Let's do away with so-called democracy

[Flosshilde]

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

No. My point is that government, whether elected, the result of a coup or revolution, or by a hereditary ruler, or any other form, inevitably brings an element of control. It's what governments do - govern.

If Lateral - & you - think that government by monarchy means a lack of control, you are mistaken. But then, I'm not sure what Lateral thinks - his arguments tend not to be terribly coherent.

[teamsaint]

no, I agree that autocratic government would mean even more excessive control. My main beef with what we have now is that our governments govern on behalf of extraordinarily powerful interests, that have little to do with the interests of ordinary people.
incidentally, and just IMO, part of the way they they do this is by allowing a modest percentage , perhaps 10% of the population to live reasonably comfortably, while the next 20% aspires to join this group. But thats not the key point.

Its hard to avoid control by governments.....but the lessons of the twentieth century are surely that it should be minimized wherever possible.A big worry about democracy in the west is that it is held up as the cure for the worlds ills, when in fact "democratic " governments are often the cause of them.

[handsomefortune]

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 ...

i definitely think that what might well be described as 'social sensitivity' is a key priority, between ordinary people, in turbulent times economicly.

tbh i haven't read all your link calum da jazbo. but a superficial skim of the research might presume too fixed an idea of female and male social sensitivity traites ....imv hazardous, since variances between people generally, as regards social sensitivity, conflict with received wisdom about 'ideal' team building conditions. so, the research might stereotype the genders/sensitivity a bit? 'mixed workforces are a good thing' as a statement means something different, when discussed in the current context, if workforces generally are robotic, dogmatic and threatened by pension/redundancy problems.

essentially, 'dominant, intelligent' people need not be of the semi lunatic variety. but it certainly helps weaken, dumb everyone down, to imply that this is the norm power-share-wise. it's a pretense, once central to murdoch's 'coarsening of culture' .... though he pretends he's deflecting 'the establishment', as 'elitists',...this excuse covers any opposition to his own progress imo. including his objecting to english 'dominant intelligent intellectual' for instance.

look at these 'dominant' and 'intelligent' chaps for instance:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqzcUMrDmjM

even security staff can't resist a hug from them!

aeolium's beeb news (upthread #16, and linked below), on protest media coverage, .... i think he makes a good point, the sheer diversity of those protesting is a strength, not a weakness, as sections of the media may claim. the media and torys seem obssessd with organised gangs ....but as with the mass tv pinching, organised gangs aren't the core issue. diversity may increase social sensitivity between people, and be the key to resisting damaging media/internet cliches about protests. diversity might encourage increased public participation, engagement in response to self serving, hypocritical governments? no one knows, we just have to wait patiently and see.

'permafrost' is not a hair do, or a fridge magnet, but the current phase of a manmade economic cycle, as quoted by the beeb. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15326636 nevertheless, the public know full well there's a recession on, regardless of what terminology is used in the media.

perhaps this thread should have been called 'why we need to do away with media spin, & poor examples of govt democracy'?

next up, proof of more hugging, including the dangers of hugging for the wrong reasons

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/

(i particularly hope lateralthinking1 checks out the footage of the 60s civil servant, though lateralthinking's post #34 suggests he's not quite as 'far gone', so perhaps it's best he got out when he did)?

lastly, evidence of r4 discussing what democracy means to individuals, .... a new series called 'tonight'. are the contributors of 'the deep "autonomist" movement, (refered to in aeolium's beeb link)? or, does the programme reflect a diverse bunch? (imv neither)!

seemingly, some accounts, personal responses are more authentic than others ... in the media, online, in daily life, and this doesn't change, instead everything else does. suddenly old frame works and contexts nolonger fit the situation.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b015pb11

[Lateralthinking1]

I should like to hear in what specific ways governance by the royal family would be more controlling. There are a couple of arguments I can't accept - 1. That currently we can vote out what we don't like - many of us are in places where our vote doesn't count and all the practical alternatives are roughly the same anyway and 2. That we might get a king who is a nutcase and we'd be stuck with him - given what would be the vested interests of the royals in maintaining the system, they would deal with him.

[Lateralthinking1]

Sorry, handsomefortune, your excellent post coincided with mine. I have watched two clips - the guy with the megaphone was good and the Man Alive documentary was absolutely compelling. It just goes to show. Overpaid footballers and the like yet the differences then were far less. As for the money, perhaps I should have caught the clip before I ever decided about work but at least he knew he would have a pension. These days none of us can be sure. The megaphone man is effective in drawing our attentions to the fortress shopping arcade. This in many ways is an apt metaphor for the country as a whole.

As I have mentioned elsewhere, my greatest disappointment on buying a digital radio was initially in discovering how so many stations could be rubbish. However, this completely paled when I had a look at Google and discovered that most of them were run by just three companies. Now, you will have been in W H Smith and been amazed at the sheer number of magazines there. Like the radio example, it looks like we live in a land of huge competition and infinite choice. However, having now done over a hundred magazine competitions on internet sites this week, I have discovered that it is another magic trick. How many of the fishing magazines are owned by Bauer? No less than four. You can guess how many magazines on other subjects they publish and, yes, they own many of those radio stations too. I have nothing against them. It just isn't how it all looks. That's our system.

On the modern form of hugging, I detest it. I find it totally fake. As these things catch on, you are expected to embrace them. I don't accept that much in Hollywood, from where it no doubt took off, can teach a lot about emotional warmth. What scares me is that it very evidently has the influence to redefine it. It always looks like the other side of the scales to backstabbing to me.

You have referred to the dominant personality. I would love to see that term used less loosely and for someone to attempt to define it. The guy with the megaphone is hardly a wallflower but he has no dominance in business or politics. By contrast, Alastair Campbell will have us all believe that he spent many years on the verge of a nervous breakdown. A part of me thinks that the dominant stereotype differs from most in three main respects - a desire to set more rules than the average person, a willingness to break them more and a teflon like quality with covering it up. These tend to be what establish position and it only works because others are reasonable. As a means of control, it is difficult to beat but that doesn't mean to say that it isn't fundamentally weak.

[John Skelton]

so what is your point........

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.

No idea if you agree with the apparent claim that the "Royal Family" would offer more benevolent government than "so-called democracy"; but given the huge financial, investment and land owning interests the "RF" has, how or why would they be any less in that "grip"? Or any more inclined to oppose those interests? Given that they are their own interests?

[teamsaint]

No idea if you agree with the apparent claim that the "Royal Family" would offer more benevolent government than "so-called democracy"; but given the huge financial, investment and land owning interests the "RF" has, how or why would they be any less in that "grip"? Or any more inclined to oppose those interests? Given that they are their own interests?

th idea that they would offer more benevolent govt is of course nonsense.(phil the greek could be in charge of race relations......for instance.princesss ferguson given the treasury).
the question of discussing the idea highlights many of the (increasing) shortcomings of our democratic system.

i didnt vote for 3 wars, currency speculators, or the bank of england controlling the economy.

Ok ,i know its "representative" or something. Just seems to represent the rich and powerful rather better than the poor/ordinary citizen, sorry subject.

Check out the new labour front benchers. City insiders.

[John Skelton]

the question of discussing the idea highlights many of the (increasing) shortcomings of our democratic system.

Only in the sense that saying government by triangular life-entities from Planet Xarg would be better than "so-called democracy." What I was trying to get at is that the Royal Family have a deep vested interest in perpetuating the situation you and Lateralthinking object to. They are great land and property owners and have significant portfolios of investments. They also hold 'rank' in the armed forces. I think it wildly unlikely they would go against their own interests out of a sense of paternalistic duty to their people.

I wasn't offering a defense of 'representative' democracy as it now is. There are, of course, developing if loosely connected protest / activist movements with something of a trans-national scope. Moaning about the system does nothing to disrupt / disturb it, and saying protest / activism never gets anywhere is a self-fulfilling prophecy .

[teamsaint]

Only in the sense that saying government by triangular life-entities from Planet Xarg would be better than "so-called democracy." What I was trying to get at is that the Royal Family have a deep vested interest in perpetuating the situation you and Lateralthinking object to. They are great land and property owners and have significant portfolios of investments. They also hold 'rank' in the armed forces. I think it wildly unlikely they would go against their own interests out of a sense of paternalistic duty to their people.

I wasn't offering a defense of 'representative' democracy as it now is. There are, of course, developing if loosely connected protest / activist movements with something of a trans-national scope. Moaning about the system does nothing to disrupt / disturb it, and saying protest / activism never gets anywhere is a self-fulfilling prophecy .

I think we misunderstand each others points of view !! I completely agree with your first paragraph.
Actually discussing the "system " may have some value. We change our views when we discuss things . I think the state of our democracy is well worth talking about. Just one small example, during the AV campaign, there was lots of discussion anout "one person one vote". But we would be much better off discussing the unbelievable (and undemocratic)power that someone like george soros has, ..........or the queen, .............or the big american banking families. perhaps, just perhaps, talk will prove valuable.I certainly take opportunities to discuss these things with people I meet, and we often find ourselves meeting on surprising ground.
There is a lot of fear out there...just the way the governments want it.

[Vile Consort]

I should like to hear in what specific ways governance by the royal family would be more controlling. There are a couple of arguments I can't accept - 1. That currently we can vote out what we don't like - many of us are in places where our vote doesn't count and all the practical alternatives are roughly the same anyway and 2. That we might get a king who is a nutcase and we'd be stuck with him - given what would be the vested interests of the royals in maintaining the system, they would deal with him.

Yes, but a lot of us are in places where our vote does count. Why do you want to take that away from us?

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

'sensitivity' in that research means just looking at and listening to people when they talk, good manners really .... the inclusiveness point is vital since it averts the dominant voice of alpha males ... and enhances the adaptive variety of thought and decision ... this is not soft research, but serious stuff .... research on business teams makes very similar points about those teams who run the most successful enterprises ...

sofa and broon were alpha male types ....

we vote them in .... so don't vote for them, and if there is no one you fancy well it is time to get off one's behind and stand for something one believes in ... it is then that you realise a] the media are dysfunctionally focused on the known not the new and b] most people do not seem to think that new is at all possible

the royalist cause will be put to the test when her maj kicks the bucket, what price majesty with that proper charley eh ....


No succession .... is my motto and i am sticking to it

[Flosshilde]

I should like to hear in what specific ways governance by the royal family would be more controlling.

Lateral, if you are referring to my posts I've never said that the Monarchy would be more controlling than an elected government, but that any form of government inevitably exerts some control.

That we might get a king who is a nutcase and we'd be stuck with him - given what would be the vested interests of the royals in maintaining the system, they would deal with him.

George III & George V's (was it VI?) brother notwithstanding, it wouldn't be so easy for a monarch to be put away, especially as the he/she would have absolute power & would be able to 'deal with' anyone who attempted to depose him/her. Off to the Tower!

[Vile Consort]

Indeed, the only way for an absolute monarchy to deal with opposition is "off with their heads". This applies to absolute rule of any description, as we can see all over the world and throughout history - including that of our own islands. I take it LateralThinking is blissfully unaware of this.

History (and the news) also teaches us how very rare it is for an absolute ruler to be on the side of the poor. Name three if you think I am mistaken. Much more common is for them to snuggle up to the rich - especially the bankers - whose money they need and who, in return for it, get well looked after.

[vinteuil]

Indeed, the only way for an absolute monarchy to deal with opposition is "off with their heads". .

... and indeed, the only way for an opposition to deal with an absolute monarchy is "off with their heads".

[Biffo]

[The Queen is descended from a very minor German princess (Princess Victoire of Saxe-Coburg) and, very probably, her private secretary Sir John Conroy, and certainly not from George lll's son Edward Duke of Kent]

There is little or no evidence for this claim. In any case the Queen is descended from George III via her grandmother Queen Mary. The current Jacobite 'claimant' has stated publicly he makes no claim on the throne and in any case Parliament decides these things not the strict heredity principle.