All but a small proportion of politicians have their snouts in the trough and they are doing it for themselves not for any altruisitc ideals.
Oh, it might start out that way but, eventually, the draw of money and posessions will drag them in and they’ll start thinking about themselves.
Corbyn may be considered an anachronism because of his principles and the way he sticks to them but his types of politics won’t survive under the current system.
And also the implementation of policy is generally performed by the civil servants who have no vested party interest and no comeback if things fuck up.
Civil Servants outlast governments
It’s sad, funny and worrying that the insight of Yes Minister is as relevant today as it was in the 80s.
Originally posted by @pap
Jones makes the point that as soon as economists stop singing from the neo-liberal hymn sheet, they’re seen as at best, eccentric, and at worst, bloody nutters. The way people are going on about Corbyn, you’d think he was about to re-introduce gladiatorial combat, when he’s actually suggesting going to models that has worked for us, and still works elsewhere.
Noam Chomsky:
The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum
Oh and to the OP, yes. Yes it is.
Burn it down. Burn it all with fire.
I agree about Corbyn and the media coverage of him.
I’m no great fan of any politician and I suspect his politics are too left for the electorate but when he stands up and says stuff like the world would be a better place without war, and gets shouted down as a bonkers leftie, you have to ask questions about those doing the shouting.
Lol! I wasn’t expecting to find 179 views and 26 replies in a few hours. Cheers dudes. 
Thanks for some great answers, (and some shite ones 
). I’m very stretched for time at the moment. In and out of the house like p*mpey and administration. 
I’ll get to some replies when I get back again (early hours of the morning).
Hello.
My name is Inga.
What has afforded you that thought process isn’t everywhere, it should be but many people are behind the time, is that arrogant? Yes it is but is it incorrect no it is not.
Fuck me Bazza - you have out done yourself with that - seriously I have absolutely no fucking idea what you are trying to say - can someone please translate from whatever language Bazza is using? I think he is agreeing, or sort of ?
I tried to read this on the bus on the way back to the office from a visit. Just a little too much for that time.
Originally posted by @Barry-Sanchez
What has afforded you that thought process isn’t everywhere, it should be but many people are behind the time, is that arrogant? Yes it is but is it incorrect no it is not.
No one can accuse you of inflexibility Barry. Just the other day you were insisting that people should be held to our high standards, indicating that living under Soviet rule for decades wasn’t nearly a good enough excuse for not having progressive Western values.
I can only assume that my powerfully stated case has turned your head on the matter
You get a vote up here pap, not least because you’ve managed to decipher just what the fuck Barry’s actually saying.
Much later back than planned, and very tired. I’ll make as many replies as I can before my forehead gets embedded in my keyboard. Any I miss will come tomorrow night.
Originally posted by @Barry-Sanchez
The electoral system is broken and needs to be fixed, democracy doesn’t work in the sense of first past the post.
No expenses, lobbying, can be voted out whilst in office and parliamentary privilege are things that should change and obviously electoral reform as well.
Indeed. I prefer some form of Direct Democracy myself. Cut out all the belligerant career politicians, warmongers, sick fucking parliamentary paedophile rings, liars, cheats, thieves, and general criminally insane psychopaths that lurk within the corridors of power – and decide for ourselves what policies and acts are committed in our names.
Originally posted by @Goatboy
They’re all cunts. Get yourself down the pub.
Your first sentence makes a valid point based upon sound factual evidence Goatboy. Your second proposes an intruiging temptation, which would be easy to take. I was close to marking this as the solution. 
But that would only numb the itch for a while, and when I awoke in the morning, I’d have a hangover aswell as a fucking shit government.
Originally posted by @TedMaul
It’s shameful that only 63 people hold on to more more wealth than half of the world. It’s not shameful it’s obscene.4
Don’t narrow your options Ted. It is both.
Originally posted by @pap
Crikey. I could have written most of that post.
You could have done Pap – but you’d have left yourself wide open to accusations of plagiarism.
Originally posted by pap
Despite the depressing history of media collusion, bought and paid for politicians, privatisation, deregulation and loss of public wealth we’ve all endured, something about his account, and indeed other world events, is that things can and do change.
From some of what I have seen from you over the years Pap, you have a pretty decent grasp of how this world works behind the scenes, and the social engineering project of control that is in place here. I’m sure you understand, that in order for the kind of sweeping changes necessary to make the state-machinery actually work for the good of the people – would require a “catalysing event” of some significant magnitude to accomplish. I’d be interested to hear, from where you see such a “spark” emerging?
Originally posted by pap
Neo-liberalism is forty years old and has arguably already failed as a practical ideology. The theory was that we’d live in a world of private companies dutifully competing against each other, with efficiency guaranteed because of that competition.
Was it the “theory” – or the covering sales pitch?
Originally posted by pap
Instead we’ve seen cartels and monopolies and a coalescing of wealth into a few hands, house prices zooming up to 6x-10x the average salary.
Foresight is a remarkable earner. 
Originally posted by pap
It’s no more permanent than Soviet “communism”.
I’m glad you put “communism” in inverted commas. The Soviet Union was never Communist. It is arguable that there was never even more than a thin veneer of “Socialism” masking what was essentially the creation of Soviet State Capitalism.
Originally posted by pap
There will be a point when it is no longer tenable.
One could easily be forgiven for believing that we have long since passed that point already.
I shall have to leave it there for tonight, if I am to have enough sleep to enjoy the crushing of West Ham, and watching Charlie Austin celebrate his Hat-Trick by shuffling off a wanker sign at the Double-David’s, then lifting his shirt to reveal the message: “Worth every fucking penny you loony cunts!”
Right, I am well behind on this thing now. Will get some more posts up as the evening progresses, but I have a few distractions at present, so can’t just sit typing for a long spell.
Originally posted by @Kingdom-Come
I have huge problem with party politics.
First, the concept is flawed. No two people agree with everything so trying to create a system based on a conjoined set of beliefs and principles is a game of how little can we agree on and still pretend we’re singing from the same sheet.
Indeed. The Game of Illusions and Sleight of Hand.
Originally posted by Kingdom Come
Second it creates disproportionate representation. If there’s only a choice of a few, most will plump for one of the big two simply because they feel their vote will mean more.
And this is precisely the intention of the system. The establishment and consolidation of power. Actually, again, more accurately the illusion of Power. All that is necessary is to maintain the illusion that your vote only counts if you use it to vote for the maintenance of the status-quo. The illusion that to vote for complete change and for what you actualy believe in, is a wasted vote. It leads to “voter apathy”, and the ingrained belief that nothing will ever change, so resistence (and giving a fuck) is futile.
Essentially this leads to the hard-core of each party who actually do believe in what they stand for voting as expected, those who desperately want to feel like their voice actually counted for something joining them – and the rest thinking “what’s the fucking point” – and not even bothering. And it is an attitude that is so deeply embedded and ingrained in the social fabric now, that it is difficult to see any drastic change on the horizon. Change of a scope that is inconceivable, as the ‘game’ is locked down so tight.
Originally posted by @Kingdom-Come
That links to my third point. It creates tribalism. Look to the US and you’ll see the extreme end of party politics. Each side pushing further away from the other because they don’t want to be the other side. This also makes it easy to blame the other guy in any given circumstance (‘thanks obama’ is said in jest but has basis in truth).
Precisely. This creates division and hostility. A constant backdrop of bickering and effective distraction, keeping us weak. A house divided against itself cannot stand.
A wise man once said: “If you desire to keep a man enslaved, it is necessary to convince him that he is already free”.
is that last quote from “Roots”?
Originally posted by @pap
I think a lot of it is hardwired in. Since the moment our democracy spluttered into being, those in power have always sought to limit the power of the franchise. You might look at the expansion of those that are able to vote and say that the franchise has actually increased, but other factors, such as the winner takes all electoral system, means that governments can usually be as adversarial as they like, and millions are feeling like they have no political voice.
This is the thing that pisses me off the most. The hopelessness this instills throughout society. We are forced to witness sickening acts (including lack of action) committed by “our” governments in our names – and feel powerless to do anything about it. Even when we do manage to come together collectively enough as to MAKE our voices heard through massive public demonstrations in the Capital – our voice is simply ignored, and hardly even registers acknowledgement by the media.
Seven Hundred and Fifty Thousand (plus) concerned citizens turn up to protest the government’s support of gratuitous genocide in Palestine, and it barely gets a mention, with the huge attendance numbers played right down or omitted entirely. A small excerpt buried somewhere deep like “a few loons turned up and waved a few banners protesting some insignificant squabbles abroad. Nothing to see here, move along now folks.”
“I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened.”―Obi-Wan Kenobi
So do I, Obi-Wan. So do I.
Originally posted by Gay Abandon
Being of scientific bent, I am unable to express my opinion on this as eloquent prose as some of those above… but to offer a different slant, I dont believe there has been any ‘shift’, but that suggest the system has always been fucked.
Don’t sell yourself so short mate. Yours was a very well put together post.
And indeed. The system has always been fucked.
Originally posted by Gay Abandon
I suspect that even from the early days of Tories, Whigs and eventually Liberals, none of these fuckers have ever been truely ‘servants’ to the country/people which is what they should be. Many, especially today are career politicians - that eventually use these positions in Westminster to secure other more lucrative directorships and positions.
The early socialists were probably the last ‘politicians’ that were looking to right a fundemental wrong. Slums and work houses, poor pay and conditions, lack of any social care or social justice etc…
No disagreement here.
Originally posted by Gay Abandon
the real philosophical problem that I have with this, is that I dont see support of such basic principles as a political one… but as part of what it is to be a decent human being.
Exactly. Couldn’t have said it better myself. It is the very crux of the matter.
These are not simply issues of political dabate. They are serious, egregious humanitarian disasters. Perpetrated by those who feel suitably insulated to have the audacity to undertake their dastardly deeds in our names.
Originally posted by Gay Abandon
Now, I have nothing against the ideas of innovation and entrepeneurial success - but it’s what drives this, how it is acheived and what is done when its achieved taht is important
Greed is bad… following ideas and challenges is good
I could naturally already follow where you were going with this, lol. But again, spot on. It is about what happens to the surplus. And in this sick societal model we are running, Greed is King. This model says: "It is OK that some of my human brothers and sisters are starving and dying of easily treatable diseases. It is OK that so many struggle to eek out a subsistence in abject squalor, in hopelessness and despair. It’s MY money, and I can do what I want with it. It is taking personal ownership of that which belongs to everyone – saying IT’S ALL MINE and I WILL NOT share.
It is not “Majority Rules”. It is Manipulation is Master.
Originally posted by Gay Abandon
If the motivation is simply the accumulation of wealth then this is merely ignorant IMHO (not to be confused with normal folk wanting to improve their lot a bit, but real greed - the type that says 50 mil is not enough…) and these are so often the same twats who will then look to dodge paying taxes etc.
Acheiving this wealth on the back of exploiting workers with poor pay and conditions is the other main issue… sounds simple does it not… but the only real reason for doing this is greed…
Indeed. And simple selfishness. There is nothing wrong in wanting to better yourself, and get on well in life. But when all your needs are met, and you enjoy a comfortable life, with good things around you. Spare a thought for those who have fuck all, and ask yourself if there is something more you can do. 
Originally posted by Gay Abandon
Greed is not unique to any party and like compassion is not a political stance… but a human one, one of which is fundemental flaw - a signal of lack of evolutionary progress …
So very true. It is all too easy to just write-off the suffering of others as a political problem. If it’s not personal, then it’s not my responsibility. It’s someone elses. The only way to solve a problem – is to take responsibility for it. When it is my responsibility, I have the power and the motivation to effect change, and make a difference. All be it a very small one, on personal or local level. But if we all started to take responsibility, ahh, then we may just have the start of something.
Originally posted by Gay Abandon
Ultimately, politics should all be about common sense and what is best for ALL the people. You may not please all the people all of the time, but you should be able to SERVE them.
Absolutely. Ultimately, it should always be about service. But the act of desiring to be of service to others arises from a grateful heart. One which feels blessed for what they have, and desires to share. And these cunts are anything but grateful for their prilileged positions. They do not want to share their power or privilege with anyone. They are arrogant, prideful, and believe they have an inherrent entitlement to all they have. Yet, moreso – they are never satisfied, always insatiably craving and seeking to devour mooooorrree.
Originally posted by BTripz
All but a small proportion of politicians have their snouts in the trough and they are doing it for themselves not for any altruisitc ideals.
Oh, it might start out that way but, eventually, the draw of money and posessions will drag them in and they’ll start thinking about themselves.
Very true BTripz. It is just as Gay Abondon highlighted above. In the end, the product of this system, is insatiable greed. And sadly, in the end, it gets almost all of them.
Would you feel comfortable with the idea of a system of Direct Democracy, where we must all put in a little more political effort to involve ourselves personally, but where the rewards are a much truer idea of democracy, where we quite literally decide for ourselves as a collective people what direction we take as a nation, what we believe in, and what we stand for – rather than being told these things on our behalf by someone else?
Originally posted by BTripz
Corbyn may be considered an anachronism because of his principles and the way he sticks to them but his types of politics won’t survive under the current system.
Very few of us will.
I’ve been a Conservative Bro for about 2 weeks, ever since krg noticed that my selfish disregard for the feelings of others is v.compatible with Tory Ideals. It’s going quite well so far. Question tho, I hear a lot about the parties they hold, but where are they & how do you get invited? Do you have to take a present? Is there cake+balloons? Also, what is dress code? I know it’s a conservative party, but what does that mean? Smart shoes? Bow tie?