Ship of Fools: Honesty in politics

Thread: Honesty in politics Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027794

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

I am so cynical now that I switch off when the politicians start making promises before elections. ISTM that they say what they think we want to hear, try to outdo each other, then once in power they either drop the issues or delay them so that they can keep using the promises. Meanwhile, they do what they want to do regardless of how much or how little it represents the views of the people. Is this democracy at its finest?

Is it only me who longs for honesty in politics?

Am I wrong to think this way? Perhaps I should become more involved, rather than switching off.....

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

Yes be involved, but accept that the leaders of the major parties are cynical, manipulative liars.

What I have seen in the last couple of days from David Cameron has made my blood boil even more than usual. I have always considered him a pathetic weasaly scrotum, but he has gone down in my estimation even more.

I am involved in politics because I find so many of the voices that get heard to be vile, abusive and dangerous - they are damaging the remnants of democracy that we have in this country. They are seriously detrimental to the modern concept of government. I am not prepared to ignore this, so I am involved in a party whose membership has grown by 45% this year.

In the end, I don't believe that a cynical, manipulative approach is the only - or best - way to do politics. But the main parties have decided that this suits them better than honesty and morality.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
What I have seen in the last couple of days from David Cameron has made my blood boil even more than usual. I have always considered him a pathetic weasaly scrotum, but he has gone down in my estimation even more.

Funnily enough, the stuff Cameron has said recently has made me like him even more.

[ 03. October 2014, 15:35: Message edited by: Anglican't ]

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

George Osborne has been horribly honest (apart from the usual ritual pretence that neoliberal market economics benefits everyone rather than just providing a mechanism for him and his mates to plunder the economy). Make no mistake, the enemy is in full view (and if that view had crosshairs on it I for one would not be sorry).

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Good point about Osbourne being honest, although I don't think he is really spelling out the full implications of his message.

But I am now very disillusioned with politics, and we groan when a politician comes on TV, as we know that they will spin a lot of bullshit.

I suppose it's a sad thing, but I tend now just to switch off. They just seem very alienated people to me, alienated from other people, from life, and so on.

Also I don't think they have much control really, which perhaps has a bad effect on them. They seem like puppets in a globalized economy.

I forgot to say that I have known two MPs quite well, one is my brother-in-law, and the other a guy I worked with. They are both quite intelligent, but also completely crass and unsocialized people. Maybe they are not typical.

[ 03. October 2014, 15:59: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

If you wash your hands of politics, you can't complain of whose hands it falls into.

I'm afraid activism is the only answer. I speak as one who would as soon chew tinfoil as turn out on a damp autumn evening for a constituency party meeting. But it has to be done.

Posted by TheAlethiophile (# 16870) on :

Politicians will often mix some truth in with their less reliable assertions. The most believable part of Cameron's speech was when he said:

quote:
This party is the union for the young woman who wants an apprenticeship.For the teenagers who want to make something of their lives. This is who we resent.

Yet in any political discourse, confirmation bias is rife. If you support party X, then you are more likely to party X's assertions, and more inclined to disbelieve party Y's aspersions about party X.

It'd be nice if we could ban politicians from talking about other parties and get them to stand on their own policies rather than lean them against the failings of their predecessors and other opponents.

Alas, though, I fear not. The 2015 general election is likely to cause a greater amount of mud to be flung than ever before, and the next one after that will be worse still.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
What I have seen in the last couple of days from David Cameron has made my blood boil even more than usual. I have always considered him a pathetic weasaly scrotum, but he has gone down in my estimation even more.
Funnily enough, the stuff Cameron has said recently has made me like him even more.

He has inherited Michael Heseltine's gift for locating the clitoris of the Conservative Party.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
If you wash your hands of politics, you can't complain of whose hands it falls into.

I'm afraid activism is the only answer. I speak as one who would as soon chew tinfoil as turn out on a damp autumn evening for a constituency party meeting. But it has to be done.

Well, first I would have to find a party which I liked. I used to be in the Labour Party but left. I did find the Scots independence campaign exciting, and there seemed to be lots of new young people involved. We thought if yes had won, we might move to Edinburgh, although it seems a bit cold!

Posted by TheAlethiophile (# 16870) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Funnily enough, the stuff Cameron has said recently has made me like him even more.
He has inherited Michael Heseltine's gift for locating the clitoris of the Conservative Party.

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

Do you think politicians are actually less honest than other people, or do you think they are simply more in the public eye? Do you think politicians are more likely than other people to lie to themselves?

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
What I have seen in the last couple of days from David Cameron has made my blood boil even more than usual. I have always considered him a pathetic weasaly scrotum, but he has gone down in my estimation even more.
Funnily enough, the stuff Cameron has said recently has made me like him even more.

Then I will not continue this discussion of politics anywhere other than hell.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

You want honesty in politics? Here you go!

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Funnily enough, the stuff Cameron has said recently has made me like him even more.
He has inherited Michael Heseltine's gift for locating the clitoris of the Conservative Party.

I think he ended up on the winning side didn't he? Let me check... yes, he did. Bit of a chequered career I admit, but as part of the winning team.

Our orgasms are multiple!

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

People don't want honesty in politics. They want to hear what they want to hear. The Conservative party gives them that. Blair did as well.

Millbore? Not so much. He doesn't exactly tell them what they want to hear as much as tell them what they want to hear with the voice of a Sixth former.

Honesty in politics? To quote the late, great Leo McGarry... "There are two things you don't want people to see how you make them; sausages and politics".

We say aspirational things, motivating things, hopeful things, things that may yet come to pass (sorry, re-reading Lord of the Rings!). That's what politics is.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
Do you think politicians are actually less honest than other people, or do you think they are simply more in the public eye? Do you think politicians are more likely than other people to lie to themselves?

Well, I've only known two of them intimately, as I said above, and I would say of them, yes. They are both very immature and crass individuals, but as I said, maybe all the others are different!

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
Do you think politicians are actually less honest than other people, or do you think they are simply more in the public eye? Do you think politicians are more likely than other people to lie to themselves?

It's impossible to compare people regarding levels of dishonesty. Some 'other people' will be very honest, others very dishonest. Who would we compare them with? There's no such thing as average when applied to real people.

I think that at some point it becomes a game of deceit that they collude with. Perhaps they do lie to themselves too.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
[QUOTE]Funnily enough, the stuff Cameron has said recently has made me like him even more.
He has inherited Michael Heseltine's gift for locating the clitoris of the Conservative Party.

Not quite Quotes file, but
[Overused]

[Not quite proof read]

[ 03. October 2014, 19:39: Message edited by: balaam ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

I'm not a socialist. It just neither persuades nor inspires me. That means I don't have the panacea of voting Labour even though they're crap, out of ideological loyalty to what they could stand for, used to stand for or a socialist might wish they stood for.

We've just had two party conferences. They were different but had one fundamental thing in common. They have both left me with less reason to vote for their parties than there were before. I'm sure plenty of other people would say the same.

One of them had a leader's speech which just happen to forget the economy. The other has said, 'Vote Conservative and you'll have less human rights, less protection against an arbitrary state'. As an inducement to vote Conservative that matches the one from 1997, 'Vote Conservative and you'll have fewer nasty employment rights and you won't have to have as much paid holiday'.

However, unlike Raptor Eye, I'm not surprised by any of this. Perhaps I've been around too long. There comes a time when one must mature. One of the things that means is that one stops expecting a collection of people who have been elected to be super-persons rather than ordinary people who happen to have been elected.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:

quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Funnily enough, the stuff Cameron has said recently has made me like him even more.
He has inherited Michael Heseltine's gift for locating the clitoris of the Conservative Party.

I think he ended up on the winning side didn't he? Let me check... yes, he did. Bit of a chequered career I admit, but as part of the winning team.

Our orgasms are multiple!

*goes to bed with a smile on my face*

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

However, unlike Raptor Eye, I'm not surprised by any of this. Perhaps I've been around too long. There comes a time when one must mature. One of the things that means is that one stops expecting a collection of people who have been elected to be super-persons rather than ordinary people who happen to have been elected.

I'm not surprised by it. I don't like it, I don't think it's right, and I won't accept that to be mature I should go along with it, as that will only perpetuate the system I hate.

I should stand up and do something about it, but I don't. I turn it off and hope it will change without my having to be involved. I don't expect super human beings, but I do want to be able to trust politicians. I want there to be someone I positively want to vote for next year. I will probably end up voting for one I dislike the least, or not voting at all. Then I will get what I deserve, and that also will perpetuate the system that I hate.

This could persuade me to get involved in politics, but as someone said earlier, that could only happen if I found a political party I could bring myself to be associated with.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
Do you think politicians are actually less honest than other people, or do you think they are simply more in the public eye? Do you think politicians are more likely than other people to lie to themselves?

People lie for gain, people lie because they feel pressured, people lie because they wish to please, convince or coerce.
So, yes, politicians are more likely to lie.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

I think we've got a really huge problem with politics. In particular, I don't see any chance that the politicians, parties and political systems that we have will be able to take the sort of long term, unpopular, transnational action that climate change requires.

There are a few other big problems, too. Dealing with the instabilities in the Middle East is clearly beyond politicians who only know how to bomb people and not how to talk to them. Economics also exposes politicians' powerlessness and ignorance. No one really knows what to do for the best, and parties simply follow policies that accord with the prejudices of their usual supporters. Immigration, which now ought to be thought of more simply as the movement of people, and seen as a feature of the modern world, also sends them into a tizz. It's an issue (when it is an issue) that clearly needs international responses, so in the UK it is a favourite with parties that want to withdraw from our main international involvement.

Politics looks increasingly unable to provide the sort of answers we increasingly need, and I'm not just saying this because I am at the age where you morph into an old curmudgeon - young people are even more disenchanted with politics.

Politicians have become followers, not leaders. We desperately need leadership.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Raptor Eye, having lived for some years in a country which was an absolute dictatorship, however uninspiring our lot may be, they're a lot better than the alternatives.

Perhaps this is a dangerous question, but can you see any other country whose politicians you'd rather have? I can't.

I can think of one - and I'm not saying who - that from a distance looks just about OK, but even with them, I don't know what I'd feel about them closer to.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
... We desperately need leadership.

Do we? I can't read that without hearing the word Führerprinzip.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
... We desperately need leadership.
Do we? I can't read that without hearing the word Führerprinzip.

Hitler was what Bonhoeffer called a misleader, basing his leadership on his own authority and on the wishes of his followers. A true leader, the only legitimate leader, has to lead others to responsibility and maturity, must be ready to disillusion people, and must remember that their authority is always penultimate.

It has its dangers, but I think we need leadership. I don't believe we will effectively tackle any large issues without it.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by deano:

Our orgasms are multiple!
*goes to bed with a smile on my face*

Well, if you all are happy with self-stimulation...

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Economics also exposes politicians' powerlessness and ignorance.
Politics looks increasingly unable to provide the sort of answers we increasingly need, and I'm not just saying this because I am at the age where you morph into an old curmudgeon - young people are even more disenchanted with politics.

Politicians have become followers, not leaders. We desperately need leadership.

I think economic interests now prevail to such an extent that in the West, they threaten democracy. Wealth has always been a factor in getting into office and influencing those who are in office, but it now appears that politicians are utterly craven in their approach to commerce.

In short, politicians can be entirely honest and sincere but they can rarely deliver.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Yes be involved, but accept that the leaders of the major parties are cynical, manipulative liars.

What I have seen in the last couple of days from David Cameron has made my blood boil even more than usual. I have always considered him a pathetic weasaly scrotum, but he has gone down in my estimation even more.

I am involved in politics because I find so many of the voices that get heard to be vile, abusive and dangerous - they are damaging the remnants of democracy that we have in this country. They are seriously detrimental to the modern concept of government. I am not prepared to ignore this, so I am involved in a party whose membership has grown by 45% this year.

In the end, I don't believe that a cynical, manipulative approach is the only - or best - way to do politics. But the main parties have decided that this suits them better than honesty and morality.

So you have 29 members now instead of 20?

[Devil]

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

Look, it's really quite simple. Politicians lie because people will vote for whoever tells them what they want to hear. If all the main parties were completely and unfailingly honest in everything they say, then I could create a new party that would tell the people what they want to hear and win the next election at a canter.

You want honesty? Start voting for it.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
George Osborne has been horribly honest .

Not so - he said that cuts would not affect disabled people' - but lots of disabled people have been taken off disability benefit and will have their other benefits frozen for two years.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Economics also exposes politicians' powerlessness and ignorance.
Politics looks increasingly unable to provide the sort of answers we increasingly need, and I'm not just saying this because I am at the age where you morph into an old curmudgeon - young people are even more disenchanted with politics.

Politicians have become followers, not leaders. We desperately need leadership.
I think economic interests now prevail to such an extent that in the West, they threaten democracy. Wealth has always been a factor in getting into office and influencing those who are in office, but it now appears that politicians are utterly craven in their approach to commerce.

In short, politicians can be entirely honest and sincere but they can rarely deliver.

Yes, I think in a globalized economy the multi-national companies are in charge, and there is very little that anybody can do about this.

In a sense, politicians have little power now. Any policy which infringes on the power of the multi-nationals will cause disruption in the markets. Politicians are left with the task of apportioning tax bribes and welfare cuts.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Raptor Eye, having lived for some years in a country which was an absolute dictatorship, however uninspiring our lot may be, they're a lot better than the alternatives.

Perhaps this is a dangerous question, but can you see any other country whose politicians you'd rather have? I can't.

I can think of one - and I'm not saying who - that from a distance looks just about OK, but even with them, I don't know what I'd feel about them closer to.

I'm all for diversity and adaptation, so that democracy in every place best reflects the needs and desires of the majority of the people living there, while protecting minorities to some extent.

Therefore, comparison between democracies becomes futile. In any case, whether or not we think that our own system is as bad as someone else's, this should not leave us complacent or ready to perpetuate its failings.

Posted by Alicïa (# 7668) on :

I am very cynical about politics due to a stark realisation that it seems that politicians and political parties just do what they percieve it takes to get elected or stay elected and use short term strategies to that end instead of what is best for their constituencies/districts/the nation.

I see that also as dishonest because there is no long term strategy to fix the problems and there never seems to be any long term strategy, just outdoing each other.

I do long for honesty in politics and I don't know what it would take to change it but the current system is broken. I don't know if that really addresses the OP or not, except that is where I see the dishonesty stems from.

[ 04. October 2014, 10:45: Message edited by: Alicïa ]

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

Though in order for an untruth to work successfully the perpetrator must tell the truth sufficiently often for the deceit to carry credibility, honesty may be a virtue that is unsufficiently evident in the pronouncements of politicians. Such integrity, however, is not the only virtue one looks for in a politician. A competent politician should also have courage, fortitude, the capacity to mobilise support, foresight, knowledge, competence and wisdom, to mention but a few. He should also, as Machiavelli reminds us, appear virtuous.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Hitler was what Bonhoeffer called a misleader, basing his leadership on his own authority and on the wishes of his followers. A true leader, the only legitimate leader, has to lead others to responsibility and maturity, must be ready to disillusion people, and must remember that their authority is always penultimate.

It has its dangers, but I think we need leadership. I don't believe we will effectively tackle any large issues without it.

There's something profoundly unhealthy and sinister about the hunger for leadership, whether to be a leader or to be led. And very few people in human history have anything even approaching the moral calibre to exercise that sort of leadership.

This seems to be what God thinks about it.

quote:
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl
In a sense, politicians have little power now. Any policy which infringes on the power of the multi-nationals will cause disruption in the markets.

O, the multinationals again. I hear a ghostly conspiracy theory riding through the sky.

If the multinationals were really in charge, would the Middle East be in such a mess? The very existence of ISIS proves they aren't.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

If the multinationals were really in charge, would the Middle East be in such a mess? The very existence of ISIS proves they aren't.

That conflict helps to keep the price of oil high. So long as the conflict is contained it's good for oil interests and the OPEC states.

Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
... We desperately need leadership.
Do we? I can't read that without hearing the word Führerprinzip.

We don't normally violate Godwin's on page 1. Thanks for playing.
Down here in Oz, people have been whinging about the lack of conviction politicians for ages. It looks like we've got one in our current PM. In all honesty, I cannot remember someone more openly committed to a conservative ideological position in leadership of my country. He wants to make us co-pay for every doctor's appointment, even with national public health (Medicare). He wants to make the unemployed wait six months for the dole, to deregulate university fees and to cut funding to the sector, and of course to turn back the boats, ensuring asylum seekers are not allowed entry into this country. He may have conviction, but he's broken heaps of pre-election policies and promises.
Here's what John Oliver made of him.
So, if you want conviction, be careful what you wish for.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Enoch wrote:

O, the multinationals again. I hear a ghostly conspiracy theory riding through the sky.

If the multinationals were really in charge, would the Middle East be in such a mess? The very existence of ISIS proves they aren't.

I don't get your logic - why does the Middle East mess show that multi-nationals are not in control? Do you think that ISIS are funded by local charities?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

You want honesty? Start voting for it.

To simply outline one issue would take longer than the sum of the attention span of typical voters. Add a flash of tit* and you'll get a few more minutes.
Then, when you give a real timeline and hardship examples, you lose the few hanginging on.

There are few real problems solved quickly, no universal guarantee if a fix and real disagreement about the path to get there.
If it weren't for inertia, we'd be even more fucked than we are.

*Bird, breast or Jeremy Clarkson

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
... I don't get your logic - why does the Middle East mess show that multi-nationals are not in control? Do you think that ISIS are funded by local charities?

I've no idea who is funding ISIS. Have you? But to imagine that the standard multi-national culprits are is fantasy land. It's in their interests to have the Middle East run by tame regimes who give them tax breaks and full of happy peons working drilling rigs and behaving themselves.

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:

quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
Do you think politicians are actually less honest than other people, or do you think they are simply more in the public eye? Do you think politicians are more likely than other people to lie to themselves?
It's impossible to compare people regarding levels of dishonesty. Some 'other people' will be very honest, others very dishonest. Who would we compare them with? There's no such thing as average when applied to real people.

I think that at some point it becomes a game of deceit that they collude with. Perhaps they do lie to themselves too.

My personal opinion is that politicians in the UK are, by and large, better, more honest, generally more noble people than the average. They are held - rightly - to a much higher standard than the rest of us. They have to make more difficult, more important decisions than the average person normally has to do, certainly those of them in government. These decisions are often of the type where any possible choice will have bad consequences that others without responsibility can point at and criticise savagely without being obviously unjust. These savage criticisms of policy may be justified. But the sneering, oh-these-people-are-so-awful-and-untrustworthy cynicism is, I think, really uncalled for.

If you really think politicians are so awful WHAT ARE YOU DOING ABOUT IT? You should be involved in politics yourself. The moment you have any power - if not before - other people will try to shoot you down too.

The worst thing about political cynicism is that it drives good people away from politics. They get the idea that "politics is no career for a decent person". Obviously this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I also think we should restore the idea of "respecting the office". You don't have to agree with everything a minister says in order to treat them with respect and civility. The Paxman/Humphries approach makes me sick - I find I have to switch such interviews off. If that is how we treat politicians we have only ourselves to blame when we are treated to bland, arse-covering politico-speak - it is a survival tactic.

I think it is we, the people, who are primarily to blame for flaws in the political culture. I think most politicians are better than we deserve. We should be down on our knees thanking God that things are not in a worse state.

Seriously.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

Here's a piece from Deutsche Welle, Germany's overseas broadcaster, on how ISIS is financed.

However it's done, it's well-off. We're talking about billions of dollars (other currencies are available).

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

One off them had a leader's speech which just happen to forget the economy. The other has said, 'Vote Conservative and you'll have less human rights, less protection against an arbitrary state'. As an inducement to vote Conservative that matches the one from 1997, 'Vote Conservative and you'll have fewer nasty employment rights and you won't have to have as much paid holiday'.

.. and additionally was economically illiterate in terms of totally uncosted tax reductions.

Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Look, it's really quite simple. Politicians lie because people will vote for whoever tells them what they want to hear. If all the main parties were completely and unfailingly honest in everything they say, then I could create a new party that would tell the people what they want to hear and win the next election at a canter.

You want honesty? Start voting for it.

True. Turning to history, look at Walter Mondale in 1984. In his acceptance speech for the Democratic nomination for President (running against incumbent Ronald Reagan), Mondale stated: "Mr. Reagan will raise taxes. I will raise taxes. He won't tell you. I just did." All of that was the absolute truth. And he lost 49 out of 50 States in the election. And, in fact, Reagan did raise taxes. Even though he lied and said he wouldn't.

Vote for honesty? If you are confronted with two politicians: one says he/she won't raise taxes and the other says he/she will raise taxes, who do you vote for? The honest one or the one selling you a fantasy? As the Reagan-Mondale election showed, fantasy wins out.

If you want truth-telling politicians, vote for them even though they are telling you things you don't want to hear. Because, frankly, most of us don't want to hear the truth. If somebody comes and tries to tell us the truth, we are far more likely to crucify him. There is historical precedent for it.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
... I don't get your logic - why does the Middle East mess show that multi-nationals are not in control? Do you think that ISIS are funded by local charities?
I've no idea who is funding ISIS. Have you? But to imagine that the standard multi-national culprits are is fantasy land. It's in their interests to have the Middle East run by tame regimes who give them tax breaks and full of happy peons working drilling rigs and behaving themselves.

Well, you elegantly quote-mined my original post, where I said that in a globalized economy, (the bit you carefully omitted), the multi-nationals are in control, not the politicians. Thus, if you want them to invest in your country, it's incumbent on you to provide what they want, e.g. low corporation tax, low wages, weak trade unions, high executive pay, with a bonus culture, and other perks. If you don't, they will just fuck off somewhere else.

If you disagree with that, are you saying that the politicians do control the globalized economy? How do they do that?

Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Look, it's really quite simple. Politicians lie because people will vote for whoever tells them what they want to hear. If all the main parties were completely and unfailingly honest in everything they say, then I could create a new party that would tell the people what they want to hear and win the next election at a canter.

You want honesty? Start voting for it.
True. Turning to history, look at Walter Mondale in 1984. In his acceptance speech for the Democratic nomination for President (running against incumbent Ronald Reagan), Mondale stated: "Mr. Reagan will raise taxes. I will raise taxes. He won't tell you. I just did." All of that was the absolute truth. And he lost 49 out of 50 States in the election. And, in fact, Reagan did raise taxes. Even though he lied and said he wouldn't.

Vote for honesty? If you are confronted with two politicians: one says he/she won't raise taxes and the other says he/she will raise taxes, who do you vote for? The honest one or the one selling you a fantasy? As the Reagan-Mondale election showed, fantasy wins out.

If you want truth-telling politicians, vote for them even though they are telling you things you don't want to hear. Because, frankly, most of us don't want to hear the truth. If somebody comes and tries to tell us the truth, we are far more likely to crucify him. There is historical precedent for it.

Yes, well said.
The usual justification down here for breaking promises is to say that the previous government left things in worse shape than we could possibly imagine, so of course we have to raise taxes to get us out of trouble. Of course, that only works if your government was not the incumbent. Not sure how Ray-gun got around that one in the above example.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

It could be that those voting for the ones telling lies are still naive enough to think that they are being told the truth. I wonder whether there should be a legal method of accountability, so that the promises made become a contract, rather than having to put up with the usual 'You can vote us out next time if you're not happy' old hat. When all who stand tell lies, how is anyone supposed to know what they will get if they vote? No wonder so many don't bother.

It's not a personal attack on individual politicians, despite the expenses scandal (which I still don't think many of them see as seriously as the public do). I do think most are genuinely trying to do what they think is best. It's the culture of dishonesty in terms of what is told to the public that I'm so irritated by, tied with a party system that insists on individuals voting against their own principles at times.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
It could be that those voting for the ones telling lies are still naive enough to think that they are being told the truth. I wonder whether there should be a legal method of accountability, so that the promises made become a contract, rather than having to put up with the usual 'You can vote us out next time if you're not happy' old hat. When all who stand tell lies, how is anyone supposed to know what they will get if they vote? No wonder so many don't bother.

Because Parliament is Sovereign, and if one Parliament put that contract system in place, another could remove it. You get a vote and the right to free speech. That's it. And quite right too in my view.

We are a representative democracy in the UK and we elect people to represent us.

I love those who don't vote. It pleases my old heart no end, because all those who don't are lefties anyway. Fantastic. Long may it continue. Keep on not voting and being dissolusioned!

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:

I love those who don't vote. It pleases my old heart no end, because all those who don't are lefties anyway. Fantastic. Long may it continue. Keep on not voting and being dissolusioned!

Do you seriously mean that some 35% of the electorate are "lefties"? That's the proportion of the electorate that didn't vote in 2010, and was an improvement on the 61% turnout in 2005.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:

We are a representative democracy in the UK and we elect people to represent us.

Except that they don't represent us, they only say they will before an election.

Posted by tomsk (# 15370) on :

One reason for dishonesty is that the political consensus on the economy is not attractive. Politicians will talk about competitiveness, but not that this means falling living standards, reduced worker's rights, larger population to keep tax receipts up and wages down, increased inequality.

There is an alarming amount of short-termism too. There is iconoclasm of the state (e.g. selling off Royal Mail), presented as necessary when it is ideological.

Enoch may be right that multinationals do not run the world, but the UK government behaves as if they do.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tomsk:
One reason for dishonesty is that the political consensus on the economy is not attractive. Politicians will talk about competitiveness, but not that this means falling living standards, reduced worker's rights, larger population to keep tax receipts up and wages down, increased inequality.

There is an alarming amount of short-termism too. There is iconoclasm of the state (e.g. selling off Royal Mail), presented as necessary when it is ideological.

Enoch may be right that multinationals do not run the world, but the UK government behaves as if they do.

I think that's well said. I suppose you could say that neo-liberalism has conquered all political parties in the UK, except the Greens, maybe, (and I'm not sure about the SNP).

As you say, this has to be disguised to an extent by all parties. Whether or not a genuine alternative to neo-liberalism exists is an interesting question, but I suppose the consensus is that it would not be electorally palatable.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Ahem. You might possibly add Plaid Cymru to your list; and, come to think of it, the Labour Party in Wales. (In fact, a few years ago I'd even have considered adding the Conservative Party in Wales to your list, but they have alas moved rightwards a bit since the days - c2007- when someone well-informed described them as 'in European terms, a particularly left-wing bunch of Christian Democrats'.)

[ 05. October 2014, 16:28: Message edited by: Albertus ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Apologies to Welsh non-neo-liberals.

Posted by Sighthound (# 15185) on :

Politics is the art of conning people. That's how any party collects enough votes to form a government. It really is as simple as that.

Democracy could only work properly if the mass of people understood politics. The great majority don't. They only understand soundbites. Slogans. That's how they're so easily manipulated.

At the moment, most people in the UK are very, very angry. The trouble is, the people in charge have found ways to channel that anger away from its proper targets. Same old story - divide and rule.

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

Sighthound

quote:
Democracy could only work properly if the mass of people understood politics.

Perhaps it only works because the mass of people don't understand politics.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

When New Labour got in the first, or maybe second time around, I remember one Labour MP being questioned about growing numbers of apathetic non-voters. He said it didn't bother him because was the "apathy of contentment".

A major recession,(that Labour said wouldn't happen on their watch), and cuts under this government coupled with no obvious reduction in immigration has transformed contentment into anger. If the apathetic become interested enough to vote, and mistakenly believe they understand politics enough to know which way to vote then someone's predicted 'Political Earthquake' could well materialise.

Question is, would the leaders who emerge from the dust be any more honest than those consigned to the rubble?

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:

quote:
Originally posted by deano:

We are a representative democracy in the UK and we elect people to represent us.

Except that they don't represent us, they only say they will before an election.

Well they do speak for me in the main. Perhaps you just aren't voting for the right party, or your politics are wrong and unloved by the majority? Hmmm? Is that why? That your politics are loved?

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Well they do speak for me in the main.

Do they speak for you when they're lying?

quote:
Perhaps you just aren't voting for the right party, or your politics are wrong and unloved by the majority? Hmmm? Is that why? That your politics are loved?

My vote probably doesn't count, I expect you're right. My politics are unpopular as I'm looking for such attributes as honesty and integrity, and Christian values which consider the impact of policies on the lives of real human beings who live outside of the bubble of those on high incomes. I want to be able to trust those I vote for to represent my skewed way of looking at the world.

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

But wait wait wait. The virtues that Raptor Eye is looking for are not to do with one's political outlook at all. You can be honest and diligent and competent whether you're Tory or Labour - whether you're a socialist or a libertarian - whether you're an anarchist or a believer in the divine right of kings. This is not a party political thing, surely?

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

And - sorry for the double post - would you rather have honest, able people governing who don't share your political views, or would you rather have deceitful, incompetent people who do share your political views?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
And - sorry for the double post - would you rather have honest, able people governing who don't share your political views, or would you rather have deceitful, incompetent people who do share your political views?

I would like honest people who share my views. However, this may be unrealistic, although I had a few moments' of hope in the Scottish referendum campaign, not from the party leaders, I hasten to add.

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

Well, that is obviously the ideal situation. But which is the more important to you?

Or more realistically, since no-one is perfect, would you prefer a more virtuous candidate, whose politics were less to your taste, or a less virtuous candidate whose politics were more in agreement with yours?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
Well, that is obviously the ideal situation. But which is the more important to you?

Or more realistically, since no-one is perfect, would you prefer a more virtuous candidate, whose politics were less to your taste, or a less virtuous candidate whose politics were more in agreement with yours?

I find this unreal, to be honest. I can't stand most politicians, but I don't think they are actually criminals. I mean, their dishonesty is not of the embezzling kind, but more a kind of duplicity, like a double glazing saleman. I used to quite like Robin Cook, but then someone will probably tell an anecdote which reveals him also as an arsehole.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I can't stand most politicians, but I don't think they are actually criminals. I mean, their dishonesty is not of the embezzling kind,

I think one thing that we learned from the expenses scandal was that, for many politicians of all stripes, their dishonesty was precisely of the embezzling kind.

Oh, they all had stories to justify why calling their sister's back bedroom their "home" for a few years was entirely within the rules. I have no interest whatsoever in their self-serving "justification." If you're routinely making significant profit from something called "expenses" then there's a problem.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I think one thing that we learned from the expenses scandal was that, for many politicians of all stripes, their dishonesty was precisely of the embezzling kind.

Despite the press putting this on their front pages, while many were buckling under the 08 recession, the expected expenses scandal backlash from the Electorate in the 2010 election never happened.

It's as though we willingly accept dishonesty from those we look up to. It does matter if it's a Prime Minister backing family values while secretly having an affair, or one who stakes his reputation on a disastrous war. Neither does it seem to matter if fat cats are thieving from the pot while others go without.

Regardless of media mischief-making, the seeds of revolt only take root when disillusionment reaches a point where the masses no longer look up to their leaders, a point where they come to hold them in utter contempt. The UK doesn't normally have much appetite for extremism or revolution, I don't see that changing.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Yes, I agree about revolution, but I think the Scottish referendum give the politicians a real scare, as here was a chunk of the UK wondering whether to split. And quite a lot of the rhetoric involved the Wastemonster politicos.

Personally, I don't think this is over really, in a wider sense. There is a strange mood in the air - not revolution, but sullenness.

The Tory conference was fascinating, a facade of brilliant optimism, but underneath that, I thought there was a grimace of something else, not sure what, fear, disdain, dunno. Coquetry on the edge of the grave.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, I agree about revolution, but I think the Scottish referendum give the politicians a real scare, as here was a chunk of the UK wondering whether to split. And quite a lot of the rhetoric involved the Wastemonster politicos.

Personally, I don't think this is over really, in a wider sense. There is a strange mood in the air - not revolution, but sullenness.

The Tory conference was fascinating, a facade of brilliant optimism, but underneath that, I thought there was a grimace of something else, not sure what, fear, disdain, dunno. Coquetry on the edge of the grave.

And none of that would be wishful thinking on the part of a Conservative hating lefty who despises any English person who dares to think England shouldn't be beholden to Scotland, would it? No. Of course not.

Perhaps your bitterness has given your imagination a little fillip.

[ 06. October 2014, 21:16: Message edited by: deano ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I don't think so, deano. The Tories haven't won an election for 22 years, so if they don't win in 2015, that will be 28 years at the end of that cycle. That is the grave they are staring into, and grinning desperately.

Why do you think that Cameron didn't mention climate change? He's trying to pull back the UKIP voters.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Despite the press putting this on their front pages, while many were buckling under the 08 recession, the expected expenses scandal backlash from the Electorate in the 2010 election never happened.

Who was there to lash against? All the parties were at it, so transferring your vote to a different party doesn't make much sense. There are no primary elections in the UK, so there is no mechanism for the average voter to say "I want someone with this political position, but not that dishonest git," unless the voter is willing to join his local constituency party with a number of like-minded friends, and deselect the sitting MP.

And in 2010, there was a serious risk that kicking out your local property-empire building expense abuser would (give you five more years of Gordon Brown) or (let the Tories in) (choose one depending on your political preferences).

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

deano, you do take things awfully personally.

It is possible to look at politics other than through the arrows slits of extreme partisanship. Individual politicians, parties even, are in the main Here today, gone tomorrow (as dear Sir Robin used to say) phenomena. They are as much a product of social change as drivers. What are elections but desperate competitions to second guess the current zeitgeist?

Of course any government that came damn close to losing a chunk of the country it was supposed to be minding for the general good, will be having tense little conversations behind the scenes. It's the same in any business.

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
Well, that is obviously the ideal situation. But which is the more important to you?

Or more realistically, since no-one is perfect, would you prefer a more virtuous candidate, whose politics were less to your taste, or a less virtuous candidate whose politics were more in agreement with yours?
I find this unreal, to be honest. I can't stand most politicians, but I don't think they are actually criminals. I mean, their dishonesty is not of the embezzling kind, but more a kind of duplicity, like a double glazing saleman. I used to quite like Robin Cook, but then someone will probably tell an anecdote which reveals him also as an arsehole.

OK then, would you rather have a more duplicitous candidate whose policies you agreed with, or a less duplicitous candidate whom you disagreed with?

I recognise that this might be a difficult question but surely it's not unreal?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
Well, that is obviously the ideal situation. But which is the more important to you?

Or more realistically, since no-one is perfect, would you prefer a more virtuous candidate, whose politics were less to your taste, or a less virtuous candidate whose politics were more in agreement with yours?
I find this unreal, to be honest. I can't stand most politicians, but I don't think they are actually criminals. I mean, their dishonesty is not of the embezzling kind, but more a kind of duplicity, like a double glazing saleman. I used to quite like Robin Cook, but then someone will probably tell an anecdote which reveals him also as an arsehole.
OK then, would you rather have a more duplicitous candidate whose policies you agreed with, or a less duplicitous candidate whom you disagreed with?

I recognise that this might be a difficult question but surely it's not unreal?

I just think you're using a very crude metric. Take somebody like Robin Cook - I thought he had a good mind, and at times, I enjoyed hearing him think aloud. I thought he was honourable in resigning over Iraq. At the same time, as a minister, undoubtedly he dissimulated over various things, and he went along with the whole Blair abortion to some extent. Hence, a very mixed picture, as real people actually are. It's not black and white.

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

I'm not trying to say it's black and white. But this thread is all about honesty in politics. So I am trying to gauge how important honesty in politics really is, to all these people who are complaining about dishonesty in politics.

It sounds as though you reckon that most politicians are not involved in criminality. That, I would argue, is a really good sign and already makes our political system healthier than 90% of most political systems that there have ever been.

So now you are complaining about a duplicitous tone and a Labour MP such as Robin Cook going along with the party line. How much of an issue is this for you? Would you be prepared to vote for a Conservative, say, or a UKIP candidate who was never duplicitous in this way and was otherwise above reproach in their conduct - though you might seriously disagree with their policies? Or would you vote for Robin Cook in preference to such a one?

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I used to quite like Robin Cook, but then someone will probably tell an anecdote which reveals him also as an arsehole.

Telling his wife on a mobile phone in an airport departure lounge that he was divorcing her didn't really cast him in a flattering light.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I used to quite like Robin Cook, but then someone will probably tell an anecdote which reveals him also as an arsehole.
Telling his wife on a mobile phone in an airport departure lounge that he was divorcing her didn't really cast him in a flattering light.

Because the media had found out and it was going to be live on the news that he'd been having an affair.

No he was not a nice person at all. Bad politics and bad character.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Why do you think that Cameron didn't mention climate change? He's trying to pull back the UKIP voters.

He's pulled a few things out of the hat lately that are embarrassingly obvious in trying to appeal to those drawn towards UKIP. My own prediction is that some time in early next Spring they'll be a series of high profile arrests of those,(ethnic people), thought to have been involved in the Rotherham scandal.

It's not as though politicians are out and out dishonest, they use things like being 'economic with the truth' and spin doctoring to bend and manipulate. It could well be that this method is done for the good of the whole as it were. But if the Electorate has stopped believing things are "good", also that the smiling stuffed shirts are not acting on their behalf then yes, this could well explain the current strange, and brooding public mood .

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

Well as long as those awful UKIP people are nullified and those awful socialists are as well, no problems.

In other-words, as long as the Conservatives are returned with an outright majority, anything goes.

Deal with it.

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I used to quite like Robin Cook, but then someone will probably tell an anecdote which reveals him also as an arsehole.
Telling his wife on a mobile phone in an airport departure lounge that he was divorcing her didn't really cast him in a flattering light.
Because the media had found out and it was going to be live on the news that he'd been having an affair.

No he was not a nice person at all. Bad politics and bad character.

But as far as you're concerned only the bad politics really matter; do I understand you correctly?

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:

quote:
Originally posted by deano:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I used to quite like Robin Cook, but then someone will probably tell an anecdote which reveals him also as an arsehole.
Telling his wife on a mobile phone in an airport departure lounge that he was divorcing her didn't really cast him in a flattering light.
Because the media had found out and it was going to be live on the news that he'd been having an affair.

No he was not a nice person at all. Bad politics and bad character.
But as far as you're concerned only the bad politics really matter; do I understand you correctly?

No. I couldn't stand him or his politics. That okay?

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:

quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:

quote:
Originally posted by deano:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I used to quite like Robin Cook, but then someone will probably tell an anecdote which reveals him also as an arsehole.
Telling his wife on a mobile phone in an airport departure lounge that he was divorcing her didn't really cast him in a flattering light.
Because the media had found out and it was going to be live on the news that he'd been having an affair.

No he was not a nice person at all. Bad politics and bad character.
But as far as you're concerned only the bad politics really matter; do I understand you correctly?
No. I couldn't stand him or his politics. That okay?

Well, that's what I'm asking, really! Say his politics had been different - politics of which you approved (Conservative, I guess) - would you then have been willing to overlook his personal defects? Or would you have said - no, he is too personally dishonest/unpleasant - even though he is a true blue Conservative, I shan't vote for him?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Well, deano has already said this:

In other-words, as long as the Conservatives are returned with an outright majority, anything goes.

That may be quite a common view in politics, although no doubt it is often hidden away behind the smiles and party conferences.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Why do you think that Cameron didn't mention climate change? He's trying to pull back the UKIP voters.
He's pulled a few things out of the hat lately that are embarrassingly obvious in trying to appeal to those drawn towards UKIP. My own prediction is that some time in early next Spring they'll be a series of high profile arrests of those,(ethnic people), thought to have been involved in the Rotherham scandal.

It's not as though politicians are out and out dishonest, they use things like being 'economic with the truth' and spin doctoring to bend and manipulate. It could well be that this method is done for the good of the whole as it were. But if the Electorate has stopped believing things are "good", also that the smiling stuffed shirts are not acting on their behalf then yes, this could well explain the current strange, and brooding public mood .

Some journalists are expecting the Chilcot enquiry to be published in the spring, to cause maximum damage to Labour. However, others, more full of the milk of human charity, expect it to be delayed until the summer.

I agree, this isn't really dishonest, it's normal politics.

[ 08. October 2014, 11:35: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

Posted by Solly (# 11919) on :

He who pays the piper calls the tune: the piper, if he wishes to stay in business, must discern who will provide him with the most profit. Honesty doesn't really come into it when a general election is on the horizon - or does it? Me - I like Honest David Cameron and will vote Conservative.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:

quote:
Originally posted by deano:

quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:

quote:
Originally posted by deano:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I used to quite like Robin Cook, but then someone will probably tell an anecdote which reveals him also as an arsehole.
Telling his wife on a mobile phone in an airport departure lounge that he was divorcing her didn't really cast him in a flattering light.
Because the media had found out and it was going to be live on the news that he'd been having an affair.

No he was not a nice person at all. Bad politics and bad character.
But as far as you're concerned only the bad politics really matter; do I understand you correctly?
No. I couldn't stand him or his politics. That okay?
Well, that's what I'm asking, really! Say his politics had been different - politics of which you approved (Conservative, I guess) - would you then have been willing to overlook his personal defects? Or would you have said - no, he is too personally dishonest/unpleasant - even though he is a true blue Conservative, I shan't vote for him?

I would have made an allowance of course had he been a member of the Conservative Party. Of course I would have voted for him.

I vote for the Conservative Party because they have the policies that are best for me in my situation. Why would I not vote Conservative just because I don't like one of their MPs?

I'm mystified why some find it strange that character and politics can be separated to easily. The MP is not the Party.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I vote for the Conservative Party because they have the policies that are best for me in my situation.

How selfish. No interest in what is best for other people? No notion of what is for the common good? No notion of how best to nudge forward God's kingdom on earth? No notion of Christian political responsibility?

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I vote for the Conservative Party because they have the policies that are best for me in my situation.
How selfish. No interest in what is best for other people? No notion of what is for the common good? No notion of how best to nudge forward God's kingdom on earth? No notion of Christian political responsibility?

I've been puzzling how to set down how and why it is that I disagree so profoundly with Leo's sentiments here.

I think what's at the core of my unease, is that I don't actually believe that anyone votes against their own interests, and I don't think it's either right or reasonable to expect them to. The Conservatives depend on and appeal to middle class voters who think they will be better off with a Conservative government. In the same way, Labour depends on and appeals to organised and unionised labour who thinks they will be better off with a Labour government. Both parties though also have a sense of a picture of the sort of country they'd like to live in which includes a strong sense of what's wrong with the sort of imaginary country the other lot have in mind.

Obviously, politicians seek to win our votes by appealing to our interests. But those who tell us that they voting for a higher minded vision are doing so because that is the vision they have. That is what they want to see, the sort of society they want to live in. It's part of the package. It's fine, and good, as long as one doesn't fool oneself into thinking that puts oneself on the side of altruism and righteousness, and them over there against it.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I don't actually believe that anyone votes against their own interests, and I don't think it's either right or reasonable to expect them to.

I think it's entirely possible for someone to vote for any major party because they believe that having that party in government is likely to enrich them personally (and it doesn't matter much whether "enrich" here means cash, or government-provided services or facilities).

I think it's also possible for someone to vote for any of the major parties because they believe that that party's government will be best for the country as a whole, even if they end up being relatively disfavoured by that government. This person might expect a country run along the principles of his preferred government to do better long term, and so expect to and up better off (which again doesn't necessarily mean cash) in the long term. He might also be altruistic, and assign a greater than zero utility to the happiness of other people.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I've been puzzling how to set down how and why it is that I disagree so profoundly with Leo's sentiments here.

I think what's at the core of my unease, is that I don't actually believe that anyone votes against their own interests, and I don't think it's either right or reasonable to expect them to. The Conservatives depend on and appeal to middle class voters who think they will be better off with a Conservative government. In the same way, Labour depends on and appeals to organised and unionised labour who thinks they will be better off with a Labour government. Both parties though also have a sense of a picture of the sort of country they'd like to live in which includes a strong sense of what's wrong with the sort of imaginary country the other lot have in mind.

Obviously, politicians seek to win our votes by appealing to our interests. But those who tell us that they voting for a higher minded vision are doing so because that is the vision they have. That is what they want to see, the sort of society they want to live in. It's part of the package. It's fine, and good, as long as one doesn't fool oneself into thinking that puts oneself on the side of altruism and righteousness, and them over there against it.

Is what you're saying that it's right and good for people to vote for someone who they think will make them personally better off no matter who else suffers? That whatever they say in order to get voted in is OK, to appeal to selfish interests so that they're given the power to stop the 'other side' from seeing to it that the 'other' people are better off than those on 'this side'?

I agree that if so, it makes neither 'side' one with the vision of a society where honesty and integrity are valued, one which clearly wants the best for the all of the people, for the country as a whole.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I vote for the Conservative Party because they have the policies that are best for me in my situation.
How selfish. No interest in what is best for other people? No notion of what is for the common good? No notion of how best to nudge forward God's kingdom on earth? No notion of Christian political responsibility?

I live in a democracy! If the majority votes against the party I favour, then I get to vote again in four or five years time.

A vote is a selfish thing. It is for one person and it is final. The majority wins. If it's me then great, if it isn't then I have to work harder next time supporting the candidate likely to defeat Labour.

I live in a Lib/Lab marginal. I will vote tactically to keep Labour out of this seat. That may well be as good as winning a Tory seat in another constituency.

That's how it works and I'm happy it happens that way as opposed to the alternative methods of choosing a Government.

I reject your implied notion that the Conservative Party cannot deliver those elements in your quote. It can. The Conservative party IS good for other people. It does encourage God's kingdom on Earth. More so than socialism, which is based on the principle of eradicating God, and hope, and determination to be better.

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:

quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
Well, that's what I'm asking, really! Say his politics had been different - politics of which you approved (Conservative, I guess) - would you then have been willing to overlook his personal defects? Or would you have said - no, he is too personally dishonest/unpleasant - even though he is a true blue Conservative, I shan't vote for him?
I would have made an allowance of course had he been a member of the Conservative Party. Of course I would have voted for him.

I vote for the Conservative Party because they have the policies that are best for me in my situation. Why would I not vote Conservative just because I don't like one of their MPs?

I'm mystified why some find it strange that character and politics can be separated to easily. The MP is not the Party.

OK fair enough. That is what I thought you meant in the first place.

But what about anybody else? Is anyone (on this thread, bemoaning the lack of honesty in politics) prepared to cast their vote for a politician not of their favoured party, on the grounds that that person is honest and virtuous?

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Is what you're saying that it's right and good for people to vote for someone who they think will make them personally better off no matter who else suffers? That whatever they say in order to get voted in is OK, to appeal to selfish interests so that they're given the power to stop the 'other side' from seeing to it that the 'other' people are better off than those on 'this side'?

That's pretty much how it works, yes. Labour are on one side and seek to look after the interests of their side at the expense of the other, and the Conservatives are on the other side doing the same thing.

quote:
I agree that if so, it makes neither 'side' one with the vision of a society where honesty and integrity are valued, one which clearly wants the best for the all of the people, for the country as a whole.

I heartily agree that no party in the UK wants what's best for everyone (excepting the sort of authoritarian "we know what's best for you and you'll damn well like it" shit that they're all guilty of to a greater or lesser extent, of course). That being known, it remains only for me to vote for the party that I think is most likely to actually do what's best for me and mine.

Posted by agingjb (# 16555) on :

"best for me and mine", if only I knew.

I do think that I'm likely to benefit from the general success of my environment, at levels from the parish to the planet but clearly those groupings ruled by the people I'm choosing amongst at an election.

I'd also add that I prefer my rulers not to act in a way likely to provoke too serious a rebellion.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
But what about anybody else? Is anyone (on this thread, bemoaning the lack of honesty in politics) prepared to cast their vote for a politician not of their favoured party, on the grounds that that person is honest and virtuous?

I would say that for many of us it's a matter of degree. Definitely one of the things I hold against my mayor is that he's a lying scumbag. His opponent isn't my ideal either, but she seems politically better and I have no reason to believe she's a lying scumbag. Ergo I'm a big fan of her in comparison. There are some thigns I hold as even more important like education taht I would not compromise on to avoid a lying scumbag, but many policies yeah.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I reject your implied notion that the Conservative Party cannot deliver those elements in your quote. It can.

How?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I reject your implied notion that the Conservative Party cannot deliver those elements in your quote. It can.
How?

You usually get a version of the trickle down theory, don't you? That is, cut taxes for the rich, so that they get richer, and then they will invest wisely and entrepreneurially in Britain, so that the poor will get jobs. Hurrah! Happiness, happiness, a penis.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
Is anyone (on this thread, bemoaning the lack of honesty in politics) prepared to cast their vote for a politician not of their favoured party, on the grounds that that person is honest and virtuous?

Yes, I could not vote for the Labour or Libdem candidates in 1997. I found myself voting Plaid Cymru, not known for virtuous politicians in general, for I couldn't stand the Labour or Lib-Dem candidates.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

I've voted for third party candidates on occasion, usually over integrity issues.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I reject your implied notion that the Conservative Party cannot deliver those elements in your quote. It can.
How?
You usually get a version of the trickle down theory, don't you? That is, cut taxes for the rich, so that they get richer, and then they will invest wisely and entrepreneurially in Britain, so that the poor will get jobs. Hurrah! Happiness, happiness, a penis.

David Cameron made two main comments about tax in his recent conference speech: a raising of the tax threshold, so those on the lowest incomes don't pay any income tax at all; and a shifting of the 40% tax band to help those who Ed Miliband would call the 'squeezed middle'.

Doesn't really tally with 'tax cuts for the rich' to me.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I reject your implied notion that the Conservative Party cannot deliver those elements in your quote. It can.
How?
You usually get a version of the trickle down theory, don't you? That is, cut taxes for the rich, so that they get richer, and then they will invest wisely and entrepreneurially in Britain, so that the poor will get jobs. Hurrah! Happiness, happiness, a penis.
David Cameron made two main comments about tax in his recent conference speech: a raising of the tax threshold, so those on the lowest incomes don't pay any income tax at all; and a shifting of the 40% tax band to help those who Ed Miliband would call the 'squeezed middle'.

Doesn't really tally with 'tax cuts for the rich' to me.

Any increase in the threshold will mean that those on higher incomes pay less tax, usually by paying tax at a lower rate on a greater part of their income. The usual way to avoid that is by imposing a balancing loss of the tax-free allowance for those on higher incomes, in the way that the additional allowance for older people is withdrawn as their income increases.

I think that's what meant by tax cuts benefitting the rich. Better pay would be beneficial on two grounds: lower welfare payments and greater spending power which would be an economic stimulus.

Posted by tomsk (# 15370) on :

Enoch said:"The Conservatives depend on and appeal to middle class voters who think they will be better off with a Conservative government. In the same way, Labour depends on and appeals to organised and unionised labour who thinks they will be better off with a Labour government."

While this has certainly been true in the past, I'm not so sure now. The parties see corporate interests/the market as being what will make people better off in a sort of trickle down economics.

In fact, both are economically of the right and socially of the left. Both parties have a tradition of working class support, and continue to claim to represent a broadened form of this constituency. This is where a lot of the 'dishonesty' lies, trading on an appeal of how things where, rather than how they are.

Example: when Cadbury's were taken over by multi-national Kraft. It wasn't seen by the workers as a good thing: the evidence being factories were closed, jobs lost etc. At the time, there was hand-wringing from the government but Peter Mandelson said that what was important was that Britain had a 'benign business climate'. The interests of big business trumped those of the workers (whose interests are considered ultimately to be served by Thatcherite freeing up the markets). What's 'dishonest' is that this seems incompatible with claiming to be the party of the workers. The clothes no longer fit.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Yes, I think that's right. Labour adopted neo-liberal policies, and now kind of fake being left of centre. They're not really. We have the choice of 4 neo-liberal parties now - whoop de whoop.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I reject your implied notion that the Conservative Party cannot deliver those elements in your quote. It can.
How?

am still wondering

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

I've heard people accusing UKIP of saying what voters want to hear. How is this different from the other parties?

Perhaps people believe that UKIP will try to deliver their promises, in the same way as they have believed that the other parties would, but been disappointed.

If dishonesty is all part of the game everyone plays, it's the most convincing liars who will be voted in every time. It's no good trying to discredit the others with smears. Who will believe those already proved to be liars, except those who want to think that what's being said is the truth?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

But UKIP themselves are being very coy about their full policies. Some of them seem to be saying that the NHS should be run by businessmen, some of them seem anti-gay marriage, and so on.

But Farage at the moment is able to grin and say very little about a full manifesto. I wonder if he will be able to maintain this next year.

I suppose he is hoping that being anti-EU and anti-immigrant will swing it for UKIP, and people won't be bothered about the fine print. This may be true of course.

Ironically, I noticed that Carswell made some explicit points against any racist policies, so I wonder if that points to certain tensions there.

[ 12. October 2014, 13:19: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

AFAIK the racist accusations are part of the mud-slinging. Another aspect of the dishonesty? Who can we trust? Wanting to carefully manage immigration isn't the same thing as being racist.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
AFAIK the racist accusations are part of the mud-slinging. Another aspect of the dishonesty? Who can we trust? Wanting to carefully manage immigration isn't the same thing as being racist.

But isn't asking 'would you want to live next door to Romanians?' racist? In my last place, I lived next to French, Lebanese, and Somalian neighbours, and we all got on fine.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
It could be that those voting for the ones telling lies are still naive enough to think that they are being told the truth. I wonder whether there should be a legal method of accountability, so that the promises made become a contract, rather than having to put up with the usual 'You can vote us out next time if you're not happy' old hat. When all who stand tell lies, how is anyone supposed to know what they will get if they vote? No wonder so many don't bother.
Because Parliament is Sovereign, and if one Parliament put that contract system in place, another could remove it. You get a vote and the right to free speech. That's it. And quite right too in my view.

We are a representative democracy in the UK and we elect people to represent us. [...]

Parliament isn't sovereign: a Victorian bigot woke up one day and said it was, and for some reason, English courts went along with it. Scotland's never bought it, and with EU membership, parliamentary sovereignty's undergone contortions that put the Meereenese Knot to shame.

Reality keeps disproving the claim that a parliament can't bind its successors. Does anyone believe that Westminster could revoke Irish, Indian, Canadian or Australian independence? Likewise, does anyone believe that the House of Lords could reassert its veto power?

This weird belief, invented out of nothing, enforced by the courts, does a lot to explain the sense of entitlement and superiority that plagues Westminster.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0