Referendum advocate for Auckland Mayor

Long time referendum advocate and supporter of Better Democracy NZ, Bill Daly, has decided to put his name forward for Mayor of Auckland. While Bill might not have the notoriety of others standing, and will probably struggle to have any effect on the main rivals, he is to be admired for standing up for the rights of citizens. All power to you Bill.

PRESS RELEASE

26 March 2010

From Bill Daly, 42a Woodglen Rd, Glen Eden. b.daly@woosh.co.nz 09-818 4293 / 0274 20 99 86

Third Candidate for Auckland Mayoralty

“I am completely opposed to the creation of the so-called ‘super city’. It is being done by riding roughshod over the people of Auckland and the surrounding districts, and New Zealanders in general. The politicians doing it have acted arrogantly and without any mandate from the people.

“Its designers have not built into it any effective checks and balances. There are no sanctions for voters to ensure their politicians do what they want.

“It has the potential to become a super mess, leaving ratepayers and taxpayers with huge debts, poor future infrastructure and administration, and ever increasing rates alongside deteriorating services.

“The way it is structured leaves it too open to being dictatorial. Ideally, I’d prefer to see the whole plan scrapped and instead some appropriate checks and balances added to the management of the existing councils.

“We had forced amalgamations of our older smaller councils in the late 1980s. Public feeling was ignored then and it is being ignored again, and most of the promised benefits have not occurred.

“There may be a case for some type of regional or provincial government to handle those affairs that are common to the larger area. But it would need to be completely democratic and only established after much real public discussion and input.

“But a regional government is not a local government. There are numerous reasons why smallish local bodies came about and have existed for so long. A city is not built from the top down. It is built up from people and families and suburbs. People relate more intimately to their own locality before they relate to the wider district or city in which they live. If we are to enjoy healthy communities then people must have reasonable independence or sovereignty to decide on the affairs of their area.

“The people in the surrounding rural areas are being treated appallingly. If they do not want their local affairs to be governed by city politicians then so be it. The decision should be theirs and theirs alone.

“Central government politicians and bureaucrats can all too easily fall into the trap of thinking that big is always best, and that central planning and control is necessary as part of their nationwide plans and schemes. But they are wrong. The belief that bigger is always better has never achieved a better country for anyone. If there was any truth in the idea then Nazi Germany, Communist Russia and Fascist Italy should have become long-standing success stories.

“I do not have lots of money to campaign and I will not be running any expensive fund-raising campaigns. I am contemptuous of those who want to set up governmental structures that are isolated from the people and require lots of money by candidates wanting to stand for public office. This goes against all the traditions of government in New Zealand. It is a slap in the face to most New Zealanders. I will have to think of campaigning methods that are low cost. I will be establishing a website with facilities for people to contact me, and through which I can run polls on whatever issues people are interested in or concerned about.

“I have campaigned for over 20 years for the adoption of binding public referendums to be part of the constitutional arrangements for all levels of government in New Zealand. I absolutely hold that politicians are morally, and should also be legally, obliged to properly represent what the people of their constituency or city want. Politicians or councilors have no right under any circumstances to ignore the public. When they do that they are being little dictators.

“Politicians sometimes like to deliberately complicate things and imply that government affairs are beyond the understanding of lesser mortals. But this is only arrogance and a screen for hiding personal ambitions behind.

“The other mayoral candidates have made promises that they will be firm in holding the CCO’s to account. Good on them, but that is only one part of what is be needed. How will voters hold their mayor and councilors to account?

“Whether I am elected mayor or not is something I will leave to voters and will accept their decision. I am applying for a particular job and the employers, the voters, have the right to accept or reject me. But I will be encouraging voters to only give their vote to candidates for the mayoralty and council who will commit to real democratic principles, and who will give written assurances they will undertake at all times to abide by the majority public feeling on any issue. Modern technology makes it relatively easy and cheap for well-run polls or referendums to be held so that elected public servants have no excuse to not know what their people think or want.

“The Wanganui Council use referendums and the people there seem pretty happy about that. Binding referendums have operated in Switzerland with great success for over 130 years. Some critics make all sorts of false accusations against binding referendums but the Swiss have during this time gone from one of Europe’s poorer countries, to having a higher standard of living than most of their neighbours. It is the only European country where the people express reasonable satisfaction with their governments. And I believe it played a big part in keeping them out of two World Wars.

“I know that Wellington is doing everything it can to setup this so-called “super city” in a way that is designed to circumvent the people and even the elected councilors and mayor if they disagree with the Government over something. And they want to do it elsewhere around New Zealand, without local consultation anywhere. But people can still be a potent force. If central Government was determined to over-rule something that the public clearly showed they wanted, or didn’t want, via a referendum, I’m sure there can be found, always within the law and decent behaviour, ways to make life a little difficult for those trying to implement that.

“I am very uneasy about the way the CCO’s are to be constituted. But if their management is competent, is not wasting money, and act within the bounds of what Aucklanders want, it would have my full support. If any aren’t doing that then its management should have the public and elected councilors campaigning against it, until it gets back to whatever it should be doing.

“I am establishing a web site to make it easier for people to communicate with me and for me to post articles of interest and to run polls so people can tell me how they fell on particular issues.

A few personal views:

* I think political correctness is a disease caused by lack of courage.

* We need some national standards for politicians and political parties.

* Public assets held by governments are the property of citizens. No politician has the right to advocate selling them unless the public have clearly requested that.

* No government should be allowed to raise a loan without the approval of the public.

* Rates should not be subject to GST. That is an unfair tax upon a tax. Nor should any other council revenues be taxable.

* Central Government should own up to it being the primary cause of the leaky homes problem. This is a tragedy for thousands of people. If thousands of homes were damaged or destroyed in an earthquake the money would be made available for reconstruction. It is contemptible that the Government might actually earn a lot of money from expensive leaky home fixes

* City water infrastructure is expensive. If new dams are built the costs will be massive. Wouldn’t it make better sense to heavily encourage greater use of rain water tanks? Widely used these would considerably increase overall water storage. Waitakere Council is to be congratulated for having given some encouragement for this.

* Good quality public transport, especially trains, should have been built decades ago in Auckland. Fortunately something is now being done. It should be extended to the airport. Various ideas have been put forward, including some very innovative suggestions, for improving Auckland’s public transport, and fair consideration must be given to these, and other ideas encouraged and given a fair hearing.

* I detest the dominance of the political party system. It undermines the relationship between voters and their political representatives. Some politicians advocate government departments be more structured along business lines. Well, let them include Parliament in that. It’s impossible even to imagine any company letting its board of directors be split into two or more warring factions.

* The Public Works Act should be only used in the most extreme situations. There needs to always be careful government respect for private property rights.

* I strongly favour retaining New Zealand’s existing flag. It is very symbolic of our nation’s main line of history, culture and heritage. It has proudly draped the coffins of our soldiers who died in battle.

* I believe New Zealand should have an effective and strong military defence. We should closely cooperate with traditional allies and other friendly nations but always retain our independence. Part of a good defence policy should be having the best possible relationship with all other countries, but never ignoring bad behaviour or mistreatment by another government of its people. Helen Clark was right to keep us out of the Iraq war. Our military should always work closely with Civil Defence during natural disasters. There should be adequate opportunities for physically fit New Zealanders, especially young people, if so inclined, to experience some military training.

* I believe in the apprenticeship system. There should be good incentives and support for firms who take on apprentices.

* We should never have allowed our industries to be decimated by unequal overseas competition. There should be better financial and regulatory structures that encourage home based industries.

* New Zealand should be more energy self sufficient. Tax laws should encourage research into cleaner alternatives, including reducing city pollution. Some of the overseas and New Zealand research into improved electric vehicles, fuel from crops and algae and hydrogen is exciting. In the meantime New Zealand could consider building a coal to liquid fuel plant. Even if it wasn’t used but keep in a state of readiness, in case of a disruption to world oil supplies. I don’t know what state the Motunui synthetic petrol is in and if in an emergency it could be quickly recommissioned.

* I think achieving home ownership should be much easier and it be a nationwide policy to facilitate this. Home ownership can increase peoples’ sense of belonging and commitment. Encouraging speculation of houses makes it harder for many to attain ownership and leaves many others unnecessarily indebted for much of their lives.

* I think we should adopt a 4-day working week. Plenty of evidence suggests that productivity levels vary little whether people work 4 or 5 days. It would be a recognition of the increased use of labour-saving technology in the modern world, would improve people’s well-being and probably reduce illness and sickness.

* Government policies and propaganda about future pension uncertainties caused the housing bubble. People who could borrow were encouraged to invest in another house or two, so they may hopefully be a little better off in their retirement.

* I believe serious questions need to be raised about aspects of the economic model and theories that presently dominate the world. It leaves people and communities, farms and businesses loaded with financial debt no matter how hard people work. Every year financial debt increases everywhere, and sometimes even more so during boom times. It creates shortages of money for improved social infrastructures, yet money can always be found for wars, or created to bail out mis-managed banks. It encourages the mass manufacture of wasteful throw-a-way products instead of quality long-lasting items, thus adding to pollution and waste. The free enterprise system is the best the world has ever come up with and the only one that actually works well, but there seems to be something wrong with the management or financial accounting of things.

* I think there should be a trial period for all immigrants, of at least five to ten years. Immigrants must be treated with absolute fairness, equality and decency, but they also have a responsibility to show respect and honour to New Zealand’s existing ways. If any serious crime is committed during the trial period citizenship should be denied and the right to residency withdrawn, along with the right to ever enter New Zealand again.

* I do not believe in a chosen people or race, whether it be the stupid Nazi beliefs, or that of extreme Zionism or any other such claims. Every human being is important and unique. Every single human being naturally shares in a common humanity. I do believe there are racial, cultural and other differing traits between individuals and groups and these should be respected and honoured. But I question the political intentions of some people who go over board in promoting multi-culturalism, which can sometimes lead to unnecessary suffering, as well as various extra social and financial costs. We can all learn from others of different backgrounds. Associating with people of different backgrounds can help to dispel ignorance and increase the width of our life experience. Some peoples of different backgrounds mix more easily than others, but throughout the western world we see the creation of ghettos. These sometimes add to crime statistics and are costly in extra policing and social services. I am proud of my British-European heritage and the political, social and religious influences associated with it. I strongly suspect the motives of some of those who are overly critical of it or want to sever New Zealand’s social and cultural links to our past.

Brief Biography:

- Born in Temuka, 1959.

- Attended Catholic schools in Temuka and Timaru.

- Raised on a family farm in South Canterbury.

- After farm sold moved to Auckland in 1980.

- Was involved for many years with New Zealand League of Rights organization as its National Director, and editor of its publication On Target from 1983 until about 5 years ago.

- Supported keeping the older style smaller councils that existed before 1988.

- Opposed the Muldoon National Government’s Think Big energy plan as wasteful of our natural gas reserves and unnecessarily expensive. Believed we would have been better to use natural gas directly in vehicles and there should have been some development of farm produced motor fuels. Believed then and now that this country should have a policy of achieving energy independence.

- For over 20 years have supported the adoption of binding public referendums for local and central government.

- Operated a printing business at Onehunga from 1988 to 1996, and worked part time in it for a period after that.

- Looked after a small farm near Pukekohe from 1988 to 2000. Spent parts of 2000 and 2001 working for a grain cocky on a large farm in north-east Texas, near the town of Paris.

- Since then have worked, mainly self-employed, doing building/renovation work in West Auckland

- Hobbies include tramping and flying. Have a pilots license and did a little part time flying instructing a few years ago

- Support a more organic approach to farming and have an organic vege garden. Am opposed to genetic engineering of food and most of the claims made by its advocates have proven incorrect. I hate the practice of battery farming.

- Enjoy reading and good quality movies. Favourite movie is the 1938 Adventures of Robin Hood with Errol Flynn and Olivia de Havilland. Favourite recent movies are The Lemon Tree and Molokai: the Story of Father Damien.

- Opposed to compulsory mass medication (fluoridation) via drinking water.

- Believe there should be wider cooperation between conventional and complimentary medicine.

- I regard myself as a Christian but seldom attend church. It seems to me the churches have abstracted themselves from some of the realities of life.

Some of the people I quite like or admire, not in any particular order

Mother Theresa

Alexander Solzhenitsyn

Shakespeare

Prince Charles

Sir James Goldsmith

Robyn Hood & William Tell

C.S. Lewis

St Francis of Assisi

John A. Lee


CLICK ON THE TITLE OF THIS POST TO BE TAKEN TO OUR BLOG, TO POST YOUR COMMENT!

Read more...

Changes to the Official Information Act

By Rusty Kane.

Rusty discusses the Law Commission consultion on possible changes to the Official Information Act.

I’ve become a semi-regular user of the Official Information Act, using it to get background papers and reports on policy areas I am interested in. The OIA was one of the best things the Muldoon Government did.

However it doesn’t work as well as it can. A dedicated government agency can delay releasing information for up to a year. You are meant to get it with 20 working days, but agencies can transfer requests (resetting the clock), give themselves a time extension, and also refuse requests forcing you to go to the Ombudsman. They do a good job, but by the time they have investigated, and made a decision, many months can have gone by.

Very rarely an agency will lie – we saw this with the Labour Department under Labour, when the Immigration Service actually lied to the Ombudsman’s Office over the existence of a report. This is incredibly rare.

Anyway a lot of information about what the Government is considering, never comes out under the OIA – because no one asked for it. And you can not ask for information too generally – such as all reports about primary health or all memos from the Ministry of Education. You need to be quite specific.

I propose that for certain high level official information, the onus on release be reversed – that the Government automatically release the information even if not asked for. Now this could not apply to all official information, as there is too much, but it could apply to information that makes Ministerial level.

My proposal would be:

That all papers and reports considered by Cabinet and/or a Cabinet Committee be automatically placed on the Internet within six months.

The specifics would be:

1. By having the cut off at reports that go to a Cabinet or Cabinet Committee, the DPMC could be made responsible for implementing it.

2. By having a set time period, it gives the Government a bit of breathing space to consider reports and make decisions (such as the Budget) before publication. This would not prevent people from applying under the OIA to gain something earlier.

3. Departmental and Ministerial staff would know that their reports are 100% guaranteed to become public, so would take appropriate care with said papers.

4. Parts of reports could still be blacked out under the OIA, but be appeal-able to the Ombudsman.

5. It would provide a unique look at the entire work programme of the Cabinet and its Committees.

6. If a media organisation asks for information under the OIA, they often try and sensationalise any story based on it, as they have to show something for their effort. If the info is automatically made publicly available, then news worthiness will be the main criteria (I hope)

7. It would result in more transparent and open Government .

CLICK ON THE TITLE OF THIS POST TO BE TAKEN TO OUR BLOG, TO POST YOUR COMMENT!
Read more...

British unrest

The Jury team in England is pushing for mass independent MPs to be elected on a foundation of referendums. Change can happen... even in Mother England!

Step Forward or Stop Complaining

I am writing to let you know about the Jury Team's (www.juryteam.org) progress.

Last weekend we launched our general election campaign. We had advertisements in newspapers and magazines with a circulation of more than 5 million and a readership of more than double that number (see http://tiny.cc/ZLhbt).

Are you happy with the current political parties and politicians? If not then now is the time to stand up and be counted. Step forward and make a difference or stop complaining. If the turkeys (the current MP's and political class) won't vote for us, we need to change the turkeys. Go to www.juryteam.org/become-an-mp.php to sign up as a candidate to be an MP to challenge the politicians you dislike (or even despise).

The British people are fed up with their politicians. The Jury Team is working for the people that the politicians have ignored. We want to give back to people their pride in their country and its institutions. We will let them become the ultimate jury. We can make this country a better place for ourselves and our children. Please help us to do so.

We know that on many issues the current political parties are too weak to provide what the majority of people want. We have a number of key Proposals which the electorate would vote for if they were allowed to. We want to give them that democratic right

The Jury Team advertisements ask whether the British people should have the right to vote on the Jury Team Proposals:

Staying in or leaving the European Union
Setting up an English Parliament for English matters
Reducing the number of MPs by a third (from 650 to 433)
Changing Commons elections to proportional representation
Requiring referendums on petition by 5% of the electorate
Limiting government borrowing to 10% of expenditure
Protecting bank customer deposits from casino banking
Limiting benefits to 80% of the after tax minimum wage
Sentencing violent criminals to 'army style' punishment
Limiting UK troops in Afghanistan to the NATO average

We know from our YouGov polling that all of these policies are very strongly supported by the British people. However we would also like to know whether you think that the electorate should be allowed to vote on whether these Proposals become law.

Go to www.juryteam.org to see the details of our Proposals. If you like the idea of the people having the right to vote on the Proposals, become a candidate for the Jury Team or support us in some other way. Sign up on the website.

We are now inviting principled and independent people with a decent career record to become candidates to be MPs. We will help good candidates to get elected. When elected you will vote for the Jury Team's Proposals but on the basis that these will not become binding until agreed by an authorising referendum. You will otherwise be free to use your best judgment in voting on behalf of the country and your constituents. No party whips.

We are now providing you with an opportunity to make a difference. Please take it. If you cannot become a candidate you can still help. Go to www.juryteam.org and join up or make a donation. Tell your friends about the Jury Team. Forward this email to all of your contacts and colleagues.

Your country needs you to do something (or stop complaining that it is someone else's fault).

Yours very sincerely

The Jury Team

CLICK ON THE TITLE OF THIS POST TO BE TAKEN TO OUR BLOG, TO POST YOUR COMMENT!

Read more...

Superannuation & Health

Without wanting this to be a plug for the ACT Party, I couldn't help agreeing with the comments Sir Roger Douglas has made here about superannuation and health. Something needs to be done to change the system which obviously isn't working.

Superannuation:

Superannuation today locks you into poverty in your retirement. And the low levels of superannuation occur despite the high cost to taxpayers.

Superannuation costs you one third of your personal tax. If you earn the average wage, that’s $4000 a year. Superannuation is not free. It costs you. Our super scheme is designed so that people pay today for the retirement of their parents. If we simply adjusted the system so that money went to pay for your own retirement, most would have a cushy retirement.

If that money was put in the bank, earning seven percent nominal interest (five percent real), then the average worker would retire with over $1,000,000. It would be like you’d just won lotto and then retired. And let’s say you put that money in the bank at one percent interest – a pathetic one percent. The interest on that money would return more to you than current superannuation does.

A single pensioner currently gets $311 a week, while a married pensioner gets $239. With just two percent interest on the capital, they’d earn in excess of $347. If we used the more realistic five percent figure, then the average income of a pensioner would be over $1000 a week. So the cost of Government superannuation, in old age, is a capital sum in excess of a million dollars, from which interest in excess of $1000 a week could be earned. It’s costing you.

Some go through their lives, scraping by, paying tax, but not having enough left to save. When they retire, they’ll get whatever the politicians of the day decide they deserve. But the wealthy, well, they will have saved for their retirement. They’ll be able to live in comfort, doing the things that most want to use their retirement for.

The raw deal most get from Superannuation is only going to get worse. The flight of New Zealand’s most skilled, combined with the baby boom, will see increasing burdens shifted to the working poor. They will pay high taxes and receive a stingy pension. But while changing the system would help us all, it would harm some politicians in Labour and National who rely on promises they cannot deliver to win votes. By making people self-reliant, they would have to change strategy from making increasing numbers of people recipients of welfare. The power that gives them is something they will be unwilling to give up, unless we force their hand.

Health:

54 percent of your and every one else’s personal tax goes towards healthcare. The growth is scary, when just two years ago the figure was 41 percent of your personal tax.

Saying 54 percent can hide what this means. If you earn minimum wage, you will pay about $2500 every year for healthcare. If you earn the average wage, you will pay over $6000 for healthcare.

People say that we have a free healthcare system. To me, it seems that free healthcare has never been so expensive! Healthcare is not free. It costs you. And when healthcare costs the average person $6,000 every year, you’d hope that it really delivered.

And yet it doesn’t. Despite the enormous cost, we ration healthcare. People who are sick get placed on a waiting list. On that waiting list people get worse, not better. Some die. And the suffering that takes place on health waiting lists is rationalised away, as if the goal of equality justifies denying healthcare to people who desperately need it.

If the health system treated every one like this, then at least it would treat us all equally. But the most pernicious effect of socialised medicine is how it creates second class citizens. The first way it does this is through a bizarre mixture of subsidies. Some medicines are fully subsidised, some are partially subsidised, and
others are not subsidised at all. Decisions over what medicines you can take are actually determined not by the patient, not by the doctor, but by a bureaucrat in Wellington.

The second way it creates second class citizens is through the way pressure can be
applied to get treatments performed. Doctors, patients, politicians, can all pressure the system to get certain operations performed at the expense of others. If you can get your story on Campbell Live you can be sure you’ll get your treatment. If you can form a pressure group to get Herceptin subsidised, you’ll get your treatment. But in socialised health, your treatment comes at the expense of someone
else’s. And because the affluent tend to be the more politically connected, the
more influential, the more organised, treatments for the rich come at the expense of the poor.

The third way it creates second class citizens is the fact that affluent people can afford to pay twice. They can afford to pay tax for healthcare, and then buy health insurance on top. The very people who are denied this opportunity are the people that universal healthcare was meant to help. While the poor remain ill or die on waiting lists, the affluent may visit a private hospital. No one would seriously contend that the system treats people equally.

But the solutions we hear to this problem are the same kind of pathetic snake oil we hear from all the other parties in Parliament. All the problems could be solved if only there was more money. When will we wake up to the lie? Under Labour, health spending increased in real terms by 50 percent. We still have waiting lists. We still have a system that creates second class citizens. Despite the huge increases of resources at their disposal, the productivity of doctors actually reduced by 15 percent. Nurse productivity dropped 11 percent. Overall, the drop was only eight percent. Why eight percent? Because the productivity of cleaning and orderly staff surged. And those services were outsourced to the private market. This just gives a hint of the kind of benefits that could be achieved if we dropped the pretence and lived up to the reality: socialised healthcare has failed.

If we simply gave the person on the average wage the $6,000 back they currently pay, this would enable them to buy catastrophic insurance, put money aside for their healthcare in retirement, and pay for their day to day healthcare needs such as doctor visits.

www.rogerdouglas.org.nz

CLICK ON THE TITLE OF THIS POST TO BE TAKEN TO OUR BLOG, TO POST YOUR COMMENT!

Read more...

The Wisdom of Crowds

I highly recommend this book for addition to your bookshelf. Certainly an argument to highlight the weaknesses of Representative Democracy.

Surowiecki begins his book by relating a story about British scientist Francis Galton who in 1906 attended a country fair. Galton had won renown - and notoriety - for his work on statistics and the science of heredity. He was a man obsessed with the measurement of physical and mental qualities and breeding. The gene pool mattered to Galton because he believed only a very few people had the characteristics necessary to keep societies healthy.

At the fair Galton, who came across a weight-judging competition of a fat ox, had a breakthrough experience and one that would change for ever the attitude of research and crowd psychology. People were lining up to place wagers on what the weight of the ox would be after it had been slaughtered and dressed. About 800 people tried their luck. They were a diverse lot and while there were some butchers and farmers who presumably had a level of expertise at judging the weight of livestock, many had no insider knowledge of cattle.

Galton was interested in figuring out what the 'average voter' was capable of because he wanted to prove that the average voter was capable of very little. So he turned the competition into an impromptu experiment. When the contest was over and the prizes awarded, Galton borrowed the tickets from the organisers and ran a series of statistical tests on them. Galton arranged the guesses (787) in order from highest to lowest and graphed them to see if they would form a bell curve. Then, among other things, he added all the contestants' estimates and calculated the mean of the group's guesses. That number represented, you could say, the collective wisdom of the crowd and if the crowd was a single person, that was how much it would have guessed the ox weighed. Galton undoubtedly thought the average guess of the group would be way off the mark because after all, mix a few very smart people with some mediocre people and a lot of dumb people and it seems likely you'd end up with a dumb answer.

But Galton was wrong. The crowd guessed the ox would weigh 1197 pounds after it had been slaughtered and dressed. After it had been slaughtered and dressed the ox weighed 1198 pounds. In other words, the crowd's judgement was essentially perfect.
Galton wrote later: "The result seems more creditable to the trustworthiness of a democratic judgement than might have been expected." That was, to say the least, an understatement says Surowiecki who then expresses the simple, but powerful, truth that is at the heart of his book - under the right circumstances, groups are remarkably intelligent and are often smarter than the smartest people in them.
Obviously we can't review in detail the whole book here but you should understand that crowds at test matches, rallies etc are capable of getting it right and so are the voters at the polls.

Surowiecki's last chapter Democracy: Dreams of the Common Good talks about deliberative polling and deliberative democracy and poses the question 'what do voters think democracy is for?'.

He then goes on to say politicians want, above all, to be re-elected and therefore vote not in the way that they think is best for the electorate but for what they think has the best chance of winning over the voters; pork-barrel politics and paying special attention to the interests of powerful lobbies.
It seems strange then to think that the way to do politics well is to distance yourself as much as possible from citizens' everyday lives. In the same way a healthy market needs the constant flow of localised information that it gets from prices, a healthy democracy needs the constant flow of information it gets from people's votes. Wisdom of Crowds is at least thought provoking, at best a blueprint for a dramatic change to democracy.

Read more...

Binding Referendum Song

I get a kick out of listening to this!

CLICK ON THE TITLE OF THIS POST TO BE TAKEN TO OUR BLOG, TO POST YOUR COMMENT OR VIEW THE VIDEO!
Read more...