Hi Sue, nice article, although I wonder if it might be better to express it a little differently?
You've rightly identified the root causes of our problems - neoliberalism and government capture by vested interests. However, while I agree with your proposed solutions, I don't think that this article clearly lands on the opportunity we need to create - a government that serves the common good. (This would be a government more interested in serving the public interest than their own or their donors' interests). If we can achieve that, then there's no limit to the good outcomes that can be created.
Also, in the context of independent campaigning, not everyone in the community is so informed that they understand the problems and solutions so clearly. So to talk to this broad audience, I think it's important to prioritise the hope and joy of achieving government for the common good, and leave it a little more open as to what outcomes people want from such a good government.
So, to review your proposals, may I respond by re-sorting them so that democratic processes are prioritised over progressive outcomes:
SHORT TERM - Activities outside of government which are needed in order to vote in a government for the common good.
#1 (6.) People-Powered Politics - it appears we have to work within the status-quo system before we can reform it, so this item comes first.
MEDIUM TERM - Procedural reforms which a new government for the common good should establish early to define goodness and transparency:
#2 (5.) Strengthen Independent Oversight
#3 (2.) Transparency in Subsidies
#4 (1.) Campaign Finance Reform
LONG TERM - Outcomes which are best left open to a Citizen's Assembly to deliberate upon:
#5 (3.) End the Privatisation of Public Assets
#6 (7.) Tax Billionaires and Corporations Fairly
#7 (4.) Invest in Public Goods
Does that make sense?
Or to put it a different way, the 2022 community independents' policy platforms of integrity, climate, and fairness were all important ideas. Although they were presented as equally important, in reality, integrity reforms need to take the highest priority, because those reforms help enable all the others.
Dorothy, thank you for taking the time to respsond to my thoughts around this and your recommendations are valid.
I wanted to spark the conversation. Sorry for the brevity of my reply as I have ticking off a lot of boxes before the end of the year.
But I want to agree that your focus on integrity is spot on - this is at the heart of everything we do and real and meanigful action and outcomes cannot occur without trust and integrity at the heart of everything.
Thanks for your response, and no worries about brevity.
Can I also add - as a thought to consider over summer - while we're agreed that citizens' assemblies are a good idea, is there an opportunity for another kind of forum for discussions on reform ideas that is open for people to join in?
This wouldn't have the 'representativeness' that a randomly-selected assembly would, but it'd probably be a great experience for those who are enthusiastic enough to be involved to have a open deliberation framed around something like "Wouldn't it be great if..."
Hi Sue, nice article, although I wonder if it might be better to express it a little differently?
You've rightly identified the root causes of our problems - neoliberalism and government capture by vested interests. However, while I agree with your proposed solutions, I don't think that this article clearly lands on the opportunity we need to create - a government that serves the common good. (This would be a government more interested in serving the public interest than their own or their donors' interests). If we can achieve that, then there's no limit to the good outcomes that can be created.
Also, in the context of independent campaigning, not everyone in the community is so informed that they understand the problems and solutions so clearly. So to talk to this broad audience, I think it's important to prioritise the hope and joy of achieving government for the common good, and leave it a little more open as to what outcomes people want from such a good government.
So, to review your proposals, may I respond by re-sorting them so that democratic processes are prioritised over progressive outcomes:
SHORT TERM - Activities outside of government which are needed in order to vote in a government for the common good.
#1 (6.) People-Powered Politics - it appears we have to work within the status-quo system before we can reform it, so this item comes first.
... (1 of 2)
... (2 of 2)
MEDIUM TERM - Procedural reforms which a new government for the common good should establish early to define goodness and transparency:
#2 (5.) Strengthen Independent Oversight
#3 (2.) Transparency in Subsidies
#4 (1.) Campaign Finance Reform
LONG TERM - Outcomes which are best left open to a Citizen's Assembly to deliberate upon:
#5 (3.) End the Privatisation of Public Assets
#6 (7.) Tax Billionaires and Corporations Fairly
#7 (4.) Invest in Public Goods
Does that make sense?
Or to put it a different way, the 2022 community independents' policy platforms of integrity, climate, and fairness were all important ideas. Although they were presented as equally important, in reality, integrity reforms need to take the highest priority, because those reforms help enable all the others.
Dorothy, thank you for taking the time to respsond to my thoughts around this and your recommendations are valid.
I wanted to spark the conversation. Sorry for the brevity of my reply as I have ticking off a lot of boxes before the end of the year.
But I want to agree that your focus on integrity is spot on - this is at the heart of everything we do and real and meanigful action and outcomes cannot occur without trust and integrity at the heart of everything.
Onward we press.
Thanks for your response, and no worries about brevity.
Can I also add - as a thought to consider over summer - while we're agreed that citizens' assemblies are a good idea, is there an opportunity for another kind of forum for discussions on reform ideas that is open for people to join in?
This wouldn't have the 'representativeness' that a randomly-selected assembly would, but it'd probably be a great experience for those who are enthusiastic enough to be involved to have a open deliberation framed around something like "Wouldn't it be great if..."