I dont know what you mean by true to yourself. Do you mean ignore the websites or agree with them?

So what I’ve done is use the tools to see where my generic political aligment is. Now what I’m doing is studying the detail so see/spot the smaller issues and look into the detail. As mentioned, at face value I agree with a lot of what the Greens want to do, but can’t work out the source of the funding. All schools & public buildings will have solar / reusuable energy sources. Ok, well how is it funded? They say they are scrapping austerity cuts so are they about to re-borrow and add to Uk debt for the sale of being “green”? Its not clear, and if they didnt know or are about to dig a bigger hole for us I might change my vote on that basis. So despite the fact I agree with thier headline policies how could I vote for a party with no substance? It’s be easy to vote that way without a care knowing they won’t get in, but thats blinkered.

So I’ll continue with that and do the same for my second recommended party which is Conservative and so on until I can reach a majority blance that I’m compelled – or perhaps “satisfied” is a better word – enough with to tick their box on a ballot form.

Edit: I can see why people don’t vote though – if your intelligent enough to see beyond that what is on the tellybox then it needs a fair amount of effort to come to a conclusion IMO.

kayla1 – Member

Dunno. I’ll be 65 in twenty five years’ time so possibly dead. I’d hope that my sister’s kids might grow up in a fairer, more equal society though.

Almost certainly they (like the current kids) will have significantly more opportunities than our generation – that’s progress for you.

As for more equal, equality of what – opportunity or outcome? If the latter (which has not absolute moral basis IMO) then don’t forget that despite trends over the past 50-60 years, current society is more equal in terms of outcome than most of the last 1000 or so years. Current levels of outcome inequality (ie income) are not exceptional, they are more the LT norm. The mid-section of the 20C was the exception.

I have no idea what you just typed so I’ll answer the question I think you asked.

I’d like them, and other people’s kids, to grow up in a world that doesn’t just consume, consume, consume. A place with no nuclear weapons, with a free-for-all health service, somewhere without the need (or the drive) for anti-homeless spikes, a drugs policy that works, you know, somewhere nice because what we have now isn’t very nice.

I maybe have to make it clear that I’d like things to change not because you* have ‘stuff’ that I don’t (big telly, white Audi, detached house, ‘good’** job, three holidays a year or whatever) but because there are people born into privilege and people who are born into abject poverty through no virtue or fault of their own. The current system, ie capitalism, is flawed. It makes no allowance for people who don’t want anything to do with it and just want to potter on and grow their own veg and have a few chickens, figuratively speaking, but can’t because they don’t have the means to go about it. I think this post is making me sound angrier than I am, I’m not, I’m really quite content with our current situation within the current system 😀

* ‘you’ generally, not ‘you’ personally.

** I have no idea how to define this one. I think my job’s pretty good for example- I don’t earn much but I don’t have to work much because I have very little going out = more time to ride my bike or potter in the allotment = 😀 You might have a different take on what a ‘good’ job is.

** I have no idea how to define this one. I think my job’s pretty good for example- I don’t earn much but I don’t have to work much because I have very little going out = more time to ride my bike or potter in the allotment = You might have a different take on what a ‘good’ job is.

We’re all different Kayla and that’s fine by me…the world would be a boring place if we were all the same. The trouble is if everyone thought like you do, there would be no money being raised to pay for all the infrastructure required to run a 21st century 1st world country. We need people in good jobs, earning top money, paying their tax etc to keep it all going. We need people buying ‘stuff’ even if half of it is meaningless.

Then we need to start again, as a world/species.

We need people in good jobs, earning top money, paying their tax etc to keep it all going. We need people buying ‘stuff’ even if half of it is meaningless.

Define “need”

there would be no money being raised to pay for all the infrastructure required to run a 21st century 1st world country. We need people in good jobs, earning top money, paying their tax etc to keep it all going. We need people buying ‘stuff’ even if half of it is meaningless.

We’re back to the resource based economy stuff. It is technically possible to have a technologically developed complex society without money. Money like most things is an abstract concept invented by humans. It’s not essential to life or wellbeing. Given our current reliance on it though, it would be exceedingly difficult to abandon it now.

It’s an interesting discussion, isn’t it? It’d need everyone, everywhere, to say ‘stop’ (Hammer time!) and just go about living for the common good rather than being paid to live for themselves, as is the case at the minute. If they did, what’d happen? Nothing. The world would still turn, the sun would rise tomorrow and the universe would grind on.

It’s an interesting discussion, isn’t it? It’d need everyone, everywhere, to say ‘stop’ (Hammer time!) and just go about living for the common good rather than being paid to live for themselves, as is the case at the minute. If they did, what’d happen? Nothing. The world would still turn, the sun would rise tomorrow and the universe would grind on.

Have you ever read about the middle ages….thats where we’d be back to!

Define ‘need’?

Its part of Human nature to ‘aspire’…as I say we’re all different. Some of us don’t want to return to the middle ages, but want to live in a reasonable level of comfort, be able to afford to travel and see parts of the world, give our Children things we never had. Doesn’t make us bad people.

There’s no insinuation that anybody is a bad person for wanting a decent level of comfort for them or their offspring 😀 I’m enjoying a level-headed discussion on t’interweb.

So then, the middle ages. A feudal society with kings and princes and dukes and nobles and commoners. When the majority were ruled over by a minority. Not that much different to what we have now, really. If you meant from a technological point of view, there’s no reason that there couldn’t be progression in a society where everybody works towards the common good- if the whole world is working together, with no borders or boundaries, no inequality or prejudice, then maybe we could pool our collective knowledge for constructive positives rather than separately for destructive negatives. Imagine if all of the millions (billions?) wasted in/on the cosmetics industry was channeled into medical research, for example.

Its part of Human nature to ‘aspire’

Plenty of research out there that human nature is a product of the surrounding environment. It’s neither pre-determined or unchangeable.

but want to live in a reasonable level of comfort, be able to afford to travel and see parts of the world, give our Children things we never had.

Very nice for you but doesn’t help all the starving and homeless people around the world and those working 16 hours a day in sweatshops. It’s a fact that the current economic model is unsustainable, so without a radical change collapse is inevitable, and then we’d be back to the middle ages in any case.

it’s a radical Idea Kayla

I wonder if anyone has tried forming a society based on the premise before, and if so what level of success that had?

I wonder if anyone has tried forming a society based on the premise before, and if so what level of success that had?

The anarchists in the spanish civil war were the most successful I’ve heard of in modern times. Going further back there was some success in the paris commune and the Ukraine at the time of the Russian revolution. There are also plenty of other tribal societies which operated on collectivist principles. They failed not because they were inherently flawed, but because they weren’t strong enough to resist the aggression of outside forces. You could say that’s proof that these types of societies will always be unviable but they suggest that given a certain critical mass they could be successful on a larger scale and longer timeframe.

Well any rosey glow from the budget will evaporate after QT tonight. What a cheery panel! And more Peston pantomime now!!!!