Jump to content

Let's form a new liberal party!


Recommended Posts

Watching the Agenda and dunno to cry or laugh. So the latest election" results:

NDP: 31 seats, vote 1,098,something popular percent 27.something

Liberal: 8 seats, vote 1,100,some (some more), popular percent 27.some (some higher)

Questions? Do you have any questions? Did you want to say, wow! How is it possible? How could this make any sense?

No, wrong! Can't be any more wrong. Here's a cue from the wise talking head: let's merge them together to make a new liberal something party!

See, can't do anything about obvious, glaring nonsense. No, not possible. But we can talk about a new liberal party, sure that's gonna be fun!

And look what it will do to voter apathy. But even if it doesn't make any sense to vote" at least there are all the reasons to laugh or cry. Your choice, as always. Just wow.

But here's the thing. The apathy level is now at 40 something percent. Sure there will be panels and talking head well, talks and very certainly it won't change anything in the apathy, one bit. Because even to a random Joe or Jill in the street it couldn't be any more obvious that the problem is not with talks and panels - it's with an outdated to the grind, archaic system that does not and cannot reflect complexity of a modern society. Let's see what could be next - if the system cannot be changed, then I'm guessing, mandatory vote can - be imposed. Here, porridge or oats, dear. No, but you have to eat we insist.

Mandatory voting without real, meaningful choice only to keep a facade of democracy would erode it even further, whatever we still have.

Edited by myata
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Abstaining from voting is an acceptance of the outcome. Some people do not have the interest in governance. Why force someone who doesn't participate, to make a choice between people they don't know.

Abstaining can be a rejection of government. Some people have lost all faith and trust in it yet we still force them to submit to it. I think you're only pretending to know the nature of their interest.

I still get a laugh out of people who believe abstaining somehow negates the right to speak up against the government. For starters how would you even know someone who abstained from someone who didn't?

As for really forcing participation in our governance we should all be subject to being drafted to participate in Citizen's Assemblies.  Political parties should be regarded as being no different than a club and all things being equal political clubs that have the most members can probably count on having more club members drafted to Parliament than other clubs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Abstaining can be a rejection of government. Some people have lost all faith and trust in it yet we still force them to submit to it. I think you're only pretending to know the nature of their interest.

I still get a laugh out of people who believe abstaining somehow negates the right to speak up against the government. For starters how would you even know someone who abstained from someone who didn't?

You can formally reject your ballot.  Rejected ballots are counted.  Spoiled ballots aren't, well no different than if someone accidentally marks their ballot wrong.

If the government forced me to vote i would probably reject my ballot as an F U.

People always whine about the system when they don't get the result they want.  I mean mandatory voting, really?  Just take the loss and deal and stop telling other people what to do.

Edited by Moonlight Graham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Abstaining from voting is an acceptance of the outcome.

You have to be repeated again: voting without a choice, real, meaningful and free is not a free election, only a facade, imitation of democratic process. If you limit choices, the freedom is lost. The archaic, opaque behind closed curtains and doors system that is used to running itself putting up election shows once in a while is limiting them in so many ways that hiding it behind shows and democratic fanfare becomes ever more steep uphill task. Like you have to pretend harder and more earnest, fake and empty earnest. And still, it will crack. No, there's no avoiding it. The dinosaurs know.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whoa. What do you mean, no real choice? You have every right to nominate any candidate of your choice. How is that not free? If you don't like the choices available, run yourself. According to you, the pay is good. Go for it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you merge the NDP and the Grits, you go from 2 parties to three, none of which will have enough support to form a government. The reason for that is there are a lot of New Democrats who will never support a right wing party like the Liberals (right wing in their view.) There are a lot of Blue Liberals who will never join the NDP. So you go from 2 parties to three. You also have to ask what is in it for the grits? As long as the NDP is broke, they are hostage to the Liberals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

What do you mean, no real choice?

This is exactly what I mean. There are filters obstacles and barriers every step of the way resulting in an opaque self-absorbed system that does not need and abhors any meaningful change. I can't care less about face stickers glued to the facade as long as the essence doesn't change ever.

Edited by myata
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

We already have citizen assemblies. They are the legislatures and the House of Commons.

I know that, I'd rather fill them the way I said. The system we have lends itself to well to secrecy and mistrust which I believe is not only destroying our polity but our very world.

Edited by eyeball
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The nominating meeting is also a form of citizen assembly. You pick a candidate you think will do a good job. You build an oganization around that person and sell memberships to everyone your campaign organization knows who will be willing to support the candidate. On the night of the nominating meeting, your organization ensures absolutely every supporters comes to the meeting, membership card in hand, and you overwhelm the other candidates.

Then, you do the same thing for the election. Don't wait for the writ to be dropped. You canvass the riding, candidate knocks on every door in the riding so that every voter knows him/ her personally. On Election Day, your canvassers will have identified every voter on the voter's list as to whom they support. Your Election Day team contacts every supporter and ensures they vote. You make certain you can respond to any and every excuse not to vote. You have vetted reliable babysitters, drivers, etc. You have people working the phones. You get every supporter to the polls.

The day after the election, regardless of the result, you call the key people on your campaign and the other candidates and their key people and you all go out for beer, because, this is a sport and good sportsmanship is everything in a democracy. It does not matter whether you win or lose, it is how you play the game. You play hard and you play fair. 

But if you follow those steps, your candidate will have an excellent shot at winning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/9/2022 at 5:28 PM, myata said:

Watching the Agenda and dunno to cry or laugh. So the latest election" results:

NDP: 31 seats, vote 1,098,something popular percent 27.something

Liberal: 8 seats, vote 1,100,some (some more), popular percent 27.some (some higher)

Questions? Do you have any questions? Did you want to say, wow! How is it possible? How could this make any sense?

No, wrong! Can't be any more wrong. Here's a cue from the wise talking head: let's merge them together to make a new liberal something party!

See, can't do anything about obvious, glaring nonsense. No, not possible. But we can talk about a new liberal party, sure that's gonna be fun!

And look what it will do to voter apathy. But even if it doesn't make any sense to vote" at least there are all the reasons to laugh or cry. Your choice, as always. Just wow.

But here's the thing. The apathy level is now at 40 something percent. Sure there will be panels and talking head well, talks and very certainly it won't change anything in the apathy, one bit. Because even to a random Joe or Jill in the street it couldn't be any more obvious that the problem is not with talks and panels - it's with an outdated to the grind, archaic system that does not and cannot reflect complexity of a modern society. Let's see what could be next - if the system cannot be changed, then I'm guessing, mandatory vote can - be imposed. Here, porridge or oats, dear. No, but you have to eat we insist.

Mandatory voting without real, meaningful choice only to keep a facade of democracy would erode it even further, whatever we still have.

NO-NO-NO, no more liberal party's in Canada. We have four federal liberal political party's already in Canada. Another liberal party will make Canada even worse than what it is already. Geez, have you not had enough of liberal bullshit yet?  

But what Canada really needs is a real and true conservative party. Now that would work well for me. How about the PPC conservative party for instance? Works for me. 😇

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

The nominating meeting is also a form of citizen assembly. You pick a candidate

You come to the people and you say: let's make an important decision. However we will make it my way only, here it is, cumbersome, obscure, opaque, obstructive, counter to common sense (as in the example) archaic and no, you can't have anything else but my way. Now this is what you're saying and anyone is a grain of independent thinking can see it for what it is.

And by the way your "candidates" are just faces, stickers with no authority, they obey party central committee like voiceless slaves and paid outrageously out of public's pocket only for maintaining a facade of democracy, an illusion. And, party committee can always override the results of your meeting and you already know it, but saying it anyways.

Now, why would anyone who sees it for what it is play your game that is meaningless, hopelessly outdated and designed from the get go to always play into your hands? Nope, makes zero sense. And now you have to agree not because I said so or it's the only way but only because it's based on undeniable facts and logic.

Edited by myata
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would you select a candidate like that? If you are deciding on a party leader, put forward a candidate that will lead the party in the direction you desire. If your views coincide with the views of a majority of the party, your candidate will win. If you can't get the party to side with you, then you lose. That is democracy. However, if you just want to play a passive role and let others do all the work, you get what they want and you have no grounds for complaint. 

Good luck finding a candidate willing to work for nothing. You get what you pay for. Currently, the pay for an MP is about $44 and hour, less expenses not covered by the expense account. That is a major cut in pay for many of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway, on your proposal to merge the grits with the NDP, all that would accomplish is to split the vote on the left even more. As a tory, I'm fine with that, unless Poilievre gets to be CPC leader. In that case, Jagmeet can start measuring the curtains in Stornaway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Why would you select a candidate like that? If you are deciding on a party leader, put forward a candidate that will lead the party in the direction you desire.

And yet again, I'm not interested to play into your game. You made it, have it all to yourself. I hope it works for you, and I'll make sure whatever I choose works for me, not someone else. Fair is fair.

And no, it's not my proposal. It's one of the talking heads who know how to play into your endless game and are paid not small money for maintaining public's complacency about the status quo. Out of our pocket, of course. Has there been another party other than Liberals and Conservatives in power, ever?

There, whose hands it's playing into, always. Can't be any more obvious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, myata said:

Has there been another party other than Liberals and Conservatives in power, ever?

I was going to say the Harper government, since it came out of Reform that was the spawn of Social Credit, but okay, no, ther has never been another party in power ither than the grits and tories, thank God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

The nominating meeting is also a form of citizen assembly.

That's just an assembly of partisans holding a meeting for club members. Like I said above, all things being equal, like one's chances, you will see enough club members being drafted to ensure your club's views will find expression within the larger assembly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
58 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

the grits and tories, thank God

Well, as said it works for them and why change anything? And by the way Harper won the election with CPC that reads: Conservative Party of Canada, no need for condescending okays.

 

Edited by myata
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, eyeball said:

That's just an assembly of partisans holding a meeting for club members

It may not be some historic funny that makes the process so obscure and cumbersome. On the second century it can very well be intentional, because there are little screws, tweaks and gauges to guide it to successful (thank God, no less) conclusion all the way. But of course, it's us the populace who chose to be complacent and accept whatever is given. No surprises there. We get only what we accept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Good luck finding a candidate willing to work for nothing. You get what you pay for. Currently, the pay for an MP is about $44 and hour, less expenses not covered by the expense account. That is a major cut in pay for many of them.

That would also be a major increase in pay for an average Canadian drafted to serve as a lawmaker.  Most of these would also be able to benefit from the experience in terms of their future resumes and prospects stemming from their experience. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, eyeball said:

an average Canadian drafted to serve as a lawmaker.

Wouldn't that be like an anathema, insurrection? With all the hard work that went over decades into crafting this neat and juicy never changing eternal or almost trough letting an average Joe and Jill dip in to it? And pensions, too?! How fair would that be? A resounding no from your NDP!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, eyeball said:

That would also be a major increase in pay for an average Canadian drafted to serve as a lawmaker.  Most of these would also be able to benefit from the experience in terms of their future resumes and prospects stemming from their experience. 

How many people do you know who have the blend of legal expertise, the aptitude for governing and the personal financial resourses to put their career and family life on hold for 4 - 8 years, supporting two residences and willing to put in the time. All that if you are drafted. If you are not selected, you are out thousand of dollars it cost you to go through the selection process. Also, who is going to be on the selection committee. How will you stop the lawmakers from increasing their salaries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On the public dime and rarely modest at that. Please tell us more fairy tales about $17 juices and the heavy burden of governance for the sake of the little ones down below, barely distinguishable. With laws coming back to where started in two of decades (of hard work), but you're on the hook for three generations of parliamentary pensions not to mention obscene compensations. Do tell us more though. At least, it's a good funny joke well needed these days.

Edited by myata
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.
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.

×
×
  • Create New...