Politics and morality

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Tue Jan 29, 2002 7:29 am

Originally posted by Tom
An easy and quick way to do this is to ban donations to political parties ( like emron) and let the goverment finance the political parties election campains as a public service.

I have heard that in the UK (Mr Sleep or one of our British friends may be able to confirm or deny this) that running political ads and sound bytes (such as those that we have in the United States) is not permissible. When a politician appears on TV, he or she is only allowed to show their own personal image and talk about their views/promises/etc. They can't pull many of the engineered "dirty tricks" we are used to over here. That way, how much a candidate spends on TV advertising becomes less of a factor.

Another way to eliminate money on the campaign process is to have the major parties get together with the various media outlets and have each candidate receive an equal amount of exposure, both in terms of print media and TV air time. Of course, this will effectively squeeze out potential third parties, but the US has essentially been a two-party system since the country's inception.

I think some people enter a life of public service with the intentions of doing good for the country. Many, as our friend Mr Sleep points out, do it for their own personal ambitions or for power, but not all of them. However, in an environment driven by dollars, after a while they all become political prostitutes, whoring themselves out to individuals and corporations who give lots of money to their campaigns to promote an agenda which may or may not be in the best interests of the country.

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Tue Jan 29, 2002 7:42 am

Originally posted by HighLordDave
I have heard that in the UK (Mr Sleep or one of our British friends may be able to confirm or deny this) that running political ads and sound bytes (such as those that we have in the United States) is not permissible. When a politician appears on TV, he or she is only allowed to show their own personal image and talk about their views/promises/etc. They can't pull many of the engineered "dirty tricks" we are used to over here. That way, how much a candidate spends on TV advertising becomes less of a factor.

I do not know for certain whether this is true, i have noticed that they do not advocate sponsors in their advertising. I think you might be right HLD, however i had not known it was a law. I think however that it only applies to Television, there have been many billboards etc with Soundbites and great many slurs on the opposition.

Tony Blair relied a great deal upon his image to be priminister, in many ways he has Mandy (Peter Mandelson) to thank for his position as leader. It is also interesting to note that the opposition was very poor, and the sad thruth is that there is such a great deal of apathy in the UK for polotics that it didn't really matter to most people who was in power

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Tue Jan 29, 2002 7:59 am

I had a poli-sci professor who said that Blair was called "Clintonesque" in his use/manipulation of the media and that he had taken many of his cues from how Clinton and the American politicians used sound bytes to affect public opinion. I would think that keeping a high level of public support would be more important in a parliamentary government which can be toppled at any time with a "no confidence" vote than in a congressional government which elects is chief executive in set terms.

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Tue Jan 29, 2002 8:34 am

Spin?

Originally posted by HighLordDave
I had a poli-sci professor who said that Blair was called "Clintonesque" in his use/manipulation of the media and that he had taken many of his cues from how Clinton and the American politicians used sound bytes to affect public opinion. I would think that keeping a high level of public support would be more important in a parliamentary government which can be toppled at any time with a "no confidence" vote than in a congressional government which elects is chief executive in set terms.

I think to some degrees Blair was put in office thanks to his party, and also thanks to the oppposition who as i stated were poor. His soundbytes only work to some degree, there is an intellectual level that they do not effect, unfortunately these aren't necessarily the majority. It is also interesting to note that no one likes Blair anymore, he is considered by most to be concerned more with Europe than his own country.

It is also interesting to note the leader Winston Churchill, considered by all a great leader, but then as soon as the war is over he is booted out. UK people, i sometimes wonder

Tom · Post by **Tom** » Tue Jan 29, 2002 8:54 am

it has resently come to light that Emron donated money to the British labour party in 1997.

What stinks is that the labour party had promised to to stop all building of gas power stations in Britain. in 2000 the governemt decide to allow the building of gas power station much to the benefit of Emron.

We dont know if the money that was given to the governement influenced their decisions about energy policy. but if it was illigal to give monye to political parties there would be no suspicion.

And lets face it - if we all stop trusting the politicians and stop voting democracy will fail.

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Tue Jan 29, 2002 8:59 am

Over here, there are only three factors that go into an election: 1) Who's the incumbent?, 2) War and peace, and 3) The economy.

All things being equal, an incumbent will always beat a challenger. A country at war is loathe to change leadership. If the electorate feels pinched in the pocketbook, they tend to oust the existing government in hopes that its replacement will improve things.

Dubya is riding a big wave of public support right now (due to the "war" on terrorism), but the economy is in a recession, over 50% of the public thinks that he favours big business more than the everyday worker, and a little less than half of the electorate believes that things are going to get worse before they get better.

Blair may be in the same boat. If the UK economy is in a slump, whether it's because of a general recession around the world or one that's localised among his votors, he is going to be blamed (rightly or wrongly) and probably will lose his job.

My grandfather was a royal subject who emigrated to the United States with his mother after the First World War. Grandpa's general opinion of Churchill was that he was a drunkard who was in the right place at the right time, said a bunch of quotable things, and died a broken man. Churchill's political career follows this pattern, though; when he was ousted, the war was basically over for the British, the economy was a mess, and Churchill received an inordinate amount of the blame.

It's like that over here as well. Clinton took a lot of credit for an economic boom he really didn't have much to do with. He kept his head down and his mouth shut while letting Alan Greenspan make most of the US's economic policy. Similarly, Dubya is getting a lot of the blame for the recession, but that's only because it's happening on his watch. The economy was taking a dive even before the 2000 elections, but it's only gotten worse and we tend to blame the person who's currently sitting in the hot seat.

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Tue Jan 29, 2002 9:13 am

Originally posted by Tom
We dont know if the money that was given to the governement influenced their decisions about energy policy. but if it was illigal to give monye to political parties there would be no suspicion.

And lets face it - if we all stop trusting the politicians and stop voting democracy will fail.

We would probably (hopefully) get more honest politicians if this was that case

Another interesting fact about UK government. They are the only company and/or Organisation that can sack the group that regulates their behaviour.

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Tue Jan 29, 2002 9:19 am

Originally posted by Tom
if it was illigal to give monye to political parties there would be no suspicion.

I disagree unless you add on that there would be spending caps for elections as well as eliminating campaign contributions. Otherwise, independently wealthy policticians (ie-Steve Forbes, Ross Perot, Jay Rockefeller, Dubya, etc.) would be able to outspend their "everyday people" counterparts and a political aristocracy would arise.

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Tue Jan 29, 2002 9:26 am

Originally posted by HighLordDave
Blair may be in the same boat. If the UK economy is in a slump, whether it's because of a general recession around the world or one that's localised among his votors, he is going to be blamed (rightly or wrongly) and probably will lose his job.

Part of my problem with him is that he refuses to believe any of the facts, he makes all these statements about how waiting lists are down and everything else is just dandy. It is like he lives in a different world. I do realise it is expecting too much from a leader to be totally honest, however accepting a few frailties now and again is not such a bad thing

My grandfather was a royal subject who emigrated to the United States with his mother after the First World War. Grandpa's general opinion of Churchill was that he was a drunkard who was in the right place at the right time, said a bunch of quotable things, and died a broken man. Churchill's political career follows this pattern, though; when he was ousted, the war was basically over for the British, the economy was a mess, and Churchill received an inordinate amount of the blame.

I have heard this opinion before, i have no evidence to say it is wrong.

I think that the blame is often attributed to a particular leader because the citizens do not necessarily see the financial times very often, they do not realise how an economy works, and they also only see the end results, not what precipitated them.

Tom · Post by **Tom** » Wed Jan 30, 2002 7:37 am

Originally posted by HighLordDave

I disagree unless you add on that there would be spending caps for elections as well as eliminating campaign contributions. Otherwise, independently wealthy policticians (ie-Steve Forbes, Ross Perot, Jay Rockefeller, Dubya, etc.) would be able to outspend their "everyday people" counterparts and a political aristocracy would arise.

I mean that it should not be allowed to give monye at all by anyone to a political party for any purpose. simple, but it will probaply never happen.

The funding should come from our taxes. And i think that there should be a fairly large amount availeble because without people knowing what the politicians want to do - voting becomes meaningless.

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Wed Jan 30, 2002 7:47 am

Originally posted by Tom
The funding should come from our taxes. And i think that there should be a fairly large amount availeble because without people knowing what the politicians want to do - voting becomes meaningless.

What does one stop spending on then? There is always call for money from every sector, if we were to pay for the political rally then the government would have to take money from something else. I personally can not see how taxes paying for the political race will make it any more substantial or important to the average citizen.

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Wed Jan 30, 2002 7:51 am

A funny joke i heard today:

Feudalism
You have two cows.
Your lord takes some of the milk.

Fascism
You have two cows.
The government takes both, hires you to take care of them
and sells you the milk.

Communism
You have two cows.
You must take care of them, but the government takes all the
milk.

Capitalism
You have two cows.
You sell one and buy a bull.
Your herd multiplies, and the economy grows.
You sell them and retire on the income.

Enron
You have two cows.
You borrow 80% of the forward value of the two cows from
your bank, then buy another cow with 5% down and the rest
financed by the seller on a note callable if your market cap
goes below $20B at a rate 2 times prime. You now sell three
cows to your publicly listed company, using letters of
credit opened by your brother-in-law at a 2nd bank, then
execute a debt/equity swap with an associated general offer
so that you get four cows back, with a tax exemption for
five cows. The milk rights of six cows are transferred via
an intermediary to a Cayman Island company secretly owned by
the majority shareholder who sells the rights to seven cows
back to your listed company. The annual report says the
company owns eight cows, with an option on one more and this
transaction process is upheld by your independent auditor
and no Balance Sheet provided with the press release that
announces that Enron as a major owner of cows will begin
trading cows via the Internet site COW (cows on web). I am
sure you now fully understand what happen.