The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
It’s about that time of the year when the weather gets duller. The skies become greyer with each passing hour, the leaves have long since stopped being a myriad of colours, and chill winds blast icy needles through anyone unfortunate enough to be caught outside. All in all, it seems like the perfect time to talk about politics.
Now, I’m aware as I write this that chances are, not many of you will read it. After all, politics is earthshatteringly dull, and more than a little perverse. Where else would a man who professed admiration for the BNP be considered ‘a bit of a character’? In which other profession could the boss lie through his teeth to the shop floor (i.e. us) and, when caught out, refuse to bring the matter up again? Not very many I’d bet.
But why is it so boring? I mean, whether we like it or not, politics is an important matter. Speaking personally, whenever I write these little bursts of vitriol about the political world, I try and make them as accessible and entertaining is possible as possible (not always easy when talking about something duller than the wits of a US President). And one would have thought that it would be in everyone’s best interests to make sure that every effort is made to include people in debate on something as important as politics. Wouldn’t you?
Apparently it is not. A century ago, people were encouraged to believe that the ‘ruling classes’ knew what was best, and should be left alone to the important business of running the country, whilst the working classes should busy themselves working. This attitude disappeared almost totally in the UK after WWII. We’d seen in the build up to the war just what an utter barrel of monkey’s bumholes the supposed ruling elite had made of seeing which way the wind was blowing (“What’s that old chap? Some Austrian chappy is shouting about how he intends to invade half of Europe? And he’s making lots of weapons you say? Well, I’m sure it’s nothing. Now; who’s for a spot of incest? Incest anyone?”), people started to pay a lot more attention to who it was they gave power to. A 6-year war and revelations like the Holocaust tend to concentrate ones mind, and make one less likely to be blindly and idiotically faithful to the idea that their government will do what is best for everyone.
Then we had the Thatcher years. Now, I do tend to think that she was a strong leader and a rather good one (though with the benefit of hindsight, I do get the impression that given a few more years and she would have started doing things like declaring herself “Dictator for Life”...) for the country at the time. However, she did tend to encourage people not to pay much attention to politics. Hers was a pretty much authoritarian rule, and so people grew apathetic about politics because no matter what they said or did, Thatcher went ahead and did what she wanted. And because it mainly worked out for the best (in the short term certainly), no one really wanted to question her too closely anyway. “So a few thousand miners are out of work, and all our heavy industry got canned? Aye well...it was going to die a death soon anyway and who cares when we’re making SO MUCH MONEY!”
So now we’re back in the situation where we’re gently encouraged to leave the ruling classes alone to get on with running society. Only now, we don’t have the excuse of being ill informed, or ignorant. We’re better informed now as a society than we ever have been before. And, as a result, even someone only casually acquainted with the cavernous headed prats who call themselves our government will be well aware that they are a bunch of shifty, power hungry sh*tcake bakers. We wouldn’t trust these people to look after our house for a weekend, but we don’t really much care about letting them look after our country. Why is this?
It’s not as if those in opposition are any better; the Tory party have just jettisoned their leader (I’m not going to mention him by name; I’m intrigued to know how many people actually know it without being prompted...) in favour of Michael Howard; a man who became a byword for Shiftyness after his interview by Paxman, and who is recognised by the general public as “that smarmy Tory bloke”. Doesn’t encourage faith in them as an alternative government really. The Libdems are...well, they’re there. And nobody seems to care.
So we have a bunch of people jostling for power, none of whom are liked or trusted very much. The only ones who aren’t disliked or considered untrustworthy are the ones whom nobody has really heard of. And so, most people simply don’t bother to choose their leaders. We just leave it to people who still seem to give a damn about politics.
And who are most of these people? They’re the people who will vote for one party because they have done all their life and their parents before them, and so on. They’d vote for Labour if Tony Blair stood up in Parliament, flicked the V’s at the camera’s, then gave a speech on how he intended to solve unemployment by grinding the jobless up in a giant mincing machine and selling the resulting mush to their families. They’d vote Tory if...well, lets face it; anyone who still votes Tory after the pigs ear they made of things in living memory has clearly not bothered to engage their brain since 1990. But you get the picture; the majority of those who vote are those who are rabidly in favour of one side, and seem to believe that their opposition are in league with Satan.
Because of this, politics has polarised. The parties know that they have to appeal to their hard-core base of voters, and it seems that they’ve decided that the best way to do this is to heap scorn on whoever is their opposition (although it does seem that, using that logic, the Tory party’s main opponent is the Tory party...). So now, when one looks at the political arena, one sees what looks very much like a slightly more grownup version of that old playground favourite, “My gang is better than your gang”.
This doesn’t benefit anybody (except perhaps the Sun and the Daily Mail, who like to keep things simple...), and just reinforces the idea that politics should be ignored. But things have been like this for over 20 years now; to new voters, this venal popularity contest between two main parties is the way things have always been. And those people who DO vote are so preoccupied with denouncing whomever is on the other team politically, that they’ve stopped bothering to examine what exactly their own side is getting up to.
So what are we left with? Well, we have a gang of greedy fools supported by mindless idiots on one side...and much the same on the other. Both of these groups are, I would say, in the minority. The overwhelming majority of the public is made up of people who have simply ceased to care what happens in politics any more. They still complain about the government when it affects them personally, but bearing in mind they don’t vote, why should the government give a toss? Answer: They don’t have too. As long as they pander to the minorities who elect them, they can get away with murder (literally in some cases).
So what am I trying to say (other than the same thing that, in a roundabout sort of way, I always say: I’m bored at work)? Basically I think I’m saying that, boring though it is, politics is something we should try to at least take a passing interest in if we actually want to see any improvements in our own lives, and in society as a whole. The alternative is more leaders like Dubya, who doesn’t even need to hide the fact that he’s only in government in order to line his pockets any more as there are idiots out there who would believe him if he said the sky was yellow, black was white, and WOMD will be found in Iraq any day now. Surely we deserve better than that?
Now, I’m aware as I write this that chances are, not many of you will read it. After all, politics is earthshatteringly dull, and more than a little perverse. Where else would a man who professed admiration for the BNP be considered ‘a bit of a character’? In which other profession could the boss lie through his teeth to the shop floor (i.e. us) and, when caught out, refuse to bring the matter up again? Not very many I’d bet.
But why is it so boring? I mean, whether we like it or not, politics is an important matter. Speaking personally, whenever I write these little bursts of vitriol about the political world, I try and make them as accessible and entertaining is possible as possible (not always easy when talking about something duller than the wits of a US President). And one would have thought that it would be in everyone’s best interests to make sure that every effort is made to include people in debate on something as important as politics. Wouldn’t you?
Apparently it is not. A century ago, people were encouraged to believe that the ‘ruling classes’ knew what was best, and should be left alone to the important business of running the country, whilst the working classes should busy themselves working. This attitude disappeared almost totally in the UK after WWII. We’d seen in the build up to the war just what an utter barrel of monkey’s bumholes the supposed ruling elite had made of seeing which way the wind was blowing (“What’s that old chap? Some Austrian chappy is shouting about how he intends to invade half of Europe? And he’s making lots of weapons you say? Well, I’m sure it’s nothing. Now; who’s for a spot of incest? Incest anyone?”), people started to pay a lot more attention to who it was they gave power to. A 6-year war and revelations like the Holocaust tend to concentrate ones mind, and make one less likely to be blindly and idiotically faithful to the idea that their government will do what is best for everyone.
Then we had the Thatcher years. Now, I do tend to think that she was a strong leader and a rather good one (though with the benefit of hindsight, I do get the impression that given a few more years and she would have started doing things like declaring herself “Dictator for Life”...) for the country at the time. However, she did tend to encourage people not to pay much attention to politics. Hers was a pretty much authoritarian rule, and so people grew apathetic about politics because no matter what they said or did, Thatcher went ahead and did what she wanted. And because it mainly worked out for the best (in the short term certainly), no one really wanted to question her too closely anyway. “So a few thousand miners are out of work, and all our heavy industry got canned? Aye well...it was going to die a death soon anyway and who cares when we’re making SO MUCH MONEY!”
So now we’re back in the situation where we’re gently encouraged to leave the ruling classes alone to get on with running society. Only now, we don’t have the excuse of being ill informed, or ignorant. We’re better informed now as a society than we ever have been before. And, as a result, even someone only casually acquainted with the cavernous headed prats who call themselves our government will be well aware that they are a bunch of shifty, power hungry sh*tcake bakers. We wouldn’t trust these people to look after our house for a weekend, but we don’t really much care about letting them look after our country. Why is this?
It’s not as if those in opposition are any better; the Tory party have just jettisoned their leader (I’m not going to mention him by name; I’m intrigued to know how many people actually know it without being prompted...) in favour of Michael Howard; a man who became a byword for Shiftyness after his interview by Paxman, and who is recognised by the general public as “that smarmy Tory bloke”. Doesn’t encourage faith in them as an alternative government really. The Libdems are...well, they’re there. And nobody seems to care.
So we have a bunch of people jostling for power, none of whom are liked or trusted very much. The only ones who aren’t disliked or considered untrustworthy are the ones whom nobody has really heard of. And so, most people simply don’t bother to choose their leaders. We just leave it to people who still seem to give a damn about politics.
And who are most of these people? They’re the people who will vote for one party because they have done all their life and their parents before them, and so on. They’d vote for Labour if Tony Blair stood up in Parliament, flicked the V’s at the camera’s, then gave a speech on how he intended to solve unemployment by grinding the jobless up in a giant mincing machine and selling the resulting mush to their families. They’d vote Tory if...well, lets face it; anyone who still votes Tory after the pigs ear they made of things in living memory has clearly not bothered to engage their brain since 1990. But you get the picture; the majority of those who vote are those who are rabidly in favour of one side, and seem to believe that their opposition are in league with Satan.
Because of this, politics has polarised. The parties know that they have to appeal to their hard-core base of voters, and it seems that they’ve decided that the best way to do this is to heap scorn on whoever is their opposition (although it does seem that, using that logic, the Tory party’s main opponent is the Tory party...). So now, when one looks at the political arena, one sees what looks very much like a slightly more grownup version of that old playground favourite, “My gang is better than your gang”.
This doesn’t benefit anybody (except perhaps the Sun and the Daily Mail, who like to keep things simple...), and just reinforces the idea that politics should be ignored. But things have been like this for over 20 years now; to new voters, this venal popularity contest between two main parties is the way things have always been. And those people who DO vote are so preoccupied with denouncing whomever is on the other team politically, that they’ve stopped bothering to examine what exactly their own side is getting up to.
So what are we left with? Well, we have a gang of greedy fools supported by mindless idiots on one side...and much the same on the other. Both of these groups are, I would say, in the minority. The overwhelming majority of the public is made up of people who have simply ceased to care what happens in politics any more. They still complain about the government when it affects them personally, but bearing in mind they don’t vote, why should the government give a toss? Answer: They don’t have too. As long as they pander to the minorities who elect them, they can get away with murder (literally in some cases).
So what am I trying to say (other than the same thing that, in a roundabout sort of way, I always say: I’m bored at work)? Basically I think I’m saying that, boring though it is, politics is something we should try to at least take a passing interest in if we actually want to see any improvements in our own lives, and in society as a whole. The alternative is more leaders like Dubya, who doesn’t even need to hide the fact that he’s only in government in order to line his pockets any more as there are idiots out there who would believe him if he said the sky was yellow, black was white, and WOMD will be found in Iraq any day now. Surely we deserve better than that?
Page:
unknown kernel wrote:
> Belldandy wrote:
> Light has not stumbled across some secret truth or anything new
>
> Quite right. In fact I think he should be banned for not producing a
> modern day equivalent of Hobbes' Leviathan. Shame on you, Light,
> shame on you.
*L* Well, absolutely! It seems that giving my opinion is no longer enough for Bell; he expects me to produce masterworks of modern philosophy...
> Belldandy wrote:
> Light has not stumbled across some secret truth or anything new
>
> Quite right. In fact I think he should be banned for not producing a
> modern day equivalent of Hobbes' Leviathan. Shame on you, Light,
> shame on you.
*L* Well, absolutely! It seems that giving my opinion is no longer enough for Bell; he expects me to produce masterworks of modern philosophy...
Belldandy wrote:
> Light has not stumbled across some secret truth or anything new
Quite right. In fact I think he should be banned for not producing a modern day equivalent of Hobbes' Leviathan. Shame on you, Light, shame on you.
> If it is true people are not voting because they are not feeling
> represented then why does someone not create a new party to represent
> them? Maybe because those who don't vote have no one central reason
> for not doing so which would enable them all to be gathered under one
> party?
I think mostly because of the first-past-the-post voting system. If you look at the situation in Scotland, where we have PR, then new parties are forming and being successful, especially now that people realise the possibilities of the new system. In the first parliament there were three MSPs from outside the main parties. In the second there are 18: 7 each from the Green and Socialist parties, 3 independents and 1 from the Scottish Senior Citizens' Party. So give people an alternative, and a meaningful vote, and new political forces will be created.
> Light has not stumbled across some secret truth or anything new
Quite right. In fact I think he should be banned for not producing a modern day equivalent of Hobbes' Leviathan. Shame on you, Light, shame on you.
> If it is true people are not voting because they are not feeling
> represented then why does someone not create a new party to represent
> them? Maybe because those who don't vote have no one central reason
> for not doing so which would enable them all to be gathered under one
> party?
I think mostly because of the first-past-the-post voting system. If you look at the situation in Scotland, where we have PR, then new parties are forming and being successful, especially now that people realise the possibilities of the new system. In the first parliament there were three MSPs from outside the main parties. In the second there are 18: 7 each from the Green and Socialist parties, 3 independents and 1 from the Scottish Senior Citizens' Party. So give people an alternative, and a meaningful vote, and new political forces will be created.
There's always been an element of popularity in it, but now it seems like it's almost PURELY a popularity contest.
The Tory conference about a month back, a tiny little bit of coverage of policy and loads and loads of propaganda, "heart-felt" speeches, standing ovations, cheap shots at Labour, etc. bull.
Perhaps if people started voting and paying attention, perhaps they'd need to concentrate on what they are doing rather than concentrate on the morale of their hardcore supporters.
The Tory conference about a month back, a tiny little bit of coverage of policy and loads and loads of propaganda, "heart-felt" speeches, standing ovations, cheap shots at Labour, etc. bull.
Perhaps if people started voting and paying attention, perhaps they'd need to concentrate on what they are doing rather than concentrate on the morale of their hardcore supporters.
Strafex wrote:
> The thing is, like Light said, it's all about winning acclaim and
> getting into power nowdays. That's why they'll ignore good idea's
> JUST because the opposition comes up with.
Which is my point.
Light has not stumbled across some secret truth or anything new, politics has always been about winning acclaim (i.e to get people to vote for you) and getting into power (to actually do something because you can't do jack without the power).
It is not as simple as "if we used everyone's good ideas it'd be a great world" because each party stands for certain values and beliefs and it is rare that an opposing party's ideas match those, if they did then that party would not be what it was, and come to think of it how does one define a "good" idea anyway?
The one problem all the alternative ideas to current policies have is that they've never actually been tried, contact with reality almost always sends most policies off course. I mean, on paper communism worked, in reality you ended up with Russia.
If it is true people are not voting because they are not feeling represented then why does someone not create a new party to represent them? Maybe because those who don't vote have no one central reason for not doing so which would enable them all to be gathered under one party?
Maybe it is the case that people do not feel the NEED to vote because they are happy as they are?
But, even if a new party formed, how would they be any different to any other, because they'd want power (to bring in policy changes) and want acclaim (to win), and they'd attack the other parties policies and politicians just the same as the existing ones, and people would disagree with them just the same because no party can please everyone.
The only way to move away from it is to have a dictatorship, which is far worse than what we have now, possibly.
> The thing is, like Light said, it's all about winning acclaim and
> getting into power nowdays. That's why they'll ignore good idea's
> JUST because the opposition comes up with.
Which is my point.
Light has not stumbled across some secret truth or anything new, politics has always been about winning acclaim (i.e to get people to vote for you) and getting into power (to actually do something because you can't do jack without the power).
It is not as simple as "if we used everyone's good ideas it'd be a great world" because each party stands for certain values and beliefs and it is rare that an opposing party's ideas match those, if they did then that party would not be what it was, and come to think of it how does one define a "good" idea anyway?
The one problem all the alternative ideas to current policies have is that they've never actually been tried, contact with reality almost always sends most policies off course. I mean, on paper communism worked, in reality you ended up with Russia.
If it is true people are not voting because they are not feeling represented then why does someone not create a new party to represent them? Maybe because those who don't vote have no one central reason for not doing so which would enable them all to be gathered under one party?
Maybe it is the case that people do not feel the NEED to vote because they are happy as they are?
But, even if a new party formed, how would they be any different to any other, because they'd want power (to bring in policy changes) and want acclaim (to win), and they'd attack the other parties policies and politicians just the same as the existing ones, and people would disagree with them just the same because no party can please everyone.
The only way to move away from it is to have a dictatorship, which is far worse than what we have now, possibly.
**get's Light's original point**
so voting would help the parties take notice that people do care what they are actually doing instead of supporting them like a football team...
Never thought of it like that. :-)
I'll bear that in mind for the next election.
so voting would help the parties take notice that people do care what they are actually doing instead of supporting them like a football team...
Never thought of it like that. :-)
I'll bear that in mind for the next election.
I've been thinking the same thing.
Politics is just one big popularity contest nowdays.
I can't tell the difference between governments (other than their names) so I won't be voting at the moment, unless we have to in order to keep out a dodgy character (like that facist the French nearly got stuck with!).
The thing is, like Light said, it's all about winning acclaim and getting into power nowdays. That's why they'll ignore good idea's JUST because the opposition comes up with.
That's why the AS/A2 A level system was rushed into place before the proper teacher material was in place to teach the new syllabus.
Because they wanted to have it in place before the next election.
Maybe because they wanted full credit.
Maybe because if the opposing side got into power, they'd cancel it (after all, if was an idea by that OTHER party).
Either way they ended up making a big pigs ear out of it.
Still, the world seems to be clocking along alright no matter who the stupid dunce at the top is, and when it doesn't, that's when the governments will be forced to change their ways, although Bushy seems to be bringing that day closer by eating away all the oil reserves... :-S
Politics is just one big popularity contest nowdays.
I can't tell the difference between governments (other than their names) so I won't be voting at the moment, unless we have to in order to keep out a dodgy character (like that facist the French nearly got stuck with!).
The thing is, like Light said, it's all about winning acclaim and getting into power nowdays. That's why they'll ignore good idea's JUST because the opposition comes up with.
That's why the AS/A2 A level system was rushed into place before the proper teacher material was in place to teach the new syllabus.
Because they wanted to have it in place before the next election.
Maybe because they wanted full credit.
Maybe because if the opposing side got into power, they'd cancel it (after all, if was an idea by that OTHER party).
Either way they ended up making a big pigs ear out of it.
Still, the world seems to be clocking along alright no matter who the stupid dunce at the top is, and when it doesn't, that's when the governments will be forced to change their ways, although Bushy seems to be bringing that day closer by eating away all the oil reserves... :-S
Light wrote:
> Seems like a fair question to repeat; is it just because you've
> missed the point and you're now trying desperately to avoid the
> topic? Course it is, isn't it? Ah, what a stupid fundamentalist
> coward you are Bell. Arguing with you gives me the same satisfaction
> as rabbit-punching a wheelchairbound rapist; it may not be a fair
> fight, but no one doubts that you both richly deserve what you're
> receiving.
Maybe because this topic is going nowhere other than the usual spat? Still nice to see you adopting the hardline criminal punishment mentality, we'll make you a conservative yet !
And you're still funny :D
> Seems like a fair question to repeat; is it just because you've
> missed the point and you're now trying desperately to avoid the
> topic? Course it is, isn't it? Ah, what a stupid fundamentalist
> coward you are Bell. Arguing with you gives me the same satisfaction
> as rabbit-punching a wheelchairbound rapist; it may not be a fair
> fight, but no one doubts that you both richly deserve what you're
> receiving.
Maybe because this topic is going nowhere other than the usual spat? Still nice to see you adopting the hardline criminal punishment mentality, we'll make you a conservative yet !
And you're still funny :D
Belldandy wrote:
>
> Congrats, you win funniest post of the day! You're like the epitome
> of self importance...
Bwah ha ha ha ha ha haaaaa! Who, out of the two of us, posted a huge rant about how he felt insulted and slandered at a joke at his expense? You or me?
Who, out of the two of us, spent an afternoon posting "IB i s guilty!" on every topic, just so everyone could see how angry he was? You or me?
Hmm...they were both you, weren't they? So...that sorta makes you seem like a very stupid, self-important buttplug-heater...with NO SENSE OF SELF AWARENESS!
Oh, and I also had a bit of a chuckle that you picked out one sentence from a post that included this paragraph;
> Nice to see you've concentrated on one word in the whole post and
> used it as an excuse to avoid addressing a single point made. Could
> that be because...well, you'd missed the point and made yourself look
> like an idiot, and now you just want to avoid that?
Seems like a fair question to repeat; is it just because you've missed the point and you're now trying desperately to avoid the topic? Course it is, isn't it? Ah, what a stupid fundamentalist coward you are Bell. Arguing with you gives me the same satisfaction as rabbit-punching a wheelchairbound rapist; it may not be a fair fight, but no one doubts that you both richly deserve what you're receiving.
>
> Congrats, you win funniest post of the day! You're like the epitome
> of self importance...
Bwah ha ha ha ha ha haaaaa! Who, out of the two of us, posted a huge rant about how he felt insulted and slandered at a joke at his expense? You or me?
Who, out of the two of us, spent an afternoon posting "IB i s guilty!" on every topic, just so everyone could see how angry he was? You or me?
Hmm...they were both you, weren't they? So...that sorta makes you seem like a very stupid, self-important buttplug-heater...with NO SENSE OF SELF AWARENESS!
Oh, and I also had a bit of a chuckle that you picked out one sentence from a post that included this paragraph;
> Nice to see you've concentrated on one word in the whole post and
> used it as an excuse to avoid addressing a single point made. Could
> that be because...well, you'd missed the point and made yourself look
> like an idiot, and now you just want to avoid that?
Seems like a fair question to repeat; is it just because you've missed the point and you're now trying desperately to avoid the topic? Course it is, isn't it? Ah, what a stupid fundamentalist coward you are Bell. Arguing with you gives me the same satisfaction as rabbit-punching a wheelchairbound rapist; it may not be a fair fight, but no one doubts that you both richly deserve what you're receiving.
Light wrote:
> God, your self-important whining gets old very quickly...
Congrats, you win funniest post of the day! You're like the epitome of self importance...
> God, your self-important whining gets old very quickly...
Congrats, you win funniest post of the day! You're like the epitome of self importance...
cookie monster wrote:
> Light wrote:
> Hey, don't knock it;
>
> I never intend to.
>
> :)
Bad a Bing! Thank you, thank you ladies and gentlemen ;)
> Light wrote:
> Hey, don't knock it;
>
> I never intend to.
>
> :)
Bad a Bing! Thank you, thank you ladies and gentlemen ;)
Page: