Hell's a hockey rink! Is that perfectly clear?!" - Dr. Franz Illescue - Honor Harrington: At All Costs"I don't know what I'm do, or how I do, I just do." - Alexander Ovechkin</sub>
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,820
cobra kai 15000+ posts
|
|
cobra kai 15000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,820 |
thats simply a problem of beaurocracy, and not something affected by my presidential term idea. congress could just as easily wait out a president's first term, in hopes of getting a new elected official (made easier, since nothing was accomplished in the first four years).
giant picture
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,000
5000+ posts
|
|
5000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,000 |
<sub>Will Eisner's last work - The Plot: The Secret Story of the Protocols of the Elders of ZionRDCW Profile"Well, as it happens, I wrote the damned SOP," Illescue half snarled, "and as of now, you can bar those jackals from any part of this facility until Hell's a hockey rink! Is that perfectly clear?!" - Dr. Franz Illescue - Honor Harrington: At All Costs"I don't know what I'm do, or how I do, I just do." - Alexander Ovechkin</sub>
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 1,020
1000+ posts
|
|
1000+ posts
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 1,020 |
I have to say, the idea of a bad PM or President staying in for more than a term is an absurd one. They're bad, they go. 'Kay, so Tony Blair's war on Iraq was a blunder, but economically, educationally and in most other areas he has succeeded admirably. There are more areas out there than foreign policy, people
OOK OOK ACK EEK!
|
|
|
|
|
