the house of commons is....

[dancingbear]

such a bad example (especially for children) of how to communicate and openly discuss issues. people don't talk to one another but to the 'speaker'. weird.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

such a bad example (especially for children) of how to communicate and openly discuss issues. people don't talk to one another but to the 'speaker'. weird.

Absolutely. It's sort reminiscent of the Spaulding Gray's dysfunctional family in True Stories.

It's always irked me that there's no way to get someone to actually answer a question that's been directed plainly at them three times in a row.

[StoneMtn]

I actually disagree.

I don't like the way they act childish, but I think the system itself is a good example of how to discuss issues in a formal setting.

When I go to a mediation, the goal is to discuss issues and come to an agreement. In order to do that in a civilized manner, we all speak to the mediator, rather than each other.

I find it's a system that works really well; and the results indicate success approximately 80% of the time.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

True, triangulation can take some of the sting out of contrary positions, especially when parties are more or less contractually obliged to be at odds. It does set an odd example, though, for how to resolve differences (or in, Habermas lingo, communication oriented to achieving understanding, rather than communication oriented to instrumental coercion).

Yes, he replied preemptively, that is naive.

[timouse]

it is indeed common practice, albeit a befuddling one.

at our local council meetings, the everything is done through the chair. goofy or not, if stone mountain claims an 80% success rate as a conflict resolution tool, then i believe it

[StoneMtn]

[color:purple]Tim: Did you know that 87% of statistics are made up?

[TheGoodRev]

I agree with StnMtn that mediation is the way to go, but what I simply cannot believe time and again when I turn on the Parliamentary channels is that when the speaker has given one individual the floor to speak, countless others are hollering jabs back and forth at each other! It's insane, I can't picture anything getting done in that kind of environment; not to mention that it's downright fucking childish not to allow your peers an opportunity to speak.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

I always like watching Indian parliament. Those guys know how to chase down an argument.

[dancingbear]

stonemountain...

[color:purple]figures a lawyer would like not directly communicating.

as for 80% success, based on what? coercion? bribes? bill ammendmants and add-ons? constituents not showing up to vote? or just leaving early for the summer even though stuff is't done?

Edited October 19, 2005 by Guest

[StoneMtn]

hahahahaha!

:thumbup:

[Hux]

...keep in mind you guys are watching Question Period. 45 minutes of the day that is pure theatre for the cameras to generate clips for the evening news, it is not the time/place to "get things done".

The decorum at ANY other time in the House during debates, or in committee meetings is FAR different, which is where the real work is done anyways, but that is likely not sexy enough to grab a viewer as they flick by, if it's even on TV.

[dancingbear]

sorry, shoudn't have edited, didn't realize you would reply so quick...sorry if people think your laughing at the non-purple stuff.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

The decorum at ANY other time in the House during debates, or in committee meetings is FAR different. But likely not sexy enough to grab a viewer as they flick by, if it's even on TV.

True enough, but I'm thinking the original point was that it doesn't provide an ideal example of how to share and play fair and get along and all that. Not like everybody needs that, but a lot of people (kids, e.g.) do.

[StoneMtn]

No worries DB.

The 80% success rate I refer to is not about the House. I'm referring to my analogous example of mediations and is based on the idea that the goal is to leave a mediation with a settlement. My largest client, an insurance company, keeps stats on how many of these mediations result in settlement. Give or take, it seems to be about 80%.

Now, in fairness, it's not like everyone walks out of the mediation smiling and friends. In fact, I've heard one very prominent mediator say that the most successful mediation is the one when there is a settlement, and everyone walks out a little dissatisfied.

[Velvet]

I go once in a while to check out question period and it really is quite childish. Plus, most of them aren't paying any attention to anything that's going on. The first time I went I watched one of the MP's spend the entire question period doing a crossword puzzle.

[timouse]

i'm on a few local and regional government environmental committess here in halton hills, and as an involved citizen, i try desperately hard to watch not only local council broadcasts, but CPAC as well.

is it just me, or is even the "high drama" of question period mind numbingly boring? i mean i really want to know what's being talked about, and it seems as though CPAC goes out of its' was to bore me silly and drive me whimpering back to futurama re-runs.

how do they expect people to become interested in the political process? [color:purple]it's almost like they don't want people to pay attention

[Hux]

how do they expect people to become interested in the political process?

Frankly, I think people have to WANT to be interested in order to get involved. By it's nature the political process is just that - process oriented, ie. committees, debates, consultations, necessary legal/regulatory jargon and language - this stuff is the mechanics of democracy.

It's like saying why don't people get excited about nuclear physics? As much as you want to wrap it in something colourful or interesting, it comes down to picking up the 7000 page textbook and learning how the shit works, ie. there is no shortcut.

For people that are directly involved, ie. the Canadian Association of Ethanol Producers (or whoever) who are trying to get support from the Gov't, you can bet they're glued to the Finance committee hearings televised on CPAC that are the equivalent to watching paint dry to the rest of us.

Edited October 22, 2005 by Guest

[timouse]

how do they expect people to become interested in the political process?

Frankly, I think people have to WANT to be interested in order to get involved. By it's nature the political process is just that - process oriented, ie. committees, debates, consultations, necessary legal/regulatory jargon and language - this stuff is the mechanics of democracy.

It's like saying why don't people get excited about nuclear physics? As much as you want to wrap it something colourful or interesting, it comes down to picking up the 7000 page textbook and learning how the shit works, ie. there is no shortcut.

For people that are directly involved, ie. the Canadian Association of Ethanol Producers (or whoever) who are trying to get support from the Gov't, you can bet they're glued to the Finance committee hearings televised on CPAC that are the equivalent to watching paint dry to the rest of us.

agreed. i guess my point was, i truly do want to understand what's happenning, and despite that enthusiasm, i find the broadcast of inner workings of government to be stultifyingly boring...

i mean a lot of it comes dfown to production values and personalities. amy goodman = charismatic & interesting, most CPAC talking heads = paint drying.

and i do regularly force myself to thoroughly read development review applications, official plan amendments, and federal/provicial government publications. and not that i'm suggesting that they dumb things down to encourage participation, but there must be some way of making this very important information more...accessible??

[timouse]

For people that are directly involved' date=' ie. the Canadian Association of Ethanol Producers (or whoever) who are trying to get support from the Gov't, you can bet they're glued to the Finance committee hearings televised on CPAC that are the equivalent to watching paint dry to the rest of us.[/quote']

Definitely true. Solicitation committee captures my full attention for the whole 2 hours. Highlight of my work week sometimes.

really? the whole ethanol debate has been very interesting, and actually kind of disturbing. it appears that the concept behind it is a bit flawed...i mean ethanol as a fuel basically amounts to sucking goodness out of the ground and burning it in our cars. ethanol production using what is essentially waste biomass seems like a good idea, but more and more of it seems to be ethanol from crops that could have otherwise been food.

not to oversimplify the debate, fundamentally ethanol production has less environmental impact relative to extracting oil from tar sands or forced oil extraction by steam injection, and in that sense, it's encouraging that there seems to be some limited progress...