only allowed to serve two terms in power before leaving office (like the President in America )?
2007-01-20 04:16:39 · 7 answers · asked by Drop the donkey 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
No. Some policies by their very nature are more long term, and the government should be given the opportunity to try to make them work.
For example, this government (UK) had a ten year transport plan, so it seems fair that they should see it through. Unfortunately, on this occasion, it's been a complete ****-up.
2007-01-20 04:25:53 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
In practice it shouldn't matter how many terms they're allowed to have: If he's good and wants a third term, he should be allowed it if the public wants him. If the public doesn't want him, he won't be elected.
The problem comes when the public doesn't want him, but he still mannages to get in, for that means thre's been something dodgy going on and we have bigger problems to worry about.
2007-01-20 16:47:38 · answer #2 · answered by howsU2day 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, but it would be a good idea to have fixed term government and a second house that was elected by popular vote.
2007-01-20 13:34:01 · answer #3 · answered by Barrie G 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes
2007-01-20 15:13:59 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think so.
It would make more sense to reduce the maximum parliamentary term.
That way, less damage could be done before those responsible had to seek re-election.
2007-01-20 13:06:19 · answer #5 · answered by Cassandra 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Would you give Tony Bliar more time in power - knowing what you know now?
2007-01-23 07:37:28 · answer #6 · answered by ? 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There are a lot of arguments in favour of that - it had occurred to me before.
2007-01-21 19:31:58 · answer #7 · answered by LongJohns 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋