Its us that didnt vote Brexit & Trump who may be deluded???

 

We are in an incredibly difficult situation to surmount!!

You see, say an unpleasant ex-murderer who killed an employee of his investing company, for not making large enough profits, goes for election against a vanilla politician, and the world watch. We find we don’t like him.
But its us who can and will be critical. The voters have to decide more from a perspective of what is best for the country, weighing up all factors, but weighting them differently. They will be unhappy about bits, but still may see the answer very differently from us.

Now, observers such as us and any who voted for vanilla, believe that we are morally superior, and see anyone who voted for the unpleasant candidate as unpleasant people, maybe stupid too. They didn’t see the situation as we did. If no vote had occurred, or no one voted for him, then all people are the same. It takes people to vote for him to raise us up above them. We are brighter, more moral, and that’s because there was 1 correct answer, ours, as theirs was wrong, lesser, less intelligent, less moral. We have entered a state of righteousness that is artificial. It doesn’t exist without others being judged as wrong and flawed.
We now are unwilling to consider that we may have picked differently if we were voting. We will not be able to consider that some analysed every situation, every route forward, future states and options etc. And saw that that choice was much better for the country and all of our futures, and picked him still. Our new morality is dependent on his voters being immoral and stupid.
We are on top. Why look up? no one can be there, right?
Would we find another explanation if we did look up? They shouldnt be up there. They are just deluded, perhaps?
We are stuck in our own trap!  And it applies to all,  The BBC find the objectionable people it only believes exist.  It’s all anti-immigrant.  Proud racists are easy to find,  when they want to be, and are all searched for.

Now Brexit voters  know hiding is wise, because, they will never persuade anyone they are something that destroys the moral perch of whoever interviews them.  You are pretending it’s about other matters, but its immigration really.  You are fighting  war you can’t win.   Never has news a society been in such a bubble of fiction.

Advertisements

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.

The UK Un-Constitution fixing Government

How the act of deciding not to have a written constitution may solve the problems better

chbrain2“There was recently a definite movement towards something that has at the moment been named a written constitution”

“It seems that some feel a need for this thing”

“But what is it we actually need?”

“There are definite arguments against a written constitution as well as for”

“This hole that is wished filled, is for something, but a written constitution is not the answer to the problem.  What is the problem that some feel needs filling?  Is there a better solution.  One that looks at the problem at a different level, and so keeps our flexible system as is, yet provides more clarity and is felt more useful, more important, more relevant by the public and the government”

“No change at all to our constitution,  but a meta-constitution.  A definition of terms, such as government, democracy, MP, Minister, PM, Party, Public, Elected official etc.   A list of flaws, maybe even views of each from each others perspective.  No views considered wrong to start with.  An ideal direct pure democracy, as defined as everyone deciding directly in every matter, and the majority decision being followed.  But we have a practical democracy of elected proxies.  They are our trusted choices that we elect to do as we would wish, if we had the time to research every matter fully and had full knowledge of the matter we were voting upon and its implications.  They should do as we would, if we all could.  ”

“MPs should vote as their electorate would, if they all had full knowledge.  Now, sure, MPs shouldnt necessarily vote as their electorate see things, and their argument that they have to protect us from bad decisions is valid,  however, it is dangerous.  They should be voting as their electorate would wish if fully informed.  An attitude that they are there to decide for us, because we are incapable, is a problem.  The assumption that they are in full knowledge of the facts and their implications is maybe taken too quickly or easily when they see or believe they are ‘above’ their electorate.  It can lead to a belief that if they are better, they are fit to decide.  This may prevent them from seeing that they need to understand the problem and its implications properly.  It can lead to a kind of arrogance perhaps.”

“When people see their MPs voting in a way that is obviously not as a proxy for a fully informed public (ie. when the subject is more straightforward, so that more of the population see their decision is not as theirs would be),  then the public see this as a kind of arrogant abuse of their position as a servant, as a proxy, as a trusted representative, and often it seems as though their MP believes they are incapable of being in the position of one of many that is used to shape that MPs decision.  The MP is now on their own, their own proxy, and talk of an electorate is just that of convenience when it suits them.  This is a problem”

“I suppose I am conservative in my views, but here the problem looks worse most often.  One event is just that, one event, but several, slightly suspicious events, becomes a pattern.  Unfortunately every small thing adds up and paints a picture.  The last PM can give honours to his favourite dog walker if he wants, he’s done his part, and he tried, and it didn’t go his way, and well, I can kind of see he tried, and well, he felt he did his best, and now he is off, and so why not look after those close.  Then deciding staying to represent his constituents was what he wanted, even after being PM, but oh, no cabinet position for me? actually, im out of here.  One thing alone is nothing, but things add up, and tar all im afraid.  I can’t say those actions were a problem for him.  They were a problem for the party, because they were the honesty at the end, that lingers on and ends up adding to the conservative picture, that picture of how the world sees conservative MPs, as a mix of all the stories of all of them, averaged out.  I see real hope with our new MP,  I really do.  She is the once in a lifetime PM for me.  I really know she sees the world how I want her to, and I hear her saying what I was just thinking.   I just hope it doesn’t all collapse around impatience.  Theres so much she could do, that is so easy.   We do a lot, that people don’t know about.  We have so much good news we havent taken advantage of. Anyway, I digress…”

“So, back to the Meta-Constitution….   A statement of definitions, goals, roles, flaws, fairly expressed, all sides views are important, government need the tools, the ability to work better, more enjoyably, more efficiently.  This should address it all.  A statement of bounds, the ideal, where questions and decisions are worded unfairly, or good bundled with a little bad to get bad through.  The government actually do quite well digitally, and yet, there are small areas where it could all be made to shine that they just miss.  The PM really is sitting on gold.  You send a message to government and you know you may as well be deleting it instead and saving everyone the time of not reading it. They don’t want to read most the almost identical nonsense emails, i suppose.  It would be so easy to cut public emails down vastly, and have less to read, yet everybody get more out of the system.   As a software developer,  I can see several places where almost nothing would become everything.  Where it can all be put together.  God knows why it hasn’t.  And I digress again…..”

Shelved Constitution

You have shelved the written constitution.  I understand the thinking behind one but suggest it wasnt the answer, there is a better one.  I suggest we solve the real problem in a better easier way that is more effective and popular for you.

Better way and why

We need a contract, definition, or a statement of role, goals or purpose, and I will explain why this is what will fill that public need, and make you popular, but allow you more control.

The real way

A definition of our representative democracy, MP’s, government, and publics’ purpose and goals.
A definition of a democracy, a representative democracy, electorate’s, MP’s, and government minister and employees purpose, and maybe a discussion of real world flaws

Public problem with government

The real problem is that government still behaves as they did 100 years ago, as if they have the power over life and death of the public rather than as working on behalf of the public.
People understand what democracy is defined as, and see that is not what they are getting.  Their MPs don’t act as their proxies, even as a proxy for a public in full possession of the facts to decide correctly.  They consider themselves the last line of defence of the public choosing badly, which prevents introspection into their own lack of understanding.

How to not do it

MPs like Arlene Foster who put herself and her job above peace, and play chicken with NI.
Her fault or not, her job is to look after NI above all else.  She is not in employment court, yet she treats it like that.

 

 

James Cook

UKThinkTank.com


 

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

Leaving the EU to save it – Brexit

You wouldn’t believe that Europe was more important to some leave voters than any stay voters?

If you are worried about populism, you have seen self destructive illogical behaviour recently.  Analysts got it all wrong and explained it as the less educated choosing racist or nationalist views over self benefit.  You can see this too.
So you wouldn’t believe that some of these people put you above themselves?  You wouldn’t believe that Europe was more important to some leave voters than any stay voters?  What if your views had prevented these peoples sacrifice from being understood?  What if you were the biased one??

Nobody believed it would happen.  Not even those that voted for it.

Maybe someone would vote for something they didnt want??  Maybe to send a message?  Given the result being unchangeable, maybe rather than voting for, voting against could send a message that you had reservations.

What if the unexpected then happened? You voted for what you didnt want but didnt expect it?  Explain that without feeling silly.

What if then you hoped that the cost was worth it if it made a difference, but what if the message never arrived and  the sacrifice was for nothing?

A danger is to not see that maybe people cause what they dont want, to lose any message, to treat simply and allow others to hold it out as an example for their right wing parties.

By Jim Cook of UK ThinkTank .com

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 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, asministers don’t quite get it.

Ibelieve 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