State of UK Politics

[prinnysquad]

You make some interesting points, but I simply can't imagine the feeling of being truly powerless due to disenfranchisement, like society 400 years ago, where you couldn't even remove people from power, and had no voice whatsoever in the decisions made that affect every aspect of your life.

Agree wholeheartedly about chumps deciding policy on something they know nothing about, however. On the other hand, is there ever a state of affairs where experts and professionals agree on the interpretation of an event or a line of action? Economic policy is a minefield of professional disagreement. Government by unelected expert committee could be just as problematic as Jimmy Fiddler MP make ignorant decisions.

[EDDIE M0NS00N]

You have someone in charge of the health service who has never worked a day in the life of a nurse or a doctor. You have the head of education who hasn't been a teacher. The same for all the cabinet positions. These people are expert politicians not experts in their field and therefore fundamentally worthless. They are divorced from the reality of the fields they are administrating and time and again bring in policies or changes that they perceive to be making improvements but are resisted by the bodies they govern because they simply don't work.

This!!

If you have no idea of how your job title works then you are not qulaified enough to do it, therefore you shouldn't make decisions in this field nor have the job. Thats how it works for the rest of us.


My problem right now is that we are apparently skint & are told to tighten our belts, yet we are bailing another country out of their financial crisis.

[eastyy]

watch yes minister and yes prime minister gives a taste of how politics works....well in the 80s though shouldnt think much has moved on

[egparadigm]

You have someone in charge of the health service who has never worked a day in the life of a nurse or a doctor. You have the head of education who hasn't been a teacher. The same for all the cabinet positions. These people are expert politicians not experts in their field and therefore fundamentally worthless. They are divorced from the reality of the fields they are administrating and time and again bring in policies or changes that they perceive to be making improvements but are resisted by the bodies they govern because they simply don't work.

Thus spoke an argument for rule by the technocrats. India was ruled by a dictatorship in the 1970s under Indira Gandhi and was underpinned by technocracy. It didn't work out so well, believe me.

First of all elements of expertise do work their way into the democratic system. It is one argument for keeping a number or totality of appointees in the House of Lords. In the past, Members of Parliament as well as Lords had more time to devote to other pursuits as well as politics. Many people still argue that there should be less 'professional politicians' and that members should be allowed time to "keep their hand in".

Another thing which relates entirely to the points you made above is the matter of the 'embedded executive'. In our system of government, members of the executive ? the people drawing up policy ? are drawn entirely from the legislature. I.e. all members of the government are also MPs or members of the House of Lords. I believe strongly for many other good reasons besides that we should directly elect a President, Prime Minister or whatever you choose to call it, and then he is free to choose experts to help advise him and draw up policy.

It is also worth saying that experts can sometimes be coloured by their own vested interests or simply fail to see the wood for the trees. In this respect it is useful to have a consultant role played by a disinterested politician, and in turn for the general public to step in when the politicians don't perform this role well.

It was said by Churchill, I think, that democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others that have been tried. Even if you're not an expert it is worth being involved in discussions of policy so that you can make yourself informed and so that you too may offer some valid points. By failing to participate in the democratic process you are simply lending greater power to a group of equally unqualified individuals who still make the effort to vote.

Someone above said that if the majority of people spoilt their ballot papers it would invalidate the result. This is nonsense. Politics would carry on as usual even if this happened, and frankly it never will. Even with the huge landslides Labour achieved in 1997 and 2001, their share of the total possible vote was only 25%, and yet our political infrastructure remained in tact.

Now this may be for cynical reasons, but there are good practical explanation why this would be the case. Firstly, one explanation for the low turnout at elections in the UK is that people are actually satisfied with their lives and with the state of politics. Secondly... Whilst the current referendum was going through the legislative process some Labour peers tried to add an amendment to the effect that, for the referendum to be binding, turnout would have to be 40%. What this in practice meant was that people staying at home ? and even people who had recently died but remained on the electoral register ? would have tacitly voted no!

Just because people remain at home and do not vote you cannot prove they are doing so because they are dissatisfied with politics. And when people actually spoil ballot papers they are not recorded as a "plague on all your houses", but simply "spoilt". Many people spoil ballot papers by accident, and no distinction is made between these groups.

[Spatial]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13661098

Vince Cable really has turned into an twat of the highest magnitude.

[Charlie]

I stopped voting back in 2001 after voting in a lying warmonger (Tony Bliar). Since then I find myself leaning more and more towards the Socratic and Platonic opinion that democracy (or mobocracy) is nothing more than mob rule. I don't like politics and like most people I don't know much about politics, and yet my opinion (via my vote) carries as much weight as somebody who knows and understand politics very well? That doesn't make sense in my tiny brainbox.

[Spatial]

Bringing this thread back for this

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/mar/02/police-privatisation-security-firms-crime?CMP=twt_gu

Jesus, what is this country going to be like in 10 years time?!?

[MisterBubbles]

Well crims will run this country, G4S are an absolute joke, always on the news losing prisoners and just seem like right John Wayne characters.

[prinnysquad]

Another **** idea.

[monel]

Jesus, what is this country going to be like in 10 years time?!?

The UKofA?

[Spatial]

Even the country that gave us Blackwater and Dog the Bounty Hunter hasn't gone as far as they're talking about there.

[charlesr]

LOL. Today's briefing: "Meet your target of 6 arrests or you lose your commision".

The problem with this setup is that if they do a brilliant job, they put themselves out of business, so they naturally have to find a balance.

Worst idea ever.

[prinnysquad]

Theresa May should be the first arrest target, then exiled.

['Press Start']

Even the country that gave us Blackwater and Dog the Bounty Hunter hasn't gone as far as they're talking about there.

Yet......

So the grip gets tighter, I wonder where this could all possibly be heading

http://www.extremetech.com/computing/120583-new-speech-jamming-gun-hints-at-dystopian-big-brother-future

Anyone smelling the coffee yet?

[NW2013]

.....