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 
5246 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1132

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1719016 12-Feb-2017 17:36
Send private message

Rikkitic:

 

Should politics be a job for life? We are in the midst of local elections and this time around there is heated debate over some contentious issues in my region, especially in regard to water. Because of this, we are suddenly hearing for the first time in years from individuals who have made a career of  warming seats on various councils and other local bodies. Some have been ‘serving’ for 20 years or more, and the main result seems to be a dysfunctional Regional Council and a local district council and health board both asleep at the wheel while residents of one community have been poisoned by their drinking water, with possibly two dead as a result and two others gravely ill. In the meantime, the finger-pointing and arse covering is well under way as the roaches scurry away from the light. 

 

Because of this and other issues, and because there is an election underway, I have had a rare opportunity to see candidates scrutinised and to study their responses to various questions. As a result, I was surprised to learn how long some had been sucking at the public teat. They actually boast about this, citing their ‘experience’ as a reason to vote for them yet again. 

 

Without wanting to sound too cynical, I can’t help wondering what this much-vaunted ‘experience’ actually contributes to anything. It certainly doesn’t seem to have helped our local councils function any better, and it sure hasn’t done much for the health of the residents of Havelock North. Hence my question. Should politics be a job for life? Should there be a limit on the number of times someone can serve in public office, say three terms, for example? Does someone like Peter Dunne, who seems determined to remain a Minister forever, actually still do anything useful, assuming he ever did? The American President is only allowed to serve two terms. Why do our elected officials get to go on forever? Is this even a good idea?   

 

 

I think any politicians should be able to serve as long as there are voters sufficient to allow them to be elected. I call that democracy. 

Any questions? :-) 





____________________________________________________
I'm on a high fibre diet. 

 

High fibre diet


14407 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1885


  Reply # 1719017 12-Feb-2017 17:37
Send private message

 

 

Also being in Parliament should be restricted to 3 terms max, so we get rid of career politicians. teh problem with career politicnas is that everyone has a use by date. So these people can lose their  drive and energy, as well as run out of good ideas.

 

A term should also be moved out to 4 years. Also restrict campaigning to only a few months. With the PM announcing it this far out, it essentially means we now have the best part of year, which is about 1/3 of their term, campaigning. This is a huge waste of resources, and also means little gets done, as they don't want things affecting their chances in the election. For example IMO they don't appear to want the reserve bank bringing in an LVR this year for house buyers, even though it would help to dampen the housing market, which is continuing to explode again. IMO they don't appear to want housing to be the election issue, however I think that it is going to be.

 

 

 

 


5246 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1132

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1719018 12-Feb-2017 17:38
Send private message

trig42:

 

I actually think the parliamentary term should be increased. I'm not so sure about Local Body terms.

 

3 years is too short to get anything done. I see it as Year 0-1 - just been through election, have to solidify agreements with voting/coalition partners - find common ground on what needs to be done. - Year 1-2, start rolling out policy, introducing bills to parliament - Year 2-3 halt all that while all parties go their seperate ways to prepare for another election. I see it as wasting 2 years out of the 3 they have. Make it 4 or 5 and things may actually get done. Then you can impose term limits for the PM as the US do (though I'm not sure why they do it). The English have a long term don't they?

 



Three years is more than long enough when there is no check on the power of the executive.....and arguably, despite MMP watering down the extremism we used to see.....there is no check on power other than an election. 

I would not support a longer term unless there was a recall process introduced...and the ability to petition for binding referenda on unpopular laws.  





____________________________________________________
I'm on a high fibre diet. 

 

High fibre diet


5246 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1132

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1719019 12-Feb-2017 17:40
Send private message

mattwnz:

 

 

 

Also being in Parliament should be restricted to 3 terms max, so we get rid of career politicians. teh problem with career politicnas is that everyone has a use by date. So these people can lose their  drive and energy, as well as run out of good ideas.

 

A term should also be moved out to 4 years. Also restrict campaigning to only a few months. With the PM announcing it this far out, it essentially means we now have the best part of year, which is about 1/3 of their term, campaigning. This is a huge waste of resources, and also means little gets done, as they don't want things affecting their chances in the election. For example they don't appear to want the reserve bank bringing in an LVR this year for house buyers, even though it would help to dampen the housing market, which is continuing to explode again.

 

 

Your job as a voter is not vote for parties that put up candidates who have lost their drive and energy. 

Arbitrary term limits remove the good as well as the bad.....and politics is a very complex job. It takes years to get up to speed.

No to term limits. They are counterproductive.....ensuring your politicians are always new and ignorant.  





____________________________________________________
I'm on a high fibre diet. 

 

High fibre diet


14407 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1885


  Reply # 1719031 12-Feb-2017 17:56
Send private message

Linuxluver:

 

 

 

Your job as a voter is not vote for parties that put up candidates who have lost their drive and energy. 

Arbitrary term limits remove the good as well as the bad.....and politics is a very complex job. It takes years to get up to speed.

No to term limits. They are counterproductive.....ensuring your politicians are always new and ignorant.  

 

 

 

 

That doesn't work with MMP, because you don't 'not' vote for a party, just because they may have a few MPs who shouldn't still be there. Those MPs usually get in on the list.  

 

There are examples of successful politicians who are career politicians, and those who aren't.

 

Our previous PM wasn't a career politician, he was in for around a term before he was the leader. Before that he worked in the private sector. He was also regarded as one of the most successful leaders.

 

But even those people who are currently in Parliament in their 1st term, may have spent many years still working for the party, or within parliament in some other way, so they won't be green. For example there are MPs who used to work in the offices of other MPs prior to being voted into Parliament. So they will be all up to speed as to what is going on already.


gzt

10261 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1578


  Reply # 1719044 12-Feb-2017 18:35
Send private message

It is a career and to some degree a profession like any other. A mix of experience and whatever else in the parliament is a good thing. I expect arbitrary term limits would be counter productive.



Glurp
8449 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3880

Subscriber

  Reply # 1719063 12-Feb-2017 19:23
Send private message

I think there should be a limit of some kind, but I don't know what it should be. The problem with amateur politicians is that they are amateurs. Think Donald Trump. The problem with professional politicians is that they have not done/do not do anything else, so lose touch with the ordinary people they are supposed to represent. Any politician, but especially a cabinet minister, leads an extraordinarily privileged life. How can you represent people whom you have nothing whatsoever in common with?

 

 





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


gzt

10261 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1578


  Reply # 1719074 12-Feb-2017 20:04
Send private message

In reality there is a mix. I'm thinking that you object to some of the policies and that you believe that term limits will improve policies. I think that's very unlikely.

1759 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 895


  Reply # 1719112 12-Feb-2017 21:57
Send private message

Elected MP's should be able to stay in job as long as they keep getting elected. List MP's should be restricted to 1 or 2 terms.


2515 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 541
Inactive user


  Reply # 1719163 13-Feb-2017 06:16
Send private message

Rikkitic:

 

Should politics be a job for life? We are in the midst of local elections and this time around there is heated debate over some contentious issues in my region, especially in regard to water. Because of this, we are suddenly hearing for the first time in years from individuals who have made a career of  warming seats on various councils and other local bodies. Some have been ‘serving’ for 20 years or more, and the main result seems to be a dysfunctional Regional Council and a local district council and health board both asleep at the wheel while residents of one community have been poisoned by their drinking water, with possibly two dead as a result and two others gravely ill. In the meantime, the finger-pointing and arse covering is well under way as the roaches scurry away from the light. 

 

Because of this and other issues, and because there is an election underway, I have had a rare opportunity to see candidates scrutinised and to study their responses to various questions. As a result, I was surprised to learn how long some had been sucking at the public teat. They actually boast about this, citing their ‘experience’ as a reason to vote for them yet again. 

 

Without wanting to sound too cynical, I can’t help wondering what this much-vaunted ‘experience’ actually contributes to anything. It certainly doesn’t seem to have helped our local councils function any better, and it sure hasn’t done much for the health of the residents of Havelock North. Hence my question. Should politics be a job for life? Should there be a limit on the number of times someone can serve in public office, say three terms, for example? Does someone like Peter Dunne, who seems determined to remain a Minister forever, actually still do anything useful, assuming he ever did? The American President is only allowed to serve two terms. Why do our elected officials get to go on forever? Is this even a good idea?  

 

 

 

 

No it isn't a good idea.. Obama, point in case.

 

If they are useless simply don't vote for them, it is called democracy.


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.