Anarchy

[bozo]

Re. low voter turnout, can you suggest what other factors?

I'd say that the fact that Thatcher turned this country right wing by selling off state assets is a huge factor ... actually very clever when you think about it, she deserves a medal followed by a very long evisceration I think (I was thinking that the Centauri had some nice ideas on that when it comes to Thatcher)

I think I pointed out that the " new Labour " con gained power...but isn't what you do in power as important?

I genuinely don't know, I suppose but I lost interest in New Labour after voting them in and haven't voted for them since ... might do next time (might even vote Tory though I concede that won't be easy) as I've got a new strategy thanks to a friend of mine.

I give you credit for having a sense of humour, Kyu, has it deserted you? You are pretty " to the point " ( if you don't like abrasive )....it was meant as a joke!

Sorry ... I didn't (even though you put "lol") didn't realise

Kyu

[Giff]

This is question to atrasicarius. I can't really understand why you would anarchy. Would like anarchy as in revolution, or permanent anarchy?

Eitherway do I wonder what would happen to laws and security? I mean anarchy pretty much means that there is no law or order, which is very importent to a society. I mean when Catrina came over the New Orleans and caused the city to be flooded, then many people started looting shops and other things.

Such things happen during chaos and specially during anarchy, it's not really and idealogy. Complete freedeom or close to complete freedom will make human devolve and become more violent. Most importent of all will civilization dissepeas.

It's importent for people to have ceratin rules and be organised to funtion. Otherwise will it be like diffrent gangs figthing eachother for terriatory.

[bozo]

Re. low voter turnout, can you suggest what other factors?

I'd say that the fact that Thatcher turned this country right wing by selling off state assets is a huge factor ... actually very clever when you think about it, she deserves a medal followed by a very long evisceration I think (I was thinking that the Centauri had some nice ideas on that when it comes to Thatcher)

I think I pointed out that the " new Labour " con gained power...but isn't what you do in power as important?

I genuinely don't know, I suppose but I lost interest in New Labour after voting them in and haven't voted for them since ... might do next time (might even vote Tory though I concede that won't be easy) as I've got a new strategy thanks to a friend of mine.

I give you credit for having a sense of humour, Kyu, has it deserted you? You are pretty " to the point " ( if you don't like abrasive )....it was meant as a joke!

Sorry ... I didn't (even though you put "lol") didn't realise

Kyu

I don't really buy your answer on low voter turnout. Are you implying that the 70% that don't vote are contented with the status quo, having been made that way by Thatcherism )?

Do let me in on your friend's new strategy...sounds fascinating.

[Kyuuketsuki]

I don't really buy your answer on low voter turnout. Are you implying that the 70% that don't vote are contented with the status quo, having been made that way by Thatcherism )?

I'm saying that many of middle people (the silent majority they often refer to I suppose) have had their heads turned by a culture that now embraces transient share ownership as a means of gaining personal wealth. You see outside of what my pension company might do (over which I have little control) I genuinely believe that share ownership is something you do for the long term ... I WOULD invest in a company but only if I believed in their product, if I thought it was genuinely good and worthwhile and that the designers and company backing it were worth backing. Maybe it was happening anyway but it seems to me that Thatcher was instrumental in turning our entire culture to one of greed, where people buy and sell shares rapidly, where no one commits for the long haul to an idea or product. It's one of the reasons I refuse to own shares or if I am given them sell as quickly as possible.

Everything in society seems to be about money ... companies are cutting back on everything that involves money (outsourcing, offshoring, no training, CBT's rather than classroom when it is, no "play" kit in IT), tax is constantly going down and those things I value (the health service, education and armed forces) are starved of resources, even the Space Shuttles failed because of money as far as I can tell. This isn't a society I really want to be part of in some ways ... it just seems to be greed everywhere!

Do let me in on your friend's new strategy...sounds fascinating.

OK ... I suppose in a small way it's about no longer having a party to support (like you it seems I am old school Labour, I didn't necessarily like them all that much but I understood where they were coming from and realised that they were the party that at least gave a decent nod towards those values I held to be important. I now live in a Tory held ward and, obviously I could vote tactically (which essentially means voting LibDem) or I could protest vote ... I started off doing the first but lately, until recently, have doing the second choosing to vote for the Green party.

Then my friend (who is traditionally a LibDem voter but talks more like a Left Winger) said that, come next election, he would write to all the candidates of all the parties on the one (maybe two) issues he felt were important and he would then vote for the party he felt actually gave the answer he best liked almost regardless of other political factors. I like that idea and for me the two most important issues are the environment and education ... without the first we're broadly speaking fucked and from the second all good things come so it must be kept pure (which is why I am all so fired up on keeping those ID tossers out of science education and believe that all public schooling should be utterly secular).

So, if the Tories, actually had a better education policy that Labour I would (though it would pain me to do so) vote for them ... to me, in political terms, those are the only things that truly matter.

Kyu

[bozo]

I don't really buy your answer on low voter turnout. Are you implying that the 70% that don't vote are contented with the status quo, having been made that way by Thatcherism )?

I'm saying that many of middle people (the silent majority they often refer to I suppose) have had their heads turned by a culture that now embraces transient share ownership as a means of gaining personal wealth. You see outside of what my pension company might do (over which I have little control) I genuinely believe that share ownership is something you do for the long term ... I WOULD invest in a company but only if I believed in their product, if I thought it was genuinely good and worthwhile and that the designers and company backing it were worth backing. Maybe it was happening anyway but it seems to me that Thatcher was instrumental in turning our entire culture to one of greed, where people buy and sell shares rapidly, where no one commits for the long haul to an idea or product. It's one of the reasons I refuse to own shares or if I am given them sell as quickly as possible.

Everything in society seems to be about money ... companies are cutting back on everything that involves money (outsourcing, offshoring, no training, CBT's rather than classroom when it is, no "play" kit in IT), tax is constantly going down and those things I value (the health service, education and armed forces) are starved of resources, even the Space Shuttles failed because of money as far as I can tell. This isn't a society I really want to be part of in some ways ... it just seems to be greed everywhere!

Do let me in on your friend's new strategy...sounds fascinating.

OK ... I suppose in a small way it's about no longer having a party to support (like you it seems I am old school Labour, I didn't necessarily like them all that much but I understood where they were coming from and realised that they were the party that at least gave a decent nod towards those values I held to be important. I now live in a Tory held ward and, obviously I could vote tactically (which essentially means voting LibDem) or I could protest vote ... I started off doing the first but lately, until recently, have doing the second choosing to vote for the Green party.

Then my friend (who is traditionally a LibDem voter but talks more like a Left Winger) said that, come next election, he would write to all the candidates of all the parties on the one (maybe two) issues he felt were important and he would then vote for the party he felt actually gave the answer he best liked almost regardless of other political factors. I like that idea and for me the two most important issues are the environment and education ... without the first we're broadly speaking fucked and from the second all good things come so it must be kept pure (which is why I am all so fired up on keeping those ID tossers out of science education and believe that all public schooling should be utterly secular).

So, if the Tories, actually had a better education policy that Labour I would (though it would pain me to do so) vote for them ... to me, in political terms, those are the only things that truly matter.

Kyu

Ok I won't flog the voter turnout any more, save to say you haven't altered my view.
Re. how to vote in your own constituency, I haven't voted for a long time, a conscious decision because I never get a socialist candidate, so I have refused to vote for the " best of the rest ".
However, at the next general election, as things are right now,if Labour persists in roling out id cards, I will vote for the party that will not. Civil liberties are being eroded at an alarming rate under the so-called international war on terror.

[atrasicarius]

This is question to atrasicarius. I can't really understand why you would anarchy. Would like anarchy as in revolution, or permanent anarchy?

Eitherway do I wonder what would happen to laws and security? I mean anarchy pretty much means that there is no law or order, which is very importent to a society. I mean when Catrina came over the New Orleans and caused the city to be flooded, then many people started looting shops and other things.

Such things happen during chaos and specially during anarchy, it's not really and idealogy. Complete freedeom or close to complete freedom will make human devolve and become more violent. Most importent of all will civilization dissepeas.

It's importent for people to have ceratin rules and be organised to funtion. Otherwise will it be like diffrent gangs figthing eachother for terriatory.

Go back and read my post on the Spanish Revolution.

[Giff]

This is question to atrasicarius. I can't really understand why you would anarchy. Would like anarchy as in revolution, or permanent anarchy?

Eitherway do I wonder what would happen to laws and security? I mean anarchy pretty much means that there is no law or order, which is very importent to a society. I mean when Catrina came over the New Orleans and caused the city to be flooded, then many people started looting shops and other things.

Such things happen during chaos and specially during anarchy, it's not really and idealogy. Complete freedeom or close to complete freedom will make human devolve and become more violent. Most importent of all will civilization dissepeas.

It's importent for people to have ceratin rules and be organised to funtion. Otherwise will it be like diffrent gangs figthing eachother for terriatory.

Go back and read my post on the Spanish Revolution.

So... you would like to have small socialist communities?

But still i aks you how would education, scienice and medicine work? Small communities can't afford such things. Also do they not have the resources nor the technology. You have to have united country with a goverment that can run such things.

Civilization is needed. Small communities will make us go back many thousand years ago. Plus if we should erase money as they did in some places in the Spanish civil war, then our technology would go backwards instead. We wouldnt be able to research in medecine and science.

You idea of small socialist communities would not work in our world today and would hurt man more then it would be good.

It also wouldnt work in my country since their only exist middle- and upperclass over here.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Ok I won't flog the voter turnout any more, save to say you haven't altered my view.

Fair enough

However, at the next general election, as things are right now,if Labour persists in roling out id cards, I will vote for the party that will not. Civil liberties are being eroded at an alarming rate under the so-called international war on terror.

Terrorism scares me just as much as it does the next person but it seems to me that it's the very fact that our society is so open that allows bad people to act with impunity within it. As such I have to decide which means more to me ... civil liberties or safety and given that I broadly speaking believe that civil liberty, education, freedom of thought & word 'n all that stuff are all closely connected I'd have to choose to remain open and accept that people (myself included) may get hurt or dead from time to time.

I suppose it's the idea that I'd rather be free and in potential danger than safe and enslaved.

Kyu