Politicians have lost control?
Discussion
I was watching some documentaries by Adam Curtis on the BBC earlier - Hypernormalisation and Cant Get You Out of My Head - and one of the arguments he makes which I thought was interesting was that politicians over the last 30/40 years have lost control, either accidently or deliberately.
He argues that the people taking control have mainly been the bankers who now can decide where the money goes and thus what resources a government has available. Although it's not mentioned in the film the biggest example of this would be the failure of Liz Truss's premiership which was bought down by the market's opinion of her plans. The independence of the BoE now also means that they don't work towards the aim of the Government, or necessarily the country, but their own aims and desired outcomes.
The tech bosses and the algorithms which now feature so strongly in our lives also come in for citation. What news we consume, what content we see on the internet is very heavily "nudged" in our direction and it means the Government have lost control of the narrative, and in many cases the truth. Not saying that Government controlled media is a good thing, but neither is a world in which someone's opinion on Twitter can carry as much weight as an expert or official.
Other ways in which politicians have "lost control" include the selling off of Government assets and infrastructure to private firms who run the companies for their own ends, not the public good.
It appears to me that we are seeing the effects of this loss of control in the world around us. The government isn't really able to take the big decisions needed to sort out structural issues, partly due to the 4 year election cycle, and partly due to having given away the levers they had 50/60 years ago to change things.
Anyway, there isn't really a question, just thought it an interesting thing to discuss.
Here are some iPlayer links to the films, the second one is about 8hrs of program;
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p04b183c/hyp...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/p093wp6h/ca...
He argues that the people taking control have mainly been the bankers who now can decide where the money goes and thus what resources a government has available. Although it's not mentioned in the film the biggest example of this would be the failure of Liz Truss's premiership which was bought down by the market's opinion of her plans. The independence of the BoE now also means that they don't work towards the aim of the Government, or necessarily the country, but their own aims and desired outcomes.
The tech bosses and the algorithms which now feature so strongly in our lives also come in for citation. What news we consume, what content we see on the internet is very heavily "nudged" in our direction and it means the Government have lost control of the narrative, and in many cases the truth. Not saying that Government controlled media is a good thing, but neither is a world in which someone's opinion on Twitter can carry as much weight as an expert or official.
Other ways in which politicians have "lost control" include the selling off of Government assets and infrastructure to private firms who run the companies for their own ends, not the public good.
It appears to me that we are seeing the effects of this loss of control in the world around us. The government isn't really able to take the big decisions needed to sort out structural issues, partly due to the 4 year election cycle, and partly due to having given away the levers they had 50/60 years ago to change things.
Anyway, there isn't really a question, just thought it an interesting thing to discuss.
Here are some iPlayer links to the films, the second one is about 8hrs of program;
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p04b183c/hyp...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/p093wp6h/ca...
This move of taking actual power away from the elected government and putting it into the hands of un-elected quangos and civil servants is also to blame and it all started with Tony Blair and his decentralisation plans / policy which ultimately led to devolution, mayors, the independent BoE etc.
Starmer has commited to complete the vision (although nobody cared to read between the lines of the latest manifesto to realise that this is indeed the commitment).
It's why there is the current move to unitary authorities, more mayors and the like - it sounds harmless but further disconnects the actual politicians from being able to take actual actions and is really the completion of the Blair project.
Some would say that this is actually a very bad change to make...
Starmer has commited to complete the vision (although nobody cared to read between the lines of the latest manifesto to realise that this is indeed the commitment).
It's why there is the current move to unitary authorities, more mayors and the like - it sounds harmless but further disconnects the actual politicians from being able to take actual actions and is really the completion of the Blair project.
Some would say that this is actually a very bad change to make...
fat80b said:
This move of taking actual power away from the elected government and putting it into the hands of un-elected quangos and civil servants is also to blame and it all started with Tony Blair and his decentralisation plans / policy which ultimately led to devolution, mayors, the independent BoE etc.
Starmer has commited to complete the vision (although nobody cared to read between the lines of the latest manifesto to realise that this is indeed the commitment).
It's why there is the current move to unitary authorities, more mayors and the like - it sounds harmless but further disconnects the actual politicians from being able to take actual actions and is really the completion of the Blair project.
Some would say that this is actually a very bad change to make...
Mayors and devolved governments are elected….Starmer has commited to complete the vision (although nobody cared to read between the lines of the latest manifesto to realise that this is indeed the commitment).
It's why there is the current move to unitary authorities, more mayors and the like - it sounds harmless but further disconnects the actual politicians from being able to take actual actions and is really the completion of the Blair project.
Some would say that this is actually a very bad change to make...
The politicians were never in control. We are engrossed with a theatrical display of political banter that amounts to nothing.
Keir Starmer does not run the country, the office behind him does. The sooner that people wake up and realise this, the sooner that something can be done about it.
Keir Starmer does not run the country, the office behind him does. The sooner that people wake up and realise this, the sooner that something can be done about it.
Condi said:
I was watching some documentaries by Adam Curtis on the BBC earlier - Hypernormalisation and Cant Get You Out of My Head - and one of the arguments he makes which I thought was interesting was that politicians over the last 30/40 years have lost control, either accidently or deliberately.
This is just neoliberalism, which has been the dominant consensus in most of the Western world (and especially the Anglosphere) since the late 1970s. It's based on the principle that governments/states can't (as in, are incapable of competently or productively doing) do many things, and of the remainder they should do as little as possible (or nothing at all for the real hard-core subscribers). It should be up to market forces and private capital to direct, control and allocate activity and resources and that, whatever pains that may cause along the way, it will always be better for society overall and in the longer term (a utilitarian approach - there's always been a big crossover between 'classical liberals' and utilitarianism). This is supposed to be great for the individual because we all make our own choices as private enterprise and market forces individually (and so, at scale, collectively) serve our needs.
Of course politicians never vote themselves out of a job, even the ones who proclaim to be against politics, politicians, governments and state power. All they do instead is become lobbyists for private capital to keep the free markets not-quite-free-enough for real competition to develop and instead provide a steady flow of public money into private pockets under the guise of 'privatised' service provision.
Or you get neolibs in the Blair-ite mold, who have/claim to have a social conscience and think that they can use capitalism to generate wealth to fund socially good projects by market-ising the public realm, creating artificial market incentives and so attracting private capital to run things that the state can't/shouldn't. This also necessities the creation of loads of executive agencies and regulating authorities which aren't the government but effectively are - QUANGOs.
2xChevrons said:
This is just neoliberalism, which has been the dominant consensus in most of the Western world (and especially the Anglosphere) since the late 1970s.
It's based on the principle that governments/states can't (as in, are incapable of competently or productively doing) do many things, and of the remainder they should do as little as possible (or nothing at all for the real hard-core subscribers). It should be up to market forces and private capital to direct, control and allocate activity and resources and that, whatever pains that may cause along the way, it will always be better for society overall and in the longer term (a utilitarian approach - there's always been a big crossover between 'classical liberals' and utilitarianism). This is supposed to be great for the individual because we all make our own choices as private enterprise and market forces individually (and so, at scale, collectively) serve our needs.
Of course politicians never vote themselves out of a job, even the ones who proclaim to be against politics, politicians, governments and state power. All they do instead is become lobbyists for private capital to keep the free markets not-quite-free-enough for real competition to develop and instead provide a steady flow of public money into private pockets under the guise of 'privatised' service provision.
Or you get neolibs in the Blair-ite mold, who have/claim to have a social conscience and think that they can use capitalism to generate wealth to fund socially good projects by market-ising the public realm, creating artificial market incentives and so attracting private capital to run things that the state can't/shouldn't. This also necessities the creation of loads of executive agencies and regulating authorities which aren't the government but effectively are - QUANGOs.
In a word - this It's based on the principle that governments/states can't (as in, are incapable of competently or productively doing) do many things, and of the remainder they should do as little as possible (or nothing at all for the real hard-core subscribers). It should be up to market forces and private capital to direct, control and allocate activity and resources and that, whatever pains that may cause along the way, it will always be better for society overall and in the longer term (a utilitarian approach - there's always been a big crossover between 'classical liberals' and utilitarianism). This is supposed to be great for the individual because we all make our own choices as private enterprise and market forces individually (and so, at scale, collectively) serve our needs.
Of course politicians never vote themselves out of a job, even the ones who proclaim to be against politics, politicians, governments and state power. All they do instead is become lobbyists for private capital to keep the free markets not-quite-free-enough for real competition to develop and instead provide a steady flow of public money into private pockets under the guise of 'privatised' service provision.
Or you get neolibs in the Blair-ite mold, who have/claim to have a social conscience and think that they can use capitalism to generate wealth to fund socially good projects by market-ising the public realm, creating artificial market incentives and so attracting private capital to run things that the state can't/shouldn't. This also necessities the creation of loads of executive agencies and regulating authorities which aren't the government but effectively are - QUANGOs.
TTwiggy said:
My feeling is we are living through the (protracted) end days of capitalism and it's essentially supermarket sweep for the ultra-rich.
Governments only exist to move money from the public to the private.
Hard agree. If you gave everyone in the country £1000 and came back in five years time how much of that £1000 would have ended up in the bank accounts of the super-rich? A lot of it. Growing inequality and the system which promotes it is a problem. Maybe guillotines is the answer or maybe there are other options to explore before we get to that point.Governments only exist to move money from the public to the private.
rohrl said:
Hard agree. If you gave everyone in the country £1000 and came back in five years time how much of that £1000 would have ended up in the bank accounts of the super-rich? A lot of it. Growing inequality and the system which promotes it is a problem. Maybe guillotines is the answer or maybe there are other options to explore before we get to that point.
To be fair, if you gave everyone £1000 cash, probably an average of £500 or so per person would be in Jeff Bezos bank account by the end of the first week. A significant chunk would probably end up in Bernard Arnault’s account in the same timeframe.If the OP's description is an accurate summary, it seems a load of nonsense swallowed by the gullible.
To me, people (ie the OP) are looking for someone to "blame", and their bogeyman of choice is now politicians.
- did the government ever control "truth"? No, people believe what they want to believe, and if they're willing to be misled, that's on them. No-one else.
- selling off assets: did voters want to pay the taxes to maintain infrastructure? No, they gave politicians a mandate to do a quick fix in the short term(ignoring long term of course)
- politicians not making the "big decisions" like they did 50 years ago? Er, were you around 50 years ago? All the raac and large panel format building safety issues come from decisions taken 50 years ago to build quick and cheap. Again, did voters want to fund the investment? Or did they want lower taxes and ignore the long term consequences
- May tried to raise adult social care during her very winnable 2019(?) election, and she was dropped by the electorate pretty much immediately
- the Truss lovers who feel her budget was sabotaged by the market (but oddly seems to support market forces the rest of the time) was just reality intruding into her bubble, and her fumbling of it all.
No, ultimately this makes a boring discussion as the same old lines will just get regurgitated endlessly as people try to mould information to fit their preconceived view.
As I am doing of course.
My view is that at some point voters have got to do the hard work, put on their big boy pants and stop abdicating politics responsibility and then whinging about it on social media.
It's like a diet - giving up sugar sucks, and exercise is hard work. Why would you do it? Sure a few people do, but many won't consider it until they're literally at deaths door.
As with politics - if all the decisions are easy, you're probably not doing it right. But voters only want the easy decisions...
To me, people (ie the OP) are looking for someone to "blame", and their bogeyman of choice is now politicians.
- did the government ever control "truth"? No, people believe what they want to believe, and if they're willing to be misled, that's on them. No-one else.
- selling off assets: did voters want to pay the taxes to maintain infrastructure? No, they gave politicians a mandate to do a quick fix in the short term(ignoring long term of course)
- politicians not making the "big decisions" like they did 50 years ago? Er, were you around 50 years ago? All the raac and large panel format building safety issues come from decisions taken 50 years ago to build quick and cheap. Again, did voters want to fund the investment? Or did they want lower taxes and ignore the long term consequences
- May tried to raise adult social care during her very winnable 2019(?) election, and she was dropped by the electorate pretty much immediately
- the Truss lovers who feel her budget was sabotaged by the market (but oddly seems to support market forces the rest of the time) was just reality intruding into her bubble, and her fumbling of it all.
No, ultimately this makes a boring discussion as the same old lines will just get regurgitated endlessly as people try to mould information to fit their preconceived view.
As I am doing of course.
My view is that at some point voters have got to do the hard work, put on their big boy pants and stop abdicating politics responsibility and then whinging about it on social media.
It's like a diet - giving up sugar sucks, and exercise is hard work. Why would you do it? Sure a few people do, but many won't consider it until they're literally at deaths door.
As with politics - if all the decisions are easy, you're probably not doing it right. But voters only want the easy decisions...
Condi said:
I was watching some documentaries by Adam Curtis on the BBC earlier - Hypernormalisation and Cant Get You Out of My Head - and one of the arguments he makes which I thought was interesting was that politicians over the last 30/40 years have lost control, either accidently or deliberately.
He argues that the people taking control have mainly been the bankers who now can decide where the money goes and thus what resources a government has available. Although it's not mentioned in the film the biggest example of this would be the failure of Liz Truss's premiership which was bought down by the market's opinion of her plans. The independence of the BoE now also means that they don't work towards the aim of the Government, or necessarily the country, but their own aims and desired outcomes.
The tech bosses and the algorithms which now feature so strongly in our lives also come in for citation. What news we consume, what content we see on the internet is very heavily "nudged" in our direction and it means the Government have lost control of the narrative, and in many cases the truth. Not saying that Government controlled media is a good thing, but neither is a world in which someone's opinion on Twitter can carry as much weight as an expert or official.
Other ways in which politicians have "lost control" include the selling off of Government assets and infrastructure to private firms who run the companies for their own ends, not the public good.
It appears to me that we are seeing the effects of this loss of control in the world around us. The government isn't really able to take the big decisions needed to sort out structural issues, partly due to the 4 year election cycle, and partly due to having given away the levers they had 50/60 years ago to change things.
Anyway, there isn't really a question, just thought it an interesting thing to discuss.
Here are some iPlayer links to the films, the second one is about 8hrs of program;
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p04b183c/hyp...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/p093wp6h/ca...
He argues that the people taking control have mainly been the bankers who now can decide where the money goes and thus what resources a government has available. Although it's not mentioned in the film the biggest example of this would be the failure of Liz Truss's premiership which was bought down by the market's opinion of her plans. The independence of the BoE now also means that they don't work towards the aim of the Government, or necessarily the country, but their own aims and desired outcomes.
The tech bosses and the algorithms which now feature so strongly in our lives also come in for citation. What news we consume, what content we see on the internet is very heavily "nudged" in our direction and it means the Government have lost control of the narrative, and in many cases the truth. Not saying that Government controlled media is a good thing, but neither is a world in which someone's opinion on Twitter can carry as much weight as an expert or official.
Other ways in which politicians have "lost control" include the selling off of Government assets and infrastructure to private firms who run the companies for their own ends, not the public good.
It appears to me that we are seeing the effects of this loss of control in the world around us. The government isn't really able to take the big decisions needed to sort out structural issues, partly due to the 4 year election cycle, and partly due to having given away the levers they had 50/60 years ago to change things.
Anyway, there isn't really a question, just thought it an interesting thing to discuss.
Here are some iPlayer links to the films, the second one is about 8hrs of program;
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p04b183c/hyp...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/p093wp6h/ca...
Condi said:
I was watching some documentaries by Adam Curtis on the BBC earlier - Hypernormalisation and Cant Get You Out of My Head - and one of the arguments he makes which I thought was interesting was that politicians over the last 30/40 years have lost control, either accidently or deliberately.
He argues that the people taking control have mainly been the bankers who now can decide where the money goes and thus what resources a government has available. Although it's not mentioned in the film the biggest example of this would be the failure of Liz Truss's premiership which was bought down by the market's opinion of her plans. The independence of the BoE now also means that they don't work towards the aim of the Government, or necessarily the country, but their own aims and desired outcomes.
Sorry but that is such clap trap clearly from some one who knows very little about Finance.He argues that the people taking control have mainly been the bankers who now can decide where the money goes and thus what resources a government has available. Although it's not mentioned in the film the biggest example of this would be the failure of Liz Truss's premiership which was bought down by the market's opinion of her plans. The independence of the BoE now also means that they don't work towards the aim of the Government, or necessarily the country, but their own aims and desired outcomes.
The truth is rather different.
Banks and bankers in the UK pay a lot of tax and obviously want an environment which assists business. This is not always the case, for example the balance sheet tax.
What really drives the government finances is it's demand to borrow money and the decisions of those who will lend. To fund this debt the government issues bonds. Some investors are UK based, for example UK pension funds have to hold a lot of gilts, others such as banks generally only hold short term instruments. However, between 25% and 30% are owned by none UK investors mainly sovereign funds. Normally managed by profession manager against a benchmark. They judge the performance of the UK economy and government. When the truss government said it was going to cut taxes by increasing borrowing, they claimed the cut would eventually be funded by greater growth, but even if this happened it meant more borrowing in the short term.
More bonds to sell means the government will have to pay a higher interest rate. This means prices of existing debt falls. Not wanting to make a loss the foreign investors sell.
There is a way the government can reduce the influence of these foreign lender it can borrow less.
Mrr T said:
Sorry but that is such clap trap clearly from some one who knows very little about Finance.
What really drives the government finances is it's demand to borrow money and the decisions of those who will lend.
I understand perfectly well how finance works, thank you, and you've neatly agreed with the point in that sentence there. The government needs to borrow from the bond market and the opinion of those bond traders is what sets the availability and cost of government debt. What really drives the government finances is it's demand to borrow money and the decisions of those who will lend.
I'm certainly not a supporter of Liz Truss or anything she was doing, but it wasn't politics which bought down her premiership, or the opposition benches in the Commons, but the bond markets and financiers to which the government (all governments) are now beholden.
Condi said:
...
I'm certainly not a supporter of Liz Truss or anything she was doing, but it wasn't politics which bought down her premiership, or the opposition benches in the Commons, but the bond markets and financiers to which the government (all governments) are now beholden.
I don't think that's entirely true, she was largely brought down by her own party. I'm certainly not a supporter of Liz Truss or anything she was doing, but it wasn't politics which bought down her premiership, or the opposition benches in the Commons, but the bond markets and financiers to which the government (all governments) are now beholden.
The rest is mostly spin.
LordFlathead said:
The politicians were never in control. We are engrossed with a theatrical display of political banter that amounts to nothing.
Keir Starmer does not run the country, the office behind him does. The sooner that people wake up and realise this, the sooner that something can be done about it.
I fear that democracy is an illusion, to pacify and distract.Keir Starmer does not run the country, the office behind him does. The sooner that people wake up and realise this, the sooner that something can be done about it.
Dingu said:
fat80b said:
This move of taking actual power away from the elected government and putting it into the hands of un-elected quangos and civil servants is also to blame and it all started with Tony Blair and his decentralisation plans / policy which ultimately led to devolution, mayors, the independent BoE etc.
Starmer has commited to complete the vision (although nobody cared to read between the lines of the latest manifesto to realise that this is indeed the commitment).
It's why there is the current move to unitary authorities, more mayors and the like - it sounds harmless but further disconnects the actual politicians from being able to take actual actions and is really the completion of the Blair project.
Some would say that this is actually a very bad change to make...
Mayors and devolved governments are elected….Starmer has commited to complete the vision (although nobody cared to read between the lines of the latest manifesto to realise that this is indeed the commitment).
It's why there is the current move to unitary authorities, more mayors and the like - it sounds harmless but further disconnects the actual politicians from being able to take actual actions and is really the completion of the Blair project.
Some would say that this is actually a very bad change to make...
Edited by ATG on Thursday 16th January 11:11
Condi said:
I understand perfectly well how finance works, thank you, and you've neatly agreed with the point in that sentence there. The government needs to borrow from the bond market and the opinion of those bond traders is what sets the availability and cost of government debt.
I'm certainly not a supporter of Liz Truss or anything she was doing, but it wasn't politics which bought down her premiership, or the opposition benches in the Commons, but the bond markets and financiers to which the government (all governments) are now beholden.
THe government doesn't need to borrow from the bond market. it chooses to do so in order to fund some of their spending plans. the choice exists to not spend that extra if they so wish and therefore not have to borrow..I'm certainly not a supporter of Liz Truss or anything she was doing, but it wasn't politics which bought down her premiership, or the opposition benches in the Commons, but the bond markets and financiers to which the government (all governments) are now beholden.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff