OT. The futures Bright, the Futures Brexit!!!

[swaledale]

Yes he always seemed to be the best informed, how did we know that, because he told us of course. He spouts stuff far beyond our knowledge, knowing that none of us can argue against his 'knowledge', but over time his rants include some obvious falsehoods which he also claims to be gospel. So if some of what he claims is rubbish, then probably his 'expert knowledge' is also rubbish.

Is it my fault you don't have the required knowledge?

[ramAnag]

rA you are fooling yourself if you think your calm reasoned tone has any greater effect than my more "muscular" approach. Sure you continue a conversation with these ****s, but they are not listening to you either.

A fact exemplified by the sad death of a 35 year old woman in the US, a veteran of numerous tours of Afghanistan and Iraq, shot storming the capital, her life wasted because she swallowed all the bull**** and lies fed to her by Trump. Reasoned argument would never have changed her mind.

I may not change minds, Swale...I’m aware of that and sometimes people’s views are too entrenched.
You should be able to and don’t precisely because you call your ‘audience’ ‘****s’ and immediately alienate them.
‘Muscular’? I imagine that’s how Trump’s mob from last night view themselves too.

[Geoff Parkstone]

So what would your apolitical self suggest as means of governing society then? I'm always interested in people who are scathing about politics and yet seem to offer no solution as to how human beings would govern themselves?

Ah now there we have the 64 million dollar question. I have nothing to offer as regards an alternative other than perhaps to suggest removing all organised support for parties - or indeed abolish political parties entirely. That way the "business vs union" aspect would be eliminated and an HR type "best fit" solution could emerge where both sides of that fence work together for common good

Is something corrupt, driven by personal self aggrandisment, petty bickering and such better than nothing at all? I ask the student anarchist in myself and wonder?

[swaledale]

Ah now there we have the 64 million dollar question. I have nothing to offer as regards an alternative other than perhaps to suggest removing all organised support for parties - or indeed abolish political parties entirely. That way the "business vs union" aspect would be eliminated and an HR type "best fit" solution could emerge where both sides of that fence work together for common good

Is something corrupt, driven by personal self aggrandisment, petty bickering and such better than nothing at all? I ask the student anarchist in myself and wonder?

A couple of points, one the real work that many politicians of all persuasions do at a local level for people is often overlooked. They do make a real difference.

What you seem to be proposing, maybe thats too strong a word, putting out for discussion is perhaps better, is akin to communism or indeed socialism as its intended. But that doesn't seem to work on a practical basis.

Your comment on a business vs union aspect seems to reflect painful personal experience? I have to say that I have rarely had an issue with unions, yes negotiations can be painful and take time, but then I could say the same about numerous business to business transactions!

Human beings have to organise themselves somehow and there has to be a realisation that not everybody's wishes, demands, aspirations can be achieved. Whilst there is much to criticise with the current systems, in the main they do largely result in civilised society, imperfect definitely but I rather live in a flawed democracy than under a flawed dictatorship.

Humans are competitive, that leads to whatever organisation they from being corrupted by ambition and desire. Voters tend to want instant solutions to complex problems and are not generally very keen on making the effort to understand what is required to resolve issues.

Humans it seems would rather have that one in a million chance to become "super rich" rather than a dead certainty of having enough, even though all evidence suggests that more money doesn't equal more happiness.

[ramAnag]

Ah now there we have the 64 million dollar question. I have nothing to offer as regards an alternative other than perhaps to suggest removing all organised support for parties - or indeed abolish political parties entirely. That way the "business vs union" aspect would be eliminated and an HR type "best fit" solution could emerge where both sides of that fence work together for common good

Is something corrupt, driven by personal self aggrandisment, petty bickering and such better than nothing at all? I ask the student anarchist in myself and wonder?

Hmmm, ‘Student anarchist v Student accountant’. Not surprised you’re confused. Never had any time for anarchists, bunch of **ckwits imo. Enlightened despotism on the other hand...now there’s a thing.

$64m dollar question indeed. I agree totally. Let the wealth creators create but stop resenting society’s need for health providers, educators, carers and the other services and work, as you say, for the ‘common good’.

[Geoff Parkstone]

Swale: Thanks for a reasoned response.

I'm not as such proposing anything so much as throw something out there because rA asked for "my solution". Its far from a thought through theory, but I do find organised political parties simply polarise interests and lead to a more confrontational decision making environment: which by definition is unlikely to reach a consensus solution.

I have not encountered any painful experience as you suggest but just watched the opposing causes battering heads against each other for so many years to the detriment of the overall economy/country.

You are right, if you give humans freedom of choice, they will congregate together for security and to boost their chances of success and to scramble up the greasy pole, so a "no party" system is probably doomed to failure, but a model based on consensus and not confrontation is surely laudable, if idyllic.

Sadly power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely will stay the bye word of national politics - I accept the point about local politicians at council level and observe that no significant money is afforded to these politicians who do it as a passion rather than a career.

[Ram59]

Is it my fault you don't have the required knowledge?

Maybe you can enlighten me at the next Mensa conference, whenever they're allowed again.

[Trickytreesreds]

Yearh, lots of thick people in Derby as well

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UB6...arkBraithwaite

[swaledale]

Swale: Thanks for a reasoned response.

I'm not as such proposing anything so much as throw something out there because rA asked for "my solution". Its far from a thought through theory, but I do find organised political parties simply polarise interests and lead to a more confrontational decision making environment: which by definition is unlikely to reach a consensus solution.

I have not encountered any painful experience as you suggest but just watched the opposing causes battering heads against each other for so many years to the detriment of the overall economy/country.

You are right, if you give humans freedom of choice, they will congregate together for security and to boost their chances of success and to scramble up the greasy pole, so a "no party" system is probably doomed to failure, but a model based on consensus and not confrontation is surely laudable, if idyllic.

Sadly power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely will stay the bye word of national politics - I accept the point about local politicians at council level and observe that no significant money is afforded to these politicians who do it as a passion rather than a career.

Consensus is an ideal, but its actually reached more often than not, given that all political party's are basically groupings of people with often quite disparate beliefs. I find it amusing to read the "echo chambers" on twitter whether it be the left who have this belief that somehow Corbyn didn't lose two elections and that if only everybody thought the way they did life would be wonderful, and also on the right where they are equally barmy.

Until someone comes up with a better model, then a political party is the best solution it seems to me, there compromises are worked out and at least some good things come out of them. Do they polarise interests? Or does the nature of elections mean that they have to find something that grabs the attention of the voters.

A step forward might be to ban all outside funding of political parties and award public funds on the basis of how many seats they win at an election, that at least would prevent the buying of policies whether that be from the left or the right. That and a genuinely elected upper chamber that could act as a balance on parliament.

I would take issue that unions versus business has been to the detriment of the country and the economy, after all apart from a few enlightened industrialists, it as unions who managed to at least get a reasonable wage, better safety better working hours etc. for the people who made the companies profits.

Sure as with all things there are Unions that obtained too much power and overplayed their hand, sometimes to the benefit of their members but often to the detriment of others.

But that only goes to prove that once people obtain power, it does corrupt, it also shows that once people get something - a better salary, shorter working hours, they tend to forget that by and large without the unions they would not have benefitted.

I tend to think that voters do get the government they deserve.

[swaledale]

Maybe you can enlighten me at the next Mensa conference, whenever they're allowed again.

Knowledge can be acquired by anyone if they want it, its not necessarily a question of IQ.