others are happy to go along for the racist ride in order to achieve power without thought and/or concern for the long term impacts.
Right, so here's @dazh saying why can't I get a Dr appt? And the truth of that is; becasue they're aren't enough doctors. There's nothing a normal functioning (right or left) govt can do about that in the short term, it's a long term - 8 or more years or so policy decision that you'd have to hope that the next govt that comes along doesn't **** about with... Populists (of either stripe) can just say "40 new hospitals" and count the votes...
How do we - as a liberal democracy remember; do the "right" things without starting down the line of some draconian legislation? How do you stop the malign influence say of billionaires, corporates and so on, without being (rightly you could argue) accused of being exclusive to preserve "our preferred or chosen" form of government?
I mean at what point do you say to folks "OK, you asked for this, here it is.."
Didn’t Sweden veer to the right in their last election?
Its been moving rightwards for a while but yes there was a surge in hard right votes.
Yes, Sverige Demokratarna got a hefty (and concerning) chunk of the votes and the Moderatarna went into coalition with them, the Christian Democrats and the Liberals to form the current government. All these partes are right-of-centre in varying degrees. The former leading party (Social Democrats) were part of the left-of-centre block (includes Vänsterpartiet, Centerpartiet, Miljöpartiet) and were the largest single block in the last election, but the right-leaning block formed a larger coalition.
M (the Moderates and the PM's party) have been dealing with the fallout from the pandemic and the global situation and SD seems content to just work behind the scenes, influencing things without really taking responsibility for them, despite them being a big party, certainly more than KD ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Sweden#Present_Cabinet). That's a smart move on their part, because they get to form policy based on _not_ supporting Ulf, but letting him take the blame when things don't go well. BUTT... I do think that their lack of ability to be visible in changing things will see them lose support in the next election.
So yes, the extreme right has risen in Sweden, but coalition means that it can't do all of the things that it wants to. That's a good thing.
I mean at what point, if you’re offering what you’d want as a left-wing party, and folks still vote for anti-immigration policies and so on, do you give folks what they want?
Well I guess the starting point is at least having a go at fixing things properly and offering voters an alternative to the dysfunctional status quo before giving in to their base white supremacist instincts. Are we really saying there's no way for the labour party (because lets face it, they're the only option) to win an election on a prospectus of public investment, wealth redistribution and medium-long term decisions to fix things like the NHS?
I don't want to go back to Corbyn, but look at what happened in 2017. Despite the fact that he was universally unpopular and had the entire media and political establishment against him (on both sides of the political spectrum), lots of people still voted for the policies he was putting forward and the labour party massively increased it's vote. It must surely be possible for the labour party to find a leader who can put forward those sort of policies without all the baggage that Corbyn came with?
Sure, but then at the same time, on an election (if we're using 2017) based on Brexit, global security, social care and a possible 2nd Scottish Independence vote, more people still voted for May's Tories. Labour absolutely raised it vote under Corbyn, undeniable, it is to his credit. But it still wasn't what the public (largely) wanted.
And since that vote, a high water mark for us on the left, its arguably gone down hill ever since and the world has changed radically (and I mean that in both senses). It comes back to basics doesn't it? A functioning democracy needs everyone to play along*, and its increasingly evident that the 'forces of the right' don't want to, or don't feel like they have to, anymore.
* Take a free press for instance - Its either free or its not, you can't really legislate to stop opinions you don't like (obviously), so you hope that everyone sees the value that a liberal democracy brings. If you got folks who actively don't want to go along with that. It's the paradox of liberal democracy that they not only hold within them the seeds of the own destruction, they actively promote it.
It's depressing yet all too predictable that some would choose to use a discussion about the far right, to attack the left, or what they perceive as being the left. This itself is a symptom of social conditioning as engineered by the ruling elites, through mainstream media, political propaganda etc. It is so successful that individuals themselves are often completely unaware that they are being manipulated. Tired old out of date tropes about 'lefties' are now combined with newer right wing reactionism against 'wokeism'. Almost as though people are acting according to a script, although this isn't fiction. But it's always important to challenge the views, rather than the individuals voicing them. The truth is that the actions of the real left are seldom celebrated or even acknowledged via conventional media channels, as this would undermine the false narrative being peddled. But it's 'woke lefties' who have successfully prevented the Rwanda deportations from going ahead, it's 'woke lefties' who run food banks, it's 'woke lefties' who will actively challenge and form resistance against far-right hate mobs trying to evict asylum seekers from their hostels, it's 'woke lefties' who travel to war-torn areas to give aid to those needing it. But then you have resentful, bitter old men sat on internet forums denouncing such as 'virtue signalling'. I think it's far more useful to look at that bitter resentment, to the underlying lack of individual fulfilment, lack of self-esteem and a lack of self-respect, to really start to understand where such displaced anger comes from. The insecure need a scapegoat for their own failings. And along come the right to create a convenient target for their ire. So they are focussed not on the architects of their dissatisfaction, but at the very people who actually want the world to be better for all.
Divide et impera.
What are we going to do about it?
Well, if Labour aren't the answer (based on folks' stated or implied distaste/disagreement/dislike etc of leadership, policy, stance, direction, rhetoric etc), maybe we need a new party to represent the interests that people want/need. 🤷🏼♂️
So some sort of global type conflict over the next decade
We might not 'return' from this one should it happen. I genuinely never believed we'd ever see a world war again. I do worry we are edging closer and closer.
It may or may not become excellent polemic, I didn't get past:
some would choose to use a discussion about the far right, to attack the left, or what they perceive as being the left. This itself is a symptom of social conditioning
So anyone who disagrees does so as a result of their social conditioning? How about what you think? Is that also socially conditioned? If not where do you live? If you are the same as everyone else, what's even the point of these trite observations?
Well, if Labour aren’t the answer (based on folks’ stated or implied distaste/disagreement/dislike etc of leadership, policy, stance, direction, rhetoric etc), maybe we need a new party to represent the interests that people want/need. 🤷🏼♂️
you'll get more tory govts if you abandon labour. Still, better than having to compromise eh?
maybe we need a new party to represent the interests that people want/need.
There only seems to be room for a certain number of parties (2?) as all the others are just fringe parties. We can't really have 100 different parties to appeal to all the political differences people have as none of the parties would actually get anywhere would they?
Anyone who wants the old Labour policies can vote Green but they don't seem to be doing that, why is that?
"it’s ‘woke lefties’ who run food banks"
Not in my experience. It's middle-aged mums who don't like seeing others go hungry. The food bank I help out at is nearly all women, and I doubt if many of them would know what 'woke' meant.
When it comes to actually doing something that is of real, tangible, unarguable good it nearly always seems to be middle-aged mums doing it.
... and Christians. The homeless shelter I volunteer at is run by Christians. I don't agree with them about much, but they do get out there.
Well, if Labour aren’t the answer (based on folks’ stated or implied distaste/disagreement/dislike etc of leadership, policy, stance, direction, rhetoric etc), maybe we need a new party to represent the interests that people want/need. 🤷🏼♂️
I think this is somehow inevitable; nature abhors a vacuum, and there's a huge gaping hole on the left of British politics right now. But it all basically comes down to marketing and image; the right has successfully created a piñata out of the traditional left, so a new approach is needed, that won't put people off voting for actual decent socially beneficial policies and ideals. I've personally long felt that the problem with politics is that it's far to full of politicians, rather than people who have actual experience of real life from a working perspective, so we need bus drivers, shop workers, doctors, nurses, teachers, carers, engineers, builders, to work together to form policy, rather than stuffed suits and toffs with a degree in PPE from Oxbridge. People from all walks of life, with a range of diverse experiences. This I believe can only come about from strong, effective work and social unions; not the closed shop of yesteryear, but actual democratic organisations that give ordinary people agency and a voice. But politics needs to change radically for that to happen at all, if ever, and I can't see that happening any time soon. But no change can come unless people want it, and fight for it. Are people willing to fight for it, is the real question.
you’ll get more tory govts if you abandon labour.
Unlikely as that would require the Tories to be in power permanently. The same one party constantly in power just doesn't happen in any liberal democracy - people are simply never that happy with their governments.
on an election (if we’re using 2017) based on Brexit, global security, social care and a possible 2nd Scottish Independence vote, more people still voted for May’s Tories.
They may have voted for May's tories, but it still changed things. As Ernie often points out, the tories abandoned the narrative of austerity (even if they didn't exactly turn on the spending taps, they are tories after all) in the wake of 2017. Even though labour didn't win power, the support they gained forced the tories to change tack. The tragedy of 2017 was that they came so close, and the actions of people in the labour party itself tipped the balance between being in govt or not.
Maybe you're right though, maybe 2017 was the high water mark. Doesn't mean they should stop trying though, and Starmer's labour party looks very much like a party that doesn't want to do too much. At best it looks like a party that wants to slow the decline rather than actually reversing it.
It may or may not become excellent polemic, I didn’t get past:
Which is a shame.
So anyone who disagrees does so as a result of their social conditioning? How about what you think? Is that also socially conditioned?
Had you continued to read, you'd have understood the answer to this.
“it’s ‘woke lefties’ who run food banks”
Not in my experience. It’s middle-aged mums who don’t like seeing others go hungry. The food bank I help out at is nearly all women, and I doubt if many of them would know what ‘woke’ meant.
When it comes to actually doing something that is of real, tangible, unarguable good it nearly always seems to be middle-aged mums doing it.
… and Christians. The homeless shelter I volunteer at is run by Christians. I don’t agree with them about much, but they do get out there
Sure, but this is just your own individual experience, and I was using this as an example of what the right perceive to be 'woke', and it is things like food banks. And my personal experience of such is that it is people who would be considered (by some people on her at least) to be 'woke lefties', who work at the food banks I am aware of. If we work on the premise that 'woke lefty' is right wing shorthand for 'someone who cares about others', that is.
And my personal experience of such is that it is people who would be considered (by some people on her at least) to be ‘woke lefties’, who work at the food banks
Maybe ask binners? He's an expert on woke lefties, never stops talking about them. 😂
Haha brownperson, I think our definitions are different. I think a 'lefty' could be described as 'someone who cares about others', while a 'woke lefty' is someone who likes to signal to others how great and caring they are without actually doing much about it.
I’ve personally long felt that the problem with politics is that it’s far to full of politicians, rather than people who have actual experience of real life from a working perspective
Yes this is a good point. Perhaps we need rules about who can become a politician? Or at extremis who can vote? I've long though that it would be worth exploring whether you either exchange participation in the democratic process for money. You can have either, but not both. The logic being that after a certain value in the bank, you're pretty isolated, so you don't get a say in how the rest of us arrange things.
Haha brownperson, I think our definitions are different. I think a ‘lefty’ could be described as ‘someone who cares about others’, while a ‘woke lefty’ is someone who likes to signal to others how great and caring they are without actually doing much about it.
The problem with such terms is that there is often no real consensus on what they mean (chiefly because they are nonsense to begin with), so get bandied about by people trying to score points of win an argument. But my point was that your 'middle aged mum' or 'Christian' could be described by some as being 'woke lefties', such is the vague uselessness of the term. It all depends of the particular perspective and stance of the abuser.
My wife said 'stop being so woke!' this morning, when I questioned the use of feta cheese in a salad that is meant to be ok for any potential vegans who may be attending the event we are going to tonight. What can you do?
Yes this is a good point. Perhaps we need rules about who can become a politician?
Absolutely. At the very least we should have a rule that bars people from becoming politicians until they've done something else for a decent period of time. It's bonkers that we have 20 or 30-something career politicians in parliament who have never been employed in a real job outside of politics. 10 years of experience in either a salaried job(s), self employment or working in the voluntary sector would be my prerequisite.
Yes this is a good point. Perhaps we need rules about who can become a politician? Or at extremis who can vote? I’ve long though that it would be worth exploring whether you either exchange participation in the democratic process for money. You can have either, but not both. The logic being that after a certain value in the bank, you’re pretty isolated, so you don’t get a say in how the rest of us arrange things.
Yes, that's interesting. But I fear you'd end up with a lot of individually wealthy, yet miserable and politically apathetic people. But I do like the ethos of that. Greed vs agency.
I think that government departments charged with running various aspects of our society, should be led by people who actually know what they're doing, because they have experience of that particular sector, infrastructure etc. So, why not put nurses and doctors in charge of health? Teachers in charge of education? And bus drivers in charge of transport? And then when elected politicians come to tell them what to do, they can tell them to get lost, because they're the ones with actual knowledge. Instead of farcical situations of say a minister for transport who's never used public transport in their life, of the dept of health being run by someone barely capable of administering an aspirin to themselves. Or anything being run by tories, basically.
Absolutely. At the very least we should have a rule that bars people from becoming politicians until they’ve done something else for a decent period of time. It’s bonkers that we have 20 or 30-something career politicians in parliament who have never been employed in a real job outside of politics. 10 years of experience in either a salaried job, self employment or working in the voluntary sector would be my prerequisite.
You got in before me. Totally this. 100%.
Firstly, how about a reform away from FPTP - Aim for a scheme/system where proportional representation ensures that there can be no one ruling party. Also coalitions are not permitted to gain control. The aim is to get a system that any policy to be implemented NEEDS cross party support and compromise?
Secondly, and most controversially, set the above up and abolish the 5 year max term; have a term be a decade. Gives a larger runway to achieve more longer term, strategic ambitions.
Or just get me to run the shop, I'll be fairly benevolent once I've dealt with 'my list' 😎
I think that government departments charged with running various aspects of our society, should be led by people who actually know what they’re doing
God, yes! 100% There's something like 4 or 5 GPs in the Tory party currently, so it's obvious that the SoS for health is a barrister.
You would rather Liam Fox?
No not really, but as @brownperson suggests at the very least he understands in which end the aspirin goes. It was a commentary on the fact that both Labour and the Tories do this (appoint folks who're loyal as opposed to capable) and them shuffle them about after 2 years. It should be a requirement that the folks running Whitehall depts. are at least vaguely familiar with the subject.
There’s something like 4 or 5 GPs in the Tory party currently, so it’s obvious that the SoS for health is a barrister.
Why would being a gp make you competent at running the NHS? It gives you expertise in an area of it but nothing more by default. Even within that area you might just be good at doing that job vs management and organising which is what is needed higher up.
Arguably those career politicans should be the ones most suited and skilled for the roles. If you start off working for an mp in your 20s then you will be learning the ropes by helping them.
at the very least he understands in which end the aspirin goes.
Which probably makes him more dangerous......."Trust me, I'm a doctor"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25574096
Liam Fox calls for end to protection of NHS spending
It may or may not become excellent polemic, I didn’t get past: "So anyone who disagrees does so as a result of their social conditioning? How about what you think? Is that also socially conditioned?"
Which is a shame.
Had you continued to read, you’d have understood the answer to this.
No you didn't answer the point on whether it's just other people who are socially conditioned and lack your clarity of vision (if not expression - I suggest you use paragraphs if you want to be more comprehensible.)
The aim is to get a system that any policy to be implemented NEEDS cross party support and compromise?
See my previous comments. Nothing would ever get done or change, politics would be reduced to horse-trading between parties which cuts out the electorate. If you want to operate a democracy in an undemocratic way, that's the way to do it.
I think there's a little misunderstanding of what I meant. Which was rather than having a potentially clueless politician running a government department, the people doing the actual thinking and planning are those who've got real world experience. So the politician isn't really in charge of that department, more of a figure head. But they'd still ultimately be answerable, so they'd have a vested interest in the department running well, so would need to listen to those who have knowledge and experience. These would be people in a permanent position, not a department that is shuffled around every few years, causing disruption and chaos.
Which probably makes him more dangerous…….<em style="box-sizing: border-box; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / 0.5); --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; caret-color: #000000; color: #000000; font-family: Roboto, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, 'Noto Sans', sans-serif, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', 'Apple Color Emoji', 'Segoe UI Emoji', 'Segoe UI Symbol', 'Noto Color Emoji';">“Trust me, I’m a doctor”
Good point. Suella Braverman is a barrister, a KC no less, and she tried breaking the law. Which makes it all the more important that people working in such depts are actually in charge of what's going on, not the politician.
I think that government departments charged with running various aspects of our society, should be led by people who actually know what they’re doing
I was doing a job a couple of weeks ago and Chris Whitty was talking about how in developing countries the minister is nearly always someone from a relevant profession. He didn't necessarily say it was always better in his experience of dealing with departments but he noted that in this country he'd be talking to a ministers staff while in African countries as an example he'd much more likely be talking directly to the minister directly
No you didn’t answer the point on whether it’s just other people who are socially conditioned and lack your clarity of vision (if not expression – I suggest you use paragraphs if you want to be more comprehensible.)
But you've already stated that you didn't read past part of the second paragraph. So how can you know what the rest of my post said?
politics would be reduced to horse-trading between parties which cuts out the electorate.
I've never understood fully why something say like providing clean water and taking away the sewage should end up as a political football (well clearly, I do, it's the money, stupid) but at the same time, there's a point at which once you've decided to provide a service to the public it moves away from being messed around with surely? Or rather; it should do in any sensible situation.
he’d much more likely be talking directly to the minister directly
And and the very least presumably has enough experience to know whether he's being fed a line? And you can hold him responsible
I’ve never understood fully why something say like providing clean water and taking away the sewage should end up as a political football
TBH on the subject of national infrastructure I'm quite happy to leave the decisions in the hands of the experts. All the government needs to do is set the overrall parameters (eg universal medical care free at the point of use), provide the money and hold those spending it to account. If the experts say the NHS, water or energy etc are better off being run by non-govt providers (preferably for no profit) then fine, and then if they fail, get some new people to run them. There really shouldn't be much politics about how they are run, the politics should mostly be about whether we want/need these things or not.
So how can you know what the rest of my post said?
Was it a good answer? 😁
So how can you know what the rest of my post said?
Was it a good answer? 😁
There really shouldn’t be much politics about how they are run, the politics should mostly be about whether we want/need these things or not.
Yes, once we decided that say; roads are a good thing - they should at least have a repair budget priced in...
I think there’s a little misunderstanding of what I meant. Which was rather than having a potentially clueless politician running a government department, the people doing the actual thinking and planning are those who’ve got real world experience
Ok so thats really the civil servants. The politician gives the direction but its the civil servants who implement. One thing cummings did get support from non nutters on is the civil service does seem to prefer a broad but narrow depth of knowledge shifting its promotion track employees around departments vs keeping people in a particular department to become really good at it.
Good point. Suella Braverman is a barrister, a KC no less
She got that (as did several politicians before her) due to being appointed to the position of attorney general rather than from her work as a lawyer.
TBH on the subject of national infrastructure I’m quite happy to leave the decisions in the hands of the experts.
Which experts are you going to ask?
Which experts are you going to ask?
Well not MPs that's for certain. It's pretty obvious. MPs don't have the knowledge or experience to make decisions on how the NHS should be operated (as an example), medical professionals, senior managers and other experts do, so get them to decide the best way of running it. Same goes for energy generation, water, railways, roads etc. The key thing is ensuring that anyone involved in making the decisions doesn't have a conflict of interest.
The role of MPs should be limited to talking to their constituents and other stakeholders and representing their views on whether we should have these things.
Couple of issues with that.
Firstly you mention previously the politicians should be holding them to account but that seems to have disappeared here.
Secondly finding someone without a conflict of interest would be tricky. All those senior managers etc would likely be in line for a rather big paycheck if they get to operate it standalone. As happened with all those privatised industries.
You could get the management consultants in but then you have the problem of lack of expertise and a rather large conflict of interest.
People working in the field are likely to be good at their job but not necessarily at anything outside of that. A gp would likely be able to comment effectively on how gp surgeries can be improved but not on how to run a hospital.
Firstly you mention previously the politicians should be holding them to account but that seems to have disappeared here.
Nope. In the NHS example the politicians hold those running the NHS to account for something (eg waiting lists). Then the professionals would come back and tell the politicians why waiting lists are worse and what needs to happen to resolve the problem. The politicians then need to either provide the resources and/or take further action somewhere else in govt (eg train more doctors, allow foreign doctors to come in). If they refuse to implement the recommendations of the experts then they can't complain about worsening waiting lists. That's the point at which the waiting lists become a political problem, but the politicians shouldn't be questioning why the waiting lists are getting worse against the advice of the experts on the ground.
Which experts are you going to ask?
Well not MPs that’s for certain.
Good example. So if the experts say the best way to maximise benefit to the national economy is to focus on infrastructure in the south east, then that becomes policy? Alternatively if they're to be guided to do what's best to help equalise quality of life for people across the whole country, who does that guiding? I'd suggest that people need representation to be able to influence policy decisions. Same very much applies in health and social care (though the relevant government department does have a permanent secretary level chief medical officer, and director general level chief scientific advisor).
Regardless of science/expertise you're still going to have to make decisions on what to do. The COVID enquiry is giving plentiful examples, at risk of derail