Jump to content

Bridge in Troubled Waters


Scallywag

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Scallywag said:

Politics is global. Political power is global. I don’t see how creating a less significant subset of this country will help solve any problem. Canadians, for the most part, are not using the political power we have. No solution to any problem we have now will come from continuing to do what we have been doing or emulating it with a new identity or party.

We may have to get actively involved, even if it means socializing (as in person) for a few hours every month. 

Canada has no political power globally, our closest allies mock us regularly and publicly, our reputation has been tarnished for the last 30 years. Canadians are tired of the same bullshit rinse and repeat politics, with no real leader in sight for any of the parties really. So i think most Canadian's have stopped caring, stopped voting altogether, we all have an opinion, but we are not willing to change anything, it's because we are lazy, we think that nothing is going to change. We have given up. I think it is time for a new political party to emerge, one that could unite the country. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, myata said:

As a practical way of effecting meaningful change the existing system is very much useless. It cannot change and it admitted it time and over again, "such a can of worms" and "not to be touched with a stick".

The first step is to understand and admit it. The next can be, as the system cannot be changed by itself, to guide it into controlled crisis where it will have no choice but to change. The "Equitability Act" can be one such project - it is easy to understand for the general population, impossible to deny rationally and if implemented, will make the system work not only for itself but for the citizens as well, or at least not to reward itself at their expense. Of course we would have to look very carefully for the loopholes in the boring longreads that it expertly creates (results for the citizens, solving real problems of the society entirely different matter that can wait a few decades of automatic annual raises).

I'd be interested in reading more about this Equitability act is there a source i could go to ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

We have given up. I think it is time for a new political party to emerge

What are the benefits of parties in a time when everyone can be in touch with everyone else in seconds? Why do we need highly-paid information couriers bringing the latest from Ottawa? Why do we need small groups of people making big decisions for us? We use the Internet for everything from banking to presenting images of ourselves in every conceivable situation, why not parliament? If millions of Canadians can make political decisions resulting in the election of 338 MPs, surely those few folks could make open and honest decisions after consulting with their constituents. The only protection required would be for reactionary government and that wouldn’t have to cost as much as bureaucracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Scallywag said:

What are the benefits of parties in a time when everyone can be in touch with everyone else in seconds? Why do we need highly-paid information couriers bringing the latest from Ottawa? Why do we need small groups of people making big decisions for us? We use the Internet for everything from banking to presenting images of ourselves in every conceivable situation, why not parliament? If millions of Canadians can make political decisions resulting in the election of 338 MPs, surely those few folks could make open and honest decisions after consulting with their constituents. The only protection required would be for reactionary government and that wouldn’t have to cost as much as bureaucracy.

Sounds good on paper, and i do some how like the idea of having citizens vote for certain things. but there is a lot of fatal flaws in this idea, 

1. Do you think that the average joe would be educated enough to make a intelligent decision on most topics that effect us at a national level. Like trade, economics, foreign relations. Shit for the most part we can not get a consensus here on this forum, imagine millions of opinions. 

2. What makes you think that the average joe is not going to put his own interest first rather than the nations. Who is going to make those tough but needed decisions ? 

3. Who is going to be bringing up all these new ideas for Canadians to vote on, who is going to vet them , 39 million people means 39 million opinions, who is going to message those ideas so they are acceptable to all sides. sounds like we are going to be stuck in front of our computers for a long time.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Scallywag said:

1. What are the benefits of parties in a time when everyone can be in touch with everyone else in seconds?
2. Why do we need highly-paid information couriers bringing the latest from Ottawa? Why do we need small groups of people making big decisions for us? We use the Internet for everything from banking to presenting images of ourselves in every conceivable situation, why not parliament?
3. If millions of Canadians can make political decisions resulting in the election of 338 MPs, surely those few folks could make open and honest decisions after consulting with their constituents. The only protection required would be for reactionary government and that wouldn’t have to cost as much as bureaucracy.

1. Moderating a true public discussion would take an organizational change and culture change.
2.The benefits are obvious to me, and I'm sure the costs in terms of exposure and changing hwo they work are terrifying to them.
3. I think that you would have expediency issues as well as uncertainty of overall policy if you had to check in a lot, not to speak of overhauling the whole parliamentary process

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The country needs meaningful change but as far as I can tell, it's not regional differences that are driving the crisis. They were always there and will be, look at BC and Alberta with pipelines.

No, the problem is of management of public wealth and affairs, specifically, that the function that was supposed and expected to perform it has grown detached and isolated from the society managing its own affairs at society's expense rather than solving its problems and producing innovation and improvements benefiting all citizens. Lack of accountability and controls, generally incentives and stimuli to perform and adapt does that naturally and rather quickly. The state of the society with respect to a number of essential functions is not great and under the status quo, will deteriorate further.

And so the confederation is in a strong, soon critical and urgent need of an essential democratic renewal. The problem is that the system was never intended to adapt and reinvent itself and the population has no experience of conscious construction of democracy, and does not seem to be very interested anyways. And this is a difficult challenge. Not that there are no directions or ideas of renewal but the agent, engine of change appears to be absent. And that is a troubling similarity with a number of failing societies in the world. Other than hoping that coasting on a train built 160 years ago would work forever, somehow, what would be our options?

Fortunately, we don't need to decide would it be some new Internet democracy in some unknown future or some mechanism to ensure independence of "representatives", let's have both! Let's have Real Equitability now, as a first step and then go on to refurbish and renew the system. That or eternal coasting, and are there any other options?

Edited by myata
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Scallywag said:

Politics is global. Political power is global. I don’t see how creating a less significant subset of this country will help solve any problem.

Canadians, for the most part, are not using the political power we have. No solution to any problem we have now will come from continuing to do what we have been doing or emulating it with a new identity or party.

If projecting political power is of any interest to us at all then why is our national news media propping up our dumb, deceitful, bigoted, misogynous, corrupt, terrorist-sympathizing, demagogue PM?

Why are you unconcerned about his reign of awfulness?

Quote

We may have to get actively involved, even if it means socializing (as in person) for a few hours every month. 

1. There's no sense in socializing if we're not in tune with the message that people need to hear about politics in this country.

2. The world would be further ahead if there were 2 Canadas and one of them wasn't a worthless, alt-left shithole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Sounds good on paper, and i do some how like the idea of having citizens vote for certain things. but there is a lot of fatal flaws in this idea,

1. I think those who have shown no interest in any important issue can be depended on to continue pursuing their disinterest. I also think there are a lot of highly-informed, highly-intelligent Canadians who are interested...they’re not all MPs.

2. If everyone puts their own interest first that would create the national interest. There is no sense for someone in Calgary trying to choose the best option for someone in Montreal.

Isn’t that the same initiative that drives people’s votes for party candidates? The only difference I see there is the poetry of party politics versus the prose of reality.

Tough decisions like helicopters?

3. It would seem more equitable if all Canadians presented new ideas, not just the same families that have been presenting all the ideas all along. Thirty-nine million people usually boils down to three countable opinions in politics: yeas, nays and abstentions. It’s really just a matter of how we get there.

What sides? There are options, individuals and communities. We have become too reliant on information of unknown or little known sources. We just need to think for ourselves and give others the same respect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not going to be easy at all, as in addition to Canadians traditional apathy the ruling caste in the country has developed unique expertise in in distraction and division tactics, be it regional differences, circus question hour performances, "progressive agendas", media propaganda and so on, anything, other than delivering measurable factual results. When will the healthcare be "fixed for generation"? Hasn't it been a generation already?

Any one of those issues can get society mired in fruitless discussions forever or very near rather than asking simple questions: who's benefiting from the status quo, and how the country can be made to work for the citizens?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

overhauling the whole parliamentary process

If an independent MP kept in touch with the riding (something of an obligation?) why would it be any more time consuming than it should be presently? (Is the time saving in the party specifying how to vote and therefore not having to bother with the riding at all?) Is there a quicker, more cost effective way to allay Canadians concerns about proper representation than overhauling the whole parliamentary process?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Scallywag said:

1. If an independent MP kept in touch with the riding (something of an obligation?) why would it be any more time consuming than it should be presently?

2. (Is the time saving in the party specifying how to vote and therefore not having to bother with the riding at all?)

3. Is there a quicker, more cost effective way to allay Canadians concerns about proper representation than overhauling the whole parliamentary process?

1. Sorry, I jumbled my thoughts.  MPs keeping in touch with the riding would take more time, though, because I'm pretty sure they barely do that now and not on the full spectrum of possible policies.  

But my comment is that overhauling policy is problematic: a prohibitively complex process.

2. That sounds right.  

3. Checking in is more effective, and maybe more cost effective.  But you probably want to phase this idea in.  Start with something easy: MPs set up local forums to discuss issues, STRONGLY moderated with only verified citizens of voting age allowed to participate.  

Start with that, it's already a revolutionary idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Scallywag said:

Is there a quicker, more cost effective way to allay Canadians concerns about proper representation than overhauling the whole parliamentary process?

The system in place now was never intended as a democratic process in essence rather than just name, that includes transparency and responsibility of the authority to the citizens. Rather as a veil and not a very convincing one at that out of laziness mostly, like why bother? of the elites and interests that rule the country, essentially and as a primary objective in own interests, but sure Canadians can get crumbs sometimes. Just think what question, point, agenda can citizens set and implement now, not in a few decades perspective? There's none. Parties appoint candidates candidates push buttons as the party tells them and where are the citizens in this picture, only a distraction.

It doesn't appear to me there's an easy or obvious way out this conundrum but we only have to see, few other options. I would be curious to see how we will meet the bicentennial in what shape. Would public healthcare still be with us, what the tuition will be in annual UBIs and such or maybe they'll finally invent the eternal energy or bottomless well.

Edited by myata
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think technology and fast data inputs and collection will eventually make democracy more direct.   The current MLA’s will probably resist this because it will mean less power in their hands and more to the people.  However, the argument for having a Senate has always been that you need a branch of government that represents the tried and true successful people.   The judiciary branch plays this role with regard to constitutionality.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Canada’s democracy, though strong enough as it stands, has become too subject to new radical special interests.  Enslavement of the middle by the margins.

I mostly blame the federal Liberals for this.  They are de facto NDP policy-wise.   They stole and maintained the pre-Singh NDP platform, went left of them in fact in order to secure a majority.  Even in a minority situation they will keep the NDP onside by largely implementing their platform.  

Edited by Zeitgeist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

1.Canada’s democracy, though strong enough as it stands, has become too subject to new radical special interests.  Enslavement of the middle by the margins.

2.I mostly blame the federal Liberals for this.  They are de facto NDP policy-wise.  

3.Even in a minority situation they will keep the NDP onside by largely implementing their platform.  

1. Like business ?
2. The NDP would outright legislate green policy, would raise taxes much higher etc.
3. The NDP would also put in proportional representation 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Scallywag said:

1. I think those who have shown no interest in any important issue can be depended on to continue pursuing their disinterest. I also think there are a lot of highly-informed, highly-intelligent Canadians who are interested...they’re not all MPs.

2. If everyone puts their own interest first that would create the national interest. There is no sense for someone in Calgary trying to choose the best option for someone in Montreal.

Isn’t that the same initiative that drives people’s votes for party candidates? The only difference I see there is the poetry of party politics versus the prose of reality.

Tough decisions like helicopters?

3. It would seem more equitable if all Canadians presented new ideas, not just the same families that have been presenting all the ideas all along. Thirty-nine million people usually boils down to three countable opinions in politics: yeas, nays and abstentions. It’s really just a matter of how we get there.

What sides? There are options, individuals and communities. We have become too reliant on information of unknown or little known sources. We just need to think for ourselves and give others the same respect.

1. Sure there is, but the key here is what constitutes a lot, 10 %, 20%, 30 % of the population, and while a lot of people are interested in politics like this crowd on this forum do you think they all are highly intelligent, highly informed Canadians that could make informed decisions on how to run and what is best for the nation.

2. But thats what it is going to come to, right, everyone votes, every vote counts, so the large population centers are going to dictate policies for the rest of Canada. Rural Canada will just have to suck it... 

Your system still has winners and losers', force to live by the majority rules concept, and again you have changed the elites in Canada for the masses of Canada, where all the big cities will be well off, and rural Canada will just be in the way, until; it comes down to eating, driving their cars, etc...

Like helicopters  ? i don't like politicians picking equipment to purchase, and i really don't want regular citizens picking it out either. Once again here is where personal interest rules the roust, and cancels out what is best for the nation. Not just military equipment, but ships for the Coast Guard, or what is best for first nations, the list goes on... one of the main reasons these have not gained traction unless it is an election year, is nobody cares...  Someone has to make those choices that may not be popular with the public, but better for the nation who is going to do that, and what is it going to look like?  

3. I agree there is always more than one way to skin a cat, however in opening this all up to everyone your going to get 39 millions different choices and getting to the best ones is going to take a shit ton of votes, just to get the most popular one...Like i said all we will be doing is voting.

You know what sides the left and the right, and some where in the middle, like today every idea that comes in contact with the government gets watered down because of compromise of these sides. sometimes to the point where the original idea is no longer there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Like business ?
2. The NDP would outright legislate green policy, would raise taxes much higher etc.
3. The NDP would also put in proportional representation 

We have legislated green policy.  Not sure the NDP would follow through on proportional representation.  Too few people care enough about it.  The Libs have hiked taxes, and my guess is more hikes will come soon after they’re re-elected.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

the best ones is going to take a shit ton of votes

There would only be 338 votes, the MP for each riding would be the decision maker, not the party powerful. How the MP arrives at the decision is up to the electorate. The difference being, that politician would have to please the constituents rather than the party. Apathy, a very powerful force, would still be a major player but there would be a greater reason not to employ it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

But you probably want to phase this idea in.

As electing independents has always been an option the electorate can change parliament without asking for the parties’ blessing. At any time any group in any riding can select and elect a candidate who will vote according to their wishes. Any riding could change before the next election. Collectively, the electorate would ensure it would be a slow process. The argument has been an independent has no voice in parliament. Thanks to whips and party structure it is the opposite. Independents can vote as they wish, party candidates generally have to answer to the party powerful. They vote as a very small group, generally in the Liberal party, want them to vote. The results of that are very obvious and not satisfactory to a growing number of Canadians.

Ridings feeling they don’t get proper or adequate attention could garner more by sending independents to parliament. Just a couple of mavericks in a riding could get the ball rolling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Scallywag said:

There would only be 338 votes, the MP for each riding would be the decision maker, not the party powerful. How the MP arrives at the decision is up to the electorate. The difference being, that politician would have to please the constituents rather than the party. Apathy, a very powerful force, would still be a major player but there would be a greater reason not to employ it.  

Ok I'm starting to get the picture, So all parties would be dissolved, each riding would elect an MP. Who would be competing with x amount of other MPs to solve his local problems.. Ok so what else is dissolved positions like PM, or ministers and how does that work, choosing who gets what department... Or are Civil Servants running each department. I mean someone has to run things on a national level right?  what about provincial level ? And how much power or influence does each level have to influence how MP's vote...It would be very beneficial to have MP's from one province promote the welfare of their province would it not? Putting the power into the provinces leaders hands

.... NFLD with 7 seats recently got 5.3 bil for muskrat falls project, Quebec who really disliked that decision has 78 seats do you still think NFLD would have received that funding ? Maybe we would have to redraw the electorates, so each province region held the same power or influence...leveling the playing field...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

So all parties would be dissolved

Nothing gets dissolved, ridings electing independents would simply have their voice heard instead of having it replaced by that of a party. If enough independents were elected, parties would be less likely to get a majority and they would have to start listening to MPs serving their ridings directly. If the parties remain obstinate and dictatorial they may well end up in the bin, it would be their choice. If there were enough independents to instigate change, they would represent their constituents’ best interest in contributing to that change. That goes with creating an independent future.

I don’t understand why MPs would be competing over local issues, each riding would still only have one MP. Provinces would continue to do what provinces do.

Redrawing the maps may be one of those rare cases in which the objectivity of raw data might trump the subjectivity of people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps I'm missing a huge point here, If the independents become the majority in government , who becomes PM, Ministers, speaker of the house...as an independent you could never form government you represent one riding , your one man or women so you do everything yourself ? Or they will never become the majority, they would be regulated to the back benches and rarely be heard.. Kind of defeats the reason of going that route of becoming an independent..

Every issue would have to be voted on, 338 members , 338 votes, a political party member could take advantage of numbers as they have more than one member to get stuff passed... an independent can only count on their one vote, and would have to sell each of his local ideas to the other members... It is a long shot at best.

Am i the only one that does not see this as a working model, with out some major changes to how we do business. or have a missed a huge piece of the puzzle?

How could you not redraw the map, like i said do you think that NFLD would have got it's 5.3 billion dollars in federal money , when it only holds 7 ridings, while Quebec has 78 votes and is pissed off now because they wanted the NFLD project to fail so they could corner the market on our power bills. SO say for example  how would one member of the muskrat falls region get this project funded with federal funds? while sitting as an independent. why would any party agree to anything you had to say, why would any other independents agree to support this project.  They are after all also competing for the same funding for projects of their own. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
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.

×
×
  • Create New...