It’s the other way round Paul: deregulated ‘disaster capitalism’ (as they are calling it now) is the real aim of the Tory right - brexit is just one of the necessary steps.
And Tory Rees-Bogg’s father wrote the bible on it!!!
We shouldn’t be too surprised to know that his pompous son is such an advocate…
1 Like
I think that there are two elements - one is “disaster capitalism” and, yes, there are certainly those poised to make money from a crashing economy. I am sure there are a few who have actually tried to manipulate us into the present situation - I am also sure there are many more who did not but will not look a gift horse in the mouth.
The other side is the post Brexit dream of a low regulation economy with easy access to the EU - I suspect (not much evidence, call it a hunch) that there might be a few powerful individuals pi**ed off that the EU saw through that plan and refused to bow to British Exceptionalism.
However the fact remains that, having burnt our bridges with the EU, we might have to look across the pond and we might have to reinvent ourselves as a low regulation, low cost economy in order to attract business. Back to those Victorian ideals so beloved of JRM - i.e minimal social safety nets and sweat shop labour.
Either way we will become an easy target for US style health insurers - thus if we wind up with an insurance based system you can bet your bottom $ that it will be based on the US model.
2 Likes
Perhaps what the UK needs is a Representation Party that actually listens to, and takes instruction from, the electorate that put them in Parliament in the first place.
Politicians making recommendations to the electorate about what should or should not be done is of course both normal and desirable, but at the end of the day the politicians should be prepared to listen to, and vote according to, the desires of the people who elected them, even if their personal opinion is to the contrary.
1 Like
Post removed Carl. I have no problem acting civil towards others who have a differing opinion if it is returned, unfortunately there are some members who dont necessarily share the same view. I appreciate you calling it a “dinner party” and i will try not to throw insults around.
3 Likes
Thank you Roger.
Likewise, I have removed my post also.
2 Likes
Your point about the workings of a representative democracy is a fair one, Robert. But making it work might be problematic, don’t you think?
How can the Party listen to the electorate’s views on all the issues that concern them, do that fairly taking every voter’s opinions into account, and then turn those tens of millions of harvested options - on hundreds of issue of concern - into policy.
It is going to mean identifying thousands of individual concerns, working out possible remedies, prioritising and costing them, developing plans to bring agreed solutions to bear, and operationalising the plans in a coordinated fashion to meet the voter’s wishes satisfactorily.
That means an unprecedented investment of time and energy by individual voters at each stage of each and every project or policy.
Some democratic societies have arranged politics in a way that links voting to party membership. Everyone who wants to vote must subscribe to and join a Party of her/his choice. They are then able to meet with other Party members and help to work through the procedure described above, democratically and with purpose and shared knowledge and experience.
It requires commitment and energy. If you join in you pay a significant part in the process of building a society in which the voice of each person has a say.
If you can’t or won’t commit, and decide to leave the work to others, you lose influence; your opinion is not heard. You can combine other parts of your life with politics in this way. Life is political, it’s not something to leave to others, unless you want to be out of touch and hate it.
That’s the process underpinning democratic socialism. What’s not to like?
All reasoned opinions welcome!
Hi Peter,
I would certainly agree with you that operating a Representation Party within the existing political framework of the UK would indeed have its problems, and so the logical progression from that is to change the framework itself.
Over the last few years Parliament and the Executive have together shown us that the existing system is fundamentally flawed. What has become even more evident than usual is that individual politicians are often more concerned about their own re-election than anything else. Their next concern is that of their Party keeping or gaining power, and then comes concern as to their own level of power and influence within their Party. Add in the element of pleasing large donors to their campaign funds, and personal vested interests, and the matter of actually representing the views of the constituency electorate gets pushed way into the back woods of beyond.
There is an old saying that ‘The people generally end up with the Government that they deserve’ which is meant to convey the message that when the electorate become disinterested in day to day politics, then they tend to be on a slippery slope towards a corrupt and dictatorial political system.
Events of recent years have shown clearly the problems that secretive and non consultative government result in. Imagine how different today’s situation might have been had the principle been followed of asking Parliament if they would like to agree to certain things, BEFORE signing agreements with other entities and then expecting Parliament to just do as the Executive told them. Had the lady in question not been so high handed and presumptive, then perhaps she might still be enjoying riding in the Prime Ministerial limo.
A more consultative and truly representative system could be developed if one is prepared to throw out some of the currently existing bad practices. The current system has been shown not to be working in a way that a very great many people would approve of, so surely logic dictates that in such circumstances one should do something different.
So how about a Representative Party that takes the trouble to hold frequent public meetings at constituency level. Meetings where ordinary members of the public can make suggestions and ask questions in a polite and civil manner. A Party where those on the stage admit when they do not know the answer to a question, but undertake to find it out and to get back to the questioner with the answer.
Such a Party would not take the line of ‘This what we believe in so vote for us’, but rather ask the question of ‘What would you like us to do for you?’.
Of course the existing political parties claim to do this at the moment, but many people would say that it is just a window dressing of convenience.
What is needed is a genuine change of attitude from those willing to involve themselves in politics. High handed ‘We know best’ attitudes have to go, and have to be replaced by a willingness to explain the problem and then ASK the electorate what they should do.
Perhaps I am striving for an unattainable nirvana, but if no-one tries then no-one will ever succeed.
1 Like
Thank you for your thoughtful and detailed reply, Robert. I think our views on representative democracy are quite closely aligned.
I would like to develop ideas on how Party membership should relate to making policy decisions and on fleshing those out at local level so as to inform local implementation and match local needs.
Having constituency parties made up of perhaps 20 active members in constituencies of 30,000 citizens of whom 22,000 are of voting age will not, IMO, do.
Isn’t it too remote from the people to have any representative validity, Robert ? A small cabal working up motions on paper and “sending them up” to a similarly configured cabal of maybe 30 members at regional level, for ratification and amendment?! No way to run a democracy in a world with enriched instant communication at our thumb-ends, is it?
The higher up the rigging it goes, the more remote from those at the bottom pulling the oars.
I favour a more decentralised system of policy formulation based on bigger, better informed and better knowledge-resourced, more empowered issue-debating and decision-making entities. You could imagine them being called communes, except that in the Anglo-Saxon world that’s become a pejorative term.
No, I favour the vote going only to people who subscribe to and participate actively, as a matter of personal commitment and direct involvement, in a properly constituted Party. Not as a hobby or an opportunity for beer and sandwiches, but as a serious effort at social collaboration and community development. And more.
It’s time to take politics out of the grasp of the political class and the Oxbridge elite, and return the destiny of the country to the people. What say you? 
I certainly agree with you on that point Peter.
Perhaps in this modern age of virtually instant communications, it is the smartphone that holds the key to being able to change the system for the better. Set up in the correct way, I understand that it is possible to send a message to thousands simultaneously with just one click or tap of the finger.
What a change it would make if said message actually asked people for their opinion instead of telling them what it should be.
I also feel that any new party should not restrict input of ideas to only it’s signed up members, but rather should consider the views of anyone who wishes to contribute. Clearly there has to be a filtering mechanism to consolidate ideas, but those involved in that process need to be very open minded and not preset into any particular doctrine. Then, when a grouping of ideas has become an infant policy, that is when it should be put back to the original contributors, and indeed others as well, for further comment and amendment.
Perhaps in that way policies could be developed that actually do reflect the desires of the majority of the people.
I wonder what the response would be if every UK voter were to be asked if they would prefer tax money to be spent on health and social care or a new nuclear weapon system for example.
1 Like
The basic problem, at present, with UK/US politics is that politicians have realised that they can lie with impunity and the media will let them get away with it. Why deal with inconvenient and unpleasant truths when palatable lies are much easier.
It thus becomes impossible to have an honest debate on anything including and especially something as potentially world changing as Brexit.
Currently I suspect a no-deal exit is not only inevitable but also the only possible way of resetting the system. Unfortunately to get the Phoenix rising resplendent one must have had the fire first.
@anon88169868 refers to one of my favourite but predictably unpredictable pets:
“Unfortunately to get the Phoenix rising resplendent one must have had the fire first.”
The Phoenix, as I understand it, takes care of the fire by self-combusting in an endless cycle of burn-rise-burn-rise-burn…
Every poêle à bois should have one. Free fire and no ash to clear away, as the ash supplies the basis for a new Phoenix and a new fire next day (if properly trained).
It takes a while to sync the Phoenix to the changing seasons, and the clock. Stirring or raking the ash annoys the Phoenix and may delay the ‘hatching’ of the new one, or reduce its resplendence when risen.
They usually combust from the top down, leaving a neat cone of ash, best left undisturbed to get a well-shaped replicate replacement sitting the right way up.
Phoenices are not easy to train. And make sure you get a 30 cm bird, the 50 cm birds are hard to stuff in the poêle, and likely to peck.
Painful.
1 Like
You my not have noticed, but it is the Lords who are fighting against the usurping of power by the alt right of the Tories.
The UK supports about 97% of the proposals put forward by the EU.
So where is this so called taking back of our laws actually coming from.
So right Paul.
So you are going to stay around to watch us all have to reapply for our Carte de Sejours, families divided because of the loss of freedom of movement, the pound dropping to an all time low and some of your fellow citizens on limited incomes fall into poverty?
Absolutely. Couldn’t agree more.
Returning to the subject in hand;
I think that if there were to be a new political party formed in the UK that from it’s outset showed itself to be very reflective of, and responsive to, the views of ordinary people, then I probably would support it.
There is no doubt that it would have to be organised and run in a very different way from the existing parties in order to gain my support though.
1 Like
Isn’t there a fundamental problem with the whole idea of a political ‘centre’?
Seems to me it depends on where the rest of the spectrum of views are in any particular place and time - and, crucially, on different issues. The current example that springs to mind for the UK is brexit, where politicians that regard themselves as ‘centrists’ on economic policy tend to be ultra-remainers (‘remainerists’ as a recent Guardian article branded them - ie. remainers like ultra-brexiters that simply want to ignore the half of the country that disagrees with them).
In most of the UK’s neighbouring countries the whole spectrum of political views is to the left of those in the UK - my friends in Sweden are completely puzzled by the UK media’s portrayal of the current Labour leadership as left-wing, for advocating what seems to them mainstream common-sense; the Front National here in France was undoubtedly racist, but also to the left of UK Tories on much economic policy (for example supporting Hollande’s wealth tax) let alone it’s supposed UK equivalents like UKIP; among the policies of the last French ‘centre-left’ presidential candidate here were introducing UBI and legalising cannabis - can you imagine what the Daily Mail would say if Corbyn had a programme like that?
1 Like
On a personal note - I used to regard myself as a centrist, but now believe that time has gone.
I was in the Labour Party, but supported the Blair/Brown ‘New Labour’ project - but I now see this as of it’s time: a response, in fact to the collapse of the planned economy model in Eastern Europe, and a historical moment when it looked like ‘the market’ was all there was.
Like many others, I left the Labour Party over the Iraq war - but the deeper disillusionment was the failure of New Labour to reverse increasing inequality, even in areas such as housing where it would have been easy at that time.
Then two big things happened - one was the 2008 financial crisis - which starkly revealed New Labour’s failure, and that ‘the market’ actually works no better than the planned economy model - but much more important was the emerging awareness of impending climate/ecological breakdown: I believe this means we have to have very very radical change - I simply don’t think we have any more ‘moderate’ options left - so, for me, I’m afraid, centrism is a luxury of a past time.
1 Like