the ruling class

[egb_hibs]

this is a response i've ripped from a guardian blog, where someone was asserting that in the west, noone from such a humble background as ahmedinijad in iran, could ascend to such a loft post.

it certainly endorses the conviction of class warriors that we are helpless saps under the boot of an entrenched ruling class:

"John Major's father was a circus performer and then made his living painting garden gnomes.

Margaret Thatchers father was a grocer.

James Callaghan's father was a chief petty officer in the RN, and after the age of nine was bought up by his widowed mother.

Ted Heath was the son of a carpenter and a maid.

Harold Wilson father was a works chemist and his mother was a schoolteacher.

Bill Clinton's father, William Jefferson Blythe, Jr., was a traveling salesman who died in a car accident three months before Bill was born. He was raised by his maternal rents who owned a small grocery store.

Ronald Reagan father, who suffered poor health his whole life, had a wide range of low paid jobs, when unemployed is mother did low paid sewing jobs to make ends meet.

Nixon's father moved to California after having been frostbitten working as a motorman in an open streetcar to become a farmhand and oil roustabout.
Indeed, it is hard to see people come out of nowhere and become leaders in the US or UK."

[snoots]

Yeah, but they are mere politicains and they don't have any real power, they only manage the pr of the country or carry the can for the cock ups like Brown.

They real power lies with the constants, the upper echalons of the Civil Service, the overtly active members in the House of Lords, the Directors of the larger Business Firms (Oil, Banks, Arms, Pharamceuticals) - all of whom supported Maggies tyranny as she was essentially working for their interests.

No one weilds any political power without the support of the above powerful Lobbyists and the beurocrats, without whom nothing happens.

Democracy is a joke and not a very funny one.

[Colr]

Originally Posted by snoots

Democracy is a joke and not a very funny one.

Some folk won't know what they've got 'til its gone.

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by snoots

Yeah, but they are mere politicains and they don't have any real power, they only manage the pr of the country or carry the can for the cock ups like Brown.

They real power lies with the constants, the upper echalons of the Civil Service, the overtly active members in the House of Lords, the Directors of the larger Business Firms (Oil, Banks, Arms, Pharamceuticals) - all of whom supported Maggies tyranny as she was essentially working for their interests.

No one weilds any political power without the support of the above powerful Lobbyists and the beurocrats, without whom nothing happens.

Democracy is a joke and not a very funny one.

i don't believe this view at all. globalisation is reducing the power of governments, but that's a relatively new phenomenon.

democracy is becoming ever more imperilled but the reasons are more complex - and much of it directly rooted in democracy.

for example, when the demos don't want govt to tell them the truth, we have a problem. that's what we have today, which is why it's political suicide for govt's to tackle anything meaningful.

[snoots]

Originally Posted by Colr

Some folk won't know what they've got 'til its gone.

I know what we've got, a sort of benevolent Capitalism which could whip th ecarpet from under the benevolence toot sweet or, if it felt like it spread more of the benevolence around.

What we have is the appearence of Democracy, whereby anything truly radical being proposed has to have the support of the agencies mentioned above or it never gets off the ground. How many times are we given the vote - twice every five years? Once for National Govt once for local, unless you live in Edinburgh where the council are just allowed to cancel a local election when they feel like it and stay in power an extra 5 years. To me that's a joke.

The residents of the USA although maybe given a very narrow choice in the political spectrum are given more of a voice than that in more areas, judicial as well as political. A lot of their law is also built on the huge number of referenda allowed the populace in the 19th century, which may have died out now but a huge amount of the basic legislature was built around the vote.

Soviet Russians thought our democracy was a joke, although they lived in what amounted to a totalitarian bureaucracy if they had a problem or issue they took it to their shop steward or local party rep, who supposedly took to a local council or reps and upward into the politburo. The idea that we voted once every 5 years was treated as undemocratic in their eyes - which is where appearences come into play. I reckon it appears we we live in a democracy but in practice it's not.

[Colr]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs

i don't believe this view at all. globalisation is reducing the power of governments, but that's a relatively new phenomenon.

democracy is becoming ever more imperilled but the reasons are more complex - and much of it directly rooted in democracy.

for example, when the demos don't want govt to tell them the truth, we have a problem. that's what we have today, which is why it's political suicide for govt's to tackle anything meaningful.

Global food and energy supplies, equalising benefit and disbenefit. In this increasingly global rat race do we not need a more global form of government?

[snoots]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs

i don't believe this view at all. globalisation is reducing the power of governments, but that's a relatively new phenomenon.

democracy is becoming ever more imperilled but the reasons are more complex - and much of it directly rooted in democracy.

for example, when the demos don't want govt to tell them the truth, we have a problem. that's what we have today, which is why it's political suicide for govt's to tackle anything meaningful.

Again I'll say it's down to how it appears to people. There is much much more information around these days (good and bad) which has made the workings of our parliament and other bodies far more transparent. People know how spin works (which has always been around since the first polictician tried to get his message accross), have seen it vividly in practice and more and more are savvy to how that system works in favour of those in power.

Politics is about the appearence of having power, giving the impression that you can appear to put policies into practice and also appearing to competently handle events. If that appearence is eaten away, by more and more information being made available, the reality becomes more transparent then people see it for what it is, a sham - and although politicians would call it "growing disenchanted" or "jaded" it's actually the wool falling away from people's eyes.

Once that appearence has totally gone and "some people" (patronising git) realise what we had, it wont be pretty because the reality of holding onto power by other means, which will be invoked if required, is ruthless as fuck.

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by snoots

Again I'll say it's down to how it appears to people. There is much much more information around these days (good and bad) which has made the workings of our parliament and other bodies far more transparent. People know how spin works (which has always been around since the first polictician tried to get his message accross), have seen it vividly in practice and more and more are savvy to how that system works in favour of those in power.


Politics is about the appearence of having power, giving the impression that you can appear to put policies into practice and also appearing to competently handle events. If that appearence is eaten away, by more and more information being made available, the reality becomes more transparent then people see it for what it is, a sham - and although politicians would call it "growing disenchanted" or "jaded" it's actually the wool falling away from people's eyes.

Once that appearence has totally gone and "some people" (patronising git) realise what we had, it wont be pretty because the reality of holding onto power by other means, which will be invoked if required, is ruthless as fuck.

i partially agree, but i think it's comforting nonsense to project our problems onto some 'ruling class'.

career politicians and there willingness to subordinate all to maintaining the career is a major problem. but so is;

- the 'liberal consensus' amongst the main political parties; this is growing ever more evidently away from the diversity of 'on the street opinion'. but it's also to some extent the inevitable result of the dissolution of any common values. societies can't last without them. this is something the govt dare not engage the public in, as it would be political suicide.

- the inability of a democratic govt to engage an electorate with what it would really entail to tackle global warming, the future, pensions crisis, our declining population, the world's growing population etc...

- the overweening dominance of political bias in universities, the judiciary and the broadcast media - if ever there was a ruling class it's this, but these are lefties following gramsci's formula, and i expect that even as they are currently at their peak of power, so their game is up. the following generations are more depoliticised i suspect.

- too much democracy; most people haven't a clue about the complex realities it entails, and are too myopic to even begin to grapple with them. making things more transparent sometimes means giving absolute fuds the impression that they know better than they do.

anyway, one thing we can probably agree on; it's on a sticky wicket.