Posted: March 18, 2016 in Chat

I have been watching a tiresome TV series on British TV, all to do with aging spies, and MI5 and Government machinations. Yawn.

But what irritated So much was/is the tendency to address government figures by their roles: Yes, Prime Minister, No Prime Minister etc (You could imagine the PM in this series as physically saving the world from alien invasion: yes, he was one of those). In 10 years of power ‘his decisions have been and continue to be sound and balanced’!
To get through a week with one person’s balanced decisions would be a feat.
And for one person’s decisions to decide for a nation…! Absolute tosh.

A Prime Minister is a position, role, that has existed for centuries and will maybe exist for more.

It is Not the person. The person has to try to live up to the post.

Same with Senators, Congressmen, Presidents – the person has to strive to live up to the position they have been designated. And if anybody thinks, in all their insufferable arrogance, that they have achieved/attained their role, then they are only showing by how much they have failed. And should be sacked.

I remember an essay I wrote years ago and writing how a government was only as good as its opposition. That a vigilant and strong opposition could curtail, alter and moderate the more wayward decisions every party in power is capable of.
This is not coalition politics but the kind that keeps decision making relevant. Maybe.


The UK is on the up! Hooray!

Well, any improvement on nothing is improvement, yes?.

And nothing is what we were reduced to. Of course, we are pressured into forgetting all that.

Does anybody else feel that this great striving for Debt Reduction amounts to pie-in-the-sky, that a time of Reduced Debt, never mind No Debt, is a Never-Never Land?
Indeed, there are some economists horrified by the prospect of a No Debt economy.

Maybe it is that the future of communities and Global communities is not to subject generations of people to cut-backs and skeleton services (with all the horrors of bad and inadequate services that stem from that), the increasingly vicious employment practices – but to re-source wealth and expectations, live on human levels. That is, not chase increasingly unreal expectations that aggressive markets require of us.

Maybe we should crowd-source government policies. One US Candidate was doing that. I would like to know something of the psychology of crowds in crowd-sourcing, of the ranges of people contactable for crowd-sourcing before any of that is taken seriously, though. Were they really crowd-sourced, or were they the narrow demographic of an agency providing such information?

Then again, it is shocking how much of our knowledge of government, business, industry, the City, is provided by TV and newspapers. Neither sources we would trust out of our sight (how they make us believe we are helpless, powerless); they make us distrust our neighbours but trust strangers with our money.

Just as the templates for our expectations of life-style, living requirements, are all provided for us by aggressive advertising. And along with that, our behaviour, thinking-circuits and verbal and body responses all provided for us my film/movie and TV.

The past Was a different country – 100 years ago we would seem unrecognizable to our then contemporaries. Not better, note, but so different they would probably secretly despise us – for our narcissism and selfishness mostly.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s