Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

No, not Francis Rossi type quo, just the way things are.

Spinning off from my thread about the BBC, Cameron and Murdoch, I wanted to discuss this particular vein in greater depth.

Essentially, what that thread about is clearly not unique. A great many Politicians (if not all of them) seem all to willing to put special interest groups ahead of their own electorate. Some say 'that's just the way it is' which whilst truthful, to me is not satisfactory.

Why do accept that Politicians will always be largely unaccountable for their shadier dealings? Why don't we as an electorate ever stand up for ourselves? Take the best documented case in recent times, the Westminster Expenses Scandal, where following a press expose, it turned out almost every single Minister was taking the piss when claiming expenses. Many of them tried the 'well everyone does it' excuse, and it didn't wash with the populace. Now we have (allegedly) tighter rules on what can and cannot be claimed, and I think 4(?) MPs (or rather former MPs) now facing criminal charges. So this goes to prove that when motivated, we can take these self serving arseholes to task and change things.

So why stop there? Whether it's a Media Mogul, F1 Supremo, or an Oil Baron, why should we allow them access (particularly when they are non-Citizens of the country) any access at all to our Politicians, let alone secret shady meetings where we are told nothing? Why do we allow this? We know it happens. We know it sucks. We know it's not right. So why don't we say enough is enough, and take measures to put a stop to it?

Where did the balls of the electorate go? Are we truly so emasculated, jaded and apathetic that we can't turn back? I mean look at the general gist of feeling towards political activism. You're either derided as Loony Left, or Far Right Fascist depending upon which side of the fence your view happens to fall. Surely this is just playing into the hands of those taking the piss, as the few who do stand up and make themselves counted are automatically attacked for being fringe!

So Dakka....why do you accept such things?

The recent general election resulted in a hung parliament because the electorate didn't support any of the main parties strongly, due to the various scandals and other things leading to disillusion with the current process.

Now we will get the chance to introduce a form of proportional representation. That will make it easier to elect minority parties, in other words it puts more power back in the hands of the electorate, and will allow us to jerk parliament's chain hard.

But we should be yanking their chain regardless. We have the right to turf out a sitting Government, and they need to remember that.

Whether Minority parties get in may not change the shady dealings going on which have little to do with the good of the country.

Human nature, sadly, tells us that when we rise up and throw off our shackles we balls it up or replace what we had with something craptastically worse, 'better' (subjectively it could still be worse) or we settle for more of the same.

Are you saying that politicians shouldn't be influenced? at all? Subjectively then, how should politicians behave ' in the best interest'?

We are our own worst enemies when it comes to politics I'm afraid. The expenses scandal was a prime example, nobody ever got one of the buggers to answer this simple point:

If it hadn't been exposed to the public, NOTHING would of happened. There was no legislation on the books to sort it, nobody was rebeling against. They all took the stance that because the standards committee said it was ok, they could do it. There is no record of any MP saying, "hold on, this is maybe allowed under parliamentary rules, but it's morally wrong". Nothing, zilch, zippo.

Wolfstan wrote: There is no record of any MP saying, "hold on, this is maybe allowed under parliamentary rules, but it's morally wrong". Nothing, zilch, zippo.

You sure about that ?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8048215.stm

Mr Dunne owns a flat in London but says he believes claiming for it is not "the right thing to do".

reds8n wrote:

Wolfstan wrote: There is no record of any MP saying, "hold on, this is maybe allowed under parliamentary rules, but it's morally wrong". Nothing, zilch, zippo.

You sure about that ?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8048215.stm

Mr Dunne owns a flat in London but says he believes claiming for it is not "the right thing to do".

Just scanned it. From what I saw they didn't claim the expenses, not the same as actually doing something about it.

Ah, I get you now.

And this is the thing. Some Politicians do indeed have scruples. Couple of Cabinet Members from Labour quit their post over the Iraq war. That to me is a good thing, they stood up for their beliefs.

But the rest of them have to be taken to task surely?

Mr Mystery wrote:So why stop there? Whether it's a Media Mogul, F1 Supremo, or an Oil Baron, why should we allow them access (particularly when they are non-Citizens of the country) any access at all to our Politicians, let alone secret shady meetings where we are told nothing? Why do we allow this? We know it happens. We know it sucks. We know it's not right. So why don't we say enough is enough, and take measures to put a stop to it?

You are of course free to.

It's my personal opinion that that the general apathy amongst the British electorate is due to the fact that our political problems are relatively trifling. It's only when there are actually serious problems (such as the Iraq war) that there is any major outcry. Life is good in Britain. Our politicians are relatively 'clean' compared to those of other countries, even if you only include countries that have at least the pretence of some form of representative democracy. Our travails must look like the most self-indulgent navel-gazing imaginable to someone from say, Zimbabwe.

To me, the suggestion that Cameron and Murdoch might have worked out some deal that exchanges favourable media coverage for policies he probably would have enacted anyway isn't ideal. But neither is it the end of the world. I actually consider it a smart move. What does Cameron lose in that deal? It's likely that New Labour also worked out a similar deal, especially when you consider the fact that they had Campbell on board. Again, smart move.

Meh, maybe I'm just evil.

Again matey, that's the opinion I'm challenging on of 'it happens'.

It shouldn't happen. Why tolerate 'a little' corruption, when we could push to eradicate it totally? how long before a little becomes a lot? Why not a zero tolerance stance from the general populace?

Mr Mystery wrote:Again matey, that's the opinion I'm challenging on of 'it happens'.

It shouldn't happen. Why tolerate 'a little' corruption, when we could push to eradicate it totally? how long before a little becomes a lot? Why not a zero tolerance stance from the general populace?

What is zero tolerance when it relates to influences over members of Parliment and the government as a whole? ALL politicians are influenced and not just by brown envelopes full of money, Their daily life influences them, their friends and family influence them, colleagues influence them, their upbringing, their beliefs, they all have agendas based upon what they want to see happen...just like the rest of the population.

Heaven forbid that the voting public should ever influence governmental policy...oh....wait...

Nice attempt at deflection there.

But the core of the matter remains. Politicians continue to scratch backs in the hope of further political and/or media favours, and it has to stop.

I ask again, why should a non-UK Citizen, that is not a foreign dignitary or Politician be allowed any access to OUR Government? Let alone that such meetings should be kept secret? When you are an elected representative of the British people, you should forgo such things as meeting these people, even if they are friends without having to give an account. No secrets = fewer lies. Simple as.

We... can't do anything about it? A million people marched over iraq, we still went.

Seriously. I'm not even gonna get into a massive debate, i presume your young and idealistic. this is the real world. what can we do? march? shout and make banners? storm parliament with torches?

it does nothing mate. just get on with your life, as alb says, its not so bad.

Passive Resistance.

In Britain, we have the right to chuck out an incumbent Government. We can all abstain from voting, preventing a new Government forming. There are innumerable ways we can make our presence and collective will felt (if indeed it is a collective will, therein lying the problem).

Nothing personal skip, but it's people like you and Alba who merely shrug and accept the unacceptable that allow it to perpetuate. Make a damned stand. I gather you're a military man? How does it sit with you that your brothers in arms are being sent to their deaths for purely political reasons, rather than the betterment of mankind?

And you're right in one regard, it's not so bad. But it sure ain't right. I do count myself very lucky to live in Britain, a very stable prosperous nation, but that is no reason to accept any flaw. I would make Britain better with this.

Mr Mystery wrote:
Nothing personal skip, but it's people like you and Alba who merely shrug and accept the unacceptable that allow it to perpetuate. Make a damned stand.

Simply because you find something to be unacceptable it does not follow that the thing is intrinsically unacceptable. The people that choose not to dissent are in fact making a stand against those that choose to do so.

You need to be very careful to avoid falling into an argument from rightness that cannot see legitimacy in the perspectives of others.

Mr Mystery wrote:
How does it sit with you that your brothers in arms are being sent to their deaths for purely political reasons, rather than the betterment of mankind?

All war is predicated on politics.

Which makes it all the more pointless.

'Do as I say, or I'll send people to go kill you. I won't do it myself, I'm not that daft. But I'll make sure you die regardless'.

Mr Mystery wrote:Which makes it all the more pointless.

'Do as I say, or I'll send people to go kill you. I won't do it myself, I'm not that daft. But I'll make sure you die regardless'.

Why is that pointless?

Because many people otherwise uninvolved get quite brutally killed.

Is there a place for physical force? Yes.

But when a Government does it purely for financial reasons, it's not worth the price. Ever.

The fact that people die doesn't make something pointless. If the purpose of the use of force is to secure profit, then the point is to secure profit. Something that is pointless is generally done for its own sake.

Regardless, almost all wars have been about securing prosperity for the aggressors; generally through the acquisition of territory. Maybe you don't feel that's worthwhile, but since you live in a Western democracy I'm guessing you've never really experienced want, or the threat of loss.

Wrong. To expend the life of another human being, just to line the pockets of you or your supporter is indeed pointless. What price life? I don't kick Dogs, I leave Cats alone. I respect wildlife and it's habitat. Why not the same to humans?

And you are right. As I've said before, I am indeed very lucky to live in a pretty stable country, but even so, to not stand against that which drags us down to my mind is unforgivable. Why not lead through example, rather than punishment?

Mr Mystery wrote:Wrong. To expend the life of another human being, just to line the pockets of you or your supporter is indeed pointless. What price life? I don't kick Dogs, I leave Cats alone. I respect wildlife and it's habitat. Why not the same to humans?

So many things are odd in that sentence. First, you're presuming that the only thing being derived from the exercise of violence is economic profit; that may be the 'purpose' of war in many cases, but not everyone fights for that purpose as a matter of course. Second, you appear to have ignored my explanation of 'pointless' in order to restate your original poiint without any explanation. You're basically saying that its pointless because you say it is, which is nonsense. Third, you're presuming that moral arguments can be wrong, or right in an objective sense. They can't be, they can only be logical, or illogical in an objective sense; at least until neuroscience allows us to posit otherwise.

Mr Mystery wrote:
And you are right. As I've said before, I am indeed very lucky to live in a pretty stable country, but even so, to not stand against that which drags us down to my mind is unforgivable.

Its good to know that self-righteousness is still alive and well. You are not the moral arbiter of the world, and your judgments regarding what does or does not 'drag us down' need not be accepted by others.

So you say it is acceptable that those in power abuse their position to line their pockets, and those of the few they favour?

Then I say you are a cretain beneath contempt. We have the power to change this world for the better, but will not take it to task.

Mr Mystery wrote:So you say it is acceptable that those in power abuse their position to line their pockets, and those of the few they favour?

No, that isn't what I said. You shouldn't infer that someone disagrees with you because they think your argument is poor.

Mr Mystery wrote:
Then I say you are a cretain beneath contempt. We have the power to change this world for the better, but will not take it to task.

What if you I don't agree with you that we have the power to change the world in the manner which you have specified? What if I don't agree with you regarding what constitutes abuse? What if I think to pretend that 'abuse' is something that can be clearly defined is naive? What if I think that, in the attempt to rid society of 'abuse' we will often commit comparable abuses?

From my perspective you simply haven't looked at enough of the variables present in this situation, and have instead chosen to play a rhetorical harp in accordance with a shallow consideration of morality and purpose.

So a World Leader having 'secret' meetings with someone who, despite being a non-resident and not part of his electorate, is perfectly acceptable?

Or perhaps your countries elected leader does a shady deal impacting negatively on your life? Where do you draw the line?

I draw the line at their general lack of accountability.

Mr Mystery wrote:So a World Leader having 'secret' meetings with someone who, despite being a non-resident and not part of his electorate, is perfectly acceptable?

Yes, why do you think that it's unacceptable?

Mr Mystery wrote:
Or perhaps your countries elected leader does a shady deal impacting negatively on your life? Where do you draw the line?

How do you we define what is, and is not a 'shady deal'?

Mr Mystery wrote:
I draw the line at their general lack of accountability.

They are popularly elected, so they are accountable. Its simply that the majority of people present in the electorate do not agree with you. Too bad.

Wrong wrong wrong. Those in power have 'safe' seats. To quote Blackadder, the sort of place where 'stick a blue/red/yellow rosette on a hatstand and they'd vote for it.

So you honestly have NO qualms about your countries leader having totally secretive meetings with someone not even involved in Politics directly, especially when said Leader then makes decisions very much benefitting said person? You don't see the conflict of interests to the potential deteriment of their electorate? I have to ask....are you thick or something?

I don't expect or demand people to agree with the exact specifics of the event that moved me to action, but that such things are possible, and have been done now, in the past, and could be continued into the future. I have no Political agenda beyond forcing the elected representatives to be there for their people, NOT fringe interest groups on the make.

Mr Mystery wrote:Wrong wrong wrong. Those in power have 'safe' seats. To quote Blackadder, the sort of place where 'stick a blue/red/yellow rosette on a hatstand and they'd vote for it.

All the research devoted to political campaigns, elections, platforms, and everything else surrounding the apparatus seems to disagree.

Mr Mystery wrote:
So you honestly have NO qualms about your countries leader having totally secretive meetings with someone not even involved in Politics directly, especially when said Leader then makes decisions very much benefitting said person? You don't see the conflict of interests to the potential deteriment of their electorate? I have to ask....are you thick or something?

That's not what you asked. You asked if I have a problem with secret meetings. The answer to that question is no. The question you are now posing, "Do you have a problem with secret meeting that are followed by controversial political decisions" is something I would answer with not necessarily. The latter article would inspire me to research the facts surrounding the contentious issue in order to determine if the any factors outside that which we expect to be relevant played a significant role in the choice made.

Again, it appears as though you are deliberately ignoring variables in order to make the process of forming an opinion easier for yourself. I consider that to be incredibly lazy, and far more detrimental to the electorate than political corruption; particularly given that it opens you to easy control, and the sort of Nietzschean abyss gazing that you exhibit below.

Mr Mystery wrote:
I don't expect or demand people to agree with the exact specifics of the event that moved me to action, but that such things are possible, and have been done now, in the past, and could be continued into the future. I have no Political agenda beyond forcing the elected representatives to be there for their people, NOT fringe interest groups on the make.

Interestingly your rhetoric is not consistent with you self-proclaimed position (absolute proclamation regarding moral ambiguities tends to have that effect), its almost as if you're behaving like a politician attempting to force an agenda.

Perhaps I am, but I feel it is time the electorate woke up and made their power felt outside of election time!

I made that argument when I was 19 too. All it really means is "I want the electorate to do what I want, instead of wha they want!"