Bad news for F1- Mosley may stay President beyond 2009

[RWD]

Max Mosley will decide in June whether to commit to the FIA presidency for another four-year term.

The 68-year-old Briton, earlier this year embroiled in a sex scandal but now hailed by some as the champion of a new sustainable formula one, said at the Motor Sport Business Forum in Monaco: “I don’t think I shall stand again, but we shall see.”

His current term runs out late in 2009.

Mosley had earlier ruled out remaining president into his 70s, but in the immediate aftermath of the sex scandal this year he admitted “pressure” to stay on.

“I am delaying a decision until June,” he said on Wednesday.

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2008/12/11/mosley-may-stay-president-beyond-2009/

[markabilly]

Thank Goodness!!! Max is feeling the "pressure" because some folks have been really naughty but max knows how to :arrows: out of them

[ArrowsFA1]

September 6th, 2000 (http://www.autosport-atlas.com/article.asp?id=11250)- Max Mosley says that last week’s unsuccessful attempt by several Formula 1 team bosses to oust him as president of the FIA has convinced him to seek re-election when his current term of office ends in 2001..."“If people start saying ‘you have to go’, my immediate reaction is ‘I’ll have to stay’,” said Mosley. “It always has the opposite effect on me. So I will stand for re-election again next year – provided it’s quite clear that the majority of the clubs want me."

July 16th, 2004 (http://www.autosport-atlas.com/article.asp?id=38566) - Max Mosley has decided to stay on as president of the FIA until at least the end of his elected term in 2005. Mosley, who announced on July 1 that he intended to resign his position at the end of October, a year early, has been convinced to stay on by the FIA Senate. In a statement released by the FIA, Mosley was ‘unanimously called on' to rescind his decision and was informed that his early departure would damage the interests of the FIA. Mosley claims that he received approaches from all sections of the FIA who went as far as to suggest that it would be irresponsible for him to step down this year. Mosley said that he felt bound to accede the senate's request.

So when people say he should go/resign he stays, and when they say he should stay he stays :laugh:

He's flip-flopped over this same "dilemma" in the same way every time his term is almost up, and the end result is always the same. He stays.

[Big Ben]

I'm speachless.... I didn't see this one coming

[markabilly]

He's flip-flopped over this same "dilemma" in the same way every time his term is almost up, and the end result is always the same. He stays.


Flip-flopped? What is that?? Sounds pretty kinky to me..does the NOTW know about this??

I am glad he stays....he proves that truth is stranger than fiction

[Knock-on]

Nobody seriously expected Max to keep to his word did they.

Leopard.... Spots.

[Dave B]

Max Mosley in changing his mind shocker! Next week's headline: Pope - "I believe in God".

[ShiftingGears]

Nobody seriously expected Max to keep to his word did they.

Leopard.... Spots.

Exactly.

[Valve Bounce]

Well, somebody has to whip the teams into shape. :eek:

[Azumanga Davo]

Max Mosley in changing his mind shocker! Next week's headline: Pope - "I believe in God".

*shakes fist* WHY DIDN'T YOU TELL US BEFORE, POPE?

Bloody Mosley, how typical and predictable...

[markabilly]

Well, somebody has to whip the teams into shape. :eek:


More like spank.....reminds me of a question from Rick in Casablanca

[ioan]

Well well, an't say that it's a huge surprise, but I'm disappointed.

[PolePosition_1]

"“If people start saying ‘you have to go’, my immediate reaction is ‘I’ll have to stay’,” said Mosley. “It always has the opposite effect on me.

He says if people ask him to go, it'll have the opposite effect. He doesn't neccessarily mean that philosophy works both ways.

Whilst I can see where you got your conclusions, I'm pretty sure if Mosley was asked question, he'd point out what I've just said.

[PolePosition_1]

Well, somebody has to whip the teams into shape. :eek:

:rotflmao: So so so funny VB....and original!

[ArrowsFA1]

He says if people ask him to go, it'll have the opposite effect. He doesn't neccessarily mean that philosophy works both ways.
Clearly :p

[leopard]

I do not see changing minds whereas the fact he stays regardless of what people say that he has to leave or stay, as flip flopper, that's a method to show that he has good enough bargaining power, a perfect competition...

[FastRed]

What really!! booo

[MAX_THRUST]

Well its not like I didn't say this was gonna happen months ago........This stinks.

He is passed his sell by date.

[jens]

I'm afraid Max will continue in his current role until death... something what Bernie has already promised to do.

[BDunnell]

Would anyone who lives in a democratic nation put up with Max's comments from a senior politician? I hope not.

[F1boat]

I'll vomit.

[Ranger]

Poll please.

Who didn't see this coming? :confused:

[aryan]

Is there any way, I mean ANY WAY, to get rid of this guy? Secret MI6 agents? Professional assassins? Matahari-like prostitutes... all have been tried, to no effect.

If his father had his resolve, Britain would be a Fascist country now.

[ArrowsFA1]

It is funny looking back at the headlines this century :p :

Mosley set for 2001 retirement (http://www.autosport-atlas.com/article.asp?id=5511)
Mosley heads off F1 'palace coup' (http://www.autosport-atlas.com/article.asp?id=11178)
Mosley to seek another term as president (http://www.autosport-atlas.com/article.asp?id=11250)
Mosley Will Stand For Re-election (http://atlasf1.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/2868/.html)
Mosley to give up FIA presidency in '05 (http://www.autosport-atlas.com/article.asp?id=16740)
Mosley Will Not Seek Re-Election in 2005 (http://atlasf1.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/5823/.html)
Mosley Could Stand for Re-election (http://atlasf1.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/10162/.html)
Mosley: It Would Have been Wrong to Quit (http://atlasf1.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/13955/.html)
No opposition for Mosley in FIA election (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/47840)
Mosley plans quieter life in new term (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/47937)
Mosley re-elected as FIA president (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/47947)
Mosley not thinking of retirement yet (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/63720)
Mosley won't stand for another term (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/69515)
Mosley not ruling out staying at the FIA (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/70531)

As as been said elsewhere, the structure of the FIA is now such that it is nigh on impossible for anyone to stand against the incumbent. The architect of that structure is the incumbent!

[Knock-on]

It is funny looking back at the headlines this century :p :

Mosley set for 2001 retirement (http://www.autosport-atlas.com/article.asp?id=5511)
Mosley heads off F1 'palace coup' (http://www.autosport-atlas.com/article.asp?id=11178)
Mosley to seek another term as president (http://www.autosport-atlas.com/article.asp?id=11250)
Mosley Will Stand For Re-election (http://atlasf1.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/2868/.html)
Mosley to give up FIA presidency in '05 (http://www.autosport-atlas.com/article.asp?id=16740)
Mosley Will Not Seek Re-Election in 2005 (http://atlasf1.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/5823/.html)
Mosley Could Stand for Re-election (http://atlasf1.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/10162/.html)
Mosley: It Would Have been Wrong to Quit (http://atlasf1.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/13955/.html)
No opposition for Mosley in FIA election (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/47840)
Mosley plans quieter life in new term (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/47937)
Mosley re-elected as FIA president (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/47947)
Mosley not thinking of retirement yet (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/63720)
Mosley won't stand for another term (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/69515)
Mosley not ruling out staying at the FIA (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/70531)

As as been said elsewhere, the structure of the FIA is now such that it is nigh on impossible for anyone to stand against the incumbent. The architect of that structure is the incumbent!

It's difficult to see how Mosley could be deposed. Mugabee can only dream of the security the president of the FIA has.

Scenario:

The 20 largest clubs / countries representing over 95% of the worlds motoring members vote to remove Max.

Result:

Max wins vote 193 / 20

:laugh:

There is only 2 ways to remove Max from the FIA.

1. In a box
2. See 1 again

[Bagwan]

Poll please.

Who didn't see this coming? :confused:

Too right .

A man who has survived many "palace coups" , will win .

Nobody else , in this climate , will want the job anyway .
Until F1 becomes more relevent to our earth's future , it will bear ever more criticism for being so very extravagant , and Max , as the head of an organization built on the existence of a device at least partially responsible for the issue of climate change , will have a lot of questions to answer .
I wouldn't want the job .
Right now , I don't think anyone else will either .

Max will return un-opposed , poor sap .

Ah, what a shame, the Mclarenistas are unhappy.

Which is a nice early christmas present.

[BDunnell]

Ah, what a shame, the Mclarenistas are unhappy.

Which is a nice early christmas present.

It is yet again worth pointing out that not everybody unhappy about this is a 'Mclarenista', for not everybody bases their opinion on a personal bias towards or against one particular team. And you have conveniently ignored the fact that even ioan isn't exactly thrilled.

[leopard]

Scenario:

The 20 largest clubs / countries representing over 95% of the worlds motoring members vote to remove Max.

Result:

Max wins vote 193 / 20


He won unequivocally... :D


I think to replace someone will be something in right place once considered he is no longer capable of carrying the job over the shoulder, and not by means of teasing out someone's personal life...

[Azumanga Davo]

If his father had his resolve, Britain would be a Fascist country now.

Means we would have had medals earlier too... ;)

[ShiftingGears]

Ah, what a shame, the Mclarenistas are unhappy.

Which is a nice early christmas present.

Mate, pull your head in.

[PolePosition_1]

It's difficult to see how Mosley could be deposed. Mugabee can only dream of the security the president of the FIA has.

Scenario:

The 20 largest clubs / countries representing over 95% of the worlds motoring members vote to remove Max.

Result:

Max wins vote 193 / 20

:laugh:

There is only 2 ways to remove Max from the FIA.

1. In a box
2. See 1 again

Rightly so in my mind. I vaguely remember me and you having this argument at time, and we agreed to disagree. But just to pass my view across, why should the bigger motoring industries be able to bully smaller nations.

Fact that in all democratic countries (to my knowledge), all elections are decided by counties / wards won, and not actual people count, reinforces my belief that this method is the more democratic one available.

[aryan]

Rightly so in my mind. I vaguely remember me and you having this argument at time, and we agreed to disagree. But just to pass my view across, why should the bigger motoring industries be able to bully smaller nations.

Fact that in all democratic countries ...

To give each motoring club (country) exactly one vote, irrespective of the size of the country's motoring industry or the club's membership IS NOT DEMOCRATIC.

When Club Automobile du Burundi and the American Automobile Association each have one vote, there seriously is something wrong with the process.

[BDunnell]

To give each motoring club (country) exactly one vote, irrespective of the size of the country's motoring industry or the club's membership IS NOT DEMOCRATIC.

When Club Automobile du Burundi and the American Automobile Association each have one vote, there seriously is something wrong with the process.

How is having the same voting weight for every member not democratic? It would be undemocratic if some didn't have votes and others did, but the current system is surely the most democratic system there is?

[PolePosition_1]

To give each motoring club (country) exactly one vote, irrespective of the size of the country's motoring industry or the club's membership IS NOT DEMOCRATIC.

When Club Automobile du Burundi and the American Automobile Association each have one vote, there seriously is something wrong with the process.

Maybe a new topic needs to be created for this, as this is a totally different topic, and can be pretty huge if correctly discussed.

I disagree with you. By deciding on the power of votes pending number of members, you making those belonging to larger groups superior to those of smaller groups.

Say for example we adopted your policy to the UK election process. London has a population of 15million people (metropolitan area). Wales has a population of 3 million.

Yet Wales covers nearly 12 times the area of London. Bearing this in mind, if we adopted a policy of number of votes, rather than wards, it would create a huge amount of segregation, where London would totally suck up resources, and only work in the interest of itself, leaving the rest of UK to be starved of cash. Its simply not democratic.

And exactly the same principles apply within the FIA membership. If America had 500 times the voting power of a tiny member, the tiny member being a member would be totally pointless, as it wouldn't have any say in anything......and thats not democratic.

[Bagwan]

Those 20 largest clubs have a zillion members that had no idea they either belonged to the FIA or were being represented by them in the vote .

That's no democracy .
Now , if the club had sent me a form so I could vote , like all those zillion others , we might have a shot at a democratic vote .

But , alas , the coup failed .

It is yet again worth pointing out that not everybody unhappy about this is a 'Mclarenista', for not everybody bases their opinion on a personal bias towards or against one particular team. And you have conveniently ignored the fact that even ioan isn't exactly thrilled.

Isn't it also worth pointing out that those who are anti-Mosley haven't come up with the name of a candidate who could do a better job?

Seems everybody is happy to criticise the incumbent without having the slightest clue as to how anybody could do the job as effectively but with a different approach.

Those who think that a less aggresive style of management approach towards F1 owners would get the results they crave, that somehow happiness and unanimity would suddenly burst forward, that the F1 bosses wouldn't run amok with the sport, are quite frankly inhabitants of cloud cuckoo land.

Anybody who thinks that Ron Dennis should be given the keys to the palace is evidently seriously disturbed.

[BDunnell]

Isn't it also worth pointing out that those who are anti-Mosley haven't come up with the name of a candidate who could do a better job?

Seems everybody is happy to criticise the incumbent without having the slightest clue as to how anybody could do the job as effectively but with a different approach.

Those who think that a less aggresive style of management approach towards F1 owners would get the results they crave, that somehow happiness and unanimity would suddenly burst forward, that the F1 bosses wouldn't run amok with the sport, are quite frankly inhabitants of cloud cuckoo land.

I agree with you there, though various names have been suggested. I suspect what you mean is that no names have been put forward with which you agree, unless I have that wrong.

I agree with you there, though various names have been suggested. I suspect what you mean is that no names have been put forward with which you agree, unless I have that wrong.

Heck, I'd love to see Todt in charge, but I can see full well why he isn't the best man for the job given his close ties to a certain beloved Scuderia.

And that's my point....there is nobody who carries the political clout of Mosley who isn't already burdened by pre-concieved bias.

Mosley, as the man everybody loves to hate, is therefore the ideal candidate.

[BDunnell]

Heck, I'd love to see Todt in charge, but I can see full well why he isn't the best man for the job given his close ties to a certain beloved Scuderia.

And that's my point....there is nobody who carries the political clout of Mosley who isn't already burdened by pre-concieved bias.

Mosley, as the man everybody loves to hate, is therefore the ideal candidate.

Agree with the first two lines — but is it genuinely the case that there is no-one else in the world better suited to the role than Max? If so, that makes him one hell of a human being, and I don't think he's that special.

Whatever happens in the short term, though, two things are clear. Firstly, thought has to be given to the Bernie/Max successions. Secondly, being the boss of a sporting governing body is a thankless task for anyone.

Agree with the first two lines — but is it genuinely the case that there is no-one else in the world better suited to the role than Max?

Maybe there is, but they are notable by their absence.


If so, that makes him one hell of a human being, and I don't think he's that special.

Having human qualities isn't the same as having the qualities needed to run the FIA.

Whoever is the next President, he (or she) won't be Francis of Assisi.

Sometimes it is better the devil you know.

[aryan]

Say for example we adopted your policy to the UK election process. London has a population of 15million people (metropolitan area). Wales has a population of 3 million.

Yet Wales covers nearly 12 times the area of London. Bearing this in mind, if we adopted a policy of number of votes, rather than wards, it would create a huge amount of segregation, where London would totally suck up resources, and only work in the interest of itself, leaving the rest of UK to be starved of cash. Its simply not democratic.


It IS democratic.

And yes, democracy is often ugly.

I think you misunderstand what democracy means. What I am arguing is true democracy. You are merely pointing out all the fallacies of democracy. It is an age old debate going back to ancient times. The same arguments we are debating here can be read in Plato's Republic.

Pure democracy, also known as direct democracy, is simply that: Rule by the Majority. In a pure democratic system, every member has equal votes. Yes, in this scenario, London will suck up all the resources of the UK (as many people would argue it has done).

Obviously, that is a fallacy in democracy, which means all constitutional systems have tried to balance it somewhat by creating artificial weights to be added to the votes. In America for example, the Founding Fathers decided on one purely democratic body in Congress (the House of Reps, in which states are represented based on their population) complemented by a very un-democratic body (the Senate, in which each state, no matter how big or small, has two votes).

In the Westminster style of government, democracy has been balanced by distributing electoral divisions ("seats"), which creates marginal seats, in which elections are then won or lost.

Both such balancing measures have their own faults: mainly creating safe and marginal seats and states. In the US in a presidential race, because it is not direct democracy (a simple majority vote) but a system of "electoral colleges", if you live in a safe state, say NY, your vote is pretty much meaningless. Same thing applies in a Westminster system: it doesn't matter if you are a Conservative in some northern parts of UK, or a Labour member in some SE parts: if your division is not marginal, your vote simply has no value.

The Royal Automobile Club of Victoria, of which I am a member, has about 700,000 members. The "Conseil Pontifical pour la Pastorale des Migrants et des Personnes en Deplacement" (Vatican's Motoring Club) has officially, 40 members. That means that in FIA's elections, members of the latter club's votes counts 17,000 times as much as my vote (and my vote probably has more weight than most Americans' votes).

This is NOT democratic.

Frankly, if you don't like democracy, and you would like to balance it so that "smaller clubs are not bullies by the bigger clubs", then that's your idea. Just because it sounds "fair" to you doesn't make it democratic. Remember, there is nothing fair in pure democracy: it's a simple rule by majority.

Moi? I'd rather stick to democracy, which as Churchill said: is the worst kind of government, except for all the other ones.

[BDunnell]

I think you misunderstand what democracy means. What I am arguing is true democracy. You are merely pointing out all the fallacies of democracy. It is an age old debate going back to ancient times. The same arguments we are debating here can be read in Plato's Republic.

Pure democracy, also known as direct democracy, is simply that: Rule by the Majority. In a pure democratic system, every member has equal votes. Yes, in this scenario, London will suck up all the resources of the UK (as many people would argue it has done).

Obviously, that is a fallacy in democracy, which means all constitutional systems have tried to balance it somewhat by creating artificial weights to be added to the votes. In America for example, the Founding Fathers decided on one purely democratic body in Congress (the House of Reps, in which states are represented based on their population) complemented by a very un-democratic body (the Senate, in which each state, no matter how big or small, has two votes).

In the Westminster style of government, democracy has been balanced by distributing electoral divisions ("seats"), which creates marginal seats, in which elections are then won or lost.

Both such balancing measures have their own faults: mainly creating safe and marginal seats and states. In the US in a presidential race, because it is not direct democracy (a simple majority vote) but a system of "electoral colleges", if you live in a safe state, say NY, your vote is pretty much meaningless. Same thing applies in a Westminster system: it doesn't matter if you are a Conservative in some northern parts of UK, or a Labour member in some SE parts: if your division is not marginal, your vote simply has no value.

The Royal Automobile Club of Victoria, of which I am a member, has about 700,000 members. The "Conseil Pontifical pour la Pastorale des Migrants et des Personnes en Deplacement" (Vatican's Motoring Club) has officially, 40 members. That means that in FIA's elections, members of the latter club's votes counts 17,000 times as much as my vote (and my vote probably has more weight than most Americans' votes).

This is NOT democratic.

Frankly, if you don't like democracy, and you would like to balance it so that "smaller clubs are not bullies by the bigger clubs", then that's your idea. Just because it sounds "fair" to you doesn't make it democratic. Remember, there is nothing fair in pure democracy: it's a simple rule by majority.

Moi? I'd rather stick to democracy, which as Churchill said: is the worst kind of government, except for all the other ones.

I don't recall Churchill being a firm advocate of proportional representation, though...

Even though the political party I vote for advocates proportional representation, I am not in favour of it in the UK for various reasons that aren't worth going into here. Maybe for the FIA, the importance of which isn't as great as parliamentary elections, it wouldn't matter so much, but I don't think it's necessary, because I still consider 'one member, one vote' to be perfectly democratic.

[aryan]

Isn't it also worth pointing out that those who are anti-Mosley haven't come up with the name of a candidate who could do a better job?



People will not put their names forward challenging an incumbent, when they know the constitution of the institution gives them virtually no chance of beating the incumbent. That's why Mosley has been running unopposed. He created the system, he knows it.


Heck, I'd love to see Todt in charge, but I can see full well why he isn't the best man for the job given his close ties to a certain beloved Scuderia.



As a McLaren supporter, I would whole-heartedly support Todt in this position. I respect him as a manager, as a decision maker, and I trust his professionalism will rule out any bias he might have in favour of his former employer.

He has both been a racer (well, a co-racer), as well as running his own racing team, and now managing a big corporation. He has all the credentials that I believe the head of FIA should have.

Please don't equate our disgust towards Mosley to our support for our favourite teams. It has nothing to do with it.

[BDunnell]

As a McLaren supporter, I would whole-heartedly support Todt in this position. I respect him as a manager, as a decision maker, and I trust his professionalism will rule out any bias he might have in favour of his former employer.

He has both been a racer (well, a co-racer), as well as running his own racing team, and now managing a big corporation. He has all the credentials that I believe the head of FIA should have.

Please don't equate our disgust towards Mosley to our support for our favourite teams. It has nothing to do with it.

Not all of us have 'disgust' towards Mosley, either. But other than that I agree with you, for Todt would be an ideal candidate. I view the accusations of FIA bias towards Ferrari — or anyone else, for that matter — as unfounded and often unimaginative, so this ought not to be a problem. But for many there would be a problem with the appointment of anyone connected with a current team or participating manufacturer, and I can understand that.

[aryan]

I don't recall Churchill being a firm advocate of proportional representation, though...

Even though the political party I vote for advocates proportional representation, I am not in favour of it in the UK for various reasons that aren't worth going into here. Maybe for the FIA, the importance of which isn't as great as parliamentary elections, it wouldn't matter so much, but I don't think it's necessary, because I still consider 'one member, one vote' to be perfectly democratic.

I actually stand somewhere in the middle. Neither the "one country, one vote", nor "one member, one vote" is ideal. The problem with "one member, one vote" is that, as PolePosition says, smaller clubs become really pointless.

The real answer is to come up with a formulae for weighting the votes of each country. The same thing is done in other international organisations, say the World Bank, or the IMF. Each country has a number of votes, determined by its power (not necessarily by its population). Say (this is purely imaginary), China has 30 votes, the US has 40, and Vietnam has 5.

This is usually the compromise that other international organisations have come up with. FIA's "one club, one vote" is too simple, too unrealistic, and too inefficient.

People will not put their names forward challenging an incumbent, when they know the constitution of the institution gives them virtually no chance of beating the incumbent. That's why Mosley has been running unopposed. He created the system, he knows it.

But that's not what I asked.

I asked those who didn't want Mosley to come up with a name they thought would be better.

That is not the same as asking them to come up with the name of somebody who has put their name forward, since as we all know, nobody has.

[aryan]

, because I still consider 'one member, one vote' to be perfectly democratic.

I just realised, we have fundamental "definition issues" on who FIA's "members" are.

You view FIA's members as the member clubs.

I view FIA's members as the members of the member clubs. The real people behind the member clubs. I view the member clubs, as only my representative in FIA.

By your definition, FIA is democratic.

By my definition, it is not, because a member of the Vatican Motoring Club has 17,000 times the number of votes that I have.

[aryan]

But that's not what I asked.

I asked those who didn't want Mosley to come up with a name they thought would be better.

That is not the same as asking them to come up with the name of somebody who has put their name forward, since as we all know, nobody has.


I know Francois Fillon has been mentioned.

But please tamburello, we don't know all the credible people in the world. That's not how elections work. In a democratic system, candidates nominate themselves, and the electorate then chooses among them. The electorate doesn't get to "put names forward".

[BDunnell]

I just realised, we have fundamental "definition issues" on who FIA's "members" are.

You view FIA's members as the member clubs.

I view FIA's members as the members of the member clubs. The real people behind the member clubs. I view the member clubs, as only my representative in FIA.

By your definition, FIA is democratic.

By my definition, it is not, because a member of the Vatican Motoring Club has 17,000 times the number of votes that I have.

You are absolutely right. I'm still happy with my definition, though!

I know Francois Fillon has been mentioned.

But please tamburello, we don't know all the credible people in the world. That's not how elections work. In a democratic system, candidates nominate themselves, and the electorate then chooses among them. The electorate doesn't get to "put names forward".

I didn't ask how elections work, just a simple who & why as to alternatives from those who don't want Max.

I thank you for supplying the name of somebody who has been mooted as a potential replacement, which is all I was asking....well, half of what I was asking, but since this is the season of goodwill and you haven't specifically put Fillon forward as your own champion-elect, I'll let you off the second part.

[jens]

We may endlessly debate about the meaning of democracy, but IMO if it has become almost impossible for a certain person to lose his position (in this case Mosley) no matter what he does and despite large amount of dissatisfaction by people, then the electing system may need some revising.

But as mentioned, one problem is that we don't have a proper opposing candidate, who could have his own campaign and ideas to try to gain votes and support to eventually win the job. Hence we are not witnessing "proper elections" between multiple contenders for FIA's presidency. At the moment the debates are like Mosley vs anti-Mosley, but it should be Mosley vs the name of another candidate.

[BDunnell]

At the moment the debates are like Mosley vs anti-Mosley, but it should be Mosley vs the name of another candidate.

:up:

And ideally without a dirty coup. That requires the good sense of all involved.

[aryan]

since this is the season of goodwill and you haven't specifically put Fillon forward as your own champion-elect, I'll let you off the second part.

Thanks :)

And if I was to put forward my own champion-elect, I'd say:

Jean Todt, Ross Brawn, Ron Dennis, Patrick Head, Frank Williams, Jackie Stewart and Roger Penske

would all, in my humble opinion, be qualified people to lead FIA*.

*If they ceased involvement in any business which might pose as a conflict of interest, including shares in teams, or membership of automobile clubs.

FIA should be lead by a person of the caliber and ability of these guys, who has gained respect during years in sport and also has been credited with successfully managing an organisation for decades.

[BDunnell]

FIA should be lead by a person of the caliber and ability of these guys, who has gained respect during years in sport and also has been credited with successfully managing an organisation for decades.

I think the field can easily be widened. As an 'off the top of my head' idea, how about someone like Lord (Paul) Drayson, a businessman and former British government minister who is also a keen competitor in sportscars? François Fillon falls into the same bracket of politicians with a deep motorsport interest. Yet you can imagine the predictable outrage from some quarters that would result from either man making what was perceived to be a favourable decision towards a British or a French team, given their nationality. Select a Dennis, or a Williams, even if they resigned from their current positions, and those accusations would only be multiplied were decisions to be taken that were perceived to benefit 'their' teams. The same, alas, is true of Jean Todt.

[ArrowsFA1]

That is not the same as asking them to come up with the name of somebody who has put their name forward, since as we all know, nobody has.
One of the major reasons why nobody has put their name forward is the structure (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/43253) created by Max Mosley which secured his position as FIA President.

It has become increasingly obvious that there will only be a new FIA President when the current incumbent decides to step aside.

[PolePosition_1]

It IS democratic.

And yes, democracy is often ugly.

I think you misunderstand what democracy means. What I am arguing is true democracy. You are merely pointing out all the fallacies of democracy. It is an age old debate going back to ancient times. The same arguments we are debating here can be read in Plato's Republic.

Pure democracy, also known as direct democracy, is simply that: Rule by the Majority. In a pure democratic system, every member has equal votes. Yes, in this scenario, London will suck up all the resources of the UK (as many people would argue it has done).

Obviously, that is a fallacy in democracy, which means all constitutional systems have tried to balance it somewhat by creating artificial weights to be added to the votes. In America for example, the Founding Fathers decided on one purely democratic body in Congress (the House of Reps, in which states are represented based on their population) complemented by a very un-democratic body (the Senate, in which each state, no matter how big or small, has two votes).

In the Westminster style of government, democracy has been balanced by distributing electoral divisions ("seats"), which creates marginal seats, in which elections are then won or lost.

Both such balancing measures have their own faults: mainly creating safe and marginal seats and states. In the US in a presidential race, because it is not direct democracy (a simple majority vote) but a system of "electoral colleges", if you live in a safe state, say NY, your vote is pretty much meaningless. Same thing applies in a Westminster system: it doesn't matter if you are a Conservative in some northern parts of UK, or a Labour member in some SE parts: if your division is not marginal, your vote simply has no value.

The Royal Automobile Club of Victoria, of which I am a member, has about 700,000 members. The "Conseil Pontifical pour la Pastorale des Migrants et des Personnes en Deplacement" (Vatican's Motoring Club) has officially, 40 members. That means that in FIA's elections, members of the latter club's votes counts 17,000 times as much as my vote (and my vote probably has more weight than most Americans' votes).

This is NOT democratic.

Frankly, if you don't like democracy, and you would like to balance it so that "smaller clubs are not bullies by the bigger clubs", then that's your idea. Just because it sounds "fair" to you doesn't make it democratic. Remember, there is nothing fair in pure democracy: it's a simple rule by majority.

Moi? I'd rather stick to democracy, which as Churchill said: is the worst kind of government, except for all the other ones.


You are 100% correct.

I guess I'm using democracy as a subjective term, how I see democracy, and its place within a democratic society.

"My" version of democracy, I think is fair to say, is the rough definition of democracy within most western democratic societies.

[PolePosition_1]

As a McLaren supporter, I would whole-heartedly support Todt in this position. I respect him as a manager, as a decision maker, and I trust his professionalism will rule out any bias he might have in favour of his former employer.

He has both been a racer (well, a co-racer), as well as running his own racing team, and now managing a big corporation. He has all the credentials that I believe the head of FIA should have.

Please don't equate our disgust towards Mosley to our support for our favourite teams. It has nothing to do with it.

I respect Todt, but would be deadly against him replacing Mosley. I think its fair to say the image of the FIA with regards to favouring Ferrari is harmful to them. And replacing the head with a former Ferrari boss, would just damage the image further. Even if he wasn't biased, the stigma would still be there.

But I'm also a believer in that your outlook on life subconsciously affects the decisions you make in life.

And one of the reasons I respect Todt, is for his good work, but I think part of that comes because of the passion he has for Ferrari, its part of him, and that alone, makes him totally unsuitable for the position of FIA head.

[Knock-on]

I respect Todt, but would be deadly against him replacing Mosley. I think its fair to say the image of the FIA with regards to favouring Ferrari is harmful to them. And replacing the head with a former Ferrari boss, would just damage the image further. Even if he wasn't biased, the stigma would still be there.

But I'm also a believer in that your outlook on life subconsciously affects the decisions you make in life.

And one of the reasons I respect Todt, is for his good work, but I think part of that comes because of the passion he has for Ferrari, its part of him, and that alone, makes him totally unsuitable for the position of FIA head.

As some people have short memories, I will offer my ideal scenario again.

JT would be a great President of the FIA (as would Paul Stoddard or Dave Richards but may be too political).

However, to offer balance, I would have the FIA slightly more removed from F1 than it is now and Ron Dennis acting as a figurehead for a F1 working group in charge of enforcing regulations, making recommendations and representations to the FIA and responsible for managing a team of dedicated stewards and officials that attend GP.

However, it's all a fantasy but that would be my ideal.

[ArrowsFA1]

I would have the FIA slightly more removed from F1 than it is now
I agree, and to achieve that I think the FIA President could be a figure entirely unrelated to motorsport. I think there should be Vice-Presidents responsible for each of the categories the FIA governs, largely because the role is far too wide ranging (http://www.fia.com/en-GB/the-fia/about-fia/Pages/AboutFIA.aspx) for any one individual.

[BDunnell]

As some people have short memories, I will offer my ideal scenario again.

JT would be a great President of the FIA (as would Paul Stoddard or Dave Richards but may be too political).

Paul Stoddart? You've got to be joking, surely?

[Valve Bounce]

Maybe Luca will propose Jean Todt!

[Valve Bounce]

I agree, and to achieve that I think the FIA President could be a figure entirely unrelated to motorsport. I think there should be Vice-Presidents responsible for each of the categories the FIA governs, largely because the role is far too wide ranging (http://www.fia.com/en-GB/the-fia/about-fia/Pages/AboutFIA.aspx) for any one individual.

Well, you can't get further removed from motorsport than Robert Mugabe. What do you think?

One of the major reasons why nobody has put their name forward is the structure (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/43253) created by Max Mosley which secured his position as FIA President.

It has become increasingly obvious that there will only be a new FIA President when the current incumbent decides to step aside.

I didn't ask you why nobody stands against Mosley, just who would be better.

Once again a Mclarenista fails to provide the name of somebody who would be better.

That speaks volumes.

[PolePosition_1]

I didn't ask you why nobody stands against Mosley, just who would be better.

Once again a Mclarenista fails to provide the name of somebody who would be better.

That speaks volumes.

Very stereotypical outlook you have there Tamburello.

I'm not too sure who would be best for FIA head, but I think it would have to be someone without strong ties to any of the current teams, and with a sporting outlook (rather than business).

To be fair, I think Mosley overall does a good job, so am happy for him to stay on.

Very stereotypical outlook you have there Tamburello.

Declaring that Mosley is incapable but failing to provide the name of a valid alternative is worthy of such a stereotype.

[BDunnell]

Methinks the lady doth protest too much about McLaren, if you see what I mean.

Does every single post you make have to come back to them?

[ArrowsFA1]

I didn't ask you why nobody stands against Mosley, just who would be better.
I'm aware you didn't ask that question, but forum thread discussions often cover any number of points, and I was simply putting forward a point I felt worth making.

The fact is the plight of those wishing to stand against Mosley was made "incredibly difficult" by the changes he introduced. Perhaps if the FIA were not structured the way it is we would have the opportunity of witnessing a meaningful election. Then, and only then, would we see the caliber of candidates prepared to stand.

[pino]

I didn't ask you why nobody stands against Mosley, just who would be better.

Once again a Mclarenista fails to provide the name of somebody who would be better.

That speaks volumes.

Enough with this Mclarenista, the name is ArrowsFA1...thank you !

I'm aware you didn't ask that question, but forum thread discussions often cover any number of points, and I was simply putting forward a point I felt worth making.

The fact is the plight of those wishing to stand against Mosley was made "incredibly difficult" by the changes he introduced. Perhaps if the FIA were not structured the way it is we would have the opportunity of witnessing a meaningful election. Then, and only then, would we see the caliber of candidates prepared to stand.

Forget the 'meaningful election', I know all about that situation. I asked who do you think would be better ?

[Bagwan]

Forget the 'meaningful election', I know all about that situation. I asked who do you think would be better ?

Perhaps it should be "who do yo think would be better" , and actually wants the job ?

Firstly , you inherit a mess .
Secondly , that mess you inherit , is in the middle of the worst economic mess the world has seen .
Thirdly , it's a mess that is pretty hard to justify , in a globally warmed , power-stricken world .

The only candidate for a job that nasty , is a candidate that would have a monstrously huge ego , as that person would need to believe they could actually do the job to fix the situation in the present climate on all three points .

A monstrous ego is in the chair .
But , that's the only kind of guy who'll want the position .

Max is truly the devil we know .

[ioan]

Enough with this Mclarenista, the name is ArrowsFA1...thank you !

C'mon, you are not reacting like this when someone calls us tifosi that wear red tinted glasses. :rolleyes:

[ioan]

Perhaps it should be "who do yo think would be better" , and actually wants the job ?

Firstly , you inherit a mess .
Secondly , that mess you inherit , is in the middle of the worst economic mess the world has seen .
Thirdly , it's a mess that is pretty hard to justify , in a globally warmed , power-stricken world .

The only candidate for a job that nasty , is a candidate that would have a monstrously huge ego , as that person would need to believe they could actually do the job to fix the situation in the present climate on all three points .

A monstrous ego is in the chair .
But , that's the only kind of guy who'll want the position .

Max is truly the devil we know .

True words! :up:

[Valve Bounce]

Forget the 'meaningful election', I know all about that situation. I asked who do you think would be better ?

Robert Mugabe - and he should be based at Elba or Devils Island.

[PolePosition_1]

Declaring that Mosley is incapable but failing to provide the name of a valid alternative is worthy of such a stereotype.

So your claiming its ok to stereotype every McLaren fan with the same brush?

[leopard]

Enough with this Mclarenista, the name is ArrowsFA1...thank you !


Is there any warranty that this name will be free from similar case against Bild newspaper. ;) ;)

btw Agree...

So your claiming its ok to stereotype every McLaren fan with the same brush?

Oh no, there must be a Mclaren fan somewhere with enough intelligence to see that Mosley isn't himself a stereotype 'baddie'.

Wilko is one.....oh, except he's a Williams fan.

Well, there must be one somewhere, anyway.

[Knock-on]

Oh no, there must be a Mclaren fan somewhere with enough intelligence to see that Mosley isn't himself a stereotype 'baddie'.

Wilko is one.....oh, except he's a Williams fan.

Well, there must be one somewhere, anyway.

:laugh:

Perhaps if you stopped being so hostile, tried to be a bit more objective and dropped the threats and rudeness, you might understand what people are actually trying to say.

BTW, happy Christmas :)

[ArrowsFA1]

Oh no, there must be a Mclaren fan somewhere with enough intelligence to see that Mosley isn't himself a stereotype 'baddie'.
That really is a very good post. Very good indeed. It says so much :)