Its the People not the Politicians

[Hastings gull]

It's not that people are stupid, but we all spend our lives doing different things. Most people don't have the time or interest in learning about political theory and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Again, the problem is that the main source of political edification is the mainstream media, which is full of deceit and misinformation - essentially propaganda - so regular people are easily manipulated into believing that the main political parties offer genuine solutions to their problems. I include UKIP in this purely because they will only exist to reinforce the status quo and surrender even more power to the rich ruling classes, which is the root of so many problems.

By "modernising democracy" I mean we should look to end party politics. I also think there should be more debate about freedom of press, particularly regarding political bias.

But that is exactly what you are saying. I do agree that you have to be careful what you read as the reporter in any paper will have an agenda, but it is reasonable to conclude that many people will know this, and sift out accordingly. As to whether the media "is full of deceit" etc, - this is a very sweeping statement of which you are so fond - how much real evidence do you have for such statements? Its as sweeping as you claiming last week that CEOs do very little in their employment.
Thanks for elucidating what you mean - how on earth do we do get rid of party politics? And what should go in its place? Some will vote tory, convinced of the need for a market economy etc and others see a brighter future with socialism -is that ever going to change?

 

[Hastings gull]

I am making no judgement on anyone. I am though happy to be making a judgement on the views they hold. I'm sure many UKIP voters are nice people and many Guardian readers are really unpleasant. But nice UKIP voters are dangerously deluded and they need to wise up before it's too late. Part of wising up is getting information on issues from a reliable source - not the Sun or Mail

You seem like an intelligent person -not wishing to be condescending in any way, rest assured, so you must surely see that you are making judgements about other people; you just have done! Look at the two highlighted statements - not only are you judging others, you are saying that one paper is not a reliable source but yours is, of course, whereas the reality is that it is simply what you agree with. It is arrogance of the first order

 

[Sussax]

what a moronic thread

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Goodness knows! I don't understand you - what on earth do you get from the Sun?

You are really Emily Thornberry aren't you ? Utter snob.

 

[GreersElbow]

Ehhh ?? How long do you think they need then given the following :

1979 - 1997 Tory Government - 18 years
1997 - 2010 Labour Government - 13 years

Well, this country needs a lot. 20 years minimum and no change in trajectory.

We need to completely rewrite our tax system, simplify it and enforce it. Then major educational reform wherein kids from an early age are exposed to all types of career paths. When I was in school, (I'm 22) we rarely spoke about trades, always university. The problem was when New Labour were in power, whilst admirable, were foolish in thinking we could get degrees.

Now, we have IMO, a devalued educational system; skills and trade training deficits being plugged by migrant workers and a poor and weak manufacturing sector.

My plan would be this: 1-4 years, complete restructuring of the tax system. Custodial sentencing for tax evasion in a grading scale based on severity.
5-9 begin educational reforms, kids with a lack of academic skills or no interest in university can opt to go into a technical college from 14 years old to develop a trade.
10-14 would begin enticing businesses to either move or set up manufacturing in the UK ready for when a fresh, young work force is about to be able to go onto the jobs market
15-20 we slowly devalue our currency to become more and more competitive on the global market by building a reputation that can match that of Germany.

I simplified view of my plan. But due to the short termism of people, it would never be seen through because the demands of the public change all the time.

 

[GreersElbow]

Poor old Joe Bloggs -he needs you to point him in the right direction, but in the quest to help himself he comes up against the usual simplistic statements - he would be worse off under UKIP -how can you possibly be in a position to make such a judgement on UKIP or indeed any party? But poor old Joe is not alone, as the rest of the public apparently do not realise that they are being "misinformed" as they are as thick as Joe. And the solution? - we need to "modernise" democracy. That's clear isn't it Joe? NO, I don't know what this all about, either, Joe . .I think it is something about getting rid of corruption, Joe. I agree, Joe -it would be better if the post actually explained what he means rather than using one slogan after another.

The absolutely brilliant aspect of Mustafa's post, is that often, he's very misinformed on a manner of subjects. Such as Ukrainian crisis, which allegedly is about NATO expansionism, not Russian expansionism...which has been foreign policy since its empire...

 

[Westdene Seagull]

15-20 we slowly devalue our currency to become more and more competitive on the global market by building a reputation that can match that of Germany.

Oh my good f**king god !!!!! You think devaluing a currency is a good thing ?? OK, we'll agree our educational system needs overhauling but I'd suggest Economics becomes a compulsory subject in the new world. That way we wouldn't get utterly stupid ideas like this one.

 

[RexCathedra]

Oh my good f**king god !!!!! You think devaluing a currency is a good thing ?

Don't think of it as 'devaluing' currency.
Think of it as encouraging exports, and discouraging imports, by pricing a currency accordingly.

Unless the pound is the only thing the UK makes, and the world still wants, that is...
And that leads to FIRE (Finance, insurance and real estate) swallowing up the entire economy, and London swallowing up the country.

The language of a 'weak' pound and a 'strong' pound is loaded, and misleading.

 

[Hastings gull]

Unfortunately most people don't know this, I experience it all the time - with my friends, family, colleagues and people I meet. People generally just don't consider that they are being fed misinformation through the mainstream media - although thankfully that is changing due to the rise of social media.

The media is full of deceit, you know this as well as I do, I'm sure. For example The Guardian is pretty close to my political orientation, but its leftist bias is painfully obvious - it will largely omit information that supports right wing politics for obvious reasons. However the Guardian is just one paper, unfortunately the majority of the mainstream media is owned by organisations with corporate interests - as a result a majority of people only have access to information which supports that agenda.

In regards to alternatives to party politics, or representative democracy, there are many. I personally support "direct democracy" as I have said many times before, this is where people vote for issues that affect them rather than people to represent them. I believe that if people had access to more neutral information, coupled with actual democracy rather than this ridiculous popularity contest, we could find better and fairer solutions to all of our problems.

Of course papers have their bias, and I do respect your statement that in this respect the Guardian is no better than most -another post on here claims that readers of other papers are being damaged, but, of course, not guardian readers! Strange that you seem to accept that the Guardian is no better than most -not a criticism of your good self in any way, I might add. My point is that we need to avoid sweeping statements such as full of deceit -most folk know what political orientation their paper has, and so can realise that not everything you read is the gospel truth. Give the average punter some credit. I have read a reporter's article, which from first-hand experience I know to be, shall we say, skewed, and thus am wary of what I read. It is common to hear people say -you can't believe everything you read in the press -so folk can be more discerning than you give them credit for. Where I think the danger is more acute, however, is on the seemingly innocent letter pages - you read them all and think - yes, I am right, as so many folk seem to think likewise, but of course they would do.
I have to say that I am bit confused with your second para - we vote for issues coupled with actual democracy?? If we have a plebiscite on the EU, as seems likely/possible, where we would get our neutral information, even if the press was not "full of deceit" and what is actual democracy? I thought you wanted direct democracy.

 

[Chicken Run]

at the mention of the "sun" we were in M&S(NAME DROPPING AGAIN) cafe yesterday and while waiting for wifey to be served with their great flat white, I glanced sideways to see a "sun" on the table and casually flipped through the pages to be nosy ( I never usually read papers) it was the most unadulterated s**t I have ever had the misfortune to read.
no wonder kids grow up to be morons.
DO NOT READ THE "SUN"

I ought to vote labour but it's twats like you telling me what to read and do gooders supping their cappuccinos in Islington pretending they care for the average Joe that ruin that party! Labour=snide

 

[cunning fergus]

Not strange at all. The Guardian is an intelligent paper for people who think - not a comic which sets out to support and proselytise the opinions of its owners. One is reasonably eclectic (though clearly coming from a liberal perspective) the others are not

The Guardian is not immune from editorial bias to suit its own political agenda............

http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2014/09/absolute-lies-from-the-guardian/

http://www.algemeiner.com/2014/07/09/guardian-website-spews-lies-about-gaza-conflict/

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/356281/lies-truth-and-guardian-john-osullivan

http://friendsofsyria.co/media-lies/the-distortions-by-the-guardian/

https://medium.com/@paul_a_smith/lies-damned-lies-statistics-and-the-guardian-7f4f88ade648

http://guardianlies.com/

Or hypocrisy, when the Guardian runs stories about corporate tax avoidance, they do so with knowledge of the Guardian's own corporate structure involves trusts and companies in the Cayman Islands.

In 2008, over 300m of dividends were distributed to GMG shareholders without a penny paid in tax.

One can only wonder about how damaged Guardian readers are...........

 

[Soulman]

I would say the Guardian is better than most, if only for one reason - it doesn't have any obvious corporate interests, although admittedly its bias could be unhelpful.

The Sun and Daily Mail account for more than half of all newspapers sales in Britain - and I'm confident that a majority of their readership are not aware that they are presenting information in a way that promotes corporatocracy. This is particularly problematic because the working and middle classes respectively are the key demographic of those papers, causing millions of people to become seriously misguided. So through mainstream media, millions of people have been encouraged to blame each other (eg immigrants, Europe, unemployed, etc) rather than the people who are really responsible, the corporate rulers who encourage this great inequality that has led to those very problems. This very much seems to be orchestrated, an inevitable result of individuals being able to control the media.

Unbiased information + actual democracy = progress

Behave, the Guardian is probably more biased than the Mail and Sun.

 

[Hastings gull]

I would say the Guardian is better than most, if only for one reason - it doesn't have any obvious corporate interests, although admittedly its bias could be unhelpful.

The Sun and Daily Mail account for more than half of all newspapers sales in Britain - and I'm confident that a majority of their readership are not aware that they are presenting information in a way that promotes corporatocracy. This is particularly problematic because the working and middle classes respectively are the key demographic of those papers, causing millions of people to become seriously misguided. So what has happened is that through mainstream media many people have been encouraged to blame each other (eg immigrants, Europe, unemployed, etc) rather than the people who are really responsible, the corporate rulers who are responsible for this great inequality that has led to those very problems.

Unbiased information + actual democracy = progress

And there was I thinking that there might be a chink in your armour and you might actually be less haughty! How wrong am I . . Millions are all misguided because of corporatocracy but you have spotted this - they haven't because they are so misguided.. Good old corporate rulers/ruling classes stuff - its all their fault, whoever they are. Many folk vote UKIP for fear of the consequences of excessive immigration, but the corporate rulers via the mainstream press are to blame for manipulating them. It is not the observation of the person who has seen his area totally transformed by immigration that we need to listen to, of course, because the ruling classes have manipulated him! He could not possibly be right, because he is misguided.
Still haven't told me what direct democracy is! If I may so, you are at your best when you avoid meaningless slogans such as your last sentence.

 

[Hastings gull]

The Guardian is not immune from editorial bias to suit its own political agenda............

http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2014/09/absolute-lies-from-the-guardian/

http://www.algemeiner.com/2014/07/09/guardian-website-spews-lies-about-gaza-conflict/

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/356281/lies-truth-and-guardian-john-osullivan

http://friendsofsyria.co/media-lies/the-distortions-by-the-guardian/

https://medium.com/@paul_a_smith/lies-damned-lies-statistics-and-the-guardian-7f4f88ade648

http://guardianlies.com/

Or hypocrisy, when the Guardian runs stories about corporate tax avoidance, they do so with knowledge of the Guardian's own corporate structure involves trusts and companies in the Cayman Islands.

In 2008, over 300m of dividends were distributed to GMG shareholders without a penny paid in tax.

One can only wonder about how damaged Guardian readers are...........

Very interesting, but sadly typical of human nature.

 

[Hastings gull]

I'm sure there are many ways that I am misguided too, afterall we can only make decisions based on the information that we have to hand. However we know that the mainstream media has corporate interests, because we know who owns it and we can analyse the content. Immigration is the one of the most interesting topics, partly because of its "divide and rule" type theme, one that we have drilled into us every day in the media - whereas we don't have more pressing issues such as growing inequality and the destruction of the environment fed to us with the same intensity, because that is not in the interest of the wealthy and corporate elites. The same could be said for global conflicts, it seems that media information is orchestrated in such a way to distract us from the greater problems that benefit the privileged few - it is easy to forget what is happening in Syria, Iraq, Israel, Ukraine, Egypt and so on when we are all suddenly exposed to relatively inconsequential problems the next day.

So to summarise, when we are exposed to certain information presented in a certain light every day, of course our opinions are likely to change towards that context - this is why concepts such as media censorship are so significant. It is really easy to get angry at immigration when we are shown Roma gypsies camping in central London, or Albanians on "life on benefits" documentaries, or seeing brown people causing trouble up north, on a daily basis - but why does the mainstream media make a big deal of certain issues, but ignore others? How could manipulating public opinion benefit the wealthy owners? These are the kinds of questions you should be asking.

In regards to direct democracy, it is where people vote on policies or initiatives directly - unlike representative democracy (what we have now) where we vote for representatives to do that for us.[/QUOTE

You remind me again of a fanatic with a totally closed mind with the usual arrogance - this is what I should be asking; at least this time you do not start with asking me and anyone else to think about matters, as if we have not. I am not sure that mainstream media does ignore others, as you say -the issues such as you mention eg environment do crop up regularly. And who says that we do forget topical issues such as Iraq etc - this too is often in the media, particularly the problem with those fanatical iSIS savages.
Thanks you for your definition of direct democracy by the way - so we vote directly - for what? So, there is no parliament, and a policy just happens, does it? We would have no checks to ensure that what we end up with, is what we actually voted for, as we would have no reps, because we have voted directly, and don't need them. And, of course, no one would be misguided, by your logic, and so the direct vote would be so much better. Would not folk still adopt their usual political leanings so that the result of the direct vote would be no different to what we have now. Pressure groups would presumably cease to exist as there are no more reps to influence, and decisions of vital importance would just have to wait until we have a direct vote. Since we have no reps, we now have to vote on everything ourselves, and everyone will be more than pleased to come out and vote on a very regular basis -no one will tire of this, of course.

 

[melias shoes]

Why should they give a balanced view? Just as with every newspaper they pander to their readers' prejudices. Take a look at the comments in the Guardian newspaper section after this article today where Miliband says that Labour stands for ordinary working people

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...r-working-people-miliband-tells-white-van-man

Yeah, but... Daniel Ware does look like a bit of a thundering ********, doesn't he?

How patriotic is the White van man when the flags he's flying are some filthy crappy polyester 'Chinese' rubbish? Show some respect man and grow a brain while you're at it.

I'm working class, as are all my family, but I certainly wouldn't want this prick living next to me

The vile, offensive and downright bigoted comments go on and on and on and on. These were all just on the first page and these are supposedly enlightened readers of a 'quality' broadsheet making huge judgements about an ordinary normal bloke because of what he looks like and his habits. Swap that white van man for a muslim woman in a burqa, swap the Guardian readers for the Sun readers and you get exactly the same comments. EXACTLY the same.

For years now, the Guardian has peddled the view that UKIP are a bunch of racists, that blokes like this bald bloke with a van and a desire to fly his flag outside his house must be UKIP..if not BNP. Must be...look at him. He looks the type. Turns out the bloke actually votes Tory but that doesn't stop the myth of white van man being peddled as a racist.It's what the Guardian's readers want to to believe. It makes it all so easy to dismiss this nasty sort of chap and his nasty political views. And that's why you get these bigoted comments in a broadsheet.

Spot on. Shows the guardian for what it is. As nasty as the left would have us believe the mail and sun readers are. Readers of the guardian take it as gospel and anything else is lies and shouldn't be believed never mind read. The nasty party that clearly belongs to those champagne socialists who trade under the labour banner.

 

[Hastings gull]

Well unlike you, I am absolutely certain that the mainstream media ignores certain issues and promotes others. A great example of this is TTIP - this is a massive handover of economic and democratic rights to corporations, but as far as I'm aware it hasn't been headline news once. Other examples include the Icelandic revolution, Ukrainian government atrocities, the pro-Gaddafi mass protest, etc. In regards to the environment, the mainstream media is very much pro-oil, anti-renewable energy and likes to perpetuate stories that anthropogenic climate change is a myth. & yes Iraq comes up a lot, usually detailing all the terrible things ISIS is doing to gain public support for military intervention there and in Syria.

Again, in regards to direct democracy, it doesn't have to be anarchy (but it can be), there can still be a government that resolves the more trivial issues - and there are plenty of better ways we could be employing them. Why shouldn't the people be allowed to vote on important issues that affect them, whether it is TTIP, drug laws, bankers bonuses, how tax money is spent or local issues? That would be democratic, whereas we are currently being dictated to.

I did not say that people should not be allowed to vote -of course they should, and this happens now, albeit not the way you want. I am pointing out that the practical side of what you suggest needs to be considered, and your statement that - well we could have a government for more trivial issues sounds, with all respect, very unconvincing. I would want far more nitty gritty as to how direct democracy as you suggest would actually work in practice, hence my questions, but your response in the first sentence is all too vague.

 

[Surf's Up]

So, a referendum on every difficult political issue??!!

 

[Larry]

The news papers are owned by The Barclay Brothers and they run the country not the goverment what ever they say goes.

 

[Surf's Up]

So we wouldnt need a government?