.::The Official General Election 2015 Thread::.

[desifemlove]

Yeah because PNM shares so much principles with trade unions. And the UNC/PP has no connection whatsoever with trade unions.

So Panday was no union man....revisionist history, ent?

[zoom rader]

Yeah because PNM shares so much principles with trade unions. And the UNC/PP has no connection whatsoever with trade unions.

Yes true that pnm shares the same principles with the unions, because the the unions are extensions of the PNM. Which promotes less productivity for more pay and a don't care attitude and behaviours.

[pioneer]

anyone have firsthand experience of WASA/TTEC doing work at their residence at night? Hearing good reviews about ppl saying they impressed that they getting service at unusual times.

Because that's when they start clocking overtime.

So they actually doing work or more work? Or the economy doing well so they can get overtime work?

T&tec trucks does be chilling under a shady tree all day and wasa personnel does arrive around 4 - 5 pm and delay till around 6 - 7pm and then start really working.
T&tec does start making movements around the same hours too.

Well true but sad, this is one of the values that PNM & trade Unions left trinis to deal with.

Most of these bodies like t&tec, wasa, and petrotrin etc don't take any preventative/proactive action. Why?...so when things go wrong they can come out at night to claim overtime and exploit the system.

Same thing with government daily paid workers, if they were doing their work during the dry season the flood impact (for eg.) would be less. But instead, wait till somewhere flood then come out to work at night.

[pioneer]

Monthly paid public servants do the same, work they could be doing from 8-4 they hold it back to crunch time then work after 4 to claim food, and work on saturdays to claim compensatory days.

All sanctioned by the unions.

[nervewrecker]

What of the millions wasted on the stadium?

We get justice for that yet?

Anyone make jail?

What of the blimp? It auction off or that's dead money?

[The_Honourable]

Anand Ramlogan on Morning Edition speaking on the constitution amendment bill. Starts at 22:24:

http://www.tv6tnt.com/other-news/Mornin ... 89181.html

[Allergic2BunnyEars]

Hodge defends against AG’s attack



http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/Hod ... lmob=y&c=n


Dr Merle Hodge yesterday fired a fierce blow at Attorney Gen­eral Anand Ramlogan, asking if Constitution Reform commis­sion­ers were “handsomely paid” to be silent on dishonesty, and describing his criticisms of her as “convoluted gossip”.

“Were we ‘handsomely paid’, Mr AG, for us to be silent on this kind of dishonesty?” Hodge questioned in a statement entitled Government Dis­honesty About Run-Off Proposal. “Very unfortunate comment, Mr AG, for it suggests that your Government pays professionals not for their work, but to buy their acquiescence. You must know that you will never be able to buy everybody.”

Hodge was one of five commis­sion­ers on the Constitution Reform Commission (CRC), chaired by Legal Affairs Minister Prakash Ramadhar. In a statement on Thursday on Govern­ment’s Constitution (Amend­ment) Bill 2014, she called for a postponement of tomorrow’s parliamentary debate and said the contentious run-off pro­posal was not in the People’s Part­­ner­ship manifesto, the main consul­tations around the country or in the commission’s final report.

Ramlogan responded the next day. He said he found her position strange since the commissioners were “handsomely paid” and linked her position on the bill to the defeat of the Winston Dookeran faction by the Rama­dhar faction in the Con­gress of the Peo­ple’s (COP) internal election.

In her second state­ment in three days, Hodge reiterated the run-off provision did not arise during consul­tations.

“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. “It is therefore dishonest to claim that the people were consulted on this provision, espe­cially as the Government is turn­ing a deaf ear to what the people are saying about it during the week.”

Hodge clarified how and when the run-off proposal arose.

“Up until Friday, August 8, 2014, at 10.17 a.m., the purported ‘adden­dum’ which contains the run-off proposal was an internal doc­ument, tagged ‘Private and confidential. NOT FOR CIRCULATION’. That document did not then bear the title ‘Addendum to the Constitution Reform Report’.

“It 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.

“Further discussions were held at a meeting on July 9, 2014. Myself and another commissioner were absent from that meeting. I had other longstanding commitments for the July-August period.

“Notes from that meeting were cir­culated on July 13 for review and com­ment. That was my first introduc­tion to the run-off idea.

“I 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 (Dr Hamid Ghany). Again, I gave my consent to the document, and again, I take responsibility for all of its contents.

“This confidential document, addressed exclusively to the Prime Minister in mid-July 2014, is the one that became, on the morning of Friday, August 8, the ‘Addendum to the Constitution Reform Report’. It was never published and dissem­inated as the report was.”

Hodge said since the Govern­ment’s strategy includes “trying to make me a liar by putting out this ‘addendum’ story”, she has had to reluctantly forget honour and breach confidentiality in order to clear her name.

“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. Many people are offen­ded and alarmed by this particular item, and a democratic Government would take heed, rather than respond with bad-john defiance to a week of widespread objection.”

—The Constitution

Reform Commission’s report and addendum are available on

www.trinidadexpress.com.

[zoom rader]

Monthly paid public servants do the same, work they could be doing from 8-4 they hold it back to crunch time then work after 4 to claim food, and work on saturdays to claim compensatory days.

All sanctioned by the unions.

Don't say unions, say PNM after all they are the same body that promote these negative behaviours .

[Morpheus]

2am chest burn yes. Should get that checked ZR. LoL

[zoom rader]

2am chest burn yes. Should get that checked ZR. LoL

nah dread it day light where i wuking bro


----------See here

[UML]

All these plans the pnm has....


So what had the pnm been waiting for all these 50 years?
Coulda, woulda, shoulda, but........... NEVA!!!

It take PP to fix PNM areas like Diego Martin....PNM would never make the mistake to fix UNC areas!!! They have been neglected for 50 years.

[rfari]

Pnm build Trinidad and Tobago. Wha plans u telling me bout?

[mrtrini45]

Pnm build Trinidad and Tobago. Wha plans u telling me bout?

build trinidad but keeps there supporters living in poverty
they dont educate these people why rfari

[zoom rader]

^^^ I always say PNM are slave owners

[rfari]

Pnm build Trinidad and Tobago. Wha plans u telling me bout?

build trinidad but keeps there supporters living in poverty
they dont educate these people why rfari

Last I checked, it was and remains free education for all. Its either u want it or not. No political party responsible for that

[matthewmazda]

Pnm build Trinidad and Tobago. Wha plans u telling me bout?

build trinidad but keeps there supporters living in poverty
they dont educate these people why rfari

Last I checked, it was and remains free education for all. Its either u want it or not. No political party responsible for that

and the poverty part ?

[mamoo_pagal]

[Morpheus]

2am chest burn yes. Should get that checked ZR. LoL

nah dread it day light where i wuking bro


----------See here

LoL ok makes sense

[rfari]

Pnm build Trinidad and Tobago. Wha plans u telling me bout?

build trinidad but keeps there supporters living in poverty
they dont educate these people why rfari

Last I checked, it was and remains free education for all. Its either u want it or not. No political party responsible for that

and the poverty part ?

What about it?

[UML]

Where in Parliament is there room for small parties? There is Government and Opposition. If you are not Government you are opposition. Doh say ilp cause ilp or cop cause they were formed from government and fall into govt and opposition.



If u can't get votes. U can't make either government or opposition. Why would u be in Parliament. No second best to second in Parliament. Parliament is for WINNERS!!!!

So whatever happen with proportional representation? U eh like that?

I really finding it strange that I cant find articles online....looking for the one in the guardian where Roodal Moonilal says the PNM is being hypocritical because the runoff concept was introduced by THEM in THEIR internal elections!!!

PNM and ILP criticized, opposed, used scare tactics with Proportional Representation in the last elections as they are criticizing, opposing and using scare tactics with the runoff idea....PNM and ILP benefited from PR in the last elections!!!

PNM is a Minority party and ALWAYS wins with a 3 party fight for elections.

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

the COP is a minority party hiding behind a majority party and is fearful as well...AGAIN they go to the media FIRST and not discuss with the PM. Carol Seepersad Bachan is intent on destroying the partnership AGAIN.

Where in Parliament is there room for small parties? There is Government and Opposition. If you are not Government you are opposition. Doh say ilp cause ilp or cop cause they were formed from government and fall into govt and opposition.



If u can't get votes. U can't make either government or opposition. Why would u be in Parliament. No second best to second in Parliament. Parliament is for WINNERS!!!!

So whatever happen with proportional representation? U eh like that?

I really finding it strange that I cant find articles online....looking for the one in the guardian where Roodal Moonilal says the PNM is being hypocritical because the runoff concept was introduced by THEM in THEIR internal elections!!!

PNM and ILP criticized, opposed, used scare tactics with Proportional Representation in the last elections as they are criticizing, opposing and using scare tactics with the runoff idea....PNM and ILP benefited from PR in the last elections!!!

PNM is a Minority party and ALWAYS wins with a 3 party fight for elections.

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

the COP is a minority party hiding behind a majority party and is fearful as well...AGAIN they go to the media FIRST and not discuss with the PM. Carol Seepersad Bachan is intent on destroying the partnership AGAIN.

So the PNM being hypocritical by saying the runoff GOOD for them and not good for the country!!

[eliteauto]

lolz @ "The PNM" because all citizens concerned about these amendments are automatically PNM

more lolz @ "minority party" talk as if the Gov't is a one party coalition

[nixonliketheprez]

lolz @ "The PNM" because all citizens concerned about these amendments are automatically PNM

more lolz @ "minority party" talk as if the Gov't is a one party coalition

In their minds once u are unhappy with the current Gov't u are "The PNM". I wonder if PNM was in gov't and u complain if they would say u is ah PP. Doh make no sense trying to understand this bunch

[UML]

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?

[Allergic2BunnyEars]

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?

COP VOTES FOR DELAY

http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/Hea ... 98621.html

Congress of the People (COP) political leader Prakash Ramadhar, the Minister of Legal Affairs, is expected to convey to Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar before the debate on the Constitution Amendment Bill begins at 10.30 am today his party’s decision that MPs delay their vote on the legislation.

Ramadhar made the announcement during a news conference held at the COP’s Operations Centre in Charlieville after the party’s national executive council met and held, what the Express understands, were heated discussions on the proposal for run-off elections contained in the bill.

That measure is meant to provide for a supplemental election to be held 15 days after a general election in the event that any candidate wins a constituency with less than 50 per cent of the vote. “The change that is now coming before the Parliament is the change that we wanted to introduce. It is now before us. Of course, the manner in which it has come in terms of the speed and the complaints, justifiably from some quarters, is something that we have to attend to and today (yesterday) this party voted that there should be a delay between tomorrow (today) and the vote, the ultimate vote (on the bill),” Ramadhar said.

He said this was to allow for the population to “better understand the thing.” Among those who were spoke during the meeting was the COP’s founding father, Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Dookeran who left the meeting before it ended. Dookeran, however, spoke with members of the media who were told by a COP representative they had to wait outside of the party’s Operations Centre during the meeting.

“My interpretation is that there is a general consensus that this matter should not be rushed and that the debate should conclude although it can start,” Dookeran said. Asked if he was directly opposed to any part particular aspect of the Constitution Amendment bill, Dookeran said: “I believe that there are different ways to achieve some of the goals and a Joint Select Committee in deliberation would look at it.”
Ramadhar said a Joint Select Committee was “one option.”

“Or at least for some further time and the party has taken and it is a very reasonable position. So it’s really a matter for the Prime Minister in relation to how we go forward and I will communicate with her as to our party’s position on that,” Ramadhar said. That position, however, has not eradicated divisions within the COP on the proposal for run-off elections.

COP chairman and Public Administration Minister Carolyn Seepersad-Bachan said: “Members of the Constitution Reform Committee of the party were of the view that they themselves who followed closely the debate, the national debate, and made contributions at almost every one of the consultations at no point in time did the party even recommend run-off or neither did they at any point in time were they privy to any such debate or any discussion on the run-off.”

Ramadhar, the chairman of the Constitution Reform Commission, was asked if the run-off proposal was ever discussed prior to it being included in the bill. “Yes. It was not at the consultations itself but in terms when we had to sit to do a proposal as to how we move forward,” he said. Seepersad-Bachan said there “are many” in the COP who feel that if the run-off elections as written in the Constitution Amendment Bill “would be the end of any party that tries to represent the third constituency and speak to the demise of a multi party system.”

“But there are those who are of the view that such a matter would lend to improving the position of minority parties,” she said.
Ramadhar said the intent was to meant to enhance the nation’s democracy. “I ask the question for all those who believe it was going to kill off third parties if it wasn’t for our gumption and I have to boast a little bit about the COP we would have ended our existance in 2007,” he said. Ramadhar would not say how he and the other four COP MPs would vote on the bill if the Prime Minster rejects the party’s position on the matter.

[Allergic2BunnyEars]

http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/Ram ... 98321.html

Ramadhar: AG’s attack on Hodge distasteful


COP political leader Prakash Ramadhar has “wholeheartedly” condemned criticisms made by Attorney General’s Anand Ramlogan against Constitution Reform Commission member Dr Merle Hodge who last week called for the Parliament’s debate of the Constitution Amendment Bill to be stopped.

Ramadhar, who chaired the Commission, said its members are free to express their views. “Well let me just say that it was distasteful for what has happened and I do not want to add fuel to that fire except to say that Ms Hodge is a person well-respected in the community and by me. Her contribution to the effort was honourable and something to be applauded, she is entitled to her view and we all signed off on the addendum,” Ramadhar said.

He said the CRC’s report dated December 27, 2013 was the “general philosophy” for constitution reform and the addendum, dated July 18th, 2014 identified the objectives of how that could be achieved.
“And the run-off was there but now having regard to the timing if you want to put it like that, she is entitled to her view. So too is every commissioner and nobody should be attacked on that at all. I condemn that wholeheartedly,” Ramadhar said.

[Allergic2BunnyEars]

http://www.guardian.co.tt/news/2014-08- ... acks-hodge

AG backtracks on Hodge

Attorney General Anand Ramlogan said yesterday that he never implied that former commissioner to the Constitution Reform Commission Dr Merle Hodge had been paid to remain silent. In a statement yesterday, Ramlogan accused Hodge of dereliction of duty. “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.”

On Friday, during a news conference at his Cabildo Chambers office, Ramlogan said the members of the Constitution Commission were “handsomely paid” as he referred to Hodge’s position which called for a postponement of the debate.

In response, Hodge said: “Were we ‘handsomely paid’, Mr AG, for us to be silent on this kind of dishonesty? Very unfortunate comment, Mr AG, for it suggests that your government pays professionals not for their work, but to buy their acquiescence. You must know that you will never be able to buy everybody.”

She drew this response from Ramlogan yesterday: “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.” Ramlogan further said he found “Dr Hodge’s sudden change of heart to be curious.”

In a statement on Saturday, Hodge maintained the runoff proposal was never part of the public consultations. “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,” Ramlogan said.

“The runoff provision did not come from the people, and it was never revealed to the people before August 4, one week before it was to be debated in the Parliament,” she said. “It is therefore dishonest to claim that the people were consulted on this provision, especially as the government is turning a deaf ear to what the people are saying about it during that week.”

“My concern with the runoff 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. Many people are offended and alarmed by this particular item, and a democratic government would take heed, rather than respond with bad-john defiance to a week of widespread objection.”

[j.o.e]

A2BE stop quoting articles which show logical arguments against the proposal....all dem ppl is PNM ..Prakash and all!

[Allergic2BunnyEars]

A2BE stop quoting articles which show logical arguments against the proposal....all dem ppl is PNM ..Prakash and all!

Prakash is d biggest damn PNM I know

[UML]

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?

[rfari]

Hodge look like ah ole pnm. Cyar put meh finger on it buh I knw wha I saying