Ideas for a new political party

[El Barto]

I have been putting this on the back burner for a while now. My excuse was I was looking for a decent sales pitch, that or basically lazy. The later maybe more true. I am not a salesman

I would like to see a party where it would actually listen and not go off on thier own re-election agenda as we usually see. Would like them to stop making expensive promises with our money ! I would also like to see more county representation instead of this sheepish follow what the leader says policy we are so accustom . To me it seems we vote and suffer with little or no say.

I would like to change the dynamics of the way things are done. The party in general would be an ideology in principle but uniting independant representatives where the power would be from the root up. Like the way a municiple government works , where the council members tell the mayor what to do. Add to this a civil input . Card carrying members at home or in meetings discuss what needs to be done and the elected rep brings it to the parlement.

The advantages i see with this is that a Rep cannot make promises that the party won't back up. Would also prevent dealings with out it's consent. Having meetings online things would be discussed and researched before . This would remove some power and put it in the hands of the citizens (party members) It will also create a hands on aproach where instead of being put to sleep by political ramblings the members would be more attuned . More creative and more serious then current party way of thinking. This would encourage people to get off thier collective a$$es and get involved.

I have been researching political history a bit and in those days we elected members to represent us and they were sent off to do that job. Due to transportation and communication many things happened between news reports. Today with are instant communictions I see this more feasable.

The way things are going Politics is so detached from it's citizens we are aliens to each other. We seem to think and they do to (politicians) that they are above it's citizens. They are supposed to be in our service , not self service as we get the impression that they are.

I would like to discuss how can this system can come to life. What would be the logical steps. Where are the hurdles, How do we get around them? I am realist enough to think there are holes in this Idea, nothing is perfect, but I believe that the persuit of this idea may wake up other things and how we see politics.

Who's game enough ?

 

[JLM]

Maybe it's just a matter of fine tuning one of the many dozens of parties that are already out there.

 

[ansutherland]

This is how I would make things better:

-Proportional representation is key.

-As someone on one of these forums pointed out, serious consequence to lying would be another implementation worth considering. If a politician knowingly deceives and is caught, perhaps he/she should face charges?

-I am possibly the only one here who thinks this, but I also see a need for enhancing the necessary threshold needed to attain the privilege of voting. I posit a voter licensing program that qualifies every citizens ability to not make half brained choices about who leads the country. I do not like to see my leaders lying to people, but I often give them no other choice. Making sure voters are better equipped to handle the responsibility of voting would lessen the need to lie.

-I think we need to do away with the idea of commoners representing commoners. I know everyone wants to "see themselves" in their leaders, but the world is a little too complicated these days to have lay people running the show. I just look at Wyclef Jean's effort to run for president of Haiti as an example. From time to time people will ask, "is he qualified?" The answer, NO!

-I also think it time that not only do we elect the smartest to run the country, but that we also make it mandatory for "experts" to hold key Ministerial positions. As an example, I saw today that John Baird has been assigned a new post. I think that makes it 3 positions he has occupied since the Conservatives took over, yet I am sure he is an expert on none of the areas in which he was responsible.......he was the Environment Minister for Christ sake, yet in the beginning was sceptical of Anthropogenic Global Warming!

I would also like to make a comment regarding the notion that things these days are so drastically different from how politicians were in times past. I do not think this to be true at all. Albeit the problems I think are more complex than ever, I think the people are the same, more or less. The only major difference that I would bet on is that they lie more today than before. This however is in some ways not their fault as we force them to do it. At one time when news travelled much slower than today, it was easy for a politician to make an unpopular decision without much of the country knowing anything about it. If they had known they would have been mad, but they never knew. This of course makes lying less necessary and makes passing legislation easier. Today though, the moment a politician conceives an idea, people are blindly complaining about it or blindly supporting it......and lying is a function of that propensity to just form an opinion without knowing a thing about why. HST is a good example of this. Our Premier promised no VAT, we breathed a sigh of relief. He gets elected; he changes his mind; we scream bloody murder. Would he have won the election if he told the truth, maybe not. Do the experts think that VAT is a good idea, yes they do. This shows a major disparity between the knowledge of those who “know” and those who “vote”.

 

[AnnaG]

I have been putting this on the back burner for a while now. My excuse was I was looking for a decent sales pitch, that or basically lazy. The later maybe more true. I am not a salesman

I would like to see a party where it would actually listen and not go off on thier own re-election agenda as we usually see. Would like them to stop making expensive promises with our money ! I would also like to see more county representation instead of this sheepish follow what the leader says policy we are so accustom . To me it seems we vote and suffer with little or no say.

I would like to change the dynamics of the way things are done. The party in general would be an ideology in principle but uniting independant representatives where the power would be from the root up. Like the way a municiple government works , where the council members tell the mayor what to do. Add to this a civil input . Card carrying members at home or in meetings discuss what needs to be done and the elected rep brings it to the parlement.

The advantages i see with this is that a Rep cannot make promises that the party won't back up. Would also prevent dealings with out it's consent. Having meetings online things would be discussed and researched before . This would remove some power and put it in the hands of the citizens (party members) It will also create a hands on aproach where instead of being put to sleep by political ramblings the members would be more attuned . More creative and more serious then current party way of thinking. This would encourage people to get off thier collective a$$es and get involved.

I have been researching political history a bit and in those days we elected members to represent us and they were sent off to do that job. Due to transportation and communication many things happened between news reports. Today with are instant communictions I see this more feasable.

The way things are going Politics is so detached from it's citizens we are aliens to each other. We seem to think and they do to (politicians) that they are above it's citizens. They are supposed to be in our service , not self service as we get the impression that they are.

I would like to discuss how can this system can come to life. What would be the logical steps. Where are the hurdles, How do we get around them? I am realist enough to think there are holes in this Idea, nothing is perfect, but I believe that the persuit of this idea may wake up other things and how we see politics.

Who's game enough ?

Party without agenda? Impossible.
With Canada's antiquated and imbalanced electoral system as it is right now, the best bet would be to ban parties altogether and have everyone be independent.

 

[El Barto]

Party without agenda? Impossible.
With Canada's antiquated and imbalanced electoral system as it is right now, the best bet would be to ban parties altogether and have everyone be independent.

Yup , thought of that too.

 

[AnnaG]

BTW, proportional rep is great if you have a small country with only one or two regions. Canada is huge and has several regions. Proportional rep means that the people in QC and ON have more say over things in Nunavut (or PEI, BC, prairies, etc.) than people in Nunavut do (for example). It's ridiculous.
The way to fix that would be to take power away from Ottawa and that ain't likely to happen anytime soon.

 

[Chiliagon]

what would you call it? the Black and Blue party? cause basically it'll get beat up in the polls and elections! hahaha

 

[MapleOne]

what would you call it? the Black and Blue party? cause basically it'll get beat up in the polls and elections! hahaha

The PPC party

People Party of Canada, devoted to the Citizens of Canada

Could we ever hope to have a true party without lobbied agendas?

We could only be so lucky

 

[Chiliagon]

could always call it the OPP party.. cause then at least you'd already have a song!

ya I'm an OPP "ya you know me!"

 

[ansutherland]

There are lots of countries using proportional representation that have as many or more regions than Canada, take the Netherlands for example. Besides, ON and QC already have more say than any other jurisdiction as the allocation of seats is currently based on population. To some extent, this is how it should be. Nunavut is part of Canada, so does it not belong to all Canadians to some extent. If that is the case, then Nunavut should have to cater to the needs of where the greatest number of people in Canada are......to some extent. If you do not believe this to be true, then Nunavut has no reason to remain part of Canada and should secede.

 

[petros]

Parties are the problem not the solution.

 

[AnnaG]

There are lots of countries using proportional representation that have as many or more regions than Canada, take the Netherlands for example.

The Netherlands? roflmao Cute. Are the regions in the Netherlands as widely varied as Canada's? No. The Netherlands is about 41, 500 square kilometers, Canada is almost 10,000,000. People in the north of the Netherlands are pretty similar to those in the south. Tell me the similarities between a PEI spud farmer and a Nunavut hunter, please. Or a prairies grain farmer and a Salish fisher. :tard:

Besides, ON and QC already have more say than any other jurisdiction as the allocation of seats is currently based on population. To some extent, this is how it should be. Nunavut is part of Canada, so does it not belong to all Canadians to some extent. If that is the case, then Nunavut should have to cater to the needs of where the greatest number of people in Canada are......to some extent. If you do not believe this to be true, then Nunavut has no reason to remain part of Canada and should secede.

So it's ok that the people of ON and QC have more say over Nunavut than the Innu. Oh, yeah, that sounds fair. :tard:

 

[JLM]

I strongly disagree- the Deputy Minister should be the brains. Politicians don't have brains but they make good "bean counters". I think the Minister's duties entail finding the right experts to ensure the program succeeds. You can have a Minister of Highways who knows everything there is to know about paving but that ain't going to get the road built.

 

[ansutherland]

The Netherlands? roflmao Cute. Are the regions in the Netherlands as widely varied as Canada's? No. The Netherlands is about 41, 500 square kilometers, Canada is almost 10,000,000. People in the north of the Netherlands are pretty similar to those in the south. Tell me the similarities between a PEI spud farmer and a Nunavut hunter, please. Or a prairies grain farmer and a Salish fisher. :tard: So it's ok that the people of ON and QC have more say over Nunavut than the Innu. Oh, yeah, that sounds fair. :tard:

Yes, I do think that ON and QC should have more say than Nunavut, and I think that most would agree that to make Nunavut equal with a territory as vast and economically powerful as ON or QC would be foolish. Nunavut contributes almost nothing to Canada and they should have equal say in how the country is run? I smell a commie ;-)

I strongly disagree- the Deputy Minister should be the brains. Politicians don't have brains but they make good "bean counters". I think the Minister's duties entail finding the right experts to ensure the program succeeds. You can have a Minister of Highways who knows everything there is to know about paving but that ain't going to get the road built.

When you have ministers that for political reasons will deny sound scientific consensus, then there is a major problem with how they will govern as they will be unable, by virtue of their ignorance or partisanship, to appoint the right people to get the job done.

 

[AnnaG]

Yes, I do think that ON and QC should have more say than Nunavut, and I think that most would agree that to make Nunavut equal with a territory as vast and economically powerful as ON or QC would be foolish. Nunavut contributes almost nothing to Canada and they should have equal say in how the country is run? I smell a commie ;-)

I don't really care if you pissed on your hand and picked your nose and that's what you smell.
Gawd. Did people get up and take a stupid pill today? You aren't following me.
Why should some accountant in Toronto have as much say about what goes on in Nunavut as a Nunavut resident?
Why should some lobster fisherman in NS have as much say as an AB rancher over as to what goes on in AB?

Get it yet?

As it is right now in Canada, people in PEI and Nunavut have more say per capita than anyone else in Canada. That's your proportional representation. It's f'd up.

 

[coldstream]

In 1993, i joined and was an organizer of the National Party of Canada in Toronto, which Mel Hurtig (publisher of the Canadian Encyclopedia) had started to oppose Free Trade and promote a truly Canadian option in elections, and reject the Global paradigm of economic liberalism and post nationalism that had gripped the world (and still has it in its claws), and was supported by all of the other established parties of that time.

It received a big boost when Bill Loewen, who made a fortune in payroll services, contributed $4MM to the campaign fund. It was supported by noted Canadian nationalists and intellectuals. Its economic platform was written by an emeritus University of Toronto professor, called for a replacement of the monetarist and trade policies that were impoverishing the country and destroying the productive potential of the Canadian people, with the National policies of industry, credit and currency that had built the nation.

We ran candidates in every riding, received over 250,000 votes, elected no one.. and everything quickly started to unravel. The Toronto chapter was taken over by the homosexual community, in a targeted attack to gain legitimacy and a political base for their cause, which completely alienated those who had joined to support traditionalist economic policies and morality.. those ideals on which the Confederation was founded.

About $2MM of Loewen's contribution disappeared under the supervision of the national treasurer, never investigated or prosecuted. Every misanthrope, New Age practitioner, mystic, down on their lucker, nut case, joined in droves to support some personal agenda.

The party fell apart in squabbling and factionalism, leaving all who had supported the original vision completely disillusioned. It's a cautionary tale to anyone who wants to start a new party.

 

[JLM]

Yes, I do think that ON and QC should have more say than Nunavut, and I think that most would agree that to make Nunavut equal with a territory as vast and economically powerful as ON or QC would be foolish. Nunavut contributes almost nothing to Canada and they should have equal say in how the country is run? I smell a commie ;-)



.

That is an elitest point of view if I ever saw one...............not to mention very short term thinking. The biggest province require more representation of course, but they don't necessarily deserve better representation. The people in Nunavut are just as much people as those in Ontario and Quebec and potentially probably able to supply more raw materials.

Whoa Annie- time for your afternoon nap. :lol: Nunavut has about 1/6 of the land mass of Canada and one representative in Ottawa out of 308. What did you propose they should be cut back to? :lol::lol::lol:

 

[MapleOne]

Personally, I think we should do away with the federal government completely and let every province run their own affairs. We should keep a common currency and Canadian affiliation. We would be a coalition of equals, because each province would get 1 vote in federal matters. Easy as pie to administer.

The country would be much better off if we eliminated part of our wasteful government. I find the biggest thing federal governments like to do is collect taxes and then give them away to foreign entities.

 

[El Barto]

So , no thoughts on the concept?

 

[AnnaG]

Whoa Annie- time for your afternoon nap. :lol: Nunavut has about 1/6 of the land mass of Canada and one representative in Ottawa out of 308. What did you propose they should be cut back to? :lol::lol::lol:

I'm not saying anyone should be excluded. What I am saying is that proportional representation is screwed in Canada. It isn't balanced in any way, shape, or form. Either federal decisions about the maritimes should involve ONLY the maritimes and people in Toronto have no say in it (unless the decisions affect them in some way). Federal decisions about BC forests should be up to the people of BC and not up to some accountant in Quebec City.
Or else the feds should leave provincial matters to the provinces and butt out.
Case in point, how the federal department of Fisheries and Oceans deals with the fisheries on the west coast should not necessarily affect the fisheries on the east coast and vice versa. They are two quite different ecologies, economies, etc.

As it sits, whatever the people in ON and QC decide is what goes whether any of the other provinces and territories like it or not. That kind of makes them second class citizens in comparison to ON and QC citizens.

Personally, I think we should do away with the federal government completely and let every province run their own affairs. We should keep a common currency and Canadian affiliation. We would be a coalition of equals, because each province would get 1 vote in federal matters. Easy as pie to administer.

The country would be much better off if we eliminated part of our wasteful government. I find the biggest thing federal governments like to do is collect taxes and then give them away to foreign entities.

That wouldn't work any better than this unproportional representation that we have now. Why? Because there would be 4 maritime provinces having 1/3 the pull in Canada. The prairies and Nunavut/NWT/Yukon would each get 1/4, ON/QC would get 1/6, and BC would get 1/12. So if the maritimes and say the prairies decided to have things their way regardless of anyone else's opinion, they would get their way.