May Day

[Quirkafleeg]

Oh and here's something what I wrote a bit back...

One thing's for certain,
in this land of Hope and Glory.
Whichever way you vote,
The government's alway's Tory

[Oddboy]

Something I wrote a long time ago...


Planets circle the sun
I hope they're having fun


It's deeper than it looks.... & has pretty much the same sentiments as Gary's poem above.

[petemaskreplica]

Something Pete Townsend wrote an even longer time ago:

"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss"

[Queen Firey-Bou]

Okayyyy , so thats a big lets overthrow the scumbags vote then is it?

okay well first lets erm , make love not war & generally go about being nice to people.. thats a good start huh?
then lets brick ( with gentle flower bricks tm.) the oppressers.http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:kXnr9Qrn7TgC:www.sabledrake.com/2002/tris_02.jpg">

[Richmond Clements]

I don't trust the government
I don't trust alternatives
It's not that I'm paranoid
It's just that's the way it is


Fish said that

[Generally Contrary]

The first thing we need is the single transferable vote.  That way, a vote for say, the Greens does not become, in effect, a vote for the Tories.  Or whichever way you look at it.  If we were to image political opinions as a simple linear spectrum, it seems ludicrous that we currently have a system where 70% of the people at one end of the spectrum can be defeated by the the 30% vote at the other end, simply because the minority end is organised to win, rather than to engage in vibrant democratic debate.

We could also do with taking political parties off ballot sheets.  That would break up the 'clubs' that organize politics.  If you want to be an MP, you have to brown tongue your way up a club.  When you get to the 'top', you will not be better qualified or a deeper thinker.  You will simply have won the approval of a Trade Union or a group of businessmen, depending on your flavour.  This would either force people to engage in their politics, or lead to anarchic uniformed voting.  But it will require the candidates to put a lot more effort in campaigning, engaging in the deabte that is the core of any democratic system.

We also need to strengthen local politics, the ethos of town meeting and individual involvement in debate.  The peoblem with general elections is, in part, the sheer size of the campaign.  What effect does your vote, your voice have.  Shit all.  Democracy is about the people themselves shaping the debate, not simply choosing between two or three options devised by interest groups.   Sure, local politics is low quality, but that is in part because of it's toothlessness.  In democracy, people need to be engaged, actively, not a passive recipient.

we also need to democratize the media.  Unlike so much of current thinking, this is not done by removing regulations, but rather, if we are to have capitalism, by introducing restraints preventing one man or a small group of men from corralling all the powers of persuasion - the most crucial power in a democracy.  Inbalances of power stand in the way of democracy - power needs to be equalized, at least to some degree.

It was de Torqueville (sp?) who said, though I paraphrase:  Democracy does not bring equality; equality is a neccessary prerequisite for democracy to operate.

How to acheive this?  A difficult question, because it means taking power from those with power, an impossible task unless the powerful themselves concede it.  And like that happens.  

I hope this doesn't sound half as paranoid as it really is.

Andrew Bartlett.

[Dounreay]

An even longer time ago Einstien said " Now everything has changed except the way we think".

We have the science and engineering know how to make everybody healthy, educated and fed. Unfortunately, in the west at least, we still think in roughly the same way as they did around the industrial revolution.

That money actually has value, that economics are real and govern 'the market'.

We'll probably carry on thinking this for the duration of the energy rich golden age we currently live in. Don't hold your breath for change , it's about another fifty years down the line at least.

Glad somebody mentioned Pilger. John Pilger's always worth reading on this type of topic. If you haven't read it, check out his book "Heroes". Be prepared to experience a wide range of emotions if you do. It is exceptional.

Jerry Pournelle also has a lot to say about solving the poverty of the world. He did a lot of good essays collected in a work called "A Step Further Out". Damned if I know where you woould get a copy now though.  

[Kate_Halprin]

Protestors smashing statues seemed to be okay when they were doing in Iraq last week.

[Queen Firey-Bou]

ahhh haaa but lets not all be doom & gloom boys & girls,
over the world in our lifetimes have we not seen exiting examples of grass roots movements overthrowning oppressors?  okay the cynical may argue that are these people any better off once they win democracy & macDonalds on every street... but you know.

stuff does change, , in cal-hab, we're now seeing community land ownership starting to be possible ( yeah  overthrow the feudalistic oppressors !) and we've now got a devolved parliament ( okay i hear you laughing ...its the principal !)

i go for the 'act local' option, which maybe is easier in a small place that still has a strong 'community'. our district councillor is independant candidate, cos people don't give a rats arse about party politica here, its whos cousin is who. & that works cos its who does the best job gets the votes. it might solve the litter bin on main st. tho but saddly doesnt seem to be doing much to help global suffering... damn.

[longmanshort]

"it might solve the litter bin on main st. tho but saddly doesnt seem to be doing much to help global suffering... damn"

But it's a start.

Having covered the local elections last night (I am soooooooooooooooo tired!) you do get the sense that at least some people are taking an interest - where they feel they have a voice. Ripon has just voted for its second independent councillor (creating an entirely independent ward) by quite a margin. They did that because the councillors in Harrogate are seen as distant and that's very true. Now they have a proper voice.

And whatever people may claim, a local councillor has power, not the glacial kinda power Westminister has but REAL on-the-streets power. Rubbish piling at the bottom of your street, get onto your councillor and - if he's any cop - he'll get onto the exact officer in charge and bend his ear (this all sounds a bit male-centric!)

It may not sound like it's changing the world, but democracy is a living, breathing thing. If you don't water it and pay it constant attention, it withers and dies. As England is now discovering after waking up to a world with 13 BNP councillors in it. Whether you agree with them or not, surely having a bunch of (only recently jailed) thugs in Town Halls around the North should be cause for concern?

[El Spurioso]

Can't say I particularly condoned that either, stinking as it did of a shameless propaganda stunt.

Having said that, since the much-vaunted purpose of the coalition was to effect "regime change", it wouldn't have made much sense to leave a statue of the deposed leader in every town square.  I would've been much happier about them doing it quietly, mind (not that there was every any chance of that).

The difference between pulling down statues of Saddam and defiling statues of Winston Churchill is that the first is (supposed to be) a symbolic confirmation of a toppled leader, whilst the second is a frankly rather shitty attempt to cause a stir and make a statement that has nothing to do with the baby-faced-bugger himself.

I see from the news that the May day 'protests' were peaceful this year (despite the vulturelike attention of every newsteam in the British Isles), so kudos to those gathered there.  I'm afraid I don't have a solution to the problem of 'getting the message heard' or 'public apathy' or whatever it is they cite for their protests not immediately changing the fabric of our culture, but being violent and vandalisitc (is that a word) ain't it.

[Generally Contrary]

Let's take a moment to remember Churchill shall we:

Advocate of concentration camps
Ethusiastic about gassing Kurds
Keen eugenicist
Promoter of carpet bombing

He won the Second World War?  I thought that was Stalin.

We celebrate one bastard 'cos he's our bastard, and thank heavens democracy reined him in.
Let's remember, if it weren't for WWII Churchill would be remembered as a politician with particularly brutal ideas who thankfully was an alcoholic so never got much work done.

[Generally Contrary]

"I'm afraid I don't have a solution to the problem of 'getting the message heard' or 'public apathy' or whatever it is they cite for their protests not immediately changing the fabric of our culture, but being violent and vandalisitc (is that a word) ain't it."

Unfortunately, wuith 40% of the national press owned by one man, with a huge number of local papers also in the ownership of a single company there is very little diversity of media.  How many towns have two local papers, therby giving a diversity of opinion?  Hardly any.  But it wouldn't be economical would it?  But it certainly isn't democratic to simply have one voice.

Rather than erode the ownership restraints in the media - as this government is about to do - we need stronger restraints and even subsibies to keep the media diverse and (as best as posible)representative.

Democracy is not about voting.  It is about a every person having the power to influence policy, and this means every person must have the opportunity to take a proper part in the debate.  At the moment, to take part in debate you need to be rich.  In a world where the ability to make money is counted over all other skills, we create a system where 'Reg' Vardy is allowed to fund PPI schools that teach creationism (backed by the CBI) while the massed voices of both people and experts are barely heard.

Democracy is incompatible with unrestrained free-marketering, as this hands power to the wealthy.  It may be that a free-market is the best economic model we have, in which case, let's go for it.  But let's forget the dream of democracy.

[Danny Franks]

Apparently May Day in the good ole You Ess of Ay is now known as ... Loyalty Day!

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/04/20030430-26.html

Link: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/04/20030430-26.html" target="_blank">http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/04/20030430-26.html

[longmanshort]

General said: "with a huge number of local papers also in the ownership of a single company there is very little diversity of media. How many towns have two local papers, therby giving a diversity of opinion? Hardly any. But it wouldn't be economical would it? But it certainly isn't democratic to simply have one voice."

Having worked in local papers for some time I have to say there's a slight flaw in equalling ownership with editorial control. That may be true on the larger papers where there is more money at stake but on local weeklies and dailies, you don't have that. You are confusing opinion with journalism. And no matter what people think, on a local level they're not the same thing.

We are left to get on with our job and the only restriction is that you do it well - ie. within the bounds of journalistic professionalism (yes, it does exist!).

When it comes down to what stories get in, well if an editor follows an 'agenda' people soon cotton onto it and stop buying the paper because that's not what they read a local newspaper for. If they want opinion, they'll pick up a national, if they want news they'll pick up their local. And that's the one criteria that rules over all - MAKE IT LOCAL! There ARE editors that abuse their position and think it's a good idea to 'go' for certain negative issues. They either don't last long or have such a high staff turnover that the paper can't operate within the local community.

You don't NEED two papers in a town because - and I talk from experience here - they either end up squabbling amongst themselves (ie. become even more polarised and opinionated about issues and don't present the facts) or just repeat the same stories.

Our letters page is incredibly pluralistic because once we've taken out the letters that are libelous or just plain gibberish, you actually see an incredibly diverse range of views. And we stick with issues. Nationals drop stories within hours, but we keep going back to update people on what's happening. We are the voice of the town because we give EVERYONE a voice, not just the people we off-the-record agree with.

For example.

The Conservatives have just re-gained control of our council for the first time in 12 years. Now, to be brutally honest, the day I vote Tory is the day someone has a gun to my head and even then I'd have to really, really think about it. But I don't let that stop me covering their activities fairly and accurately. We had this woman spouting off about skateboarders being a problem and half of what she said was rubbish. But we reported her comments fairly and accurately. Our readers then flood the letters page correcting her on (what they saw as) her ill-judged opinions. THAT'S pluralism, THAT'S democracy, THAT'S the people making themselves heard.

We keep opinion confined to the letters page, where it belongs.

People (and our owners) think local papers and small, parochial and unimportant. Fine, let them think that. Because it lets us get on with our job, which is telling local people aabout local news.