The alternative is revolution ... and there aren't many examples of revolutions that have brought in a utopia of social justice. There's not much justice in the French and Russian examples of reducing inequality by killing off the rich aristocracy.
But, we shouldn't be scared of exercising our full democratic rights. We should be supporting, or be, the people who live in trees to protect ancient forests from development, or climbing onto motorway gantries to protest against governments seeking to drill for even more oil so that their mates in the oil industry can be even richer.
The candidate I voted for at the last General Election didn't win, but even if they did it wouldn't have changed the overall result - so that just apparently means tough luck, you didn't manage to vote the government out so somehow you chose this? Bollocks.
Yes, that's how democracy works. It doesn't mean each individual "you" chose the government, of course, but it does mean that the collective "you" chose it. And before anybody complains about FPTP, that's true of any electoral system. Hell, it would even be true of direct democracy where the entire electorate votes on every single issue.
What's the alternative - saying that certain things can never (or only under very unlikely circumstances) change regardless of what the electorate votes for? That doesn't sound very democratic to me.
But voting for fascism is?
Voting for anything in a free and fair election is democratic, by definition.
That doesn't mean it's a good idea, of course. But suffrage is not conditional on voting for Approved Parties, nor should it ever be.
So do you think Germany should rescind its ban on the NSDAP?
Honestly, yes I do. Though obviously I hope very few people would want to vote for them.
Do you think any organisation should be "banned", then? I mean, I can see an argument that banning membership in itself is a sort of thought crime, and really the likes of National Action should only be prosecuted when they attack people or blow things up. I don't agree though, I think that Nazis of all kinds, any group whose election (or plebiscite following seizure of power) would be "one person, one vote, once" cannot be part of the democratic process and membership of such an organisation quickly tips over into a conspiracy against a democratic society.
Seeking to do away with the democratic process would be a definite line in the sand for me, but so long as free and fair elections continue to be held, and therefore the electorate has the ability to change the government if they decide they don’t like it, then I don’t agree that the policies that government has campaigned on and been elected to carry out should be proscribed by anything other than the willingness of the electorate to vote for them.
One of the biggest issues with the position that @2ndRateMind seems to be putting forward is that it seems to limit democracy to casting votes at elections. There are, of course, a lot of things that people can, indeed I'd say should, do between elections to have their voices heard. It's not simply a matter of whether or not any individual voted for a candidate in the party of government, nor whether enough people voted for those candidates to have put one party or another into government. If the policies of the government are things that you consider wrong then if we consider ourselves to be democrats we have options to act, we don't need to just shrug our shoulders, grin and bear it, and hope enough people are worried to vote differently next election. We live in a democracy, so we have rights to write to MPs, Ministers or the papers (or, these days, comment on their online content); we can organise or join campaigns to change laws (that may lead to the current government changing, or it may make those issues things that get campaigned on in the next election); we can march in protest, make a noise and get noticed.
For many of the issues raised in the last few posts - the millions in the UK who face hunger, levels of benefit that are inadequate for many people to live on etc - the "Enough is Enough" campaign has been drawing thousands of people onto the streets of British towns for months, or stunts at sporting events (banners displayed by large sections of the crowds, for example). Or, for general issues of low salaries and low job security and conditions, unions have always taken the lead, and you can roll up to your local picket line and show your support.
Exactly. I was getting round to that. @Pomona, part of the democratic process involves trying to persuade others to see things the way you do. That may involve anything from canvassing around your local neighbourhood, to stuffing envelopes with campaign literature, to supporting your preferred political party with volunteering time and/or money. Can you honestly say you did everything you could possibly have done at the last general election?
As it happens, I vote green. I have done the whole of my adult life, since it was the 'ecology party'. It's slightly risky, because they have never been in power, and might possibly have trashed the economy had they ever won an election. On the other hand, we might just as possibly have a net zero carbon economy already, have been a been a world leader in renewable technology, and generally live in a more social just nation and world. Is it my fault they have never held power? I don't think so. It is the nation's fault, but I am (proud to be) a part of our nation. It has it's faults, but nothing that can't be fixed, I think. Provided we all get out there and play our part. So, anyway, I obviously didn't do enough to persuade enough people to share that vision, and vote the way I do. And I have to take some responsibility for that.
The candidate I voted for at the last General Election didn't win, but even if they did it wouldn't have changed the overall result - so that just apparently means tough luck, you didn't manage to vote the government out so somehow you chose this? Bollocks.
Yes, that's how democracy works. It doesn't mean each individual "you" chose the government, of course, but it does mean that the collective "you" chose it. And before anybody complains about FPTP, that's true of any electoral system. Hell, it would even be true of direct democracy where the entire electorate votes on every single issue.
What's the alternative - saying that certain things can never (or only under very unlikely circumstances) change regardless of what the electorate votes for? That doesn't sound very democratic to me.
Surely even you can read my post and 2RM's post and work out that I'm referring to 2RM's idea that it's the fault of the 2 million people in the UK experiencing malnutrition for not voting correctly? I'm aware of how FPTP works, I was pointing out that people living in poverty didn't choose poverty.
As usual, you are completely misrepresenting me and my position.
I am saying the entire nation gets the government it voted for, and deserves.
Best wishes, 2RM.
Do you seriously believe that?
I'm part of the *entire nation*, but I didn't vote tory, so I'm stuck with them for the time being. Fair enough, given FPTP and all that.
Why do I deserve them, though?
I didn't say you deserve them, or that any individual does. I am saying we, as a nation, deserve them, because we, as a nation, have ensured they stayed in power over the last 12 years.
@2ndRateMind I dunno, what about the idea that since you manage to live on your income, everyone else should be able to do so even if they have four kids and can only find privately rented accommodation? That seems like a pretty big flaw.
I am responsible for my own circumstances and decisions, and remaining within my own budget. I am not responsible for anyone else's circumstances and decisions, or whether they remain within theirs. Because I am a softhearted sort of a 2ndRateMind, I try to help out where I can, to the extent that I can. But, I think there are more deserving places to send my charity than the UK, where we do at least have a reasonably stable economy, a reasonably stable system of government, and most of us enjoy a rather better standard of living than I do.
The candidate I voted for at the last General Election didn't win, but even if they did it wouldn't have changed the overall result - so that just apparently means tough luck, you didn't manage to vote the government out so somehow you chose this? Bollocks.
Yes, that's how democracy works. It doesn't mean each individual "you" chose the government, of course, but it does mean that the collective "you" chose it. And before anybody complains about FPTP, that's true of any electoral system. Hell, it would even be true of direct democracy where the entire electorate votes on every single issue.
What's the alternative - saying that certain things can never (or only under very unlikely circumstances) change regardless of what the electorate votes for? That doesn't sound very democratic to me.
Surely even you can read my post and 2RM's post and work out that I'm referring to 2RM's idea that it's the fault of the 2 million people in the UK experiencing malnutrition for not voting correctly? I'm aware of how FPTP works, I was pointing out that people living in poverty didn't choose poverty.
As usual, you are completely misrepresenting me and my position.
@2ndRateMind I dunno, what about the idea that since you manage to live on your income, everyone else should be able to do so even if they have four kids and can only find privately rented accommodation? That seems like a pretty big flaw.
I am responsible for my own circumstances and decisions, and remaining within my own budget. I am not responsible for anyone else's circumstances and decisions, or whether they remain within theirs. Because I am a softhearted sort of a 2ndRateMind, I try to help out where I can, to the extent that I can. But, I think there are more deserving places to send my charity than the UK, where we do at least have a reasonably stable economy, a reasonably stable system of government, and most of us enjoy a rather better standard of living than I do.
Best wishes, 2RM.
So what about the people in the UK who do not have a better standard of living than you? Do you just not care?
If '[you are] not responsible for anyone else's circumstances', why give to charity at all? Surely if you are not responsible for how anyone else lives then why then tell us all how people are wrong for not seeing things how you do? The reality is that people who are actually soft-hearted don't boast about their charitable giving while also saying that giving to charity is about 'getting the most bang for your buck'.
I am not a Lib Dem but the only way to get the Tories out locally is to vote for them, so that's what I do. I don't however campaign for a party I don't belong to, which would feel dishonest. I still don't see how that somehow means I have got the income I deserve. Human rights aren't a transactional thing, they're something everyone deserves whether they vote or not. You still haven't said how you feel about children going hungry in the UK - is it their fault, since they can't vote?
I am saying the entire nation gets the government it voted for, and deserves.
Best wishes, 2RM.
Do you seriously believe that?
I'm part of the *entire nation*, but I didn't vote tory, so I'm stuck with them for the time being. Fair enough, given FPTP and all that.
Why do I deserve them, though?
I didn't say you deserve them, or that any individual does. I am saying we, as a nation, deserve them, because we, as a nation, have ensured they stayed in power over the last 12 years.
Best wishes, 2RM.
But the majority of people did not vote for them due to FPTP, and nobody has voted for the current government at all. As a group of nations we are still made up of individuals and saying that we 'as a nation' deserve them erases the fact that this harms the people who deserve it the least.
@2ndRateMind I dunno, what about the idea that since you manage to live on your income, everyone else should be able to do so even if they have four kids and can only find privately rented accommodation? That seems like a pretty big flaw.
I am responsible for my own circumstances and decisions, and remaining within my own budget. I am not responsible for anyone else's circumstances and decisions, or whether they remain within theirs. Because I am a softhearted sort of a 2ndRateMind, I try to help out where I can, to the extent that I can. But, I think there are more deserving places to send my charity than the UK, where we do at least have a reasonably stable economy, a reasonably stable system of government, and most of us enjoy a rather better standard of living than I do.
Best wishes, 2RM.
So what about the people in the UK who do not have a better standard of living than you? Do you just not care?
No, I care a very great deal. I just think there's not much I can do about it. Whereas the government can, and should, and people who are wealthier than me, can, and should. Try aiming your vitriol at them.
@2ndRateMind I dunno, what about the idea that since you manage to live on your income, everyone else should be able to do so even if they have four kids and can only find privately rented accommodation? That seems like a pretty big flaw.
I am responsible for my own circumstances and decisions, and remaining within my own budget. I am not responsible for anyone else's circumstances and decisions, or whether they remain within theirs. Because I am a softhearted sort of a 2ndRateMind, I try to help out where I can, to the extent that I can. But, I think there are more deserving places to send my charity than the UK, where we do at least have a reasonably stable economy, a reasonably stable system of government, and most of us enjoy a rather better standard of living than I do.
Best wishes, 2RM.
If '[you are] not responsible for anyone else's circumstances', why give to charity at all? Surely if you are not responsible for how anyone else lives then why then tell us all how people are wrong for not seeing things how you do? The reality is that people who are actually soft-hearted don't boast about their charitable giving while also saying that giving to charity is about 'getting the most bang for your buck'.
I am saying the entire nation gets the government it voted for, and deserves.
Best wishes, 2RM.
Do you seriously believe that?
I'm part of the *entire nation*, but I didn't vote tory, so I'm stuck with them for the time being. Fair enough, given FPTP and all that.
Why do I deserve them, though?
I didn't say you deserve them, or that any individual does. I am saying we, as a nation, deserve them, because we, as a nation, have ensured they stayed in power over the last 12 years.
Best wishes, 2RM.
But the majority of people did not vote for them due to FPTP, and nobody has voted for the current government at all. As a group of nations we are still made up of individuals and saying that we 'as a nation' deserve them erases the fact that this harms the people who deserve it the least.
I am saying the entire nation gets the government it voted for, and deserves.
Best wishes, 2RM.
Do you seriously believe that?
I'm part of the *entire nation*, but I didn't vote tory, so I'm stuck with them for the time being. Fair enough, given FPTP and all that.
Why do I deserve them, though?
I didn't say you deserve them, or that any individual does. I am saying we, as a nation, deserve them, because we, as a nation, have ensured they stayed in power over the last 12 years.
Best wishes, 2RM.
But the majority of people did not vote for them due to FPTP, and nobody has voted for the current government at all. As a group of nations we are still made up of individuals and saying that we 'as a nation' deserve them erases the fact that this harms the people who deserve it the least.
If you need to break the law to exercise democratic rights then be prepared to do so. Get your time in court, another venue to have your voice heard ... and, maybe even result in the legislation being shown to be illegal (it wouldn't be the first time over the last decade that the courts have told the government that they're acting illegally).
All of which (except perhaps nail-chewing) may soon be illegal, so have you any useful suggestions?
Research and write a book on the plight of the underclass? But why should I have to think of all the ideas? You are all intelligent, creative people, and, if this cause matters to you, can doubtless come up with your own ideas, more suited to your talents and circumstances.
If you need to break the law to exercise democratic rights then be prepared to do so. Get your time in court, another venue to have your voice heard ... and, maybe even result in the legislation being shown to be illegal (it wouldn't be the first time over the last decade that the courts have told the government that they're acting illegally).
Yes to this, but, alas, I am no longer physically able go on marches or demonstrations etc., though I do belong to certain online pressure groups (and a certain left-wing political party).
IOW, I try to do my bit from home. My late Ma was one of the Greenham Common Peace Women, and had at least two spells in jug, so being politically active runs in the family...
All of which (except perhaps nail-chewing) may soon be illegal, so have you any useful suggestions?
Research and write a book on the plight of the underclass? But why should I have to think of all the ideas? You are all intelligent, creative people, and, if this cause matters to you, can doubtless come up with your own ideas, more suited to your talents and circumstances.
All of which (except perhaps nail-chewing) may soon be illegal, so have you any useful suggestions?
Research and write a book on the plight of the underclass? But why should I have to think of all the ideas? You are all intelligent, creative people, and, if this cause matters to you, can doubtless come up with your own ideas, more suited to your talents and circumstances.
Best wishes, 2RM.
Because you're the one insisting on what words people should use to describe themselves, let alone how society should work. For someone setting out a so-called manifesto, you don't seem to have suggested anything actually actionable or useful.
The alternative is revolution ... and there aren't many examples of revolutions that have brought in a utopia of social justice. There's not much justice in the French and Russian examples of reducing inequality by killing off the rich aristocracy.
But, we shouldn't be scared of exercising our full democratic rights. We should be supporting, or be, the people who live in trees to protect ancient forests from development, or climbing onto motorway gantries to protest against governments seeking to drill for even more oil so that their mates in the oil industry can be even richer.
Indeed not. Yet there have been successful revolutions against relative domestic tyranny. The Glorious. The Velvets. The Rose. The Tulip. The Orange. Euromaidan. How was Apartheid overcome? We should not be supporting acts that afflict the afflicted without their consent. That make life worse for the poor in the name of making it better. Not without the poor's fullest possible support. Not without leadership by the poor. And even then. There can be no excuse for necklacing here. Yet. Despite 2.5% UK starvation and malnutrition. That's nearly two million people. Each of whom has a seven hundred thousand pound stake in the commons.
Climbing on motorway gantries is one thing. Paralysing London Unground is another. I agree we shouldn't be burning anything but large atomic nuclei, but the poor need gas fires and gas fired electricity and even coal fired electricity. The minority of the bourgeoisie don't get to decide what the poor must endure. It's the other way round. Citizen. Comrade. Led by the church that should be a non-violent process. Not against people anyway.
All of which (except perhaps nail-chewing) may soon be illegal, so have you any useful suggestions?
Research and write a book on the plight of the underclass? But why should I have to think of all the ideas? You are all intelligent, creative people, and, if this cause matters to you, can doubtless come up with your own ideas, more suited to your talents and circumstances.
Best wishes, 2RM.
Because you're the one insisting on what words people should use to describe themselves, let alone how society should work. For someone setting out a so-called manifesto, you don't seem to have suggested anything actually actionable or useful.
When you have something interesting, constructive and positive to say, I may well respond once more to your posts. Unless and until you do, I no longer wish to talk with you.
Comments
But, we shouldn't be scared of exercising our full democratic rights. We should be supporting, or be, the people who live in trees to protect ancient forests from development, or climbing onto motorway gantries to protest against governments seeking to drill for even more oil so that their mates in the oil industry can be even richer.
Seeking to do away with the democratic process would be a definite line in the sand for me, but so long as free and fair elections continue to be held, and therefore the electorate has the ability to change the government if they decide they don’t like it, then I don’t agree that the policies that government has campaigned on and been elected to carry out should be proscribed by anything other than the willingness of the electorate to vote for them.
Exactly. I was getting round to that. @Pomona, part of the democratic process involves trying to persuade others to see things the way you do. That may involve anything from canvassing around your local neighbourhood, to stuffing envelopes with campaign literature, to supporting your preferred political party with volunteering time and/or money. Can you honestly say you did everything you could possibly have done at the last general election?
As it happens, I vote green. I have done the whole of my adult life, since it was the 'ecology party'. It's slightly risky, because they have never been in power, and might possibly have trashed the economy had they ever won an election. On the other hand, we might just as possibly have a net zero carbon economy already, have been a been a world leader in renewable technology, and generally live in a more social just nation and world. Is it my fault they have never held power? I don't think so. It is the nation's fault, but I am (proud to be) a part of our nation. It has it's faults, but nothing that can't be fixed, I think. Provided we all get out there and play our part. So, anyway, I obviously didn't do enough to persuade enough people to share that vision, and vote the way I do. And I have to take some responsibility for that.
Best wishes, 2RM.
As usual, you are completely misrepresenting me and my position.
Best wishes, 2RM.
I didn't say you deserve them, or that any individual does. I am saying we, as a nation, deserve them, because we, as a nation, have ensured they stayed in power over the last 12 years.
Best wishes, 2RM.
I am responsible for my own circumstances and decisions, and remaining within my own budget. I am not responsible for anyone else's circumstances and decisions, or whether they remain within theirs. Because I am a softhearted sort of a 2ndRateMind, I try to help out where I can, to the extent that I can. But, I think there are more deserving places to send my charity than the UK, where we do at least have a reasonably stable economy, a reasonably stable system of government, and most of us enjoy a rather better standard of living than I do.
Best wishes, 2RM.
Then fucking set out your position better, then.
So what about the people in the UK who do not have a better standard of living than you? Do you just not care?
If '[you are] not responsible for anyone else's circumstances', why give to charity at all? Surely if you are not responsible for how anyone else lives then why then tell us all how people are wrong for not seeing things how you do? The reality is that people who are actually soft-hearted don't boast about their charitable giving while also saying that giving to charity is about 'getting the most bang for your buck'.
I am not a Lib Dem but the only way to get the Tories out locally is to vote for them, so that's what I do. I don't however campaign for a party I don't belong to, which would feel dishonest. I still don't see how that somehow means I have got the income I deserve. Human rights aren't a transactional thing, they're something everyone deserves whether they vote or not. You still haven't said how you feel about children going hungry in the UK - is it their fault, since they can't vote?
But the majority of people did not vote for them due to FPTP, and nobody has voted for the current government at all. As a group of nations we are still made up of individuals and saying that we 'as a nation' deserve them erases the fact that this harms the people who deserve it the least.
No, I care a very great deal. I just think there's not much I can do about it. Whereas the government can, and should, and people who are wealthier than me, can, and should. Try aiming your vitriol at them.
Best wishes, 2RM.
I'm not boasting, just telling it like it is.
Best wishes, 2RM.
So, vote them out.
Best wishes, 2RM.
And until we get that opportunity?
Best wishes, 2RM.
Research and write a book on the plight of the underclass? But why should I have to think of all the ideas? You are all intelligent, creative people, and, if this cause matters to you, can doubtless come up with your own ideas, more suited to your talents and circumstances.
Best wishes, 2RM.
Yes to this, but, alas, I am no longer physically able go on marches or demonstrations etc., though I do belong to certain online pressure groups (and a certain left-wing political party).
IOW, I try to do my bit from home. My late Ma was one of the Greenham Common Peace Women, and had at least two spells in jug, so being politically active runs in the family...
Thank you. Most helpful.
Because you're the one insisting on what words people should use to describe themselves, let alone how society should work. For someone setting out a so-called manifesto, you don't seem to have suggested anything actually actionable or useful.
Indeed not. Yet there have been successful revolutions against relative domestic tyranny. The Glorious. The Velvets. The Rose. The Tulip. The Orange. Euromaidan. How was Apartheid overcome? We should not be supporting acts that afflict the afflicted without their consent. That make life worse for the poor in the name of making it better. Not without the poor's fullest possible support. Not without leadership by the poor. And even then. There can be no excuse for necklacing here. Yet. Despite 2.5% UK starvation and malnutrition. That's nearly two million people. Each of whom has a seven hundred thousand pound stake in the commons.
Climbing on motorway gantries is one thing. Paralysing London Unground is another. I agree we shouldn't be burning anything but large atomic nuclei, but the poor need gas fires and gas fired electricity and even coal fired electricity. The minority of the bourgeoisie don't get to decide what the poor must endure. It's the other way round. Citizen. Comrade. Led by the church that should be a non-violent process. Not against people anyway.
When you have something interesting, constructive and positive to say, I may well respond once more to your posts. Unless and until you do, I no longer wish to talk with you.
Have a nice life, 2RM.