TriniTuner.com | Latest Event:
Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods
UML wrote:UML wrote:Ghany: Run-off not new to PNM
Published:
Wednesday, August 6, 2014
Gail Alexander
Constitutional expert Dr Hamid Ghany says the run-off poll proposal was something the Opposition PNM introduced in its party constitution recently and it was not an alien concept to the PNM. He was among members of the Constitution Commission who made recommendations for constitutional reform. He was responding yesterday to specific questions on the various proposals the Prime Minister announced Monday.
He said: “I think these measures require a simple majority and could have been done by any previous prime minister. I think the question is whether they had the political will or desire to do it. The term limits for prime ministers was advocated by the ONR in 1981 and that debate went on for years. “Recall of MPs is another issue debated for years and is nothing new and the run-off aspect isn’t alien, as it was introduced by the PNM and detailed at a press conference by PNM chairman Franklin Khan and Ashton Ford at Balisier House.”
He said the proposals for a run-off poll and others could be made with a simple majority, which was why they could have been done at any time Ghany noted the measures would empower the electorate, ensuring it got the MPs who received a majority of votes rather than ones who don’t and would increase interest in elections and registration. “There’s been great debate on first-past-the-post systems and proportional representation was offered as an alternative.
“It’s not being put forward here but this is a fine-tuning of the first-past-the-post system and it’s been embarked upon by major parties. The PNM introduced it for their party poll but they didn’t use it fully, since their candidates all won by 50 per cent of the votes in that internal election,” he said. Former public service head Reginald Dumas, meanwhile, said he agreed with the term limits for prime ministers, an NAR proposal, and the principle of right of recall though the latter must be worked out to prevent abuse of the system
Dumas said: “But I wonder if the run-off poll, in our system, might not have the effect of eliminating third parties and this may not be best for democracy. “In 2007 the COP got many votes but no seats. In a run-off COP people may not vote, so where’s the voice of the people of COP to be heard in this process?
“I am unsure this is in the best interest of democracy. It may certainly eliminate third parties and see coalition politics masquerading as single party politics. We are reverting to the two-party system that has bedevilled us all along. “Also, while the first two ideas were in the PP manifesto, this is a new proposal and which should be discussed with the public.”
http://www.guardian.co.tt/news/2014-08- ... ot-new-pnm
does this make lolz or sense?
comments?
me
Moonilal on reform legislation: PNM missed boat to raise questions
Published:
Wednesday, August 6, 2014
The Opposition People’s National Movement (PNM) missed two opportunities at Monday’s parliamentary session launch to query the holding of Parliament sessions this month and also to ask questions about the constitutional reform legislation to be debated next week, says People’s Partnership (PP) House Leader Roodal Moonilal.
“(PNM leader) Dr (Keith) Rowley was apparently asleep when those two opportunities—both prescribed in the Standing Orders—arose in Monday’s parliamentary session so the Opposition therefore missed the boat on both issues,” Moonilal said. He was commenting after PNM PRO Faris Al-Rawi said the Government had breached the Parliament’s new Standing Orders to hold sessions now to debate the legislation. One session will be held next Monday.
Al-Rawi said the Standing Orders provided for a fixed recess unless Parliament has exceptional, urgent business and the Speaker should have given certification of the exceptional business to be considered but failed to do so. On what the PNM might do and whether it might legally challenge the move, Al-Rawi said yesterday it would examine all options, since there was no way the Parliament could debate something in breach of the Standing Orders. He said the PNM had given notice by raising it in the public domain.
PNM whip Marlene McDonald also said she did not know as yet if the PNM would challenge the situation but might know after its meetings today. Parliament officials said no Opposition MP objected in Monday’s session when the adjournment to next Monday was announced. Moonilal added: “If Mr Al-Rawi believes the session is illegal and contrary to the Standing Orders then I wouldn’t encourage them to attend the session.
“But Dr Rowley has clearly not read the Standing Orders because if he did he would understand the Standing Orders provides for certain privileges. “But no Standing Orders can provide for permanent closing down of the Parliament. “While Section 11, 13 and 14 provide for two months’ vacation, it also provides for Parliament to determine if a sitting will be held during that period and if it’s urgent, the Government can, via vote, hold any amount of sessions.
“So Dr Rowley on Monday should have debated the motion for the adjournment to Monday.” Speaker Wade Mark on Monday announced the introduction of the new Standing Orders and particularly reminded MPs of a handful of stipulations, including Standing Order 24, which also allows for one member from each party in opposition to ask a brief question for elucidation on statements by ministers.
http://www.guardian.co.tt/news/2014-08- ... -questions
UML wrote:How could the PNM criticize something they introduced and used for themselves?
I thought the runoff was something never heard before?
Wasnt it recommended that another method be used?
Same hullabaloo for PR and it benefited ILP and PNM
what is there to disucss? If you cant get votes you lose!!! no second best to second. Politics is for winners!!! COP got 140,000 votes why cant other new parties do the same? they would have been in govt today. but PNM continuously get less votes and win elections with the old system so they prefer it.
rfari wrote:Rell issue is how pp slip in the runoff vote after the consultation and lying bout how it was discussed.
j.o.e wrote:COP would not exist based on the 2007 results.....so what is your point? their 140,000 votes would not have allowed them to force a run-off in any constituency. If you want proportional representation then this isn't the way.
This is why actual discussion is needed so at the end its not whether thereis an impression of benefit of PNM,UNC,COP,ILP but truly benefit to the people......and the people must understand the benefit.
toyota2nr wrote:The run off will not destroy third parties or smaller parties. As it is now the third party gets the least number of votes anyway. For example 2007 and the bye elections last year. The electorate has already scratched the smaller party by giving them the least number of votes. The run off will however prevent spoilers and third parties from splitting the votes. I do agree that the 15 day wait and second poll would be strenuous on the population.
The PNM is fighting for the ILP's survival knowing fully well that third parties will split the vote thereby enabling the PNM to win. Excluding the run off the rest of the proposals are good will benefit the electorate.
Why is it that PP supporters positioning this as PNM vs PP?toyota2nr wrote:The PNM is fighting for the ILP's survival knowing fully well that third parties will split the vote thereby enabling the PNM to win. Excluding the run off the rest of the proposals are good will benefit the electorate.
Select a section
View Full SiteSite Search
[http://j]
[http://j]Previous ArticleNext Article
AG: Hodge could have submitted minority report
Story Updated: Aug 11, 2014
Attorney General Anand Ramlogan yesterday said if Dr Merle Hodge had disagreed with any recommendations made by the Constitution Reform Commission of which she was a member she could have submitted a minority report, recording her dissent with reasons. This did not happen, he said. Yesterday, Hodge responded to Ramlogan’s criticism of her call for today’s debate in the House of Representatives to be stopped. This was the lead story in Friday’s Express (August. Ramlogan questioned why Hodge was now raising the issue when she herself had signed off on the document. As a commissioner, Ramlogan said, Hodge had been “handsomely paid” to serve. Yesterday, in the Sunday Express Hodge’s response was “I can’t be bought”. In a statement issued yesterday the Attorney General sought to clear the air on the context of his criticism. Ramlogan said: “Dr Hodge was part of a Commission that submitted a unanimous report to the Government after a year of public consultations and meetings. If she disagreed with a recommendation, she had the responsibility and option of doing a minority report and recording her dissent with reasons. She did not. “It is against this backdrop that I said that I found Dr Hodge’s sudden change of heart to be curious. “The country was entitled to assume that issues relating to constitutional reform were carefully discussed, deliberated upon and analysed by all commissioners before they submitted their recommendations to the Cabinet. They should have considered public sentiment, the possible repercussions and ramifications, and whether it was in the best interest of the country. “I am loath to think that Commissioners of such eminent stature would have failed to properly evaluate the implications and consequences of their recommendations such that they would simply capitulate in the face of political pressure from a select few. “The criticisms about the right of recall and consequential run-off elections were easy to predict. It must therefore be a matter of concern that instead of defending, justifying and explaining its recommendations, a member of the commission would suddenly seek to distance herself from it. “The Government was not privy to the discussions and internal working of the commission. It received what it considered to be a report from a body of professionals and acted upon it in good faith. “This was a publicly financed commission and the public was entitled to expect that the recommendations for constitutional reform submitted to the Government were carefully considered and in the national interest. At no time did I imply that Commissioners were paid to be silent or that they were bought off. The pompous and self-righteous indignation was therefore unnecessary and uncalled for and respectfully, misses the mark.”
Share
Previous ArticleNext Article
[http://j][HEAVY MULTIPLICATION X][HEAVY MULTIPLICATION X]
[http://j][http://j]Back to the top.
Search
Privacy Policy
Copyright 2014 One Caribbean. Some rights reserved. is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.
Powered by Broadcast Interactive Media.
[http://j][http://j][http://j]
Habit7 wrote:Why is it that PP supporters positioning this as PNM vs PP?
UML wrote:the peopl....the people want.....the people wasnt consulted....was the people consulted or contribute to the constitution?
UML wrote:UML wrote:the peopl....the people want.....the people wasnt consulted....was the people consulted or contribute to the constitution?
under the PNM...NO DOG BARK!!!
Allergic2BunnyEars wrote:toyota2nr wrote:The run off will not destroy third parties or smaller parties. As it is now the third party gets the least number of votes anyway. For example 2007 and the bye elections last year. The electorate has already scratched the smaller party by giving them the least number of votes. The run off will however prevent spoilers and third parties from splitting the votes. I do agree that the 15 day wait and second poll would be strenuous on the population.
The PNM is fighting for the ILP's survival knowing fully well that third parties will split the vote thereby enabling the PNM to win. Excluding the run off the rest of the proposals are good will benefit the electorate.
So basically you're saying that the UNC should win all the time and the PNM is trying to stop that? Cuz according to you 3rd parties just split votes only from the UNC?
Habit7 wrote:Why is it that PP supporters positioning this as PNM vs PP?
The members from COP and TOP gave their representatives strict instructions not to vote for the bill too.
Return to “Ole talk and more Ole talk”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 69 guests
