Let's do away with so-called democracy

[Flosshilde]

it seems to me to be a bad argument to argue from a personal distaste or disgust for a reform of the polis .....

i don't like it does not cut it ... see 3beebies thread for this point

it is also somewhat unreasonable to propose that because we have not been very good at doing it we should abolish it ,,,,, a counsel of despair if there ever was .... how can we improve our performance as democrats and as governments is the key issue .... and an extremely hard challenge

It's also a bad argument to say that because the present monarch isn't a bad old stick & enjoys popular support monarchy as an institution is better at governing than an elected government. She might die tomorrow, & then we'd have a new monarch who might turn out to be an autocratic busybody desperate to impose his will.

Another thing - if elected central governments are abolished, should elected local councils also be abolished? Presumably then local affairs would be managed by the local lord. The various suffrage acts should also be repealed, the Magna Carta ripped up, & so on.

[burning dog]

It's employers who insist on people stopping work at 60/65. Some (B&Q for example) employ people well beyond that age..

True though the fact that the latter is news says a lot and I wonder when they last appointed an outsider over 50, however well qualified, to a management position.

If people want to retire at 65 they are spongers if they stay on they are taking a youngsters job. Wake up Everybody!! it's the system that's at fault not youngsters or oldies, but I would add that a lot of middle aged people in good jobs seem a bit smug.

[Richard Tarleton]

then we'd have a new monarch who might turn out to be an autocratic busybody desperate to impose his will.

No "might" about it! He already is!

[Lateralthinking1]

Thanks for all these points which I recognise and respect. I am afraid that I think the system is beyond reform and it is idealistic to hope for better things. In some regards, I am a very patient person - in others not - but I feel that I have given it nearly 50 years. In the last 3 years, I've ceased to be convinced.

Of course, I think that democracy as we might hope it would be is streets ahead of the alternatives. That has been my lifelong position. But I'm beginning to feel like a mug for believing that this was ever a possibility. I could put up with it going in the wrong direction for decade after decade, at least philosophically. At the point at which it drives hundreds of thousands, probably millions, over a cliff, it has no rational or indeed moral justification to my mind.

I would want to repeat the point that a post-democracy monarchist rule would be a different proposition from anything in the past. History teaches us a lot but the perspectives and the terrain have changed entirely. I am not sure either that we should get too hung up on the personalities - Elizabeth, Charles, William.

I am not convinced by local democracy. It already has an intricate network of links to Government and Big Business that generally works against the people it is supposed to serve. The same inefficiency - money in Icelandic banks, huge expense on consultants etc - and corruption is very evident. So too the posturing and pay of many who govern locally.

The tendency to say "this isn't us, it is Government" and for the Government to say the opposite will not be solved by the Localism Bill. In fact, I think that will be carte blanche for the national Government to evade any responsibility while a very small number of local individuals effectively dictate. "It is all within the unenforceable guidelines". That sort of thing. We already know that the Ombudsman, like all others, is a toothless tiger.

Additionally, a lot of services do not need local organisation and never have done. That is a pity in some ways. It would be nice if localism worked according to the myth. As for all the recent privatisation, it just makes the services look local when they are nationally administered and largely politically unaccountable - in fact, often multinational enterprise chosen by the Chief Execs. Mates helping each other out.

[handsomefortune]

True though the fact that the latter is news says a lot and I wonder when they last appointed an outsider over 50, however well qualified, to a management position.

If people want to retire at 65 they are spongers if they stay on they are taking a youngsters job. Wake up Everybody!! it's the system that's at fault not youngsters or oldies, but I would add that a lot of middle aged people in good jobs seem a bit smug.

thankfully you've also noticed burning dog!
smugness-wise, retired males are doing quite well too, unaware of what a nest of wasps, and isms they unwittingly stir up .....apparently.

the current democratic process does look very shakey. as i see it, this is why lateralthinking is enjoying the provocative idea of self serving leaders being 'ten a penny' - so, why not revert to the royal leadership of yester year?

r3 forum support for the democratic process is unexpectedly lame, this far, in terms of proof of worth.

incredibly, lateralthinking1 having been open abuot being made redundant in his 40s, from a local authority, supplies personal info/experience deemed of 'no relevance to this thread'. 'go figure' as they say 'abroad'.

unfortunately, i can't stay to discover what it is about democracy that is worth protecting... as i have others to care for. at your leisure, perhaps on my return it'll all become clear as to why democracy is best in the 21st c.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

if you can skim past the technicalities this is a fascinating study of group problem solving ability ... i offer it as a precursor ability for democracy especially since social sensitivity and inclusiveness moderate straight intelligence in group performance ...

[mangerton]

It's employers who insist on people stopping work at 60/65.

Flosshilde, they can no longer do this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15127835

[teamsaint]

government policy on things like state retirement age have little do with demographics or economics, in my view, and everything to do with control.

Governments want to control us, by getting people in as much debt as quickly as possible, and by making it as hard as they can to get out of that debt.
Income tax , (or tithes as they used to be known) are a BIG weapon in this war. Don't let anybody kid you that income tax is a progressive tax, because for the most part , it isn't. its a deeply enslaving vehicle that denys choice.

I am 49. I don't expect to ever retire other than giving up work when I can physically no longer do anything. Because of this, I am hoping to "downsize" my work at some point, so that I have some kind of quality of life. Its the best I can hope for, unless "lucky Mike" in the office picks the right numbers for the syndicate !

Lots of retired middle class people are doing very nicely....and I don't want to see that change .....but It does irritate when on the way to the football (a hard earned treat) I hear the retired all discussing the merits of various cruise lines !!

We need to understand what is going on.....control of the economy by banks and central banks, and control of politics by a fear driven agenda.

Remember the " a quarter of all people born today will live to 100 years" lie, that the BBc swallowed hook line and sinker? That is how they operate. We need to look after each other, and recognise the real enemy.........the one in the pin striped suit and red braces, the one with the multi million trust fund that tells us what we are going do......

[Lateralthinking1]

This is quite interesting isn't it? You say "I don't expect to ever retire other than giving up work when I can physically no longer do anything". By this, I assume you mean that your work isn't exactly a labour of love. The sentiment would be recognised as frighteningly accurate by many between the ages of 49 and 55 and the overwhelming majority under 49 who are employed. It is inconceivable what life would be like if for some reason you stopped. What is that half-perceived consequence of ever being out of work that gives anxiety? It is surely that there would be worries about paying for housing and heating and food. Like many, you don't know what on earth you would do. Consequently, you feel that you have to work for as long as possible and still engage with others normally but on that knife edge. It is far from the best scenario for efficiency in business and personal health.

Meanwhile those who are out of work are already staring into that abyss, doing sod all except for a walk here and there and a chat or five hundred on a forum. It is a weird relaxation I find. The grim reaper that is Government is an ever present shadow. Some of the young are not even getting started so we are blazing a trail for them. It might become their entire way of life. I am sort of trying to enjoy an unexpected early retirement. I know though that death is less likely to end it than an inability to eat and have a roof over my head. This radically different pattern of "life" is the wider future whereas we might just escape the gutter. I have entered 90 competitions today. I will sell the toaster if it arrives on e-bay. I'm not the greatest catch of all time - I come with baggage - but society is not getting the best of me. I can see that clearly. Frankly, I hardly care now. This attitude will multiply across the population a million and more times and in some respects it pleases me. Nothing less than the country deserves.

Neither your position or mine makes any logical sense. I didn't used to be like this at all. I have been turned, just as have those who are stuck with being on the treadmill for ever more. Our leaders punch increasingly aggressively but it is as if they are waltzing on air. Fey yet brutal. There is an unprecedented brittleness to them. It reveals a lack of desire to engage with the actuality. If it doesn't affect them too much, they are often as uncomprehending emotionally as the reasonably well-off octogenarians. Sure, they have the facts, the intellect and the committees but I'd see them as being stuck in an outmoded mindset. Egotism, gamesmanship, manipulation, selective communication, cover-ups. Those remain central to the process but these are not the times for them. They need a very new character. Being just clever clever ain't gonna do it. It isn't sufficiently grown up for us.

I note that today in Greece demonstrators turned on each other. That is highly symbolic. We've already had it here. Rioters turning on shopkeepers. Victim upon victim. We just had a different concept of it. Civil war across Europe may be only a few years away now. And sadly, it is probably only a matter of time before there is a thread entitled "Democracy:Dead". RIP? I don't think so.

[teamsaint]

well a jump off point here is to consider exactly how we operate economically. We have been powerfully conditioned to earn and consume as much as we possibly can, for a s long as we can, at least in part for fear of what happens if we stop.

its a really unhealthy , negative, and controlling state of mind.Of course, housing, food, healthcare will always cost a considerable amout of money/time. However, the trick the government has managed is to convince most of us that this is all we have time for(and so that we don't have time to think for ourselves).
I'm not really that bothered at this stage about retiring.. not least since its very unlikely to happen, and not therefore worth waiting for or worrying about.
I also happen to think that the holy grail of retirement can be quite negative (although understandable if you do tough , unpleasant, or poorly paid work).
Perhaps we have to work out new ways for ourselves, because the people in charge sure won't help.

[Vile Consort]

There's an obvious means of stopping governments wanting to control us in a financial sense, and that's for governments to get the hell out of health care and pension/benefit provision and leave us all to sort ourselves out in this area.

I guess that's what you paranoid anrdoids really, really want.

[teamsaint]

There's an obvious means of stopping governments wanting to control us in a financial sense, and that's for governments to get the hell out of health care and pension/benefit provision and leave us all to sort ourselves out in this area.

I guess that's what you paranoid anrdoids really, really want.

its fine by me, as long as the same applies to defence, bank bail outs, subsidising the EU, etc etc.

Oh, and we already pay for the state pension through NI.

Paranoia is about exaggerated fear of things. Unfortunately, government control is all too real....and our hard earned cash being poured into the banks is all too real.

Its not paranoia to suggest that the city friends of the politicians are driving commodity prices up now that they have wrung most of the cash out of the financial system...thats just good old fashioned observation.
Recession? sky high oil prices? you do the maths.

[Flosshilde]

Paranoia is about exaggerated fear of things. Unfortunately, government control is all too real....

To revert to lat's original point, government is government, whether it's by a group of people elected by (most) of the population*, or by a single, unelected person who holds a position by birth. & whoever it is that governs, they will still be 'in control'. It is impossible not to have anyone in control - if you got rid of all government individuals would start to try & impose their will on the rest of the population - some might try & do it individually, by force or persuassion, others by gathering together co-operatively - & before you know it you'd end up with some type of government & somebody (or people) in control.

*Of course, the style of government we have at the moment is acting by proxy - they are 'Her Majestey's (or His Majesty's) Government.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

no an exaggerated fear of things is being really scared or panic .... paranoia involves projection on to the other of the 'forbidden' or 'feared wish ..... authority over-controls if paranoid because it thinks that if they were us they would be up to mischief because of the controlling or other actions .... over-control is an implicit recognition of the intolerability of the agency's actions .... and more insidiously a license for uninhibited aggression on the part of the controlling agency ... [pace Zidic etc]

the key problem is the dominant voice .... required for the paranoid state eg 'War on Terror' ... whereas the research linked to above shows that intelligence moderated by an inclusiveness of voices and sensitivity to others determines superior choices and decision making [sofa v cabinet]

the present Coalition is welcome in at least this respect in that they have 'rewired' the process and show a greater inclusiveness and sensitivity [IQ is presumably comparable] of decision making than NuLab [Broon anyone?] .... but the problem is that the problem will not be fixed by rewiring the system, it needs re-framing eg the statement that 'a person should be thrown from work into perpetual idleness so that a financial institution can get its money back' is a paramount frame of the existing system ... whereas a frame that asserted that the financial institution should take a haircut is revolutionary in its implications .. even to allow this frame as a temporary and contingent imperative would have the corporate lobby and the Crown girding their loins for a real fight ... [cf Euro crisis]

our polis is badly damaged by the systematically unsustainable casino and its corporate players, but it is also damaged by the parties and people who constitute our politics, the corporate media, and our own apathy in the face of the consumer credit bubble and our deeply puzzling acceptance of the most disgusting inequality .... it is all going wrong at once in ways that are historically rare .... this is a real crisis with immense stakes ....

i do not believe that the notion of taking a life to repay a debt is a necessary entailment of private enterprise but it is a central implication of banking and the state .... and making people redundant is virtually taking a life as Lat makes clear for us ...

[teamsaint]

To revert to lat's original point, government is government, whether it's by a group of people elected by (most) of the population*, or by a single, unelected person who holds a position by birth. & whoever it is that governs, they will still be 'in control'. It is impossible not to have anyone in control - if you got rid of all government individuals would start to try & impose their will on the rest of the population - some might try & do it individually, by force or persuassion, others by gathering together co-operatively - & before you know it you'd end up with some type of government & somebody (or people) in control.

*Of course, the style of government we have at the moment is acting by proxy - they are 'Her Majestey's (or His Majesty's) Government.

so what is your point........that excessive government control is ok as long as its of a type of which you approve?

I think we have been brainwashed into thinking that we have to have top down control......a situation which suits those at the top.(of whichever party).

the problem in this country is that we are offered 3 slightly differing types of top down government, all offered by parties in the grip of the city, big business, and land interests.

We need to start looking at what our governments actually do, not what they say they do.