EU immigration row / time to get out

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 28 May 2014, 10:24

Top notch article from Monbiot. He excels at that sort of thing.

I rarely read comments - maybe the first couple or so - but this one chimed with me:

Excellent article. Shame nobody will take any notice!

Too true, too true.

Post by **clv101** » 28 May 2014, 10:41

Monbiot's site is back online now.

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 28 May 2014, 19:20

Point of information: Marvellous Other 1/2 emigrated from a 2-bedroom flat shared with 5 (five) other people, in a city in which this was considered perfectly normal, to a house which was already here

Anyway the comments about crims remind me of a Goon Show vignette:

Seagoon: I'm looking for a criminal
Major Bloodnok: go and get yer own! It took me years to find this lot.

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 29 May 2014, 12:40

And here's another very good article (as they mostly all are from Orlov):

Moneybag logic

you are voting in support of your owners—the ones who make public policy decisions on your behalf. If you vote, then it must be because you approve of what they are doing.

This shows itself up most in FPTP/limited choice election systems. It is barely any better in others. Even in the 'fairest' elections, any deviation - on the part of those elected - from the prevailing paradigm are either co-opted, sidelined or ejected.

Of course, prior to election it is compulsory for those out of power to disagree with those in.

It is about time that pre-election promises were made enforceable, on pain of 'festooning lampposts'.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 29 May 2014, 13:41

Which 'owners' did I support when I voted Green?

By not voting, a lot of people allowed the rich folk to remain in power.

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 29 May 2014, 14:14

biffvernon wrote:Which 'owners' did I support when I voted Green?

Of course, things are far worse in the states than in Europe when it comes to voter influence. But not that much worse - the power of corporate lobbyists is huge and the trend is towards greater influence. Politically, greens are ineffectual in the states but not exactly powerful driving forces over here...

biffvernon wrote:By not voting, a lot of people allowed the rich folk to remain in power.

It's an interesting thought: if as many people as possible voted - let's be optimistic and say 85-90% - how do you think the political landscape would change, if at all?

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 29 May 2014, 15:17

biffvernon wrote:Which 'owners' did I support when I voted Green?

By not voting, a lot of people allowed the rich folk to remain in power.

If anyone wishes to be given at least a modicum of airtime on the MSM, they must conform to certain "self evident" political "truths". If they don't, they are ignored/vilified. Therefore, anyone seriously interested in gaining power within the existing political system must conform to it to one degree or another. The parliamentary greens are no exception. This means that, within that system, they are only ever going to be responsible, at best, for moving the deckchairs and not turning this ship around. Anyone voting for them is equally implicated.

I'm not saying you shouldn't vote for them. I'm saying it makes no difference.

Or, at least, not yet.

That is to say, if a massive majority of people vote for a party that is way off the centre ground of the political system, despite the efforts of the MSM to politically emasculate them by vilification/suppression of their message, this may have one of two effects. Either the entire political ground shifts in their direction to some extent and even then perhaps only cosmetically. Or, the radical government that initially ensues is undermined at every turn by the "owners". When things reach that stage is when you begin to get overt state suppression, revolutions, counter revolutions, coups and all the rest.

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 29 May 2014, 15:22

Steve: what, if any, difference do you think a 90% or more actual voting participation would make?

I'm wondering, what do voters who don't vote actually want? I suppose, you have to assume they're happy with the way things are.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 29 May 2014, 15:25

Hi E. I think I may have answered your question to some extent with the edited additions I made to my post. sorry about that, I didn't know you were posting

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 29 May 2014, 15:37

stevecook172001 wrote:.............. Either the entire political ground shits in their direction

That might be what happens in practice but is that really what you meant, Steve? "Shift" would also have suited!!

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 29 May 2014, 15:41

kenneal - lagger wrote:
stevecook172001 wrote:.............. Either the entire political ground shits in their direction
That might be what happens in practice but is that really what you meant, Steve? "Shift" would also have suited!!

Bloody dyslexia. It means I tend to proof-read at the whole-word level and miss the details

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 29 May 2014, 15:56

One of the more amusing typos thanks, Steve!!

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 29 May 2014, 16:03

Thanks Steve. My question really was, what people thought about the non-voters, i.e., those who choose not to participate.

I hate the thought of compulsory voting but let's just assume for a minute it's illegal not to vote and everybody follows the law. My cynicism is saying it would make no difference to the outcome of the elections as the current non-voters are perfectly happy with their current owners. Would this be a correct assumption?

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 29 May 2014, 16:08

emordnilap wrote:Thanks Steve. My question really was, what people thought about the non-voters, i.e., those who choose not to participate.

I hate the thought of compulsory voting but let's just assume for a minute it's illegal not to vote and everybody follows the law. My cynicism is saying it would make no difference as the current non-voters are perfectly happy with their current owners. Would this be a correct assumption?

I don't think voters are happy with the current political staus-quo. I think they are too busy or too despairing to give a toss any more. I know that's true of me. Don't misunderstand me I give a toss about the problems facing us, just not about the capacity of our existing political system to solves them.

As for compulsory voting, I can't see our political class ever allowing for it unless it amount to bullshit and is therefore an irrelevancy. That is to say, compulsory voting might be useful if voters are allowed to spoil their ballot papers as a legitimate electoral act and, in doing so, indicate "none of the above". And that this should be reported along with all other results at election time. I can't see our political class ever allowing for that though. At best, it would serve to illuminate how irrelevant they are to a sizeable number of the population. At worst (from a mainstream political class perspective), it would encourage seriously off-centre political parties to start campaigning in earnest in order to hoover up a now captive market of disaffected voters. In turn, potentially upsetting the existing political status quo. All of which is why it'll never happen unless circumstances absolutely force it on the existing political class. It's just not in their interests.

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 29 May 2014, 16:13

I'm not in favour or compulsory voting nor advocating it - merely using it as a mental device. It would be good to understand why people don't vote and what difference it would make, if any, it those millions(!) did.