Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4
2929 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 837

Subscriber

  Reply # 1638353 21-Sep-2016 19:21
One person supports this post
Send private message

Politicians should serve until the end of the cheeseboard course. And then Foreign Office.


5216 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2121


  Reply # 1638610 22-Sep-2016 10:12
Send private message

mattwnz:

 

 

MikeAqua:

 

Until voted out.  Let the electorate decide.

 

 

 

 

 

That would assume that we have a healthy democracy. But our media is now very poor and hardly reports on things that go on in politics, unless it involves some sort of scandal. How do you even find out about what the new potential councilors stand for, they have to spend a lot to get their message out there, as there is hardly anything in the local papers about them. This is only getting worse as consolidation occurs media. You often don't find about something that affects you until it has already been passed through council, as it often isn't reported on. 

 

Re: time limit. I would put it a different way, is 5 terms to many for a Mayor. That is 20 years.

 

If you watched Nigel Lattas program last night, he did show some signs of worry over 'lobbying'. This is where organisations pay a company to 'mingle' with the decision makes, to give them their point of view. Yet apparently there are no records kept of these meetings. It would also likely occur with councils, with property developers etc. The Lobby guy he spoke to says that your average person on the street can also just go in and lobby for something, and will have the same influence as a pro. But Latta didn't agree with that

 

 

I don't dispute your concerns but they apply across all candidates/parties etc.  They are constants.  Lack of information is as applicable to the election of fresh faced first time candidate as it is to the re-election of a grizzled old veteran. 

 

Incidentally, if you want to know what a council candidate stands for their elevator pitch is contained in the booklet that comes with the voting papers.  If you want more - check out their social media and website; go to public meetings or even talk to them.  Info is available (from your couch in the case of the online stuff). 

 

Lobbying:  Businesses, unions, local government, environmentalists and charities all lobby.  Anyone can do it, but very few people are good at it.  You need great interpersonal skills, a huge network and to be valued by the person you are lobbying - usually because you have connections, knowledge etc.





Mike

BTR

1484 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 443


  Reply # 1638625 22-Sep-2016 10:29
Send private message

My opinion os not about age but time served, I think councillors should only be able to stand for 2 terms and then move on, that way every election we have new blood and new ideas, if we implemented it in two rounds that would mean 50% retire each election.

 

 

 

When it comes to central government I think again that 2 terms is long enough after all politicians are people who have no skills in the area they are supposed to oversea


5216 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2121


  Reply # 1638632 22-Sep-2016 10:36
Send private message

BTR:

 

My opinion os not about age but time served, I think councillors should only be able to stand for 2 terms and then move on, that way every election we have new blood and new ideas, if we implemented it in two rounds that would mean 50% retire each election.

 

 

 

When it comes to central government I think again that 2 terms is long enough after all politicians are people who have no skills in the area they are supposed to oversea

 

 

The great thing is you can vote accordingly.  If enough people agree, that's what will happen. 

 

I value both new ideas (many of which are not new) and experience (institutional memory) so I like a mix and that's how I voted.





Mike



Glurp
8449 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3880

Subscriber

  Reply # 1638686 22-Sep-2016 11:29
One person supports this post
Send private message

I have mixed feelings about this. I believe in democracy and agree that voters should make the decisions. At the same time, I can see that the game is rigged and the playing field is not level. While it is true in principle that anyone can lobby, in practice it is difficult to the point of impossibility for amateur idealists to go up against a well-funded professional lobby organisation. How do you get a fair hearing when your opponent is expensively wining and dining the decision-makers, who are probably also mates because they have been in office for half their lifetimes?

 

We accept government regulation in consumer matters because a huge power imbalance exists between sellers and buyers. The same principle is applied in other areas, such as labour relations. So why should there not be something similar, a kind of safety valve, in the political arena? No-one is being told how to vote. No candidate is prevented from running, as long as they don’t exceed the allowed limit of terms.

 

No doubt there will be exceptional people who get excluded because they have done such a good job, which is also unfair, but it is unlikely to happen often and such people can still go on to make outstanding contributions in other areas. I suspect (admittedly don’t really know) that limiting the number of terms an elected representative could serve would do more good than harm. The current system, at least on the local level, is essentially an old boys network where the same small group (with occasional individual differences) keep getting returned to office every election because they all move in the same circles as the power brokers and they all socialise together at the same high status events and eat at the same expensive restaurants and generally do the same kinds of things and they have name recognition in the local media so when the posters go up with their bland faces and uninformative ‘vote for me’ slogans, people think ‘I know that guy, he reminds me of that friendly property broker’ and the box gets ticked. It may be democracy, but it sure isn’t very democratic. In all but name, it is in fact a class system. It is not impossible for maverick outsiders to break in, and some do, but it is not a level playing field.

 

If a politician is good at what she does, and has something meaningful to contribute, surely she can do that in two or three terms? I am very suspicious of the motives of anyone who wants to stay in the job forever.

 

 

 

 





I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage
 


18491 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5289

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1638687 22-Sep-2016 11:30
Send private message

richms:

 

That is why I am purely voting on the council stuff based on age. All the old ones have done their time and are out of touch so have to go. I don't care that they will probably be unemployable, that is not my problem.

 

 

 

 

Heh because youth is ALWAYS Better than age right?

 

lol

 

 


5216 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2121


  Reply # 1638694 22-Sep-2016 11:39
2 people support this post
Send private message

Voting based on age is about as palatable to me as voting based on sex, race etc





Mike

gzt

10261 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1577


  Reply # 1639044 22-Sep-2016 21:54
Send private message

I don't see term limits as being that useful in reality.

Most successful endeavours have a mix of youth and experience.

The increased speed of communication is actually taking care of some of these issues anyway.

12017 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3904

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1639090 22-Sep-2016 23:43
Send private message

Tricky.

 

I think some kind of limit is useful (like the two term limit on US Presidents) but otoh why biff a good MP just to replace them with a worse one simply because a randomly determined time period has elapsed?

 

We made it a career by offering to pay people who did it - originally it was only people (what would have been termed a 'Gentleman') who had sufficient private income to support themselves without dirtying their hands with commerce who would put themselves forward - if you needed an income from work, you could not do the job.

 

It would not bother me much if we reverted to that system but I doubt I'd be in any kind of majority.






14407 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1885


  Reply # 1639096 23-Sep-2016 00:06
Send private message

Geektastic:

 

Tricky.

 

I think some kind of limit is useful (like the two term limit on US Presidents) but otoh why biff a good MP just to replace them with a worse one simply because a randomly determined time period has elapsed?

 

We made it a career by offering to pay people who did it - originally it was only people (what would have been termed a 'Gentleman') who had sufficient private income to support themselves without dirtying their hands with commerce who would put themselves forward - if you needed an income from work, you could not do the job.

 

It would not bother me much if we reverted to that system but I doubt I'd be in any kind of majority.

 

 

 

 

Using that logic, we should continue to have Obama, as the two options to replace him aren't going to be better than him, are they? I mean he is younger, more charismatic, and I think he has been good for the US. The thing is that everyone is replaceable anyway. The trick is not to vote in the bad MP to begin with.  Pretty much everyone has a use by date, it is determining what that is. MPs should probably have 3 terms, because we vote for them every 3 years, not 4.


gzt

10261 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1577


  Reply # 1639150 23-Sep-2016 08:11
Send private message

One unanticipated side effect of a term limit would be an increase in the number of political lobbyists and consultants.

Also, increasing the quantity of candidates does not increase the quality of candidates.

"This one simple trick will improve everything" is somewhat deluded.

gzt

10261 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1577


  Reply # 1639158 23-Sep-2016 08:27
Send private message

mattwnz:

Geektastic:


Tricky.


I think some kind of limit is useful (like the two term limit on US Presidents) but otoh why biff a good MP just to replace them with a worse one simply because a randomly determined time period has elapsed?


We made it a career by offering to pay people who did it - originally it was only people (what would have been termed a 'Gentleman') who had sufficient private income to support themselves without dirtying their hands with commerce who would put themselves forward - if you needed an income from work, you could not do the job.


It would not bother me much if we reverted to that system but I doubt I'd be in any kind of majority.



 


Using that logic, we should continue to have Obama, as the two options to replace him aren't going to be better than him, are they? I mean he is younger, more charismatic, and I think he has been good for the US. The thing is that everyone is replaceable anyway. The trick is not to vote in the bad MP to begin with.  Pretty much everyone has a use by date, it is determining what that is. MPs should probably have 3 terms, because we vote for them every 3 years, not 4.


Obama and recent Bush are probably good examples. Let's assume no term limits:

At the end of Bush's last term he was political toast. The republican party would have had a serious debate about his failings and selected a new candidate to address those. They would have dumped him or close to it because the electorate would have dumped him anyway so they needed a new candidate.

Obama still has some milage left, at the end of Obama's term it is very likely the democratic party would reselect him as a candidate. At the very least there would have been a high powered debate between Obama and Clinton about the best way forward.

Both of the above are a better outcome for democracy.

With term limits you get dynasties and all the problems with that. Bush dynasty, Clinton Dynasty, Kennedy dynasty.

12017 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3904

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1639194 23-Sep-2016 09:14
Send private message

gzt:
mattwnz:

 

Geektastic:

 

 

 

Tricky.

 

 

 

I think some kind of limit is useful (like the two term limit on US Presidents) but otoh why biff a good MP just to replace them with a worse one simply because a randomly determined time period has elapsed?

 

 

 

We made it a career by offering to pay people who did it - originally it was only people (what would have been termed a 'Gentleman') who had sufficient private income to support themselves without dirtying their hands with commerce who would put themselves forward - if you needed an income from work, you could not do the job.

 

 

 

It would not bother me much if we reverted to that system but I doubt I'd be in any kind of majority.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Using that logic, we should continue to have Obama, as the two options to replace him aren't going to be better than him, are they? I mean he is younger, more charismatic, and I think he has been good for the US. The thing is that everyone is replaceable anyway. The trick is not to vote in the bad MP to begin with.  Pretty much everyone has a use by date, it is determining what that is. MPs should probably have 3 terms, because we vote for them every 3 years, not 4.

 


Obama and recent Bush are probably good examples. Let's assume no term limits:

At the end of Bush's last term he was political toast. The republican party would have had a serious debate about his failings and selected a new candidate to address those. They would have dumped him or close to it because the electorate would have dumped him anyway so they needed a new candidate.

Obama still has some milage left, at the end of Obama's term it is very likely the democratic party would reselect him as a candidate. At the very least there would have been a high powered debate between Obama and Clinton about the best way forward.

Both of the above are a better outcome for democracy.

With term limits you get dynasties and all the problems with that. Bush dynasty, Clinton Dynasty, Kennedy dynasty.

 

 

 

However, I do think the dynasty thing is peculiarly American. Their politics is so bound up with money that it severely limits the people who can even stand for, much less attain, the office of Commander In Chief. Dynasties tend to arise from rich families and I cannot (for example) think of many European countries where (excepting constitutional monarchies) the leading political office is commonly filled with dynastic tendencies. William Pitt (Elder and Younger) remain amongst the very few British examples of father and son who were Prime Minister and you're way back to politicians who died in 1778 and 1806 there.

 

 








Glurp
8449 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3880

Subscriber

  Reply # 1639207 23-Sep-2016 09:32
One person supports this post
Send private message

I don't think term limits are a magic bullet that solves all problems, but I do think they are preferable to no limits as a general rule. 

 

Paying politicians was a well-intended idea to increase democratic representation. It worked fairly well until the politicians started voting themselves so many raises that it became a financially attractive career. The 'independent' remuneration authority is a joke. Politicians should not be paid the same as corporate executives. They should be paid enough to be able to live adequately and support their families while in office. For those with genuine ideals and abilities, that is sufficient motivation and it probably even weeds out some of the dead wood that is only looking for easy money.

 

 





I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage
 


4300 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2563

Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1639210 23-Sep-2016 09:39
Send private message

How long should politicians serve?

In the case of Donald Trump, 15 minutes.   undecided

See: 15 minutes of fame






Sideface


1 | 2 | 3 | 4
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic

Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.