Cycling UK Forum

mjr wrote: 4 Jan 2025, 11:12pm

cycle tramp wrote: 4 Jan 2025, 10:41pm May I suggest that, as part of the new year, we as a populace decided that we don't need any of them.. that we address ourselves as fully responsible adults, and rather than have personalities implementing their own version of their future upon us, we demand an administration, which implements policies that the general public votes directly on.

I'm sure one of the small fascist parties of 20-25 years ago advocated such a system.

Of course, the problem is that most people won't have enough time to study the issues, so many would just vote for whatever some fevered egos in the political realm told them to, and we'd be no better off and potentially much worse.

We could choose some number from among us and pay them to take the time to study the smaller issues and decide the best approaches, but that's pretty much what we have now, if people do as intended.

Indeed - both central and local government will always hide behind the issue that 'its best leaving policy decisions to them, as they have time enough to read and discuss the issues'...
..the response to this, from any anarchist, is that we, the people are the cause of these issues - and that as such we are better placed to find and develop solutions than any government think tank or focus group..
..if we want a strong vibrant economy, then we have to invest and spend locally. If we want to protect and strengthen our wildlife, then we need to get involved and set up areas, plant and maintain them for that purpose. I firmly believe that the armed forces know how to best regulate themselves, equally teachers, and by and large industry and farmers - that's not to say there shouldn't be checks or balances (environment groups balancing both industry, development and farmers ?) - but as soon as someone becomes an MP or Councillor we seem to give them some mythical super person status and we completely forget that the only qualification required is for them to collect more votes than anyone else - which runs the risk that mp's and councillors who decide our future may have a lesser intellect than ourselves, and have deep rooted personal problems. One only has to look at Dinald Trump and his continued dislike of 'windmills' to see how damaging psychopaths truly are.
The first step to recognising the issues we face, is to understand that we are responsible for them (to a percentile degree) once we recognise that, we then have the power to apply solutions.. this isn't right wing or left wing thinking, this is the first step along the lines of anachist-commune thinking, and whether we like the label or not, it is the only one which fits the whole of the human community on space-ship earth.

^ "Anarcho-syndicalism" faction of anarchism if memory serves.
Don't you just hate it when anarchy used as a synonym for chaos?

The first step to recognising the issues we face, is to understand that we are responsible for them (to a percentile degree) once we recognise that, we then have the power to apply solutions..

Yes.

The right of sovereignty rests in the people, simply on the basis of sheer weight of numbers, but unless or until a goodly proportion of people have the combination of self-esteem and humility to recognise that, and then use their right wisely, we are in an incredibly bad place.

Right now, very widely, we have a sort of “mass surrender of the right of sovereignty of the people”, where low self-esteem, combined with lack of wisdom is leading people to hand over their sovereignty to Strong Leaders, who don’t in any way shape or form have their interests at heart.

For those which still believe that only councillors mps and other 'leaders' hold the reigns (thanks to mjr who advises that tge correction should be reins) of power, here's some questions...
Would invented the pneumatic tyre? Who invented the telephone? Who invented the Internet? And more to the point, were any of them councillors, or MPs or elected officials?

djnotts wrote: 5 Jan 2025, 10:29am ^ "Anarcho-syndicalism" faction of anarchism if memory serves.
Don't you just hate it when anarchy used as a synonym for chaos?

Oh, yes - sorry, my mistake.
Quite.. but then it was in the interests of government to fail to correct the synonym.

cycle tramp wrote: 5 Jan 2025, 10:40am For those which still believe that only councillors mps and other 'leaders' hold the reigns of power, here's some questions...
Would invented the pneumatic tyre? Who invented the telephone? Who invented the Internet? And more to the point, were any of them councillors, or MPs or elected officials?

Vint Cerf, co-inventor of the Internet, has been an elected official of several organisations, mostly related to technology, including the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, the American Registry for Internet Numbers, the Association for Computing Machinery. He's also been appointed and co-opted onto government bodies from the USA to Bulgaria.

And I think it's normally "reins" not "reigns"

mjr wrote: 5 Jan 2025, 6:33pm

cycle tramp wrote: 5 Jan 2025, 10:40am For those which still believe that only councillors mps and other 'leaders' hold the reigns of power, here's some questions...
Would invented the pneumatic tyre? Who invented the telephone? Who invented the Internet? And more to the point, were any of them councillors, or MPs or elected officials?

Vint Cerf, co-inventor of the Internet, has been an elected official of several organisations, mostly related to technology, including the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, the American Registry for Internet Numbers, the Association for Computing Machinery. He's also been appointed and co-opted onto government bodies from the USA to Bulgaria.

And I think it's normally "reins" not "reigns"

Ah, right. Reins. Thanks. However as to the other point.. yes, he was... but only after (he invented it). Which perhaps points out the first change to our democracy- that perhaps those wishing to stand as peers perhaps should have done something to benefit to society before they stand.. rather than just an ability to tow a party line, wave and smile...

cycle tramp wrote: 5 Jan 2025, 7:11pm

mjr wrote: 5 Jan 2025, 6:33pm

cycle tramp wrote: 5 Jan 2025, 10:40am For those which still believe that only councillors mps and other 'leaders' hold the reigns of power, here's some questions...
Would invented the pneumatic tyre? Who invented the telephone? Who invented the Internet? And more to the point, were any of them councillors, or MPs or elected officials?

Vint Cerf, co-inventor of the Internet, has been an elected official of several organisations, mostly related to technology, including the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, the American Registry for Internet Numbers, the Association for Computing Machinery. He's also been appointed and co-opted onto government bodies from the USA to Bulgaria.

And I think it's normally "reins" not "reigns"

Ah, right. Reins. Thanks. However as to the other point.. yes, he was... but only after (he invented it). Which perhaps points out the first change to our democracy- that perhaps those wishing to stand as peers perhaps should have done something to benefit to society before they stand.. rather than just an ability to tow a party line, wave and smile...

The trouble there is that who says what is a benefit to society? People seem quite scathing about the former lawyers, economists and trade union workers in the current government, and still rant about a chemist who used to be prime minister. We can't all invent a tyre or internet.

^ Nearholmer:
"The right of sovereignty rests in the people, simply on the basis of sheer weight of numbers, but unless or until a goodly proportion of people have the combination of self-esteem and humility to recognise that, and then use their right wisely, we are in an incredibly bad place.

Right now, very widely, we have a sort of “mass surrender of the right of sovereignty of the people”, where low self-esteem, combined with lack of wisdom is leading people to hand over their sovereignty to Strong Leaders, who don’t in any way shape or form have their interests at heart."

I don't think weight of numbers would be sufficient. Contrary to Big Jim's words, "THEY got the numbers and they got the GUNS..."

Verging on the ironic, those who ranted about and secured "sovereignty" now risk handing the nation state to an American citizen (altho his dad has said Elon is considering obtaining UK citizenship).

Musk stating that Farage is not suitable to lead Reform, presumably because of disagreement over Tommy R., is quite amusing.

But I doubt there'll be much laughter when the proper hard right take control.

djnotts wrote: 5 Jan 2025, 8:55pm Verging on the ironic, those who ranted about and secured "sovereignty" now risk handing the nation state to an American citizen (altho his dad has said Elon is considering obtaining UK citizenship).

How will he obtain that then? Have we started selling passports again now the pesky EU isn't making us phase that out?

American citizen? Economic migrant, innit?

djnotts wrote: 5 Jan 2025, 8:55pm ^ Nearholmer:
"The right of sovereignty rests in the people, simply on the basis of sheer weight of numbers, but unless or until a goodly proportion of people have the combination of self-esteem and humility to recognise that, and then use their right wisely, we are in an incredibly bad place.

Right now, very widely, we have a sort of “mass surrender of the right of sovereignty of the people”, where low self-esteem, combined with lack of wisdom is leading people to hand over their sovereignty to Strong Leaders, who don’t in any way shape or form have their interests at heart."

I don't think weight of numbers would be sufficient. Contrary to Big Jim's words, "THEY got the numbers and they got the GUNS..."

Verging on the ironic, those who ranted about and secured "sovereignty" now risk handing the nation state to an American citizen (altho his dad has said Elon is considering obtaining UK citizenship).

Musk stating that Farage is not suitable to lead Reform, presumably because of disagreement over Tommy R., is quite amusing.

But I doubt there'll be much laughter when the proper hard right take control.

I don't think they will. The majority who despise the hard right are not going to roll over on their backs for Elon Musk or anyone he endorses. The man may enthuse a weird minority in the USA, but here he just looks like someone frozen in a perpetual and disturbed adolescence, constantly looking for someone to lash out at. I don't think he goes down well here.

^ Electoral Calculus:
"With 28pc of the public's vote, just 6pc more than their current support, Reform would become the largest party in parliament with just under 200 seats. In this scenario, Reform could be governing in a coalition with the Conservatives, likely with Nigel Farage as Prime Minister and Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch as a deputy Prime Minister.

If their vote share increases to 31pc, Reform would get an overall Commons majority."

Reform would be the stepping stone to the hard right. And the English will do whatever their betters and the Media tell them.

djnotts wrote: 5 Jan 2025, 10:11pm ^ Electoral Calculus:
"With 28pc of the public's vote, just 6pc more than their current support, Reform would become the largest party in parliament with just under 200 seats. In this scenario, Reform could be governing in a coalition with the Conservatives, likely with Nigel Farage as Prime Minister and Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch as a deputy Prime Minister.

If their vote share increases to 31pc, Reform would get an overall Commons majority."

Reform would be the stepping stone to the hard right. And the English will do whatever their betters and the Media tell them.

So far, at no point in the run-up to an election have Reform been in the frame as potential Government. Not even in coalition. As soon as they do reach the position of looking like they could end up in a coalition Government the dynamic will change. The anti Far Right portion of the electorate will vote tactically to keep them out. That hasn't happened yet, but it will when needed.

Also, up to now Tory support has included the soft Right, who are unlikely to follow the Tories if they drift to the right. A portion of those would hold their noses and vote for another party to obstruct a potential Far Right victory. And if Reform move even further to the right, they will be toxic to the overwhelming majority. Their current buoyant position in the polls relies on them maintaining a veneer of non-racist reasonableness, and that tends to slip in election campaigns.

So I don't see a clear path to power for a Far Right coalition in the UK.

djnotts wrote: 5 Jan 2025, 10:11pm ^ Electoral Calculus:
"With 28pc of the public's vote, just 6pc more than their current support, Reform would become the largest party in parliament with just under 200 seats. In this scenario, Reform could be governing in a coalition with the Conservatives, likely with Nigel Farage as Prime Minister and Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch as a deputy Prime Minister.

If their vote share increases to 31pc, Reform would get an overall Commons majority."

Reform would be the stepping stone to the hard right. And the English will do whatever their betters and the Media tell them.

..which is a very good reason to espouse the ideals of anarchism, the first steps of which include the ability to think for yourself, based upon the evidence you have to reach conclusions which do not only benefit yourself but those lives with whom you share space-ship earth with.

And more to the point, were any of them councillors, or MPs or elected officials?

Isaac Newton, MP (Whig party), it's possible that he was writing Opticks: or, A Treatise of the Reflexions, Refractions, Inflexions and Colours of Light while an MP in 1701