Today a report comes out that deals with the way wefunddemocracy . . . . but it seems to have a strange limit to its suggestions, seeing "democracy" as "labour/libdems/tories/greens/etc" - the groups alone - without seeing the needs of actual democracy at all.Even so - attempts to stitch even this attempt to clean up democracy abound. . . .
The "options" seem to miss a certain set of logic. If these things happen in football we call it criminal. Yet we "allow" the arm-twisting, brow-beating, the promises of "aid" if people in the U.N. support the current U.S.A. administrations (Harvard-trained) choice of "Asian" UN Secretary, tolerate a bunch of "commissars" going from voter to voter as the Venezuela / Guatamala two-year seat with the "big" powers decisions go from 10th to 11th round . . . .
The attempts to frame the debate in advance are so "in your face" it makes you laugh. It was all supposed to get a rejection from the public in the spirit of "havent these MPs already fleeced you?" - rather than "so who IS buying them, what are they getting, doesnt this distort democracy a bit?"
The deeper questions have to get asked too, but DONT let THAT shoddy spin-job con ANYBODY.
The "report" is "interim" - that means its the bloke thats putting the report together saying "this aint my last word about it - but this is the sort of thing I'm coming up with - so far - but - what do you lot think ?" - so, you actually ARE asked for comments. DO !
4 options - as yet. (BUT!. . . . )
: same "status quo" - with retouching.
: increase public info about who donates what, with some further control over the total amount spent by each group
: actual limits to the amount anybody donates (ditto corporations, etc)
: "increasing public funds"
. . . . ( you see the bias already)
- increasing public funds might mean matching donations (double-yer-bribe!? less so if "capped", or "members/registered voters", but a bit of a bias towards the "WE are the place for the UPPER MIDDLE CLASS/ HIGH INCOME peoples purses. . . I mean, votes. (poor people also allowed, but dont frighten the horses . . . i mean, "serious"big funders. . . . or even the very, VERY "lucky" frivolous funders.
- increasing public funds might mean a flat "support" to each group, perhaps in relation to votes, voter preference, seats, or what happened after the second world war - oops - thats the UN, sorry. ( you comprehend how stupid it is for people to ask for respect for every resolution when sensible people say "but - thats the way things ARE." "QUITE. SO BLOODY SORT IT - WHATS KEPT YOU FROM SORTING IT AGES AGO?"
Quite. So, back to the bungs, the stitch-ups, the prevention of progress (OR modernisation!) in the actual "thoughtful, decision-making, democratic bit of society.
Hundreds of years ago - even earlier than !066 - the jury system was a serious step forward. Bit of a backslide since then, though, eh.
The gleam at the end of the tunnel isnt entirely fools gold though . . . . in the last bit of " - increasing public funds might mean" the reference to "targetting" funds for democratic THINGs - might allow some common sense to sneak in.
Above the groupings, the debates, the information we get to actually come up with decisions, the meetings - equivalents of "commitees" in parliament, but perhaps that have "virtual" discussion groups, with coherent, fact-based, easy to re-research, easy for anybody to engage with - (linux/scientific/engineers-style purposeful chats) or even support the actual thinking that is often the "nursery slopes" of ideas that are everybodys "mainstream logic" a bit later - the bookshops - the gatherings - the workshops that come up with the actual ideas that offer serious democracy a fun way to grow - for the good of ALL - as much as for the "people that bung".
input!
The attempts to frame the debate in advance are so "in your face" it makes you laugh. It was all supposed to get a rejection from the public in the spirit of "havent these MPs already fleeced you?" - rather than "so who IS buying them, what are they getting, doesnt this distort democracy a bit?"
The deeper questions have to get asked too, but DONT let THAT shoddy spin-job con ANYBODY.
The "report" is "interim" - that means its the bloke thats putting the report together saying "this aint my last word about it - but this is the sort of thing I'm coming up with - so far - but - what do you lot think ?" - so, you actually ARE asked for comments. DO !
4 options - as yet. (BUT!. . . . )
: same "status quo" - with retouching.
: increase public info about who donates what, with some further control over the total amount spent by each group
: actual limits to the amount anybody donates (ditto corporations, etc)
: "increasing public funds"
. . . . ( you see the bias already)
- increasing public funds might mean matching donations (double-yer-bribe!? less so if "capped", or "members/registered voters", but a bit of a bias towards the "WE are the place for the UPPER MIDDLE CLASS/ HIGH INCOME peoples purses. . . I mean, votes. (poor people also allowed, but dont frighten the horses . . . i mean, "serious"big funders. . . . or even the very, VERY "lucky" frivolous funders.
- increasing public funds might mean a flat "support" to each group, perhaps in relation to votes, voter preference, seats, or what happened after the second world war - oops - thats the UN, sorry. ( you comprehend how stupid it is for people to ask for respect for every resolution when sensible people say "but - thats the way things ARE." "QUITE. SO BLOODY SORT IT - WHATS KEPT YOU FROM SORTING IT AGES AGO?"
Quite. So, back to the bungs, the stitch-ups, the prevention of progress (OR modernisation!) in the actual "thoughtful, decision-making, democratic bit of society.
Hundreds of years ago - even earlier than !066 - the jury system was a serious step forward. Bit of a backslide since then, though, eh.
The gleam at the end of the tunnel isnt entirely fools gold though . . . . in the last bit of " - increasing public funds might mean" the reference to "targetting" funds for democratic THINGs - might allow some common sense to sneak in.
Above the groupings, the debates, the information we get to actually come up with decisions, the meetings - equivalents of "commitees" in parliament, but perhaps that have "virtual" discussion groups, with coherent, fact-based, easy to re-research, easy for anybody to engage with - (linux/scientific/engineers-style purposeful chats) or even support the actual thinking that is often the "nursery slopes" of ideas that are everybodys "mainstream logic" a bit later - the bookshops - the gatherings - the workshops that come up with the actual ideas that offer serious democracy a fun way to grow - for the good of ALL - as much as for the "people that bung".
input!
