The Non-Populism Delusion

Wiki:- A factor traditionally held to diminish the value of “Populism” as a category has been that, as Margaret Canovan notes in her 1981 study Populism, Populists rarely call themselves “Populists” and usually reject the term when it is applied to them.

So, it is Populist if we didn’t agree with it, and anything described as Populist that I voted for is incorrectly described.   Sounds familiar?

The real common thread that the label of #Populism often causes people to miss, is that of perceived modern democratic deficit, that of a need of better democracy, or rather one that acts as it should and sees the public in the correct way.  This is a growing requirement all the time and is now starting to make a significant change to national elections and views.  Politicians views do not gel with public requirements.  They live in a world where they are exposed to the public enough for people to be able to get a very good view of their philosophies and their psychologies.  We have reached a tipping point where the old politicians rules of avoidance and denial can be seen as not understanding their place as public employees.  Sure, the media try to trip them up, but when the questions are valid and the answers not, it becomes a problem.

The problem is that 1st we need to separate the term into its 2 parts: Being popular/more favoured purely in terms of votes received; and something akin to a craze or trend.
In the 2nd case, if something is a trend or craze, that means that it is explained without needing individual reasoning or argument. If something is popular, it is popular for a reason which we look to identify, but if it is populist, then we are saying that its somewhat without reason apart from just what everyone else is doing. So when we say something is populist, we can mean that it is without any reason or argument that can be made, except trend, but maybe we could mean that it is a little popular too, in which case there may have been some reason why it was popular. Basically, whatever is heavily voted for, whether it wins or loses, is going to be popular, but we don’t say populist, so we really mean the populist end of the popular/populist scope of populist.

It’s rather final as a term, because it allows us to believe that it has little logic driving its behaviour.

Then if the choice with logic isn’t that choice, its likely to be the opposite choice. So the very definition seems to add validity, wisdom, and balance to any opposing argument.

Anyone wishing to argue otherwise, is also arguing that your opinion isn’t the voice of reason that it so conveniently seemed to have become.

#Populism as we mean now, is a psychological trap, probably a sign of missing the real reason.
#Populism is a word allowing you to stroke your own ego. It often means that it had no valid reason except pure fashion, so i picked correctly.
#Populism is so psychologically convenient when not agreeing but of course sense prevailed when you do agree. either way, youre voice of reason!

I voted, but lost, but should have won.
Populism suggests no other real justification.
I voted but the populists won, I tried to save us, despite the illogical mob behaviour prevailing for no real reason, except that of hyping themselves up into a frenzy. if no reason, then i must have picked correctly. so it makes me correct by its use, correct and the voice moral reason despite the foolish masses.

It is a horrendously dangerous term, and causes any attempt to find reason have low expectations initially, and so the populists end up all being racist, or thick, or both, despite the fact that it’s probably not the case at all, and that one or 2 bad apples happened to tar a whole argument because you were already only looking to increase the power of your position by finding a worse reason than that of you original populism reason, which was bad enough in the first place.

4 Referendum Lessons from Brexit

originally posted here on- Jun 26, 2016 4:07 PM

The lessons to be learned

  • Poll created 50:50 Oscillation, as people change minds as they see their vote as more powerful and feel more empowered, and responsible for the outcome. Often these swinging voters see their vote as a sign of protest but worry about protesting too much and maybe causing change by winning, thus fixing a problem that means winning was the wrong choice, ie many oscillatory patterns.
  • Stay as is always have a lower turn out. More likely to see voting as less important.
  • Threats of consequences often have the opposite to intended effect, making people do exactly that thing.
  • Talk of preventing a further referenum is dangerous – causes people to believe they will never get another chance and so the question becomes “Remain the same forever or change now

The 50% Opinion Poll Effect

Camerons no 2nd referendum meant last chance?

A little love could have prevented Brexit

Lessons learned from Brexit

Search Google

What election results tell us

France

UK Referendum

USA Trump

In each case, the result shows people want change.  They want something other than what they see as a system that is only superficially dependent upon them, during elections, but the choices are “all the same”.  What people mean is that after elections, the people’s wishes are not in mirrored by their elected proxy, and it is really is far from what they see as democratic.  The public are a means to an end for most politicians.   They are useful as a tool when they want what the politician wants, to back up their argument, but for the most part are superfluous.

When the public are least likely to agree with a course of action, the more chance they wont be considered worth consulting.  The politicians know this, but don’t see it as necessary.

The public should be represented by their representative, in a way that mirrors how they would decide themselves.  It doesn’t require consultation necessarily always, if the politician does as they know they should really.

BUT, the public may not be able to choose without enough understanding in some cases,  is the argument that some MPs may offer.  In some cases this may be true, and can be fixed easily as you will see.    It also is rather a dangerous argument, as it may make the politician assume they know enough too easily,and become applied always afterwards to other situations.   What we need is a way for them to see what  the public who understand would decide.  It is often easy to assume if someone doesn’t agree that they aren’t up to speed, and so dismiss those that may understand better than yourself.

 

 

Buy British/American as the best start, but whats the best end?

As a start, if everybody particularly in these foreign deficit running countries just changed 1% of their shopping extra to buying their own nation’s product, then the result to their own pocket would be substantial. Less foreign deficit by a small amount can be enough to change the flow completely where it is running low, and hugely beneficial otherwise. This act of buying is amplified hugely, to the government, and the nation, and yourself ultimately, and quite effectively. As a basic rule, this is great.
At some point you run into a decision, when the choices are few. Do I buy from my own nations company, or a foreign, friendly company that supports our country maybe better. Maybe I buy British from a company that is listed on the stock exchange, and is based almost entirely abroad, where one or 2 directors may get too much money, that isn’t invested back into the nation, but just amassed, or spent abroad too, and all manufacture, and tax is paid abroad, ie the worst case scenario, or do I buy foreign, maybe a friendly country, that supports staff here or maybe pays tax here? Surely the 2nd alternative is better? You think about who spends more of their pay as opposed to saving, which is not necessarily good for a nation, especially where this saving accumulates over generations, here it is bad for government, and currency value, or is it? Where a country has sum total of double the currency in existence but at the same value, well, this provides a buffer, or rather a dependency on a currency being self stabilising over nasty events, even when hit hard, it will recover, okay harder to manipulate but not as hard as it should be, which is good for government. It has many advantages too, and in fact, the actual quantity of money unused to used, and its value, is important. We don’t want it to grow too much, sometimes quite the opposite, but it all depends upon others, and global normals and conditions and national currency and exchange needs and goals, depending on type of economy. Often, what we do has its context in that of others, but I digress.

Ultimately, there is a circular problem with exchange rates and cost of goods, as export and import and made and purchased domestically and not. Over the long-term, supporting self is self limiting, if still correct, as cost of goods and exchange rates change in favour of foreign, the harder you try, and this leads to further thinking, and a final position, which governments must adapt, a policy that is the only real policy to ensure a nation’s future, the best economic policy a national government could ever have, and must always adhere to, and it has nothing to do with how we started at all.
It is a policy that isn’t circular and self limiting in the way so many economic policies are when thought out.

How not to be an MP

  • You are a proxy for the electorate.  You work for them on their behalf.  You are not their chosen wise representative, or their better.
  • You should represent their wishes as if they had all the information about the relevant subject to make a decision, and pick that choice.
  • You are a flawed component with flawed knowledge in a flawed system and understanding this rather than considering yourself as the voice of sense that thankfully is there to choose right rather than choose democratically.
  • Your job security is not more important than what you do and choose in your job.
  • We really see straight through arrogance, and there’s a lot to see through.
  • Be all Arlene Foster isn’t and you are half way there.
  • So you accidentally nuked somewhere?  Just be honest and all will be forgiven.  You will be surprised.
  • You can do so much better.  Why don’t you?
  • Because your party is in power, it doesn’t mean we had any real choice.

 

End of rant.

 

 

Brexit as a moral decision

I love the U.K. and I see the E.U. as very important . I hoped that voting leave would cause the E.U. to take a look at why. I believed that if we had to leave to get it to fix itself then it was worth the sacrifice. It looked like it may, but now […]

I love the U.K. and I see the E.U. as very important .

I hoped that voting leave would cause the E.U. to take a look at why.

I believed that if we had to leave to get it to fix itself then it was worth the sacrifice.

It looked like it may, but now it has turned to fear which is causing the opposite.

It makes me angry when remain voters assume that I did this because of immigration, that their reasons were somehow better or more justified than mine, because they really weren’t.  I believe we can survive and thrive out of the E.U., but not as we are going, as ministers don’t quite get it.

I believe that us leaving is a price worth paying to cause the E.U. to fix itself, but im afraid it hasn’t helped.

I wish the vote was seen as not one person voting leave and one stay, but as the countries unhappiness with aspects of the E.U., its reservations about the direction  of the E.U. and yet  hope for it. the countries almost unified percentages showing agreement across the whole of the U.K..

The media (i watch the BBC)  is immoral and hugely damaging  at best, and should think first a lot more.

Even Theresa May is talking of differences.

my writing is falling apart…note to self, fix….never time to as more stuff comes…arrggghh

By Jim Cook of UK ThinkTank .com

Why UK Government gets old fast

grumbles on UK government in 21st century

  • Honesty would be lovely.  The PM could tell me she accidentally nuked most of Europe if she admitted she was drugged up with medication for her anxiety attacks and well, she thought it was another illusion.  Yup, the honesty would be lovely, awww bless her, i support her.
  • We see how government works now, and we dont like what we see.   We read about democracy & see something different.  We elect MPs as our proxies, but thats not how they view themselves.  They are the voice of reason to save us from our selves, but it goes further.  They know best and dont question whether they have it right.
  • They continue to tell themselves that selling off all our gold is too complex for us to really understand and there are reasons we dont see, really, now shussh.
  • For the most part we are useful to stick up for when it is convenient, but mostly an unwelcome annoyance.
  • We are easily appeased.  Here, ive added 50p to your grans pension.
  • We dont see the flaws with democracy.  Cameron said he wanted to look after his constituents after being PM, but as soon as it was clear he wasnt in the cabinet, he resigned.  stange huh??  At least it wasnt all about the power huh?  If PM pay isnt great, then the only reason to put yourself forward is power or to just help more people better.  Unfortunately, people that really help, dont want to get clogged down in office or more work getting in the way, usually, so generally dont volunteer.  Its the ones who dont ask who should get.
  • Cameron lost Brexit, was off, we all let him down, he deserved a few dodgy honours as reward, screw what they think, or how dare they question my motives.
  • Arlene Foster is just so damn important, more so than her country, or peace in it, how dare anyone question her that isnt on her high level.  Its her god given right, now shhh.

By Jim Cook of UK ThinkTank .com