Billy Bragg on Morrissey and things

That stuff he said about Morrissey was hilarious! I've never been into Bragg's music but he's a genuine bloke.

 

[Charlie Cheswick]

Seriously? You're still insistent that if I don't spoon-feed you the answers to your questions about how to change/improve society, that that some how proves that it can't be done? That's something of a non-sequitur. I'm not about to reinvent the wheel for you, Charlie. Thankfully, though, I don't need to....

Significant political change - in the UK, at least - doesn't take place in the short term. I'm doing you the credit of assuming you're sufficiently intelligent to grasp that elementary point.

Democratic/evolutionary socialism, as a strain of wider socialist ideology, emerged in British society with the formation of organisations like the Fabian Society in the 1870s, but it wasn't until the middle of the twentieth century that the ideals for which they stood became popular enough to give rise to a majority Labour government that could successfully enact policies that would, to some extent, ameliorate the worst excesses of capitalism. It took neo-liberal Conservatives a further thirty years to undermine the then prevailing paradigm of welfare-capitalism, culminating in the election of Thatcher in 1979. To take a more topical example: the SNP was formed, with a vision of Scottish "independence" in the 1930s, but didn't secure even a single, stable seat in Westminster until the late-60s. As recently as the 2005 General Election, it had the support of less than 18% of the Scottish electorate, and yet, three weeks from today, a referendum will be held, at the behest of the SNP, to determine whether Scotland should secede from the Union.

All of the above changes in British politics and society - like them or not - took time to evolve. More pointedly, they required effort, persistence, dedication and commitment from the respective protagonists: real, live human agents, acting out of principled determination.

In the end, society only gets better if the people who recognise the shortcomings of that society actually do something about it. If those people prefer, instead, to disengage, then what right have they to hope that others will do it for them?

Insist on the impossible.

Brilliant, "Let me google that for you" is the answer. Well done anonymous Internet Warrior, you keep proving yourself to have all the answers.

I guess I could try and defeat global capitalism, that'll be a success. I could go and vote for one of the major parties but that will just be a ringing endorsement for them. I could spoil my paper and send the message that they don't speak for me. If a few million did that it would send a far greater message than telling them to carry on as they are. That's just my opinion. You're entitled to yours too. I know you feel super superior with yours, well done on that. You can give yourself a pat on the back as the country lurches further to the right with every election that you endorse. In case you haven't grasped it yet, spoiling your paper is like voting but where you send them the message that they aren't cutting it. It's the choice you have while they don't give you the option of none of the above. If you want to vote for one of 'em then good for you. You're f***ing great.

 

[Peterb]

Brilliant, "Let me google that for you" is the answer. Well done anonymous Internet Warrior, you keep proving yourself to have all the answers.

I guess I could try and defeat global capitalism, that'll be a success. I could go and vote for one of the major parties but that will just be a ringing endorsement for them. I could spoil my paper and send the message that they don't speak for me. If a few million did that it would send a far greater message than telling them to carry on as they are. That's just my opinion. You're entitled to yours too. I know you feel super superior with yours, well done on that. You can give yourself a pat on the back as the country lurches further to the right with every election that you endorse. In case you haven't grasped it yet, spoiling your paper is like voting but where you send them the message that they aren't cutting it. It's the choice you have while they don't give you the option of none of the above. If you want to vote for one of 'em then good for you. You're f***ing great.

Hi Charles,
First of all, despite disagreeing with you I do not disrespect your position.
Your option of not voting, is simply an electoral choice and much better that voting Tory or UKIP.
The problem I have with your actions however is that here in Barnet for example, a lost vote is simply one less anti Tory vote.
What are your thoughts on this?

 

[Charlie Cheswick]

Hi Charles,
First of all, despite disagreeing with you I do not disrespect your position.
Your option of not voting, is simply an electoral choice and much better that voting Tory or UKIP.
The problem I have with your actions however is that here in Barnet for example, a lost vote is simply one less anti Tory vote.
What are your thoughts on this?

I agree Peter, I was making that point earlier on. If I vote it's neither here nor there anyway as I'm in about the safest Tory seat in the country. If we had a different electoral system it would re-engage us all. When they had a chance to change the system it showed what a bunch of wankers they are in that they offered one of the only couple of worse systems than we have already and the other would be an out and out dictatorship.

If you aren't in a safe seat then by all means, vote whoever isn't Tory or spoil your paper. I don't advocate just not voting, that lets them give the message that we're just apathetic. If the few million "apathetic" people spoiled their papers it would be a brilliant message. All of those quarter of a million people who marched against Government policies that the media ignored, spoil your papers. Let them know.

Of course, the alternative is to give Labour a kick up the arse and get them to turn back on their recent Tory past.

 

[Peterb]

I agree Peter, I was making that point earlier on. If I vote it's neither here nor there anyway as I'm in about the safest Tory seat in the country. If we had a different electoral system it would re-engage us all. When they had a chance to change the system it showed what a bunch of wankers they are in that they offered one of the only couple of worse systems than we have already and the other would be an out and out dictatorship.

If you aren't in a safe seat then by all means, vote whoever isn't Tory or spoil your paper. I don't advocate just not voting, that lets them give the message that we're just apathetic. If the few million "apathetic" people spoiled their papers it would be a brilliant message. All of those quarter of a million people who marched against Government policies that the media ignored, spoil your papers. Let them know.

Of course, the alternative is to give Labour a kick up the arse and get them to turn back on their recent Tory past.

I can see the problems with 'first past the post', but still I need to be convinced that any of the various PR systems would be preferable.
There is evidence elsewhere that lunatic fringe parties would gain seats and then you would see the most outlandish deals being made in parliament to secure temporary alliances.
Democracy is not all it's cracked up to be, but what's the alternative?
Personally, anarchy (not as in the commonly assumed meaning of lawlessness) appeals to me.
Maybe a benign dictatorship?
What do feel about Ed?

 

[Charlie Cheswick]

I can see the problems with 'first past the post', but still I need to be convinced that any of the various PR systems would be preferable.
There is evidence elsewhere that lunatic fringe parties would gain seats and then you would see the most outlandish deals being made in parliament to secure temporary alliances.
Democracy is not all it's cracked up to be, but what's the alternative?
Personally, anarchy (not as in the commonly assumed meaning of lawlessness) appeals to me.
Maybe a benign dictatorship?
What do feel about Ed?

I think Ed's a nice enough guy but he's no leader. It really wouldn't take much to batter the Tories this time around but I fear it'll be his lot that will take the beating.

I don't think he's as bad as the last few leaders they've had but any party needs somebody with a bit of charisma and he hasn't got any, this matters even more when pretty much everyone in the media is against you and the BBC is shit scared of the government so will give Labour short shrift too.

I just read this on the other forum I go on Peter, I like the cut of this fella's jib

"Not said this before, it's likely to kick of a whole pile of debate like a hornets nest:

* British politics is as corrupt as f***. All the major parties are feeding at the same trough.
* Labour, Liberal, UKIP, Tory, they're all in the pay of corporate money and ultra wealthy elite backers. Politicians only look out for these corporate interests, and make minor concessions to the general public only to sway votes at election time. You can see this 'cos the tax take is about 70% of an individual's income, while for corporations it's virtually nil - what corp tax there is can be tippy-toed around.
* No party with the public interest at the forefront will ever get elected while corporate money funds the campaigns, there's just no way to compete. Ask Farrage how easy it is to get a new political party into the mainstream and have even a small chance of being elected anywhere, and he's doing it with the help of corporate backing.

There should be no 'outside interests'. And corporate lobbying should be outlawed too, it skews the political process.

If there were a 'Non of these wankers' option on the ballot paper, I'd go down to the polling station just to tick it. Any seat where the returned abstentions outnumber the votes cast for any candidate, then there should be no candidate returned."

 

[Peterb]

I think Ed's a nice enough guy but he's no leader. It really wouldn't take much to batter the Tories this time around but I fear it'll be his lot that will take the beating.

I don't think he's as bad as the last few leaders they've had but any party needs somebody with a bit of charisma and he hasn't got any, this matters even more when pretty much everyone in the media is against you and the BBC is shit scared of the government so will give Labour short shrift too.

I just read this on the other forum I go on Peter, I like the cut of this fella's jib

"Not said this before, it's likely to kick of a whole pile of debate like a hornets nest:

* British politics is as corrupt as f***. All the major parties are feeding at the same trough.
* Labour, Liberal, UKIP, Tory, they're all in the pay of corporate money and ultra wealthy elite backers. Politicians only look out for these corporate interests, and make minor concessions to the general public only to sway votes at election time. You can see this 'cos the tax take is about 70% of an individual's income, while for corporations it's virtually nil - what corp tax there is can be tippy-toed around.
* No party with the public interest at the forefront will ever get elected while corporate money funds the campaigns, there's just no way to compete. Ask Farrage how easy it is to get a new political party into the mainstream and have even a small chance of being elected anywhere, and he's doing it with the help of corporate backing."

That is the criticism that is generally laid at his door, that he doesn't have the chops for it all.
My hope is that he will grow into the role.
Ken Livingstone, if you have any respect for him, insists that if Ed wins he'll have as great an impact as Thatcher.
Just saw your edit.
It would be hard to deny most of what he says but it is very cynical.
All politicians are not the same.
There are people of principle in parliament.
I've just finished a volume of Tony Benns diaries.
Him, I trusted.
Also, Corbyn, Livingstone. On the right I think John Major, Edward Heath.
I'm sure there are more.
And I think things in many ways are better than they were.
You've got to hope.

 

[Anonymous]

Brilliant, "Let me google that for you" is the answer. Well done anonymous Internet Warrior, you keep proving yourself to have all the answers.

I guess I could try and defeat global capitalism, that'll be a success. I could go and vote for one of the major parties but that will just be a ringing endorsement for them. I could spoil my paper and send the message that they don't speak for me. If a few million did that it would send a far greater message than telling them to carry on as they are. That's just my opinion. You're entitled to yours too. I know you feel super superior with yours, well done on that. You can give yourself a pat on the back as the country lurches further to the right with every election that you endorse. In case you haven't grasped it yet, spoiling your paper is like voting but where you send them the message that they aren't cutting it. It's the choice you have while they don't give you the option of none of the above. If you want to vote for one of 'em then good for you. You're f***ing great.

That's great, Charlie. Your concentration-span stretched as far as the first four lines of what I posted. That's hardly surprising, though, from someone who thinks that being too lazy, too uninterested, and too comfortable to vote somehow constitutes "sending a message" to government.

Where, precisely, is the evidence that there is efficacy in not voting? Where is the evidence that it functions as forceful opposition to anything?

Let me help you. Electoral turnout in the UK has declined dramatically since the early 1990s. During the same period, the Tories have remained as far to the right as they were under Thatcher and New Labour are, at best, only very slightly to the left of the right-of-centre. Hurrah for laziness; what a well-thought-out strategy for progress. Well done.

 

[Charlie Cheswick]

That's great, Charlie. Your concentration-span stretched as far as the first four lines of what I posted. That's hardly surprising, though, from someone who thinks that being too lazy, too uninterested, and too comfortable to vote somehow constitutes "sending a message" to government.

Where, precisely, is the evidence that there is efficacy in not voting? Where is the evidence that it functions as forceful opposition to anything?

Let me help you. Electoral turnout in the UK has declined dramatically since the early 1990s. During the same period, the Tories have remained as far to the right as they were under Thatcher and New Labour are, at best, only very slightly to the left of the right-of-centre. Hurrah for laziness; what a well-thought-out strategy for progress. Well done.

It's not laziness, it's that I have a different view on what works. You just seem to be a bully, my way or the highway type.

You'll have to correlate how less people voting meant that everything lurched to the right. I thought it was all to do with the media, globalization, greed, the gambling at the top leve of the economy, the economic squeeze and demonization of those at the bottom of the ladder + more. It turns out it was all down to voting. Thanks for the enlightenment. I'll have to vote next time, it'll turn all of that around.

 

[Johnny Barleycorn]

If left wing politics was more popular we'd have more left wing parties. It's sort of a circular argument, but no less true for that.

Ukip is a reaction to the perception, real or imagined, it doesn't matter really, that the country is awash with illegal immigrants taking the piss, and that the European Union do much the same.

Essentially Ukip want to reinstate powers closer to home, and away from what they see as the grasping hands of malicious foreign influence. Like the SNP, but less fashionable.

For whatever reason people tend to be centrist; Labour then Tory; Democrat then Republican. They gravitate around that centre, and every so often the pendulum will swing a little further to one side or another depending on what went before. Dubya and Obama are the clearest current example. I've a feeling both men will be quite well thought of in fifty years time, by the way.

In Britain the line in the sand for the left was the rise of Thatcher, but she wasn't a creation of the Saatchi Brothers or Murdoch as some like to believe. She was a direct creation of what preceded her in Parliament: a Labour party which had entirely lost control socially and economically.

People grew tired of Healey kowtowing to the IMF, of Callaghan (a man I greatly admired despite his failings) and his "Crisis? What crisis?", of blackouts, three day weeks and flying pickets. Thatcher was voted in to tackle those issues, and like it or not, she certainly did that. Britain in the 70s was called the sick man of Europe by the rest of the world, not by the Tories.

I've noticed a (militant?) tendency to reevaluate the 70s in some quarters. CiF on the Guardian site has tried on several occasions. The problem is they are wrong. It was awful.

I occasionally gently chide Charlie to start the revolution he craves, but we both know that for the most part people are pretty comfortably off. It's hard to spark a revolution when your proletariat are trying to get through level 177 of Candy Crush.

Some might think the great unwashed are well on the way to becoming Eloi. Personally I think they sit on their couches watching the latest ISIS or Boko Haram atrocity and think to themselves "Christ, our politicians could be better but look what some poor buggers have to put up with."

In the end its all relative. Could things be better in Rotherham or Ferguson? Yep. It is a testament to our slightly creaking democracies that tomorrow many of us can have a bit of a lie in, wander down and turn the kettle on, jump in the shower, see whose had a go at us on Clash of Clans, come here to read about Morrissey's latest nervous breakdown, and go about our business in peace.

Democracy. It's a wonderful compromise, and the nature of compromise is that no-one is entirely happy.

 

[Anonymous]

It's not laziness, it's that I have a different view on what works.

Yeah, yeah. Again, what is the justification for your "different view"? Where's the evidence to support it?

You just seem to be a bully, my way or the highway type.

So, because I remain unpersuaded by your unsubstantiated assertions, I'm a bully? Okay.

You'll have to correlate how less people voting meant that everything lurched to the right.

Strawman: I didn't say that people's failure to exercise their vote correlated with (much less caused) a rightwards trend in political opinions; the first Thatcher government was elected on a 75% turnout. I said that failure to vote had accomplished absolutely nothing to reverse that trend. You appear to have no answer to that ... or if you do have an answer, you're keeping it to yourself.

I thought it was all to do with the media, globalization, greed, the gambling at the top leve of the economy, the economic squeeze and demonization of those at the bottom of the ladder + more. It turns out it was all down to voting. Thanks for the enlightenment. I'll have to vote next time, it'll turn all of that around.

Well, you were wrong to think that. That isn't how parliamentary democracy works. What happens is this (stay with me, Charlie - this bit's important): the political party with the most votes wins the election. A party whose policies coincide with your own political outlook cannot win an election unless lots of people - possibly people like you - vote for them. Did I make that clear enough?

I'll repeat what I said at the bottom of the previous page, but I'll say it in shorter sentences. Political change can happen. It has happened before. There are historical examples of this. However, it can take a long time and a big, big effort.

I, too, wish that I could get just exactly what I want, and I wish I could get it immediately. I also wish I didn't have to do anything to get what I want. I wish these things would just fall into my lap. I recognise, though, that that's all a bit unrealistic and unreasonable. Because I'm not a f***ing 5-year-old.

 

[Anonymous]

An interesting summation/illustration of both arguments:

Murray Rothbard, while a libertarian, criticized the New Libertarian Manifesto's arguments that voting is immoral or undesirable

“Let's put it this way: Suppose we were slaves in the Old South, and that for some reason, each plantation had a system where the slaves were allowed to choose every four years between two alternative masters. Would it be evil, and sanctioning slavery, to participate in such a choice? Suppose one master was a monster who systematically tortured all the slaves, while the other one was kindly, enforced almost no work rules, freed one slave a year, or whatever. It would seem to me not only not aggression to vote for the kinder master but idiotic if we failed to do so. Of course, there might well be circumstances—say when both masters are similar—where the slaves would be better off not voting in order to make a visible protest—but this is a tactical not a moral consideration. Voting would not be evil but, in such a case, less effective than the protest.

But if it is morally licit and nonaggressive for slaves to vote for a choice of masters, in the same way it is licit for us to vote for what we believe the lesser of two or more evils, and still more beneficial to vote for an avowedly libertarian candidates.”

Samuel Edward Konkin III responded

“Can you imagine slaves on a plantation sitting around voting for masters and spending their energy on campaigning and candidates when they could be heading for the “underground railway?” Surely they would choose the counter-economic alternative; surely Dr. Rothbard would urge them to do so and not be seduced into remaining on the plantation until the Abolitionist Slavemasters’ Party is elected."

 

[Anonymous]

that was pretty good /\. i i imagine though, if youve the time, you should probably engage in both ways at once. you captain kirk it so to speak

 

[Charlie Cheswick]

Yeah, yeah. Again, what is the justification for your "different view"? Where's the evidence to support it?



So, because I remain unpersuaded by your unsubstantiated assertions, I'm a bully? Okay.



Strawman: I didn't say that people's failure to exercise their vote correlated with (much less caused) a rightwards trend in political opinions; the first Thatcher government was elected on a 75% turnout. I said that failure to vote had accomplished absolutely nothing to reverse that trend. You appear to have no answer to that ... or if you do have an answer, you're keeping it to yourself.



Well, you were wrong to think that. That isn't how parliamentary democracy works. What happens is this (stay with me, Charlie - this bit's important): the political party with the most votes wins the election. A party whose policies coincide with your own political outlook cannot win an election unless lots of people - possibly people like you - vote for them. Did I make that clear enough?

I'll repeat what I said at the bottom of the previous page, but I'll say it in shorter sentences. Political change can happen. It has happened before. There are historical examples of this. However, it can take a long time and a big, big effort.

I, too, wish that I could get just exactly what I want, and I wish I could get it immediately. I also wish I didn't have to do anything to get what I want. I wish these things would just fall into my lap. I recognise, though, that that's all a bit unrealistic and unreasonable. Because I'm not a f***ing 5-year-old.

Wow, strawman again? Is there anything that isn't. I know which anonymous this is because it appears in every other post. You're not a five year old but you are a pompous twat that can't see any view but your own. I can't be doing with you anymore, if you see one of me posts don't reply to it, I'd stick you on ignore but I can't because you've not got enough about you to register and log in.

 

[Charlie Cheswick]

If left wing politics was more popular we'd have more left wing parties. It's sort of a circular argument, but no less true for that.

Ukip is a reaction to the perception, real or imagined, it doesn't matter really, that the country is awash with illegal immigrants taking the piss, and that the European Union do much the same.

Essentially Ukip want to reinstate powers closer to home, and away from what they see as the grasping hands of malicious foreign influence. Like the SNP, but less fashionable.

For whatever reason people tend to be centrist; Labour then Tory; Democrat then Republican. They gravitate around that centre, and every so often the pendulum will swing a little further to one side or another depending on what went before. Dubya and Obama are the clearest current example. I've a feeling both men will be quite well thought of in fifty years time, by the way.

In Britain the line in the sand for the left was the rise of Thatcher, but she wasn't a creation of the Saatchi Brothers or Murdoch as some like to believe. She was a direct creation of what preceded her in Parliament: a Labour party which had entirely lost control socially and economically.

People grew tired of Healey kowtowing to the IMF, of Callaghan (a man I greatly admired despite his failings) and his "Crisis? What crisis?", of blackouts, three day weeks and flying pickets. Thatcher was voted in to tackle those issues, and like it or not, she certainly did that. Britain in the 70s was called the sick man of Europe by the rest of the world, not by the Tories.

I've noticed a (militant?) tendency to reevaluate the 70s in some quarters. CiF on the Guardian site has tried on several occasions. The problem is they are wrong. It was awful.

I occasionally gently chide Charlie to start the revolution he craves, but we both know that for the most part people are pretty comfortably off. It's hard to spark a revolution when your proletariat are trying to get through level 177 of Candy Crush.

Some might think the great unwashed are well on the way to becoming Eloi. Personally I think they sit on their couches watching the latest ISIS or Boko Haram atrocity and think to themselves "Christ, our politicians could be better but look what some poor buggers have to put up with."

In the end its all relative. Could things be better in Rotherham or Ferguson? Yep. It is a testament to our slightly creaking democracies that tomorrow many of us can have a bit of a lie in, wander down and turn the kettle on, jump in the shower, see whose had a go at us on Clash of Clans, come here to read about Morrissey's latest nervous breakdown, and go about our business in peace.

Democracy. It's a wonderful compromise, and the nature of compromise is that no-one is entirely happy.

I agree with the sentiment of this, my only issue is that our form of democracy is skewed by the media being almost universally from one side and our governments being in the pockets of big business. I know people have always said that politicians are liars, it's the nature of the beast that they're going to skew truths but now the whole system just seems
corrupt. I know you think that I want a revolution but I really don't, I just want a government that represents us rather than their own interests.

It would be good if we had a Government that didn't look at Education as a vote winner and instead, just for once tweeked what needed changing rather than overhauled the whole system every other political term for their own political gain rather than the good of the education system. We could have an approach to housing that saw housing as homes rather than as something that's used with smoke and mirrors to reflect the success of the government of the day. It would be good to have a government that didn't favour a high unemployment level to keep workers under control, that didn't use inflation and interest rates . If the Government is Hell bent on privatising it's assets thanks to Dogma then at least make sure that whoever is advising on the sale isn't setting the price and then buying the shares up at a super low price that they set. In short, stop being so f***ing bent. Is it too much to ask that they actually try to do the right thing?

We take the piss out of the Italians for it but our lot are no better.

 

[Anonymous]

Wow, strawman again? Is there anything that isn't. I know which anonymous this is because it appears in every other post. You're not a five year old but you are a pompous twat that can't see any view but your own. I can't be doing with you anymore, if you see one of me posts don't reply to it, I'd stick you on ignore but I can't because you've not got enough about you to register and log in.

Right. So you've expressed an opinion you're determined to stick to, but, so far, haven't been able to back up. I've asked you twice for evidence that mass non-voting accomplishes your objectives and you've come up with nothing.

Why so evasive?

At your request, I've gave you examples of active political engagement working successfully, but you're unable to support your opinion. Why is that, Charlie? Is the problem just that you hadn't actually thought about the implications of non-voting before you posted here claiming that it's an effective political strategy?

 

[Charlie Cheswick]

Right. So you've expressed an opinion you're determined to stick to, but, so far, haven't been able to back up. I've asked you twice for evidence that mass non-voting accomplishes your objectives and you've come up with nothing.

Why so evasive?

At your request, I've gave you examples of active political engagement working successfully, but you're unable to support your opinion. Why is that, Charlie? Is the problem just that you hadn't actually thought about the implications of non-voting before you posted here claiming that it's an effective political strategy?

You've got to share my view blah blah blah, I'm always right blah blah straw man blah.

I've shared my view loads and given reasoning behind why I hold them, I'm sure nobody on here wants to see them repeated again. Do you see me having a go at you because you don't share my political beliefs? No, uber left wingers are always the same, that's why everyone f***ing hates 'em. Can never see anyone else's point of view. Sorry Peter, you're alright but this stereotypical one's doing my tits in.

 

[Peterb]

You've got to share my view blah blah blah, I'm always right blah blah straw man blah.

I've shared my view loads and given reasoning behind why I hold them, I'm sure nobody on here wants to see them repeated again. Do you see me having a go at you because you don't share my political beliefs? No, uber left wingers are always the same, that's why everyone f***ing hates 'em. Can never see anyone else's point of view. Sorry Peter, you're alright but this stereotypical one's doing my tits in.

No offence taken Charlie.
I have to say, I can't see what Anons beef is.
You've laid your wares out quite clearly and I find your position quite reasonable.

 

[Anonymous]

You've got to share my view blah blah blah, I'm always right blah blah straw man blah.

Is this really the best you've got?

I've shared my view loads and given reasoning behind why I hold them, I'm sure nobody on here wants to see them repeated again. Do you see me having a go at you because you don't share my political beliefs? No, uber left wingers are always the same, that's why everyone f***ing hates 'em. Can never see anyone else's point of view. Sorry Peter, you're alright but this stereotypical one's doing my tits in.

More evasiveness, Charlie? I'm not asking for your "views." I am asking you for evidence that, you think, supports those views. Your big idea - such as it is - is that the political mainstream will change for the better if a sufficient number of people do not vote. If you're going to get enough people to follow your lead, you're going to have to persuade and convince them that it's a good idea. To do that, you're going to have to offer than, "Voting doesn't work! It's a big conspiracy!"

(By the way, it's gratifying to see you get so upset.)

No offence taken Charlie.
I have to say, I can't see what Anons beef is.
You've laid your wares out quite clearly and I find your position quite reasonable.

I don't have anything against him. He's just a person his opinions on the Interwebz and I'm just testing those opinions to see if they bear scrutiny. Is that unreasonable?

 

[wastelandofyourhead]

I agree with the sentiment of this, my only issue is that our form of democracy is skewed by the media being almost universally from one side and our governments being in the pockets of big business. I know people have always said that politicians are liars, it's the nature of the beast that they're going to skew truths but now the whole system just seems
corrupt. I know you think that I want a revolution but I really don't, I just want a government that represents us rather than their own interests.

It would be good if we had a Government that didn't look at Education as a vote winner and instead, just for once tweeked what needed changing rather than overhauled the whole system every other political term for their own political gain rather than the good of the education system. We could have an approach to housing that saw housing as homes rather than as something that's used with smoke and mirrors to reflect the success of the government of the day. It would be good to have a government that didn't favour a high unemployment level to keep workers under control, that didn't use inflation and interest rates . If the Government is Hell bent on privatising it's assets thanks to Dogma then at least make sure that whoever is advising on the sale isn't setting the price and then buying the shares up at a super low price that they set. In short, stop being so f***ing bent. Is it too much to ask that they actually try to do the right thing?

We take the piss out of the Italians for it but our lot are no better.

You have really great ideas Charlie. I almost think that it is the people that listen to the media and place their x in the box that are the ones mired in apathy. Not that they think so, or that society at large will ever lead them to believe as much. You'll get your shiny badge to wear for the day you happily voted and all that. You can tell your family you supported the democratic process.

I think, based on your passion and desire for good and reasonable things, that people like you should be running for office. The trouble there is, even at the local level, that can be quite nasty business. I know a local business owner here in town who had an amazing story to tell me of the time he ran for local politics while living in California. The incumbent wielded his power in a way one would think fit for a Hollywood script. Skipping all the details, which quite frankly I can't remember, this man was run out of town, lost his business, and turned into a felon.

I think any way that people can be empowered to fight the good fight is worth appreciation. However, I cannot find fault with those who feel disenfranchised by the big business of politics. All the backroom deals and false gestures for the common good are enough to make you pack your bags and head for the hills.