Rudd Calls For Fixed Terms.

[Goldenblue]

http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=145&ContentID=42585


Federal Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd has renewed Labor’s call for fixed four-year terms as Prime Minister John Howard continued to hedge on the election date.

Mr Rudd said it was “grossly irresponsible” of Mr Howard to put off the election and spend $1 million a day of taxpayers’ money on advertising to shore up the government’s position.

“I notice comments today by people in the retail industry saying that there is a concern about the ultimate impact on retail the more this election gets pushed off,” Mr Rudd told reporters in Sydney.

“I mean, business likes to see things resolved. One way or the other, the Australian people will decide.

“Frankly, that’s also why I support fixed four-year terms.”

Under the constitution, Prime Minister John Howard could call the election for any Saturday between August 4 and January 19.


Rudd has my approval of this one. It seems the longer Howard holds off, the angrier people are going to be. Howard has come across as arrogant and selfish and he is simply clinging to power hoping that the polls move towards the Liberals again. Well guess what Howard, those polls will not move, it's about time you faced your employers and got the shaft you richly deserve.

By holding on Johnny, you are seen as weak and the coward you really are.

Man of steel my ass.

 

[sen entertainment bloke]

With 4 years a loss means to much.

Fixed three year terms would be ample. The longer the term, the less the democracy.

 

[Dont be a lemon]

I support fixed three year terms. Having the prime minister pick the election date is a disgrace

 

[Real]

I know. John howard should be dissmissed by the governor-general!

 

[pazza]

Bracksy introduced fixed terms after he got elected in 2002...everyone knew when the Victorian Election was last year and how far out Bracksy had to call it.

It does work.

 

[CharlieG]

With 4 years a loss means to much.

Fixed three year terms would be ample. The longer the term, the less the democracy.

Absolutely right. Three year terms are long enough.

 

[DaveW]

I'm for four year terms. 25% less pork-barrelling.

That is of course, fixed four year terms. Like we have now in NSW, Vic & SA. And it would probably only take an act of parliament to have the same in WA, Tas & NT.

 

[Mr Q]

I'd like to see something up for election more often than not - you can't pork barrel all the time, after all.

For mine, I'd like to see fixed three year terms for the HoR, with state elections a year later, and State upper house elections (except Qld of course) and half-Senate elections on the third year.

The only problem is that there's no room for double dissolutions if they're required with a model like that. But that's a problem that would be even more apparent with fixed four year terms; we could see an example soon of a Government hamstrung by a hostile Senate - now there's the DD to get out of it, but if it were four more years, we'd see nothing get done.

 

[Murray]

Why not, it seems to work in other places around the world.
Works OK in Vic

 

[Oh When the Saints]

Four year terms entrench incumbent governments and reduce accountability. The government loses relevance to the electorate and the disconnection between the people and their representatives grows.

Fixed terms are great ...

But not four years. It's too long.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

Ideally, from a democracy viewpoint, we'd have 1 year terms - but nothing would ever get done. (Would that be such a bad thing I ask myself?) the expense would also be horrendous.
Fixed 3 year terms would not require a Constitutional amendment.

I'd like to see the half-Senate elections split away from the HoR ones, so that the parliament is less of a snapshot at one point in time and more reflective of changing moods of the populace.
(The Tas Legislative Council is rather different. There are elections every May - but only for some seats in a cyclic pattern, each MLC's term is the same but up for election in different years.
Could that work in the House of Reps? there's a big difference of course, government is not formed in the Leg Council.)

But, yes, fixed 3 year terms is a good starting point.

 

[jo172]

How much do you want to bet this disappears if and when he wins

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

How much do you want to bet this disappears if and when he wins

He'll be more subtle than that.
He'll go for 4 year terms, knowing how often referendums pass in Australia.

 

[Pessimistic]

I was agreeable to 4 yrs until I saw howard in action. If he has a 4yr term he'd just sit on his hands for another year then spring into action on the 4th.

Its only because he is behind in the polls he has 'discoverd' all thease burning issues which quite frankly have been there for most of his PMship.

Even his back benchers are saying clildcare is still not run adequately - even though liberal mates own most of the industry !

 

[Pessimistic]

How much do you want to bet this disappears if and when he wins

I tdoes sound like a stunt. Kevin needs the election to happen soon so he doesnt need to fill in with floss like this

 

[MightyFighting]

How much do you want to bet this disappears if and when he wins

Just like it did with Bracks and the other state Labor governments?

 

[stmookeyj]

Leave it as is.

 

[Dry Rot]

I tdoes sound like a stunt. Kevin needs the election to happen soon so he doesnt need to fill in with floss like this

What he said. Good politics though to put pressure on Howard.

 

[pazza]

The one change I would add is that it is a full Senate election each election - fixed terms or not. There's quite a few now in the Senate in a rather cushy position!

 

[medusala]

I'm for four year terms. 25% less pork-barrelling.

Agree entirely. Three years means you get two dud budgest out of three with govts wasting billions of $ in marginal seats.

 

[sen entertainment bloke]

Agree entirely. Three years means you get two dud budgest out of three with govts wasting billions of $ in marginal seats.

There is an argument that if we had shorter terms (12 months) we would actually get less pork barelling and more honest government.

The longer the term of government, the more emphasis on winning (dirty tricks and vote buying) and the less on policy.

The only thing against is expense but more regular campaigns are likely to be less grand affairs with respect of candidtature fiance. For the state, extra expense is a snall price to pay of a more democratic system.

Some say a government be able to govern if only elected for a year. I can never see why not.

 

[Belnakor]

Would cost too much to swap governments every year, takes a minister a couple of months just to get up to speed with his department.

 

[sen entertainment bloke]

Would cost too much to swap governments every year, takes a minister a couple of months just to get up to speed with his department.

No one is saying swap governments every 12 months. If the government is good, it will survive indefinitely. If governments are swapped regularly, though, there will always be experience on hand as to how a department is run.

The whole thing would be less about power and more about policy is the theory. Governments going to sleep for two years and waking up in an election year would be a thing of the past. Have to be awake all the time. It would have to lead to a much more dynamic society.

 

[Belnakor]

You can't get anything done in a year. The labor government in WA has been building a train line since they were elected in 2001.

 

[Chief]

Rudd has my approval of this one. It seems the longer Howard holds off, the angrier people are going to be. Howard has come across as arrogant and selfish and he is simply clinging to power hoping that the polls move towards the Liberals again. Well guess what Howard, those polls will not move

Howard is striking around for the story that will pick up the swinging voters.

Rudd's in danger of letting Howard tell too many stories, filling in too many blanks. It doesn't matter if he turns people off while trying, what matters is that he finds the right story in the end.

He is now at the bottom of his personal barrel with Aboriginal reconciliation. He has picked up kudos in the press, even from Crikey. He explains why its taken so long in a way we expect: "I'm from a bigoted old mind set but we need to change that. I have SEEEEN the LIGHT!" And now we get an election date.

Rudd needs to come out of his corner with a story to trump reconciliation. Rudd needs to take risks now. Rudd needs to get to the fringes with things like fixed terms of office and promising a bill of rights. This tells a story of a responsible statesman, a pollie who believes the people are the masters, not the ruled as Howard so often tells us.

Rudd needs to tell intelligent people (and people who think of themselves as intelligent) that they can vote for him as a man who values the office above improving his re-election chances should he win. We've seen Howard's cynical moves like cutting off enrollment at the calling of an election, a move which Howard said was to help the AEC but which the AEC has said they neither needed nor wanted. Rudd needs to show he is better than that. That he is willing to stop screwing with the democratic process to cling to power.

Then, to help his re-election he needs to DO what he SAYS he will do then move from the fringes back to the center where things get done.