Christopher Monckton has heralded the concept of a third political force based on individual freedom.He wants this concept to go global.

There is no doubt that over the last few decades that people have become increasingly alienated from their govts,feeling frustrated by the over regulation,taxes and bureaucarcy that make our lives unnecessarily complicated and expensive.

In the USA the Corporates now have so much power that Wall St and the Bankers decide who will be the next president,what wars they will fight and how the money will be distributed.How do we know this? Well after the Bush debacle,Obama put in control the same old failed economic advisors and gave more powers to the US Federal Reserve who were responsible for the GFC.Roosevelt,when he came into power put in a whole new team and distanced himself from failure.

For a third party to work,it must be free from corportate influence in terms of donations.It would have to have within it's constitution an exclusion clause for powerful interest groups.We only have to look locally to see how money buys power and favours in our Govts.It has to be a grass roots movement,but for it to work,the people have to turn off the media distractions and study what power structures control their lives.

How would you formulate the constitution of such a third political force? ie What rules will make it represent the will of the people?

Firstly I would ban hereditary rich idiots like Monckton from having anything to do with it. Hardly a paragon of equality and inclusiveness is he? Hardly an example of a man that worked hard to get where he is. Im sure life is very free for him with all his wealth and influence.

When people like Monckton talk about freedom they dont mean freedom for all of us they mean freedom for property and money but not people. They want to own everything and make the rest of us pay to use it. Roads, police, courts, water, all the things that people need and rely on to live.

Any new political party will have to be accountable directly to the people and subject to removal if the populace is unhappy with them. They will have to involve the population in decision making and lead people in a better direction than current parties who only do anything for base political advantage. Including things that damage our country. Whatever it takes to get re-elected.
People should be chosen to lead for their skills not how powerhungry they are. Nor how wealthy they are or what school they went to. Business should be excluded from politics the same as religion. Only individual citizens should have a part in the running of countries/the world. Business has shown how its greed and lust for more money corrupts the whole process of politics and the public sphere. Business has only self serving and damaging, to the rest of us, reasons for wanting to influence policy and they have shown their willingness to destroy our lives unless those in power give in to their extortion.

The time has come to make corporations and big business our slave and not our master. As it was in the past and should be forever.

Arjay should you live for ten thousand years you will not get your wish.
An understanding is called for, we ordinary people, make the party's we have.
And we ordinary voters ask for and mostly get, the policy's and directions of those party's.
Sitting on the sidelines and throwing stones at those party's for not being everything we want, is wasteful.
rights and wrongs, failures and success every party who holds government for some time does it on the back of being what most like.

Why not go the whole hog, mikk, and turn government into a permanent TV show along the lines of "Australian Idol"?

>>Any new political party will have to be accountable directly to the people and subject to removal if the populace is unhappy with them. They will have to involve the population in decision making<<

We can sit in front of our TV sets and vote people in and out of office at a whim, and vote ourselves a tax cut every day.

The concept of governments functioning effectively through the direct involvement of citizens in the decision-making process is romantically idealistic, but ultimately unworkable.

Here's a typical comment on California's system of citizen-initiated ballots:

"...the system has since become something its creators never intended: an unwieldy, untenable wolf that has subverted the deliberative nature of representative democracy; tied the hands of elected officials charged with controlling the state's purse strings; and undermined traditional court protections of minorities by eliminating fundamental civil rights - and all via mostly narrow majorities in popular votes."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-normoyle/vote-no-on-everything-urg_b_207473.html

As has been noted on a number of occasions, propositions designed to spend taxpayers' money get approved, while propositions to increase taxation are rejected.

That's not the only danger.

One observer asks "if civil rights can be eliminated by a simple majority vote, why even have a constitution at all?"

There's a pretty thorough analysis here:

http://www.votenooneverything.org/voteno/About_Vote_No_On_Everything.html

"Although good decisions have at times been made by the majority, the general populace should not have the power to legislate directly by a simple-majority vote. Legislation is the role of the legislature, to be kept in balance by the other two branches of government."

When "everyone" decides on a particular course of action, "no-one" is actually responsible. Either for the outcome, or for making it happen - since the decision could easily be reversed the next day. Or the day after.

We have a massively imperfect system right now, open to all sorts of undesirable influences and horse-trading.

But that's no reason to replace it with a system that is even more flawed.

mikk,I don't care where good ideas come from.Never let your own prejudice blur good judgement.

This is a time when real positive change can happen if enough people are aware of the problems.We live in the illusion of democracy.Govts are supposed to serve the people.Presently we are getting closer to a dictatorship and we are pathetically indifferent.

Belly nothing will change with your present attitude.

Mikk, Arjay and others

I tend to agree with Arjay in that Monckton idea shouldn't be summarily dismissed because he has a hereditary title nor should he have enhanced credibility because of the same.

However, Monckton credibility on AGW is exceedingly low given that he is simply a journalist and has little or no serious scientific authority or accuracy either.

Monckton's idea appears either ego or fanciful idealism bases and on any real substantive reasoning. It is very reminiscent of the movement toward love, peace, understanding of the 60s. They sounded good but once they spread beyond a specific community it was corrupted and eventually collapsed. The hard graft was done by the marchers and the real committed idealists that had specific short term objectives.

As stated before any long term organization with vague goals (political parties) tend to devolve to where the primary purpose becomes the longevity and power for the party. This inevitably leads to the initial idealism being subsumed by the pragmatics and egos of personal power within the organization. e.g. The implosion of the Democrats.

Mikk, your suggestions also assume too much, in that the facilities and good will for them to exist doesn't and can't (human nature) exist. i.e. no communication it bullet proof and therefore subject to corruption.