House of Commons Conga

[Hamble]

Yes; and it's a commonplace logical fallacy! Do you feel better for that?

I am not sure what you mean.

[Hamble]

I don't know anything about his background. Never bothered to look, TBH. I've no truck with 'far' anything parties. The SWP is too far left for my tastes, never mind Respect. Not knocking them, we're all entitled to our views.

There's little to disagree with in that article, whichever side of the political divide you're on. It isn't about Labour, Tory, whoever. It's about the system.

If it was Labour in power, his words would still ring true. Because the system would still be the same.

But again, no solutions.

Fair point.

[sandGroundZero]

Good article. Very good in fact. Spot on. …But no solutions. post #22
There's little to disagree with in that article, …But again, no solutions. post #30

The evidence of systemic inadequacy are extensive, often very obscure and immensely tangled. You had noted hints of solutions to specific problems — bracing the Electoral Commission for example; but threads of dysfunction are too tangled to resolve piecemeal.

One of the links in Monbiot's article was to a Guradian article by Carole Cadwalladr dated November, 2017 about investigative efforts to unravel a Russian connection to Brexit entities, plus links among Conservative party members' and wealthy expat Russian residents of London apparently seeking influence through donations and other means. It's murky! Without making outrageous accusations, there is ample evidence of, at least, MPs' naivety; not to mention wilful blindness vis-à-vis big donations. [That includes well respected, high profile individuals, as well of course countless individuals you're unlikely to hear about.]

Of course vaguely corrupt¹ behaviour is not exclusive to any party. The obstacles to effective democracy are intricately interwoven. It is reasonable to expect that individuals are often adamant that their behaviour is absolutely above board. They have become embedded into a system that systematically subverts even the most well-intentioned politicians and activists.

The only way to overcome inertia in the system is to rouse voters /citizens to the system's inherent flaws. You can imagine that is a nearly impossible task when faced with vested interests benefiting with things as they are.

Given your recurring references to conspiracy theorists in this forum, you may be thinking that I have wondered into the lunatic fringe of conspiracists — attaching that label is an effective counter to radical change.

I have learned to respect your even-handedness in your posts. That being so, I do not need to offer advice about labelling. "Far left" can be a useful shorthand provided you are always mindful of who is asserting it and relative to what. Your friend and sparing partner Hamble appears to have judged George Monbiot and obviated the chore of considering his points. It's easily done.

1 An interesting examination of the concept of 'corruption' in a book by Zephr Teachout, titled: Corruption in America gives context of corruption.

[Toodles McGinty]

One of the links in Monbiot's article was to a Guradian article by Carole Cadwalladr dated November, 2017 about investigative efforts to unravel a Russian connection to Brexit entities, plus links among Conservative party members' and wealthy expat Russian residents of London apparently seeking influence through donations and other means. It's murky! Without making outrageous accusations, there is ample evidence of, at least, MPs' naivety; not to mention wilful blindness vis-à-vis big donations. [That includes well respected, high profile individuals, as well of course countless individuals you're unlikely to hear about.]

I hadn't clicked through to that article. I'd glad you highlighted it. Very interesting. I'm looking forward to the Russia report being published even more now, though I doubt it will see the light of day. And if it does it'll be so redacted it'll look like the world's longest bar code.

I'm a fan of Cadwalladr's investigative reporting. Her team's piece on Cambridge Analytica, subsequent related articles, and the spiderweb of connections, from Trump, the Leave campaign, Russia, Farage, Assange, Facebook, Ukraine to Bannon, Banks, the Elliotts ,Johnson et al was a real eye opener. As was 'The Great Hack', which I'd to recommend anyone who's ever logged on to the internet.

Of course vaguely corrupt¹ behaviour is not exclusive to any party. The obstacles to effective democracy are intricately interwoven. It is reasonable to expect that individuals are often adamant that their behaviour is absolutely above board. They have become embedded into a system that systematically subverts even the most well-intentioned politicians and activists.

Of course. I've no doubt there are many, many well intentioned politicians across the board. Even those utterly corrupt ones may have had their heads turned initially with a thought of helping someone out. Again, the idea of paying MPs more, but not allowing any commercial interests would be a start. The government's list of MPs outside interests are sketchy at best. The amount of government contracts handed out without tender to those connected to the highest office in the land is the ultimate in corruption. But hasn't it always been so? Dig deep enough and I'd wager that certain contracts were handed to certain union members by Labour politicians. Power corrupts.

The only way to overcome inertia in the system is to rouse voters /citizens to the system's inherent flaws. You can imagine that is a nearly impossible task when faced with vested interests benefiting with things as they are.

Completely impossible, I'd say. You only need to look at this little forum and the refusal for people to accept the slightest criticism of their 'team'. And the adamance that theirs is the only truth in the face of the blindingly obvious. As if I'd declared that Corbyn would have been the most wonderful PM in the history of PMs, and brooked no argument about it. That's bull. I know it and I'm happy to say so.

A perfect example: we have the most morally bankrupt liar as Prime Minister, presiding over just about the most badly handled reaction to this pandemic in the world. Not simply an opinion, the facts are there. Johnson has years of proof to call on. The world is looking on in horror. I defy anyone to watch last night's 'Dispatches' on C4, or last night's Newsnight on BBC2, and come back and say any different. But defend they will.

You can't rouse anyone's interest in the system if they are unwilling to admit flaws in those they follow slavishly. And perhaps worse than that, engage those who are completely uninterested in the very system that controls every aspect of their lives.

Given your recurring references to conspiracy theorists in this forum, you may be thinking that I have wondered into the lunatic fringe of conspiracists — attaching that label is an effective counter to radical change.

I find most conspiracy theories immensely entertaining. Not those sickening ideas surrounding Sandy Hook and the like. Then there are those that turned out to be true, such as MK-ULTRA, Project Sunshine, etc. Always worth a read, even when you know they're absolute barm-pots. AFAIK there's only one conspiracy theorist on here.

[local]

Cummings the puppet master, disaster capitalists,no deal Brexit etc, yep there's a conspiracy theorist on here.

[said]

Is this all because the bar and canteen is closed?

The Bar would not be closed! Heavens! You would not have ONE MP turn up in Parliament if it was.

[said]

AFAIK there's only one conspiracy theorist on here.


Here you are in Western civilisation, with all it has to offer to keep you informed, allow you to acknowledge, see and hear etc., and you talk like a redneck in the Boonies. Try a 5km run every morning until you pick up speed to keep up.

[Toodles McGinty]

and you talk like a redneck in the Boonies.

Which particular sentences match that definition?

[sandGroundZero]

Which particular sentences match that definition?

I think that might have been an allusion to a stereotypical 'slack-jawed yokel', e.g.

Cletus Spuckler, 'redneck in the boonies'

I advise taking umbrage.

[Toodles McGinty]

I think that might have been an allusion to a stereotypical 'slack-jawed yokel', e.g.

Cletus Spuckler, 'redneck in the boonies'

I advise taking umbrage.

More pity than umbrage. But as he is the master of Ctrl+c, Ctrl+v, it shouldn't be too difficult to point out the offending passages.

He'll be out stocking up on Bacofoil. Possibly pointing at masked shoppers, making 'pew pew' noises in case they are Cultural Marxists.

I'll wait.

[sandGroundZero]

…as he is the master of Ctrl+c, Ctrl+v, it shouldn't be too difficult to point out the offending passages.
…I'll wait. — T McGinty

My suspicion is, it was intended as a broad swipe at your posts, and your reasoning generally! Lashing-out, if you like because you've consistently failed to acknowledge his superior discernment.

Here you are in Western civilisation, with all it has to offer to keep you informed, allow you to acknowledge, see and hear etc., and you talk like a redneck in the Boonies.

[Toodles McGinty]

My suspicion is, it was intended as a broad swipe at your posts, and your reasoning generally! Lashing-out, if you like because you've consistently failed to acknowledge his superior discernment.

He regularly makes sweeping statements, yet never supplies validation. Like his 'Sandy Hook' theories, he knows he can't supply proof without a link to sites such as Infowars. And we all should know how reliable they are.

But if he ever shows any superior discernment, I'd be more than happy to acknowledge it.