benny Posted March 10, 2009 Report Posted March 10, 2009 I think it’s time for a new party but only if this party is run by people who understand how one more (political) division is essential for a healing or therapeutic social process. Quote
CAMP Posted March 10, 2009 Report Posted March 10, 2009 I think it’s time for a new party but only if this party is run by people who understand how one more (political) division is essential for a healing or therapeutic social process. Well FYI there is a new political party gathering steam right now. Go check out www.canadian-alternative.com Read over the website and see what you think... you can listen to the radio broadcasts that two of the members have created and listen in. We are having an online conference March 27th at 8:30 in the evening all you need is Skype (free to download and use) and a microphone and speakers. Register for the conference on the CAMP NEWS page. Thomas Quote www.centralparty.ca (The Central Party of Canada) real democracy in action!
Oleg Bach Posted March 10, 2009 Report Posted March 10, 2009 Well FYI there is a new political party gathering steam right now. Go check out www.canadian-alternative.comRead over the website and see what you think... you can listen to the radio broadcasts that two of the members have created and listen in. We are having an online conference March 27th at 8:30 in the evening all you need is Skype (free to download and use) and a microphone and speakers. Register for the conference on the CAMP NEWS page. Thomas Create a virtual government. You would be surprised how much effect those with some brains and common sense can assist with their easy input - from the comfort and privacy of their own home...now for my usual scriptural quote: Pontius Pilate the representative of the Roman government asks the Christ a key question. "What is truth?" - or what is real? This bureacrat was asking this question not out of cynicism but out of sincere confusion because of the complexity of his job and that fact that all governments operate under the auspice of artifice in order to control - though the deception of the public (common fair)....some times the simpilist of realities can escape them - and a kind and wise word might be all they need to figure out how to continue - sometimes politicans do not have a clue and do not see the tree for the forest. Quote
madmax Posted March 10, 2009 Report Posted March 10, 2009 I'd like to change the system so we can ensure the only legal whorehouse [House of Commons] in Canada can't do too much damage to the country. I would never dare compare a whore to a politician, a whore has far better morals than a typical politician. Quote
Progressive Tory Posted March 10, 2009 Report Posted March 10, 2009 It's not really what we have since backbench MP's really have no power or say over the issues. I'm fairly certain that if the Conservative caucus were to vote on the budget a large proportion would have voted against the deficit, needless to say they couldn't due to their obligations to the party. I was wondering if any of them would. That must have been very hard for them, especially the old Reformers who would never have approved of deficit spending. It must have been a tough call. Quote "For all our modesty and self-deprecation, we’re a people who dream great dreams. And then roll up our sleeves and turn them into realities." - Michael Ignatieff "I would not want the Prime Minister to think that he could simply fail in the House of Commons as a route to another General Election. That's not the way our system works." Stephen Harper.
Progressive Tory Posted March 10, 2009 Report Posted March 10, 2009 I'd like to change the system so we can ensure the only legal whorehouse [House of Commons] in Canada can't do too much damage to the country. I would never dare compare a whore to a politician, a whore has far better morals than a typical politician. I thought that was funny too. Quote "For all our modesty and self-deprecation, we’re a people who dream great dreams. And then roll up our sleeves and turn them into realities." - Michael Ignatieff "I would not want the Prime Minister to think that he could simply fail in the House of Commons as a route to another General Election. That's not the way our system works." Stephen Harper.
Progressive Tory Posted March 10, 2009 Report Posted March 10, 2009 I'm currently reading "Look Homeward America" and in it the author details the lives of two Senators. While each one was respectable in one fashion or another, they both sold off their principles for expedients often. It's no surprise that working in the government is the first step to becoming an anti-statist. Reminds me of 'All the King's Men', based loosely on the career of Governor Huey Long of Louisiana. He started out honest and a tireless worker for his people, but then got caught up in the dirty side of politics. I don't know if anyone is really immune. Quote "For all our modesty and self-deprecation, we’re a people who dream great dreams. And then roll up our sleeves and turn them into realities." - Michael Ignatieff "I would not want the Prime Minister to think that he could simply fail in the House of Commons as a route to another General Election. That's not the way our system works." Stephen Harper.
Progressive Tory Posted March 10, 2009 Report Posted March 10, 2009 I can think of three that I voted for in spite of their party affiliation- one Liberal, one Reform, and one NDP. I'd still be pleased to be represented by any one of them. The few times I've voted for 'party' without regard to the candidate have all provided stinkingly poor representation. We point the finger at politicians for being slimeballs, but we're the ones who choose them for the job. You're right. I used to think of myself as a diehard Tory, but then after voting for Brian Mulroney and Mike Harris, I'm no longer being that Partisan. I really like Pat Martin from the NDP so if he was leader, I'd have to weigh my options. I like Michael Ignatieff, but didn't like Paul Martin as PM. I like Gilles Duceppe a lot, but don't live in Quebec so can't vote Bloc. I liked Preston Manning but we never had a Reform candidate. Quote "For all our modesty and self-deprecation, we’re a people who dream great dreams. And then roll up our sleeves and turn them into realities." - Michael Ignatieff "I would not want the Prime Minister to think that he could simply fail in the House of Commons as a route to another General Election. That's not the way our system works." Stephen Harper.
punked Posted March 10, 2009 Report Posted March 10, 2009 Reminds me of 'All the King's Men', based loosely on the career of Governor Huey Long of Louisiana. He started out honest and a tireless worker for his people, but then got caught up in the dirty side of politics. I don't know if anyone is really immune. Huey Long was smeared by big oil. He also laid countless roads, Build hospitals, and Universities. He increased literacy by huge amounts. I mean honestly he passed a textbook bill and schools would send the textbooks back saying they didn't want the states help. What the fuck does that mean? They tried to impeach him for taxing oil. He pushed through a lot but if you look at what is he "pushed" through it might amaze you it met resistance at all. Quote
Progressive Tory Posted March 10, 2009 Report Posted March 10, 2009 The one area that I think we need to change is how government communicates - internally and with the electorate. Communications has changed immeasurably in the last 100 years while parliament has barely changed at all. Slow moving legislation bogs down government while the ministries aren't able to respond to our changing environment.As I have proposed here before, I think parliament should be cut free from the operations of government and left to a 'talking chamber', where we discuss the larger issues before us. These, at least, are issues in which most people have an opinion. Government communication has become like reading the National Enquirer. Nobody listens to politicians anymore, we just wait for someone to spin it and the more sensational they can make the mundane, the more we tune in. How exactly would a "talking chamber" work? I'd never heard of that before. Quote "For all our modesty and self-deprecation, we’re a people who dream great dreams. And then roll up our sleeves and turn them into realities." - Michael Ignatieff "I would not want the Prime Minister to think that he could simply fail in the House of Commons as a route to another General Election. That's not the way our system works." Stephen Harper.
Progressive Tory Posted March 10, 2009 Report Posted March 10, 2009 Where is this new right wing party get on starting that. If it was just a little right of centre with common sense once more being a basis for the platform, I might even give it a look. Quote "For all our modesty and self-deprecation, we’re a people who dream great dreams. And then roll up our sleeves and turn them into realities." - Michael Ignatieff "I would not want the Prime Minister to think that he could simply fail in the House of Commons as a route to another General Election. That's not the way our system works." Stephen Harper.
Progressive Tory Posted March 10, 2009 Report Posted March 10, 2009 Well FYI there is a new political party gathering steam right now. Go check out www.canadian-alternative.comThomas Thanks. I'll check that out. We definitely need some new faces and new ideas before everyone gets completely turned off poltics forever. I'll let you know what I think. Quote "For all our modesty and self-deprecation, we’re a people who dream great dreams. And then roll up our sleeves and turn them into realities." - Michael Ignatieff "I would not want the Prime Minister to think that he could simply fail in the House of Commons as a route to another General Election. That's not the way our system works." Stephen Harper.
Progressive Tory Posted March 10, 2009 Report Posted March 10, 2009 (edited) Create a virtual government. Would that be like Orwell's 1984, where there's just a big screen directing our lives? Because I think we already have that. It's called TV. Edited March 10, 2009 by Progressive Tory Quote "For all our modesty and self-deprecation, we’re a people who dream great dreams. And then roll up our sleeves and turn them into realities." - Michael Ignatieff "I would not want the Prime Minister to think that he could simply fail in the House of Commons as a route to another General Election. That's not the way our system works." Stephen Harper.
MontyBurns Posted March 10, 2009 Report Posted March 10, 2009 Well FYI there is a new political party gathering steam right now. Go check out www.canadian-alternative.comRead over the website and see what you think... you can listen to the radio broadcasts that two of the members have created and listen in. We are having an online conference March 27th at 8:30 in the evening all you need is Skype (free to download and use) and a microphone and speakers. Register for the conference on the CAMP NEWS page. Thomas Do these guys cut welfare programs and hang criminals? If so, count me in. Quote "From my cold dead hands." Charlton Heston
Progressive Tory Posted March 10, 2009 Report Posted March 10, 2009 Do these guys cut welfare programs and hang criminals? If so, count me in. Quote "For all our modesty and self-deprecation, we’re a people who dream great dreams. And then roll up our sleeves and turn them into realities." - Michael Ignatieff "I would not want the Prime Minister to think that he could simply fail in the House of Commons as a route to another General Election. That's not the way our system works." Stephen Harper.
Canadian Blue Posted March 10, 2009 Author Report Posted March 10, 2009 I thought that was funny too. You have to read the whole thing: I'd like to change the system so we can ensure the only legal whorehouse [House of Commons] in Canada can't do too much damage to the country. But I suppose I am being too harsh, I would never dare compare a whore to a politician, a whore has far better morals than a typical politician. Quote "Keep your government hands off my medicare!" - GOP activist
Wild Bill Posted March 11, 2009 Report Posted March 11, 2009 Well FYI there is a new political party gathering steam right now. Go check out www.canadian-alternative.comRead over the website and see what you think... you can listen to the radio broadcasts that two of the members have created and listen in. We are having an online conference March 27th at 8:30 in the evening all you need is Skype (free to download and use) and a microphone and speakers. Register for the conference on the CAMP NEWS page. Thomas Since I don't agree with Proportional Representation and have reservations as well about electronic ballots, what do you have for someone like me? I also have reservations about a "Delphic" referendum mechanism run with electronic voting but I could accept it as long as it was non-binding. That way if it was rigged there would be a check on the method to ensure an issue was truly popular. Anyhow, as far as my first paragraph, what else do you have that might make me give you my support? Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
benny Posted March 11, 2009 Report Posted March 11, 2009 Well FYI there is a new political party gathering steam right now. Go check out www.canadian-alternative.comRead over the website and see what you think... you can listen to the radio broadcasts that two of the members have created and listen in. We are having an online conference March 27th at 8:30 in the evening all you need is Skype (free to download and use) and a microphone and speakers. Register for the conference on the CAMP NEWS page. Thomas At first glance, CAMP seems to me a very good initiative but not innovative enough yet. I think that the more dynamic a democracy, the more geared towards consensus it becomes. In other words, the more direct a democracy, the less representative it needs to be. To me, CAMP will be able to leave its mark on Canadian politics by integrating two new ideas about politics: deliberative democracy (see Jurgen Habermas) and the concept of "singular universal" (see Slavoj Zizek). Quote
Michael Hardner Posted March 11, 2009 Report Posted March 11, 2009 How exactly would a "talking chamber" work? I'd never heard of that before. PT, They would debate the 'big questions'. Do we go to war ? What should our relations be with China ? How do we define ourselves ? These are issues that every Canadian has an opinion on. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
eyeball Posted March 11, 2009 Report Posted March 11, 2009 As I have proposed here before, I think parliament should be cut free from the operations of government and left to a 'talking chamber', where we discuss the larger issues before us. These, at least, are issues in which most people have an opinion.The nuts and bolts of how EI works, what the Public Works department is working on... these things should be handled the way businesses are - with the electorate as the stakeholders. What does that mean exactly? Every process I've been involved with or was invited to referred to me as a stakeholder. We all have a stake in everything depending on who's talking to, at, with or about you. What happens when the 'talking chamber' finally decides action of some kind is needed on some larger issue but the technocrats respond by informing them they're nuts and to forget it? What do we do if the technocrats stage a coup? I would have a very serious problem with things like our justice system, police, military, or God help us DFO, being run like a business. It seems a lot more gets agreed to and 'done' by parliamentary committee's than by parliament itself. I suppose we could just use more MP's and more committees but perhaps a better way is to establish the means for constituents to communicate and interact with these committees directly while they are in session. Clearly this would require the Internet and some serious software applications that stakeholders could use to input their views from their desktop or Blackberry or whatever and that allows representatives to track what the general consensus is. I envision representatives or their staff members reading and interpreting constituent inputs that are displayed on something akin to the displays that let stoke brokers track what is happening in the market - representatives put forth ideas and constiuents either buy them or don't - and we would have realtime polling with results displayed as fast as they come in. These committees should be attended by digital 'talking chambers' that are resonating with stakeholder's voices. I think this would let actual stakeholders naturally gravitate towards committees that are dealing with issues they have a genuine interest in and it would give representatives a better chance to get whatever they're working on right. As it stand now we're all just gravitating towards whatever or whoever sounds the closest or least damaging or frightening to us. There's virtually nothing very inspiring or constructive about this process that stakeholders can put any stock into let alone voters. I just don't know whether this market-like consensus system would ever work in a majority government. I suspect these would always insist on bringing their larger issues into play and everything else would likely go to hell until they got their own peculier agenda's attended to. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Wild Bill Posted March 11, 2009 Report Posted March 11, 2009 At first glance, CAMP seems to me a very good initiative but not innovative enough yet. I think that the more dynamic a democracy, the more geared towards consensus it becomes. In other words, the more direct a democracy, the less representative it needs to be. To me, CAMP will be able to leave its mark on Canadian politics by integrating two new ideas about politics: deliberative democracy (see Jurgen Habermas) and the concept of "singular universal" (see Slavoj Zizek). It seems to me that they are totally unconcerned with perhaps the most important purpose of a political party...leadership! When I looked at their site all I saw was a big push for proportional representation and electronic balloting. As far as policy or philosophy we got a quick offer of using 'e-referenda' to poll the people. That's not enough for me and I suspect for most of my fellow Canadians as well. CAMP is obsessed with the mechanism and leaves the goals to whatever bubbles up from the popular trends. Paris Hilton for PM? A party should offer a clear vision of goals and approaches for our governance. The electorate should have an idea of where it stands and what it would do. CAMP appears to be saying "We have no ideas of our own to offer you. We'll just use computers to make it easy for us all to "talk among ourselves' and then whatever most folks seem to want we'll implement." In other words, a party would first find out where the parade is going and then graciously would be willing to get out in front. Except for PR and E-voting, how is that different from what we already have? Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
Michael Hardner Posted March 11, 2009 Report Posted March 11, 2009 (edited) eb What does that mean exactly? Every process I've been involved with or was invited to referred to me as a stakeholder. We all have a stake in everything depending on who's talking to, at, with or about you. That is true. What happens when the 'talking chamber' finally decides action of some kind is needed on some larger issue but the technocrats respond by informing them they're nuts and to forget it? What do we do if the technocrats stage a coup? I would have a very serious problem with things like our justice system, police, military, or God help us DFO, being run like a business. The idea isn't to give autonomy to government services, so that they can run the ship themselves. But, in the 1990s the left and right fought wars over the idea of running a government 'like a business'. In Canada, the left mostly won. However, what was lost in the debate was what was meant by 'like a business'. We need services to be MANAGED. Court wait times, police response times, and the costs of services are not subject to market forces, therefore we need BETTER mechanisms than business to keep services up and costs under control. That's not to say that services need to be run for profit, but they have to be kept to a certain level of efficiency and they need to treat users with dignity and appreciation. There is no competition for our court system, therefore we can't rely on the market to keep turnaround times down. We, as citizens, need to monitor that to make sure it doesn't fall apart. Do you know what the turnaround times are for court cases ? Neither do I. That is the failure. It seems a lot more gets agreed to and 'done' by parliamentary committee's than by parliament itself. I suppose we could just use more MP's and more committees but perhaps a better way is to establish the means for constituents to communicate and interact with these committees directly while they are in session. Clearly this would require the Internet and some serious software applications that stakeholders could use to input their views from their desktop or Blackberry or whatever and that allows representatives to track what the general consensus is. I envision representatives or their staff members reading and interpreting constituent inputs that are displayed on something akin to the displays that let stoke brokers track what is happening in the market - representatives put forth ideas and constiuents either buy them or don't - and we would have realtime polling with results displayed as fast as they come in. These committees should be attended by digital 'talking chambers' that are resonating with stakeholder's voices. I think this would let actual stakeholders naturally gravitate towards committees that are dealing with issues they have a genuine interest in and it would give representatives a better chance to get whatever they're working on right. As it stand now we're all just gravitating towards whatever or whoever sounds the closest or least damaging or frightening to us. There's virtually nothing very inspiring or constructive about this process that stakeholders can put any stock into let alone voters. Wow. This is what I have been proposing on these boards, but with some interesting changes, i.e. real time interaction via the web allowing the public to drop in on committees. Great idea ! I just don't know whether this market-like consensus system would ever work in a majority government. I suspect these would always insist on bringing their larger issues into play and everything else would likely go to hell until they got their own peculier agenda's attended to. I agree. Oddly, I think the best chance to make this work best would be a Conservative-NDP coalition. The Conservatives would concentrate on the efficiency, and the NDP would make sure that the process does indeed make the citizen the first part of the equation. New technology can leverage exactly the type of interaction that we use on these boards to replace the 'market system' with broad-based and rich citizen consulting. Edited March 11, 2009 by Michael Hardner Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Michael Hardner Posted March 11, 2009 Report Posted March 11, 2009 And... here's an interesting step... Canadian Govt - Stimulus Tracking .... new thread coming. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
benny Posted March 11, 2009 Report Posted March 11, 2009 It seems to me that they are totally unconcerned with perhaps the most important purpose of a political party...leadership!When I looked at their site all I saw was a big push for proportional representation and electronic balloting. As far as policy or philosophy we got a quick offer of using 'e-referenda' to poll the people. That's not enough for me and I suspect for most of my fellow Canadians as well. CAMP is obsessed with the mechanism and leaves the goals to whatever bubbles up from the popular trends. Paris Hilton for PM? A party should offer a clear vision of goals and approaches for our governance. The electorate should have an idea of where it stands and what it would do. CAMP appears to be saying "We have no ideas of our own to offer you. We'll just use computers to make it easy for us all to "talk among ourselves' and then whatever most folks seem to want we'll implement." In other words, a party would first find out where the parade is going and then graciously would be willing to get out in front. Except for PR and E-voting, how is that different from what we already have? I agree with you. Leadership is fundamental and it seems to be missing in CAMP. That is why I have mentioned the concept of singular universal. My understanding of contemporary political philosophy is such that I consider a singular universal and a leader as synonymous. Jesus was a singular universal, the leader of a religious movement. Neo in the movie Matrix is also a singular universal, a leader. Leadership is paradoxical: people want a leader as scapegoat (when crisis occur). A people is made up of huge (unconscious) transfers of affects and the leader is someone occupying the locus from where these affects can be articulated. Quote
Wild Bill Posted March 11, 2009 Report Posted March 11, 2009 I agree with you. Leadership is fundamental and it seems to be missing in CAMP. That is why I have mentioned the concept of singular universal. My understanding of contemporary political philosophy is such that I consider a singular universal and a leader as synonymous. Jesus was a singular universal, the leader of a religious movement. Neo in the movie Matrix is also a singular universal, a leader. Leadership is paradoxical: people want a leader as scapegoat (when crisis occur). A people is made up of huge (unconscious) transfers of affects and the leader is someone occupying the locus from where these affects can be articulated. Yes, it does seem that we humans are hard-wired to need strong leadership. It's likely a survival trait honed over the eons as we evolved. Strong leaders kept us organized. We'd be safe, fed and warm. Weak leaders could get us killed. In my span of years I've noticed that Trudeau, Mulroney, Harris and Klein all had something in common. They were strong leaders! They stood out as individuals and took strong, definite stands on issues. They were rewarded with incredible majorities and/or long terms of office. Contrast that with the usual boffin offered to us, with spin doctors frantically trying to keep him or her in a beige suit and brown shoes, sitting smack dab in the middle of the road and desperately trying to offend no one and only succeeding in boring everyone! People want someone who stands out from the crowd to lead them. Danny Williams may not be the sharpest crayon in the box but his popularity amongst his electorate is strong and firm. The Pequistes in Quebec often seem to be outright illogical in what they think they can achieve but it doesn't matter. For years now they've held the hearts of a large number of Quebecois. This instinct would explain why Harper has failed to achieve high marks for personal popularity. He's perceived as a very smart man who could put you to sleep with his attempts at small talk. John Tory came from a similar mold. Jack Layton is a colourful character. His ideas are loopy but his leadership quotient keeps his support reasonably stable. If he ever took a tip from every other Labour Party in the world, stopped blaming evil corporations for all our problems including bad weather and started to live in the real world it's possible he could be as successful as Tony Blair. You may not happen to like Tony Blair but you have to admit, he's been a lot more successful than Jack Layton. Ignatief might be smarter than Dion but so what? So is a doorknob! We are desperate for strong, capable leadership from our politicians. The strategy seems to be to limit our choices to vote for a party for smelling the least rather than offering us something inspiring and strongly appealing. For years now we get nothing but elevator music, 24/7! My generation spawned rock and roll, from Buddy Holly to the Beatles, Buffalo Springfield to Pearl Jam, Janis Joplin to Aretha Franklin. What do we keep getting from our politicians? Ann Murray. Celine Dion. Barry Manilow. ABBA! It's a nightmare that never ends! Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
Recommended Posts
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.