May 20, 2022, 08:27:36 AM

Author Topic: 54 PERCENT BACK RUNOFF...Mori Caribbean poll  (Read 10908 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline doc

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 1518
  • ...game, set, match.
    • View Profile
Re: Kamla wants sweeping constitutional changes.
« Reply #60 on: August 20, 2014, 05:26:25 AM »
Split votes favour the PNM. They won't vote against their interest.
Live large and prosper!

Offline Socapro

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Warrior
  • *
  • Posts: 14527
  • Ras Shorty-I, Father of Soca, Chutney-Soca & Jamoo
    • View Profile
Re: Kamla wants sweeping constitutional changes.
« Reply #61 on: August 20, 2014, 09:39:00 AM »

 I see nothing wrong with the proposed changes and the so called "run off" is also a good measure.
 The people that did not vote for either leading candidate have an opportunity to hear both of them again and make a choice of which one they want to represent them.

 All the political parties have the same chance. The fact that some may have more finances available to them is irrelevant.

 Fear of change is worse than change itself.

More brainless rhetoric.
What about democratic change for the better is better than undemocratic change for the worse?

Here are the points that anyone considering what is good and democratic for T&T and would minimize more opportunities for elections corruption would have considered:-

1. These run-off proposals were not in the original bill placed before Ministers to debate nor was the proposal discussed with or sanctioned by the general T&T public before being placed in the Bill, so these changes being pushed thru are totally undemocratic.

2. You don’t seem to have considered the corruption and instability issues that these proposed elections run-offs will cause in marginal seats as the run-offs can in theory lead to a party that placed 2nd in the original election eventually winning with even less votes than they got in the original elections.

3. These run-offs in theory can result in a prolonged number of run-offs in marginal seats if the run-offs elections don’t result in any party winning by 50% or more of the votes. This is thus a recipe for the party with the most money to contest a number of run-off elections eventually winning the seat.
This is undemocratic as it will lead to the party with most amount of financial clout and also with access to taxpayers funds to eventually win the run-off elections in the marginal seats. It will encourage corruption.

4. While prolonged run-offs elections take place in marginal seats, a rejected government which would otherwise have lost the elections will still be in power and will still have access to the country's treasury/ T&T taxpayers’ money.

Anyone who backs these run-offs elections after considering the points above has no care for democracy and the future stability of T&T and is more interested in which party is in power than in T&T remaining a democracy.

And btw the other issues that this Constitutional Amendment Bill deals with are red -herring issues:

1. Limiting the PM to serving two terms in office.
This proposal deprives the Party in power and the T&T public of their democratic choice for who they view as the best leader for their party and the country respectively from the widest choice of qualified candidates.
This is especially undemocratic when a particular leader (PM) of the ruling party has done a great job as leader of the ruling party and country and is clearly the best choice to continue as leader when compared to their party colleagues.
So why deprive the electorate of the best choice for leader and PM in cases where they are happy with the performance of that leader and the ruling party?
In cases where the electorate is not impressed with the performance of the ruling party and leader they have the democratic choice to simply vote that party out of power so in the end this two-term limited is totally unnecessary in a healthy democracy.

2. Power of recall of MPs.
As presented in the bill this power of recall is fluff as it apparently needs a higher percentage of votes than is used to elect an MP to recall him/her plus recall is only effective after the MP has served 3 years.
What use is it if you have to wait 3 years to recall an MP who is not performing when the constituents want to recall them after 6 months to a year of non-performance? This recall as proposed is Red-herring fluff.
Unless an MP can be recalled after 6 months to a year for non-performance this recall amendment as proposed by the government is a red-herring item that is of little use in reality.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2014, 10:23:17 AM by Socapro »
De higher a monkey climbs is de less his ass is on de line, if he works for FIFA that is! ;-)

Offline Deeks

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 18254
    • View Profile
Re: Kamla wants sweeping constitutional changes.
« Reply #62 on: August 20, 2014, 11:22:09 AM »
This is especially undemocratic when a particular leader (PM) of the ruling party has done a great job as leader of the ruling party and country and is clearly the best choice to continue as leader when compared to their party colleagues.

We agree to disagree on this one. Maybe we should have referendum!

Offline fishs

  • I believe in the stars in the dark night.
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 3856
    • View Profile
Re: Kamla wants sweeping constitutional changes.
« Reply #63 on: August 20, 2014, 12:04:36 PM »

 I see nothing wrong with the proposed changes and the so called "run off" is also a good measure.
 The people that did not vote for either leading candidate have an opportunity to hear both of them again and make a choice of which one they want to represent them.

 All the political parties have the same chance. The fact that some may have more finances available to them is irrelevant.

 Fear of change is worse than change itself.

More brainless rhetoric.
What about democratic change for the better is better than undemocratic change for the worse?

Here are the points that anyone considering what is good and democratic for T&T and would minimize more opportunities for elections corruption would have considered:-

1. These run-off proposals were not in the original bill placed before Ministers to debate nor was the proposal discussed with or sanctioned by the general T&T public before being placed in the Bill, so these changes being pushed thru are totally undemocratic.

2. You don’t seem to have considered the corruption and instability issues that these proposed elections run-offs will cause in marginal seats as the run-offs can in theory lead to a party that placed 2nd in the original election eventually winning with even less votes than they got in the original elections.

3. These run-offs in theory can result in a prolonged number of run-offs in marginal seats if the run-offs elections don’t result in any party winning by 50% or more of the votes. This is thus a recipe for the party with the most money to contest a number of run-off elections eventually winning the seat.
This is undemocratic as it will lead to the party with most amount of financial clout and also with access to taxpayers funds to eventually win the run-off elections in the marginal seats. It will encourage corruption.

4. While prolonged run-offs elections take place in marginal seats, a rejected government which would otherwise have lost the elections will still be in power and will still have access to the country's treasury/ T&T taxpayers’ money.

Anyone who backs these run-offs elections after considering the points above has no care for democracy and the future stability of T&T and is more interested in which party is in power than in T&T remaining a democracy.

And btw the other issues that this Constitutional Amendment Bill deals with are red -herring issues:

1. Limiting the PM to serving two terms in office.
This proposal deprives the Party in power and the T&T public of their democratic choice for who they view as the best leader for their party and the country respectively from the widest choice of qualified candidates.
This is especially undemocratic when a particular leader (PM) of the ruling party has done a great job as leader of the ruling party and country and is clearly the best choice to continue as leader when compared to their party colleagues.
So why deprive the electorate of the best choice for leader and PM in cases where they are happy with the performance of that leader and the ruling party?
In cases where the electorate is not impressed with the performance of the ruling party and leader they have the democratic choice to simply vote that party out of power so in the end this two-term limited is totally unnecessary in a healthy democracy.

2. Power of recall of MPs.
As presented in the bill this power of recall is fluff as it apparently needs a higher percentage of votes than is used to elect an MP to recall him/her plus recall is only effective after the MP has served 3 years.
What use is it if you have to wait 3 years to recall an MP who is not performing when the constituents want to recall them after 6 months to a year of non-performance? This recall as proposed is Red-herring fluff.
Unless an MP can be recalled after 6 months to a year for non-performance this recall amendment as proposed by the government is a red-herring item that is of little use in reality.


 You obviously have your head so far stuck up your ass that you probably type this with yuh toes.
Ah want de woman on de bass

Offline Socapro

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Warrior
  • *
  • Posts: 14527
  • Ras Shorty-I, Father of Soca, Chutney-Soca & Jamoo
    • View Profile
Re: Kamla wants sweeping constitutional changes.
« Reply #64 on: August 20, 2014, 12:48:20 PM »

 I see nothing wrong with the proposed changes and the so called "run off" is also a good measure.
 The people that did not vote for either leading candidate have an opportunity to hear both of them again and make a choice of which one they want to represent them.

 All the political parties have the same chance. The fact that some may have more finances available to them is irrelevant.

 Fear of change is worse than change itself.

More brainless rhetoric.
What about democratic change for the better is better than undemocratic change for the worse?

Here are the points that anyone considering what is good and democratic for T&T and would minimize more opportunities for elections corruption would have considered:-

1. These run-off proposals were not in the original bill placed before Ministers to debate nor was the proposal discussed with or sanctioned by the general T&T public before being placed in the Bill, so these changes being pushed thru are totally undemocratic.

2. You don’t seem to have considered the corruption and instability issues that these proposed elections run-offs will cause in marginal seats as the run-offs can in theory lead to a party that placed 2nd in the original election eventually winning with even less votes than they got in the original elections.

3. These run-offs in theory can result in a prolonged number of run-offs in marginal seats if the run-offs elections don’t result in any party winning by 50% or more of the votes. This is thus a recipe for the party with the most money to contest a number of run-off elections eventually winning the seat.
This is undemocratic as it will lead to the party with most amount of financial clout and also with access to taxpayers funds to eventually win the run-off elections in the marginal seats. It will encourage corruption.

4. While prolonged run-offs elections take place in marginal seats, a rejected government which would otherwise have lost the elections will still be in power and will still have access to the country's treasury/ T&T taxpayers’ money.

Anyone who backs these run-offs elections after considering the points above has no care for democracy and the future stability of T&T and is more interested in which party is in power than in T&T remaining a democracy.

And btw the other issues that this Constitutional Amendment Bill deals with are red -herring issues:

1. Limiting the PM to serving two terms in office.
This proposal deprives the Party in power and the T&T public of their democratic choice for who they view as the best leader for their party and the country respectively from the widest choice of qualified candidates.
This is especially undemocratic when a particular leader (PM) of the ruling party has done a great job as leader of the ruling party and country and is clearly the best choice to continue as leader when compared to their party colleagues.
So why deprive the electorate of the best choice for leader and PM in cases where they are happy with the performance of that leader and the ruling party?
In cases where the electorate is not impressed with the performance of the ruling party and leader they have the democratic choice to simply vote that party out of power so in the end this two-term limited is totally unnecessary in a healthy democracy.

2. Power of recall of MPs.
As presented in the bill this power of recall is fluff as it apparently needs a higher percentage of votes than is used to elect an MP to recall him/her plus recall is only effective after the MP has served 3 years.
What use is it if you have to wait 3 years to recall an MP who is not performing when the constituents want to recall them after 6 months to a year of non-performance? This recall as proposed is Red-herring fluff.
Unless an MP can be recalled after 6 months to a year for non-performance this recall amendment as proposed by the government is a red-herring item that is of little use in reality.


 You obviously have your head so far stuck up your ass that you probably type this with yuh toes.

Is that the best you can do? Why not logically argue against any of the points that I raised?
Maybe its because you can't so instead all you can resort to is trying to throw a person insult to distract from the fact that you can't refute the facts I have pointed out above in regards to these proposed run-off elections being highly undemocratic and encouraging elections corruption and political instability.

I did not even mention the point that it is also unfair to the other younger upcoming political parties in trying to force their voters to differ their votes to one of the two more established larger political parties.
The run-off option in the bill is clearly anti-democratic and yet this government has the cheek to talk about giving power to the people. Why don't they follow their own party's constitution and call internal leadership elections as they promised to their party members when the PM was elected?

You obviously have little love or care for T&T's future as a stable democracy if you have read the facts I have pointed out above and can't refute any of them but yet you still agree with our dictatorship government trying to push thru this highly undemocratic Constitutional Amendment Bill.

PS:
The amendments we really need to T&T's constitution are things that help us to try and lock up corrupt MPs who steal taxpayers money and also help us to trace and recover the stolen money.
Another good amendment will be only allowing government Ministers to select candidates for T&T President but allowing the T&T voting public to vote and decide which candidate is best suited as President so we don't end up with another lame duck President as we currently seem to be lumbered with.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2014, 01:17:11 PM by Socapro »
De higher a monkey climbs is de less his ass is on de line, if he works for FIFA that is! ;-)

Offline Socapro

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Warrior
  • *
  • Posts: 14527
  • Ras Shorty-I, Father of Soca, Chutney-Soca & Jamoo
    • View Profile
Re: Kamla wants sweeping constitutional changes.
« Reply #65 on: August 20, 2014, 02:16:52 PM »
This is especially undemocratic when a particular leader (PM) of the ruling party has done a great job as leader of the ruling party and country and is clearly the best choice to continue as leader when compared to their party colleagues.

We agree to disagree on this one. Maybe we should have referendum!

Maybe but is it necessary when you can simply vote out a government if you believe they have a weak leader who has proven that they are not up to the job? Did you not also read this quote from my above post?

Quote
In cases where the electorate is not impressed with the performance of the ruling party and leader they have the democratic choice to simply vote that party out of power so in the end this two-term limited is totally unnecessary in a healthy democracy.

Isn't this what happened to the PNM with Patrick Manning in charge and did they not pay the price of losing the general elections in 2010?
Well seeing that they did I think our democracy is already working very well as it is and this two term limit proposal is clearly unnecessary in addition to being anti-democratic to the rights of the electorate to choose.

Provided each political party has its own constitution with internal elections to select its best available party leader every 4 to 5 years and lives up to that constitution of allowing its members to fairly select its leader then I see no need for a limited two term for leader of the ruling party. The electorate will decide if they don't like your party leader as leader of the government as they did with the PNM in 2010 with Manning in charge.
There is no need for T&T to copy everything that the USA does as their political system is different to T&T's.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2014, 02:38:13 PM by Socapro »
De higher a monkey climbs is de less his ass is on de line, if he works for FIFA that is! ;-)

Offline Sando prince

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 9136
    • View Profile
Re: Kamla wants sweeping constitutional changes.
« Reply #66 on: August 20, 2014, 03:22:50 PM »
Split votes favour the PNM. They won't vote against their interest.

Yup, come next elections the people will have the last say

Offline MEP

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 2399
    • View Profile
Re: Kamla wants sweeping constitutional changes.
« Reply #67 on: August 20, 2014, 08:52:19 PM »

 I see nothing wrong with the proposed changes and the so called "run off" is also a good measure.
 The people that did not vote for either leading candidate have an opportunity to hear both of them again and make a choice of which one they want to represent them.

 All the political parties have the same chance. The fact that some may have more finances available to them is irrelevant.

 Fear of change is worse than change itself.
No not all political parties have the same chance.. the run-off is an american concept that is germane to a two-party system.

Offline fishs

  • I believe in the stars in the dark night.
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 3856
    • View Profile
Re: Kamla wants sweeping constitutional changes.
« Reply #68 on: August 21, 2014, 10:52:11 AM »

 I see nothing wrong with the proposed changes and the so called "run off" is also a good measure.
 The people that did not vote for either leading candidate have an opportunity to hear both of them again and make a choice of which one they want to represent them.

 All the political parties have the same chance. The fact that some may have more finances available to them is irrelevant.

 Fear of change is worse than change itself.
No not all political parties have the same chance.. the run-off is an american concept that is germane to a two-party system.

All over South America this is normal fo Presidential elections
Ah want de woman on de bass

Offline zuluwarrior

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 3048
  • use your tongue to count your teeth
    • View Profile
    • http://pointalive.com
Re: Kamla wants sweeping constitutional changes.
« Reply #69 on: August 21, 2014, 07:19:11 PM »
Independent Senator Helen Drayton has warned the Government that the Miscellaneous Provisions Bill (No.
 2),
 2014 is a section 34 waiting to occur. Senator Drayton made the comment while contributing to the Bill’s debate on Tuesday. - See more at: http://news.power102fm.com/?p=23476#sthash.RRPZ8OCd.dpuf
.
good things happening to good people: a good thing
good things happening to bad people: a bad thing
bad things happening to good people: a bad thing
bad things happening to bad people: a good thing

Offline Brownsugar

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 10171
  • Soca in mih veins, Soca in mih blood!!
    • View Profile
Re: Kamla wants sweeping constitutional changes.
« Reply #70 on: August 21, 2014, 08:44:13 PM »

 I see nothing wrong with the proposed changes and the so called "run off" is also a good measure.
 The people that did not vote for either leading candidate have an opportunity to hear both of them again and make a choice of which one they want to represent them.

 All the political parties have the same chance. The fact that some may have more finances available to them is irrelevant.

 Fear of change is worse than change itself.
No not all political parties have the same chance.. the run-off is an american concept that is germane to a two-party system.

All over South America this is normal fo Presidential elections

Fishs, if nutten eh wrong with it why is being rail roaded through Parliament?
Why was there no consultation?
Why of all the things contained in the report coming out of consultations these particular parts of the bill were plucked out, (and mind you, run off was NEVER a part of those consultations eh) and brought to Parliament?  Could it be that these parts of the "reform" only need a simple majority to pass?

Let Kamla and she croonies rock so with they shyte!!! They too firetrucking stink and always on firetrucking games!!!!!!
"...If yuh clothes tear up
Or yuh shoes burst off,
You could still jump up when music play.
Old lady, young baby, everybody could dingolay...
Dingolay, ay, ay, ay ay,
Dingolay ay, ay, ay..."

RIP Shadow....The legend will live on in music...

Offline fishs

  • I believe in the stars in the dark night.
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 3856
    • View Profile
Re: Kamla wants sweeping constitutional changes.
« Reply #71 on: August 22, 2014, 03:22:24 AM »

 I see nothing wrong with the proposed changes and the so called "run off" is also a good measure.
 The people that did not vote for either leading candidate have an opportunity to hear both of them again and make a choice of which one they want to represent them.

 All the political parties have the same chance. The fact that some may have more finances available to them is irrelevant.

 Fear of change is worse than change itself.
No not all political parties have the same chance.. the run-off is an american concept that is germane to a two-party system.

All over South America this is normal fo Presidential elections

Fishs, if nutten eh wrong with it why is being rail roaded through Parliament?
Why was there no consultation?
Why of all the things contained in the report coming out of consultations these particular parts of the bill were plucked out, (and mind you, run off was NEVER a part of those consultations eh) and brought to Parliament?  Could it be that these parts of the "reform" only need a simple majority to pass?

Let Kamla and she croonies rock so with they shyte!!! They too firetrucking stink and always on firetrucking games!!!!!!

 Another view
Who Vex Lorse – Separating news from noise
ANIL GOORAHOO Monday, August 18 2014

The late Dale Kolasingh, one of the finest journalists this country has ever produced, made a point of constantly reminding his newsroom staff that one of their first priorities in reporting was to “separate the news from the noise”. He understood clearly that in any important debate, particularly those involving politicians and moreso during election silly season, “legitimate news is almost always obfuscated and sometimes lost” in the noise of political rhetoric inspired by partisanship and self-self-interests.

With a general election mere months away and with political parties jostling for the minds and votes of the electorate, the on-going debate on Constitutional Reform has featured a lot of noise which has been readily lapped-up by our media and fed as news to an unsuspecting national audience, without the kind of analytical separation which Kolasingh insisted upon. Beginning today and continuing next week, I will make an attempt in my own humble way to provide the lacking but critically needed separation so that citizens understand the issues – each in their individual and collective contexts.

Having attended ALL of the National Consultations on Constitutional Reform and having been witness to the process, it is necessary for me to point out that almost none of the most vocal commentators against the package of reforms proposed by government in its Constitution Amendment Bill (2014) attended any of the consultations. I say this not to deny their entitlement to comment on the reforms, but merely to establish that much of the “noise” that has been published and given prominence in the public domain, may be uninformed and in ignorance of how the process evolved, what issues are involved and of how the final proposals were arrived at.

Under its Terms of Reference, the Constitution Reform Commission was mandated by Cabinet to host a series of 17 public consultations across Trinidad and Tobago (14 in Trinidad and three in Tobago) as well as a number of private stakeholder consultations. Based on those consultations the Commission was required to produce a report, inclusive of recommendations for Constitutional Reform, and present same to the Cabinet. By virtue of having produced its report dated 27 December, 2013, the Commission fulfilled its mandate and ought to have gone out of existence. However, during the course of the 17 national consultations, participants requested a second round of consultations so they could have the opportunity to consider and comment upon the findings and recommendations of the Commission. Accordingly, the Commission recommended and Cabinet agreed to a second round of public consultations which was held in February, although written comments on the report were accepted until 31 March.

It is important to note that the December 2013 report recommended, among other things, that a fairer system of electing representatives to the parliament should be pursued with proportional representation being the preferred option; that there should be a two-term limit for the Prime Minister; that there should be a right of recall of MPs; that MPs ought not to hold Ministerial portfolios; and that there should be provision for national referendum on important issues. Interestingly, there was no objection to any of these recommendations during the second round of public consultations which citizens themselves requested. In fact, all of these received widespread support

Having received feedback from the population with respect to recommendations contained in its December 2013 report, the Constitution Commission prepared a post-script which included further recommendations on a methodology for achieving some of the governing principles identified in the initial report. Among the further recommendations – which were circulated among and approved by all members including Dr.Merle Hodge – was a runoff system of elections. Dr Hodge has herself admitted to the media that the justification for a system of runoff elections was well articulated in the post-script and it was upon such justification that she agreed to its inclusion.

As there was no mandate under its Terms of Reference for the Constitution Commission to produce a second or a supplementary report, the post-script to which all Commissioners agreed, was forwarded to the government for its consideration. It was the government which, rightly or wrongly, referred to the Post-script as an “Addendum” to the Report. That Merle Hodge first heard of an Addendum to the Commission’s Report when it was announced in Parliament, is really a play on words as the word “Addendum” simply substitutes for the term “Post-script”.

The Commission’s report and post-script having been forwarded to the Government, as was required, it was for the government to accept in its entirety; reject-in-its-entirety; or accept in part the recommendations contained therein. Having that discretion, the government opted – some argue hastily – to bring immediately to the parliament those recommendations which did not require a special majority to be passed.

In these circumstances, it is difficult to accept the arguments being advanced by some that there wasn’t consultation on the amendments that were brought to the parliament.



Ah want de woman on de bass

Offline Sando prince

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 9136
    • View Profile
Re: Kamla wants sweeping constitutional changes.
« Reply #72 on: August 22, 2014, 07:58:01 AM »
We have SW.net members who seem confused. The part of the bill that is being mostly rejected by people in T&T was included when? and for who to see?


Hodge disputes ‘addendum’ to Reform report
Sunday, August 10 2014


Merle Hodge...
Constitution Reform Commission (CRC) member Merle Hodge yesterday claimed the addendum to the Commission’s Reform report released by the Prime Minister’s Office on Friday was an internal document tagged “Private and confidential: Not for circulation,” and addressed exclusively to the Prime Minister in mid-July 2014.

Hodge claimed this document was “never published and disseminated as the Report was” and that it was only on Friday that it became the “Addendum to the Constitution Reform Report.”

“The run-off provision did not come from the people, and it was never revealed to the people before Monday, August 4, 2014, one week before it was to be debated in the Parliament,” she said in a statement to the media yesterday in which she accused Government of trying to make her a “liar” over the controversial run-off poll proposal in the Constitutional Amendment Bill.

“My concern with the run-off proposal is not so much where it first appeared; at this point I don’t care. My concern is how the population has reacted to it,” she said, noting that “many people are offended and alarmed by this particular item and a democratic government would take heed.”

Hodge, a retired university lecturer and social activist, said the document had grown out of a meeting held on April 30, 2014, at which the CRC discussed and agreed to some proposals selected from the Report, to be taken to Parliament.

“The run-off proposal was not there, because it was not in the Report,” she insisted in her statement yesterday.

She said further discussions were held at a meeting on July 9, 2014, but admitted that both herself and another commissioner were absent from that meeting. She said minutes from that meeting were circulated on July 13 for review and comment.

“That was my first introduction to the run-off idea,” she said, saying that she did not “warm to the idea of thousands of votes being cancelled, and I pointed to this as part of my feedback.”

“I did not see the red flags at the time, for the idea was developed with cogent arguments supported by concrete evidence (sections 46-57). I don’t know where the run-off idea came from, but I have never had any reason not to trust the expertise and the good intentions of the CRC member who was our resource person in constitutional matters. Again, I gave my consent to the document, and again, I take responsibility for all of its contents.”

http://www.newsday.co.tt/news/0,198866.html
« Last Edit: August 22, 2014, 12:09:44 PM by Sando prince »

Offline Brownsugar

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 10171
  • Soca in mih veins, Soca in mih blood!!
    • View Profile
Re: Kamla wants sweeping constitutional changes.
« Reply #73 on: August 22, 2014, 08:15:13 AM »
We have SW.net members who seem confused. The part of the bill that is being mostly rejected by people in T&T was included when? and for who

Ask fishs and Anil Ghoorahoo......
"...If yuh clothes tear up
Or yuh shoes burst off,
You could still jump up when music play.
Old lady, young baby, everybody could dingolay...
Dingolay, ay, ay, ay ay,
Dingolay ay, ay, ay..."

RIP Shadow....The legend will live on in music...

Offline Socapro

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Warrior
  • *
  • Posts: 14527
  • Ras Shorty-I, Father of Soca, Chutney-Soca & Jamoo
    • View Profile
Re: Kamla wants sweeping constitutional changes.
« Reply #74 on: August 22, 2014, 08:23:45 AM »
We have SW.net members who seem confused. The part of the bill that is being mostly rejected by people in T&T was included when? and for who

Ask fishs and Anil Ghoorahoo......

Exactly!
For some reason fishs believes that long article of sound bites that he posted in Reply #71 changes that reality.
Do they honestly believe that people of T&T are that gullible?
De higher a monkey climbs is de less his ass is on de line, if he works for FIFA that is! ;-)

Offline Bourbon

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 5206
    • View Profile
Re: Kamla wants sweeping constitutional changes.
« Reply #75 on: August 22, 2014, 11:24:46 AM »
We have SW.net members who seem confused. The part of the bill that is being mostly rejected by people in T&T was included when? and for who

Ask fishs and Anil Ghoorahoo......

Exactly!
For some reason fishs believes that long article of sound bites that he posted in Reply #71 changes that reality.
Do they honestly believe that people of T&T are that gullible?


You eh see the video? They are!
The greatest single cause of atheism in the world today are Christians who acknowledge Jesus ;with their lips and walk out the door and deny Him by their lifestyle. That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable.

Offline Socapro

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Warrior
  • *
  • Posts: 14527
  • Ras Shorty-I, Father of Soca, Chutney-Soca & Jamoo
    • View Profile
Re: Kamla wants sweeping constitutional changes.
« Reply #76 on: August 22, 2014, 07:43:09 PM »
We have SW.net members who seem confused. The part of the bill that is being mostly rejected by people in T&T was included when? and for who

Ask fishs and Anil Ghoorahoo......

Exactly!
For some reason fishs believes that long article of sound bites that he posted in Reply #71 changes that reality.
Do they honestly believe that people of T&T are that gullible?


You eh see the video? They are!

Well not the ones who regularly listen to Iwer's station: http://www.thestreet919fm.com/
De higher a monkey climbs is de less his ass is on de line, if he works for FIFA that is! ;-)

Offline Sando prince

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 9136
    • View Profile
Re: Kamla wants sweeping constitutional changes.
« Reply #77 on: August 22, 2014, 08:10:46 PM »

Yup dais right. Our democracy right now lies with the vote of one independent senator

Quote
In a telephone interview yesterday, James said: “Nobody has created these pressures except themselves (People’s Partnership). They are the ones who decided to change the Constitution. A lot of people are saying the run-off provision is a violation of the freedom of the Constitution. The decision in the Senate hangs on one vote. What kind of a democracy is it? It is ridiculous as a democracy. It is a violation of democracy.”

Persad-Bisssessar has defended the bill, saying it would deepen the democratic process. But James questioned the true motive.

“How democratic can it be if you have to depend on the vote of an independent senator? How independent can it be? If you have to broaden the democracy, the passage of the bill should not depend upon the vote of an Independent senator."


http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/Analyst-What-kind-of-democracy-is-this-272379971.html


Offline fishs

  • I believe in the stars in the dark night.
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 3856
    • View Profile
Re: Kamla wants sweeping constitutional changes.
« Reply #78 on: August 22, 2014, 11:00:09 PM »

 Simple, have a referendum on the bill.

Or do we have to amend the constitution to do that ?

Finally would that satisfy everybody ? Guess not since the PP would probably win as they have historicaly garnered a higher percentage of vote than the PNM.

I am definitely not  PP supporter neither do I support the PNM.

I am pulling back now and will see how this unfolds
Ah want de woman on de bass

socafighter

  • Guest
54 PERCENT BACK RUNOFF...Mori Caribbean poll
« Reply #79 on: August 24, 2014, 12:18:56 PM »
54 PERCENT BACK RUNOFF
By Andre Bagoo Sunday, August 24 2014


A GOVERNMENT-commissioned Mori Caribbean poll on the question of proposals in the Constitution (Amendment) Bill 2014 has found that a majority of the population is in support of all three proposals for a threshold/runoff; a right of recall and term limits for prime ministers, with 54 per cent backing the runoff.

The poll, which was seen by Sunday Newsday, involved a sample of 512 adults interviewed by telephone across Trinidad and Tobago. It was conducted from August 8 to August 11, 2014, two days after Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar unveiled the bill in Parliament and just before it was debated and passed in the House of Representatives after a marathon sitting which lasted from August 11 to the early morning of August 12. The bill is due to be debated in the Senate this week.

The results of the Mori poll stated:

* 54 per cent support 50 per cent threshold/runoff;

* 70 per cent of people support a right of recall; and

* 55 per cent support term limits for prime ministers

According to Mori, interviews were conducted by telephone, recalling those who had previously been interviewed in 2014 as part of a previous research series called Listening to the People. However, the full sample has a margin of error of four percentage points. While Mori indicated a sample across the country, how the sample was selected was not indicated, nor were specific constituencies disclosed.

For each of the proposals, the respondents were asked to say whether they supported or opposed them. In relation to the runoff, respondents were asked to comment on the proposal summarised thus: “Ensuring MPs are elected with at least 50 percent support in their constituency – where this is not achieved in the first vote and runoff will take place between the top two candidates a week later.” A total of 21 percent strongly supported the proposal and 33 percent said they tended to support. A total of 28 percent indicated they opposed, with 18 percent saying they strongly opposed. Mori stated 13 percent indicted they neither supported nor opposed, with five per cent stating they did not know.

There was strong support for, “the right to recall an MP and force a by-election in the constituency, if enough local constituents demand it.” Of the respondents, 70 percent indicated support overall, with 32 percent stating they strongly supported the proposal. 38 per cent stated they tended to support the proposal. A total of 22 percent opposed this reform, with 11 percent indicating strong opposition. Mori stated six percent neither supported nor opposed the reform, while two per cent stated they did not know.

Respondents were asked to state opinions on term limits. Specifically, they were asked to comment on, “Term limits for the Prime Minister, so no individual can serve as Prime Minister for more than two terms in office (approximately a maximum of ten years)”. A total of 55 percent supported this with 26 percent in strong support. A total of 36 percent opposed, with 23 percent in strong opposition.

However, during the interviews many respondents stated initially that they did not feel informed about the proposals. Participants were asked to respond to the following statement: “How much, if anything, have you heard about the Government’s proposals to reform the Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago? These were announced earlier this week by the Prime Minister and are due to be debated in Parliament next week.” In response, the majority did not feel informed. About 42 percent said they, “Have heard about the reform proposals, but do not feel informed” and 35 percent said they, “Have not heard about the reform proposals at all.” At the same time, two days after they were unveiled in Parliament, 16 percent said they, “Have heard about the reform proposals and feel informed”. Mori said seven percent indicated they did not know in response to this query.

Though the majority backed individual reforms, when questioned initially on support for “the Government’s proposals to reform the Constitution” the outcome was different. A total of 35 percent said they supported, while 29 percent said they opposed. Mori stated 11 percent indicated they neither supported nor opposed, while a large chunk, 26 percent, replied “don’t know” to the question.

Overall, when asked if the reform proposals will give more power to the people, 55 percent agreed, while 26 percent disagreed.

Asked if the reforms were designed to help the Government win the next general election — due by September 2015 — a total of 47 percent agreed with this, while 35 percent disagreed. Mori said 11 percent said they neither agreed nor disagreed while 8 percent did not know.

A total of 55 percent stated the reforms will help improve the way the country is governed, while 50 percent stated the quality of life will be improved in Trinidad and Tobago. However, 28 percent had concerns with the proposals. A total of 16 percent said they neither agreed nor disagreed/did not know if the proposals would improve the way the country is governed.

A total of 17 percent indicated Constitutional reform was one of the most important issues facing the country, while 86 percent identified “crime/police”, 68 percent “health/hospitals” and 64 percent “corruption in Government”. “Jobs/employment” ranked highly at 47 percent, followed by housing (34 percent), education (33 percent) and poverty/inequality (32 percent). A total of 29 percent identified “prices/inflation” as an important issue, and 27 percent similarly pinpointed “roads/traffic”.



socafighter

  • Guest
Re: 54 PERCENT BACK RUNOFF...Mori Caribbean poll
« Reply #80 on: August 24, 2014, 12:21:45 PM »


Hmmmmmmm interesting...your views members

Offline Brownsugar

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 10171
  • Soca in mih veins, Soca in mih blood!!
    • View Profile
"...If yuh clothes tear up
Or yuh shoes burst off,
You could still jump up when music play.
Old lady, young baby, everybody could dingolay...
Dingolay, ay, ay, ay ay,
Dingolay ay, ay, ay..."

RIP Shadow....The legend will live on in music...

Offline Sando prince

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 9136
    • View Profile
Re: 54 PERCENT BACK RUNOFF...Mori Caribbean poll
« Reply #82 on: August 24, 2014, 02:58:19 PM »

Hmmmmmmm interesting...your views members


Not sure if this poll published in the Newsday was enough to change the title of the thread but here is what the Express published


Quote
Two days before the Constitution (Amendment) Bill goes to the Senate, a Moods survey conducted by the Market, Facts & Opinions (MFO) has shown that 85 per cent of the people interviewed would like the Government to halt the debate process to allow for more consultation.
The poll was an independent public opinion survey conducted among 459 respondents by MFO with a plus-or-minus five per cent margin of error.
Of those actually aware of the controversial bill, 54 per cent of the people polled would like more information on the proposed legislation, the poll found.

And 82 per cent would like that information before it is voted on by the Senate on Tuesday.
The Constitution (Amendment) Bill, 2014 was brought to Parliament by Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar. On August 12, the bill was passed in the Lower House—23 members voted for the bill, 14 against, and there was one abstention. Congress of the People members of Parliament Winston Dookeran and Carolyn Seepersad-Bachan voted against the bill, and COP MP Rodger Samuel abstained when called on to vote. Persad-Bissessar broke the tradition of collective responsibility and allowed Government members to vote according to conscience.

http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/Stop-Debate-272445271.html

 
« Last Edit: August 24, 2014, 03:10:08 PM by Sando prince »

Offline Sando prince

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 9136
    • View Profile
Re: 54 PERCENT BACK RUNOFF...Mori Caribbean poll
« Reply #83 on: August 24, 2014, 03:25:49 PM »
 My 2 cents

I expect this bill to pass seeing only one independent senator needs to vote for its passage. BUT now you will see REAL division in the country since so many people believe the government bypass them to quickly pass a bill that consisted of parts which were not brought for public discourse. Also a lot believe the government included the run-off proposal because he UNC party believe this will better their chance come next elections. They believe the split voters will vote UNC in a second poll. So from the day the bill is passed until next election the narrative in T&T will be the government is trying to steal the election seeing how the government has rushed this bill without public consultation on the run-off proposal

The political backlash come next elections against the government will be SEVERE and the results will show election time.. A lot of traditional PNM seats that were won by COP going right back to the PNM. BTW COP is dead now thanks to the St Augustine MP who created and supported a bill that will help in the demise of his party. The last local elections showed signs of the COP direction to the graveyard and their leader Ramadar pretty much dissolved his party into the arms of the UNC with this bill despite the fact a lot of COP supporters wanted more consultations on this bill.

Wait, notice how this bill has taken attention away from Section 34 and LifeSport scandals. A lot of issues to be dealt with in election season

The last couple days have seen more groups around the country publicly reject the continued debate on the bill. http://www.tv6tnt.com/home/featured-links/-Fitun-fights-constitutional-reform-272384371.html


« Last Edit: August 24, 2014, 07:59:15 PM by Sando prince »

Offline Deeks

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 18254
    • View Profile
Re: 54 PERCENT BACK RUNOFF...Mori Caribbean poll
« Reply #84 on: August 24, 2014, 06:25:49 PM »
Have a referendum. That is more decisive than just using a sample of the pop. Frigg the pollsters and them.

Offline Sando prince

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 9136
    • View Profile
Re: 54 PERCENT BACK RUNOFF...Mori Caribbean poll
« Reply #85 on: August 28, 2014, 11:03:47 PM »
August 27th, 2014


Offline Sando prince

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 9136
    • View Profile
Re: 54 PERCENT BACK RUNOFF...Mori Caribbean poll
« Reply #86 on: August 28, 2014, 11:05:55 PM »
^^ remember on that day T&T PM said she is willing to risk political suicide for the passage of an unpopular bill among Trinbagonians. This is just the beginning of a long election season

Quote
James said the Government did not consult with the population on the measure as it was seeking its own agenda. “It was merely seeking to keep an election promise without consulting the population. It will backfire on the Government,” he insisted, saying the swing voters who determine the winner of elections will vote against the Government at the appropriate time. James said what the voters in the country also would like to know is “how does this legislation help the country or improve democracy.”

http://www.guardian.co.tt/news/2014-08-30/bill-will-backfire-govt—james


« Last Edit: August 30, 2014, 09:02:15 AM by Sando prince »

Offline Bourbon

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 5206
    • View Profile
Re: 54 PERCENT BACK RUNOFF...Mori Caribbean poll
« Reply #87 on: August 29, 2014, 04:44:55 AM »
Yeah well the bill passed. A few amendments namely : three candidates in the first past the post run off in the second round if the third place gets at least 25%. The other amendment is the petition percentage for recall is now 20%...whereas before it was 10.
The greatest single cause of atheism in the world today are Christians who acknowledge Jesus ;with their lips and walk out the door and deny Him by their lifestyle. That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable.

Offline fishs

  • I believe in the stars in the dark night.
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 3856
    • View Profile
Re: 54 PERCENT BACK RUNOFF...Mori Caribbean poll
« Reply #88 on: August 30, 2014, 05:07:42 AM »
Yeah well the bill passed. A few amendments namely : three candidates in the first past the post run off in the second round if the third place gets at least 25%. The other amendment is the petition percentage for recall is now 20%...whereas before it was 10.

 Shit and the world idd not end?
Ah want de woman on de bass

Offline zuluwarrior

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 3048
  • use your tongue to count your teeth
    • View Profile
    • http://pointalive.com
Re: 54 PERCENT BACK RUNOFF...Mori Caribbean poll
« Reply #89 on: August 30, 2014, 07:15:53 AM »
I am wondering was this the reason for buying all the body bags ?
.
good things happening to good people: a good thing
good things happening to bad people: a bad thing
bad things happening to good people: a bad thing
bad things happening to bad people: a good thing