47 replies to this topic

[Sue Woods]

revised post below, thx

[Sue Woods]

Removed this one too - where's that eraser! :-) S

[Mike K.]

Much appreciated, Susan.

[Sue Woods]

As I have condensed my view from two posts into one - please disregard this empty box.
Or as Gilda Radner used to say..."never mind"

Cheers for now, Sue

[groundlevel]

All politics and all governments are the result of the activities of groups. You may believe that "special interest groups" (example -- neighbourhood associations) are the enemy of "reform", "good government","progress" but politics is a never-ending, small-bore struggle for advantage among constantly shifting coalitions of interest groups.
You can deplore the role of interest-group lobbying, until you are part of some interest group or other and presto! your group or individual position is, obviously, the correct one. Argue it out in the political arena. We call this Politics.
People think that the wheedling of interest groups -- tree-huggers, forest companies, big oil, consumer groups, mothers against drunk driving -- distorts politics. On the contrary, the workings of interest groups -- in interaction with one another -- CONSTITUTES politics.
Pluralism -- looking at politics as shifting alliances of special interests -- is useful in understanding municipal politics -- except during election months. Then the platitudes about the public interest and the general good (as defined by that particular politician to appeal to that particular voter) are too deep to wade through. After the election is the time to initiate action -- and organize -- and make your interests into policy, if you can.

[Sue Woods]

People think that the wheedling of interest groups -- tree-huggers, forest companies, big oil, consumer groups, mothers against drunk driving -- distorts politics. On the contrary, the workings of interest groups -- in interaction with one another -- CONSTITUTES politics.

I had promised myself that I'd stop posting to VV for awhile to focus on my campaign and meet people face to face. But since I have now entered the political arena I guess I'm allowed to break any and all promises :-)

I do have some regrets for posting on this particular thread (development/ public consultation) given some of the flack I've received. This has caused me to vascilate between thinking I need to side-step the issue altogether, even tho it is on the top of mind of most voters, and being flattered that at least my candidacy is being taken seriously.

I agree with what you say about politics and that everyone deserves to be heard, from individuals to organized groups. If I were to be elected I would, of course, ensure all parties are involved in the consultation process. All we can hope for is common sense and informed leadership by Council whoever gets in.

I am reminded of a friend who became the first female mayor of Winnipeg a number of years ago. She ran against 17 other mayoralty hopefuls and based her platform on two things: that she would step down after two terms and she wanted to bring progress to an entrenched Council. After two highly successful terms she was the first incumbent mayor to follow through on her campaign promise to step aside. Throughout her years of service, she insisted on being called an elected official, not a politician, and viewed her role as a temporary representative of the people, not a career choice.

No matter how my two paragraphs on a forum blog might have been intrepreted, I always seek to be understood as a proponent of the fair middle ground and proud member of a democracy that encourages us to never retreat from openly sharing our ideas and views.

Depending on the issue at hand you could call me an idealist, liberal, conservative or socialist - just don't call me late for dinner. (Or a politician :-)

Thanks, Sue

[mat]

Susan

You may feel some angst over posts, replies and some attacks from your active participation on VV but, no matter what your views, congratulations for putting yourself in the public eye online. You are one of very few candidates, not only in Victoria, but the other 12 regional municipalities, who has a website, and is willing to risk debating policies, ideas and gripes in this medium. It demonstrates an awareness of the power (and yes pitfalls) of new media and a strength of character. People may not agree with you but all must admit the ability to engage directly is enlightening.

Caramia and I have been working on updating the candidates lists for all municipalities - which has been a frustrating and eye-opening experience. Only Victoria is updating candidate lists as they register, some municipal election officers will provide that information over the phone (Central Saanich and Langford), others claim Municipal regulations prevent that information being posted until after the 10th.

It is amazing that only a small minority of new candidates and incumbents have personal campaign websites and are either ignorant of voter communities on the web (like VV, Victoria2020, or Victoria Vision), or unwilling to engage.

[Ms. B. Havin]

^ What mat said.

I am *really* disappointed by the inability of some to engage public conversation.

PS: @SueWoods: don't worry about thinking out loud. It's the 2.0 version of politics -- 'cause (speaking for myself, anyway) the 1.0 versions (doing stuff in secret 'behind the scenes,' or weighing every angle, etc.) have just about run their course (as this blog entry so eloquently shows).

You will get more votes with being open than you'd lose if you did things the old way.