![Smallism [Localism vs Government]](https://smallism.org/images/site_images/smallism_trans.gif)
Political parties
Political parties are toxic to the wishes and needs of a local community and have destroyed much faith in the political establishments.
Simply put, party members are loyal to the party first and the needs of the community second. This is wrong and therefore communities need to start electing well known local people to represent them.
For communities to start taking control they need to start putting forward local people, well known and liked throughout the community and, importantly, with a record of success at managing something.
It's crazy that so many elected representatives have absolutely no experience at managing anything.
Corporate money in politics has become a significant issue in democratic societies. Large corporations have immense financial resources, which they can use to influence political decisions that benefit their interests. This has led to a sense of disillusionment among the public, who feel that politicians are more interested in serving the interests of big corporations than the needs of their constituents. In this essay, I will argue that the most effective way to reduce the impact of corporate money in politics is to bring politics to the local level, bringing the people closer to their representatives and limiting the incentives of politicians to the community they serve.
One of the key advantages of bringing politics to the local level is that it allows people to have a closer relationship with their representatives. When politicians are accountable to the community they serve, they are more likely to listen to the concerns and needs of their constituents. This creates a sense of trust and transparency, which is essential for a healthy democracy. In contrast, when politicians are influenced by corporate money, they may be less responsive to the needs of their constituents and more likely to prioritize the interests of corporations.
Moreover, bringing politics to the local level can limit the incentives of politicians to serve corporate interests. When politicians are aligned with national political parties, they may be more inclined to prioritize the interests of their party and its donors over the needs of their constituents. However, when politicians are accountable to the community they serve, they are less likely to be swayed by outside interests. This creates a system where politicians are incentivized to serve the needs of their constituents, rather than the interests of big corporations.
In addition, bringing politics to the local level can help to foster a culture of accountability. When politicians are accountable to the community they serve, they are more likely to be transparent and open about their actions. This can make it easier for the public to hold politicians accountable for their decisions and actions. Furthermore, it can make it more difficult for corporations to influence political decisions, as politicians are less likely to engage in actions that could be seen as unethical or illegal.
Finally, bringing politics to the local level can create a system where the community is more engaged in political decision-making. When people have a closer relationship with their representatives, they are more likely to be involved in the political process. This can lead to a more informed and engaged electorate, which is essential for a healthy democracy. Furthermore, it can help to reduce the impact of corporate money in politics, as politicians are more likely to listen to the concerns and needs of their constituents, rather than outside interests.
In conclusion, the most effective way to reduce the impact of corporate money in politics is to bring politics to the local level. This creates a system where politicians are accountable to the community they serve, limiting the incentives of politicians to serve corporate interests. Furthermore, it can foster a culture of accountability and create a more engaged electorate. By bringing politics to the local level, we can create a healthier and more transparent democracy, where politicians are incentivized to serve the needs of their constituents, rather than the interests of big corporations.
Political party alignment is a prevalent phenomenon in democratic societies. Politicians tend to join political parties for various reasons, such as to gain support for their campaign or to align with a particular ideology. However, political party alignment can have significant consequences, particularly in terms of how it affects the incentives of politicians. In this essay, I will argue that political party alignment removes the incentives of a politician to serve the community that elected them and replaces it with the incentives to follow the party doctrine.
Firstly, political party alignment creates a sense of obligation for politicians to prioritize the interests of the party over the interests of the community they represent. Political parties are organized around specific ideologies and principles, and politicians are expected to support and promote them. As a result, politicians often prioritize the party's goals and objectives over the needs of their constituents. This can lead to policies that benefit the party's base, but not necessarily the broader community.
Secondly, political party alignment can limit the autonomy of politicians. When politicians join a party, they are expected to adhere to the party's policies and follow the party line. This can make it difficult for politicians to act on their own initiative or to challenge the party's leadership. In extreme cases, politicians who go against the party line may face censure, loss of funding, or even expulsion from the party. This can create a chilling effect on dissent, making it difficult for politicians to speak out against policies that they may believe are not in the best interests of their constituents.
Thirdly, political party alignment can foster a culture of partisanship and polarization. When politicians are aligned with a party, they tend to view issues through the lens of their party's ideology. This can lead to a lack of compromise and a reluctance to work with politicians from other parties. As a result, policies that may benefit the broader community may be delayed or blocked because of political differences.
Fourthly, political party alignment can lead to a lack of accountability. When politicians are aligned with a party, they may be shielded from criticism and scrutiny because their party base is likely to support them regardless of their performance. This can make it difficult for the community to hold politicians accountable for their actions and can contribute to a sense of disillusionment and apathy towards politics.
Finally, political party alignment can undermine the principle of representative democracy. The essence of representative democracy is that politicians are elected to serve their constituents, not their political parties. When politicians prioritize the interests of their party over the needs of their constituents, they betray the trust of the community that elected them. This can lead to a lack of faith in the political system and a sense that politicians are more concerned with their own interests than the interests of the community.
In conclusion, political party alignment can have significant consequences for the incentives of politicians. When politicians are aligned with a party, they may prioritize the party's interests over the needs of their constituents, limit their autonomy, foster partisanship and polarization, undermine accountability, and betray the principles of representative democracy. As such, it is important to be aware of the potential pitfalls of political party alignment and to encourage politicians to prioritize the needs of their constituents over the interests of their party.
This article was first published here https://subrosa-blonde.blogspot.com/2010/05/few-facts-about-gordon-brown.html but that blog has not been updated since 2016. This information is too important to lose so has been copied for safekeeping. If the owner of this content has any issues with this please contact admin.
A Few Facts About Gordon Brown
Sent to me by a person who was a life-long labour voter but says he will never vote labour again:
A few interesting facts about Gordon Brown
We used to have 6 independent regulators to regulate the different divisions of the financial services industry, including our Banks.
(Margaret Thatcher knew what the Banks were like and in the 1988 Finance Act she bound the Banks up in regulation to prevent them from being reckless!!!)
Then Gordon Brown became Chancellor on 6th May 1997
1. Gordon's banker friends said "We want all these regulators to go, we don't want regulators watching everything we do" AND GORDON SAID OK
So, Gordon announced on the 20th May 1997 (2 weeks after becoming Chancellor) that the six regulatory bodies would be broken up and a new Financial Services Authority would replace them. The FSA had virtually no powers over the Banks and he also took away the powers from the Bank of England to enforce regulation on them. The result is the devastation we are all suffering today.
2. We used to have a Monopolies and Mergers Commission
Then Gordon's banker friends said we don't want the Monopolies and Mergers commission telling us who we can and can't "Take Over" AND GORDON SAID OK
So, in 1998 Gordon scrapped the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and created a replacement called the Competition Commission, with very much reduced powers and different ideas of what used to be regarded as a "Monopoly".
The result is the Massive Corporations we have today who are ruling and shaping our lives for their own benefit and profits. Not to mention the massive Monopolies held by some of these corporations through the forced purchases of all their competitors.
3. We used to have pension regulations, which included something called "The Pensions Cap".
The pensions cap set a limit on how much pension any scheme member (including directors) could get from an occupational pension scheme, irrespective of how high their earnings were. It was there to protect the ordinary members pensions. To prevent Directors paying themselves obscene salaries and then draining the pension funds with huge pensions.
Then Gordon Brown's banker friends said that they wanted the pensions cap removing so that they could get pensions related to their obscene earnings.
(The whole Pensions industry gave him warnings of the effects it would have. Even the Inland Revenue put forward objections) BUT GORDON SAID OK
Because Gordon never likes to disappoint his banker friends.
So Gordon took away the Pensions Cap in 2005 and then some of his friends were able to leave their boardroom positions with huge pensions!!!
For example Fred Goodwin was apparently entitled to a pension of over £700,000
If Gordon had left the pensions cap in place that would have been a mere £125,000
Well done Fred and your mates!!!
(The Superannuations Division of the Inland Revenue have kept a record of what it should be, in readiness for when we get a new chancellor who sees fit to re-instate it. George Osborne has pledged to do that). The record of Pensions Cap limits are available to view on the Revenue's website.
4. The result of this is that along with Gordon's "Tax Raid" on pension funds starting July 1997, over four thousand UK company pension scheme's have closed their doors to new members and many of them have had to close down altogether, leaving millions of workers without any pension provision. This man Gordon Brown "professes to be a socialist and "for" the working man.
The working man's main form of long term financial security had for many years been his company pension scheme, something to look forward to at the end of a life of hard work, his reward, light at the end of a long dark tunnel. Gordon has put an end to that by destroying the most valuable asset of the average British worker.
5. It is one of the greatest travesties of justice that this man, who pretends to be 'for the working man' has in fact been his worst enemy for the last thirteen years and will leave a legacy that we will be clearing up for man years to come.
The real injustice is that it's all been done in areas which are totally out of sight to the general public and beyond the understanding of many.
GORDON RELIES ENTIRELY ON PEOPLE'S IGNORANCE TO GET AWAY WITH HIS INDISCRETIONS.
GORDON'S MOTTO: "DENY EVERYTHING AND ADMIT NOTHING" SEEMS TO WORK QUITE WELL!
6. LASTLY, WHAT GORDON LIKES TO CALL THE "GLOBAL BANKING CRISIS"
Have you noticed that we were the first to be in it and are the last to be out (and whether we are out is very speculative!)
As he has openly admitted, The Royal Bank of Scotland was the world's biggest bank.
So when RBS and HBOS were about to go BUST in October 2008 and they had to be bailed out overnight so they did not take the entire country down with them, (that by the way was almost certainly a decision made by the hierarchy in Whitehall for which Gordon loves to take the credit).
As the world's leading banks now all lend money to each other on a collosal scale, isn't it obvious that the worlds biggest bank going down would have a devastating effect on all the others it dealt with. This "world's biggest bank" had also sold bad mortgage books to other banks.
Most of the Banks in Europe which ran into crisis were dragged into it because of the crooked dealings of our big banks. A fact that both Germany and France were quick to remind Gordon Brown of at the G20 emergency meeting shortly after the crisis.
There are many other of Gordon's indiscretions, far too many to list here, but perhaps the few biggies shown above will give some insight into how Gordon operates.
By the way have you noticed how he has suddenly become interested in Social Issues now an election is looming and seems to be able to promise the world when, as Alistair Darling put it a few days ago, there is not a penny left in the bank!!!
Think very carefully before casting your vote for this man who is probably the most extreme capitalist of the past century while pretending to be "for the working man".
GORDON WORSHIPS THE SUPER RICH AND POWERFUL AND CANNOT SAY NO TO THEM.
Posted by subrosa at 21:50
Labels: Gordon Brown