|
Post by tangent on Nov 30, 2014 12:16:52 GMT
Professor Noam Chomsky gave the following interview on BBC Newsnight on Wednesday. He was speaking chiefly about his experiences in the United States but he believes the UK is essentially the same.
"One of the major topics in political science is the relation between attitudes and policy... The results are striking, it turns out that for about 70% of the population, the lower 70% on the income scale, their attitudes have zero impact on policy, they're just ignored by their representatives... As you move up the income scale, you get more influence on policy. When you get to the very top, which is a fraction of 1%, you essentially have policy made... they're not just powerful and important, they control the wealth of the society. It puts them in a position to purchase the government and its actions... In this respect, people are losing the capacity to be citizens."
I'm just wondering if this means it is pointless to vote in an election, which is the position Russell Brand has taken.
|
|
|
Post by ProdigalAlan on Nov 30, 2014 15:49:27 GMT
That would make an assumption that 100% of the voting populace get off their backside and actually vote. Now I know there are countries, like Australia, where voting is compulsory, but it's different in this country.
Speaking for the UK I would put forward a hypothesis that you will find yourself in the bottom sector of society if you do not use your vote wisely. I would put forward for consideration the idea that those who do not bother to vote or who vote on the Orwellian lines of 'four legs good two legs bad' will always find themselves disadvantaged.
|
|
|
Post by juju on Nov 30, 2014 17:46:49 GMT
I don't think these days voting has much to do with it. As Chomsky says, policy is made much higher up the chain so it doesn't matter who you vote for - policymakers are bought and paid for. Look at the NHS - this government has been quietly and steadily selling it off from under the public's nose, despite knowing that if it were put to a public vote the vast majority would be against the idea. But of course no one was consulted about this. It's all about who benefits financially. Guess who that might be? www.peoplesnhs.org/
|
|
|
Post by ProdigalAlan on Nov 30, 2014 17:55:03 GMT
There have been two bi-elections in the past two months. Both have been won by a party campaigning on immigration policy.
In the past two weeks the ruling parties ( who lost those elections) have made major proposals to the regulations regarding immigration.
Voting does change policies.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Nov 30, 2014 20:52:04 GMT
Speaking for the UK I would put forward a hypothesis that you will find yourself in the bottom sector of society if you do not use your vote wisely. I would put forward for consideration the idea that those who do not bother to vote or who vote on the Orwellian lines of 'four legs good two legs bad' will always find themselves disadvantaged. I don't know what you mean by using your vote wisely or voting for 'four legs good two legs bad' but let's look at your main hypothesis that people who don't vote are among the population's poorest and that the 70% poorest is made up largely of those people who don't vote. Really? I always thought the Labour Party got most of its votes from the 70% poorest.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Nov 30, 2014 21:06:50 GMT
There have been two bi-elections in the past two months. Both have been won by a party campaigning on immigration policy. In the past two weeks the ruling parties ( who lost those elections) have made major proposals to the regulations regarding immigration. Voting does change policies. Or else buying Rupert Murdoch's Sun changes policies because of its vociferous anti-immigration campaigns. What is interesting is that Switzerland has just voted emphatically against immigration curbs, by 74%, even though a quarter of its population are immigrants. See BBC article. Chomsky believes that there are many people in the UK who are not against immigration - and he is fond of backing up his opinions with evidence - and so it seems likely to me that the surge against immigration in the UK has been orchestrated by wealthy media owners.
|
|
|
Post by ProdigalAlan on Nov 30, 2014 23:10:22 GMT
Speaking for the UK I would put forward a hypothesis that you will find yourself in the bottom sector of society if you do not use your vote wisely. I would put forward for consideration the idea that those who do not bother to vote or who vote on the Orwellian lines of 'four legs good two legs bad' will always find themselves disadvantaged. I don't know what you mean by using your vote wisely or voting for 'four legs good two legs bad' but let's look at your main hypothesis that people who don't vote are among the population's poorest and that the 70% poorest is made up largely of those people who don't vote. Really? I always thought the Labour Party got most of its votes from the 70% poorest. When Labour came to power after the Tories in the 1990's it was because Tony Blair had attracted the middle income middle class vote, the so called 'Islingtonarati, chattering class, champagne socialists and Mondeo Man' ( I don't like those phrases but that's how his supporters were described at the time). Labour has always had the verbal support of those at the bottom of the ladder but by no means has this verbal support materialised as votes on Election Day.
|
|
|
Post by juju on Nov 30, 2014 23:11:13 GMT
As have attitudes towards those on benefits, single parents, Muslims... Opinion is manipulated by the press, who are owned by the likes of Murdoch. It's easy enough to influence public opinion and make the masses believe in an enemy. Then when they appear to be doing something about it, it appears that public opinion has been accommodated. Edit: in response to tangent. Cross posted with Alan
|
|
|
Post by ProdigalAlan on Nov 30, 2014 23:11:44 GMT
There have been two bi-elections in the past two months. Both have been won by a party campaigning on immigration policy. In the past two weeks the ruling parties ( who lost those elections) have made major proposals to the regulations regarding immigration. Voting does change policies. Or else buying Rupert Murdoch's Sun changes policies because of its vociferous anti-immigration campaigns. What is interesting is that Switzerland has just voted emphatically against immigration curbs, by 74%, even though a quarter of its population are immigrants. See BBC article. Chomsky believes that there are many people in the UK who are not against immigration - and he is fond of backing up his opinions with evidence - and so it seems likely to me that the surge against immigration in the UK has been orchestrated by wealthy media owners. I didn't put this forward to make an point about immigration. I put it forward as a recent example of how voting can change government policy.
|
|
|
Post by ceptimus on Dec 11, 2014 0:36:50 GMT
Probably about 70% of voters in the UK aren't going to make any immediate effect with their vote because they live in a 'safe seat'where one particular party is pretty much certain to win. For example, I live in a safe Conservative seat. Not a great deal of point in me voting, though I always do ( not Conservative ) because it's easy as I vote by post.
|
|
|
Post by ProdigalAlan on Dec 11, 2014 10:08:09 GMT
I'm old enough to clearly remember 1979 when safe Labour seats fell like nine pins and 1997 when safe Conservative seats fell to Labour.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Dec 11, 2014 20:57:57 GMT
I remember when New Labour came to power, staunch Labour supporters complained that they were just like the Tories. A good many Labour supporters stopped voting because there really was no point. Once upon a time, Labour listened to poor people but now, as Chomsky says, their attitudes have zero impact on policy. I don't blame them for not voting.
|
|
|
Post by ProdigalAlan on Dec 12, 2014 0:57:21 GMT
Again Steve I have to point out that the last two bi-elections have caused a change in government policy.
And frankly it's not true to say that the Blair/Brown government was just like the Tories. Do you seriously believe that, for example, the Thatcher or Major Conservative government would have introduced the minimum wage or cancelled the UK third world debt?
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Dec 12, 2014 21:59:21 GMT
I didn't say there was no difference, I said that staunch Labour supporters decided there was no difference. It is their voice that was being ignored.
|
|
|
Post by ProdigalAlan on Dec 13, 2014 10:05:32 GMT
I'm lost now.
So even though there were clear differences. Labour supporters decided that there were no differences and as some kind of protest at the imposition of a minimum wage they stopped voting Labour.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Dec 13, 2014 16:59:12 GMT
"So even though there were clear differences" - Yes "Labour supporters decided that there were no differences" - No differences in the things that mattered to many Labour supporters "as some kind of protest at the imposition of a minimum wage" - One swallow doesn't make a summer.
I doubt whether any of them thought of it as a protest. According to the rank and file Labour supporter, New Labour's policies were too much like Conservative policies. They were no longer a voice of the lower paid workers, and therefore not worth voting for.
|
|
|
Post by kingedmund on Dec 14, 2014 5:56:49 GMT
No. I for one do not believe voting has anything to do with it anymore. The ones that everyone gets to vote in are ones that are paid to run and say what the money tells them to say. Ever heard the sane, " He who has the money makes the rules." Very true. I was taught that from my grandparents at an early age. They controlled the community by money and needless to say I haven't had a good relationship with most of my family. The only good thing I learned from them was how to make money and stay ahead of the general population. .... I hope that this isn't the rum talking.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Dec 16, 2014 0:16:23 GMT
I had some friends at university who were old school Labour. Working class backgrounds, mature students. They were delighted when Blair got in. Late on - not so much. By the middle of his second term one of them declared to me that she'd had enough, that New Labour were just another bunch of twats, that she was not voting again. I think that this is what Steve means. 'New' Labour had to change itself enough that 'Old' Labour did not recognise it. Old Labour wanted a PM like Prezza. New Labour knew that the electorate would not vote for such a person.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Dec 16, 2014 17:19:20 GMT
Yes, that's exactly right.
I've recently been reading about Germany's socialism and I'm very impressed both with their economy and their social equality. *speaks quietly so Kaylee can't here* I almost wish I had been born in Germany. But that would be better in another thread.
|
|
|
Post by juju on Jan 7, 2015 8:28:19 GMT
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Jan 8, 2015 22:47:47 GMT
From that article: But is it any different the Scandinavian countries?
|
|