Its the People not the Politicians

[Hastings gull]

That was a joke by the way.

Yes. I am not entirely sure about the highlighted part. It just seems that if papers chased the largest audience - they will end up basically the same. Like the major parties after the middle ground in politics. They all end up looking the same, different traditions - but basically the same policies.

Had the Guardian followed its readership on the largest issue of the last 15 years it would have been against the Iraq war for example.

Thanks for this -and the joke . . I see what you are saying now. Just out of interest did the Guardian support the Iraq War? I really cannot recall??

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

Thanks for this -and the joke . . I see what you are saying now. Just out of interest did the Guardian support the Iraq War? I really cannot recall??

I don't think it did. I just looked up Wikipedia:

Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq
The paper endorsed the argument that Iraq had to be disarmed of 'Weapons of Mass Destruction': "It is not credible to argue, as Iraq did in its initial reaction to Mr Powell [at the Security Council], that it is simply all lies. ... Iraq must disarm."

My memory was that the leaders supported the government.

 

[GreersElbow]

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.

Oh my ****ing God, did you even read about the context...or are you going to proceed with straw man arguments. The fact you've blindly ignored the exporting and manufacturing aspect of my post shows how little you understand.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Oh my ****ing God, did you even read about the context...or are you going to proceed with straw man arguments. The fact you've blindly ignored the exporting and manufacturing aspect of my post shows how little you understand.

Your idea was overly simplistic - so yes it would make our exports more attractive and our imports more expensive. The knock on effect would be anyone on a non-indexed linked income, i.e. nearly all workers, would effectively take a pay cut. Goods would be more expensive due to an increase in inflation as would foreign holidays. The welfare bill would also go up ( and probably taxes to cover the increase ) as the main cost is pensions which are index linked. If you want to lower a vast majority of peoples standard of living then go ahead - devalue the pound.

 

[W.C.]

I was completely wrong about the white van man. Apologies'
https://twitter.com/danifesto_/status/536606602191986689

 

[Hastings gull]

As promised.

NHS

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...andler-said-NHS-couldn-t-magic-ambulance.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...eron-resign-using-dead-son-privatise-NHS.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ernment-concealing-levels-E-overcrowding.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ador-says-country-wants-lure-workers-NHS.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...assaults-coming-staff-try-treat-patients.html

ISIS

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...reezing-Europe-join-ISIS-police-let-bail.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...extremists-Syria-issues-chilling-warning.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...way-join-Isis-terrorists-frontline-Syria.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...e-two-weeks-couldn-t-face-giving-smoking.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-Union-Jack-torn-burnt-spat-Kent-village.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...killed-babies-raped-mothers-tried-escape.html

& yes, they're all from today. It's a predictable & relentless propaganda machine. I'll do the same tomorrow if you want, if I haven't proven my point enough already.

I have looked at the Mail online today and could not see anything that is pro war -instead of giving links, please show us an article in which the paper advocates war and of course with whom - should not be a problem, and not take you too long, as it is relentless, as you say. I did look at links you provided us with in the past, when you quoted lots of figures, but in all honesty could not find anything to back up what you said, other than articles from the Guardian etc. which skirted the issue under debate.

 

[abc]

We get the politics we deserve and as a people we don't deserve much. Here's why

Millions read the Sun every day
More millions read the Mail
We say we like politicians to speak the truth. If they do we don't vote for them!
We don't connect paying tax with getting good public services, We want low tax and good schools - it wont happen. Look at the tax they pay in Scandinavia
We voted for Thatcher for hundreds of years because she used North Sea Oil to give us tax cuts and cheap council houses. What she should have been doing is investing for the future but we were too short sighted to see that
We are anti Europe and anti immigrant without really having a clue about it. We just conveniently blame the EU and immigrants for everything. Most anti immigrant feeling is from communities who don't have any!
We think Farage is a "man of the people" when he is an ex city stockbroker who was privately educated
We think Milliband is privately educated when he actually went to a comprehensive

Do I need to go on? We are an ignorant society and good politicians must find that impossible to cope with. In the meantime it makes it so easy for a simple populist like Farage to peddle his myths and half truths

The voters need to get their act together otherwise we are heading for real trouble

I think the gist of what the OP is saying is spot on (if you ignore the hidden party plitics contained therein). Its another symptom of our 'no personal responsibility' society that everything is now the politician's fault. But we, the public, have moulded politicians into the creatures they are or have to be.

If we dont agree with a policy we condemn and campaign for the politician to change. If the politician does not change they are ingoring the people and are ignorant/nasty/ too left/too right and so on. If they listen to the arguments and then make the change we are asking for they are weak/clueless/flip flopping/not fit to be in government or 'thats why they are in opposition'.

Take the NHS battleground. EVERY politician knows that the NHS cannot carry on in its current format. It either needs ENORMOUS injections of long term investment which will require significant tax increases (the money has to come from somewhere!) or have to have new slimmed down objectives that we can afford. There is a need for a really open debate on the subject but no politician in any party can start that debate because they will lose votes. That is our fault and to our detriment.

When we argue against the cuts, want more to be spent on the poor or in need, want more spent on the NHS, want more investment in infrastructure etc we are righteous and indignant. Any politician that says 'OK but YOU will have to pay more tax' will be equally condemned and will lose votes. (I remember the LDs trying this in the 90s campaigning for a 1p increase in income tax to fund improvements in education. It was disastrous electorally but they were being honest).

Even if you are convinced that every politician needs to be replaced with someone more suitable/more experienced of business, the real world, of poverty, family life, balancing the bills etc, where are these people going to come from? Why take on a job where your every move in your work and personal life is going to be open season in the media and where you will be reviled by people who know nothing about you purely because you are a 'politician'. We have created the conditions where only the people we dont want to be politicians will apply - the insensitive, the unemployable, the self serving and even the bigotted. If anyone still becomes a politician because they want to make society a better place, dont worry we'll quickly knock that out of them.

So yes, we get the politicians we deserve and only we, the voters, will change that.

 

[Hastings gull]

I don't mind demonstrating the anti-NHS, pro-war, anti-welfare propaganda every day for the next few days if you want - I'll certainly do it for you tomorrow. It's such a predictable rag, but it seems that you like many of its readers have become desensitised to it all.

With respect to you, the request was that you highlight an article in which the DM advocates war - and as you don't mind demonstrating this, and it is relentless, I am rather surprised that you have not done this. Could you please do so? Thanks in anticipation.

 

[Hastings gull]

Now you are just being obtuse. Obviously if the Daily Mail explicitly said it opposed the NHS, or supported certain wars, the propaganda campaign would be over. The DM, like other tabloids, will drip feed certain information persistently over time to sway public opinion on various issues. If you read about the failings of the NHS every day, there is a very good chance you will end up supporting the privatisation of it. Equally if you are reminded about the terror of ISIS every day, you are more likely to support Britain invading Syria to fight them. This is how propaganda in the 21st century works, and it's very successful.

Precisely as I thought: when you are asked to provide concrete evidence , such as evidence that all CEOs do little and how your direct democracy works, then the ultra-theorist struggles to convince, other than the usual vague meanderings and teachings - in this case, yet again, about how propaganda works. What you describe is a long way from saying that the tabloids are "pro-war" of course. By the way, I am not sure that the issue of Britain invading Syria has ever been seriously considered, other than the possibility of extending the bombing to hit ISIS targets there and that has been rejected. This just suits you to lend a bit of credence to your theories.

 

[Soulman]

Now you are just being obtuse. Obviously if the Daily Mail explicitly said it opposed the NHS, or supported certain wars, the propaganda campaign would be over. The DM, like other tabloids, will drip feed certain information persistently over time to sway public opinion on various issues. If you read about the failings of the NHS every day, there is a very good chance you will end up supporting the privatisation of it. Equally if you are reminded about the terror of ISIS every day, you are more likely to support Britain invading Syria to fight them. This is how propaganda in the 21st century works, and it's very successful.

So to sum up, none of the things like supporting war, or opposed to the NHS have been put in the DM.

 

[Hastings gull]

I think the gist of what the OP is saying is spot on (if you ignore the hidden party plitics contained therein). Its another symptom of our 'no personal responsibility' society that everything is now the politician's fault. But we, the public, have moulded politicians into the creatures they are or have to be.

If we dont agree with a policy we condemn and campaign for the politician to change. If the politician does not change they are ingoring the people and are ignorant/nasty/ too left/too right and so on. If they listen to the arguments and then make the change we are asking for they are weak/clueless/flip flopping/not fit to be in government or 'thats why they are in opposition'.

Take the NHS battleground. EVERY politician knows that the NHS cannot carry on in its current format. It either needs ENORMOUS injections of long term investment which will require significant tax increases (the money has to come from somewhere!) or have to have new slimmed down objectives that we can afford. There is a need for a really open debate on the subject but no politician in any party can start that debate because they will lose votes. That is our fault and to our detriment.

When we argue against the cuts, want more to be spent on the poor or in need, want more spent on the NHS, want more investment in infrastructure etc we are righteous and indignant. Any politician that says 'OK but YOU will have to pay more tax' will be equally condemned and will lose votes. (I remember the LDs trying this in the 90s campaigning for a 1p increase in income tax to fund improvements in education. It was disastrous electorally but they were being honest).

Even if you are convinced that every politician needs to be replaced with someone more suitable/more experienced of business, the real world, of poverty, family life, balancing the bills etc, where are these people going to come from? Why take on a job where your every move in your work and personal life is going to be open season in the media and where you will be reviled by people who know nothing about you purely because you are a 'politician'. We have created the conditions where only the people we dont want to be politicians will apply - the insensitive, the unemployable, the self serving and even the bigotted. If anyone still becomes a politician because they want to make society a better place, dont worry we'll quickly knock that out of them.

So yes, we get the politicians we deserve and only we, the voters, will change that.

Thanks for this and you certainly have a point. We do like them to be honest and when they are, we don't vote for them! I don't particularly like politicians but they cannot be blamed for everything, though I think the image of a lovely cuddly person ruined by society is rather far-fetched; I suspect that many are already quite strident before they join the Westminster rat-race. I appreciate that you do say that the OP was unnecessarily political, and in this sense he is his own worst enemy. He uses examples in his original thread which are simplistic in the extreme, and insists that what he reads is right because it is for people who think, whereas others are misinformed, as they clearly do not think. As I wrote earlier, if he had approached the whole topic with rather less arrogance, then a larger measure of agreement would undoubtedly have ensued.

 

[cunning fergus]

I think the gist of what the OP is saying is spot on (if you ignore the hidden party plitics contained therein). Its another symptom of our 'no personal responsibility' society that everything is now the politician's fault. But we, the public, have moulded politicians into the creatures they are or have to be.

If we dont agree with a policy we condemn and campaign for the politician to change. If the politician does not change they are ingoring the people and are ignorant/nasty/ too left/too right and so on. If they listen to the arguments and then make the change we are asking for they are weak/clueless/flip flopping/not fit to be in government or 'thats why they are in opposition'.

Take the NHS battleground. EVERY politician knows that the NHS cannot carry on in its current format. It either needs ENORMOUS injections of long term investment which will require significant tax increases (the money has to come from somewhere!) or have to have new slimmed down objectives that we can afford. There is a need for a really open debate on the subject but no politician in any party can start that debate because they will lose votes. That is our fault and to our detriment.

When we argue against the cuts, want more to be spent on the poor or in need, want more spent on the NHS, want more investment in infrastructure etc we are righteous and indignant. Any politician that says 'OK but YOU will have to pay more tax' will be equally condemned and will lose votes. (I remember the LDs trying this in the 90s campaigning for a 1p increase in income tax to fund improvements in education. It was disastrous electorally but they were being honest).

Even if you are convinced that every politician needs to be replaced with someone more suitable/more experienced of business, the real world, of poverty, family life, balancing the bills etc, where are these people going to come from? Why take on a job where your every move in your work and personal life is going to be open season in the media and where you will be reviled by people who know nothing about you purely because you are a 'politician'. We have created the conditions where only the people we dont want to be politicians will apply - the insensitive, the unemployable, the self serving and even the bigotted. If anyone still becomes a politician because they want to make society a better place, dont worry we'll quickly knock that out of them.

So yes, we get the politicians we deserve and only we, the voters, will change that.

Re your last point, the last 2 by-elections indicate that voters want to change the politicians, yet I suspect from your post (as with the OP) that you are anti UKIP?

Its a strange irony that those voters who are forcing change are being berated by others who say they want change, but really advocate the status quo and more of the same....................by the way Russell Brand is really not a viable answer.

Just a thought.

 

[BadFish]

Re your last point, the last 2 by-elections indicate that voters want to change the politicians, yet I suspect from your post (as with the OP) that you are anti UKIP?

Its a strange irony that those voters who are forcing change are being berated by others who say they want change, but really advocate the status quo and more of the same....................by the way Russell Brand is really not a viable answer.

Just a thought.

Yeah but UKIP voters aren't really forcing change, they are just forcing another neo con party into the running. If people really want change then they need to vote for something different.

The lack of real difference is what Russel Brand is talking about, although personally i disagree and vote Green.

 

[Hastings gull]

I don't think there is any point in continuing this discussion. I'm only describing what I have learned about the modern world and current affairs, asking me to provide evidence which could expose corruption on that scale is ridiculous. I appreciate that you are an older gentleman who is reluctant to change his world view, but you should at least try to consider how the influence of wealth has changed in the last 30 years - money now has the power to buy anything, including world governments and the media.

I am always happy to go into detail about any claim I make, like I always do, but it's pointless having a debate with someone who is so uncompromising.

Does this not say more about yourself? Here we go again -the usual arrogance - I should consider this and that, because I could not possibly have done so, as it does not tally with your view of the world. The problem of course is due to an older gent who cannot change his view. Perhaps that older gent has had more experience of life than a relatively young idealist and can see that social anarchy might not be the answer. Might that just possibly have a grain of truth to it? As for me being uncompromising, you will see from my responses to reasonable threads, that I often ask others more knowledgeable to contribute, as I am unsure -see the brief discussion on this thread about Greece. In your case, the words pot, black kettle spring to mind.

 

[Wrong-Direction]

Will you all shut up!? Its the politicians and the people that vote for them that are the problem TREAD CLOSED

 

[cunning fergus]

Yeah but UKIP voters aren't really forcing change, they are just forcing another neo con party into the running. If people really want change then they need to vote for something different.

The lack of real difference is what Russel Brand is talking about, although personally i disagree and vote Green.

Are you sure?

Regardless of your view about the EU, don't you think a political party advocating withdrawal from the EU is a radical "change" from the other mainstream centrist political parties that want to keep us in?

I don't think you could have a party that proposes more radical change to the prevailing neocon orthodoxy.

May be I'm wrong?

 

[abc]

Re your last point, the last 2 by-elections indicate that voters want to change the politicians, yet I suspect from your post (as with the OP) that you are anti UKIP?

Its a strange irony that those voters who are forcing change are being berated by others who say they want change, but really advocate the status quo and more of the same....................by the way Russell Brand is really not a viable answer.

Just a thought.

Not sure where you get my opinion on UKIP from my post but if it came across that way then my mistake. I would put UKIP politicians in the same boat as the others. UKIP are desperately trying to stop their members saying what they think rather than what is 'acceptable' to voters. Farage's backtracking on privatisation in the NHS was a classic. He held an opinion that was controversial but was worthy of debate but now he is serious about elections he has had to deny his own views (or at least pretend to). Why? Because he will lose votes if he says what he actually believes because noone is willing to let him or anyone else debate the NHS issues.

UKIP arent forcing change at all. Sadly they are already becoming part of the Westminster establishment. Its the only way to get elected and we, the voters, have to take at least some responsibility for that.

 

[BadFish]

Are you sure?

Regardless of your view about the EU, don't you think a political party advocating withdrawal from the EU is a radical "change" from the other mainstream centrist political parties that want to keep us in?

I don't think you could have a party that proposes more radical change to the prevailing neocon orthodoxy.

May be I'm wrong?

I don't think it really matters where the power is based if the politicians are not representing the people then they are not doing their jobs. To me it doesn't matter if they sit in Canberra, Brussels, Washington or London. Our mainstream politicians do not represent us and I don't see ukip being any different.

 

[cunning fergus]

Not sure where you get my opinion on UKIP from my post but if it came across that way then my mistake. I would put UKIP politicians in the same boat as the others. UKIP are desperately trying to stop their members saying what they think rather than what is 'acceptable' to voters. Farage's backtracking on privatisation in the NHS was a classic. He held an opinion that was controversial but was worthy of debate but now he is serious about elections he has had to deny his own views (or at least pretend to). Why? Because he will lose votes if he says what he actually believes because noone is willing to let him or anyone else debate the NHS issues.

UKIP arent forcing change at all. Sadly they are already becoming part of the Westminster establishment. Its the only way to get elected and we, the voters, have to take at least some responsibility for that.

Fair enough, I agree re NHS, however that is because the institution has become an orthodoxy, and now it's a heresy to try and do anything radical with it. That won't end well as ultimately we can't afford the NHS in its current guise.

I disagree with UKIP however, and not because I agree with them politically, however to deny the fact that they are forcing political change would be disingenuous.

We know how labour (in particular) felt about criticism on immigration, Gordon Brown set their stall out following his amiable chat with Gillian Duffy. That dynamic has changed, with Ed Miliband sacking Thornberry for an ill conceived tweet, and now dancing on a pinhead to be chummy with the England flag waving classes.

Do you honestly think this change would have happened without the rise of UKIP?

 

[cunning fergus]

I don't think it really matters where the power is based if the politicians are not representing the people then they are not doing their jobs. To me it doesn't matter if they sit in Canberra, Brussels, Washington or London. Our mainstream politicians do not represent us and I don't see ukip being any different.

They advocate radical change that other mainstream politicians do not.............this is a undeniable fact, regardless of whether you agree with their political objective.

If you don't want anymore undemocratic EU monetarist policies crushing the working class then UKIP are the only credible show in town.

As for whether they represent their voters, do you those who vote in Sinn Fein MPs in NI are confused because they don't sit in the HoP? Of course they don't...........and yet I have yet to hear any criticism of Adams and McGuinness on that basis.

It's a strange world we live in.......