|
Post by fretslider on Feb 24, 2010 21:45:03 GMT
You know me...... I just thought you could both us a little light relief. *no double meaning intended Shame!
|
|
|
Post by june on Feb 24, 2010 21:46:01 GMT
I just thought you could both us a little light relief. *no double meaning intended Shame! Floosie! ;D
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Feb 24, 2010 21:49:11 GMT
Well, that's me sussed. You should see my fingers slide over the fretboard
|
|
|
Post by june on Feb 24, 2010 21:53:01 GMT
Well, that's me sussed. You should see my fingers slide over the fretboard *faints
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Feb 24, 2010 21:55:59 GMT
Tovarich, it continually escapes you that these systems are up and running in a lot of countries. Who drew up the German system? Can you guess? I am not interested in other Countries, I am interested in this Country and how you will sort out the glaring flaws in what you propose. How do you stop recall elections every week or every month?
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Feb 24, 2010 22:02:54 GMT
Tovarich, it continually escapes you that these systems are up and running in a lot of countries. Who drew up the German system? Can you guess? I am not interested in other Countries, I am interested in this Country and how you will sort out the glaring flaws in what you propose. How do you stop recall elections every week or every month? Time-out. You are not up to it.
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Feb 24, 2010 22:16:12 GMT
Time-out. You are not up to it. Nice try, I will give you that, but you do not wiggle off the hook that easy. An MP elected to a marginal seat, would find himself under threat of recall from the second he was elected. Unless the threshold was to high, or there was a time limit to when he could face recall. Given that many seats would be have higher than 5% vote for opposition Parties, that would mean that these seats would be in more or less perpetual by election mode. Can you possibly explain how that would improve democracy? Or is that one the details that needs to be worked on, perhaps? Fretty, you are an empty jersey.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Feb 24, 2010 22:19:28 GMT
Time-out. You are not up to it. Nice try, I will give you that, but you do not wiggle off the hook that easy. An MP elected to a marginal seat, would find himself under threat of recall from the second he was elected. Unless the threshold was to high, or there was a time limit to when he could face recall. Given that many seats would be have higher than 5% vote for opposition Parties, that would mean that these seats would be in more or less perpetual by election mode. Can you possibly explain how that would improve democracy? Or is that one the details that needs to be worked on, perhaps? Fretty, you are an empty jersey. I referred you to the German system, but you weren't interested. If we can do it for them, we can do it for ourselves, can't we.
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Feb 24, 2010 22:54:02 GMT
I referred you to the German system, but you weren't interested. If we can do it for them, we can do it for ourselves, can't we. I am interested in what you have in store for this Country. Explain how you think the right of recall should work here.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Feb 24, 2010 22:56:12 GMT
I referred you to the German system, but you weren't interested. If we can do it for them, we can do it for ourselves, can't we. I am interested in what you have in store for this Country. Explain how you think the right of recall should work here. Conway
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Feb 24, 2010 22:58:54 GMT
Of course the only one of the Chartist's demands that has never been met is their proposal for annual elections.
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Feb 24, 2010 23:11:23 GMT
Care to expand though fretty? He got caught fiddling his staff allowance to give his son an income. We agree that this was a terrible thing, but there is no need for a recall here, surely the appropriate action, would be a charge of fraud, conviction and an expulsion, which would trigger a by election anyway. On the other hand. I would simply replace the allowance with a pool of researchers and perhaps two sectaries (one at Westminster, one in the constituency as paid civil servants, rather than loyal to the MP.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Feb 24, 2010 23:14:24 GMT
Care to expand though fretty? He got caught fiddling his staff allowance to give his son an income. We agree that this was a terrible thing, but there is no need for a recall here, surely the appropriate action, would be a charge of fraud, conviction and an expulsion, which would trigger a by election anyway. On the other hand. I would simply replace the allowance with a pool of researchers and perhaps two sectaries (one at Westminster, one in the constituency as paid civil servants, rather than loyal to the MP. You might think that, his constituents do not. You clearly support corruption, I can't say I'm surprised.
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Feb 24, 2010 23:39:38 GMT
You might think that, his constituents do not. You have got that from the horse's mouth? You clearly support corruption. How do you deduce that Einstein? I said he should have charged with fraud! You are trying to equate having him charged with fraud with supporting corruption? You are even more desperate than I thought capable. Still, I am sure that feeble attempt at a smear will not go unnoticed by the decent people who use the board. Better luck next time. So given you are unable to defend or explain either your recall or your petition idea, perhaps you can explain the other idiotic ideas you have.
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Feb 25, 2010 11:22:35 GMT
Okay, Fretty, given your abject failure to defend your half baked, nutty ideas here is what is wrong with the right of recall.
The right of a recall election would be open to abuse because our elections are highly contested. Unless you set fairly high qualifying standard for such a recall, we are going to have frivolous recall elections. There will be seats where the major Parties or even a disgruntled minority will have standing armies of willing signatures ready and willing to sign a given petition at a drop of a hat. We won’t be having a recall for what it is intended to do, but simply a blocking and nuisance tactic used to prevent the Government of the day getting its business done. We will be constantly fighting recall elections all over the place for the most obscure reasons.
On the other hand, if you set the bar too high, say with a time limit of two years and a higher trigger point, then it loses all its potency, because people in solid seats can get away with more than those in marginal seats.
Thirdly, it shows a lack of maturity in the electorate. Sometimes being in Government means taking difficult and unpopular decisions that may pay dividends long term. As I said before, it may be nice to get jam rolly polly for breakfast if you are seven, but adults know (or should know) that we need a balanced diet. You make get a tantrum now and then, but cereal and fruit make for better breakfast.
So, no doubt the that local school would be missed, by the ‘angry villagers’, but what if the repair bill for subsidence would destroy the education budget of a whole County? Then what? Do we avoid making difficult decisions, because everyone is scared of a recall election? Or do we gang up on one MP/councillor and outvote him, sending him to a recall while we carve up his now ex-schools budget amongst us? Or do we make the best decision that resources allow, even if that means short term unpopularity? Why punish the man for taking difficult decisions? More importantly, why build a component into the system designed to act as a disincentive to making those difficult choices?
The irony is, Fretty, your ideas will end up with a steady procession of Blair/Cameron clones unwilling or unable to offend anyone for fear of being voted out at the drop of a hat! Those difficult decisions will be left aside and continue to fester. Schools that need to be closed down, hospitals that need downgraded, armies sent to war, budget cuts, council service cuts etc. will be put off until it is too late and then the person brave enough to say ‘no more’ wins an election and then gets booted out on a recall before he con fix the prolems.
Whatever that is Fretty, it ain’t democracy.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Feb 25, 2010 14:28:35 GMT
"He got caught fiddling his staff allowance to give his son an income. We agree that this was a terrible thing, but there is no need for a recall here, surely the appropriate action, would be a charge of fraud, conviction and an expulsion, which would trigger a by election anyway."
We clearly don't agree.
Why deny the people the opportunity to remove him when that is clearly what they want? That is democracy, ask Schwarzeneggar. Under your (precious?) mediaeval system Conway has sat on his hands for over two years with salary and allowances, effectively on an elongated notice period. He will also get a handsome pay-off when he leaves Parliament too. And you say I'm nutty.
"I said he should have charged with fraud! "
Then you clearly need a new system, that can't happen with this one.
"Still, I am sure that feeble attempt at a smear will not go unnoticed by the decent people who use the board."
And???
You appeal to the very people you thow insults at? Its a novel approach. I wonder what Ben thinks?
The constitution hasn't been written yet, yet RV say's: "The right of a recall election would be open to abuse because our elections are highly contested. "
Recall has a history dating back to the ancient Athenian democracy, and it's alive and well today. Luckily, representatives like Conway, Blears and the many, many other fiddlers can sleep soundly in their beds, RV has spoken. Does it not occur to you that there have to be some safeguards in that document? Hello.
I'm not sure a government that was elected on a mere 22% of the vote can claim that the election was highly contested when 39% couldn't be bothered to vote. But its the sort of dogmatic stuff I've come to expect and I really do doubt you fully comprehend that which you seek to defend. It's the thinking of yesterday's man. Propping up a 17th century bodge job.
"your ideas will end up with a steady procession of Blair/Cameron clones"
You mean we haven't got one now? I see.
"Thirdly it shows a lack of maturity in the electorate. Sometimes being in Government means taking difficult and unpopular decisions that may pay dividends long term."
Who are you to decide, Tovarich? You sound increasingly authoritarian with each post. The electorate are not turned on, they know there's no real choice. Cameron or Brown; they know it's not going to make much difference. I think a lot of the electorate are a good deal more savvy than you give them credit for. I also see why you're so afraid of greater democracy. Nonetheless, that line is a fine example of Zanu spinometrics. Difficult decisions? Gimme a break, when was it ever easy? Its the sort of patronising stuff you hear all the time on the airwaves.
Still, it's not all bad news. After leaving public office Gray Davis appeared on several shows, such as The Tonight Show with Jay Leno and The Late Show with David Letterman, as well as a cameo as himself on a CBS sitcom. In 2004, he joined the law firm of Loeb & Loeb. Trebles all round.
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Feb 25, 2010 14:56:50 GMT
Why deny the people the opportunity to remove him when that is clearly what they want? They should not need the opportunity to remove him, fretty, thats the point. The system should be changed so that when breaches like this are found, he is automatically removed from office and a by election called. If you are asking that MPs found guilty of breaking the law they should be called to account, then I agree. Does it not occur to you that there have to be some safeguards in that document? So far you have been unable to show what these safeguards are. When I see those safeguards then I will have a better idea how the system would work. Right now all I have is a vague idea that 5% of the electorate can trigger a recall vote. That looks too low a bar for me. I'm not sure a government that was elected on a mere 22% of the vote can claim that the election was highly contested when 39% couldn't be bothered to vote. That is an entirely point though, fretty. If people don't vote, that is up to them, I cannot see how we can change that. We can only count the people who did vote. "your ideas will end up with a steady procession of Blair/Cameron clones" You mean we haven't got one now? I see. Well the point is that we hardly need a system that encourages that. The electorate are not turned on, they know there's no real choice. Cameron or Brown; they know it's not going to make much difference. I am afraid that is the fault of the electorate. They tend to pick from bland people and bland people are the people who stand up for election.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Feb 25, 2010 16:03:50 GMT
"The system should be changed " - No kidding.
Most constitutions are on-line, do you need help with checking them over? How many recalls in say, the US? A massive.....2
If a party doesn't achieve 50% and only manages 22% obviously it has no real mandate. I thought you could do maths.
[Well the point is that we hardly need a system that encourages that.]
You mean we haven't got one now? I see.
The fact that is an elected dictatorship passes you by.
Control Freak thinking like yours is the problem, its definitely not the solution.
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Feb 25, 2010 18:37:26 GMT
A side issue, and probably a separate debate, but there are all kinds of very valid and convincing reasons why we should not have our constitution written down in a single document, not least because doing so hands the ultimate power over to judges instead of leaving it with Parliament where it belongs.
The UK, of course, does have a constitution, and it's mostly written, but just in ordinary legislation which Parliament retains the power to change.
I honestly can't see the advantage of having a single written document with special status.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Feb 25, 2010 19:12:47 GMT
A side issue, and probably a separate debate, but there are all kinds of very valid and convincing reasons why we should not have our constitution written down in a single document, not least because doing so hands the ultimate power over to judges instead of leaving it with Parliament where it belongs. The UK, of course, does have a constitution, and it's mostly written, but just in ordinary legislation which Parliament retains the power to change. I honestly can't see the advantage of having a single written document with special status. Parliament is emasculated, power resides with an increasingly presidential executive. Each time a royal has a legover there is a constitutional crisis. When Parliament goes off the rails and it has, the HoS cannot intervene for the simple reason that the HoS is unelected and we all know what the elected would say if the HoS did try to intervene. There is nothing wrong with codifying how the state should be governed. Its far better than the muddle we have.
|
|