Who should run for next PM.

[Bourbon]

Me.

[ann3boys]

well I'll vote for you- you could brush your teeth and dress up nice?
and you could talk good english? good. read and write? good.
somebody famous said all you need is common sense. ..guess who said that?
anyway hopefully we'll get to actually vote before all our freedoms are eroded with the new constitution...

[dwolfman]

Gillian Lucky would be a good choice- as it is I say - it doesn't matter who we put- as long as it is NOT the incumbent give somebody else a chance to muck up this country

I feeling that part of it. There is not a person currently involved in parliament - ruling party, opposition and independent - who I would like to see as the PM. That's part of the problem. Same old ideas from the same old and tired crowd. Someone newer (and hopefully not yet corrupted and cynical) and someone younger (who will bring a more contemporary attitude to more contemporary problems). Where will we find someone willing and capable at this point? How do we get the old farts who mucking up the place to step aside?

[Deeks]

Dwolfman,
              You could shoot them. You ask the army to kick them out. Both are illegal. You could wait until they dead? That could be a long wait. the solution is easy. 2 terms and out!!!!!!

[asylumseeker]

So Deeks, why not one term? And, why yuh think magical replacements fitting the bill would appear at the conclusion of the term limit?

[daryn]

So Deeks, why not one term? And, why yuh think magical replacements fitting the bill would appear at the conclusion of the term limit?

you don't think the population capable of generating a capable candidate every 5 to 10 years?

[Brownsugar]

Me.

Boy I lining up before the polling station open to vote for you...

BOURBON FOR PM!!! 

     

[daryn]

What about the contention the electorate is capable of term-limiting as things stand? We could conclude they have chosen to on occasion, and on others not. Ent?

didn't really read this thread. 

to use some economic terminology: right now the executive branch of the government is run by a cartel* and the only viable choices for the consumer are those supplied by the members of the cartel.  There are significant barriers to entry for new blood.  Term limits would be a form of anti-trust action.

*-I don't just mean the PNM and UNC have a duopoly (or that prior to the formation of the UNC, the PNM and some predecessor of the UNC or the other had a duopoly), but also that within the parties there is a lot of stagnation. 

[ann3boys]

I have to admit I don't get your point daryn. Those words do not compute. what is anti-trust action? what duo-poly?
sorry my education is obviously not up to yours. 

[dwolfman]

Deeks, I hear you and at this point whole heartedly support that approach. Daryn, I think you ask a good question. At this point I do not think we are mentally prepared to turn over capable candidates every 5 to 10 years, but we never will be if we don't try. We are being crushed by the stagnant nature of the current system.

I have to admit I don't get your point daryn. Those words do not compute. what is anti-trust action? what duo-poly?
sorry my education is obviously not up to yours. 

Anti-trust deals with competition laws in the United States (in Europe too?). Daryn is referring to an aspect of the law that represses cartels because of the restriction they tend to impose on trading and competition. Other aspects of the law deal with managing mergers and acquisitions and practices such as price gouging or tying (when the consumer can only buy one item if they agree to buy a second - typically unrelated - item, etc.). It also prevents the formation of monopolies and if a monopoly is formed they force the business to break up (eg. Microsoft). Duopoly is a simply when 2 dominant firms (entities) have control over a market.

[daryn]

asylumseeker was saying that the electorate has on occasion made the decision to end the stint of certain governments by voting them out.  That may well be true but I don't think that represents a significant degree of electoral freedom: we might vote out Manning for Panday or vice versa but there doesn't seem to be room for anyone else.

last election we had a 3rd party that generated a high level of enthusiasm but how many seats did they win?

So the duopoly I'm speaking about is the PNM and the UNC.  Not only that but there isn't much room for party members to disagree with the party leader without being portrayed as treasonous.

For me, this is inadvertently comparable to a situation in which two large businesses dominate an industry and then use anti-competitive practices to make it difficult for anyone else to enter the market.  The person on the losing end in such a scenario is the consumer.  

In the business context, there are laws to curb this.  I think term limits will have an analogous effect in the political context (I think Jah Gol was making the same argument earlier in the thread) to the extent that the anti-competitive practices are taking place within the two parties.

T&T has its fair share of intelligent and capable people so I don't see anything magical about finding an adequate candidate every 5 to 10 years.

[ann3boys]

okay but if you buy the argument that T&T is a 2-party country, then it follows that the best change must come from within one or both of these parties. The parties are run by a 'council' and have a chairman and political leader. These are usually 2 separate individuals to keep the power limited. The chairman is supposed to lead the council in deciding policies and the political leader is the one to enact them. However, in T&T these lines have become so blurred that the chairman of both parties are numb & dumb, and have actually lost all influence over their political leaders. This was never the intention. In theory that is. In theory all that is needed to replace a political leader is for the parliamentary reps to vote the present one out and a new one in. The fact is that has not happened as yet, except when Panday was suspended from the house and they voted Kamla as PL. That was the opposition. The PNM can do the same to PM but do they have the cojones? who knows?
at the end of the day once you vote for a party, it is the party that decided who is the PM.

[daryn]

okay but if you buy the argument that T&T is a 2-party country, then it follows that the best change must come from within one or both of these parties. The parties are run by a 'council' and have a chairman and political leader. These are usually 2 separate individuals to keep the power limited. The chairman is supposed to lead the council in deciding policies and the political leader is the one to enact them. However, in T&T these lines have become so blurred that the chairman of both parties are numb & dumb, and have actually lost all influence over their political leaders. This was never the intention. In theory that is. In theory all that is needed to replace a political leader is for the parliamentary reps to vote the present one out and a new one in. The fact is that has not happened as yet, except when Panday was suspended from the house and they voted Kamla as PL. That was the opposition. The PNM can do the same to PM but do they have the cojones? who knows?
at the end of the day once you vote for a party, it is the party that decided who is the PM.

The Kamla example is perfect.  The UNC needed someone else and they found one.  If the situation were to arise again they would find somebody again.  Likewise, if some situation were to mandate the same for the PNM. 

I don't think that many people are so enamored with the performance of the two prime ministers we've had since 1991 as to think that either of them is irreplaceable in terms of executive acumen.

I would guess that any MP would have reservations about unseating a sitting Prime Minister in anything but the most unusual of circumstances.

[asylumseeker]

What about the contention the electorate is capable of term-limiting as things stand? We could conclude they have chosen to on occasion, and on others not. Ent?

didn't really read this thread. 

to use some economic terminology: right now the executive branch of the government is run by a cartel* and the only viable choices for the consumer are those supplied by the members of the cartel.  There are significant barriers to entry for new blood.  Term limits would be a form of anti-trust action.

*-I don't just mean the PNM and UNC have a duopoly (or that prior to the formation of the UNC, the PNM and some predecessor of the UNC or the other had a duopoly), but also that within the parties there is a lot of stagnation. 

I understand the duopoly concept, but wonder whether ... to extend the analogy ... whether the circumstances more completely present monopsonistic characteristics.  Ah quibbling with the duopolistic model precisely for the reason highlighted ... the role of barriers to entry, if they exist. It would be useful for you (or anyone else) to identify the barriers to entry observed on our political scene.

In the interim, one of my contentions is that 3rd party actors have found relative ease in presenting themselves on ballots alongside the PNM and its accompanying giant (which has borne differing names over the years). So, that's on the macro level.

If we consider purported barriers to entry on the micro or candidate level within parties (or internal promotion: a slight nuance) ... to get to the 'new blood' ... is this not a feature of party bureaucracy that need not be resolved by term limiting? Indeed, should we pursue public policy with a view to influencing benign internal party machinations? Today, are prospective capable candidates not presenting themselves for reasons OTHER than the purported barriers to entry? I strongly suggest they are.

While I don't disagree with the universal concern expressed throughout the thread (the consensus that the landscape needs new compelling faces), I am merely seeking to raise the point of whether term limits are effective at resulting in party reform or should be pursued for the purpose of party reform ... because it seems many contributors have offered opinions with that purpose in mind.

I disagree with the implication that term limits of necessity will produce better candidates. Indeed, they likely will produce a succession of inferior candidates.

Many contributors have rooted their responses in the equation of the 2-party model, with minimal or no consideration of the conditions pertinent to 3rd party politics. This is an issue we've addressed from time to time on the forum, and 3rd party actors tend to be examined with a scrutiny rooted in scepticism, personality and surreptitious intent, despite the tendency of the electorate to override the negative and publicly acknowledged features of the same scepticism, personality and surreptitious intent when it comes to the incumbent party and the party reportedly loyal in opposition. Curiously, this tends to occur despite the reality that the face of each 'established' party typically has a lengthier documentation and record on which to reject his/her repeated candidacy.

Certainly, the transposition from electoral politics to economics is not a neat one, but I think there's enough to work with to flesh out our mutual positions.

[daryn]

I understand the duopoly concept, but wonder whether ... to extend the analogy ... whether the circumstances more completely present monopsonistic characteristics.  Ah quibbling with the duopolistic model precisely for the reason highlighted ... the role of barriers to entry, if they exist. It would be useful for you (or anyone else) to identify the barriers to entry observed on our political scene.

well, this is why I refer to the cartel as being inadvertent.  The biggest barrier to entry is that the average voter can make reasonable assumptions about how others are going to vote.  Knowing the tendencies of the voting public, the potential 3rd party voter is presented with two options: 1) vote for the 3rd party you really want in power knowing that the odds aren't in your favour or 2) use your vote to vote against the member of the duopoly that you dislike more by voting for the other member of the duopoly.

In the interim, one of my contentions is that 3rd party actors have found relative ease in presenting themselves on ballots alongside the PNM and its accompanying giant (which has borne differing names over the years). So, that's on the macro level.

I'd make a distinction between being on the ballot and being a viable candidate.

If we consider purported barriers to entry on the micro or candidate level within parties (or internal promotion: a slight nuance) ... to get to the 'new blood' ... is this not a feature of party bureaucracy that need not be resolved by term limiting?

well, there'll always be kingmakers behind the scenes.  that's an intrinsic property of a political party.  That being said, once you put somebody in charge then they in charge. Regardless of how carefully the choice is made you can't bully the person in charge unless they want to be bullied.  Over time, you'll see a much more noticeable evolution of the power players.  Contrast that to the history: except for George Chambers losing his own seat in the NAR euphoria, has any major political party had a real change in leadership other than through death? 

   
Indeed, should we pursue public policy with a view to influencing benign internal party machinations?

this is, I think, a hard question.

Today, are prospective capable candidates not presenting themselves for reasons OTHER than the purported barriers to entry? I strongly suggest they are.
While I don't disagree with the universal concern expressed throughout the thread (the consensus that the landscape needs new compelling faces), I am merely seeking to raise the point of whether term limits are effective at resulting in party reform or should be pursued for the purpose of party reform ... because it seems many contributors have offered opinions with that purpose in mind.

I could spin term limits as a reform of the "system" that would serve to influence the parties to provide a better product.  One might say that would be all semantics if I was to say that.  In any case, I suppose the
appropriate course of action is to analyze a peer country that has term limits.

I disagree with the implication that term limits of necessity will produce better candidates. Indeed, they likely will produce a succession of inferior candidates.

Inferior to? the incumbents?  I think this boils down to what level of confidence one has in the population.  we might have to agree to disagree but I don't see any reason to believe that we can't find people.  It's a simple model: enter politics after a stint in the profession of your choice; be an MP for a few terms; run for PM; proceed with the rest of your life as appropriate.
 

[asylumseeker]

I'd make a distinction between being on the ballot and being a viable candidate.

Not sure that's a useful distinction. The reality is access to the ballot is equally available to viable and gratuitous candidates alike.

well, this is why I refer to the cartel as being inadvertent.  The biggest barrier to entry is that the average voter can make reasonable assumptions about how others are going to vote.  Knowing the tendencies of the voting public, the potential 3rd party voter is presented with two options: 1) vote for the 3rd party you really want in power knowing that the odds aren't in your favour or 2) use your vote to vote against the member of the duopoly that you dislike more by voting for the other member of the duopoly.

The situation you describe is not a classic barrier to entry. What you describe depicts a glimmer of what may be electoral reality, but it is not a product of a systemic obstacle imposed by one party or another. For instance, in the American experience there have been tangible hurdles pursued by party mandate on the part of Dems and Reps to obstruct Greens and/or Libertarians and others from being placed on the ballot. Our system via the EBC does not countenance that. What you describe is a notion of voter behaviour which does not preclude access to the ballot or candidature.

We've had a diverse parade of 3rd party participation at the ballot ... viability of candidates is a different matter that is a function of the electorate's discretion rather than the interference of political parties. In your anticompetitive economic analogy, focus would have to rest on the party as an actor ... rather than on the voter/consumer as an obstruction (recall I suggested monopsony earlier).

well, there'll always be kingmakers behind the scenes.  that's an intrinsic property of a political party.  That being said, once you put somebody in charge then they in charge. Regardless of how carefully the choice is made you can't bully the person in charge unless they want to be bullied.  Over time, you'll see a much more noticeable evolution of the power players.  Contrast that to the history: except for George Chambers losing his own seat in the NAR euphoria, has any major political party had a real change in leadership other than through death?

I think you've taken a position that oscillates between idealistic to naive. The logic of these parties in our model is not to pursue drastic change. Our polity is not currently ideologically driven. Thus, the distinguishing and compelling features of appeal to the electorate lie elsewhere, and constancy in leaders (stylistically etc. favors not co-opting party orthodoxy) ... look at some of the names that have been suggested throughout the thread as potentially good PMs ... and you'll find names who have challenged (or who have been perceived to have challenged) party culture or orthodoxy.

Inferior to? the incumbents?  I think this boils down to what level of confidence one has in the population.  we might have to agree to disagree but I don't see any reason to believe that we can't find people.  It's a simple model: enter politics after a stint in the profession of your choice; be an MP for a few terms; run for PM; proceed with the rest of your life as appropriate.

There are capable people across the nation. I don't disagree. However, what are we looking for bureaucrats, technocrats or politicians?

There are several names who fit the bill of having had a stint in politics (at least in the form of parliamentary representation) and as capable professionals as they have been in their respective professions ... they were piss poor politicians. (I am sure TT could concur).

I took pains to distinguish parliamentary representation b/c fuh the most part that's not the entry point into the political arena, as you suggest.

The school that views politics as less than a professional arena in itself graduates many to the political graveyard. Politics is not a pastime ... to speak nothing of the recriminations and permanent consequential attachments that flow from the duopoly construct and misfortune that awaits when the other party is in office.

[daryn]

Not sure that's a useful distinction. The reality is access to the ballot is equally available to viable and gratuitous candidates alike.

well, I think it's very useful.  The utility of the distinction following from the definition of the word 'gratuitous' (your choice not mine).  The gratuitous candidate is not offering the electorate a real alternative.

The situation you describe is not a classic barrier to entry. What you describe depicts a glimmer of what may be electoral reality, but it is not a product of a systemic obstacle imposed by one party or another. For instance, in the American experience there have been tangible hurdles pursued by party mandate on the part of Dems and Reps to obstruct Greens and/or Libertarians and others from being placed on the ballot. Our system via the EBC does not countenance that. What you describe is a notion of voter behaviour which does not preclude access to the ballot or candidature.

Again, this is why I refer to the cartel as 'inadvertent'.  I understand that the two situations differ but i believe that the analogy is useful to the extent that situations are similar.  Just on a relatively broad level: there is a characteristic of the system that facilitates the consumer/citizen/voter being shortchanged; regulations are put in place to protect said consumer.   

Perhaps, I erred in not anticipating the analogy to be so thoroughly deconstructed.

We've had a diverse parade of 3rd party participation at the ballot ... viability of candidates is a different matter that is a function of the electorate's discretion rather than the interference of political parties. In your anticompetitive economic analogy, focus would have to rest on the party as an actor ... rather than on the voter/consumer as an obstruction (recall I suggested monopsony earlier).

ok.

The logic of these parties in our model is not to pursue drastic change. Our polity is not currently ideologically driven. Thus, the distinguishing and compelling features of appeal to the electorate lie elsewhere, and constancy in leaders (stylistically etc. favors not co-opting party orthodoxy) ... look at some of the names that have been suggested throughout the thread as potentially good PMs ... and you'll find names who have challenged (or who have been perceived to have challenged) party culture or orthodoxy.

TBH, I'm not exactly sure if we talking about the same thing.  I certainly don't disagree with any of these statements.

There are capable people across the nation. I don't disagree. However, what are we looking for bureaucrats, technocrats or politicians?

There are several names who fit the bill of having had a stint in politics (at least in the form of parliamentary representation) and as capable professionals as they have been in their respective professions ... they were piss poor politicians. (I am sure TT could concur).

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.  It's not surprising at all that some would have failed in the past.  It is also to be expected that some will fail in the future.  I don't see how it follows that the quality of leadership would decline in general.

I took pains to distinguish parliamentary representation b/c fuh the most part that's not the entry point into the political arena, as you suggest.

I don't recall ever suggesting that.