I just happened upon this on Twitter. I thought people here might be interested, but I don't have time to think about it just now...
www.nothingabout.us/index.html
I just happened upon this on Twitter. I thought people here might be interested, but I don't have time to think about it just now...
www.nothingabout.us/index.html
Great idea, shame it's "Your Party", politically I'm left wing, but I cannot bring myself to vote for any party that has Corbyn in any leadership role and I'm dubious about Sultana too.
If they do as they promised to do and make it properly democratic, then the leaders will be effectively just figureheads, so whatever is your beef with Corbyn ought to fall away. However it seems that most of the problems it has had so far are because they are trying to stitch up control of the party...
If they do as they promised to do and make it properly democratic, then the leaders will be effectively just figureheads
This will require the people who are currently fighting to get into power to give up that power. I don't think I have seen this happen in my lifetime as the power corrupts and they try to retain it.
Frankly is sounds as implausable as any elected partys manifesto promises. Lie enough to get into power then conveniently forget about them while blaming it all on the previous bunch.
How do we do it though?
Through public discourse.
Consider this forum as a starting point: all the debates and discussions are clearly laid out for all to see: any decision will show where it came from and the arguments for and against.
Presumably the moderators can delete chunks if they have grounds, but they can't easily do that without leaving a trail, although the trail may only be visible to other mods.
In the proposed system, deletion shouldn't be allowed: posts deemed inappropriate could be moved out of sight (which may be what they do here) and there would be mechanisms to enable review and appeal.
Make the system robust and transparent and they won't be able to do that.
How do we do it though? Processes, procedures, checks and balances all need to be considered, calculated for effectiveness and cost, assessed for their viability and robustness and brought forward as a proposal.
Until we can start a reasonable plan to do this then we are just navel gazing, but if you want to start the process I would be happy to offer some input in the project plan.
Beef up the controls around corruption, improve the training and we are most of the way there.
The basic failing in the fight against corruption is the apathy of the people.
Bribery is a crime and so is the abuse of the public trust, but do you know anyone who has reported either of these offences to the police?
Bribery has become so normalised that Parliament itself has a system for whitewashing the offence when it becomes irrefutable. Think about paid lobbying: it is against the rules, so there is no question of it being the improper performance of a relevant function, and it's paid, so they receive a financial advantage, but Parliament treats it as a misdemeanour rather than referring it to the police to treat as crime.
We (the people) should prosecute Parliament for perverting the course of justice.
You asked for a way: there you go.
This will be curated by the politicians and fed by people they can control - just as it has always been with democracy.
Make the system robust and transparent and they won't be able to do that.
The only difficulty there is in designing an effective fractionating column.
This will be curated by the politicians and fed by people they can control - just as it has always been with democracy.
If there was a way to do away with career politicians then I think it would improve a lot. Make it a form of national service for everyone to have to spend a year working in the service of the country in some capacity and have a career limit for anyone in politics.
Beef up the controls around corruption, improve the training and we are most of the way there.
It sounds simple but would be incredibly difficult to accomplish without corrupt fingers in the cookie jar and outside interference.
Sometimes I think we do need to tear it all down but I cannot see another system avoiding the same issue in future.
It seems straightforward to me: we just need proper democracy, where decisions are made on the strength of the arguments rather than the density of their proponents, and the strength of the arguments can be determined by simmering them in the cauldron of public opinion and distilling the collective wisdom from the chattering of the masses.
The only difficulty there is in designing an effective fractionating column.
That is a much greater power and far superior to anything they might have on their own.
The crux is that it isn't theirs and power makes people greedy for more power so I really don't see them giving this up.
I agree it is for the greater good but I cannot think of a politician from the last 20 years who was decent enough to be willing to do this.
It is a fundamental failing of human nature where the people who are good enough to merit this power are often repulsed by the nature of those all around who have been either been sucked into the cesspool of politics or are actively seeking to use it for their own progression.
Sometimes I think we do need to tear it all down but I cannot see another system avoiding the same issue in future.
That is a much greater power and far superior to anything they might have on their own.
The crux is that it isn't theirs and power makes people greedy for more power so I really don't see them giving this up.
I agree it is for the greater good but I cannot think of a politician from the last 20 years who was decent enough to be willing to do this.
It is a fundamental failing of human nature where the people who are good enough to merit this power are often repulsed by the nature of those all around who have been either been sucked into the cesspool of politics or are actively seeking to use it for their own progression.
Sometimes I think we do need to tear it all down but I cannot see another system avoiding the same issue in future.
How do we do it though?
Through public discourse.
Consider this forum as a starting point: all the debates and discussions are clearly laid out for all to see: any decision will show where it came from and the arguments for and against.
Presumably the moderators can delete chunks if they have grounds, but they can't easily do that without leaving a trail, although the trail may only be visible to other mods.
In the proposed system, deletion shouldn't be allowed: posts deemed inappropriate could be moved out of sight (which may be what they do here) and there would be mechanisms to enable review and appeal.
Make the system robust and transparent and they won't be able to do that.
How do we do it though? Processes, procedures, checks and balances all need to be considered, calculated for effectiveness and cost, assessed for their viability and robustness and brought forward as a proposal.
Until we can start a reasonable plan to do this then we are just navel gazing, but if you want to start the process I would be happy to offer some input in the project plan.
Beef up the controls around corruption, improve the training and we are most of the way there.
The basic failing in the fight against corruption is the apathy of the people.
Bribery is a crime and so is the abuse of the public trust, but do you know anyone who has reported either of these offences to the police?
Bribery has become so normalised that Parliament itself has a system for whitewashing the offence when it becomes irrefutable. Think about paid lobbying: it is against the rules, so there is no question of it being the improper performance of a relevant function, and it's paid, so they receive a financial advantage, but Parliament treats it as a misdemeanour rather than referring it to the police to treat as crime.
We (the people) should prosecute Parliament for perverting the course of justice.
You asked for a way: there you go.
This will be curated by the politicians and fed by people they can control - just as it has always been with democracy.
Make the system robust and transparent and they won't be able to do that.
The only difficulty there is in designing an effective fractionating column.
This will be curated by the politicians and fed by people they can control - just as it has always been with democracy.
If there was a way to do away with career politicians then I think it would improve a lot. Make it a form of national service for everyone to have to spend a year working in the service of the country in some capacity and have a career limit for anyone in politics.
Beef up the controls around corruption, improve the training and we are most of the way there.
It sounds simple but would be incredibly difficult to accomplish without corrupt fingers in the cookie jar and outside interference.
Sometimes I think we do need to tear it all down but I cannot see another system avoiding the same issue in future.
It seems straightforward to me: we just need proper democracy, where decisions are made on the strength of the arguments rather than the density of their proponents, and the strength of the arguments can be determined by simmering them in the cauldron of public opinion and distilling the collective wisdom from the chattering of the masses.
The only difficulty there is in designing an effective fractionating column.
