This isn’t too difficult to conceive of, but isn’t present here.

respectfully
BJ

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

And Pip, I agree that one person can’t keep up. I sure as hell can’t!

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

One problem with the I want to have dialogue with any MP at any time of my choosing line of direct democracy is that it really doesn’t work in a reality based universe – unless we increased the size of Parliament by a few orders of magnitude and I’m not sure how that would fly in a referendum.

I suspect one reason we don’t see more politicians engaging in blogs is the expectation of direct contact on demand that it can set up.

While the discursive is here now, the volume of information created is not something any single person, or office can keep up with, and is only going to become greater. The ability of the net to build (and show) consensus is only as good as the structures set up to facilitate the digestion and expression of that information. And all too often it is not good enough, a recent internet based poll comes to mind.

And, of course, on the internet, as in the classroom, it is often the one who shouts loudest who is heard, not necessarily the one who is considered and engaged.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Which is where the discursive/deliberative dimension comes in with its link to the public sphere. This allows us to participate in a mass democracy through the exchange of ideas and opinions if not actually making the decision in all cases

The discursive is here now. We have the internet blogs and forums. The ability to build consensus rapidly is far greater as the reach of the net improves and the speed of the net increases. This could be a feature of the future that we can leverage to improve the political process.

No?

respectfully
BJ

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Cheers

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

i want more…it’s an ‘as well as’..not an ‘instead of’…

and my ‘insult’ was a rejoinder to being told to stop talking about what concerns me…(cos’ it distracts the thread..hence my walking/chewing gum jibe…so..whaddayareckon..?.).

why on earth is there such widespread reluctance to grasp the opportunities/benefits these new technologies can bring to us..as greens…and to our democratic processes..?..this apparent intransigence from many greens is a worry..

and hey russell..

don’t intellectualise yourself out the door..eh..?

and hey..boil the ideas down a bit..eh..

otherwise you stand the risk of sounding like a paragraph out of a thesis..and peoples eyes will just glaze over..

and i’m sorry..i’ve read it three times..and i’m not sure what you are trying to say in your last comment…

and as for sniffing that you won’t talk to anyone who is disrespectful to you..?..well..!

i mean..don’t you have aspirations to enter parliament..?

i think there’s a fair bit of that ‘disrespect’ stuff going on there ..eh..?

toughen up..!..eh..?

and as for your being told i disrespected you..?..(you haven’t been talking to ivan sowry..?..have you..?..)

if you call my opposition to you getting your present role..disrespectful..

well..so be it…

and as for what i deem your invisibility since then..(as i predicted at the time)..
well..if that’s disrespectful..i guess i’m guilty again..

i’m also totally disrespectful for the apparent total lack of energies/effort being put the animal welfare issues..and the cannabis reform issues..

and at the total failure of the greens to sell to the new zealand people the climate-change solution formulas you have developed..(what’s it called..?..”it’s too hot.!”..?..or something..)
(and this at a time when people are crying out for just that..!..go figure..!)

so if all of that falls within your criterea of disrespect ..i’m afraid it’s gonna have to be a case of ..’so be it’..

(and um..on a purely literary level..i’d try and use the third person removed a bit more..eh..?

there’s a tad too many ‘i’s..eh..?..)

otherwise…carry on..

phil(whoar.co.nz)
phil(whoar.co.nz)

b.t.w…when you have some time…cd you tell us how the greens are planning to sell/publicise that climate-change formula..?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

“It’s not as simple or clear-cut as a dichotomy between “representativeâ€? and “directâ€? democracy.”

My theoretical approach is to look at three kinds of democracy: participatory/republican; liberal/representative; and discursive/deliberative.

We in the progressive movement have tended to support participatory/republican which I believe has a really important role at a small scale or local level. But at a mass scale it doesn’t work so well as it’s hard for lots of people to participate in lots of decisions. (Though, as an aside, I believe that we could have a much greater role for referenda in the right circumstances (ie must have equality of opportunity to put the different cases and a healthy public sphere)). The internet offers ways to reduce some of the transaction costs of getting invovled in decisions but it still requires time for people to engage, time which people are short of.

At a mass scale we do need representation, which is at the core of the liberal/representative system of democracy. Written constitutions, formal separations of power between Executive, judiciary and legislature are all part of the liberal schema. I think they are necessary but not sufficient.

Which is where the discursive/deliberative dimension comes in with its link to the public sphere. This allows us to participate in a mass democracy through the exchange of ideas and opinions if not actually making the decision in all cases (referenda are the exception rahter than the rule because you can’t have referenda all the time even if you have them about really important things).

There is a role for all three kinds of democracy but the third kind is often not understood properly, but I believe is essential to democracy in a mass society.

I also believe that internal party democracy is an essential part of the democratic process and in the Greens we have worked hard to acheive that. No-one’s perfect but we do hold onto it as an essential dimension of the organisation.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

You have certainly highjacked my comments ! and taken them (out of context) into a whole diatribe that is “going somewhere that I know not” …

You obviously have a much more jaundiced view than I do.

I can only speak from my experience (and that of my family before me). The MPs that I/we deal with are consciencious and cooperative. They appreciate “intelligent” feedback, constructive criticsm (AND a bit of praise where appropriate).
The thought occurs: have you ever attempted to do this … to keep in touch with your local / appropriate MP and treat him/her as a competent human being?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Why is it that you always seem to need to insert an insult in your replies? And why can’t you stick to the topic within a post? It’s obvious you have plenty to say, even if your grammar often makes it difficult to pinpoint just what that is.

You have your own blog so perhaps keep your personal agenda over there, and stick to topic over here.

No one likes a whiner.

With respect,
Smokey

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

and how many people ‘write to their mps’s..(c’mon..!..surely you can see the benefits of more dialogue/imteraction between mp’s and punters…

remember the ‘each as good as their ideas..?…
what happens to any letter sent to an mp containing a good idea?….

(if it gets read..!..)…..it is then ignored….

whereas in forums such as this..ideas can live (and grow..)..eh..?

(so..if only for that reason..)..why would you be arguing against this improvment in demoocratic practices in new zealand…..?

if all you are looking for is ‘getting points across’..fine..i’m looking for more from my democracy..eh..?

and ..and..open/ongoing dialogue with mp’s is part of that ‘more’……(dammed inconvenient for them at times..but..y’know..democracies a messy business..eh..?)

and all this sniffy..we are already doing it’ responses are a crock..

i’m talking of the benefits of spreading the cachment…(not just ‘party members’ chatting amonst themselves…eh..?)

y’know..i have real concerns the green party haven’t yet quite grasped the impact/import of those current fast changes on them..

in a nutshell…the greens are no longer the only green party..

what was (for the last years..is no more..!..)

and i figure you’ve got the next election..and the one after..

and if you don’t get up to speed/change/develop/grow…(and fast..)

you could well not exist…..after that second election….

your green policies moved beyond just you..and adopted by the whole society….

hence..no longer a need for you..

but hey..!…’correct’ process is all eh..?

but careful your fixations on process….don’t mean you are left in the dust..

your ‘process’ could well become your equivalent of making sure the deckchairs were tidily stacked..before the titanic went down…

phil(whoar.co.nz)

and fastbike…can you walk and chew gum at the same time..?
how are you with holding more than two ideas in your head at any one time..?
is that when issues arise..?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

One thing that I find disconcerting is the failure of some MPs (in major parties) who seem to have missed the bit about us changing to an MMP system in Parliament. (Their Party Whips seem to have missed it too?)

These people still seem to carry on with the “We versus They” “team” heckling and various other inappropriate adolescent behaviours.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

fastbike is right.

Access is available to any of us, and that applies to MPs from the other Parties as well. That is why MPs have Administrative/Secretarial help in Wellington and locally.

In “my” electorate the MP is a senior Labour Cabinet Minister with extra responsibilities. She is able to listen to any constituent who approaches her or writes/emails.

Often a very short email is an effective way to get a point across.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

It’s not as simple or clear-cut as a dichotomy between “representative” and “direct” democracy, which can tend towards demagogy and mob rule.

The key is that transparency is a moral imperative, and there should be very few exceptions to that. Your example of National’s trade negotiations is limpid : once the dirty deed is done, chucking them out will not undo it. Such major changes need to be held up to public scrutiny. (The other obvious example is what the Labour government of the 80s did, compared to what they had a mandate for…)

So, how to keep the bastards under control?

Political parties ought to be a major part of this. Party members ought to be able to keep their MPs on the straight and narrow. Unfortunately this is rarely the case : politicians tend to get cynical, and bluff and patronize the “rank and vile” membership. (Greens excepted!)

The other natural counterweight to non-transparent government is “the street”. Citizens need to get mobilized, to stand up and be counted on important issues. That’s an important part of democracy too, though it tends to frighten the horses (and sheep).

“Keeping the bastards honest” is better than “kicking the bastards out”, which is a matter of closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. What institutional changes do we need to promote, to improve process?

(Open question! Discuss!)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

“you should also be aware this is a privilege/easy entree not available to the rest of us..”

If you want to contribute and can keep your toys in the cot – then there’s no problem. We’re pretty inclusive here and this is no different to any other province. However, consensus means not acting like a prima donna

” …esp medical cannabis…”
Actually we’ve got a public meeting this Thursday for exactly that.

And later Phil said

“so..as i say..we don’t share your easy access..so your argument is presented from a perspective we don’t have..”

Actually eredwen doesn’t have any access – that’s not available to any party member.

So Phil, what’s your point. You’ve had ample opportunities to make it.

BTW, Wasn’t this post about secretative trade deal negotiations until Phil went AWOL ?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

“..If it wasn’t I’d feel comfortable about contacting whoever to discuss it!..”

you have often commented on your long close relationships with most key players in the green party..

you should also be aware this is a privilege/easy entree not available to the rest of us..

“..metiria..!..there is a call from phil ure..he would like to talk to you about what has been happening with cannabis law reform..(esp medical cannabis)..
do you want to take the call..?..”

eredwen..what do you think the response would be from our spokesperson on cannabis law reform..?

so..as i say..we don’t share your easy access..so your argument is presented from a perspective we don’t have..

and anyway eredwen..isn’t this whole green thing meant to be grass-roots..?..and all that..?

and if we are clear on what is what is what..we are better able to argue ..and spread the word to others….i think it’s called synergy..isn’t it..?

and sorry..i don’t buy the ‘too busy’ reason for no communication…

cos’ yes..the travel must become a bitch..

and sometimes the hours are long..in a given batch of days each year…

but the holidays make teachers green with envy..

so..c’mon eredwen..please don’t ask for crocodile tears from us over the ‘poor mp’s’..

let’s put that canard to bed..eh..?

and wheel out the mp’s…

their audience is waiting..eh..?

phil(whoar.co.nz)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

I don’t share phil’s seeming concerns about the MPs/spokespeople and their opinions being removed/remote (or whatever) from Party members.

We are a small Party.

While Green MPs are very busy, I find that what they end up saying on an issue is almost always very much what I (and the Party members I associate with) believe. If it wasn’t I’d feel comfortable about contacting whoever to discuss it!

I remain impressed by the calibre of our MPs, their staff, and internal Party Communications … All do a good job!

… makes me proud to be a Green !

eredwen

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

OK, let’s get this straight from the start. I am happy to respond to you when I’m able but I’m not always able to due to time restrictions so don’t take silence as refusal to respond. Having said that, I will feel no obligation to respond when people are abusive or disrespectful. I say that in responding to you in particular because I believe that you have been abusive and disrespectful towards me on this blog and elswhere on numerous occasions. Moving on…

I’m spokesperson for trade, electoral matters and economics (jointly with Jeanette). Economics is covered by Jeanette in the House but yes there are times that trade needs to be covered in the House and the MPs handle it. Doesn’t happen that often and it works ok because we operate as a team. So far I think I’ve done OK as a spokesperson outside parliament, and so no I don’t believe that I’ve been “impotent” in the political role.

cheers

Russel

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

interesting how we both seem to be expressing the same aspirations re reviving the tenets of democracy..

and..um..when you’ve got a moment..the spokesperson-portfolio/parliament question..?..

and by the way..be in no doubt your responding above cheers me by giving us all a glimpse of how we now can interact/talk with our elected representitives..

as it should be….

phil(whoar.co.nz)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)