Term Limits?

I don't know why people at the Globe and Mail publish this pap. I bet it has something to do with advertizing space.

I like Paul Wells' response - here

My own view is that a constant overhaul of Parliament is not every going to help anyone except the new 308 people (for now) who get elected every two years. The idiocy of Belidiot's (L - Convenient) idea is that it assumes many things - like the prescribed length of a term, for starters.

Otherwise, someone elected in 2004 for the first time wouldn't have been able to seek re-election in 2008. Someone like Jim Prentice (C?- Calgary), for example. Who, coincidentally, chose not to run again in 2011. Neat how that works out on its own.

I think limiting the choices of voters in any way violates their Section Three Rights. I think that limiting the ability of a person to run in the election unreasonably impedes their section three rights.

I think that being an elected official and representing constituents isn't about "new ideas" it is about understanding what MPs do (from a transactions perspective) and that having confidence in that MP is very important. You get confidence in an MP from their record, and how they represent you. The one talent that existing MPs will have in spades is understanding what new ideas are bad, and why the system is constructed in such a way to prevent bad ideas from being taken up quickly.

Frankly, we have term limits on certain positions which ARE NOT elected for good reason. The Elections Act governs MPs and individual mandates. If the voters want to limit some one's term, they can do so if they damn well please.

Long time no post - I will do this more I swear

Especially if idiots come up with ideas like this one -

Not attacks - just exploration

Well, excuse me if I think that this is just silly. We can call them "Shark Eruptions" if they hurt people - just like volcanoes.

"Shark Accidents" if they destroy boats

"Shark Dentistry" if they are just working their teeth.

Maniacs. Who gives these people funding?