# Wholesale change



## Amity Island (Jul 6, 2021)

I know it's "always been like this" but the past year or so has really brought it home about how badly our country is ran. The country is run like a badly run business, with no morals, no ethics, no love or genuine thought for the people it represents. I've seen basically no opposition over the past year and a half, no alternative views or ideas on dealing with anything. The media has gone silent on alternative opinions, it's like everyone has been silenced.

I really think we need a complete re-think in the way we are led.

What do you all think?


----------



## Inka (Jul 6, 2021)

“It is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it... anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job”.

Douglas Adams


----------



## Inka (Jul 6, 2021)

That wasn’t just a jokey response from me - I think it’s very true. People who’d make ideal leaders rarely want to do the job.

Also, our First Past The Post system leads to a competitive approach (and an unrepresentative government) whereas as Proportional Representation might lead to a more collaborative approach where people listen, talk and compromise to reach a consensus.


----------



## Inka (Jul 6, 2021)

And the motivation of many is very suspect. Few do it to make a difference, many do it for power, fame or personal gain. It’s all a game to them - say what gets you votes, plan ostentatious schemes that wither away into nothing, land verbal punches on your Opposition and congratulate yourself on your wonderfulness.


----------



## nonethewiser (Jul 6, 2021)

To keep government on its toes it needs effective opposition,  unfortunately we dont have one & not likely to have for some years to come, so this Tory rabble have free reign to behave as they want, not much we can do about.


----------



## pm133 (Jul 6, 2021)

Amity Island said:


> It wasn't a jokey like I left either lol. I totally agree. Also many of those leading are inherently sociopaths, because decent folk couldn't mentally handle the need for a lack of morals that go with leading. You have to have no empathy, morals, kindness, love in your heart to rule people.



Exactly.
You can't run a country on compassion and empathy because every single decision you make will kill someone, or cost them their job, or have unintended consequences which ruins the life of another.
You need people with the ability not to get bogged down in the death or trials and tribulations of a single person or even a small number of people otherwise you'd be paralysed when it comes to making decisions.

We might not want to invite these people for dinner but we probably do have a societal need for psychopaths on some level. Maybe just not the ones who like to make clothes out of the skin of other people....

Other than the suggestion I made a few weeks back about hung parliaments where people have to collaborate (as they need to do in Scotland) rather than fight constantly (as they do in Westminster) I have no idea what needs to change.

What would help in the meantime would be for the general public to set significantly more appropriate expectation levels of those in charge, to take a lot more personal responsibility, to stop waiting on politicians to tell them what to do and to stop constantly looking to blame politicians for every single thing that goes wrong in their lives.

Personally, I like my politicians, and indeed everyone else, to stay the hell out of my life as much as humanly possible. I hate undue interference and I hate being told what to do. If you want to see me go from 0 to 100 in under a picosecond, try telling me what to do.   
The less of that I have to suffer, the better. This last year has been a bloody nightmare for that.


----------



## pm133 (Jul 6, 2021)

Amity Island said:


> It wasn't a jokey like I left either lol. I totally agree. Also many of those leading are inherently sociopaths, because decent folk couldn't mentally handle the need for a lack of morals that go with leading. You have to have no empathy, morals, kindness, love in your heart to rule people.


I would say one thing though.
I'm not sure I agree with the idea of there being morals. And while we are at it, I am not convinced I believe there is such a thing as the closely related "virtue" either.
I'm having this debate with my daughter at the moment.
She thinks there is such a thing as morality and I think that what we're calling morals are actually societal norms which have been established historically as a need for those in charge to control others beneath them as a way of protecting their wealth. That includes organised religion.

I should add that I see no fundamental difference between ourselves and other animals. I don't believe we are somehow higher beings or that we are somehow more intelligent than other animals. Yes we can do quantum mechanics which cheetahs and hippos notoriously struggle with but they don't deliberately pollute the water they drink or burn so many fossil fuels to make plastic toys that they cause global warming. No other species has "morals", "virtue" or "compassion" either. I think we just use these labels to mask what is truly at the heart of our motives - personal gain (even if just to feel better about ourselves).

In my mind, there are simply things which produce good outcomes for a varying number of people. But virtually every one of them also produces a negative for many others. And things we do "purely out of the goodness of our hearts" are nothing of the sort in my opinion. A lot of it is about feeling better for ourselves or assuaging our own feelings of guilt.

We have had a ton of coffee and cake over these chats but neither of us can agree yet. Both of us are finding plenty of arguments to undermine each others points of view so we're still thinking it over. 

Anyway, enough wittering from me for now.


----------



## Docb (Jul 7, 2021)

Sounds to me as if some of you guys should get your selves on ballot papers, get elected and then start to change things!


----------



## pm133 (Jul 7, 2021)

Amity Island said:


> You've raised some really good points.
> 
> 1. I agree about morals being a societal norm rather than a thing per se. But that doesn't mean contracts can't be given       via a proper tendered process rather than given direct to mates. Or that truth can't be told instead of non-truths or          lies.
> 2. I agree us humans are no more important or necessarilty intelligent than any other animals.
> ...



I do find it interesting to think about this stuff.
On your point 3, I'm not persuaded at all that there's such a thing as "selfless acts". The word selfish/selfless is probably not a helpful one because of it's ties to the idea of morality but I can't think of a better word. People who do those "selfless acts" are doing it because it makes them feel better about themselves or because it makes them feel less guilty or perhaps in extreme cases out of self-preservation because they are afraid of the consequences of not doing something. If none of those was true, I believe they wouldn't do them. I genuinely can't think of a single selfless act but you're welcome to challenge me on that.

As for point 4, I think it comes down to the fact that we simply expect too much in general from our politicians. We hold them to higher standards than we hold ourselves. You're right that this doesn't excuse bad behaviour, lying or corruption from them but the general feeling I have is that we demand way too much.

Your last paragraph is very interesting and I need to think about that. Off the top of my head, two things I want to see is firstly a lot more personal responsiblity. If we had just that one change, the NHS wouldn't be in the crap, our social security system wouldn't be creaking, our country wouldn't be drowning in plastic waste and people would be considerably more happy. I like the idea of minimal government.

The second thing would be that outside of crime, no human should have the right to force their will on another human being. Nobody should be telling anyone else what to do with their life. Nobody should be judging the life choices of another human. That extends to things like a person's sexuality, abortion, euthanasia (for any reason whatsoever), voluntary hysterectomies (a lot of women simply don't want children and should have the right to end years of period pain and invocenience if that is what they personally choose), sex changes, whatever. It's a person's body. Nobody has the right to make those decision for other people as long as they are old enough to make those decisions (16+ and for some things maybe even younger). It's their bodies, their rights. If they can find someone to perform any necessary procedure that should be the end of the discussion. A lot more acceptance of that would make the world a lot nicer.

Not sure about the commune thing. It wouldn't be for me. Frankly, if I had the money I'd be off to a private island to live out the rest of my days as far from other humans as possible. As Homer Simpson once said (and I might have previously posted this), "I like the idea of humanity. It's just humans I hate".


----------



## Ditto (Jul 7, 2021)

I think it's always been like this in some way or another, it's just humans. I try not to stress about it, I often want to lay about me with a big stick.  If you change things they revert back soon enough. Waste of time.


----------



## pm133 (Jul 7, 2021)

Dxxoo said:


> I think it's always been like this in some way or another, it's just humans. I try not to stress about it, I often want to lay about me with a big stick.  If you change things they revert back soon enough. Waste of time.


That's the spirit. 
Have you've changed your username again?

When I click on your username it asks me if I want to "reprieve" you.
But I have no idea what crime you've committed so I'm scared to click it.


----------



## Ditto (Jul 7, 2021)

I can't make up my mind! I've always been Ditto on the 'net ever since 2001 but I got bored.


----------



## pm133 (Jul 7, 2021)

Dxxoo said:


> I can't make up my mind! I've always been Ditto on the 'net ever since 2001 but I got bored.


Ah OK.
The "reprieve" thing I see when I click your username is actually the last thread you posted on.
Got it now.
When I click on my own name it says "Wholesale change".
If only.......


----------



## Robin (Jul 7, 2021)

pm133 said:


> On your point 3, I'm not persuaded at all that there's such a thing as "selfless acts". The word selfish/selfless is probably not a helpful one because of it's ties to the idea of morality but I can't think of a better word. People who do those "selfless acts" are doing it because it makes them feel better about themselves or because it makes them feel less guilty or perhaps in extreme cases out of self-preservation because they are afraid of the consequences of not doing something. If none of those was true, I believe they wouldn't do them. I genuinely can't think of a single selfless act but you're welcome to challenge me on that.


I think there is an innate 'gut reaction' sometimes to help. You see it most strongly with parents who run to push their child out of the way of a speeding car, irrespective of their own safety, and OK, this is a hardwired parental reaction, but it does spill over into helping strangers without thinking. Nobody calculates, 'I'd better stop and look as if I’m helping this old lady who’s fallen over, otherwise it’ll look bad', or 'If I stop and help I’ll feel so much better about myself' in the split second it takes to react. People instinctively run to make sure they’re OK, or help them up etc. I agree this is limited, it's an entirely different matter to rush to a stranger's help if you risk injury yourself. I can quite see that I would yell and wave at the bus driver about to run a stranger over, rather than risk my life by rushing out under its wheels to push them out of the way, but that would be a split second calculation, and I think instinct would tell me to do something, rather than nothing at all.


----------



## pm133 (Jul 7, 2021)

Robin said:


> I think there is an innate 'gut reaction' sometimes to help. You see it most strongly with parents who run to push their child out of the way of a speeding car, irrespective of their own safety, and OK, this is a hardwired parental reaction, but it does spill over into helping strangers without thinking. Nobody calculates, 'I'd better stop and look as if I’m helping this old lady who’s fallen over, otherwise it’ll look bad', or 'If I stop and help I’ll feel so much better about myself' in the split second it takes to react. People instinctively run to make sure they’re OK, or help them up etc. I agree this is limited, it's an entirely different matter to rush to a stranger's help if you risk injury yourself. I can quite see that I would yell and wave at the bus driver about to run a stranger over, rather than risk my life by rushing out under its wheels to push them out of the way, but that would be a split second calculation, and I think instinct would tell me to do something, rather than nothing at all.


Agree with that.
Interesting that the "do something" response might well be to completely freeze.
I've been in situations where I've dived in and situations where I've frozen.
There was never any conscious though at all and certainly neither bravery nor cowardice.
Given time to actually think about the situation I'd probably walk away if the risk looked too high.

For this reason, I'm really uncomfortable with the idea of calling people "heroes" for things like that and it really annoys me when people play up to that title.
When I saw the daughter of that 100 year old bloke Tom, who did the charity thing for the NHS, accepting a seat in the Royal Box at Wimbledon and then milking applause from the crowd, I wanted to throw things at my PC screen. I may have sworn quite loudly.


----------



## pm133 (Jul 7, 2021)

Amity Island said:


> "Off the top of my head, two things I want to see is firstly a lot more personal responsiblity. If we had just that one change, the NHS wouldn't be in the crap, our social security system wouldn't be creaking, our country wouldn't be drowning in plastic waste and people would be considerably more happy. I like the idea of minimal government."
> 
> Very true! some very valid points you make.



On that point. NHS hospitals in Grampian and Lanarkshire (I think) have just had to issue a plea to people to stop turning up to A&E in their *hundreds* for things like headaches and insect bites and now they are being overwhelmed. 

Some people are saying "well if they can't get a GP appointment what else do you expect".

Such people should tied in weighed down heavy-duty hessian bags and made to walk the plank.
The rank entitlement.....


----------



## pm133 (Jul 7, 2021)

Amity Island said:


> They are known as saints I believe! lol
> 
> I think we can do things selflessly, we just don't do it often enough.



Name one selfless act and I'll see if I can knock it down by showing an ulterior motive. 
If I can't, I'll apologise and agree to do something embarassing of your personal choice (make it legal). 

Oh and "saints" LOL.


----------



## mikeyB (Jul 8, 2021)

I regularly donate to good (in my opinion) causes. £25 a month goes to DUK, a similar amount to Christian Aid, not because I’m a Christian, they are just a reliable charity who don’t abuse the people they are helping. Children in Need gets £500. The list goes on. I don’t feel any better for doing these things, like helping people who need aid via a GoFund me.

No, I give money to all these causes out of duty. I have more money than most folk on the forum, and it’s always been drummed into me to help those worse off than yourself.


----------



## mikeyB (Jul 8, 2021)

I think it’s a bit unfair to pick on footballers. It’s only the top players that get loads of money, and even then only for a few years.

But you are right, the gap between the top “earners” in business and the workers in that business has been getting wider and wider. In the sixties a business manager might have been paid three or four times the wage of his employees. Now it’s at least 20 times as much, and often more. For the same “work”. That’s the key - what you _earn_, and what you get paid has become severely distorted by greed.

And still, in England, success is still heavily dependent on which school and university you attended. Not in football or Rugby League, but for sure in cricket and Rugby Union. And the Civil Service and Judiciary. I don’t need to mention the government, either. We all know what’s going on there.


----------



## pm133 (Jul 8, 2021)

Amity Island said:


> I think selflessness can be defined as love. Being a loving parent can be defined as being selfless. You do so many things for your kids with absolutely no expectation of a reward or anything in return nor with the aim of getting any good feelings for yourself, you just do it.....selflessly.



That's a great suggestion but easily rebuffed.

No idea how many kids you have but as a parent of 3 grown up kids myself, it's not that simple.
If you talk to any parent you'll hear stories of stress, frustration and most of all, guilt about not meeting the expectations of what a parent is supposed to be doing. You spend your whole life giving your kids love. The reward is in seeing them unconditionally love you back. Then when they hit their teenage years you'll enter the realm of perhaps a decade or more of trying to get their attention. Then they leave home in their 20s and you're left behind. Someone else now gets their full attention and you get the odd glimpse 2-3 times every year. You struggle to cope with being effectively abandoned in all but name. You may not like their life partner but you'll never be more important to your kid than their partner now is. The struggle to find new purpose in your life is very real and very painful for most parents.
There's a lot more self absorption and navel gazing than most people will admit to.

Oh and love is not selfless either. Love is always conditional. Try loving someone who doesn't love you and you'll see what I mean. Try loving your kid and seeing them constantly misbehave and ignore everything you do. If you were right, no harm would be done to the one doing the loving. The opposite is almost always true. Not being loved back is hugely damaging to the person doing the loving. That damage can be lifelong.

But to end on a positive note, and I am a very optimistic person, I wouldn't trade a second of it. It's all part of the fun of life. You can't have highs without risking lows.


----------



## pm133 (Jul 8, 2021)

Amity Island said:


> It just seems that making money/fame is the aim of virtually everything and everyone.
> 
> If one is ill, who do you call? A millionaire or a doctor? What if your car breaks down, do you call a millionaire? Yet many worship those with money/fame, they give them too much "credit" for it, like it's somethiing to aspire to.
> 
> These are just parts of the problem with the way the country is led and the current culture.


You are talking about people taking more personal responsibility and then you go on to say that rich people should simply hand over their cash to others.

Taking personal responsibility is just that. Forget what other people are earning. Forget the idea of "fairness". There's no such thing as "fair". If life was fair, kids wouldn't get cancer. None of us would have diabetes. Personal responsibility is about dealing with all of that and getting on with making the best of life with the tools at your disposal. We live in a free country with free education, free healthcare, nearly full employment compared to most other countries - many of those jobs being extremely well paid, a still very valuable university system and a host of rich people looking to invest in anyone with a good idea for a business and funding opportunities everywhere. It's a good thing that we look after the weakest in society and provide a safety net for those in trouble and as a society I think we can and should do a lot better in that regard BUT people need to get on with things and stop whining and blaming others for the situation they find themselves in. It isn't healthy.

Oh and for the love of ALL that is holy, stop hero worshipping other people. There are no icons, idols or heroes anywhere. Just other humans doing their day to day jobs. Some of them make us dance, sing, laugh or cry. Some of them might save us one day and some of them might prolong our lives. Some of them make things which improve our lives and some of them clean up after us or do difficult things for us. All of them get paid for it. Most of them handsomely. We shouldn't be looking up to any of them because in doing so we are by default looking down on ourselves and that is the opposite of taking personal responsibility. That goes for politicians, footballers, musicians, ex-war veterans and especially the royal family.


----------



## pm133 (Jul 8, 2021)

Amity Island said:


> I was fully expecting that repsonse. I think we don't shar ethe same understanding.
> 
> One can love and accept others as they are, love life and all it throws at you, we can love regardless, love not dependant upon an outcome. It's not always easy to do, but the world changes when you accept people and situations as they come.



I agree. I think we probably don't.
So you are happy to love someone who doesn't love you back without getting emotionally hurt?


----------



## Nayshiftin (Jul 8, 2021)

pm133 said:


> I would say one thing though.
> I'm not sure I agree with the idea of there being morals. And while we are at it, I am not convinced I believe there is such a thing as the closely related "virtue" either.
> I'm having this debate with my daughter at the moment.
> She thinks there is such a thing as morality and I think that what we're calling morals are actually societal norms which have been established historically as a need for those in charge to control others beneath them as a way of protecting their wealth. That includes organised religion.
> ...


I love analysing things like this as there is always two sides or more than one if we start to think deeper to most things. Morals are rather puritanical do you think? Our egalitarian  and cosmopolitans will again differ to all social norms and then there is culture and ethnicity as well as so on and so on. I rarely think any of us are perfect however I love my pedestals. Then off course I take them down if I think they upset me as in type 2 is just due to being fat but in my case the truth hurts. Then I think why can there not be life where you can eat and enjoy and not think about food night and day. Sleep is a wonderful escape, after all i usually weigh less in the morning than evening. According to the chart I am too short for my weight that's all. Maybe my Hbac1 will be lower this time but will it stop me being diabetic. I wonder. I just love to witter too so if you fancy a chat maybe sometime we could have a witter together.


----------



## pm133 (Jul 11, 2021)

Nayshiftin said:


> Morals are rather puritanical do you think?


Certainly many of our "morals" come from control by those in charge of organised religions so there is a puritanical aspect to some of them.
Interestingly, you mention one serious side effect of this which is guilt and self-loathing. Neither of these are good things.


----------



## pm133 (Jul 11, 2021)

Amity Island said:


> I didn't mention the rich handing their cash over. What I am talking about is having a more equal share of the profits. Rather than the directors getting 99% of the profit, instead, pay the staff a greater share of the profits. That's what I meant in my previous post about perhaps a co-operative.


There's no doubt that staff should be sharing in any profits a publicly listed company makes.
Private companies are a different matter and I'm less sure about that.
The difference is in who is taking the biggest financial risk.
With private companies, it's generally the owner themselves putting their mortgage on the line.

The other aspect to all of this though is this nagging feeling that if employees don't like their terms, conditions and pay they should stop whining and start up their own businesses if they think it's that easy. There's no doubt we have far too many people allowing themselves to become dependent on other people whilst simultaneously complaining that they are getting a raw deal.

So I'm in two minds really and haven't formed a final position on all of this.


----------



## pm133 (Jul 11, 2021)

Amity Island said:


> That is nearer to the definition of attachment rather than unconditional love. What I am trying to say is we can just accept people as they are. We have little control over the world anyway, why not just love people however they come, for their whims, struggles, faults. Love is unconditional. I do however understand how it can be hurtful in some cases when that love is not appreciated.


And my question to you would then be, where does that hurt come from? If love truly is unconditional, why does unreciprocated love hurt?


----------



## Sally71 (Jul 11, 2021)

pm133 said:


> There's no doubt that staff should be sharing in any profits a publicly listed company makes.
> Private companies are a different matter and I'm less sure about that.
> The difference is in who is taking the biggest financial risk.
> With private companies, it's generally the owner themselves putting their mortgage on the line.
> ...


I’ve always thought along those lines, I’ve never understood why people think that going on strike is a good thing.  If you hate your job/conditions/pay so much then start looking for a new job and leave as soon as you can.  If you can’t be bothered to do that, well it isn’t so bad then so stop moaning and get on with it!


----------



## pm133 (Jul 11, 2021)

Sally71 said:


> I’ve always thought along those lines, I’ve never understood why people think that going on strike is a good thing.  If you hate your job/conditions/pay so much then start looking for a new job and leave as soon as you can.  If you can’t be bothered to do that, well it isn’t so bad then so stop moaning and get on with it!


There's two sides to it as far as I can see.
There are people following the career they love and being forced to endure working practices which are unacceptable. Under those circumstances I have a lot of sympathy for people standing up to that and taking appropriate action (excluding striking which typically causes significant damage to everyone except those imposing the unacceptable practices - that includes teaching, nursing, doctors, police, fire brigade, lecturere etc).

The vast majority of jobs are just that though - jobs. If one is crap, get another one. To me this is down to a lack of personal responsibility, too much dependency on others and in many cases probably saddling yourself with a lifestyle which requires a certain level of income which would be difficult to match elsewhere. Getting into THAT self-inflicted position and then whining about your job is not something I can understand at all.
I'm not sure whether this was my upbringing or whether it was just within me but this abdiction of any level of meaningful personal responsibility is baffling to sit and watch. When my kids displayed an ounce of it even as very young kids, I always pulled them up on it immediately and asked them what they intended to do to improve things. You have to focus on what is within your power wherever possible.


----------



## pm133 (Jul 12, 2021)

Amity Island said:


> Because not every parent gives their love unconditionally. Some parents don't even want their kids let alone love them.



Which is exactly my point.
I don't know of anyone who wouldn't be hurt by their kids rejecting them emotionally.
Neither do I know of anyone who loves another person when that person doesn't love them back and doesn't suffer from it emotionally.

Human nature just seems to demand validation. It all appears to be about the self. I don't believe for one second that anybody truly cares more about others than they care about themselves. Survival wouldn't be possible without it being like this I suspect.
Without this core characteristic, I expect humans would have become extinct many years ago.
We are selfish by design.

So that then begs the obvious question - why do we criticise others for having this characteristic when we all have it?


----------



## Hepato-pancreato (Jul 16, 2021)

I think Piers Morgan would make a good Prime Minister. Love him or hate him when he was on Gmb, he did try to hold the government to account. One thing i noticed was he wanted truthful answers from his interviewees. Truth will out. As was proved after the whole debacle of the Oprah programme.


----------



## trophywench (Jul 17, 2021)

I was cheered up the other day when Baroness Boothroyd - aka Betty, ex Tiller Girl and Speaker of the lower House - took the current PM to task.  Lindsey Hoyle has tried so many times - but she told him in no uncertain terms that he was in contempt of Parliament!


----------



## Barfly (Jul 17, 2021)

In my long life I have met many politicians and would-be politicians.
I firmly believe with all those I have met, a big part of the reason to stand for office has been truly altruistic, a genuine desire to make a positive difference to the lives of the people they represent.

Unfortunately, once ensnared by the system they are inevitably drawn into the party political nexus and very soon become the individuals they so wanted to remove and replace.

Our present system is seriously broken.   The first past the post electoral system ensures the continuance of the binary revolving door of labour and tory governments.  It is in their interest to maintain the status quo.
The only way of breaking the 2 main parties stranglehold on power is for there to be a hung Parliament and the minor parties to insist on electoral reform before forming a coalition with either main party.

However, a Parliament with a plethora of minor parties will never have the same ease of taking immediate action that OBL Bojo and his mates with a massive majority have enjoyed during the pandemic.  They are basically able to rule by decree with this majority.   Some say it is a good thing in a dire emergency for the country when rule by committee may take an age to take appropriate action.
I personally believe it is a really bad thing for our democracy when a government is given virtual carte blanche to enact whatever legislation takes their fancy.


----------



## mikeyB (Jul 28, 2021)

A private education didn't stop old Etonian Clement Attlee and his mates in the 1945 Labour government (which included from 1947 a cousin of my great gran, George Tomlinson as Minister for Education) providing us with the NHS, free health and and dental care, free eye care, National Insurance, nationalised the railways and coal, gas and electric, the "Welfare State". Whatever you might think of those decisions, those politicians stuck to their principles through the teeth of opposition, particularly from the Tories and the BMA on health, an antagonism only bought out by making GP private contractors, a situation which exists to this day. The Tories have never abandoned their dislike of the NHS.

I should add, George Tomlinson was not an old Etonian.


----------

