Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 45

Thread: Compulsory Moving on of Political Leaders, a la USA

  1. #1
    Global Moderator vic_orthdox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    25,209

    Compulsory Moving on of Political Leaders, a la USA

    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.

  2. #2
    International Vice-Captain Dasa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,955
    John Howard has made me believe in term limits.

  3. #3
    World Traveller Craig's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Super Happy Fun Sugar Lollipop Land!
    Posts
    34,131
    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)
    Last edited by Craig; 12-05-2006 at 01:04 AM.
    Beware the lollipop of mediocrity. Lick once and you suck forever...

    RIP Fardin Qayyumi, a true legend of CW

    Quote Originally Posted by Boobidy View Post
    Bradman never had to face quicks like Sharma and Irfan Pathan. He wouldn't of lasted a ball against those 2, not to mention a spinner like Sehwag.

  4. #4
    International Coach howardj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    brisbane
    Posts
    12,847
    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.


  5. #5
    International Coach GotSpin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Stranger leering through a pair of binoculars
    Posts
    12,826
    Quote 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.
    Mark Waugh
    "He's [Michael Clarke] on Twitter saying sorry for not walking? Mate if he did that in our side there'd be hell to play. AB would chuck his Twitter box off the balcony or whatever it is. Sorry for not walking? Jesus Christ man."
    Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is knowing not to put it into a fruit salad
    RIP Craigos

  6. #6
    Cricketer Of The Year Mr Casson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    9,652
    Quote 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?
    'Copperfield,' said Mr. Micawber, 'farewell! Every happiness and prosperity! If, in the progress of revolving years, I could persuade myself that my blighted destiny had been a warning to you, I should feel that I had not occupied another man's place in existence altogether in vain.
    - Wilkins Micawber

  7. #7
    International Coach howardj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    brisbane
    Posts
    12,847
    Yeah Craig would be a great poker player - doesn't give anything away.

  8. #8
    International Vice-Captain Dasa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,955
    Quote 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...

  9. #9
    Cricketer Of The Year Mr Casson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    9,652
    Quote 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.

  10. #10
    RTDAS pasag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Looking for milksteak
    Posts
    31,678
    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

  11. #11
    World Traveller Craig's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Super Happy Fun Sugar Lollipop Land!
    Posts
    34,131
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Casson
    I wouldn't let him poke me even if he was a great player.
    I wouldn't want too.

  12. #12
    Hall of Fame Member age_master's Avatar
    Plasmanaut on Fire Champion!
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    15,777
    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).
    Member of CW Green
    Kerry O'Keefe - Worlds funniest Commentator

  13. #13
    RTDAS pasag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Looking for milksteak
    Posts
    31,678
    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.

  14. #14
    Hall of Fame Member age_master's Avatar
    Plasmanaut on Fire Champion!
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    15,777
    Arnie was campaigned against as a womaniser

  15. #15
    International Debutant Pedro Delgado's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Derby, England.
    Posts
    2,939
    I wouldn't trust any of them for eight minutes never mind eight years.
    Member of the Rosalie Birch Appreciation Society (RBAS)
    Member of CVAAS - go Joe

    You're a ghost la la la la la la la la laaa
    You're a ghost la la la la la la la la laaa
    I'm the church and I've come
    To claim you with my iron drum
    la la la la la la la la la la


    The wolves are running..

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. The Political Compass Test
    By Neil Pickup in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 650
    Last Post: 17-01-2014, 06:16 AM
  2. Replies: 389
    Last Post: 06-10-2013, 10:25 AM
  3. Political Correctness
    By Slow Love™ in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 17-11-2005, 06:31 AM
  4. Moving sucks
    By cricket player in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 13-06-2005, 03:55 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •