Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods
pyung99 wrote:same same thing people said during last administration. and what if i told you ghost gang also involved big money. did i blow your mind?! did i? people in charge of the ghost gang for instance receive huge sums to distribute.
an inherited system. some cast blind eye wen 1 govt uses it, then get all heated wen its used by the other.
but i agree new govt should put a stopper on these systems and dismantle them for good. but maybe this is d only way to deal with unemployment etc in this country. after all it was a party with decades of experience in governance that put them in place.
kaylex wrote:The issue is not only contracts>> job placements also..
we generated jobs by creating two new ministries,traffic wardens... what service do these things provide?
THE CONTRACTING OUT OF SVCS.. is just one part.. feeding friends and family.
I am having major issues with the promotions in places of work... it very very very disturbing to see people get promoted with little of no professional qualifications, or experience... just based on saying yes.. and carrying news... real real poor.. sad state of affairs..
and the services of the public sector not getting any better..
check licensing, ttps, army, health, education...
i doh mind change that makes sense ..
but we as trinis have to ask ourselves has the services and goods provided for my our tax paying money gotten any better??
any improved facilities??
Please tell me cause I waiting to see.. other than highways which have been completed under the pp.. which i give kudos for.. but everything else .... leave alot to be desired...
AllTrac wrote:people really need to stop watching who getting now and who use to get before, stop putting a color to it, the guy on the street, me, you, regardless of color is yet to eat this "food"
Fact is politicians help their family and friends. Not you and me. WHen PNM was in power, i know plenty black and indian people get fix up nice nice, when you trace back the relationship, is either family or friends(friends of friends, friends who can do favors etc) . Same thing with UNC. They just play this race card game to catch the illiterates.
kaylex wrote:BrotherHood wrote:
rfari wrote:
OP wha kinda foqin name is kaylex?
notsureiflaytex
or gheysex
Does it matter what my name is?? does it concern you? You'd feel better if you google it? does it make sense to change the issues of the thread based on your foolish pronouncement??
steups... you just like the politicians.. man talkin issues u dey on a set of ole talk... trying to deflect the real issues..
the fact of the matter is you dont know where the name came from so shut yuh piehole>>>> its irrelevant to you..
AllTrac wrote:people really need to stop watching who getting now and who use to get before, stop putting a color to it, the guy on the street, me, you, regardless of color is yet to eat this "food"
Fact is politicians help their family and friends. Not you and me. WHen PNM was in power, i know plenty black and indian people get fix up nice nice, when you trace back the relationship, is either family or friends(friends of friends, friends who can do favors etc) . Same thing with UNC. They just play this race card game to catch the illiterates.
When I see more proof than just rumshop talk, billboards and posters, I will take this more seriously. Meantime the justice minister Volney accusing senators in the Cabinet of taking kickbacks.cinco wrote:where is calder hart and manning? they "allegedly" leeched BILLIONS from the country but big beatup for a 2mil check that Rowley say he see from Ish to the UNC
zoom rader wrote:This Poll does not matter.
Who in their right mind will vote for Rowley?
Rowley is not fit to lead any party, he is best suited to become a gang leader.
rfari wrote:zoom rader wrote:This Poll does not matter.
Who in their right mind will vote for Rowley?
Rowley is not fit to lead any party, he is best suited to become a gang leader.like you have to convince urself that 'this poll does not matter'. Aahahhahaha. Aye zoom, u the greatest!
Hirotoshi wrote: term limits for mp,s,senators and political leaders,
rfari wrote:Interesting point about rowley not being 'attractive to voters'. So I ask the question; what makes rowley unattractive as a politician?
BrotherHood wrote:rfari wrote:Interesting point about rowley not being 'attractive to voters'. So I ask the question; what makes rowley unattractive as a politician?
x2.
IMO, people will look past Rowley as PNM leader and just vote for the party because of the humungous pile of sh'it the current administration doing. They will vote because it's the most sensible, although similiar to the present gov't with their sh'it, but at the end of the day they want the PP out of government!
Habit7 wrote:teems1 wrote:However under the 13 years of non-PNM rule we were faced with an insurrection, criminal corruption offences within the gov't and most recently a 3 month curfew and SoE to deal with crime that failed.
To the impartial foreign investor, he will be more attracted to invest when the gov't is the 54 year old political party which under the 37 years they sat in power oversaw massive transformation and growth of the country that is now and still is the envy of many in the Western Hemisphere and Africa.
new politics wrote:-the reason why most people would do wrong is because they see a way for personal gain with out much reprimand. if there were systems in place that they would see that they could be reprimanded for misdeeds AS WELL AS an effective detection system, they would most likely desist from conducting unscrupulous deeds or if they do, be reprimanded for it.
-the reason why we do bad is because we get away with doing it. the reason why we get away with doing it is be cause we can.
-yes, the politicians.... lol. it is set up badly in the first place.
- in any system where u have a 'watch dog' body, for them to be effective they are separate and limit their interactions. they are mostly in observation and detection mode. when they do detect an inconsistency, they then enact the proper protocols.
- in out government, they politicians are their own watchdogs. and they usually reprimand their own when it suits their needs.
this is why i was envisioning a system where they would not be their own watch dogs. that capacity would be on the judiciary. the judicial bodies would over see the politicians in their conduct that they follow the laws and act in good faith.
- the judiciary would not be part of the political process, but just there to make sure that they cross the t's and dot the i's and not dot the t's and cross the i's.
they would have to think twice about making ludicrous statements in parliament, for fear of judicial prosecution. the parliament would be the embodiment of truth and justice and ethical behaviour by force,
- judicial board. just like any other court, how they determine who goes where. think about the IRS system in america. the parliament proceedings would be under audit in real time by the parliamentry conduct judicial arm.
- i will not 'forget' it. i am thinking about a NEW system. a system with checks, balances, monitoring, detection, reprimand. a system where the persons under observation are not connected to the body monitoring for inconsistencies.
- in time all things change. is up to people to choose to do things.
- what democracy is , and what we have paraded in our parliament are not the same
-these things would not be able to be implemented by the next election. these things would take decades to work through, as is any governance system in the history of democratic societies.
-this is a movement away from the westminister system and MORE towards the american system. but yet not the american system, but a little more. more in that it removes party politics from the system.
at present, when election time comes, u don't vote for a party, or vote for a representative in order to have a specific party and by extension, a specific prime minsiter.
the new system i envisage, on the ballot, there would be two places to vote: one place is for the candidates for prime minister, and the other place is for your specific parliamentary representative.
your choice for representative is separate from your choice or prime minister. in this way it is more like the american style, but with out the party being important.
there can still be political 'parties' but that would be more like the american super pacs, whose function is more or less like the support group for a candidate as much as their funds can deliver.
-the anger and upset stems from being frustrated about not knowing where or how to start. i don't want to fix an already poor system. i want to design a new system and over time, systematically, change piece by piece to the new one. just like a big infrastructure project, immediate change is not possible, but in stages over time, at each stage a new piece is added till it is complete.
-the MP's would not also hold ministerial posts. the ministries would have different persons as their parliamentary representatives. they would not be change with change of the constituency representatives at election. how they would be selected, i am not sure what is the best way, whether it would be by citizen election, by parliamentary nomination, by selection within the ministry itself.
the intention that the person at the head of the ministry is persistent and continuous and suited for the work of that ministry. many a time persons put at the head of a ministry is not able to take on the task.
the person at the head would be knowledgeable, familiar with the goings on in a manner to be able to answerable and accountable and scrutinized by the representative of the citizens.
-the judicial elements in the parliaments would perform the policing role that the speaker performs. but they would be a lot less lenient, a lot less forgiving.
these people there in parliament are big men and women, very intelligent and fully aware of their actions. the parading of pictures of houses and their 'estimated' costs would be a thing of the past. if any such statements are to be made, they must be backed up by sufficient proof, or the maker of the statements would be prosecuted.
this is an opposite to parliamentary privilege, it would be parliamentary accountability... on the spot. when the speak they must speak with legitimate purpose, not just to cast aspersions.
parliament would be the epitome of responsible speaking.
rfari wrote:@elite, very valid point there wrt no leverage against rowley. The only thing I hear ppl talk about are the landate affair and cleaver heights. These issues have either been dismissed as untrue or baseless due to lack of a charge by the authorities. I specifically mention those two issues because uml, zoom etal have constantly beaten those allegations out.
@shogun, nail on head. It appears that he doesn't have sufficient charisma and 'likeability'. What can be done for him to gain the appeal necessary to pull the fence sitters?
nervewrecker wrote:rfari wrote:@elite, very valid point there wrt no leverage against rowley. The only thing I hear ppl talk about are the landate affair and cleaver heights. These issues have either been dismissed as untrue or baseless due to lack of a charge by the authorities. I specifically mention those two issues because uml, zoom etal have constantly beaten those allegations out.
@shogun, nail on head. It appears that he doesn't have sufficient charisma and 'likeability'. What can be done for him to gain the appeal necessary to pull the fence sitters?
Part in bold self.
But I kinda like him a bit eh, I like how they referred to him as a loose cannon and he voice nice *ah not gay*de man ah roughneck
Return to “Ole talk and more Ole talk”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 56 guests