Time For a New Party

[DrGreenthumb]

Start a right wing party that is socially progressive (the people, not the government get to decide where we put our drugs and who we marry), and fiscally conservative (tax less? then SPEND less), I'd even vote for them.

I like the free market, I'm just not willing to give up all my other freedoms to get it.

Try getting a secular leader too, I don't trust religious moralists with the power to make decisions regarding other people's freedom's.

Edited March 12, 2009 by DrGreenthumb

[benny]

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!

I think the time has come for a new kind of political party because the world population seems desperate for a new kind of leader. To me, all the political leaders you mentioned have seduced the population by their high level of narcissism. Up until now politics has been nothing more than a disguised vanity fair. Following the idea of universal singular, the new kind of leader should be able to solve political conflicts by revealing and diffusing the emptiness that is hiding behind politicians’ vanity.

[eyeball]

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.

Not all traits persist and there is a lot of good reason to believe that many eventually lead down blind evolutionary alley's. Extinction often occurs as a result of behaving the same way in a changing environment.

I don't want to be lead by a political party or a politician, I want these to either follow or get out of the way. Leadership is nowhere near the top of my list of priorities. I'm more interested in their ability to follow.

I'd rather let the best ideas and solutions bubble up through our population and follow their lead. A smart leader would seek and utilize as much information or insights that contribute to solutions as possible. A smart leader would also use whatever was available that might facilitate that, like computers and the Internet and citizen's assemblies and referenda etc etc.

CAMP sounds...too campy. Instead of political parties, I'd rather elect councils of elders and let our leaders...emerge out of these. There is a lot of good scientific evidence that order arises out of chaos, like evolution.

Everything you seem to suggest Bill smacks of the old top down approach to letting authority, wisdom, morality and so on trickle down from on high somewhere through society. Its time to change direction and get out of this dead-end we're in. Who's freakin' brain-wave was it to turn up this alley anyway?

[Wild Bill]

Everything you seem to suggest Bill smacks of the old top down approach to letting authority, wisdom, morality and so on trickle down from on high somewhere through society. Its time to change direction and get out of this dead-end we're in. Who's freakin' brain-wave was it to turn up this alley anyway?

Well, I do believe in populism. I guess I should emphasize that I'd reserve the right to CHOOSE which party I would follow!

That being said, I find myself today with once again having no attractive choices.

We can let certainly do better with letting policy trickle UP from the grassroots but we have to keep in mind that the common baseline within those 'roots' is not heavily made up of political junkies. There is a need for a party to identify and codify our choices, giving recommendation as to what would be more positive. We don't have to necessarily follow their recommendations but it would make intelligent choices somewhat easier.

There has to be a balance between leadership and populism. Canada tends to be too much on the monarchy side with the PMO being the office of the King.

However, at the other end of the scale lies Oprah's Book Club.

I should think the need for balance is obvious!

[eyeball]

Well, I do believe in populism. I guess I should emphasize that I'd reserve the right to CHOOSE which party I would follow!

That being said, I find myself today with once again having no attractive choices.

We can let certainly do better with letting policy trickle UP from the grassroots but we have to keep in mind that the common baseline within those 'roots' is not heavily made up of political junkies. There is a need for a party to identify and codify our choices, giving recommendation as to what would be more positive. We don't have to necessarily follow their recommendations but it would make intelligent choices somewhat easier.

There has to be a balance between leadership and populism. Canada tends to be too much on the monarchy side with the PMO being the office of the King.

However, at the other end of the scale lies Oprah's Book Club.

I should think the need for balance is obvious!

I hear what you're saying. I wouldn't want to force the grassroots to yield up its common baseline either, Oprah is not a leader she is a herder. I've certainly rethought some of my earlier positions on things like mandatory voting and now I think it might not be such a good idea. I think the obvious answer is to create an environment that gives the political junkies more room to move in and more ability to move in it. Yes, anyone can join an existing party and try to advance their ideas up the cliff but I have serious doubts about the effiacy of such a process. It might have worked well enough when information couldn't move faster than a horse and buggy but not any more. I've also seen one too many fellow junkies advance to become candidates, councillors and MLA's and not too long after being elected almost every single one of them turned into something more like Oprah. Now they just smile a lot and talk in gushing tones about stakeholders and inclusivness. Its like they all joined a cult or something.

[Michael Hardner]

I concur with the comments from Bill, Benny and eyeball...

Furthermore...

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!

Your idea of people wanting 'leaders' extends to the arts. The Beatles and Dylans were leaders, and ushered in changes to how music was created. In fact all of the artists you mention did. The others, below, were more or less generated from 'polling' to determine what was already popular.

Abba is famous because they won the Eurovision song contest, which is a 1970s version of 'Idol'.

I do think CAMP has some ideas to consider, but we don't need a party to change how parliament works. We can do that ourselves, with the existing parties.

[eyeball]

I do think CAMP has some ideas to consider, but we don't need a party to change how parliament works. We can do that ourselves, with the existing parties.

How? The only way I see is if an army of political junkies storms in and takes them over from within - an invasion of the party snatchers.

[Michael Hardner]

Here's how we can improve things without creating a new process.

On this thread, I showed how the government plans to communicate the stimulus package to Canadians through the web:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....showtopic=13634

There is a 'contact us' feature, which allows us to email our feedback.

I think that a MLW study group could work together online, and come up with some excellent suggestions for improving the process of managing the stimulus, and communicating that to Canadians - especially if that study group consists of cross-political input.

Furthermore, these suggestions would likely be of interest outside of these forums, and the receiving government department.

I offer to moderate this MLW study group on that thread.

If you are complaining about our political process, why not put some of that energy to complaining in a way that could make a difference ?

[Michael Hardner]

I'm starting to wonder if there are a lot of armchair politicians on here after all.

[DrGreenthumb]

How? The only way I see is if an army of political junkies storms in and takes them over from within - an invasion of the party snatchers.

On the advice of Marc Emery and Dana Larson, us legalizers have been doing that within the NDP for about the last 4 years. We seem to be making good progress within the party too and have even many of the old guard supporting us now. I actually had a nice chat with Jack Layton and Gary Doer at the manitoba convention, as well as pretty good meetings with the health and justice ministers. People are tired of the drugwar approach that has been an abysmal failure and are ready to embrace a new strategy.

[Wild Bill]

I'm starting to wonder if there are a lot of armchair politicians on here after all.

Well, armchairs are comfortable and sometimes it's easy to avoid actually getting up! That's why we invented remote controls for the tv, after all.

I went to the site and I'll have to digest it for a bit. My first impression was that it took having a stimulus package as a positive thing in the first place! That's politics, I guess. I also would have thought that if they wanted popular feedback they would have been more obvious and explicit with their 'Contact Us' button. They did list a number of contact methods which implies interest but they could have spent a bit more effort in pointing out that they actually want folks to use them!

To me, the problem seems much bigger than we can influence or control. It will have to run its course, particularly with how tied we are to America's fortunes. What I see happening is just an attempt for politicians to pretend to have influence and show their concern. Then again, I've grown quite cynical over the years.

Our political, economic and business models have been ignoring changes in the world for a long time. Sooner or later factors had to catch up with us. Things need to shake out and adapt. At the start of the process it is difficult if not impossible to 'pick the winners'.

Back in the 70's, should we have offered a stimulus package to the Timex Watch Company? Or should we instead of given incentives to Litronix, the maker of light-emitting diode devices who invented a digital watch?

Sadly, the Canadian way seems to always be to prop up the horse and buggy industries. Here in Hamilton in the early 60's there was the Aerovox Capacitor company. They had made capacitors suitable for the old vacuum tube radios and televisions for some decades. The world was going transistor and the company desperately needed to modernize its products. So what happened? The Feds shoveled out a huge sum of money to move the factory lock, stock and barrel to Nova Scotia, in order to provide jobs in the Maritimes. The plant was rebuilt and a few years later it went bankrupt, as there were no longer any buyers for their old-style products.

We could easily do the same thing with Chrysler. The problem is that politicians respond best to pressures about how people will vote. This focuses them on short term goals like appearing to save jobs, even if only for a short time. The electorate is notoriously poor at understanding long term trends and so politicians tend to ignore such.

Another example of the old definition of the difference between a politician and a statesman, I guess.

[Wild Bill]

On the advice of Marc Emery and Dana Larson, us legalizers have been doing that within the NDP for about the last 4 years. We seem to be making good progress within the party too and have even many of the old guard supporting us now. I actually had a nice chat with Jack Layton and Gary Doer at the manitoba convention, as well as pretty good meetings with the health and justice ministers. People are tired of the drugwar approach that has been an abysmal failure and are ready to embrace a new strategy.

I thought Jack and the boys all denied having anything to do with legalization supporters? Or were they misquoted in the press a few months back?

[Michael Hardner]

Hey WB,

Thanks.

Well, armchairs are comfortable and sometimes it's easy to avoid actually getting up! That's why we invented remote controls for the tv, after all. laugh.gif

I went to the site and I'll have to digest it for a bit. My first impression was that it took having a stimulus package as a positive thing in the first place! That's politics, I guess. I also would have thought that if they wanted popular feedback they would have been more obvious and explicit with their 'Contact Us' button. They did list a number of contact methods which implies interest but they could have spent a bit more effort in pointing out that they actually want folks to use them!

To me, the problem seems much bigger than we can influence or control. It will have to run its course, particularly with how tied we are to America's fortunes. What I see happening is just an attempt for politicians to pretend to have influence and show their concern. Then again, I've grown quite cynical over the years.

Our political, economic and business models have been ignoring changes in the world for a long time. Sooner or later factors had to catch up with us. Things need to shake out and adapt. At the start of the process it is difficult if not impossible to 'pick the winners'.

Back in the 70's, should we have offered a stimulus package to the Timex Watch Company? Or should we instead of given incentives to Litronix, the maker of light-emitting diode devices who invented a digital watch?

Sadly, the Canadian way seems to always be to prop up the horse and buggy industries. Here in Hamilton in the early 60's there was the Aerovox Capacitor company. They had made capacitors suitable for the old vacuum tube radios and televisions for some decades. The world was going transistor and the company desperately needed to modernize its products. So what happened? The Feds shoveled out a huge sum of money to move the factory lock, stock and barrel to Nova Scotia, in order to provide jobs in the Maritimes. The plant was rebuilt and a few years later it went bankrupt, as there were no longer any buyers for their old-style products.

We could easily do the same thing with Chrysler. The problem is that politicians respond best to pressures about how people will vote. This focuses them on short term goals like appearing to save jobs, even if only for a short time. The electorate is notoriously poor at understanding long term trends and so politicians tend to ignore such.

Another example of the old definition of the difference between a politician and a statesman, I guess.

Ok, it seems to me that you're right-of centre, from your comments. Correct me if I'm wrong. I want to capture comments from all points in the political spectrum.

I would summarize your comments as such:

1. The 'contact us' doesn't seem prominent enough to encourage feedback.

2. You're not convinced that a stimulus package is a positive thing in the first place.

Given that the Conservative government is going ahead with it, though, is there anything that you would like to see on the site that would help you decide if it was in fact working or not ? Maybe a detailed list of where the money is going, and how much is being paid out to contracted employees, government employees, third party firms ?

Maybe a list of industries that are being helped or actual company names ? Also, the rationale behind helping each one ?

These are my suggestions only, let me know your thoughts.

[neutralguy]

There are a lot of armchair politicians here, that's why you guys should join my game. Let's see your talk in action

[Michael Hardner]

What game is that ?

[neutralguy]

What game is that ?

In my sig there. You can check it out.

I've set up a cool and realistic system.

I'm always curious to see what people would do if they actually had a shot at making policy (and would they be able to work with other people, communicate, lead) or would we end up exactly like what we blame other politicians for?

[Wild Bill]

Ok, it seems to me that you're right-of centre, from your comments. Correct me if I'm wrong. I want to capture comments from all points in the political spectrum.

I would summarize your comments as such:

1. The 'contact us' doesn't seem prominent enough to encourage feedback.

2. You're not convinced that a stimulus package is a positive thing in the first place.

Given that the Conservative government is going ahead with it, though, is there anything that you would like to see on the site that would help you decide if it was in fact working or not ? Maybe a detailed list of where the money is going, and how much is being paid out to contracted employees, government employees, third party firms ?

Maybe a list of industries that are being helped or actual company names ? Also, the rationale behind helping each one ?

These are my suggestions only, let me know your thoughts.

Ok, here's a start! First off, if I'm right of centre perhaps it's bacause everyone else moved the line!

Anyhow, I noticed that if you click on 'Progress Achieved to Date' you get info on the progress of IMPLEMENTING the stimulus package! I don't think that's most important. It would be more positive if we could see a list of companies that were dying that turned things around and began to not only survive but to thrive!

The purpose of this stimulus plan is to save our businesses, jobs and the economy, is it not? Who cares about the progress of the government in implementing their plan? All Canadians know that anything done by the government moves slowly and inefficiently. That is a given no matter who is in power. We accept that. What's far more important is to know if it's working!

We can judge that by success stories. We know that there have been and will be massive job losses. If throwing money at the problem is doing any good then we should see accounts of companies that came out of receivership and perhaps began to recall workers.

Even better, how about a list of NEW companies that opened up, perhaps because of money or credit being attributed to the government's stimulus action?

More simply, how about hearing about successes? We know there are failures. That's the unfortunate thing about depressions. We also know you can't save every job and every company. What CAN be done is to help the business climate so that companies trying to adapt can survive and that companies trying to offer new products or services can get started, hopefully without getting blown out of the water by the Chinese!

I'd like to know if the plan is helping. I really don't care to get reports that tell of the Government being all 'busy'. Movement for the sake of movement isn't productive. Just because we see a picture of Duceppe with a net over his head doesn't mean we've saved the cheese industry.

[benny]

Here in a nutshell why I think a new party should be welcomed: what is precious about democracy is the specific way is has to empty the place of the head of state. All the political parties we have seem traumatised by this emptiness. We need a new party that will be able to soothe this trauma. The person I see as leader of this new party would be much like the frail Muhammad Ali that was carrying the Olympic flame in Atlanta, in 1996.

[Oleg Bach]

Here in a nutshell why I think a new party should be welcomed: what is precious about democracy is the specific way is has to empty the place of the head of state. All the political parties we have seem traumatised by this emptiness. We need a new party that will be able to soothe this trauma. The person I see as leader of this new party would be much like the frail Muhammad Ali that was carrying the Olympic flame in Atlanta, in 1996.

Perfect - Ali could barely speak.

[Michael Hardner]

Anyhow, I noticed that if you click on 'Progress Achieved to Date' you get info on the progress of IMPLEMENTING the stimulus package! I don't think that's most important. It would be more positive if we could see a list of companies that were dying that turned things around and began to not only survive but to thrive!

The purpose of this stimulus plan is to save our businesses, jobs and the economy, is it not? Who cares about the progress of the government in implementing their plan? All Canadians know that anything done by the government moves slowly and inefficiently. That is a given no matter who is in power. We accept that. What's far more important is to know if it's working!

We can judge that by success stories. We know that there have been and will be massive job losses. If throwing money at the problem is doing any good then we should see accounts of companies that came out of receivership and perhaps began to recall workers.

Even better, how about a list of NEW companies that opened up, perhaps because of money or credit being attributed to the government's stimulus action?

More simply, how about hearing about successes? We know there are failures. That's the unfortunate thing about depressions. We also know you can't save every job and every company. What CAN be done is to help the business climate so that companies trying to adapt can survive and that companies trying to offer new products or services can get started, hopefully without getting blown out of the water by the Chinese!

I'd like to know if the plan is helping. I really don't care to get reports that tell of the Government being all 'busy'. Movement for the sake of movement isn't productive. Just because we see a picture of Duceppe with a net over his head doesn't mean we've saved the cheese industry.

WB,

Excellent - so a list of companies (old and new) that received money, and ongoing links to how they're doing.

Sounds so simple, yet they didn't do it first time around.

[Wild Bill]

WB,

Excellent - so a list of companies (old and new) that received money, and ongoing links to how they're doing.

Sounds so simple, yet they didn't do it first time around.

Actually, a company doesn't have to have directly received money to be considered a success example. If it can be said that the stimulus made credit more easily available, or perhaps saved not that specific company but rather some of its major customers that also is a credit to the stimulus plan.

[benny]

Perfect - Ali could barely speak.

You know that when confronted to Emperor’s New Clothes, we only need someone who can articulate: 'But he hasn't got anything on.'

[CAMP]

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?

[CAMP]

Generally from the posts on here I have met most of this criticism before. Criticism is good, not complaining.

CAMP is a straight forward method of creating change in how our system operates with out dismantling it.

Rather we would work with in it. Online voting as well as proportional representation will cause a more democratic result on any issue being put through the house. In fact we would also be taking the oppositions riding’s results and blending them in with our riding results on any polling to give a democratic answer.

This party is set up to deal with the issues that Canadians actually want our country to deal with and also Canadians want input into. It eliminates partisan politics, which some here seem to relish living in or putting up with. Polling the public via the internet and phone in is a direct feed back method to insure that the public can push the government in the direction it desires.

This party has a primary goal of improving Canada in an on going fashion. The 5 issue cycle would have a time frame that would allow public input, polling, and then democratic results.

Notice also that the policies are clear (see policy #3 in CAMP POLICY page) about not forming a coalition with any party that does not up hold the constitution in a minority government. I'm really surprised no one commented on that one. I get the vague platform criticism often yet our platform would be dynamic. First we would establish the static portion initially such as Electronic voting using both phone in and computer, and then proportional representation. Education of our youth and any one else would also be established. After that the dynamic portion kicks in, just think about this for a moment. How many issues could be dealt with and cleared up in a 4 year mandate? I see a lot more items addressed than any other party who usually only deals with their few platform promises that in many cases don't even get implemented. (Campaign lies).

In essence our platform is ever changing as to the will of the people and dealt with democratically.

No more elite group of a few men doing their bidding with in their partisan power struggles that tend to cripple Canada and will continue to more into the future.

Change is good. And good change is even better.

[Michael Hardner]

I get the vague platform criticism often yet our platform would be dynamic. First we would establish the static portion initially such as Electronic voting using both phone in and computer, and then proportional representation. Education of our youth and any one else would also be established.

CAMP - it's still vague. "And then proportional representation" ... just like that you write it without explanation of who, how, when, where etc.

Also you say education "...would be established." By whom ? When ? How ? Here's a hint, don't use the passive voice when writing these things.

I think CAMP would accomplish more as a political action group rather than as a party. How many people are in CAMP now ?