View Full Version : Democracy.
John Little
20-Aug-10, 18:11
Is Democracy everything it is cracked up to be is or is just a scam?
One in five Americans believe that President Obama is a Muslim.
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,2011845,00.html?xid=rss-mostpopularemail
Which says a lot.
These people have votes.
A vote is a thing which is supposed to be exercised with some sort of informed choice.
Isn't it?
To vote, surely you have to know something about what and who you are voting for.
Or do you?
That's 20%. Mathematically significant.
307,006,550 is the US population.
20% is 61, 401,310 people believe Obama is Muslim.
61,401,310 who do not know what their president is and will probably believe anything they are told.
Terrifying or what?
So if we take this as an indicator that a sizable proportion of the US population has been dumbed down......
are they a 'democracy'?
Or a mob.
And what forces move them?
Interesting somehow I don't believe the statistic. Not because I don't believe the source but because its so massive its hard contemplate.
Bring on the Meritocracy I say
John Little
20-Aug-10, 18:45
Seriously - if this is Democracy then we and the US have nothing to boast of. Democracy is a slogan then - and nothing more.
Just the appearance of consent.
If that is the case then maybe we should be honest about it and say that Democracy is meaningless.
What is important is not informed consent but stable government that provides jobs and comfort, law and order.
And if that can be provided by a dictator, a party, a tyrant, maybe we should work with them and stop peddling the morality that our way is best.
Having a middle name like Hussein probably doesnt help.
John Little
20-Aug-10, 18:57
Having a middle name like Hussein probably doesnt help.
True but I bet a lot of them do not know that either.
What's Cameron's middle name?
Without google.....
True but I bet a lot of them do not know that either.
What's Cameron's middle name?
This probably didnt help either.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMUgNg7aD8M
Tubthumper
20-Aug-10, 19:10
I suspect that a goodly portion of the US population believe President Obama is an alien.
That said, what about our own population? I know a good few people in this country who have no idea of who the UK's PM is, or who would happily go along with the idea that Alex Salmond is an alien (if a man in the pub told them), or that our economic situation is so bad that stern and painful action is urgently needed. They also have a vote.
Are they wrong or right? And what difference does it make, in the greater democratic scheme of things?:confused
John Little
20-Aug-10, 20:07
...Are they wrong or right? And what difference does it make, in the greater democratic scheme of things?:confused
61,401,310 differences. That's greater than the population of some countries.
Voting in the most powerful nation on earth.
Roosevelt said that if Fascism ever came to America then it would come as religion wrapped in the Stars and Stripes.
http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.nocaptionneeded.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/palin-wrapped-in-the-flag.png&imgrefurl=http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/veronique-de-rugy-american-apple-pie-and-nearly-smart&usg=__hPojVN_OElWVo8_iXmh-hpgPlbQ=&h=848&w=661&sz=935&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=D7shNoe3ZEDMeM:&tbnh=159&tbnw=116&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dsarah%2Bpalin%2Bus%2Bflag%26hl%3Den%2 6sa%3DG%26biw%3D1280%26bih%3D804%26gbv%3D2%26tbs%3 Disch:1&itbs=1&iact=rc&dur=427&ei=KtJuTLHHLdW7jAe-maT7CA&oei=KtJuTLHHLdW7jAe-maT7CA&esq=1&page=1&ndsp=25&ved=1t:429,r:6,s:0&tx=78&ty=86
Should I be worried?
Seen any of those Tea party videos?
Someone once said that the merit of democracy is that it works. It is better than any other system that has been tried.
Don't be such a smart arse :lol:
John Little
20-Aug-10, 20:16
Someone once said that the merit of democracy is that it works. It is better than any other system that has been tried.
Don't be such a smart arse :lol:
Does it work?
Is it better than any other system tried.?
Your starters for 20 points......
Well....yes. Why? Do you think it doesn't? :confused
John Little
20-Aug-10, 20:31
Because if over 60 million americans think their President is a Muslim then it is a strong indication that they are not very well informed.
And if they are not well informed on this, then what else are they not well informed on?
And what are they voting for if they are not informed?
Are they voting for good teeth and hair- in other words, what qualifications do these people have to decide the best course that policy should take?
For if they are qualified, and democracy is based, ultimately on ignorance, then it is nothing more than a pretence of consent
A con trick to make the job of the people who wield power easier.
And if so then we are no better than a dictatorship, a monarchy, a theocracy, an oligarchy, a plutocracy.
Sigh! John. I don't often take issue with your views, but in this particular case you are talking ballcocks :Razz
Are you suggesting that the elite (by who's judgment) should only be allowed to vote? Or, like Robert Heinlen only those who have served a term in the forces?
Only university graduates perhaps?
Or scientists? or Plumbers?
Talk sense man! [lol]
I would say that a very high percentage of the people who bother to vote in this country do so on the understanding they are voting for the party most likely to do them personally the most good. On that basis of course, anyone who votes Lib Dem is an idiot. [lol]
Democracy is media, media is a dictatorship run by Rupert Murdoch* (insert media mogul of choice)
John Little
20-Aug-10, 21:01
Sigh! John. I don't often take issue with your views, but in this particular case you are talking ballcocks :Razz
Are you suggesting that the elite (by who's judgment) should only be allowed to vote? Or, like Robert Heinlen only those who have served a term in the forces?
Only university graduates perhaps?
Or scientists? or Plumbers?
Talk sense man! [lol]
I think that what I am saying is that the american Muslim/Obama thing shows in great relief just how flawed our 'Democracy' is.
If someone in Iran, Korea, China, etc looks at it and asks me what its advantages are, then I'm blowed if I could tell them.
We all give lip service to this thing we call 'Democracy'- the UN insists on it and even the most dyed in the wool dictatorships claim consent by virtue of an 'election'.
But the great Liberal dilemma is that you can only have real decomcracy if everyone knows what they are voting for.
In this case it seems they do not.
So what is the point of 'Democracy'? Is is to make people feel good?
To make them feel that they count and are consulted?
"Or, like Robert Heinlen only those who have served a term in the forces?
Only university graduates perhaps?
Or scientists? or Plumbers? "
My question is not so absurd when you think that within living memory you could only vote in this country if you owned property.
Or do you really think that what we have is perfect?
John Little
20-Aug-10, 21:02
Democracy is media, media is a dictatorship run by Rupert Murdoch* (insert media mogul of choice)
That is what I suspect and what worries me.
That is what I suspect and what worries me.
Scares the bejesus out of me!
The power of media and the tinterweb is intense.
Just simple things that get misrepresented through ignorance of a journo soon become 'truths' & 'facts', never mind the actual twisting of the truth.
The image that we all must fit into perpetuated by the media, this is then coerced by whatever bias the media group has.
Even the educated, free thinking, open-minded, street wise individuals amongst us will be coerced into believing certain messages eventually, or by virtue of not being in our normal realm of experience accept them as accurate.
Pretty much everything you see on the TV is stage managed or edited to suit an opinion or view, or incorrect through ignorance.
I don't read newspapers often, very rarely in fact. Very occasionally I'll read a copy of the Sun or other such tabloid and sit there shaking my head in scared amazement (the broadsheets are no better, if not worse as they dress the same crap up) that anyone believes any of the guff published. I can see how reading that kind of crap day after day will distort anyone's view of the world.
If someone in Iran, Korea, China, etc looks at it and asks me what its advantages are, then I'm blowed if I could tell them.
I can tell them, very simply. No one in this democracy lives in fear of the state.
I can tell them, very simply. No one in this democracy lives in fear of the state.
I fear who controls the state though.
I fear who controls the state though.
What, Nick n Dave? :cool:
What, Nick n Dave? :cool:
Who? Ant n' Dec was that? :roll:
John Little
20-Aug-10, 22:21
I can tell them, very simply. No one in this democracy lives in fear of the state.
You may very well say that.
But I couldn't possibly comment....
Well actually I could. The state has somewhat eroded the rights of the individual this last several years. Having been stopped on the motorway under the prevention of terrorism act myself I know that the use of it ( over 30,000 times last year) is a bit arbitrary.
When police attack people at demos and are videoed doing it, then walk scot free, then I wonder.
And I think there are groups of people who do not have the same comfortable view of the state as you do.
In fact ever since I read Spycatcher I have thought that.
But anyway I am really talking about mandate to rule.
There's no doubt that the appearance of consent lends a powerful authority to any power system - but I am tempted to think that it's all a massive propaganda exercise.
Who controls the state?
Probably anyone who is rich enough to buy a newspaper or television channel.
And parties become nothing more than rubber stamps.
Maybe true democracy might come if parties were abolished and all issues had to be decided on their own merits.....
Democracy has two fundamental flaws.
1. No matter who you vote for you still do not get to run the country how you see fit.
2. Until politicians pay for the privilege of holding office, resign themselves from holding any corporate / remunerated positions and publish their (and their spouses) complete financial details democracy will be bought.
Maybe your right John. For me it works, as a relatively law abiding citizen, I have no reason to fear the state. I have been stopped by the police going about my legal business. In a Mercedes with Irish plates in Warrington at 3.00am on the day of the bombings. I wasn’t arrested though, they just checked I was who I said I was. They were very thorough, they had me doubting who I was. :lol:
But I am happy for this to happen, shows the bizzies are doing their job.
Maybe your right John. For me it works, as a relatively law abiding citizen......
But when the laws change (changed by the democratic state you voted into office) and what happened yesterday legally becomes illegal tomorrow!
The well intentioned pull you got in Warrington could have been a 'shock & awe' style stop with your car taken away and crushed. Depending on the State.
But when the laws change (changed by the democratic state you voted into office) and what happened yesterday legally becomes illegal tomorrow!
The well intentioned pull you got in Warrington could have been a 'shock & awe' style stop with your car taken away and crushed. Depending on the State.
Eh? Blimey, I can't win. It is what it is, not what you fear it could be.
Come back Fred, all is forgiven [lol]
Come back Fred, all is forgiven Leave the poor man alone while he's on sabbatical.
Eh? Blimey, I can't win. It is what it is, not what you fear it could be.
What it could be is happening, dressed up under the fear spewed out by the gutterpress that, unfortunately, far too many people take as gospel.
Are you not confusing democracy with ignorance?
Just because a proportion of the voters are not fully cogniscent does that mean they are to be denied their voting right?
Just what are you advocating here?
John Little
21-Aug-10, 12:48
Are you not confusing democracy with ignorance?
Just because a proportion of the voters are not fully cogniscent does that mean they are to be denied their voting right?
Just what are you advocating here?
My point is that if they are not fully cogniscent in these sort of numbers then we may call it what we wish but it sure ain't democracy. What you end up with is a kind of mobocracy and the ones who rule are the ones who can sway the uninformed mob - by whatever means. I suspect Phill is right that it's about media control.
I do not believe that ignorance equals a fully functional democracy .
Deny voting rights?
Is there a difference between making a mark on a piece of paper and deciding?
I remember seeing a cartoon from the 1930s which showed a herd of cattle in front of Hitler, who was holding a cleaver - and the caption read something like 'The cows get to choose their own butcher'.
What am I advocating?
I'm not advocating anything because I do not know what to advocate faced with the numbers involved here. But it does make me reflect that we have a certain arrogance in the west when we advocate our style of government as being ne ultra plus. I don't think it is currently, and until we think up a better way of doing it I think we should speak small about it. In the end it seems to me that whatever system you end up with, you get a ruling elite who know stuff.
The only difference is that our rulers ask - and then they do exactly what they want. In a dictatorship etc they do not bother asking.
An intelligence or aptitude test for all potential voters perhaps ? I also think that people who deliberately dont contribute to the state through their own choice should be denied the vote IMO.
John Little
21-Aug-10, 17:39
That would probably be seen as authoritarian.
But it made me think.
At the moment, voter registration is more or less automatic ain't it? The form gets sent round and if you don't bother filling it in then you lose your vote anyway because you are not on the register.
How about not sending it round to every household, but doing it via hoardings and TV advertising?
That way you still have choice but you've got to actually do something about it- so those motivated to do it would be more those who actually want to make a conscious choice. Those who could not be bothered couldn't care less anyway.
I'm just flying a kite but given the low turnouts and voter apathy in this country, a lot of people disenfranchise themselves anyway.
If you actually had to spend more time registering then maybe you would think more about the whys and wherefores of what you are voting for.
I don't know.
It's the classic liberal dilemma where you can only have a greater democracy if the greatest majority are in a position to make informed choices.
If 20% of the US think Obama is a Muslim then I don't like the way things are going.
As Peter Popham put it in today's Independent 'So to Hell with trying to export Democracy.......'
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/peter-popham-gaddafis-war-against-the-dispossessed-2058081.html
Just realism...............
A democracy; a system where lost confused people vote to put other lost confused beings into political power and then blame them for everything that goes wrong.
Democracy does not work. We need a benign, benevolent dictator don't we?
Of course the Taliban's prediliction for stoneing people to death for adultry, cutting of thieve's hands and their general treatment of women is totally unjustifiable but for some time I've had misgivings about trying to take Afghanistan down the democratic route. It's probably too much of a leap forward for a medieval society.
But I've always been surprised at how many Americans share a deep distrust of their government to the point of paranoia as demonstrated by the survivalist and right to bear arms enthusiasms. And what about the 40% who believe the world is less than 6000 years old! I've recently had to dry up on a discussion about plate tectonics with a couple of Canadian students when one of them began to question the geolocial science time line. Would have persisted but we were sharing a dorm in a Stromness Hostel!
Seriously - if this is Democracy then we and the US have nothing to boast of. Democracy is a slogan then - and nothing more.
Just the appearance of consent.
If that is the case then maybe we should be honest about it and say that Democracy is meaningless.
What is important is not informed consent but stable government that provides jobs and comfort, law and order.
And if that can be provided by a dictator, a party, a tyrant, maybe we should work with them and stop peddling the morality that our way is best.
A democracy; a system where lost confused people vote to put other lost confused beings into political power and then blame them for everything that goes wrong.
Democracy does not work. We need a benign, benevolent dictator don't we?
Danna be daft. :eek:
Sometimes when I think about it I'm so grateful I live in what Ive come to believe is a democracy. Some of you may have different words for it but the proof of the pudding is in the eating. When I consider the system of government ive grown up with over 60 years and observed from a distance different forms of government with more restrictive measures for keeping millions of human beings under one body, Im glad I'm British and wer'e freindly with the yanks..
Its not easy to keep the wheels turning and when systyms of government breaks down, it can be catastrophic. There's something solid about the freedom we enjoy in the west and knocking it is maybe just as criminal as being one of the millions of numpties who havnt got a clue.
That way you still have choice but you've got to actually do something about it- so those motivated to do it would be more those who actually want to make a conscious choice. Those who could not be bothered couldn't care less anyway.
Probably not a bad idea that. If you can be bothered voting, make an effort to register yourself instead of having that right already and not being bothered to vote anyway. The only thing though is that there would probably be the party running the country that would have the lowest "majority" in history and all the electorate who could have voted and didnt would be the ones moaning. Thats democracy though(or so I've been led to believe).
John Little
22-Aug-10, 07:31
Danna be daft. :eek:
Sometimes when I think about it I'm so grateful I live in what Ive come to believe is a democracy. Some of you may have different words for it but the proof of the pudding is in the eating. When I consider the system of government ive grown up with over 60 years and observed from a distance different forms of government with more restrictive measures for keeping millions of human beings under one body, Im glad I'm British and wer'e freindly with the yanks..
Its not easy to keep the wheels turning and when systyms of government breaks down, it can be catastrophic. There's something solid about the freedom we enjoy in the west and knocking it is maybe just as criminal as being one of the millions of numpties who havnt got a clue.
There is much in what you say but it seems to me to be rather like the american dream - all you have to do is eat apple pie and believe. In other words, just enjoy what we have and close our eyes to what is wrong with it.
But if we turn a blind eye to what is wrong then we never get any beneficial reform.
And to turn a blind eye to such a mass of people having a vote about their leader and knowing so little about him is perhaps to ignore the symptom of a rather greater problem.
Probably not a bad idea that. If you can be bothered voting, make an effort to register yourself instead of having that right already and not being bothered to vote anyway. The only thing though is that there would probably be the party running the country that would have the lowest "majority" in history and all the electorate who could have voted and didnt would be the ones moaning. Thats democracy though(or so I've been led to believe).
That is true - but they moan anyway. Point is that they have still given consent by default.
That is true - but they moan anyway. Point is that they have still given consent by default.
Democracy could never be truly representative unless everyone (baring a very few exceptions, based on age and being in prison) has a franchise.
IMHO if the ignorant weren't allowed to vote, Labour would never win an election. :lol:
John Little
22-Aug-10, 09:08
But I was not suggesting removal of the franchise.
I was suggesting that it might be a good idea to have the franchise for all, but you have to make an effort to register for it.
At the moment we get low turnouts because people opt out by not voting.
So what about a system where you choose (or not) to opt in?
In that way you end up with a body of voters who a. can be bothered b. are more likely to bother to learn something about what they are voting for and c. are more committed - so you get a higher turnout of registered voters than at present.
And you might end up with politicians who get chosen for their politics and not the twinkle in their eye, their hairstyle or the cut of their suit.
What price the Clegg effect if you actually have to spell out your policies before you get elected?
We might even get a bald man for a Prime Minister; or even a woman who could not model for Vogue. (That's no reflection on her - but on Vogue)
You have watered down your view somewhat. What you now propose would make no difference. The people that don't bother to vote now would not bother to register.:D
In your utopian world every voter would get a copy of every party's manifesto and study all the issues, and each party's solution. I can quite believe you do, but I think you are in a minority of one!
Do you really believe that voters decide for each election which party to vote for, and don't base the decision on the the party they always vote for? I can assure you, the vast majority do.
There is much in what you say but it seems to me to be rather like the american dream - all you have to do is eat apple pie and believe. In other words, just enjoy what we have and close our eyes to what is wrong with it.
But if we turn a blind eye to what is wrong then we never get any beneficial reform.
Although I'm defending the systym I am under no illusion of the difficulties contained within it. Translating my opinion as an idealistic version of the American dream is flippant although I'm sure it wasnt deliberate.
Its a darn good systym of government and it's being continually tweeked through each generation.
History has shown that systyms of government are very difficult structures to contain but so far our systyms in the west are as close to offering the personal freedoms Churchill spoke about, and in one sense that includes those, who for a number of social reasons and educational difficulties, have a skewed perception of the world they live in. Its not uncommon and very few are exempt from it although there are degrees of skewedness.
I dont think anyone is turning a blind eye to the problems you have brought up but it's knowing what to do about it is the problem. No matter what governemt comes up with there will be a band of renegades to fight the battle of the underdog and fight to retain their rights not to be held responsable.
I would make voting compulsory and psycholgy part of the school timetable from kindergarten.
John Little
22-Aug-10, 09:58
You have watered down your view somewhat. What you now propose would make no difference. The people that don't bother to vote now would not bother to register.:D
In your utopian world every voter would get a copy of every party's manifesto and study all the issues, and each party's solution. I can quite believe you do, but I think you are in a minority of one!
Do you really believe that voters decide for each election which party to vote for, and don't base the decision on the the party they always vote for? I can assure you, the vast majority do.
Watered down what view?
That the current system leaves a lot to be desired? That the trend revealed by this one issue among american voters is alarming?
I assure you that I have not.
And you agree that people who don't bother to vote now wouldn't register? Then we would indeed end up with a more committed and infored register of electors. I think that would make quite a difference.
I take it then that you find the current system all completely to your taste? And perfect in its workings?
Do I believe that people base their voting decision on the party they always vote for? You contend that the vast majority do- and you may be right.
However there is a large pool of floating voters who do switch parties - otherwise there would be no variation in election results. A large number of people who do think about the issues.
I hope.
Otherwise it is other things that sway their decisions.
You think me in a minority of one because I study the issues?
Surely that means that you do not :lol:
I'm sure you do.
And so do a lot of people.
As to Utopia - I don't think so.
I'm looking for a rational answer to Democracy's biggest flaw. The vote is a serious matter in what it does. It causes wars and famines, changes history, kills and saves millions.
It is not the X factor.
Or do you not think we should try to base government on reason instead of ignorance?
John Little
22-Aug-10, 10:03
"I dont think anyone is turning a blind eye to the problems you have brought up but it's knowing what to do about it is the problem."
No flippancy intended I do assure you. It's a problem that's bothered me on and off for years and you put your finger on the nub of the matter.
You say different generations tweak the system to improve it.
Any tweaks to suggest - the last lot set great store by teaching 'Citizenship' in schools. This lot wants to have lessons in being good parents.
It's a process John like everything in nature.
David cameron says we are all in it together. I dont know if thats anything but a a Tory sound byte but the truth is he is right.
Democracy evolves like everything in nature but it is reliant on the responsability of those who are it's gaurdians . Thats the crux of your concerns too.
The future has to be education. The state demands it teaches us to be educated citizens and keeps us under its educational umberella for 11 years before we are set free on the world. Some kids are being set free with no reading skills, not able to write, influenced only by the latest TV fad and communicate in isolation.
The state needs to take a grip and so do those of us who complain about the present systym. It could be a darn sight worse.
part of the school timetable from kindergarten.
Totally agree (beat me to it gleeber). I cannot remember at school anything touching on democracy, politics or the systems of government here and abroad.
There is a distinct 'class' of MP's regardless of party. Their background and education all seems so similar, no wonder the voters cannot tell the parties apart.
If every school curriculum included lessons on our systems of government and politics maybe some young minds could be captured into being future PM's but not for the power & the glory but for the greater good of their country.
It may well inspire people from a young age to be involved and stand up and be counted.
John Little
22-Aug-10, 11:13
...
Democracy evolves like everything in nature but it is reliant on the responsability of those who are it's gaurdians . Thats the crux of your concerns too.
The future has to be education. The state demands it teaches us to be educated citizens and keeps us under its educational umberella for 11 years before we are set free on the world. Some kids are being set free with no reading skills, not able to write, influenced only by the latest TV fad and communicate in isolation.
The state needs to take a grip and so do those of us who complain about the present systym. It could be a darn sight worse.
I suspect you are right, but the problem is perrenial. Ignorance was one of Beveridge's great giants to be slain back in 1944 and they are still fighting it, throwing billions at it over the years.
Education, so the Blair/Brownites have it, increases social mobility - but what they really mean is that it increases democracy almost as an afterthought. So we end up with a lot of educated people with degrees who can't get jobs....
...and shortages of plumbers, carpenters etc....
"Some kids are being set free with no reading skills, not able to write, influenced only by the latest TV fad and communicate in isolation. "
And that is precisely what worries me.
We tend to follow US trends.
If ignorance is the enemy of Democracy, and our populations become dumbed down to the extent of even 20% then Democracy is in trouble.
Then it really is all down to bread and circuses.
It could be a darn sight worse.
I agree entirely. And if any changes were left to the cognoscente, it would be. :Razz
Ignorance needs to be embraced by democracy. Kennedys great speech about the strong supporting the weak and not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country are cornerstones of a democracy. I think we play it lip service to be honest.
Our politicians become distant from us as soon as they are elected because people power stops with the casting of the vote.
That's not good enough.
John Little
22-Aug-10, 12:13
Ignorance needs to be embraced by democracy. Kennedys great speech about the strong supporting the weak and not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country are cornerstones of a democracy. I think we play it lip service to be honest.
Our politicians become distant from us as soon as they are elected because people power stops with the casting of the vote.
That's not good enough.
Interesting.
That's about the most eloquent argument for co-operativism that I can think of. The great forgotten alternative route of liberal politics, sidelined by Socialism in the 1880s, and one with good Scottish roots.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Owen
Maybe the Co-operative party should divorce Labour and set up on their own....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-operative_Party
Wikipedia does not always get it right though - I understand that it is quite possible to be a Conservative Co-operativist.
So bring Democracy down to the local level far more, so that politicians are more in touch with the people they represent?
And run all sorts of things through locally devolved government with their own devolved budgets?
Thanks - food for thought - a better idea than restricted franchise....
"Of political justice, there are two forms of it.the natural and the other conventional.It is natural when it has the same validity everywhere and is unaffected by any view we may take about the justice of it.It is conventional when there is no original reason why it should take one form rather than the other and the rule it imposes is reached by agreement,after which it holds good."
" There are three forms of political constitution together with an equal number or perversions or corruptions of these.The three constitutions are : kingship, aristocracy.timocracy.The last is the form of constitution that is based on a property qualification."
So there you have it!
With acknowledgement to Aristotle, born 385 BC
John Little
22-Aug-10, 15:47
So it follows that my idea of an opt in system is cool in that it has natural justice and applies to all.
Our democracy is a representative democracy and as such our MPs should represent everyone and everyone should have a say in who represents them. Making it more difficult for anyone to have their say is not the way towards a more democratic and more representative democracy in my opinion.
Anyway, isn't voter registration in the US an active process already?
John Little
22-Aug-10, 17:12
Good point.
Then there really is no hope.
We face a future where millions of people who haven't a clue what is going on are swayed to vote this way or that by television or newspapers...
wait a minute?......
And Stalin was elected you know. Top of the pyramid - representative democracy.
David Banks
22-Aug-10, 17:19
Not long ago, I was somewhat stunned by the assertion that "propaganda was the glue that held society together."
This evoked a picture of government-sponsored propaganda (who else can afford to produce the stuff) controlling the masses into a mind-numbing conformity - and assuming "they" were doing what was ultimately the best for us all.
Now we seem to be having a debate about what better forms of government may be 'out there' and what such governments could achieve. Presumably, we are looking for more participation in government and less "control of the message."
This sounds like a much more healthy conversation. Keep it up JL et al.
John Little
22-Aug-10, 17:40
Not long ago, I was somewhat stunned by the assertion that "propaganda was the glue that held society together."
I don't see why. The idea has been round for yonks and one of its originators was a US academic;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Lasswell
the UK stopped being a democracy the day we signed our sovereignty to a bunch of unelected bureaucrats in Brussels. The fact that we didnt even have a say in the matter only emphasises my point.
John Little
23-Aug-10, 08:39
That is an excellent case study.
You say that we did not have a say in it, which is, in direct terms, correct. Heath took us into Europe without asking us.
Yet we are a 'representative democracy' so we elected representatives who act for us and in our name. They do what they want- for our own good.
Clearly you also are not happy with elements of our democracy as it stands.
However, technically we did not lose our sovereignty- we signed elements of it over to a European parliament - which is elected.
Our parliament can take those elements back simply by repealing the European Communities act of 1972. So we retain our sovereignty in the end and if we so choose.
But if it wanted to, should it ask us first?
And how informed on such matters are most people in order to make such a decision?
So if they decide for us, because they are informed and we are not - do we have democracy or government by 'expert'?
Government is supposed to shape policy on the basis of state of the art knowledge provided by Civil service commissions, Royal Commissions and Parliamentary commissions.
It's my understanding that Mrs Thatcher began a trend of following a more ideological line and doing what she wanted to, regardless of advice- in fact her government set up fewer commissions than any previous governments.
I do not know if that trend has been reversed, but if policy is not informed by available knowledge- what is deciding which way our politicians jump?
The Sun?
Tubthumper
23-Aug-10, 09:56
I do not know if that trend has been reversed, but if policy is not informed by available knowledge- what is deciding which way our politicians jump?
The Sun?
What. do you mean our politicians are drawn towards it like vegetation? I can see that analogy.
Or do you mean the paper?
John Little
23-Aug-10, 10:01
Good analogy that I had not thought of.
I meant the Sun newspaper, the largest selling daily....
**http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_St%C3%BCrmer
The sun may well influence a number of people on how to vote but rather the Sun than Der Sturmer**. Human beings are influenced by everything thet percieve. Even the act of talking with a complete stranger in a supermarket queue may cause a change deep in the bowels of our personalities. It may not be a noticeable change because one of the peculiarities of the mental life of human beings is that it's like an iceberg on the ocean. There's much more below the waves than above.
Thats why I believe the systym we have at the moment allows for those peculiarities and doesnt prey on the unconscious weaknesses in human beings that can allow them to be rounded up like sheep and perform their duties like trained dogs.
Who would have thought 60 years ago that previously mortal enemies would form a union of countries with a common bond for a common purpose? Even those of you who would not have voted for such an ideal surely must applaud the idea.
The mechanics of this political systym may need tweeked and that's happening all the time but the fundamental idea of freedom with as few restrictions as possible to keep a race of unpredictable, logical, compassionite, aggressive, wounded human beings together as a working living society is sound.
John Little
23-Aug-10, 10:22
Those are noble sentiments and symptomatic of your faith in what we have here. Yet my own reservations are nurtured by a sneaking suspicion that in the end my views are as nothing.
Over a million people marched against the Iraq war - not the nation - but surely significant enough to merit a pause for thought as an indicator of public will?
Yet we invaded Iraq on the flimsiest of pretexts.
I can think of no other example in British History of us doing such a thing.
Again, in the last year or so I watched on television as a man was videoed being the object of an unprovoked attack by a police officer.
I also watched the news and saw a woman felled by a backhanded sweep of a police sergeant's hand as he visibly lost control of himself.
In both cases no action was taken.
It is hard to define exactly what our rights are since they are decided on by courts and judges interpreting the law.
Is it not time we had a constitution to go with the Supreme Court of the UK that we already have?
I'm struggling to understand what this thread is about.
One minute it is bemoaning ignorant people being allowed to vote. The next is politicians that ignore the wishes of the ignorant voters the next we are living in a police state where the authorities can do what they want and get away with it.Then it is general abuse of Sun readers.
Pick a subject to moan about! :mad:
John Little
23-Aug-10, 10:37
The title of the thread is 'Democracy'. So it is about Democracy and all things pertaining to it- a broad and open discussion.
I'm finding it useful because it makes me think; it may be that others are having a think too.
You don't have to read it D.
Over a million people marched against the Iraq war - not the nation - but surely significant enough to merit a pause for thought as an indicator of public will?
Yet we invaded Iraq on the flimsiest of pretexts.
This democracy in action with all it's human frailties.
How many of those 1 million would have been influenced from other sources? George Galloway, or Jesus for example.
It's much more complex than at first sight.
Got to rush. Back later.
John Little
23-Aug-10, 10:52
I was against the war.
Yet I did not get off my derriere and go to join a march.
If a million people are motivated to do so then it surely has to be an implication that they feel strongly enough about it to do so - and that they have a view. In a Democracy, if informed. it would not matter where the view came from as long as it was rational.
The size of the march also indicated the possible existence of a large number (like myself) who were against the war but did not march.
But Blair was not interested enough to find out.
Yes it is complex.
The Tea Party thing in America is scary. It has millions of followers yet I have found nothing yet that is able to explain a rational programme for it............
Democracy?
Catch you later Gleeber.
Going slightly off on a tangent, after following the last election with great interest and a few giggles at some of the naive proposals I was amazed when people gave their reactions to the result.
There was indignation at the prospect of a hung parliament and more when a coalition was brooched as the electorate in many cases were adamant that this was not what they had voted for or in some cases not voted.
In a first past the post system, this was exactly what they had voted for.
I am not sure that proportional representation would have produced a more satisfactory outcome and most I feel would not be happy having to place candidates in order of preference.
I do not have a solution to the fact that so many people feel their vote is worthless especially as they make a conscious decision on the matter, meaning that they do have sufficient interest to weigh the matter up.
On another post it was mentioned about the lack of education regarding current affairs and the political system. Do schools no longer have debating societies or teach the subject?
OH don't get me started on education, I could be here all day!
John Little
23-Aug-10, 14:32
LOL ;) OK - I'll leave education for someone else.
But what you say is not at a tangent because you are quite right. Under a first past the post system people actually did get what they voted for - a hung parliament.
Cameron prefers to stick with FPTP. Trouble with that is that you end up with minority rule, cos if you put the votes of the others together then they outweigh the votes of the ruling party.
What kind of Democracy is that?
We are told that FPTP means we get stronger government.
I do not agree.
What we get is a bunch of silverbacks who can do as they please for the next 5 years.
If they had to actually talk to each other and do deals more often then I think we might get reasoned and rational compromises in policy and more people would feel involved. And less of jungle politics.
Instead we stick with adversarial politics where a vote gives one party the right to stamp and bellow and assert superiority over the others.
A circus.
Who else in Europe has FPTP?
Germany don't - and look at them right now......................
John Little
23-Aug-10, 14:41
BTW Ducati - if you want to know what set my mind down these tracks it was Tub's thread. It got me thinking about the difficulties of holding elected representatives to account; of arbitrary and unaccountable power.
Of Machiavelli saying that people deserve a tyranny as long as they tolerate one.
Of the use and abuse of power and the facelessness of it.
And the powerlessness of the individual.
It's thinking aloud really and bouncing randomness off other people because they say things I have not thought of.
On all sorts of matters.
(including education)
We live in a Parliamentary Democracy.
That is rather different from the Platonic ideal.
The rules of parliamentary democracty allow politicians to achieve power according to a game identified back in Machiavelli's era - the Iron Law of Oligarchy. Or, if you like,the rule of elitism.
Our elites in the Anglo-Saxon world have to present themselves to the electorate for a renewal of the mandate every few years.
John Little tells is this is a sham. If he sincerely believes this to be the case then he might change his mind after reading England in 1815 by Eli Halevy, or any of the great Victorian biographies, Morley on Gladstone for example.
Can the situation of democracy in Britain be improved? Perhaps PR on the Irish model might improve things but there again PR is a powerful stimulus to elites and elitism.
It is unlikely that we will ever be able to change human nature and those of us who do vote may constitute an elite group in and of ourselves. Was it Disraeli who said on becoming prime minister - "I have reached the top of the greasy pole"
I rather enjoy the specatacle of power maddened elites thrashing around on a greay pole.
Was it Disraeli who said - "I have reached the top of the greasy pole"
No, I am sure it was Lech Walesa's cell mate who said that. Although it may actually have been:-
"I have reached the bottom of the greasy pole" ;)
rob murray
23-Aug-10, 16:09
I think that what I am saying is that the american Muslim/Obama thing shows in great relief just how flawed our 'Democracy' is.
If someone in Iran, Korea, China, etc looks at it and asks me what its advantages are, then I'm blowed if I could tell them.
We all give lip service to this thing we call 'Democracy'- the UN insists on it and even the most dyed in the wool dictatorships claim consent by virtue of an 'election'.
But the great Liberal dilemma is that you can only have real decomcracy if everyone knows what they are voting for.
In this case it seems they do not.
So what is the point of 'Democracy'? Is is to make people feel good?
To make them feel that they count and are consulted?
"Or, like Robert Heinlen only those who have served a term in the forces?
Only university graduates perhaps?
Or scientists? or Plumbers? "
My question is not so absurd when you think that within living memory you could only vote in this country if you owned property.
Or do you really think that what we have is perfect?
You start your "point" by using the US / Obahma "issue" to show how flawed democracy is...of course you could have argued why so many Americans appear to have got the point so, so wrong...in doing so perhaps you would have highlighted the role of the media as an information source, providing impartial information on which an electorate can make informed choices. Using the US ( and to a lesser point the UK ) as an example you could have added the role of political adverts ( both positive and negative ) and the deep pockets syndrome....money shapes opinion positively and negatively. Why do so many Americans think the President is a muslim....well it wouldnt have anything to with the millions used by the republicans to get this mis point across eh ? Can I suggest that you check out the work of Noam Chomsky..I think you will find it illuminating !
Of course it was Disraeli who coined the greasy pole analogy.
Here he is on being summoned by Queen Victoria to form a parliament:
"I would dare to offer you my heart, but your Majesty had it long ago"
And she loved every meeting she had with him!
Mr. Gladstone, on the other hand won little affection.
"He speaks to my as if I was a public meeting."
(Actually she might not have said this but her biographers are unanimous in describing her discomfort with him.)
Disraeli also has good advice for the novice politician :
"The most dangerous strategy is to jump a chasm in two leaps."
Think about it...
John Little
23-Aug-10, 16:20
Rob - good stuff - I have quite a bit of Chomsky and I think you are barking up the right tree entirely. And I take your point about deep pockets
Thing is what to do about it? Our own parliament is little more than a rubber stamp now.
How do you wrestle back democratic control from an Imperial media?
Rich - John Morley on Gladstone is sitting looking at me from the shelf and I know what Britain was like in 1815.
I also know why Gladstone was uneasy in the company of Queen Victoria and Disraeli did not.
Disraeli had been in former days, one of the leaders of the Young England movement and believed in aristocratic paternalism- distrusting the pragmatic conservatism of Peel. Which is why he brought him down.
But he changed his tune by 1867 because he was a prime opportunist and saw that a process of democratisation was inevitable.
Gladstone, formerly a Conservative, had reached that conclusion much earlier.
Queen Victoria was a monarchist, despite the rosy propganda image of her. She and Albert had used might and main to stop the British government recognising the legitimacy of the Venetian republic in 1848 (despite the US recognising the rebels as legitimate). I do not think Gladstone ever forgave her after the republic was crushed - and he knew he was dealing with an anti-democrat.
rob murray
23-Aug-10, 16:40
[quote=John Little;751582]Rob - good stuff - I have quite a bit of Chomsky and I think you are barking up the right tree entirely. And I take your point about deep pockets
Thing is what to do about it? Our own parliament is little more than a rubber stamp now.
Its an interesting point as nowadays with electronic media sources there are so many ways of getting mis information ( lies ) across..we have a hung parliament in spite of the greatest election marketing and PR budget ever spent on "influencing as many voters as was possible"...if it all comes down to money then pass a law stating maximum spend allowed for all parties...create an even playing field, and specify no go areas. Remember the famous Satchi and Satchi adverts of 1979..Labour isnt Working ( and picture of a long dole queue ) Imagine if Coke ran a similar advertising strategy ...Pepsi isnt Working behind a picture of a coke bottle....pepsi lawyers would have a field day..so why not apply the same rules to political information..after all as voters we consume information !
So what is the difference between aristocratic paternalism and pragmatic conservatism?
My head is spinning!
John Little
23-Aug-10, 17:08
[quote=John Little;751582]Rob - good stuff - I have quite a bit of Chomsky and I think you are barking up the right tree entirely. And I take your point about deep pockets
Thing is what to do about it? Our own parliament is little more than a rubber stamp now.
Its an interesting point as nowadays with electronic media sources there are so many ways of getting mis information ( lies ) across..we have a hung parliament in spite of the greatest election marketing and PR budget ever spent on "influencing as many voters as was possible"...if it all comes down to money then pass a law stating maximum spend allowed for all parties...create an even playing field, and specify no go areas. Remember the famous Satchi and Satchi adverts of 1979..Labour isnt Working ( and picture of a long dole queue ) Imagine if Coke ran a similar advertising strategy ...Pepsi isnt Working behind a picture of a coke bottle....pepsi lawyers would have a field day..so why not apply the same rules to political information..after all as voters we consume information !
Well that would be a start. But you know, as I do, that this is the tip of the iceberg. The message goes over in so many ways that it is hard to know where to go from there.
How do you tackle the problem of private ownership of media empires putting over messages dictated by their bosses?
Our very vision and interpretation of history has been skewed by it - and the British, once the most radicalised nation in Europe are ....... quiet. And even proposed measures that would be good for the individual are shouted down as loony.
Rich.
Aristocratic paternalism. The Young England movement believed that Britain should be run by rich landowning aristocratic gentlemen. They were best informed and by virtue of blood, qualified to rule. They had however a responsibility to the lower orders and had a duty to look after them. Disraeli and Lord George Bentinck were the leaders of the movement.
Pragmatic Conservatism is the central ideology of the Conservative party, laid down by Peel in 1834 in the Tamworth manifesto. He pledged his party to look at all issues on their merits, with an objective eye, and not to oppose change just for the sake of it. Disraeli cried it down as rubbish- but in the 1860s quietly made it his own doctrine so earning himself, quite undeservedly, the title of father of the Conservative party.
rob murray
23-Aug-10, 17:18
[quote=John Little;751607][quote=rob murray;751595]
Well that would be a start. But you know, as I do, that this is the tip of the iceberg. The message goes over in so many ways that it is hard to know where to go from there.
How do you tackle the problem of private ownership of media empires putting over messages dictated by their bosses?
Our very vision and interpretation of history has been skewed by it - and the British, once the most radicalised nation in Europe are ....... quiet. And even proposed measures that would be good for the individual are shouted down as loony.
You cannot stop private ownership ( well you could but you'd get state controlled eh ! ) Surely some form of regulation could work ? If not, then he / she with the most money = the most clout = potentially the most power influence. Anyway despite all the dosh spent, Cameron never won..he needed the historical radical reformists of the Lib Dems to govern in majority...they ( LD's ) couldve said no...but the power was irresistible or did they recognise that the country needed stable government to rescue us all from the dire situation we are all in.....as the legendary Johnny Rotten put it "ever think that you have been cheated !!!!!
John Little
23-Aug-10, 17:26
Liberalism was assassinated by the Press in the 1920s- and partly by Lloyd George in a relentless quest for power. If you play golf with the editors of the Morning Post, the News of the World and the owner of the Express, and also make the owner of the Telegraph a minister in your government then you end up with a bit of clout.
Clegg has taken a massive gamble to try to get some form of Liberal measures onto the statute book, and to get his party some experience in power to make them credible as ministers.
I can see why he has done it - but essentially it's the same old story. The right wing of the Liberal party has been the bit that has been electable since 1892. But the left wing of the party, usually disunited, is re-uniting in the face of what the coalition is doing.
They will split.
What happens then is anybody's guess.
Tubthumper
23-Aug-10, 17:27
... but the power was irresistible or did they recognise that the country needed stable government to rescue us all from the dire situation we are all in
Are we really, though? Who says we are? Who gains most from desparate economic times? Is Rupert Murdoch in dire times? Is that mad Scots/ American bloke with the weird hair & the golf course at Aberdeen having to cut back on the weekly barber visits?
FTSE goes up and up and up.... FTSE comes down with a bump, it's the worst economic crisis since the last one, so we all have to suffer. Even those of us with few spare quid, who can grab the cheap RBS shares and look forward to when it all goes back up, up up.
It's all a big game. I don't mind as long as 'they' remember to take me and the rest of the baggage along with them. After all, owning the means of production doesn't mean a lot if no-one can afford to consume what you produce.
rob murray
23-Aug-10, 17:30
Liberalism was assassinated by the Press in the 1920s- and partly by Lloyd George in a relentless quest for power. If you play golf with the editors of the Morning Post, the News of the World and the owner of the Express, and also make the owner of the Telegraph a minister in your government then you end up with a bit of clout.
Clegg has taken a massive gamble to try to get some form of Liberal measures onto the statute book, and to get his party some experience in power to make them credible as ministers.
I can see why he has done it - but essentially it's the same old story. The right wing of the Liberal party has been the bit that has been electable since 1892. But the left wing of the party, usually disunited, is re-uniting in the face of what the coalition is doing.
They will split.
What happens then is anybody's guess.
Good stuff, I would say you certainly know your political history...your giving me a wee tutorial here....well who would gain from a coalition split I would say centre / left of centre labour..whats your take on it ?
rob murray
23-Aug-10, 17:35
Are we really, though? Who says we are? Who gains most from desparate economic times? Is Rupert Murdoch in dire times? Is that mad Scots/ American bloke with the weird hair & the golf course at Aberdeen having to cut back on the weekly barber visits?
FTSE goes up and up and up.... FTSE comes down with a bump, it's the worst economic crisis since the last one, so we all have to suffer. Even those of us with few spare quid, who can grab the cheap RBS shares and look forward to when it all goes back up, up up.
It's all a big game. I don't mind as long as 'they' remember to take me and the rest of the baggage along with them. After all, owning the means of production doesn't mean a lot if no-one can afford to consume what you produce.
Totally agree with you...pity you didnt quote my punch line though....ever feel you ve been cheated !!!!! of course we have and any sane person knows it !
John Little
23-Aug-10, 17:53
Tubs - I agree totally! In the end we will have to ask what the purpose of government is - and if it's where most of lose our jobs and incomes whilst factories either relocate to China or bring in robots, then I don't see that as in my interests. To be a consumer you need cash.
My take on it? Sigh - I wish ye hadnae asked that. It makes my head curdle.
Look - the last time the party boundaries melted was 1922. Just look at the figures.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1922
Ideology had disappeared out the door. The Prime Minister, very right wing Liberal, was head of a coalition that was held in place by the leaders of the Conservative Party. The Conservative back benchers had rebelled and set up a committee to seize control of the party. The Liberals were split between Lloyd George's and Asquith's. The left wing of the party had given up and was flocking to join Labour. There really has been nothing like it since. The wartime coalition does not count because that was to fight a war.
There are several scenarios.
The Conservatives have always had a split soul - left and right. Cameron's left wing has far more in common with Clegg's right wing Liberals than with Hague's mob on the right.
You could see the formation of a new centre left party where Clegg and Cameron fight the next election as a coalition. Their message would be that they needed a doctor's mandate to continue the medicine. The last time that happened was 1931;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1931
as you may see, the coalition got its message over.
If they don't do that then Cameron will be left on his own, facing a challenge from the right - it always happens to a left wing Tory PM.
And Clegg will be left alone with the rump of the right wing Libs. So I think a coalition fighting the next election is a good option for both.
Simon Hughs will lead the left wing Libs into the wilderness and Labour will reunite until a new leader. But as a party without an ideology they have to find one. My guess is that they will steal Liberalism's clothes and become the Liberal party in all but name...
[QUOTE=rob murray;751595]
Well that would be a start. But you know, as I do, that this is the tip of the iceberg. The message goes over in so many ways that it is hard to know where to go from there.
Rich.
Aristocratic paternalism. The Young England movement believed that Britain should be run by rich landowning aristocratic gentlemen. They were best informed and by virtue of blood, qualified to rule. They had however a responsibility to the lower orders and had a duty to look after them. Disraeli and Lord George Bentinck were the leaders of the movement.
Pragmatic Conservatism is the central ideology of the Conservative party, laid down by Peel in 1834 in the Tamworth manifesto. He pledged his party to look at all issues on their merits, with an objective eye, and not to oppose change just for the sake of it. Disraeli cried it down as rubbish- but in the 1860s quietly made it his own doctrine so earning himself, quite undeservedly, the title of father of the Conservative party.
The Young England movement can scarcely be ranked as a policical power in the land. Was not Bulwer Lytton one of their stalwarts ' "It was a dark and stormy night etc..." A one man show indeed and the one man being Disraeli. Dizzy's savaging of Peel and the Peelites at the behest of the House of Lords simply reinforces what I was saying about elites.
John Little, I am surprised you did not mention the Chartists in connection with the Iraq War. That was another mass movement that famously failed. I dont think the British have the cojones for a political revolution. Reading Halevy - in 1815 the British had no effective instrument of repression (A whiff of musket shot at Peterloo is certainly not in the same category as storming the Bastille) That's why it is important to read Halevy. England in 1815 is too good a book to be gathering dust on the Little mantelpiece.
As for "pragmatic conservatism." Well, that was a vehicle for Gladstone and, in the long run it turned into the Liberal party.
As for Peel and the Peelites
Just one more thing as I bow out.
In the 19th century Britain managed to create an Industrial Revolution and an Empire while maintaining peace at home and extending the franchise into a mass democracy.
The death blow to that empire came fighting Fascism.
Not a bad way to go. Not a bad legacy....
Whilst I agree that the media has much to answer for as regards dis-information, it is quite obvious that there are amongst the population a great number who can look behind the headlines and who will check several sources and make their own conclusions after have digested the information.
If a person goes along this path and still decides that the electoral system is not for them,then surely that is one of the basic principles of democracy and as such they too have a right to their opinion. They however have little right to complain if the results are not to their liking as it is their own choice to disengage from from the status quo.
I might be classed as cynical but I tend to take a jaundiced view of any thing that has headlines using the words,awefull,terrible,horrendous as they have been so corrupted that they now have little meaning.
John Little
23-Aug-10, 18:32
[QUOTE=John Little;751607]
"The Young England movement can scarcely be ranked as a policical power in the land."
No? It destroyed Peel and brought down his government and kept Disraeli in the wilderness for 20 years. And you do not remark it as a political power in a country where aristocrats ruled and there were less than 3 million voters?
"Was not Bulwer Lytton one of their stalwarts ' "It was a dark and stormy night etc..." A one man show indeed and the one man being Disraeli."
You have an animus against Bulwer Lytton? Because he wrote novels?
Disraeli wrote four himself I believe. If Young England was a one man show I fail to see how he could carry a majority of the Lords and Commons and become recognised leader of the Conservatives in the Commons. Some show!
"Dizzy's savaging of Peel and the Peelites at the behest of the House of Lords simply reinforces what I was saying about elites."
Disraeli savaged Peel because he disliked him. He had asked Peel for a job in the new government in 1841 and Peel refused because he saw Disraeli as an unprincipled opportunist. So Disraeli put himself at the head of a reactionary group with as much underpinning as the Tea Party people and used it to further himself as the spokesman for a not very articulate group. It also gave him an entree into the aristocratic society he craved.
"John Little, I am surprised you did not mention the Chartists in connection with the Iraq War. That was another mass movement that famously failed."
Curious you should think that since every one of the Chartist's points except annual parliaments are now enacted in law......
" I dont think the British have the cojones for a political revolution."
I suggest you read up on the Captain Swing movement in rural England in the 20s and 30s. Also of the Rebecca men and the Luddites- and also what happened in Merthyr Tydfil in 1831. The Tolpuddle Martyrs also and above all the history of the Anti Corn Law League. You may change your mind.
"Reading Halevy - in 1815 the British had no effective instrument of repression "
I disagree- and I think if you read Cecil Woodham Smith on the Irish rebellion of 1798 I think you may disagree with yourself. No instrument of repression!
It was called 'The Yeomanry'.
"(A whiff of musket shot at Peterloo is certainly not in the same category as storming the Bastille) That's why it is important to read Halevy. England in 1815 is too good a book to be gathering dust on the Little mantelpiece."
I may or not read Halevy - I've read quite a few books on this and don't want to get hung up on one.
"As for "pragmatic conservatism." Well, that was a vehicle for Gladstone and, in the long run it turned into the Liberal party."
If you knew what it was, then why did you ask me to define it? It was a milestone of a very long journey that began on the right of the Conservative party and ended on the left of the Liberals.
As for Peel and the Peelites
John Little
23-Aug-10, 18:33
Just one more thing as I bow out.
In the 19th century Britain managed to create an Industrial Revolution and an Empire while maintaining peace at home and extending the franchise into a mass democracy.
The death blow to that empire came fighting Fascism.
Not a bad way to go. Not a bad legacy....
We ain't dead yet!
Oh and by the way - if you don't think the British have the cojones for a revolution - you might read up what happened on Clydeside in 1919.......
Tubthumper
23-Aug-10, 18:49
Totally agree with you...pity you didnt quote my punch line though....ever feel you ve been cheated !!!!! of course we have and any sane person knows it !
Johnny Rotten, one of the heroes of my punky teen years... appearing in a butter ad?! Oh I feel cheated all right! Even more than when Jimmy Pursey (Sham 69) became a gentleman farmer and stuck his finger up to 'the kids'!
As I said, it's all just a game...
John Little
23-Aug-10, 20:50
Oh you are a lot younger than I thought.....
John Little, Delving into the poor man's quick and sometimes accurate on-line library, I find this:
"There remains a lively debate on the left, over whether the Red Clydeside movement constituted a revolutionary opportunity for the working class, though on the face of it, it would appear that the revolutionary potential of the Clydeside working class has been exaggerated. Firstly, excepting Maclean, none of the labour leaders developed a class analysis of the war, nor did they seriously consider threatening the power and authority of the state. Furthermore, it was the behaviour of those conducting the war, not the war itself that provoked opposition within the labour movement." One could not imagine Robespierre showing this amount of respect for the Establishment.
Tisc...tisk...
Also you have not mentioned the corn laws or Sir Robert Peel. A boring subject, I know, but without them your historical narrative has a gaping hole.
In conclusion I am a little surprised at your casting Disraeli as such a villain. Reading this somewhat lame account I expected to hear at any moment the dread cry "PSYCOPATH"
At least you have spared us that!
John Little
23-Aug-10, 21:45
What are you on about?
McClean was a friend of Lenin. Did you find that? Lenin thought him most likely to lead the British revolution.
They sent armoured cars and troops with fixed bayonets into Clydeside.
The leaders were arrested and imprisoned for 2 years. I assure you that Davie Kirkbride had little respect for the establishment. Nor did Shinwell at the time - nor Gallagher. What have you been reading?
I believe I mentioned Peel and the anti corn law league - Peel several times.
As to Disraeli- I have cast him as nothing. If you read any competent A level text on Disraeli you will find that this is the generally accepted view of him.
Sorry - no dangerous radicalism here.
Have you been drinking?
Johnny Rotten, one of the heroes of my punky teen years... appearing in a butter ad?! Oh I feel cheated all right! Even more than when Jimmy Pursey (Sham 69) became a gentleman farmer and stuck his finger up to 'the kids'!
As I said, it's all just a game...
Unless its to finance another PiL tour and album.
What are you on about?
McClean was a friend of Lenin. Did you find that? Lenin thought him most likely to lead the British revolution.
They sent armoured cars and troops with fixed bayonets into Clydeside.
The leaders were arrested and imprisoned for 2 years. I assure you that Davie Kirkbride had little respect for the establishment. Nor did Shinwell at the time - nor Gallagher. What have you been reading?
I believe I mentioned Peel and the anti corn law league - Peel several times.
As to Disraeli- I have cast him as nothing. If you read any competent A level text on Disraeli you will find that this is the generally accepted view of him.
Sorry - no dangerous radicalism here.
Have you been drinking?
I've not been drinking but scacely need to do so such are the fumes emanating from the John Little library. I believe my source said - to paraphrse - Maclean was the only dangerous revolutionary among the lot of them. I thought you would have agreed with that...
As fOR Mannie Shinwell he was an adornment of the Houses of Parliament at Wesminter for decade after decade after decade.Was he eventually a Lord? It would have surprised nobody if he was so honored! But a dangerous revolutionary? I would have to question your judgment on that.
My remarks about the lack of appropriate force by British governments for dealing with "insurrection" comes from Halevy. Certainly there was a yeoman army, made up generally of drunken landlords. The results of their efforts was to exacerbate any situation they were involved in. The British government knew this and acted accordingly which is to say they did very little.
The situation in ireland was quite different. There a French army had landed to attack Brtian via the back door. In Ireland the peasantry were accustomed to shooting landlords and had their own bizarre agrarian organizations of hard cases such as the Peep O Day Boys. There was also let us not forget Wolf Tone's Rebellion, scuppered at the last moment
by drunken talk, government spies, and a failure to co-ordinate the French invasion with the rebellons of 1798. In these circumstances the British sent in the army inder Cornwallis - a strikingly humane officer. The counter-revolutionary forces then won the day.
And so now we come to your skim read of E P Thomson. (Making of the English Working Class, I believe). Not a bad book but goes on too long, much too long.
Finally, why are you doing this?
John Little
23-Aug-10, 22:12
LOL! Do continue. T'is most entertaining
Earnestness is the worst of all the biases we bring to the study of history. But nearly as bad is the outrage with which one generation regards another. Dotards drivelling in their beards about the wickedness of their daily newspaper have a distinguished pedigree. Those of us who condemn newspapers without reading any are breathtaking in our blindness to our own faults.
There comes a time in our lives when we are ready for clubland. By that I mean some historical monument of a place, outrageously expensive, food terrible but good Scotch, leather armchairs, newspapers used not for reading but to cover the empurpled faces of the slumbering members. Ah, bliss!
Needless to say I am a member of the Arts and Letters Club of Toronto and I'm not letting you in, John Little! (Well at least not until you change your opinions about Disraeli)
Ah, the joy of being part of thed oligarchy!!!
Aaldtimer
24-Aug-10, 03:22
Johnny Rotten, one of the heroes of my punky teen years... appearing in a butter ad?! Oh I feel cheated all right! Even more than when Jimmy Pursey (Sham 69) became a gentleman farmer and stuck his finger up to 'the kids'!
As I said, it's all just a game...
What do you feel about this then?
http://celebrity.aol.co.uk/2010/08/23/we-smell-something-rotten-sex-pistols-perfume/
:eek:
OK. It's time. I didn't want to do this, but I feel I have no choice......
Hitler felt that democracy was a bad idea. That's good enough for me. :eek:
John Little
24-Aug-10, 08:03
'Democracy has no convictions for which men are prepared to give up their lives'
That's disapproval. But he still used the Weimar constitution to stay in power.
In fact I would say that rather strengthens what I'm saying...........
Tubthumper
24-Aug-10, 09:25
What do you feel about this then?
http://celebrity.aol.co.uk/2010/08/23/we-smell-something-rotten-sex-pistols-perfume/
:eek:
That's about the end then, that's my final illusion gone. First Ozzy plays for the Queen, then we find that Dick Strawbridge likes cooking, now this Rotten perfume...
Next you'll be telling me that HM Forces only serve to consolidate the relative positions of working and ruling classes!
John Little
24-Aug-10, 09:34
Not in a Democracy they don't because the authority of officers' commissions derives from the Queen in parliament. Without that, the armed forces would be illegal.
But they could be used to consolidate the relative positions of ruling and working classes if Democracy is eroded.
It has been known to happen......
Tubthumper
24-Aug-10, 09:49
It has been known to happen......
Did someone mention Clydeside and Winston Churchill? :eek:
John Little
24-Aug-10, 09:59
Aye - you have a point. But put it into context - they were scared stiff that Glasgow 1919 was going to be a re-run of Petrograd 1917- rightly or wrongly. Whatever else Churchill was, he was a parliamentarian, and as Secretary for War it was his job to carry out the Coalition's brief - to stop Bolshevism in its tracks.
David Banks
24-Aug-10, 13:40
I don't see why. The idea has been round for yonks and one of its originators was a US academic;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Lasswell
Yes . . . but . . . the quote was made by a real orger without reference to earlier sources (so far as I can rermember), so I thought it was his own real opinion.
John Little
24-Aug-10, 14:01
Now that is interesting.
So what is/are the differences between a 'Real' orger, and presumably a 'fake' orger?
And if he/she is giving a 'real opinion', for what reasons should he/she give any other sort of opinion?
And 'opinion' that is formed in a vacuum, without reference to any outside considerations or other views is not opinion. It's empirical thought.
Opinion is a viewpoint arrived at through reason and consideration.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.