truth4meal: I don't look like a kid - I am a kid

no wonder...

Olaolufred:

DOES THIS REALLY MATTER?
WHAT OF IF IKIMI DISCOVERS ALONG THE LINE THAT PDP IS NOT A PARTY TO CONTINUE WITH?
HAVE YOU EVER HAD A FRIEND THAT YOU HAD TO DISSOCIATE FROM FOR A REASON? IT IS POSSIBLE.
I STILL REMEMBER HOW AUDU OGBE CRITICISED HIS OWN PARTY AS A CHAIRMAN OF THE PARTY.
AFTER FEW WEEKS, OBASANJO SAW HIM OFF.
SO, IT IS POSSIBLE YOU DISSOCIATE YOURSELF FROM A GROUP WHO MIGHT HAVE STARTED WITH HOPE BUT GOT DERAILED ALONG THE LINE.
SO POSSIBLE.

In other words, one is a saint the moment he declares for APC?
Meanwhile, your answer has liTttle or nada to do with my previous comment.

Gbawe:

If we had more contributing intelligently as you do perhaps the cretins here will learn or at worst be shamed into silence. Many here try to get the forum looking at issues but that approach is never successful because majority prefer a sentimental and personality-focused examination of every topic under discussion.

I have tried, to no end, to show that almost any Party will be better than the PDP if we inspect the core ideology and political leaning of the ruling Party. The PDP, because it shaping pillars are essentially the crude thinking of the military/uniformed class, cannot sanction any economic model which will truly liberate Nigeria to develop optimally via leveraging on merit and the notion of letting unbridled innate talent, present in all Nigerians, position us optimally.

We have not said any Party is full of saint and we are not arguing that Nigeria will become utopia under any Party. The consistent argument is that Nigeria will move frward considerably under any Party aside the PDP because the ruling Party is merely an apparatus with which former military men reinvented themselves in 1999 to continue the democratic despoil of Nigeria they had carried on , all too easily, previously in their military attire.

Ultimately, when some attain the mental maturity to enable them discern issues, it will be obvious that the PDP's ideology remains one allied to deceitful gradualism which was deliberately initiated , and nurtured since, to prolong the precise conditions that makes Nigeria so hideously underdeveloped.

You are still living in fool's paradise and you need to awake to voices of reasons begging for attention here, unfortunately, a Mr I-too-know like you will never come down from his high horse, you must have taken yourself to be one 'king kong bundy' so in your warped and egocentric views, an APC or any party system can take Nigeria out of this present mess past administrations have subjected us into. A presidential system of democracy is damn too expensive and filled with many loopholes and escape routes for corruption that's why not even past administrations could 'fix' the rot in the many sectors, the way you are acting like a mouth piece for APC or any party besides PDP to take over the reins of power makes me 'wanna cry for you and your folks' as if that will fix Nigeria!

They are Most certainly not our saviour but Nigeria deserves another chance, a new beginning,and this regrouping of old, known politician under a different banner in a country where people especially politicians love instant gratification is commendable (they could have chosen to continue to share with pdp as usual).For those looking for saviours,stop dreaming,the Nigerian problem is so deep seated that the quickest chance of a turnaround is pray our politicians have a rethink or self destruct.
If a Apc is the re-branding of Pdp,it makes sense.maybe getting rid of that name and the culture of recklessness it has come to represent would be a good start
I don't expect transformation,small,incremental progress would do.

Known crooks coming together to save Nigeria? And they think once they shout "7 point agenda", he will vote them in? Like I said before, this is a classical case of old wine in a new bottle! As for me, I won't decide whom to vote for until I see their presidential candidate.

PDP- NEOLiberalism
Neo-liberalism" is a set of economic policies that have become widespread during the last 25 years or so. Although the word is rarely heard in the United States, you can clearly see the effects of neo-liberalism here as the rich grow richer and the poor grow poorer.

"Liberalism" can refer to political, economic, or even religious ideas. In the U.S. political liberalism has been a strategy to prevent social conflict. It is presented to poor and working people as progressive compared to conservative or Rightwing. Economic liberalism is different. Conservative politicians who say they hate "liberals" -- meaning the political type -- have no real problem with economic liberalism, including neoliberalism.

"Neo" means we are talking about a new kind of liberalism. So what was the old kind? The liberal school of economics became famous in Europe when Adam Smith, an Scottish economist, published a book in 1776 called THE WEALTH OF NATIONS. He and others advocated the abolition of government intervention in economic matters. No restrictions on manufacturing, no barriers to commerce, no tariffs, he said; free trade was the best way for a nation's economy to develop. Such ideas were "liberal" in the sense of no controls. This application of individualism encouraged "free" enterprise," "free" competition -- which came to mean, free for the capitalists to make huge profits as they wished.

Economic liberalism prevailed in the United States through the 1800s and early 1900s. Then the Great Depression of the 1930s led an economist named John Maynard Keynes to a theory that challenged liberalism as the best policy for capitalists. He said, in essence, that full employment is necessary for capitalism to grow and it can be achieved only if governments and central banks intervene to increase employment. These ideas had much influence on President Roosevelt's New Deal -- which did improve life for many people. The belief that government should advance the common good became widely accepted.

But the capitalist crisis over the last 25 years, with its shrinking profit rates, inspired the corporate elite to revive economic liberalism. That's what makes it "neo" or new. Now, with the rapid globalization of the capitalist economy, we are seeing neo-liberalism on a global scale.

A memorable definition of this process came from Subcomandante Marcos at the Zapatista-sponsored Encuentro Intercontinental por la Humanidad y contra el Neo-liberalismo (Inter-continental Encounter for Humanity and Against Neo-liberalism) of August 1996 in Chiapas when he said: "what the Right offers is to turn the world into one big mall where they can buy Indians here, women there ...." and he might have added, children, immigrants, workers or even a whole country like Mexico."

The main points of neo-liberalism include:

THE RULE OF THE MARKET. Liberating "free" enterprise or private enterprise from any bonds imposed by the government (the state) no matter how much social damage this causes. Greater openness to international trade and investment, as in NAFTA. Reduce wages by de-unionizing workers and eliminating workers' rights that had been won over many years of struggle. No more price controls. All in all, total freedom of movement for capital, goods and services. To convince us this is good for us, they say "an unregulated market is the best way to increase economic growth, which will ultimately benefit everyone." It's like Reagan's "supply-side" and "trickle-down" economics -- but somehow the wealth didn't trickle down very much.

CUTTING PUBLIC EXPENDITURE FOR SOCIAL SERVICES like education and health care. REDUCING THE SAFETY-NET FOR THE POOR, and even maintenance of roads, bridges, water supply -- again in the name of reducing government's role. Of course, they don't oppose government subsidies and tax benefits for business.

DEREGULATION. Reduce government regulation of everything that could diminsh profits, including protecting the environmentand safety on the job.

PRIVATIZATION. Sell state-owned enterprises, goods and services to private investors. This includes banks, key industries, railroads, toll highways, electricity, schools, hospitals and even fresh water. Although usually done in the name of greater efficiency, which is often needed, privatization has mainly had the effect of concentrating wealth even more in a few hands and making the public pay even more for its needs.

ELIMINATING THE CONCEPT OF "THE PUBLIC GOOD" or "COMMUNITY" and replacing it with "individual responsibility." Pressuring the poorest people in a society to find solutions to their lack of health care, education and social security all by themselves -- then blaming them, if they fail, as "lazy."

Around the world, neo-liberalism has been imposed by powerful financial institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank. It is raging all over Latin America. The first clear example of neo-liberalism at work came in Chile (with thanks to University of Chicago economist Milton Friedman), after the CIA-supported coup against the popularly elected Allende regime in 1973. Other countries followed, with some of the worst effects in Mexico where wages declined 40 to 50% in the first year of NAFTA while the cost of living rose by 80%. Over 20,000 small and medium businesses have failed and more than 1,000 state-owned enterprises have been privatized in Mexico. As one scholar said, "Neoliberalism means the neo-colonization of Latin America."

In the United States neo-liberalism is destroying welfare programs; attacking the rights of labor (including all immigrant workers); and cutbacking social programs. The Republican "Contract" on America is pure neo-liberalism. Its supporters are working hard to deny protection to children, youth, women, the planet itself -- and trying to trick us into acceptance by saying this will "get government off my back." The beneficiaries of neo-liberalism are a minority of the world's people. For the vast majority it brings even more suffering than before: suffering without the small, hard-won gains of the last 60 years, suffering without end.

ACN- Classical Liberalism
Classical liberalism is a political ideology, a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties and political freedom with limited government under the rule of law and generally promotes a laissez-faire economic policy.
Following Adam Smith, classical Liberals believe in three main functions of government: (1) the defense of the nation in international relations; (2) the administration of justice, upholding general rules of conduct protecting property and contract and preventing force and fraud; (3) the provision of "public goods" such as a minimum safety net for those who cannot provide for themselves, all of which the private sector would be unwilling or find too costly to provide on its own. Classical Liberals affirm that the state has a role in part-financing the provision of public goods, but they argue that this leaves ample room for private financing as well as competitive and decentralised private management of the services delivered.
Many ill-informed commentators hold that classical Liberalism advocates an unqualified laissez faire and a minimalist "nightwatchman" state -- "anarchy plus the constable," in the derisory words of Carlyle. This is false. The stress on justice, or the Rule of Law, shows that classical Liberalism advocates a qualified, not an absolutist, laissez faire or what one could term "liberty under the law." And the three functions of government outlined above go well beyond the restricted panorama of the "nightwatchman" state, encompassing broad and significant areas of public activity. Even the main function of economic policy, the formulation and implementation of general rules of conduct to protect property and enforce contracts, is far from being a simple, minimal, and cut-and-dried task. A framework of legal rules is infinitely complex in modern societies, differing between countries and constantly changing over time. This presupposes unwavering attention, great deliberation and not insignificant capacity on the part of the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary. The Scottish moral philosophers -- David Hume in particular -- were very attentive to this fact, and the complexity, as well as the supreme importance to the economy, of the rules of property and contract have been highlighted recently by Ronald Coase and his followers in what is called the New Institutional Economics.

To repeat, the classical Liberal does believe in important functions for government, but contrary to Socialists, or Social Democrats, he also contends that these functions should be circumscribed. The classical Liberal, following Jeremy Bentham, draws a sharp distinction between the government's legitimate and limited agenda (the three functions mentioned above) and its illegitimate and unlimited non-agenda. The latter -- what government should not undertake -- primarily refers to (non-interference in) private property and the freedom of production and consumption. To put it another way, this time in the formulation of the German economist Walter Eucken, the government is charged with supplying the institutional-regulatory framework of the free market economy, but it should not intervene in the market process itself, particularly in making decisions on prices and production in the allocation of resources. This is, or should be, the exclusive domain of private actors.

Thus the classical Liberal would characterise the office of government in terms of an impartial "umpire" or "referee," upholding "the rules of the game," but government, like an umpire or referee, should not get involved in the "game" itself, let alone pre-program or doctor the results of the game.

It can also be said that the classical Liberal conception of government activity in modern societies is composed of an amalgam of positive and negative functions: positive in the sense of active engagement, such as providing public goods and modifying and improving the framework of general rules; negative in the sense of refraining from doing certain things, such as interfering with private property and prices.

In the West, the positive agenda of government is fairly well developed, especially in the supply and enforcement of a comprehensive framework of rules of property and contract; but the negative side has been wilfully ignored as the public sphere has strayed into arbitrary interference with prices and production, and engaged in rampant redistributive activity in the dubious name of "social justice". In developing countries, paradoxical though it may seem, there is an insufficient appreciation of both positive and negative functions: on the one hand, there is far too much arbitrary interference in the private economic activities of individuals, with massive disregard for the individual's "negative" liberties; on the other hand, broad swathes of the positive agenda are underdeveloped, ranging from the supply of private law to the provision of public goods. One could say much the same thing about the situation in the transition countries. Their task is to rein in government so that it does not trespass on negative liberties, as well as sharpen its positive profile by concentrating on general rules of conduct and the provision of public goods.

CLASSICAL LIBERALISM AS A REALISTIC ALTERNATIVE
Having expressed reservations about the foregoing versions of Liberalism, I now propose to expound a theory of classical Liberalism which I believe to be more "realistic" and policy relevant. Classical Liberalism has its wellsprings in the moral philosophy and political economy of the Scottish Enlightenment, particularly in the thought of Adam Smith and David Hume, and resurfaced in the twentieth century in the works of Frank Knight, Jacob Viner, Walter Eucken, Wilhelm Ropke and, not least, F.A. Hayek.
Let us revisit the core value of Liberalism, individual freedom. For classical Liberalism, individual liberty has positive and negative aspects -- two sides of the same Liberal coin. In the first instance, liberty is defined negatively and secured by law: binding rules proscribe certain actions which interfere with the individual's delimited private sphere, particularly his property, in order to prevent him from being arbitrarily coerced; but this still leaves the individual free to act in any way not specifically forbidden. This latitude of action dovetails with the individual's positive freedoms for, as long as he stays within the limits of the law, he is perfectly free to "pursue his own interest his own way," according to Adam Smith. Acting in his own interest, or that of his family, friends or acquaintances, he discovers an inestimably vast range of present and future actions, allowing for the powerful expression of his individuality in all departments of life.

Individual freedom, negative and positive, is the bedrock of the free market economy. The freedom to produce and consume engenders a division of labor and increasing occupational and geographical specialisation, which facilitates a much improved employment and allocation of existing resources .

The division of labor is only one aspect of the case for a free market economy; it is complemented by the existence of a "division of knowledge." A major component of individual freedom is the ability to use his "own knowledge for [his] own purposes," in the language of Hayek. Knowledge in a complex society is localized and embedded in a myriad of skills and traditions, and is highly fragmented and dispersed. No person or group of persons is fully aware of the relevant facts to make "correct" decisions; everyone is partially and perpetually ignorant. The genius of the market economy is that it allows individuals to freely use what partial knowledge they have in everyday activities of production and consumption. Countless individual decisions, based on partial and highly fragmented knowledge, are coordinated through the "signals" of the price mechanism and within the rules of law. Only such a decentralised mechanism of coordinating existing knowledge and generating new knowledge is effectively capable of catering to the wants and needs of millions of individuals in complex societies.

In contrast, a centrally planned economy, or even a "mixed economy" with widespread government intervention, prevents individuals from acting in "their own interest their own way" or using "their own knowledge for [their] own purposes," especially by interfering with private property and the freedom of production and consumption. Government "planning" of the allocation of resources is far inferior to the nimble coordination mechanism of decentralised market exchange, for a centralised authority cannot possibly have access to, or control of, sufficient knowledge to "efficiently" decide on what is to be produced and consumed in complex orders.

Therefore, individual freedom is essential to provide material benefit for all, and especially for the poorer sections of society. The lesson of theory and history is that it is, in this respect at least, far superior to the clumsy and pernicious coordination of economic activity by government fiat. But this is not the sole argument for liberty in classical Liberalism. Indeed any theory of Liberalism would be poor, incomplete, and ultimately indefensible, if it rested exclusively and complacently on a "material" foundation. The freedom of the individual is not only about the creation of material wealth; it is more generally about the freedom of expression in all aspects of life, political, economic, social and cultural, which is the essence of the "Open Society" of Sir Karl Popper. Government intervention with individual freedoms cramps and even cripples such "openness" and leads to a "closed society." It is, as Hayek puts it, "the road to serfdom."

To recapitulate, the normative core of classical Liberalism is a belief in individual freedom as the most effective means of catering to the material requirements of society, as well as individual freedom for its own sake, that is to say, as the vehicle for the expression of individuality. This combination corresponds to what David Hume calls public utility. To Hume, Liberalism, as a system of individual freedom, displays utility, or proves itself "useful," to individuals who exercise choice and to society at large; and this system has been of greater utility over the longrun -- to innumerable individuals, wider social groups, and the progress of civilization itself -- than any viable alternative system of social coordination.

FREEDOM & ORDER
Liberalism is habitually upbraided for preaching an impossibly extreme form of individualism, considering only "atomistic" persons pursuing their self-interest. This is simply not true, as far as classical Liberalism is concerned. Adam Smith and David Hume, in common with Edmund Burke, Alexis de Tocqueville and, more recently, Bertrand de Jouvenel and Michael Oakeshott, have the utmost respect for morals, traditions and conventions, embodied in families, religion, small communities etc., that surround and condition individuals. Smith's Wealth of Nations and Hume's Treatise of Human Nature do not have a trace of atomistic or anomic individuals fighting it out in a war of each against all. To the Scots, society cannot function on a tabula rasa and purely on the basis of exchange and contract. Indeed, exchange and contract can only be sustained by supporting norms of social cooperation that emerge "bottom-up," or "grow" informally and historically, through a cornucopia of "natural communities" [e.g., families, the church, local communities] and voluntary associations -- the corps intermediaries sandwiched between the individual and government.
These institutions of civil society, many of which lie "beyond supply and demand," to borrow the very fitting words of Wilhelm Ropke, are vital bridges that link freedom and order. Freedom bereft of the "order" of civil society is precarious and ineluctably degenerates into anarchy and license, which, in turn, usually generates a tyrannical reaction that quashes freedom itself. The informal mechanisms of civil society, in conjunction with the formal rules of law, provide for a minimum of order and stability, which are preconditions for the gradual extension and longterm sustenance of individual liberty. As Hayek has remarked:


"There probably never has existed a genuine belief in freedom, and there has certainly been no successful attempt to operate a free society, without a genuine reverence for grown institutions, for customs and habits. Paradoxical as it may appear, it is probably true that a successful free society will always be in large measure a tradition-bound society."
This unbreakable bond between freedom and order does shed some "sociological" light on the process of transition in Russia and other countries. It has to be underlined that the economic freedoms of the West could not possibly have taken root, sprouted and flowered, without nourishment in the fertile soil of civil society. In sharp contrast, Russia had hardly a semblance of civil society before 1917, and what little it had was extirpated in the long night of totalitarianism. Therefore, its point of departure for transition in the 1990s totterd on a weak foundation, lacking the structural supports of civil society. The longterm success of economic transition (macroeconomic stabilization, microeconomic liberalization, and institutional transformation), political democracy, and the securing of individual liberty itself will only be gained if the institutions of civil society emerge and very gradually become established. These institutions include a solid middle class, a bourgeois ethic of hard work and self-responsibility, respect for property and the law, adherence to conventions of trust and reputation in business dealings, a plethora of voluntary associations, decentralised decision-making, inter alia.

On the other hand, the outlook for the East Central European countries (Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Hungary) is somewhat better, at least in part because they had a pre-Communist heritage of "Western" civil society to which they can now reconnect. For all the transition countries, to varying degrees, there is an inescapable mutual dependence between "technical" measures of policy and the enveloping informal institutions of civil society. It would be folly indeed to overlook the fact that their fortunes are inextricably entwined.

PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSUMPTIONS
Liberalism, particularly its "economic" component, is also accused of relying excessively on the homo economicus of neoclassical economics. This rational actor model assumes that man makes correct or "optimising" decisions in adjusting means to ends under given conditions, that he has perfect knowledge of relevant facts as well as a perfect information-processing capability. With such rational action, competition for goods and services in "perfect": markets clear at equilibrium prices, there is no monopoly power, and resources are fully utilised and "efficiently" allocated. In effect, homo economicus is an outgrowth of the homo faber of the French Enlightenment: there is a mechanical optimism in the ability of "rational" human beings to master and control their environment, or "design" their social arrangements, at will.
Admittedly, much of Liberal doctrine is tainted by this rather primitive and simplistic Cartesian rationality, the unfortunate and baleful legacy of la pense franaise. [but not only French thought] in our modern world. Once again, however, classical Liberalism adopts a strikingly different approach, for the legacy of the Scottish Enlightenment is a sceptical or critical view of human rationality in social orders of unbounded complexity. To Smith and Hume, man is governed largely by his "passions," not his reason; he is fallible in his decision-making processes and has imperfect knowledge of relevant facts . Given "the slow and uncertain determinations of our reason" [Smith] or "the narrow bounds of human understanding" [Hume], markets are far from "perfect". The lasting advantage of markets, however, is that they provide an appropriate framework in which men are goaded into becoming more "rational" in adjusting means to ends: rationality, and with it the utilization of existing resources and the grasping of new opportunities, improve by slow degrees and by force of circumstance.

Thus, classical Liberalism has a hard-boiled, realistic appraisal of human nature, a world away from the abstractions of homo economicus. Its case for a free market economy is not dependent on rational men in perfect markets; rather, it holds that fallible and capricious men are still better at making their own decisions in real-world situations than having decisions made for them by stupid, ignorant, and profligate governments. According to Hayek, this is not a system reliant on "good" men; rather, it is one in which "bad men can do least harm". Hence the classical Liberal argument in favor of free markets is practical, empirical and perhaps even rough-and-ready, with complex assumptions of man in a complex world. By steering clear of over-rigid, unrealistic abstractions, it remains steadfastly relevant to the requirements of public policy.

THE ECONOMIC FRAMEWORK
The advantages of individual liberty have been set out in the foregoing discussion. Their upshot in the "economic" world of market exchange is the freedom to own property, the freedom of occupation, movement and association, and the freedom to strike contracts and engage in trade. Many commentators tend to downplay these basic economic freedoms and place greater emphasis on socalled political and civic freedoms, for example, the freedom of thought and speech, the freedom of the person (from arbitrary arrest, torture, etc.), and the freedom to participate in politics. Joseph Schumpeter, in common with many Socialists and Social Democrats, considers "political" freedoms to be inviolate but "economic" freedoms subsidiary, thereby legitimating government intervention in private property and the freedom of trade and contract.
This Socialist or Social Democratic stance classical Liberalism rejects out of hand. First, it is difficult to imagine how civic or political freedoms can be efficaciously safeguarded in the longterm without the defence of economic freedoms. And second, economic freedoms are at least as important as political freedoms. It is all too easy for the intellectual, closeted in his unreal, rarefied world (and these days, showered with public subsidies of various kinds in the name of "education" or "culture" to wax eloquently on the subject of human and political rights, while, at the same time, denigrating economic freedoms. What he conveniently and blithely overlooks is that the bulk of the population, that is to say, "practical" people, mostly engage in the mundane, quotidian "economic" activities of buying and selling, producing and consuming, using their property and making transactions. Only an infinitesimally tiny proportion of their everyday lives is taken up by political or civic activity. The latter is not to be underestimated, but the vital fact remains that economic freedoms are basic and primary; they vivify individual liberty. Without the life-blood of economic freedoms, individual liberty would be empty, a mere sham.

Russia, China and the other transition countries had both economic and political freedoms eviscerated by Communism. Now they should disregard the dangerous advice of many well-meaning Western Social Democrats to privilege political over economic freedom. To reiterate, the latter is at least as important as the former.

culled from POLITICS, SOCIETY, & THE SOVEREIGN STATE by Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr.

Nuzo':


In other words, one is a saint the moment he declares for APC?
Meanwhile, your answer has liTttle or nada to do with my previous comment.

I CAN CHOOSE TO STOP BEING YOUR FRIEND IF I FOUND OUT WE ARE NOT COMPATIBLE IN SOME AREAS I CAN'T ENDURE.
FOR INSTANCE, I WILL NOT CONTINUE WITH A FRIEND WHO STARTED SMOKING OR WOMANISING.
IT DOESN'T MEAN WE'VE NEVER BEEN FRIEND, IT IS JUST THAT HE CHANGED ALONG THE LINE,
AND HIS CHANGE WOULD NOT ALLOW ME CONTINUE IN THE FRIENDSHIP.
SO, THAT I WAS HIS FRIEND BEFORE DOES NOT IMPLY THAT I WILL ALWAYS BE AS BAD AS HE IS.
THAT ANSWERS YOU.

With good planning & right candidates, APC will no doubt easily carry the day in 2015 irrespective of how much PDP spend. This time around, the eyes of the world will be on Nigeria as this could be the last chance to save Nigeria from PDP

tomakint:
You are still living in fool's paradise and you need to awake to voices of reasons begging for attention here, unfortunately, a Mr I-too-know like you will never come down from his high horse, you must have taken yourself to be one 'king kong bundy' so in your warped and egocentric views, an APC or any party system can take Nigeria out of this present mess past administrations have subjected us into. A presidential system of democracy is damn too expensive and filled with many loopholes and escape routes for corruption that's why not even past administrations could 'fix' the rot in the many sectors, the way you are acting like a mouth piece for APC or any party besides PDP to take over the reins of power makes me 'wanna cry for you and your folks' as if that will fix Nigeria!

I dont think it boils down to presidential system of government alone, the party ideaology plays a major role, OBJ when leaving Govt tried to reduce the ministers, boards, etc but when Yar'dua and GEJ came they increase it back. Presidential system might be expensive but the leader decides. Our presidency is overbloated, for example Osun state, it took the 8 months to have commissioners reasons, the governor claims the number of ministry is too much and the amount paid to them is high, he tried to prune it down and throw that he saved the state some funds, he his yet to appoint board members, reason - what really is their duty, it is just a means of increasing the govt expenditure and creating lots of bureacracy in the system. No doubt that presidential system is expensive but be can run it and reduce our expenditure. It is more of your belief toward issue and how u intend to solve them.

D'Vanguard:


I dont think it boils down to presidential system of government alone, the party ideaology plays a major role, OBJ when leaving Govt tried to reduce the ministers, boards, etc but when Yar'dua and GEJ came they increase it back. Presidential system might be expensive but the leader decides. Our presidency is overbloated, for example Osun state, it took the 8 months to have commissioners reasons, the governor claims the number of ministry is too much and the amount paid to them is high, he tried to prune it down and throw that he saved the state some funds, he his yet to appoint board members, reason - what really is their duty, it is just a means of increasing the govt expenditure and creating lots of bureacracy in the system. No doubt that presidential system is expensive but be can run it and reduce our expenditure. It is more of your belief toward issue and how u intend to solve them.

Good point raised, being governor of a state in Nigeria is quite different from being a President of Nigeria! My point is how do you cater for all those political elected officers' salaries and allowances with trillions of Naira annually not to mention the 'level of sleazes in high places' and a Nation will not go bankrupt!You will agree with me that money is liquid and needs to flow at all cost and so far so good, Jonathan is 'spending the money' in the appropriate quarters to ameliorate the suffering of the masses. I am yet to see any administration that has 'open the lid' on many sectors where 'corruption' is going on unnoticed as Jonathan's! You can go on castigating for all the laurels you want, it makes no sense and will never remove the fact that he is doing his very best to bring home the dividends of democracy to us all!

Okija_juju:


And APC is our new Beginning I guess?!!

Tinubu

Buhari

Rochas

Ikimi

Ogbe

Udenwa

& co..


What is new about this?!


APC is a desparate move by weak political opposition parties to wrestle power away from the ruling Party.

The reason why the PDP remains the strongest party in Africa remains the fact that it has no Ethinic or religous emblem. You cant tie them to any group, religion or tribe. They are the only Political party that cuts across all and thats the secret of their strenght. CPC is a Northern Party, ACn Yoruba, APGA Igbo, ANPP Hausa. So:

2 Hausa Parties (CPC & ANPP)

1 Yoruba Party (ACN)

&

1 Igbo Party (APGA)

Joinning together to remove the PDP.. My brother, they were dead on arrival..

PDP till a new Party that has no ethinic or religous mark is formed..

FRESH BREEZE 2015..

Ethnic or tribal inclination isn't a bad thing if geared towards communal good and if it's not driven by hate for others. The singular reason for Pdp successes so far has been the lack of a robust mechanism to counter it and you would agree,this new guys have a chance;Never in our recent history have we had an opposition control 10 Nigerian states including the most important Nigerian state(Lagos) and a significant national assembly seats.secondly, we have the weakest and the most overly ambitious presidency in our history.If these guys are serious and if they show a bit of maturity pdp will either be mortally hit or scatter altogether.
like i said earlier APc isnt our saviour,just a chance to try something else

tomakint:
Good point raised, being governor of a state in Nigeria is quite different from being a President of Nigeria! My point is how do you cater for all those political elected officers' salaries and allowances with trillions of Naira annually not to mention the 'level of sleazes in high places' and a Nation will not go bankrupt!You will agree with me that money is liquid and needs to flow at all cost and so far so good, Jonathan is 'spending the money' in the appropriate quarters to ameliorate the suffering of the masses. I am yet to see any administration that has 'open the lid' on many sectors where 'corruption' is going on unnoticed as Jonathan's! You can go on castigating for all the laurels you want, it makes no sense and will never remove the fact that he is doing his very best to bring home the dividends of democracy to us all!

Leaders starts from somewhere, be it gov or chairman, your stand on little issues decide ur stands on bigger issues. The president can reduce the expenditure if he so desire, starting from his home. I will always use Osun state as a point of reference where i have little privilege information about its govt. During Bisi Akande regime, he decided that the feeding allowance for state house should be cut reason that he has his wife whose responsiblity is to provide food for him and his family. This single policy lead to less amount on feeding of unnecessary visitors to state house. It cut slaughter of cow every day to maybe once or twice in a month. Why this analysis is to tell you, it is about the principle and belief of the leader not about the majorly the type of system.
Jonathan have not open the lid to corruption, but have cut the supply of some people who are busy crying foul and open the gate for another people. I dont doubt your words dat GEJ is doing his best but his best his not good enough for now based on the indices on ground.

D'Vanguard:


Leaders starts from somewhere, be it gov or chairman, your stand on little issues decide ur stands on bigger issues. The president can reduce the expenditure if he so desire, starting from his home. I will always use Osun state as a point of reference where i have little privilege information about its govt. During Bisi Akande regime, he decided that the feeding allowance for state house should be cut reason that he has his wife whose responsiblity is to provide food for him and his family. This single policy lead to less amount on feeding of unnecessary visitors to state house. It cut slaughter of cow every day to maybe once or twice in a month. Why this analysis is to tell you, it is about the principle and belief of the leader not about the majorly the type of system.
Jonathan have not open the lid to corruption, but have cut the supply of some people who are busy crying foul and open the gate for another people. I dont doubt your words dat GEJ is doing his best but his best his not good enough for now based on the indices on ground.

...and the indices used by his critics to condemn him have just been tested within two years why not allow him to finish his first term before judging! I believe he is capable of delivering the goods!

Olaolufred:

I CAN CHOOSE TO STOP BEING YOUR FRIEND IF I FOUND OUT WE ARE NOT COMPATIBLE IN SOME AREAS I CAN'T ENDURE.
FOR INSTANCE, I WILL NOT CONTINUE WITH A FRIEND WHO STARTED SMOKING OR WOMANISING.
IT DOESN'T MEAN WE'VE NEVER BEEN FRIEND, IT IS JUST THAT HE CHANGED ALONG THE LINE,
AND HIS CHANGE WOULD NOT ALLOW ME CONTINUE IN THE FRIENDSHIP.
SO, THAT I WAS HIS FRIEND BEFORE DOES NOT IMPLY THAT I WILL ALWAYS BE AS BAD AS HE IS.
THAT ANSWERS YOU.

Say we were in an armed robbery gang...and we had a fallout cos of sharing formular. You decided to join another gang claiming to be against armed robbers and at the same time keeping the stupendous loot you made while in the old gang.

Why on earth should I take you serious?

Nuzo':


Say we were in an armed robbery gang...and we had a fallout cos of sharing formular. You decided to join another gang claiming to be against armed robbers and at the same time keeping the stupendous loot you made while in the old gang.

Why on earth should I take you serious?

Well said! just like sending OPC to checkmate the excesses of Bakassi boys!!!

slimghost: Look at the names there and tell how credible those men are. Old wine in a new bottle!

Old wine in a new bottle...

This party hasn't been registered and it has already generated so much discussion. I think it shows that Nigerians are really yearning for a change. I'm not surprised by the constant bashing by the PDP goons on here though. If they truly think APC will be such a failure, i'd expect them to have written it off already. This constant bashing can only mean one thing - they're scared. And that's good. If you think that the men in APC are not good enough, simply go and form your own party. Or are you not Nigerians? I don't think the APC is being imposed on anyone and I'm sure INEC will still register as many parties that meet the requirements. The final say will come from Nigerian voters.

PapaBrowne: I didn't see the seven point agenda.
Can someone please help list it our point by point. Thanks

Also why is the former PDP chairman in the new party and chairing the formation of the APC's party's agenda?
I thought parties were built on Ideologioes. If a PDP chairman whose Ideology was suited perfectly for the PDP is now the architect of APC's agenda, are we not going to end up with APC having an ideology that is simply the same as the PDP?

Awolowo had an ideological bend that defined the way the Action Group operated and succeeded. Ahmadu Bello had an ideology that defined the way his party operated. Audu Ogbeh's ideological bend is definitely PDP and it would definitely have reflection in the way APC would operate and fail or succeed.

Gbam! Thiefs that lost in the power equation seeking for ways to come back and continue looting. Same old corrupt politicians

skyfall: This party hasn't been registered and it has already generated so much discussion. I think it shows that Nigerians are really yearning for a change. I'm not surprised by the constant bashing by the PDP goons on here though. If they truly think APC will be such a failure, i'd expect them to have written it off already. This constant bashing can only mean one thing - they're scared. And that's good. If you think that the men in APC are not good enough, simply should go and form your own party. Or are you not Nigerians? I don't think the APC is being imposed on anyone and I'm sure INEC will still register as many parties that meet the requirements. The final say will come from Nigerian voters.

Correct in every sense. Anyone able to put two and two together can discern their fear. They deliberately and senselessly make it about the Ikimis and the Ogbehs to damn APC while pretending to be unaware of literally the thousands of good guys who will be the actual occupants of the transformational offices that will move Nigeria forward and are simply not open to the Ikimis and Ogbehs of the APC. It is Nigerians, sentimental beyond redemption, always keen to speak in ways that shows the world we lack political sophistication. A real shame.

It is a bit like obdurately making ACN about Lai Mohammed when Presidential slot and VP were reserved for Ribadu and Adeola while guber positions are for the Fasholas, Fayemis, Ajimobis of the world. The pessimist or enemy of progress will always find something, however petty and senseless, to use in vilifying the commendable efforts of others.

People can continue to talk about characters who will never go beyond their current glorified and deliberately assigned honorary role of scribe within the APC. Those of us who are realistic and steadfast in what we have always wanted for our nation know that come what may, and when APC wins, Nigeria is gaining independent-minded and proven achievers in positions that matter. No settling for a President who is weak, insincere, lacking in political will and a gradualist tool of "business as usual" or a VP who is a lightweight lackey selected to serve tea obediently rather than a competent individual who can step up and lead well should the President be incapacitated or unavailable.

No anti-people pro-establishment Senate President who acts in ways contrary to requirement. No crook and jeun jeun lawyer, with shabby career, as AGF while brilliant, outstanding, dedicated and celebrated disciples of the law abound. Patently dishonest Nairalanders can continue to show they don't do reality via lying to themselves the APC is about Ikimi and Ogbeh alone but the reality makes that reasoning pathetic and perverse. The Party is simply bursting at the seams with the best Nigerians leaders available. It will be about them, as per political office that matter, and not about Ikimi or Ogbeh.

Afam4eva: Btw, is it the duty of APC to determine what whoever is elected should do. Shouldn't this be left for the candidate himself?

Yes, it is the duty of a party to determine what a candidate should do ...... That is the reason for party manifestoes........party programmes!!!

A candidate promotes/implement the ideologies of a party!!!.....YES!!!

Long Live APC!

bad_ass_nigga: it reminds me of late yar'dua 7 points agenda

^^^Yeah....a load of hot air that was!

Tolexander: but they should try registering the party before anything.
I dont believe in manifestoes of cos PDP has manifestoes likewise other parties that make up the APC.

Are they yet to register the party?

7 point agender indeed. E dey easy to talk but to do na lie.