[stone]

Why are the party which has had almost unlimited funding, seems to best represent any potential Elites, has had unprecedented media support, had almost complete control of the state media, a massive majority in the house, more than a decade to cement control, seemingly about to be all but erased from power?
How, if this election is meaningless, if nobody’s votes count, despite the iniquities of FPTP and gerrymandered constituencies and further, despite policies dictated by opaque Think Tanks and vested interests, is this possible?

We are allowed to switch between different sets of (very similar) people offering almost the same policies.
We aren't allowed  to chose between different policies.

[Wellsy]

Well we are they just don't tend to win elections so they aren't what is presented

I would love a very left wing Labour platform. But I just don't think it would win in the UK, and if you lose, its the Tories fucking everything up again. Fundamentally it's not about what you individually want in a democracy. It's what you can get democratic support for. That's the whole point.

[mrjonathanr]

Exactly, Wellsy.

A plea: “what we allowed” by “elites”. Can we drop this nonsense?

Society is a mass of competing interests, with no single overarching power which will permit or refuse permission. The mess we are in is because the interests of money are so powerful and create huge influence and disinformation. By way of example, consider what a truly rational approach to taxation and fossil fuels might look like. The Koch brothers and their peers aren’t your mum and your dad, however. Let’s not speak like children.

[Oldmanmatt]

Why are the party which has had almost unlimited funding, seems to best represent any potential Elites, has had unprecedented media support, had almost complete control of the state media, a massive majority in the house, more than a decade to cement control, seemingly about to be all but erased from power?
How, if this election is meaningless, if nobody’s votes count, despite the iniquities of FPTP and gerrymandered constituencies and further, despite policies dictated by opaque Think Tanks and vested interests, is this possible?

We are allowed to switch between different sets of (very similar) people offering almost the same policies.
We aren't allowed  to chose between different policies.

Really?
Sorry Stone, I respect and even agree with many of your aspirations for political and social change.
However, you are at liberty to vote for those policies, because there will almost certainly be some party or independent standing somewhere that closely aligns with your viewpoint…
Ah. Actually, probably not. There is a very low probability of such a candidate being available in your particular constituency.
So, it’s FPTP and a constituency based parliament that prevent you achieving representation for your desired goals ( not achieving the goals, merely representation to argue for those goals). Perhaps, but let’s imagine we switch tomorrow to full, non-constituency based, PR, how much representation would your policies achieve, do you imagine?
Enough to affect policy? I doubt it. There simply isn’t the broad public support required to bring the policies to fruition.

Here, I anticipate you will resort to the “Elites” argument and their control of public opinion.

Of course, it would be naive in the extreme to imagine that any vested interest or political ideology would NOT try to influence public opinion in their favour. That includes your own ideology. I would say, then, your biggest obstacle is that your ideology is not popular.
At a guess, you will respond along the lines of “the elites put up so many barriers to disseminating our ideology the people never get to hear it”. I will say, really? The internet has proved incredibly difficult to police and all kinds of ideologies, many that even the elites would dearly love to suppress, have proliferated, globally. Flippantly, you need to organise and recruit a few fellas that live in their parents basement and live online. Flippant, yes, but has a kernel of truth.
Then I would point out that many ideologies that the Elites in power within a given jurisdiction, have spread, underground and eventually lead to the collapse of that Elite. Even where the extent of that Elite’s power has encompassed extensive networks of informants, absolute control and monitoring of communications, complete control of education and the arrest and disappearance of those who even hint at dissent.
Because I believe, your problem is popularity, not the elites.
I’m certain you and Toxic, will have a rejoinder, most probably based around the elites dazzling and beguiling the population with cheap entertainments and populist, ridiculously simplified, buzz word, politics.
Anyway, I’ll wait to respond to what you actually put forward, except, one thing more in advance. See? Popular, again, the very nub, core, nucleus of “populism”.

Edit: Anyway, just vote Labour and begin the turn of the political steering wheel, then campaign as best you can, from within the party, who’s leadership are chosen by the party members after all, to increase representation for your ideologies. Essentially, accept that it is unlikely the the public are going to wake up to a universal epiphany tomorrow morning and overthrow the elites. You want that? Your going to have to work for it.

[mrjonathanr]

Ah! Bollocks. 01:45 here but I’m intrigued.
Please, tell me why, Toxic.
Not what somebody else wrote in some scholarly treatise, I mean you, your thoughts.

This didn’t end well last time, iirc.

[Oldmanmatt]

Ah! Bollocks. 01:45 here but I’m intrigued.
Please, tell me why, Toxic.
Not what somebody else wrote in some scholarly treatise, I mean you, your thoughts.

This didn’t end well last time, iirc.

No, but I’m in a much happier place myself, these days, so losing my temper is far less likely.
This is not to say that I am not extremely worried about the future or in anyway complacent about the existential risk to humanity that looms over us, nor that I am satisfied with the status quo. I have considerable sympathy with the ultimate aspirations of both Stone and (less so) Toxic ( it’s Dan, isn’t it? If not, he has a doppelgänger. I say “he” but I’m wrong to assume). No, it is the practical matter of actually making an effective impact, under the real, demonstrable, conditions, that is important. Everything else is “wishing on a star” and “If I only believe hard enough” ( which is horribly close to “ you must have faith in my sky daddy”), which is the biggest load of “self help” guru, bollocks (follow my three step plan and be a Billionaire by the end of July).
Obviously I struggle to articulate. My brain is a mass of nested clauses, second, third and fourth order thoughts, I mean, FFS, there’s a Mariachi band playing Death Metal, somewhere in back at the moment.

[mrjonathanr]

Well someone got banned and you got cross.. I don’t recall all the details. What’s cool about ukb is that people want, in the main, to hear and understand differing points of view. And that allows space to reconsider your own ideas without retreating into a defensive attitude because someone is trying to shout you down, rather than discuss.
So crack on 

[Fultonius]

I'm glad it's not just me that was starting to think toxicbilberries seemed to be steadily smelling more and more dan-esque...

OMM, as someone (me) who, in the past may have had sight tendencies to believe the media/elite were a bit too all powerful, some of yourast posts have been quite thought provoking. It's funny, as it's all quite simple stuff but I hadn't really considered it much from that angle before.


I wonder what political analysts will consider was the true starting point of the recent descent of the Tories to a total laughing stock. I'd maybe go with Theresa May thinking she had such a strong following that the could push through some insanely right wing policies and still have a big majority. But you could argue it stared sooner and just took a while for the public to catch up? Austerity+?

That one is still affecting the public psyche (people still believe it's effective), so much so Labour don't even want to consider changing.

I've said this before, but given the utterly dismal potential future we have with climate change, we need someone who can just be the adult in the room and say "we're going to have to spend big on the right things, and sod the future burden". My inkling is this would actually lead to big job growth.

Either way, when we're in a doom spiral of war, famine, crop failure etc. Whose gonna give two fucks about national debt?

Personally, that's my biggest gripe with the manifesto but it's the best we've got so, as others have said, let's get them in based on this and spend the next 4 years convincing everyone that we can go even further....

(see Barcelona green council elections on this, will try to link the story later)

[spidermonkey09]

Call me cynical, but I'm deeply unconvinced by the idea that meaningful policy on climate, that would actually make a difference to the extent that scientists and activists demand, is possible in a democratic society. You're essentially asking people to vote for a huge decrease in their standard of living. Might get some traction after a massive natural disaster that CC caused and therefore focused politician and electorate minds but not before imo. That is a pretty depressing world view I accept but I struggle to get past it. In the unlikely event such policies were enacted by a party in government, it would be so unpopular the opposition would win a landslide on the promise of repealing them.

[Oldmanmatt]

I'm glad it's not just me that was starting to think toxicbilberries seemed to be steadily smelling more and more dan-esque...

OMM, as someone (me) who, in the past may have had sight tendencies to believe the media/elite were a bit too all powerful, some of yourast posts have been quite thought provoking. It's funny, as it's all quite simple stuff but I hadn't really considered it much from that angle before.


I wonder what political analysts will consider was the true starting point of the recent descent of the Tories to a total laughing stock. I'd maybe go with Theresa May thinking she had such a strong following that the could push through some insanely right wing policies and still have a big majority. But you could argue it stared sooner and just took a while for the public to catch up? Austerity+?

That one is still affecting the public psyche (people still believe it's effective), so much so Labour don't even want to consider changing.

I've said this before, but given the utterly dismal potential future we have with climate change, we need someone who can just be the adult in the room and say "we're going to have to spend big on the right things, and sod the future burden". My inkling is this would actually lead to big job growth.

Either way, when we're in a doom spiral of war, famine, crop failure etc. Whose gonna give two fucks about national debt?

Personally, that's my biggest gripe with the manifesto but it's the best we've got so, as others have said, let's get them in based on this and spend the next 4 years convincing everyone that we can go even further....

(see Barcelona green council elections on this, will try to link the story later)

I think, the change is in progress and will accelerate.

If, hypothetically, you set aside the idea that the “Elite” are an inhuman cabal intent on, whatever and substitute them with a bunch of poorly aligned, competing, very human, individuals, whose life goals align far more closely with you or I and even Toxic’s “Daz and his pals”, for moment.
After all, they also have to drop their trousers to take a shit.
Then you can view the obstacles to change in a much more mundane light.

Illustration: If you go to switch on your computer on Monday morning and it’s dead, nada, but the lights are on and the coffee machine is hot; there exists the possibility that the CIA, broke into your office, nabbed you hard drive and fried the rest. But, really, it’s probably not plugged in.

So, taking my hypothetical human elite with my silly illustration (it’s just Occam’s razor, innit).

The obstacle to change, it seems logical, is probably one many academics (and those in industry) will recognise.

Change in consensus and accepted doctrine depends far more on who dies and who retires than any other single factor.
Those reaching positions of power, in both industry and politics, now, grew up in a very different world to those that they succeed.

Andy mentioned the rats leaving the sinking Tory ship.
Good, this might just herald a different crop of younger Tory politicians, dismayed by their precedent’s woeful performance and bursting with new ideas.
They may, turn out to be Hitler youth on ‘roids and more swivel eyed than Marty Feldman on Acid.
But they will most likely be different and direction will likely change.

[BrutusTheBear]

It's a free vote folks, Labour are set to walk it without so much as a commitment to anything significant, Conservatives have destroyed themselves and everything else for that matter (creating an open goal), Lib Dems say vote for us it's the only way you'll stop the Conservatives with no commitments either. You can vote with your conscious it will not affect the outcome.

I will be voting Green as none of the 'main' parties appear to be offering anything remotely progressive or likely to create the change we desperately need. 

[mrjonathanr]

Genuine question. What is the most likely result for a green voter in your constituency Brutus?
A Green MP?
Labour?
LibDem?
Or a Conservative because the more left leaning votes are split?

[Fultonius]

Call me cynical, but I'm deeply unconvinced by the idea that meaningful policy on climate, that would actually make a difference to the extent that scientists and activists demand, is possible in a democratic society. You're essentially asking people to vote for a huge decrease in their standard of living. Might get some traction after a massive natural disaster that CC caused and therefore focused politician and electorate minds but not before imo. That is a pretty depressing world view I accept but I struggle to get past it. In the unlikely event such policies were enacted by a party in government, it would be so unpopular the opposition would win a landslide on the promise of repealing them.

While there's probably truth in the idea that we will fall short of what science says needs done, the closer we can be to that ideal, and the more prepared we are for the fall out, the higher the chances are that we scrape through without total ecological and political collapse.

I mean, we could follow Europe and vote far right and accelerate that but I'd rather not...

I've voted SNP in the UK elections for years as labour were nowhere in Scotland and it was a safer bet to keep the Tories out, but now I'd almost be tempted to support the wider UK need (in my eyes) to give the Tories a major kicking, and vote Labour. Also, with the Indy agenda floundering it seems to me that its probably overall more beneficial for Scotland help England/rUK to change course as a whole and we'll benefit from that too.  I guess I'm saying the bigger agenda is more important the independence just now.

[BrutusTheBear]

Why would you need to specify that it's a genuine question?
A main party other than the Conservatives will win.

[teestub]

I had assumed you lived in Cornwall, isn’t the whole county Conservative currently?

[mrjonathanr]

Why would you need to specify that it's a genuine question?
A main party other than the Conservatives will win.

 I’d cheerfully vote Green - and have done - but in my swing constituency, any vote that isn’t for the LibDems is effectively a vote for the Tories. Hence my curiosity about what voting Green means for the likely outcome.

[seankenny]

Exactly, Wellsy.

A plea: “what we allowed” by “elites”. Can we drop this nonsense?

Society is a mass of competing interests, with no single overarching power which will permit or refuse permission. The mess we are in is because the interests of money are so powerful and create huge influence and disinformation. By way of example, consider what a truly rational approach to taxation and fossil fuels might look like. The Koch brothers and their peers aren’t your mum and your dad, however. Let’s not speak like children.

Well, as I said about 50 posts ago:

“Behind much of what he writes is the implicit assumption that powers that be like to keep people down… rather than the recognition that running even a simple economy is very difficult.”

We could have had fifty posts discussing Tallin’s public transport system and methane powered super yachts, but no…

[mrjonathanr]

Well on reflection, I wish that didn’t sound so condescending, but there’s a few times I’ve thought that.  I hope it didnt cause offence. Creating unnecessary mental restrictions does rankle however, because it obscures what the problems really are.

[ToxicBilberry]

It’s not that the powers that be want to keep people down, they’re just serving their own interests and the interests of those that support their interests. The fact that say 70% of the population are useless eaters with no say in anything hardly seems surprising. Spider monkey’s post about extreme policies on climate was spot on to my mind. If you believe that’s what ‘needs to be done’ the only way of doing it would be to replace the current batch of elites with something more radical. Hence why Stone’s Utopia would likely require a hard left authoritarian government. I’m on board with Stone in that sense.

[Oldmanmatt]

It’s not that the powers that be want to keep people down, they’re just serving their own interests and the interests of those that support their interests. The fact that say 70% of the population are useless eaters with no say in anything hardly seems surprising. Spider monkey’s post about extreme policies on climate was spot on to my mind. If you believe that’s what ‘needs to be done’ the only way of doing it would be to replace the current batch of elites with something more radical. Hence why Stone’s Utopia would likely require a hard left authoritarian government. I’m on board with Stone in that sense.

Quite right.
Hardline Leftist Authoritarian regimes have, historically, been incredibly successful and much loved by the population.

Similarly, it is clear that if 70% of Britain’s population vote for one of the parties contesting the upcoming elections, then the party receiving the 30% share will absolutely form a new government.

Useless eaters? Not the half of it! You watch what would happen if that useless 70% withdrew their labour tomorrow. Nothing! That’s what. Utterly irrelevant. All of them.

How do you get to be so far left, you end up sounding like Ayn Rand?
Closing the circle?

[ToxicBilberry]

Thanks for the heads up on Ayn Rand, after a quick look at the Ayn Rand institute website I think I'll spend a bit of time reading her stuff. Re - the vote. I think Stone answered that already - it doesn't matter who you vote for as in the words of George Galloway - 'they're two cheeks of the same arsehole'. I'd like to see the Conservatives get zero seats, you're right, they're awful! It might be worth spending time reading about Elite Theory, it provides one way of understanding how power works, it is quite mainstream and doesn't talk about Cabal's or Sheeple. Re - useless eaters, a good example of useless eater policy was the mass sterilisation of Indian women from the 50's to the 70's - 18.5 million.

[Oldmanmatt]

As we contemplate Labour’s imminent forced sterilisation and one child policy ( applied retrospectively over the last 18 years)…

National Service is back on the table.

I am decidedly not a fan.

We are not facing imminent invasion and it would take Putin 6-10 years to rebuild his military to a point where a realistic threat to Western Europe would be even possible.

An increase in defence spending and rebuilding a minimum strength military, I think is a regrettable necessity.

I should add, I’m not convinced Putin will be in power/alive in 6-10 years.

[Falling Down]

Ayn Rand has entered the chat. 

[seankenny]

And apparently “useless eaters” is a phrase from 1930s Germany.

Playing all the hits tonight ladies and gentlemen, all the hits!

[Oldmanmatt]

Ayn Rand has entered the chat. 

Yes, my bad. Sorry.