I see you are now quoting anarchists like Paul Cudenec.
I find anarchist theory quite interesting. But ultimately I believe that there will always people to impose some form of order. And, for all their many faults, better than the total chaos that anarchy would entail.
Anyhow, rather than Eve of Destruction, thought you should enjoy this anarchist anthem:-
A rather apt 'On This Day' post for what's going on in todays world.
Decade 77-87 - a grown up disco: new wave, punk, postpunk, goth & indie.
On this date in 1980, DEAD KENNEDYS released their third single in the UK, KILL THE POOR, (October 20th, 1980).
The first song on the Dead Kennedys debut album Fresh Fruit for Rotting Vegetables, "Kill The Poor" envisions a neutron bomb that can somehow wipe out poor people while everything else stays in tact. With it comes the elimination of welfare, urban blight, and all those other traces of the pesky lower class. It is a satire on the elite who wouldn't mind eradicating poverty by simply eliminating poor people.
I would mention at the outset that the King only has a theoretical right to dissolve Parliament and call for an Election. In reality, it is a question of who calls the election. Whether it be the current PM or automatically at a set time.
The 2011 Act sought to move to a US-style system. In the USA, the Election for President (and the 2 Houses) happen at set times. The current President (whoever that may be) has no say on when the Election is held.
It was thought that it is unfair that, in the UK, the PM decides when to call an Election (provided it is done within 5 years). And it is undoubtedly an unfair advantage.
However, the feeling was (from Conservatives and Labour) that that problem was less than that caused by not allowing (or, more accurately, restricting) the right to call an election when there was some form of logjam-as occurred during debates under May/Johnson in relation to Brexit.
I do not believe that we have what is currently termed a "parliamentary democracy". It seems to me to be ridiculous that any Government (not just this one) can impose a radically different agenda than in its manifesto without calling an Election. So-for example-Liz Truss was made PM on an agenda that was radically different from Boris Johnson's. That is (IMO) unacceptable. People voted for a set of policies contained in the Manifesto of that Party.
It's not a party political point. There is currently nothing to stop a future Government voting to outlaw the main Opposition Party. Or suddenly deciding to rejoin the EU. All without the Public being entitled to vote on it.
Wouldn't be anything to try and sway voters just before the mid-terms would it?
I know very little about the US mid-terms. And care very little, too.
I find it astonishing that there is a real prospect that the next US election may be fought between the 76-year-old Trump, and Biden, who is 80 in 4 weeks' time.
I'm sure that a lot of people would agree that 1 of them used to be a formidable politician whose powers and ability have waned massively, and that the other was never any good, and in addition his powers and ability have waned massively.
I think that the only thing that would vary, according to political standpoint, is which 1 is which.
Surely the USA deserves better than 2 people who appear to talk and never listen, like 2 old geezers in a Care Home? If people think that a 79- and 76-year-old are their country's best bet at the moment, then I would disagree.
But if people seriously believe these are the best people for 2024-28, by the end of which they will be 85 & 82, then they need their heads examined.
I think 99% of conspiracy theories don't stand up to scrutiny. But occasionally, just occasionally...
Let's try this one for size
1. Call for new leader of Conservative Party 2. Promise it will all be over within a week 3. Set the Bar for nominations, but don't force anybody to actually promise they are running 4. It's a 2-stage process, but do absolutely nothing to facilitate Stage 2 5. If it was a straight fight between Sunak and Mordaunt, past voting would show both that Sunak would get the majority, but that Mordaunt would get 100, and very real risk that the Members of the Party would vote for her 6. Get Johnson to stand to split the vote-Sunak will still get enough 7. Have secret meeting with Johnson where "no deal is done" 8. Johnson pulls out less than 24 hours before the vote in a contest that he was never officially in 9. Do it at a time when his backers realise that it is political suicide if they don't back the 1 that yesterday they were saying knifed Johnson in the back, as it is too late for any verdict other than a Sunak win
So-a Party promised that a 2-stage process would be over in a week. Apparently spent no time whatsoever on the system for Stage 2 voting. A frontrunner who is so confident that he does not make a single public appearance in support of his candidacy. No effort whatsoever to appeal to Party Members.
Why do people believe that this was ever going to be a 2-stage process?
I don't know exactly why the Party knew that only 1 person was going to pass the Stage 1 threshold. But they did.
The people who despise fracking have no problem with extracting precious metals for electric car batteries despite the massively greater damage caused to both the environment and the people involved in their mining.
Comments
I find anarchist theory quite interesting. But ultimately I believe that there will always people to impose some form of order. And, for all their many faults, better than the total chaos that anarchy would entail.
Anyhow, rather than Eve of Destruction, thought you should enjoy this anarchist anthem:-
You never know when you might need a Anarchists. ?
Decade 77-87 - a grown up disco: new wave, punk, postpunk, goth & indie.
On this date in 1980, DEAD KENNEDYS released their third single in the UK, KILL THE POOR, (October 20th, 1980).
The first song on the Dead Kennedys debut album Fresh Fruit for Rotting Vegetables, "Kill The Poor" envisions a neutron bomb that can somehow wipe out poor people while everything else stays in tact. With it comes the elimination of welfare, urban blight, and all those other traces of the pesky lower class. It is a satire on the elite who wouldn't mind eradicating poverty by simply eliminating poor people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_and_Calling_of_Parliament_Act_2022
I would mention at the outset that the King only has a theoretical right to dissolve Parliament and call for an Election. In reality, it is a question of who calls the election. Whether it be the current PM or automatically at a set time.
The 2011 Act sought to move to a US-style system. In the USA, the Election for President (and the 2 Houses) happen at set times. The current President (whoever that may be) has no say on when the Election is held.
It was thought that it is unfair that, in the UK, the PM decides when to call an Election (provided it is done within 5 years). And it is undoubtedly an unfair advantage.
However, the feeling was (from Conservatives and Labour) that that problem was less than that caused by not allowing (or, more accurately, restricting) the right to call an election when there was some form of logjam-as occurred during debates under May/Johnson in relation to Brexit.
I do not believe that we have what is currently termed a "parliamentary democracy". It seems to me to be ridiculous that any Government (not just this one) can impose a radically different agenda than in its manifesto without calling an Election. So-for example-Liz Truss was made PM on an agenda that was radically different from Boris Johnson's. That is (IMO) unacceptable. People voted for a set of policies contained in the Manifesto of that Party.
It's not a party political point. There is currently nothing to stop a future Government voting to outlaw the main Opposition Party. Or suddenly deciding to rejoin the EU. All without the Public being entitled to vote on it.
I find it astonishing that there is a real prospect that the next US election may be fought between the 76-year-old Trump, and Biden, who is 80 in 4 weeks' time.
I'm sure that a lot of people would agree that 1 of them used to be a formidable politician whose powers and ability have waned massively, and that the other was never any good, and in addition his powers and ability have waned massively.
I think that the only thing that would vary, according to political standpoint, is which 1 is which.
Surely the USA deserves better than 2 people who appear to talk and never listen, like 2 old geezers in a Care Home? If people think that a 79- and 76-year-old are their country's best bet at the moment, then I would disagree.
But if people seriously believe these are the best people for 2024-28, by the end of which they will be 85 & 82, then they need their heads examined.
Let's try this one for size
1. Call for new leader of Conservative Party
2. Promise it will all be over within a week
3. Set the Bar for nominations, but don't force anybody to actually promise they are running
4. It's a 2-stage process, but do absolutely nothing to facilitate Stage 2
5. If it was a straight fight between Sunak and Mordaunt, past voting would show both that Sunak would get the majority, but that Mordaunt would get 100, and very real risk that the Members of the Party would vote for her
6. Get Johnson to stand to split the vote-Sunak will still get enough
7. Have secret meeting with Johnson where "no deal is done"
8. Johnson pulls out less than 24 hours before the vote in a contest that he was never officially in
9. Do it at a time when his backers realise that it is political suicide if they don't back the 1 that yesterday they were saying knifed Johnson in the back, as it is too late for any verdict other than a Sunak win
So-a Party promised that a 2-stage process would be over in a week. Apparently spent no time whatsoever on the system for Stage 2 voting. A frontrunner who is so confident that he does not make a single public appearance in support of his candidacy. No effort whatsoever to appeal to Party Members.
Why do people believe that this was ever going to be a 2-stage process?
I don't know exactly why the Party knew that only 1 person was going to pass the Stage 1 threshold. But they did.
But look on the bright side...........
Oxford too
NIMBY's
https://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/news/stoke-on-trent-news/council-chiefs-remove-stoke-trent-7750696?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar