Term Limits bill taken to Parliament,

[Lazie]

opposition say dem not supporting it. She indicated if the gov't use their majority to pass the bill, a "future" gov't can use their majority to reverse it.

She said one thing that I agree with, it should be taken to the ppl. True, I find it strange that her gov't didn't do the same with the CCJ.

Let the games begin.

[Willi]

Portia is against it.

She sight the rake. She ongly would have 1 term left.

Betchu both Peters support the limit. LoL

[Lazie]

PNP against term limits - Opposition says no change needed

OPPOSITION Leader Portia Simpson Miller yesterday said her People’s National Party (PNP) would not support a Bill before Parliament proposing a constitutional amendment to impose a two-term limit on future prime ministers, arguing that there was no need for the change.
Simpson Miller was responding to Prime Minister Bruce Golding’s explanation that the thinking behind the provision was the need for renewal in the political system, as well as the need to facilitate succession planning and the infusion of new blood.

Golding, in opening the debate on the Bill that was tabled several weeks ago, said that while term limits were not a feature of the Westminster parliamentary model to which Jamaica subscribes, there was no reason it could not be adopted here.
Furthermore, he pointed out that the section of the Constitution which the Bill would amend was not an entrenched provision, quite unlike the amendment being proposed to give Jamaica status as a Republic.
Golding's push for the provision was in keeping with a promise made in the Jamaica Labour Party's 2007 election manifesto to implement a two-term limit on anyone holding the office of prime minister.
However, Simpson Miller was adamant that there was "no necessity for the change", arguing that it "would be ineffective and is unnecessary". She also demanded that the Government declare which "malady" it was "trying to cure".
"We cannot lend our support to this unilateral amendment of the Constitution," she said, while suggesting that the debate be suspended to allow for widespread consultation among Jamaicans.
But Golding said the Government did not intend to rush the debate as it intended to allow time for the public to comment. He was, however, keen on pointing out that the Government couldn't justify not keeping its manifesto promise simply because the Opposition was unsupportive.
However, even with the Opposition's early indication that it intends to resist the move, the Government will still be able to push through the Bill in both Houses of Parliament using its majority, because the section is not an entrenched provision. All the Government would therefore need is 31 'yes' votes in the lower House and 11 'yes' votes in the Senate. The Government has 13 senators in the 21-member Senate and 32 members of parliament, to the Opposition's 28.
Simpson Miller was, however, careful to point out yesterday that a future government can reverse the change by the same majority vote, if it was not in agreement with the steps being taken by the current administration.


Read more: http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/...#ixzz17Wh4qSBl

[Lazie]

'Toothless bulldog' - Simpson Miller shreds Government's term-limit proposal






Gary Spaulding, Senior Gleaner Writer
Opposition Leader Portia Simpson Miller yesterday rejected Prime Minister Bruce Golding's proposal for term limits to be imposed on persons occupying the Office of the Prime Minister, characterising it as ineffective and unnecessary.
"The legislation will turn out to be a toothless bulldog," Simpson Miller warned the House of Representatives at the start of the debate on the term limits for prime ministers.
She charged that the presentation of the bill to the Parliament and the public was typical of the Golding Government's approach to governance.
"The manner in which the prime minister presented the bill is demonstrative of the exclusionary approach of this Government," Simpson Miller declared.
The opposition leader warned that if the Government pushes through the bill, which can be done by a simple majority, her administration would reverse the decision by a similar process.
"In the same way it can be amended by one government, it can also be undone by a future government," declared Simpson Miller.
Opening the debate, Golding contended that what is currently being played out under the existing system spoke to the need for changes to the political landscape.
He said there was need for a change in the political arena.
"What is being determined is not leadership in a political party but has implications on a country," declared Golding.
The prime minister argued that the two-term limit that is being proposed is intended to create a framework to engender successor planning, and the creation of greater momentum within the political process.
"We can't legislate, but we can encourage the (political) dynamics that we think is necessary," asserted Golding.
"Term limits, I concede, is not a feature of the Westminster model, but there is no reason why we can't break new ground."
Scoffed at argument
But Simpson Miller scoffed at Golding's arguments, discarding the term-limit proposal while insisting that she was not making a position on the desirability of term limits.
"We think a decision should made after wide consultation," suggested Simpson Miller.
She argued that the passage of the proposed legislation would stand in the way of the wishes of the Jamaica people.
"The prime minister is seeking to determine the wish of the people," said Simpson Miller.
"This type of policy decision, without inclusiveness, is more than likely to prove ineffective.
She told the House that term limits are more suited to countries with a presidential system of government instead of those with parliamentary democracies.
"The proposal curtails the right of elected members to select their head of government," argued Simpson Miller.
Law could be exploited
At the same time, Simpson Miller, demonstrating the inefficacy of the proposed legislation, contended that the law could be easily exploited by a sitting prime minister, rendering it ineffective.
The law makes provision for prime ministers to serve for nine years, but allows him or her to continue to the end of the electoral
tenure if still in office at the time.
Simpson Miller argued that a prime minister, in his eighth year, could exploit the law by calling an election, creating an opportunity for him to serve into his 14th year.
"I don't know where this nine years originated," declared Simpson Miller. "A simple and effective way to do this is to legislate it in the JLP (Jamaica Labour Party)," she quipped.
Golding is the leader of the JLP, which currently forms the Government. The JLP promised in its 2007 election manifesto to institute term limits for a prime minister and to legislate fixed election dates as a means of strengthening governance in the country.
Leader of Government Business in the House, Andrew Holness, has accepted a suggestion from Simpson Miller for suspension of debate to facilitate public consultations.


http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/2...ead/lead7.html

[1of1]

At first I was cussing the PNP when i saw the headlines, but upon reading her statements I realized that it wasn't that she was against term limits but how it is implemented, her argument seems fair

[Willi]

Read between the lines.

Perhaps she has a point about workability, but yuh haffi sight up the rake.

In her position, it would be better to make another in Parliament address it!

[Willi]

In our dysfunctional situation, term limits is a MUST.

[1of1]

don't see that in anything said, she was straightforward, she basically made it be known if it don't suit her she will change it, thus showing the weakness of it being passed by majority vote. Probably she is as stupid as people say, should jus shut are mouth an change it if it suits her

[Willi]

That is not the crux of the workability issue. That is the petulence part.

The workability aspect is about the stategic calling of elections in the 9th year and getting 14 years via this loophole.

The changing of the legislation later is a POLITICAL matter with POLITICAL consequences. Besides, you think both Peters are NOT in favour of the 2 term limits? Behind closed doors, I would BET they support it, if only for their own personal strategic motives.

Do you think that John public is not in favour of term limits on our pollytrixians?

[Lazie]

....
Do you think that John public is not in favour of term limits on our pollytrixians?

Well now mi affi wonder. There was alot of hoopla for it, but now the outspoken ones have gone silent. I wonder why?

[1of1]

John public is in favor of it, I am in favor of it

The workability aspect is about the strategic calling of elections in the 9th year and getting 14 years via this loophole.
expound on this please?

The changing of the legislation later is a POLITICAL matter with POLITICAL consequences.

Thats her point exactly, it can be changed to suit, based on majority, and that is a big loophole to me , I would like to see it unchangeable or as close to.

[1of1]

agreed!

[Willi]

Read where she talk about the loophole of 9 years and she wondered where that number came from.

Political matters are NOT cut and dry. Even with a majority she is NOT assured of changing it, if it means lowering her stocks significantly.

If it passes and say she wins a close election in 2012, what then?

[1of1]

Political matters are NOT cut and dry. Even with a majority she is NOT assured of changing it, if it means lowering her stocks significantly.

If it passes and say she wins a close election in 2012, what then?


All this is as iffy as the way it is proposed to be implemented, don't want no loophole perceived or otherwise.

[Willi]

There we can agree.

Can we also agree that Portia fraid ah diss like puss?

Note the tone of her objection!