[Closed] technocratic governments,

Elected idiots who run the country into the ground are better because they're *elected* idiots.
Appointed experts who may be able to resolve the years of mistakes made by the idiots are bad because they're not elected, although they are more than capable of solving the problems caused by the last lot?

Basically, if you believe democracy is a good thing then yes,

As for comments about paying taxes have a look at California. Give the electorate the choice of pay no tax and maintain spending levels.

Tax avoidance is not a Greek and Italian thing, they may have taken it to a different level, but all corporations enact tax minimisation policies, most voters try and do what they can to avoid tax, how may people would declare bike bits imported into the EU and pay the duties if they aren't caught , of course not you got it a bit cheaper.

TandemJeremy - Member

who appointed them? the democratically elected Italian PM?

Its not like we never have non elected people appointed by our elected representative's with great power in our government is it?

Baroness Warsi?

TandemJeremy - Member
who appointed them? the democratically elected Italian PM?

Its not like we never have non elected people appointed by our elected representative's with great power in our government is it?

Baroness Warsi?

Monti isn't a democratically elected politician, he is a Life Senator, so his position in the parliament is that of an appointee, much like a life Peer (although Life Senator are far smaller in number (7 I believe). He has then appointed a cabinet which consists of zero politicians.

That is a pretty big difference to someone who is an ex-officio member of the cabinet by virtue of her party duties. If you were smarter and less partisan, you could have used Mandelson or if you have to have a Tory, maybe Young or Carrington, even so the odd member of the cabinet is very different from the whole cabinet including the PM.

It is generally accepted in this country, since Salisbury, that the PM has to be an elected representative and Home gave up his peerage to so become.

. If you were smarter and less partisan, you could have used Mandelson

couldn't think of anyone else at the time Mandelson is a very good example

These appointees all have to be confirmed by the parliament do they not? to me its not the huge issue that people are making it out to be - but then I am much more cynical about our "Democracy" than many

or a period of appointed experts who can fix the problems (and stand for re-election in the next elections)?

At the risk of invoking Goodwins law

There was once a time in Europe where someone 😉 was appointed with the promise of general elections in 3 months time
Unfortunately there was a communist uprising signalled by the torching of the [strike]Reichs..[/strike] parliament building so the appointee declared himself in charge and had laws passed for the '[i] Protection of the People and the State[/i]' banning lots of the other political parties which meant he went on to win the said election.

He is putting a vote of confidence before both houses, the extent to which he requires parliamentary support to effect his reforms I have no idea. Still my view is that the executive should be elected representatives.

Describing people as technocrats often obscures the ideological underpinnings of what they are doing.

Exactly. Whats most worrying about this whole situation is the reason why they're over-riding democratic government. And there is a very real reason.

There's no way on earth that any electorate are going to vote for anyone who's going to put them through what is about to happen to them. It has to be imposed. And if that means suspending democracy for the duration, then so be it!

That would all be fine if the actions taken ultimately represented the best interests of the country. But they don't. Far from it. These regimes represent the interests of the financial institutions, to the total exclusion of any other consideration.

"The Markets' will recoup the maximum amount of their reckless lending, plus interest, whatever the cost. Look at Greece. Austerity is actually shrinking their economy at a ridiculous rate. Its collapsing and threatening the future viability of an entire society. Do 'The Markets' care? Do they ****! They just want their money back. NOW!!!

Its short termism taken to a frankly ridiculous degree. Its terrifying!

Would you say, binbins that perhaps it's a slightly altered version of disaster capitalism. You don't have any books to recommend on that do you? 🙂

Steve Bell's take on the Northern Rock purchase:

[img] [/img]

I do tend to bang on about it a bit, don't I DD? I'm nothing if not tedious and repetitive. Its the early onset Alzheimers 😉

Read this:

[img] [/img]

Basically summarises exactly whats happening in Europe at present. Written a good few years ago, before all the present hoo-ha. Scary

Edit: On a side note, I think we should all start referring to you as 'Bravisimo' from now on. Not only as its mildly amusing, but also to ensure the continued presence of [b]that[/b] advert which always accompanies you 😀

binners - Member
...There's no way on earth that any electorate are going to vote for anyone who's going to put them through what is about to happen to them. It has to be imposed. And if that means suspending democracy for the duration, then so be it!...

It has to be imposed but only so that the financiers get their money back, not for the benefit of the electorate.

The answer is revolution.

I would probably agree with the main conclusions but Naomi Klein is the height (nadir) of read-a-few-articles-skimmed-the-surface-wrote-a-short-and-unchallenging-book-at-the-right-time. I can't stand her. She's Johann Hari with less humour and more fact-checking.