Compulsory Moving on of Political Leaders, a la USA

[vic_orthdox]

Reading the thread, "Time for Blair to go?" or something of the like, got me thinking. When I studied USA Politics in Year 11, I thought that not allowing the President to serve more than two terms was a bit stupid, as you could well be denying yourself the best candidate to run the country, and if after such a long time in power he (or she) still has the support of the people, they should be able to continue to go on for so long.

But looking at the current UK and Australian governments, the idea has got more credit in my eyes. Both administrations have had their fair share of controversies recently, and I think it'd be fair to put a lot of it down to complancency in government. I also look at the ALP government in Victoria, where they've been pretty ordinary in recent times too.

You can argue that there isn't sufficient pressure being put on by the Opposition, but a lot of this has to do with the spin put on it by the media. The only time that Labor in Australia looked threatening was when the media gave Latham a ride.

There are merits for both sides of the argument, and at the moment I'm really not sure as to which is the more beneficial.

[Dasa]

John Howard has made me believe in term limits.

[Craig]

I think come every election time vote for the person for the job and if the incumbrant is hopeless then vote him/her out and vote in the better person. If John Howard is the best person (as clearly thought so by the Australian people or those who are marginals) they vote for him instead of the ALP.

Unless the people are all complete and utter brain dead idiots (which I doubt they are) then they will vote for the best person.

(Edited)

[howardj]

I think, here in Australia, it should be capped at a decade (for PM's and Premiers). Any longer and I think, generally speaking, leaders begin to lose touch with those they represent. By all means, your party can continue to govern, but (as in the US) you should have to step aside.

[GotSpin]

Originally Posted by Craig

I think come every election time vote for the person for the job and if the incumbrant is hopeless then vote him/her out and vote in the better person. If John Howard is the best person (as clearly thought so by the Australian people or those who are marginals) they vote for him instead of the ALP.

Unless the people are all complete and utter brain deed idiots (which I doubt they are) then they will vote for the best person.

Its not like Johnny has much competition though, as the ALP is in shambles.

[Mr Casson]

Originally Posted by Craig

I think come every election time vote for the person for the job and if the incumbrant is hopeless then vote him/her out and vote in the better person. If John Howard is the best person (as clearly thought so by the Australian people or those who are marginals) they vote for him instead of the ALP.

Unless the people are all complete and utter brain deed idiots (which I doubt they are) then they will vote for the best person.

So who do you vote for?

[howardj]

Yeah Craig would be a great poker player - doesn't give anything away.

[Dasa]

Originally Posted by howardj

I think, here in Australia, it should be capped at a decade (for PM's and Premiers). Any longer and I think, generally speaking, leaders begin to lose touch with those they represent. By all means, your party can continue to govern, but (as in the US) you should have to step aside.

I think individual terms should be limited as well, as in the US - have the election at a set date every four years (as is now happening in Victoria). With our current system, the incumbent has far too much power to set the election date at a time when he/she can have the most support...

[Mr Casson]

Originally Posted by howardj

Yeah Craig would be a great poker player - doesn't give anything away.

I wouldn't let him poke me even if he was a great player.

[pasag]

I have never heard one good argument on why they should limit the amount of time a person can be head of state. If the person is elected, thats what the people want, thats what they should get. Now if the opposition is rubbish, that is their fault.

And anyway, most people who hate Howard, hate Costello even more, in a **** Cheny sort of way. People think he is manipulative and calculating, also smug (not me, I love him), so is that what you people want? Let me put it this way, if you had to choose between Howard and Costello, who would you choose? The point is that even if the term is limited, often enough the replacement will be very similar to the replacee.

Furthemore I dont like the idea of limiting trems becuase, usually in the US, in the last term the President doesnt care anymore, does what he wants and is not in fear of reelection ala Regan and current Bush and Clinton to an extent. The main thing that keeps Presidents accountable is the election around the corner, you take that away and you give them a free reign

[Craig]

Originally Posted by Mr Casson

I wouldn't let him poke me even if he was a great player.

I wouldn't want too.

[age_master]

If people want to vote for someone, why should their prefered person not be able to stay on.


If the USA didn't have limits GWB would never have become president (more then likely).

[pasag]

You think Clinton would have been reelected months after the Lewinsky thing? No way! Can you imagine the Republican campaining, it would have been worse then the 'Shane on You' thread. Bush would have easily won as not one woman would voted for Clinton.

[age_master]

Arnie was campaigned against as a womaniser

[Pedro Delgado]

I wouldn't trust any of them for eight minutes never mind eight years.