Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods
Habit7 wrote:Redman I kinda have to admit that what you are saying is a pipe dream.
The idea that people of disparate political views can sit together and formulate a cohesive national policy is not possible.
An "apolitical entity" normally takes the form of an autocracy. However in our democracy the different political views have to compete to sell their idea of governance. In our 'wine and jam' society ppl arent too interested in the nitty gritty of governance, they just want their services to work, their taxes to be low and their salaries high. Thus all political parties promise to deliver those to varying degrees. When a political party tries to tweek the nitty gritty, the opposition raises an alarm and claims an ulterior motive which may or may not be true and it can draw the public ire.
T&T needs a political party to sell us a plan, we all buy into that plan, successive govts improve upon but not fundamentally change that plan, and we constantly measure how well we are following the plan.
Currently the PP's "Growth Poles" plan is indistinct and is punctuated by unsustainable infrastructure development. The PNM "Vision 2020/2030" is clear but not bought in by everybody because it originates in the PNM and has been caricatured as "tall buildings in POS."
Adversarial politics is here for a while, just buckle up and hold your politicians accountable.
rfari wrote:Realise that anytime the discussion takes a positive turn, the UNC supporters have no contribution. Only when it goes down on the gutter they most active
Redman wrote:The idea that people of disparate political views can sit together and formulate a cohesive national policy is not possible.
Why not?
What is the Political philosophy that that separates the PNM and UNC?....
rfari wrote:Big men having a discussion boy. Fall back
eliteauto wrote:lol I like how when ZR has no point he asks questions like he knows, but really he's hoping someone will give him an answer that he can spew his anti-PNM vitriol on. ZR your purpose is to oppose for opposing sake plain talk, same way you bash Caricom nationals but when Rfari said it you ran to their defence, you bring nothing to the table so fall back
rfari wrote:ZR. You killing the debate boy.
zoom rader wrote:rfari wrote:ZR. You killing the debate boy.
It's a one sided debate, a debate must have pros and cons.
rfari wrote:zoom rader wrote:rfari wrote:ZR. You killing the debate boy.
It's a one sided debate, a debate must have pros and cons.
Follow the debate boy. Its not a pnm vs UNC talk however I will be sure to alert you when the rum and roti session has started.
zoom rader wrote:rfari wrote:zoom rader wrote:rfari wrote:ZR. You killing the debate boy.
It's a one sided debate, a debate must have pros and cons.
Follow the debate boy. Its not a pnm vs UNC talk however I will be sure to alert you when the rum and roti session has started.
The only person in the last few post giving any positives is Redman, you and Habit7, eliteauto pushing a PNM agenda.
Slartibartfast wrote:Are you forgetting what happened on Mon Apr 09, 2007 11:08 pm?
Habit7 wrote:Slartibartfast wrote:Are you forgetting what happened on Mon Apr 09, 2007 11:08 pm?
???
Fundamentally not much.
But their interest groups differ. PNM being the East/West Corridor and certain areas in South and UNC having Central and certain areas in South. Ethnic and religious affiliations. Tobago. Unions. Foreign policy, especially with PNM have a significant support base of Eastern Caribbean descendants.
To formulate policy that would satisfy both entities' views on those interest groups would not be possible. It requires compromise.
Should we urbanise South or industrialise it?
Should our laws reflect our colonial Judeo-Christian inspiration or our eastern heritage?
Should Tobago be subservient to Trinidad or set free?
Should unions be suppressed or dictate our labour policy?
Should we assist our regional market or should take our chances on the big sea?
Whoever compromises cant help but feel slighted, then they form a political action group, which forms a party, which challenges the status quo and we start all over again with the adversarial politics.
We cant escape it.
rfari wrote:UML, quick question.
What was debated in the parliament today?
Redman wrote:Well thats the thing.
A properly communicated vision of where we can go means that people will understand or be given the opportunity to understand the rationale behind the decisions.
So I am able to go to a website and access the inputs into the decisions that affect my life.
I would have been able to contribute to the decision before hand and be better informed than i am under the present conditions.
People want to be a part of a successful country-Brazil made massive changes in the 70-00 as has much of the third world...there are blue prints for changing the country's direction...again we just need to go out there and grab what info we want.
Redman wrote:We cant escape it.
Yes we can...unless we as a PEOPLE /COUNTRY/SOCIETY decide not to
Actually your Brazil example makes my point. Brazil was under a military dictatorship from 1964 to 1985. That allowed for an unchallenged vision that would be hard but not impossible to do with democracy.
UML wrote:
UML wrote:
Return to “Ole talk and more Ole talk”
Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 458 guests