Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

New Canadian Party.

Fiscally conservative.

Socially liberal.

Environmentally Green.

Reformed people's democracy.

Set goals to remove the party whip from all votes and open the house to a free vote on all issues.

Any other ideas?

We should be able to pick up those Conservatives who are fed up with Harper's bully tactics; those who abhor spineless Dion wimpering and and those who want a greener government policy.

Posted
We should be able to pick up those Conservatives who are fed up with Harper's bully tactics; those who abhor spineless Dion wimpering and and those who want a greener government policy.

I heard the Reform Party name is up for grabs again. heh

Posted
Why bother to have a party if it's all free votes ?

In order to change the system we would need to enter it as an alternative. The party would provide a reference to who forms the lead caucus.

Posted
Any other ideas?
About 25-30% of Canadians will vote for the Liberal Party under any circumstances. About 5% of "Canadians" will vote for the Bloc because they want out of Canada. About 10-15% of Canadians will vote for the NDP because they're socialists and/or hate the US. About 5% of Canadians will vote for the Greens because they dislike the existing parties and would otherwise not vote. The remainder is a mixed bag (of Albertans, Ontario farmers, traditional Maritimers and people from the Beauce in Quebec) and I don't see them rallying around a new party anytime soon.

You'd be better off joining an existing political party and shaping its policies according to your desires. Of course, doing that is alot harder than posting nonsense to an Internet forum.

Posted
New Canadian Party.

Fiscally conservative.

Socially liberal.

Environmentally Green.

Reformed people's democracy.

I'd call that Parti Conservateur du Canada.

  • Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone."
  • Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds.
  • Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location?
  • The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).

Posted
What about the idea of the Libs, NDP, and Green coming together under one party. It would stop the Cons always using the Bloc for support in votes.

Parties that uphold property rights and capitalism working with ones that don't?

Why would that be good?

RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS

If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us

Posted
New Canadian Party.

Fiscally conservative.

Socially liberal.

Environmentally Green.

Reformed people's democracy.

Set goals to remove the party whip from all votes and open the house to a free vote on all issues.

Any other ideas?

We should be able to pick up those Conservatives who are fed up with Harper's bully tactics; those who abhor spineless Dion wimpering and and those who want a greener government policy.

Under the Any Other Ideas category, the Liberals campaigned under this, except for the party whip part, and won several elections with it. Only they weren't so green (ignoring the Kyoto treaty they signed until they lost power), or very fiscally conservative, so I think Canadians would tend to be highly suspicious of yet another party promising such things.

Posted
Parties that uphold property rights and capitalism working with ones that don't?

Why would that be good?

And which party of the Libs, Greens or NDP be the one that upholds property rights? If you're thinking of the Libs the Charter of No Real Rights and Imaginary Freedoms doesn't contain any protection for property rights.
  • Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone."
  • Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds.
  • Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location?
  • The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).

Posted (edited)

i've been thinking about this lately too... because its obvious that democracy is hijacked by party politics and the pay to play scheme.

i think an 'independents party' would be ideal. an entire party structure with finances to support a party that is in all ways a political party with one major difference... that all elected members would be expected to vote in a manner that supports the desires of their local constituents!

not a radical idea by any stretch... what democracy is supposed to be about.

Edited by godzilla
Posted
i think an 'independents party' would be ideal. an entire party structure with finances to support a party that is in all ways a political party with one major difference... that all elected members would be expected to vote in a manner that supports the desires of their local constituents!

Why would anyone donate to a party whose views are generally unknown as every candidate may have views different from the next?

RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS

If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us

Posted
i've been thinking about this lately too... because its obvious that democracy is hijacked by party politics and the pay to play scheme.

i think an 'independents party' would be ideal. an entire party structure with finances to support a party that is in all ways a political party with one major difference... that all elected members would be expected to vote in a manner that supports the desires of their local constituents!

not a radical idea by any stretch... what democracy is supposed to be about.

watch the government paid posters disagree with you.

Posted (edited)
Why would anyone donate to a party whose views are generally unknown as every candidate may have views different from the next?

no, no.... we know who our local candidates are and we listen to _them_. not some pr agency. _they_ tell us what they are hearing from _us_ and then make a promise to promote those desires in their political positions.

when one donates money they would be donating to a party that supports local desires. period.

sound crazy? isn't that what's always supposed to be happening?

Edited by godzilla
Posted
no, no.... we know who are local candidates are and we listen to _them_. not some pr agency. _they_ tell us what they are hearing from _us_ and then make a promise to promote those desires in their political positions.

sound crazy? isn't that what's always supposed to be happening?

So why would I donate to a party if it's the local candidate whose views I am attracted to? Why donate to a party if the local candidates views are acceptable, butr the independant party cat in the next riding is a moonbeam? Why would I want that person to get a share of my donation?

RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS

If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us

Posted (edited)

How about an 'infrastructure' party ?

The idea is for them to get into power, change the democratic infrastructure, then disband, and let the existing parties back in to use a re-tuned democratic machine. Since most Canadians are interested in government as a purveyor of services, this aspect of government should be streamlined.

The Infrastructure Party would:

Depoliticize and Redeploy Government Service Deployment

- De-politicize the delivery of government services by having deputy ministers report to an all-party committee, rather than to the minister.

- The minister would steer the committee as a chairman of the board sets the agenda for a company's board.

- This would remove the conflict-of-interest that currently exists for deputy ministers, between running their departments to serve Canada, versus running their departments to serve the sitting government.

De-Couple Democracy from the Marketing/Advertising Model

- Pass laws to reduce or eliminate political advertising.

- Set up local councils, and riding-based web boards to discuss the impact of policy, and to generate ideas.

- Move away from 'impression' based politics, and towards 'idea' based politics

Simplify Government

- Complex laws tend to be set up as loopholes, and cost more money to administer than they save.

- Canadian political parties largely agree on the major features of our social safety net. If these features were consolidated, simplified and streamlined, there would be major administrative savings that could be passed on as benefits.

- Legislative processes are slow and difficult to understand, and this has little general benefit.

Once government was made more agile, and easier for people to understand, we'd see more participation and a general re-tuning of the democratic engine.

At that point, the party could turn the process back to the original parties to debate things such as levels of funding, international policy and the like.

Edited by Michael Hardner
Posted
- Pass laws to reduce or eliminate political advertising.

Of course, lets depend on media to be objective and to deliver an undiluted message......Free speech has enough limits on it without being regulated further.

- Set up local councils, and riding-based web boards to discuss the impact of policy, and to generate ideas.

Yes, that's what we want, the nanny state to set up boards where we can discuss things, because we can't do that ourselves......

RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS

If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us

Posted (edited)
So why would I donate to a party if it's the local candidate whose views I am attracted to? Why donate to a party if the local candidates views are acceptable, butr the independant party cat in the next riding is a moonbeam? Why would I want that person to get a share of my donation?

because your desires are being represented! as opposed to... not.

its up to the next riding to select someone who represents _their_ desires... not for you to impose your desires on them. you are donating to democracy. you are placing your trust in democracy and not into a system thats more like fuedalism (pay to play) on top of democracy...

Edited by godzilla
Posted
Of course, lets depend on media to be objective and to deliver an undiluted message......Free speech has enough limits on it without being regulated further.

QUOTE(Michael Hardner @ Oct 23 2007, 01:31 PM) *

- Set up local councils, and riding-based web boards to discuss the impact of policy, and to generate ideas.

Yes, that's what we want, the nanny state to set up boards where we can discuss things, because we can't do that ourselves......

Morris, I'm shocked at your lack of opposition to my ideas. You are truly becoming Scott-like.

Cheers,

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,892
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    armchairscholar
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...