Politics: Perhaps we need to thoroughly re-examine our political system

1 to 30 of 41

- CommentAuthorGBP-Keith
- CommentTimeMar 22nd 2010
What a mucky, murky old political system we seem to be stuck with. Time for it to be phased out I think.

I have a few suggestions for a quick reform:

* Elders only (over 50 yrs old).

* No lobbying by business allowed (even green businesses).

* Only people with a humanitarian history allowed (with an elders only system this should be easy to gain evidence of)

* No political parties, just people.

Any other ideas out there?
- CommentAuthorGotanewlife
- CommentTimeMar 22nd 2010
Sure - let's celebrate what we've (you've) got - I live in Italy, 'joke' doesn't even come close, 'abysmal obscenity' could maybe considered an understatement. Funny thing though, aren't they, by and large, the same system....

So its the delivery that counts, and its the same story the world over. So my vote is for celebration. Apologies for not being radical.
- CommentAuthorSteamyTea
- CommentTimeMar 22nd 2010
"We have the best form of democracy in the world, apart from everyone else's"

"People get what we deserve"
- CommentAuthorTuna
- CommentTimeMar 22nd 2010
Posted By: GBP-Keith* No lobbying by business allowed (even green businesses).

No lobbying full stop. Charities and religions can be just as evil as businesses.

Age does not confer compassion or sense, so I can't understand the value in your over 50's restriction

Anyone who actively wants to be a politician should immediately be barred.

Career politicians are a terrible breed - I'd far rather see politicians who are successful businessmen, engineers, architects, teachers, doctors.. anything that gave them some working knowledge of the society they're meant to be working for.

Worse still at present are the media, who're scrabbling for profit at any cost. Their reporting of the issues that face this country is abysmal - next to no technical understanding, no moral consistency and a preference for sales grabbing headlines over useful analysis.
- CommentAuthorSteamyTea
- CommentTimeMar 22nd 2010
Tuna

There is another way, just make the journalist the politicians and bring back public stoning. Could put some spin on it and call it 'accountability'.

I lost faith in our political system as soon as I realised that it is possible to have a government voted in by a minority of voters. Also lost faith in PR, remember West Germany in the 80's, blackmailed constantly by the minorities.
Seems to me that it is now worse since 'New Labour' just carried on with the Torie's policies, now the Lib Dems are doing the same. At least with Thatcher vs Kinnock there was a large difference.

Since the Tories came in in 1979, and some changes happened there has been virtually no major shifts in political philosophies that I can see. This probably accounts for voter apathy.
- CommentAuthorStuartB
- CommentTimeMar 23rd 2010
GBP-Keith for PM!
- CommentAuthorowlman
- CommentTimeMar 23rd 2010
A decent London "barracks" where they could all stay for free when on duty. And NO outside jobs whilst a politician. Just 100% concentration on constituency and Parliament. If you're not happy with Â£65 grand, plus pension and expenses, and nice clubs and bars, go work elsewhere. That would get rid of the career politicians.
- CommentAuthoraa44
- CommentTimeMar 23rd 2010
Interesting idea about no political parties. Our local council here in Shetland has no political parties and it is no better than a "political" system. We currently have Audit Scotland crawling all over the council investigating numerous issues and the vast majority of our councillors are held in just as low a regard as MPs.
- CommentAuthorSigaldry
- CommentTimeMar 23rd 2010
"A decent London "barracks" where they could all stay for free when on duty. And NO outside jobs whilst a politician. Just 100% concentration on constituency and Parliament. If you're not happy with Â£65 grand, plus pension and expenses, and nice clubs and bars, go work elsewhere. That would get rid of the career politicians."

The Olympic Village once it's all over and has been retrofitted to include kitchens in apartments would be perfect for the job - no more second homes allowance - you just get the keys to the apartment when you become an MP and give them back when you leave under a cloud / are arrested / leave to 'spend more time with the family' having been caught 'at it' by the tabloids/ are voted out by a disillusioned electorate in the vain hope of getting someone worthwhile...
- CommentAuthorBrightgreen
- CommentTimeMar 23rd 2010
<blockquote><cite>Posted By: SteamyTea</cite>There is another way, just make the journalist the politicians and bring back public stoning. Could put some spin on it and call it 'accountability'.
</blockquote>
Ancient Rome had two leaders who had absolute power for a year and after that year, power over, were accountable for all their actions so could be sued or stoned or whatever. At the time I think that gave good governance!
- CommentAuthorfostertom
- CommentTimeMar 23rd 2010 edited
Posted By: SteamyTea"We have the best form of democracy in the world, apart from everyone else's"
One assumption that never gets questioned is that Democracy is the answer and that any failings are due to faulty implimentation - so it's 'more Democracy!'. Or the assumption is that Democracy, however imperfect, is better than 'the alternative', which lumps together Fascism, dictatorship, despotism, repression, war-lordism, domination by big business etc (which could be a fair description of western democracy in reality!), Communism, Anarchism ...

Why assume that Democracy is the ideal,(albeit unattainable in its full glory) and the only good alternative? Possibly the most interesting aspect of the Transition Towns movement is that part-and-parcel is a number of practices and ongoing experiments in community decision making:
a) ways to engage wide community interest in issues
b) ways to reach common, broad understanding of said issues, rather than sticking in your own little partial/adversarial viewpoint
c) ways to reach consensus agreement, much more than majority voting, which leaves winners and losers.

These ways come largely out of tradition/tribal practices, filtered of course through westernised 'alternative' value-systems. You might think therefore that these ways would have little power in the rough-tough wider world outside of such groups. All I can say is that it's an eye-opener as to what's possible - and plenty of people in that world come from angry/idealistic positions. It's amazing to experience the possibility that such entrenched attitudes can quieten down and actually get it, perhaps for the first time, that their opponents have formative experiences, feelings and beliefs that are as heartfelt as their own.

Previous utopias, such as Communism and even Anarchism (aka self-responsibility), have failed to tackle these matters - to invent 'governance' that leaves the power-hungry (who manipulate 'because they can') out in the cold. For example, in Aus Aboriginal culture, anyone who shows signs of bossiness, 'I know best', wanting to be in charge, gets laughed out immediately. The so-called Communist east wasn't ghastly because of communism, but because it left the field wide open for the usual power-grabbers to do their thing unchecked.

The Transition movement, as well as its social/technical focus, is also a new form of governance in the making, that goes beyond Democracy - about time too.
- CommentAuthorTuna
- CommentTimeMar 23rd 2010
Posted By: fostertomThe Transition movement, as well as its social/technical focus, is also a new form of governance in the making, that goes beyond Democracy - about time too.

That's a bold claim - how are consensus agreement and broad understanding of issues outside it's tight remit achieved, such that democracy is not needed? The impression I got was that Transition movement acts as a kind of Triage state, where the pressing need to address certain specific issues outweighs other social considerations.
- CommentAuthorSteamyTea
- CommentTimeMar 23rd 2010 edited
Posted By: fostertomAus Aboriginal

So if a member of their culture was right, and expressed his views forcefully, they were laughed at. Surely that's called bullying, it can be collective bullying. Hardly moves a society forward does it.
- CommentAuthorBrightgreen
- CommentTimeMar 23rd 2010
Transition - change or passage from one state to another. There's an inbuilt contradiction, isn't there, in defining how, why and where Transition is moving, but I'm with you ,Tom, in that it holds a future:

</cite>a new form of governance in the making>

Triage - sorting according to priority. Usually, in my experience, it's the opposite - inability to act because of too many conflicting issues! (Or maybe that's just me personally!). I think the transition is the humanisation of living and regaining an input on issues important to one's and one's community's daily life.
- CommentAuthorfostertom
- CommentTimeMar 23rd 2010 edited
Posted By: TunaThe impression I got
Impression - is that from reading a magazine article, or participating, or what?

Posted By: Tunaunderstanding of issues outside it's tight remit
what's your implied meaning of 'tight'? - sounds demeaning. The point is, the Transition movement has the broadest remit (and tools under development), which older kinds of 'green issue' politics have struggled to expand into.

Posted By: Tunahow are consensus agreement and broad understanding of issues ... achieved
So re Q1 above - obviously not by 'participating', otherwise you'd have some idea

Posted By: Tuna... such that democracy is not needed
By democracy you're meaning what? majority voting, STV or whatever, on the assumption that full- or near-consensus agreement is but a naive dream? It's true, that seems naive in the western world, but other kinds of society have particular institutions to make it successful, and defendable against the inevitable power-grabbers.

Early Democracy, as in ancient Greece, was not unlike what the Transition movement is now rediscovering; likewise early Islamic governance (tho not called Democracy). What we now call Democracy is but a hideous caricature of the revered original that we invoke. Who really wants to defend it, and say there can be nothing better?
- CommentAuthorfostertom
- CommentTimeMar 23rd 2010
Posted By: SteamyTeaif a member of their culture was right, and expressed his views forcefully, they were laughed at
Didn't say that - I said
Posted By: fostertomanyone who shows signs of bossiness, 'I know best', wanting to be in charge, gets laughed out
Can you spot the difference?
- CommentAuthorSteamyTea
- CommentTimeMar 23rd 2010
Tom
Point was that often an individual does know best and feels that they should take control or you get a lowest common denominator society and they lead nowhere. By an individual taking control and showing leadership, society moves on. Now how that leader is chosen is really what is to be debated.
- CommentAuthorGBP-Keith
- CommentTimeMar 23rd 2010 edited
Is there any country in the world that runs an elders system of governance? I know that tribal groups do.

Also, the over 50s idea comes from my actually reaching 50 and finding that I have begun to lose a good deal (not all I'll add) of my 'strive to win' and 'drive'. Also, most all of people that have reached this age have a history. This could be examined, thoroughly, by the electorate and therefore we would not need to go by promises as we do now.

Young people, rightly so have a desire to achieve and this is badly placed in politics. Politicians should be head-hunted by the electorate I think. Tuna is right. Anyone that wants to be a politician should be passed over.
- CommentAuthorfostertom
- CommentTimeMar 23rd 2010 edited
Posted By: SteamyTeaoften an individual does know best and feels that they should take control or you get a lowest common denominator society
Why not set that individual the task of making his point in such a way that full- or near-consensus is achieved (in his favour - he hopes), otherwise forget it. That's different to gathering a group who agree with you and out-voting the others. And it's different to ceding 'control' to any individual, however frequently he has good ideas and gets consensus for same.

The point, specifically, is for society to change and 'move on', by consensus, without falling for the old trap of giving away individual and group power to a 'leader'. Surely that derogation of responsibility has worn a bit thin by now - Kennedy - Blair - Obama ...
- CommentAuthorSteamyTea
- CommentTimeMar 23rd 2010
I did jury service once, people are just randomly selected for that, I would not liked to have had them running the country and all but 3 of us where under 50 (all be it I have a year left to go).
Maybe it is not the fault of the politicians but more a case of us not understanding the system and how to influence decisions.

Think China may have an 'elder' government, but not sure I would want to be in it, even though most are engineers.
- CommentAuthorBrightgreen
- CommentTimeMar 23rd 2010
Anyone watch "Fanshen", talking of the Chinese experience. Brilliant film showing the emergence of community socialism from the grass roots upwards. Mao's missionaries were dispersed throughout the country and, in all the small communities, gathered groups together who then talked and talked about their situation. By talking and never preaching the same resolves sprang up everywhere and a huge groundswell understanding of how the new future should be formed arose. OK, things went crazy in the Cultural Revolution, later on, but the initial derivation by consensus of productive, collective action is a good exemplar for how society could now develop.
Forum's like this can do the same, of course, except they are the antithesis of local!
- CommentAuthorecohome
- CommentTimeMar 23rd 2010
How about just have women in the Cabinet ;)

Here are the results for Britain's favourite celebrity Prime Minister: (GMTV)

1. Simon Cowell (21%) [eek!]
2. Joanna Lumley (20%)
3. Trevor McDonald (17%)
4. Chris Moyles (9%)
= 5. Cheryl Cole (8%)
= 5. Russell Brand (8%)
6. Katie Price (7%)
7. Fern Britton (5%)
8. Will Young (4%)
9. Delia Smith (1%)

Actually I'd like us to only choose from people who are guaranteed to be intelligent & wise & compassionate - no idea how you would do that..... who was that wonderful actress who accidentally became prime minister on tv?
- CommentAuthorfostertom
- CommentTimeMar 23rd 2010 edited
Posted By: BrightgreenAnyone watch "Fanshen"
Looks interesting - I can find it as a book but not a film. Any clues?
- CommentAuthorBrightgreen
- CommentTimeMar 23rd 2010
OK, I tracked it to BFI:

http://ftvdb.bfi.org.uk/sift/title/204131?view=synopsis

But please, please tell me that it's not 35 years since I saw it. It can't be. OK, it could be but it seems much more recent. Next question is can it be dug up or would it be better to just read the book! Possibly the latter. Interesting to see it was a Davis Hare adaptation, too.
- CommentAuthorfostertom
- CommentTimeMar 23rd 2010
Thanks Brightgreen - I've passed the info to TTTotnes HQ - they have a call out for films of TT inspiration.
- CommentAuthorBrightgreen
- CommentTimeMar 23rd 2010
Hey, let me know if they put it on. Be a good excuse to visit Totnes!
- CommentAuthorfostertom
- CommentTimeMar 23rd 2010
Recently in Totnes http://transitionculture.org/2010/02/10/after-copenhagen-a-recent-transition-town-totnes-event/
- CommentAuthorTuna
- CommentTimeMar 24th 2010
Posted By: fostertomWhy not set that individual the task of making his point in such a way that full- or near-consensus is achieved (in his favour - he hopes), otherwise forget it.

I'm guessing you've never worked in a large company then. Given just about any problem, there will be two or more solutions - and achieving consensus is regularly near impossible. Look at the debate on Nuclear power in the green community, the classic 'big government v's small government' debate, synthetic v's natural materials in energy efficient homes. Or, to take further examples from this board, the discussions on zero point energy or vaccination.

Besides the fact that consensus is really not very likely in a large number of cases (and the answer 'so we do nothing' is not a way to run a functional society), the appetite for the public to absorb information on the vast number of issues presented to a government is limited. Consensus and understanding on provision of IT in healthcare, investment in esoteric research areas, funding of schools, choice of curriculum, planning policy, local services, suppliers for local works contracts... the list is endless, which is why we elect individuals at a range of levels to understand and make sensible decisions for us. Consensus and understanding at the parish council level is just about possible (on a good day), but move beyond that to issues that are complex and have no clear 'right' solution, and... well that's why we have more than one political party for a start - people can't agree.

Posted By: fostertomImpression - is that from reading a magazine article, or participating, or what?

Discussion on this and a number of other forums, the Transition movement websites and Transition Towns wiki. My impression of the 'tight' remit (not meant to be demeaning, just characterising the areas of interest that the movement appears to encompass), comes from the discussions being held on those sites and projects undertaken. I've not really found much to understand the movement's approach to healthcare, policing, education, the elderly...

I'm sorry for not participating, but don't think I'm atypical for doing so. Having been involved in a number of special interest groups like this in the past, I'm aware that within the group it's often easy to achieve consensus, because the group tends to tackle problems on which there is common ground based on the group's defining politic. Within a self selected set of individuals, the answers to the questions are rarely controversial. What the group is not doing, however, is addressing the 'non believers' or the downright disinterested or resolving the questions that are controversial or irrelevant to the group focus.

That's the problem that government is meant to address. It's no excuse for the mess that is our current political class, but it is a pretty intractable problem.
- CommentAuthorfostertom
- CommentTimeMar 24th 2010
Fair points Tuna, but you're putting a counsel of despair, and institutionalising a version of 'democracy' around it, that is a locked-in lowest common denominator, from which there can be no escape. Which is a pretty good description of the cynically low expectations, hence the miserable practise, of western democracy - which we have presumed to foist on other still-consensual tribal societies (as well as many despotic ones).

That unsatisfactory condition is what started Keith on this topic, which you initially reinforced, but now seem to be saying is inevitable, maybe even right and proper. Saying, even tongue-in-cheek
Posted By: TunaNo lobbying full stop ... Anyone who actively wants to be a politician should immediately be barred.
is just a toothless 'aspiration' which no-one's going to carry out, unless and until some alternative model of governance capable of self-installing itself is envisaged.

Well, I'm saying that the Transition movement carries just that seed/embryo within it. As it must, because it's not just about technical Transition to post-peak-oil, but about Transition to a comprehensively new kind of society, that peak-oil will cause and necessitate. In that respect, the Transition movement has infinitely wide remit, far more so than one-issue things like Greenpeace or even trad Green Parties entering mainstream politics.
- CommentAuthorStuartB
- CommentTimeMar 24th 2010
Posted By: owlmanA decent London "barracks" where they could all stay for free when on duty.

You have just created the most attractive terrorist target in the world. Or maybe that was intentional.

1 to 30 of 41



	Site Map \| Home \| View Cart \| Pressroom \| Business \| Links	Contact Us
Logout
© Green Building Press

Green Building Forum

Categories

Feeds

Politics: Perhaps we need to thoroughly re-examine our political system