Imagine
Close your eyes and imagine this scenario: although no-one is particularly complaining about some vague and menacing-sounding situation involving children, the government has decided that it has to be seen to be doing something.
And given a broad range of possible options including making parents aware of things that maybe they hadn’t considered through to the most draconian and invasive net snooping approach, which one do you think they have opted for?
Of course, it’s the most hectoring and nannyish of all options.
Now contrast and compare this with the entirely different government that ruled us for the preceding 13 years.
Of course, it’s impossible (apart from the f***-me shoes) to distinguish between Theresa May and Jacqui Smith, isn’t it?
That currently violently exercised Labour activists weren’t tolerant about this nonsense during the preceding 13 years is also telling.
There is no significant difference between Labour, Tory and Lib Dem policies. There is no difference between their mindset. All that differs is that the various supporters of the tribes get to yelp baboon-like approval or disapproval of the bullies in power based on the colour of their ties.
If you’re not happy with politics in the UK today, the most likely cause of the problem is the person who looks back at you in the mirror every morning.
October 13, 2011 at 18:09
-
Nothing to do with sex pics, it is to censor political viewpoints that are
anti-establishment. Drone drone racism, drone drone corrupting youth
etcetera.
Censorship is coming to the web.
- October 13, 2011 at 16:22
-
My considered opinion is that voting at all is considerably over rated.
Democracy is either impractical: absolutely everything the government does
should be voted on by everybody or we elect “representatives” who we trust to
exercise their judgment on our behalf.
The problem with the latter is that our “representatives” are just lobby
fodder for the people dreaming up policies on a party basis. There is no way
whatsoever that my local MP represents in any way, shape or form, local Labour
voters. Even though he is a Tory, he probably doesn’t even represent the
wishes of local Tories, he just votes the party line, which currently is
indistinguishable from Labour policy and Lib Dem policy, neither of which are
represented by their respective parties either.
Representative democracy immediately excludes the wishes of everyone whose
wishes do not absolutely align with the executed policy of the winning party,
whether they voted for the winning party or not. So it’s not desperately
representative.
And even if we had a vote on every single bit of government policy, the
fact of the matter is that policy will never, ever satisfy everyone. Many
people may feel harmed by the policy. So if 50.000000000001% of the country
approve of something that kills or maims the remaining 49.9999999999999% (or
even 1% of the remainder), does democracy seem like a good idea? Even Hitler
was elected.
Democracy is actually part of the problem, it’s not part of the solution.
Democracy excuses the government from all its failures. No-one would describe
the UK’s elections as riddled with fraud (yes, I know there are some
exceptions, but broadly they are honest) and no-one thinks our elections are
for show. But no people who voted Lib Dem and people who voted Tory can say
that they voted for what they actually got enacted.
Yet Cameron can, by the standards of modern society, stand with his head
held high and claim to speak for the entire population of the UK, precisely
because he was democratically elected.
Nobody is really happy with the situation, because we all want different
things out of the government that we pay so generously for. But next time
we’ll vote and it will all be exactly the same, possibly with some different
faces at the helm.
The great sham of democracy is that we are made to feel that we’re making a
difference by voting.
We aren’t.
- October 13, 2011 at 17:01
-
In this electronic age it would be easy to have regular voting on many
issues, not parties. With no party campaigning and build-up to an election,
the costs would be minimal. To avoid the 50.00001% problem above, perhaps a
higher percentage, or at least 50% of the electorate, not just those voting,
would be needed for a policy change.
So a voting form (on screen) would have relatively simple yes/no
questions on a range of topics, e.g., education, welfare, defence, etc.,
with draft policies which would have been formulated at local level,
therefore democratically. This “bottom up” approach would return real power
to people at the local level – Whitehall would be required to enact motions
that were approved &, better still, we would not need 650 corrupt
self-serving scum at all!
- October 13, 2011 at 17:09
-
Yes, of course, that all sounds lovely. But if 75% of Germans vote to
go to war, does that make it OK?
- October 13, 2011 at 19:34
-
It’s very unlikely the actual populace would do so: it’s the donkeys
in control who vote for such horrors. But if the mood was overwhelming
then it would be necessary – perhaps for such a major decision 80%
approval would be needed. However, the pointless (and mostly illegal)
recent wars would have been prevented.
- October 13, 2011 at
19:43
-
October 13, 2011 at 20:51
-
Aan a good H’evenin’ tew yew, Gorgeous Mr T ….
If you’m a bit fid up
wiv all thas politickin’ an’ the loike, oi’ve a packit o’ they Werthers wot
needs a-h’openin’ if yew feels loike a-joinin’ meself. Jis git yersl deown
thit thar A1 roood and oi’ll rint that thaar packit asoid and we’m be able
ter tuck roit inter a luvverly caramal snaak tergether.
Let’m oi new if thaa’s on yewer waay. Oi’ll stee up till th’ eleventh
hoor. Then oi’m orf and yew’ m best consider they Werthers ate paast that
toime. Oi’ll luvvee anywaay, if you’m turfup or if you’m dinnat.
- October 14, 2011 at 02:15
-
-
October 14, 2011 at 10:42
-
She’s flirting with you.
Get your coat, mate, you’ve pulled!
- October 13, 2011 at 10:50
-
***Shouldn’t the right to vote be restricted to those that can think for
themselves and not those that respond like brainwashed morons?***
Yet another authoritarian judging people and deciding who should have
“rights”.
- October 13, 2011 at 10:33
-
“If you’re not happy with politics in the UK today, the most likely cause
of the problem is the person who looks back at you in the mirror every
morning.”
The world would be a better place if we all adopted this philosophy.
Unfortunately I don’t think it’s true.
The normal state of human affairs is hierarchy and oppression. Most
societies in history have been run for the benefit of kings, apparatchiks,
elites, aristocrats, slave owners etc. Open societies are the exception.
So don’t let’s add guilt to the obstacles confronting us. Politicians, the
civil service and the EU are merely doing what comes naturally to (most)
people given the opportunity to snatch power. Our task is to limit government
as much as possible in order to mitigate and hopefully repair the damage.
- October 13, 2011 at 16:40
- October 12, 2011 at 23:40
-
Why not give up voting all together. Have a military occupation. Based on
the old military idea of ‘get up or get out’. So top brass are
competitive.
As well this would give an opportunity for plenty of fresh air
and exercise for the young.
-
October 13, 2011 at 09:46
- October 12, 2011 at 22:26
-
Yes, yes that’s all very well, but where can I buy f***-me shoes?
They sound great.
-
October 13, 2011 at 11:56
-
But do they work? If the face of the wearer being referred to is anything
to go by, they don’t or else she bought a pair the wrong size.
- October 12, 2011 at 20:12
-
Voting can never be a way for intelligent people to choose the government.
They will always be heavily outnumbered by the other sort.
And ideas to
restrict those who vote, are all unworkable.
Voting does achieve this:-
No government can stay in
indefinitely.
That’s worth a lot.
I’d really like more, but I don’t know how it could be achieved.
- October
12, 2011 at 19:50
-
What I’d like to know, because after a long career in IT I consider mysef
fairly computer literate, is where can I get one of these computers so
intelligent it can tell a child is using it and bombard the screen with porn.
Because I use the net quite a lot, have a good credit rating, shop online
quite a bit and am male and of an age at which my libido has a few years life
left in it, there are a few signs I might be a good target. But none of this
porn ever comes my way.
Are they perhaps made by the same people as made Mary Whitehouse’s
television that was broadcasting a constant stream of FILTH! into her living
room while the rest of us watched Coronation Street, The Two Ronnies and the
Cliff Richard show?
- October 12, 2011 at 18:04
-
ISPs end PM’s web smut block dream
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/10/12/isps_refute_pron_restriction_claims/
The big four ISPs – BT, Sky, TalkTalk and Virgin Media – have scoffed at
suggestions that Brit web surfers could be forced to ‘opt in’ to view online
grumble flicks.
- October 13, 2011 at 14:08
-
People should be encouraged to use OpenDNS which has excellent facilities
for kiddie internet protection as well as filtering out most porn and the
main scam sites.
You can read up on it here http://www.opendns.com/
OpenDNS has the added advantage that being American it bypasses any local
attempts at censorship by your local isp, which is going to be important
with the EUSSR in the future, as blogs and web sites critical of the regime
and wanting to retain their anonymity and opposition will have to seek
offshore protection.
- October 12, 2011 at 17:29
-
It would be helpful to have a report of the Coalition’s intentions &
achievements – then the back-tracking, delays & giving in to the LDs would
be clear to all.
Despite the Coalition having been rather underwhelming so
far, I’m still very thankful that Brown and his economically illerate throng –
yes Mr Balls, I do mean you – were chucked out: under them we’d be so deep in
the merde by now that breathing would be impossible.
- October 12, 2011 at 16:15
-
You lot who talk about restricting votes.
Don’t you get you are behaving just like the politicians, deciding who gets
to vote by behaviour YOU think is more desirable.
- October 12, 2011 at 16:52
-
Shouldn’t the right to vote be restricted to those that can think for
themselves and not those that respond like brainwashed morons?
-
October 12, 2011 at 14:48
-
There is always the Multiple Vote option. Everybody gets one vote. You then
have to earn the extra votes by various means of good works and such. Although
I don’t think owning a house should be one of them. But being unemployed and
doing charity work could be. And it has the advantage of something to strive
for.
Must read Neville Shute’s, “In the Wet’, again. It sounded like a good idea
to me. But then Neville Shute knew only too well about the decline of Britain
after World War Two. You could smell it in the air.
-
October 12, 2011 at 14:31
-
The message is clear: stop voting for Con / Lab / Lib.
Only when sufficient numbers have done this will the likes of this odious
Blair clone understand that he can’t act with impunity indefinitely.
Unless you’re all happy with a PM that tackles the big issues like plastic
bags and what adults get up to in their own homes?
- October 12, 2011 at 14:27
-
I suppose there is the question of consistency. If you’re going to restrict
access to ‘adult material’ in the cinema, in bookshops and newsagents, in the
theatre and shops selling naughty knickers and vibrators, you have to apply
roughly the same level of restriction to the internet. There are, of course,
lots of questions over what constitutes ‘adult material’, and various farces
have resulted in trying to set limits (like the Lady Chatterley’s Lover trial
in the early ’60s), but to have the naughty knickers sold from behind
blanked-out windows, but photographs of bald beavers readily available on the
‘net, is a tad inconsistent.
The real problem, of course, is that of deciding what should be behind the
access screen and what should be freely available, and who makes the decision.
Censorship is always done with high-minded intent by the censors, but it’s
still censorship.
-
October 12, 2011 at 14:23
-
Internet Porn access is a non-problem looking for the wrong solution i.e.
legislation & or draconian ISP filters.
Filtering undesirable content from your home network can easily be
achieved: A little education. A little additional money for a proper internet
Router (£200 instead of the £60 bunch or freebee from whoever). A little light
twiddling with settings. Job Done. If the little darlings are worth protecting
– get off your bum and find out how to protect them properly. Don’t leave it
to government – it will just end in the type of internet we DON’T want – 2/3/n
tier access, Paying for previously free content and most importantly the
ability of “the authorities” to add “your revolutionary/terror inducing
content” to the banned list!!
-
October 12, 2011 at 13:59
-
All politicians have the same genetic makeup. They are all
authoritarian.
They all (well just about all) think they know better than the rest of us
how to run our lives. The fact that they can’t run their own lives is beside
the point and ignored by politicians and the rest of the nannying
authoritarian fusbuckets (cf: Liam Fox, etc. etc. etc. etc)
To control us they go about it by creating laws left right and centre. I
don’t subscribe to the theory that laws are created to make us all criminals
and therefore controlled, but politicans do think that laws guide the
population because the vast majority of the population are generally law
abiding – to a point.
The fact that a lot of laws are a failure, for eg. not using a mobile phone
whilst driving, is ignored by politicans. The fact that many laws are stupid
and therefore seen as a joke by the public is also ignored by politicians.
They blindly go on creating them even though they bring the whole of justice
down by continually fiddling with it.
A good policitian is one who doesn’t create laws but who looks after the
needs of his consituents, including helping them with the problems with the
rest of the State. He doesn’t need to create laws to campaign for his
consituents to be included in the whatever else is happening in the country,
i.e. to encourage business to come to the area, to encourage tourism. New laws
aren’t needed because something unusual happens; hard cases make bad laws.
Politicians seems to have mixed up the job of running the contry with that
of controlling the country. Running the country is a boring job. It means
doing the same thing all the time. It doesn’t mean creating new laws because
you’re bored of the current ones. But that’s what many politicians do because
their officials have told them so. So doing the refuse collection is an
example of that. It doesn’t need new laws and changes to the practise.
Controlling the country is the exciting bit. But it doesn’t need 600 people
to do it. Only a few. And even then they will only be needed for specific bits
and pieces. The vast majority of the workings of society do not need to be
controlled day to day. Society managed for thousands of years with only a few
laws.
The fact that there is no real difference between Labour and Conservative
means that there is no real need to have elections to suddenly decide if the
north is to be the recipient of state largess (labour) or the south east
(conservative) or the far south west (LibDem). What is needed is continuity.
Yes, by all means change the leader frequently so that no one person stays in
power too long and gives jobs to the boys and girls, but neither does it mean
changes have to happen.
- October 12,
2011 at 17:02
-
Basically.
What we need are politicians who never wanted to be politicians. In fact,
what we need are representatives, not politicians at all because they’re
crap.
Politicians also shouldn’t be ‘leaders’, we have captains of industry and
sport for that sort of thing, our representatives should be too busy running
the country to be to be sticking their noses in to every minutae of
everything we do.
If you want to do a politics degree then fine. But you are forever barred
from holding office. That would be a start.
- October 13, 2011 at 13:52
-
There you have hit the nail on the head. The country should be run as a
very large company with a board of directors seeing that it makes a
profit.
This would mean a lot of redundancies in Whitehall because most of the
departments are over staffed and unproductive.
- October 12, 2011 at 12:35
-
Problems with government today, are too much emphasis on party, and too
many proffesional politicians. For the emphasis on party, you can in a large
part, blame the mass media. They find it all too simple to just follow the
party line. What would the BBC be able to do if it did not have a party label
to guide it in it’s analysis of policies. They would have to think for
themselves, and make actual jugements on facts, not political soundbites.
There may also be a problem with the concept of universal suffrage. Should
those who live on handouts by the state, be able to help descide who runs the
opperation that gives the handouts.
Perhaps we should go back to a system of the vote only going to those who
contribute to the wellbeing of the state. If you want to vote – earn the right
to do so.
- October 12, 2011 at 14:00
-
Define contribution to the wellbeing of the state. Being a soldier? A
policeman? A teacher? Nurse?
Or are you talking about property owners? What if you can’t afford to buy
and live in rented accommodation.
Or do you mean taxpayers? What if you can’t find a job? Or you are
disabled? Chronically sick? Or you get child benefit? A state pension? Tax
credits?
What about those on benefits who volunteer? What if you are a woman whose
choses to stay home to raise children? Retired?
Surely all these examples have the right to say who runs the state in
which they live as part of the wider community, and how.
- October
12, 2011 at 14:39
-
I’d limit it to anyone who had a job that wasn’t – directly or
indirectly – public money funded. Plus those retired from such jobs.
-
October 12, 2011 at 14:41
-
Soldiers who can’t vote? Well, there goes defence of the realm,
unless we use mercenaries…
- October 12, 2011 at 16:18
-
“I’d limit it to anyone who had a job that wasn’t – directly or
indirectly – public money funded…”
So that includes the companies (and their employees) who rely on
government contracts. Nice one.
- October 12, 2011 at
22:29
-
Julia does raise a fair issue. Those who do not pay tax will tend
to vote for money to be spent on themselves and this is a problem. The
old ‘other people’s money’ conundrum.
Rather like asking two wolves and sheep to vote on what’s for
dinner.
- October 12, 2011 at 12:33
-
I had hoped they would carry on as they began, by unmeshing the HIPs and
CRB debacles. Alas, no sign of the great repeal bill. It looks like it was all
just another ploy to keep us tied in to the bad thinking which has bedevilled
this nation since before WWII, although that was when it really took its
chance to create the command economy.
- October 12, 2011 at 10:57
-
“Politics serves as an enormous distraction, drawing people’s attention
away from the essential evil of government itself.” (Robert Higgs)
No further comment required…
- October 12, 2011 at 10:51
-
We should close Westminster and government down. It’s no longer fit for
purpose.
- October 12, 2011 at 15:14
-
I second that emotion!
Our MPs are not doing the job we want them to do. What kind of employees
are these?
- October 12, 2011 at 15:20
-
It’s not just the MPs it’s all of the civil service – in fact I would
say most of the problems can be traces back to a too large politicised
civil service and the Whitehall mandarins.
{ 41 comments }