Start with the big issues

Very deep, then how about let's start this discussion on our political system.

Yup the political system needs an overhaul. It's not representive of the people's wishes. It has been slowly taken over by " interest groups" moslty those with money who want to carry on making more and more or protecting their allready plush income streams. The corporate model began in nz with rodgernomics and was cemented in place by the terms of our IMF loans.
A government cannot serve its people's changing needs while financial matters override every decision. Health, education and the environment return no direct income and therefore are lower priorities than export for eg.
The lack of ethics across the whole business and political and legal sectors are now systemic (now institutionalised and taught in universities and business schools).
The culture of raping eachothers pockets to make a living is a spiraling race to the bottom end of morality and defines most peoples interactions as valued primarily by their monitary gain with social and environmental considerations trailing behind or even omitted.
So the underpinning issue to all the other issues to me, is ethics.

I don't think it can ever be representative. We are all individuals. The only prospect of reconciliation is really in attaining some scientific nature of humanity, and arriving at a human imperative that derives from that. Neither is valued under an extortion system. 'Representation' is a by-word for sanctioned extortion.
I think its natural and proper for people to make money or want to protect their financial interests. I think it does not serve the marginalised to deny people their right to do that. What is the problem is 'unlevel' or 'unfair' playing field, and the govts role in 'creating' that, as opposed to the argument oft posited that capitalism is 'imbalancing' or 'destabilising'.
There is no reason to think govt can improve any life. Govt is a legitimatised regime for theft. It cannot be held to any standard of accountability, because it enacts the standards. Money is not the only corruption; the 'mob' sanction is actually the source of 'money power'. There is no 'direct income' from insurance, and there is certainly private schools, hospitals, so there ought to be no qualms with 'private', other than when the private sector is held to a public standard. i.e. The state regulates them poorly. The environment suffers because (i) Certain lands are 'state controlled' and because regulation stifles the profits of the private sector. The costs are passed onto the 'less empowered' customer, or the environment. Remember that corporations have owners as well, and they don't pollute private property, only the 'commons', that enthrall no counterparty. There is no victim if no owner.
Agree on ethics. The issue however is what is taken to be 'ethical'. Iwould hasten to add that the pursuit of money is actually not the source of the problem; its the repudiation of sound ideology that prompts that. I would say primary concern for animals, the environment, the poor, the elderly, is the source of the problem. Take care of the wealthy, and the rest will be taken care of. Now, the wealthy are held in contempt for the actions of govt, and a few privileged business people.
So what underlies ethics.

Just my small 2 cents.

I think ideal "ethics" is founded on the ideas of inclusivity, participism, voluntarism, etc to name a few in my understanding.

Any new social - political - economic order should be founded on these kind of underlying principles and complexity scaffolded on top.

This requires a fundamental rethinking of every thing we do in the current social reality - anything that doesn’t align with the ideal set of ethical principles (yet to develop consensus on) needs to be rethought and remade...

Eg In regards to the current contemporary conception of "wealth", or trade/economy, or what have you, their positive and negative qualities need to be measured against the ideal set of ethical principles to see if it even makes sense as it currently exists, or does something in the system need to change - not just the accepted rules/norms/laws/customs, but even the way we decide on and make those accepted rules. In essence I feel the ideal process would be through some form of developing consensus. Therefore using consensism is another important ideal for things to be ethical.

Ethics is personal and social. The concept is repudiated if there is any 'illegitimate action'. It is about establishing a standard of conduct for people, or their capacity to leave a group if they are not happy. The problem is that this people can leave a 'group' after committing some breach of 'other's standards'. In effect, running across a border into Mexico. So don't we expect standards to be universal, objective. At the end of the day, there has to be an objective standard of the good.
By consensus Will, do you mean majoritivism, or full complicity, or somewhere in between? i.e. a super-majority.

Hey Andrew, I think this kind of thing is in line with the idea of consensism that I am thinking about.

I mean undergoing dialogue and consultation in order to come to a common understanding - a consensus of understanding.

Sweet so how can we put this all into action?

Andrew .could it not be said that personal ethics coalesce into the community ethic. At least that's the way it should work. Currently there is a dual ethic system where at work most suspend their personal ethics at work and adopt the corporate ethic for the day. ( stereotyping to make a point only). This causes a form split personality. It becomes obvious in most organizations when the policy for doing business with family is looked at.
Do family and friends get a special rate or not. ?
The idea of a consensus based true majority democracy is too scary for most to imagine. But this is the natural alternative to the elite controlled, lie of democracy we currently illude ourselves with . I know many people who would take part in weekly binding referendums of the decisions of the day. The "government"would become the facilitators and implementors in such a system. Realistically there is only joining one of the existing political parties or forming yet another new one to achieve anything like this and great resistance is to be expected either way.

I would say there is no 'community ethic', rather there is objective facts pertaining to things, including the human species, from which we get a moral imperative. So, when we speak of ethics, and some might use the word 'morality' to differentiate, but there are two 'crossed' purposes:
a. Guide us towards life affirming action - This is a personal tool because its rich in personal context (i.e. subjective if you like)
b. Public condemnation of others - This is judging people with some expectation that they have good reason for employing higher standards, or some expectation that they will. It demands some consideration of context, and a preparedness to be the object of counter-claims.

You speak of a compartmentalisation of ethics between home and work, and that's true enough because corporate values are determined by statutory law, as well as common law, and clearly the boss, as custodian, is oft the one to decide if they are prepared to risk a statutory breach. In contrast, most people would stop before accepting a common law breach. So the lack of coherency in law is the source of the lack of integrity in people.
Any type of 'majoritive' system is prone to cynical sanctioning of a majority. i.e. Allow a 'premature decision' because people are cynical towards objections. The objectors can acquiesce, whether because of fear, or a greater national emergency, like the French taking control of the colonies.
Referendums are dogmatism like constitutionalism.
Government is a legally sanctioned monopoly. Coercive monopolies are dangerous.

Just to clear. I see nothing wrong with money persa . It is purely its miss use that has led to the situation we have now.
We will need ( unless the take the great leap backwards to barter /trade and haggle) a means of transaction. It must be a publicly owned utility not a means to unlevel the plying field and extort from the population.