the dynamics of the UK governing process

The dynamics of the UK governing process

The big challenge for a startup political party - including the Will of the Electorate - is to convince potential supporters that it has a hope of making an impact, and getting seats at Westminster... so their vote is not going to be wasted in the wilderness of no hopers. This task has not been made any simpler over the years for serious contenders by the presence of "pantomime politics" in the shape of the Monster Raving Loony party, and various others seeking 15 minutes of fame on the stages of the bye elaction results that are announced to the nation.

But the "system" of government is designed to maintain status quo, and like any immune system, reject the presence of foreign bodies with a range of "antibody" responses.

A "governor" is traditionally a device on an engine that prevents the engine from over or under revving, and maintain a "steady state". A governor provides negative feedback to slow down, and positive feedback to speed up until equilibrium is achieved.

The situation in 2023 is unusual - there is definitely no more than a year to the next UK general election - barring a major crisis - so it may be possible to institute rapid radical change in under 12 months and see that take effect - when conventional wisdom suggests that it takes two or three election cycles to make a difference. 

There are plenty of examples of political parties with big name participants that have struggled for many years and barely achieved a single seat in the House of Commons. 

The commercial media plays a big part in this process - it naturally wants to feel that it participates and wields influence to draw a majority audience to sell to advertisers. Which gives the BBC the option to deploy its social engineering influence for idealogical purposes, and this attracts staff and fellow travellers seeking to promote a range of subjective political agendas.

 

It is very much in the interests of the Whitehall establishment to make it impossible for new upstarts to arrive and interrupt their largely unchallenged grip on the basics of government.

Students of the excellent Yes Minister TV series from the 80s will know that the Civil Service has spent many years training the major political parties and subverting the system to the point at which it is almost impossible to tell who's in government. This has led to the notion of a "uniparty", implying that there is so little difference between Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat that it makes no difference which one is "in power". 

Voter apathy seems actively sought by civil servants, since there's nothing worse than a populist movement with widespread support in the population who then expect to see radical ideas executed by government, creating change that means hard work for the Civil Service. So the idea that all political parties are as bad as one another suits this mindset.

The main drivers of politics are blown along by the storms created by world events - and organizations such as the World Economic Forum ("you will own nothing and be happy") and its accolytes now have a central role in determining our future - without any direct democratic input or control from the voters of the United Kingdom.

A major task for any sovereign government concerned to maintain genuine democracy will be to work out how to contain the WEF and other influence seeking cabals (Bilderberg, various regional alignments such as the EU). 

the anthropogenic carbon hypothesis is coming steadily apart...

V0.1 19oct2023

Carbon dioxide

I haven't been discussing the carbon climate recently, since there is steadily growing evidence of cracking in the facade of the zealots. Notably Sunak's minor concession on fossil fuels and net zero targets. This contribution is a breath of much need objectivity and addresses the ongoing inconvenient truth that the fixation with carbon dioxide remains a hypothesis without evidence merely coincidence, extrapolation and religious conviction that flatly refuses to look at the bigger picture which remains heresy for politicians who are terrified to face up to the possibility that much of money spent chasing climate change to date, is being misdirected. As Mark Twain observed - it's easy to fool somebody, but much more difficult to convince them that they have been fooled.

From X ... A repost by Scott Adams..

Carbon Dioxide Does Not Cause Warming. An Original X Post by @owengregorian

The climate-change scheme and net-zero carbon policy are based upon a false notion that carbon dioxide and other gases cause global warming.  They do not.  We don’t have to guess about this.  We have empirical and scientific proof.

I owned a Weights and Measures gas-physics test-and-repair facility and conducted tests.  We learned gas physics from engineers at factories that manufacture gas-physics instruments.  They must understand gas physics, or their instruments won’t work.

How academia got this wrong

In 1988, James Hansen flip-flopped from “global cooling” to “global warming” being dangerous.

Al Gore fed the fear with $22 billion in annual funding for universities and professors to study the matter.  Hansen’s claim is a falsehood.  People move to warmer climes for their health.  Consider all the species, in the plant and animal kingdoms, that thrive near the equator, whereas none survives at the poles.

Yet, out of desperation for the money, professors cornered themselves into attempts to prove a falsehood to be true.  To do that, one must lie.  Each lie created new falsehoods until they have made gas physics look like a child’s messy bedroom strewn with theories.

Nearly everything we have heard about global warming for the past thirty-five years has been from the professorial world, which has been untested theory.  How often have their declarations and predictions come true?

Because their world is theoretical, they use peer review for approval.  But there is no such thing as peer review in the private sector; either something works or it does not, and everything is tested.  Engineers who design gas-physics instruments must be correct, or their instruments fail, buildings might burn, and they certainly would be fired.

There are two trees of gas physics: the professorial-theoretical tree in academia, beginning in 1662, and real-world gas physics, taught by private-sector engineers, beginning in 1836.  The professorial tree began in 1662 with Boyle’s law (pv=k, higher the pressure, lower the volume).  American Meter company engineers invented the gas meter in 1836, the same dual-bellows meter that sits in front of your home.  That began the non-theoretical tree, which is supported by real science — testing.

In the last half of that century, John D. Rockefeller began using American Meter instruments (turbines and diaphragm meters) to measure thousands of cubic feet of compressed natural gas into large tanks, and transporting them by train to New York.  Apparently, a customer disputed the amount of gas sent.  American Meter tested the diaphragms measuring the flow out at low pressure and the high-pressure turbines measuring gas into the tanks.  They found the meters to be accurate; however, the readings were significantly different.

To test the correction factor of Boyle’s law, American Meter built a high-pressure test facility in northern Pennsylvania, which is still there.  I toured it with them.  They determined that Boyle’s law is wrong.  The higher the pressure, the more wrong it is.  They meticulously tested and created calculi that match the tests.  These calculi are called supercompressibility formulas.  Over the years, they have created fifteen formulas, AGA 1 through 15.  Not one of them shows up in my advanced physics book.  The book has pages of calculus derived from formulas that are wrong.  Even the ideal (or universal) gas law formula is not precisely accurate.  It would have to change with each gas to remain accurate.

There is no curriculum for gas physics in academia.  Engineering and physics classes merely touch upon the subject with centuries-old (and misleading) postulates such as continuity of energy and thermodynamics.  Professors have used these to leap to the conclusion that energy cannot be destroyed, or at least it migrates on and on.  This is also false.

Theoretical gas physics is like theoretical math: it leads to false conclusions.

@ScottAdamsSays 

americanthinker.com/articles/2023/…

Why I Think We Are Fooked - Sargon_of_Akkad

** I am posting this from X - Carl Benjamin is a thoughtful commentator who he has been randomly de-platformed several times over the years for offending the sensibilities of the woke - and been declared an extreme right wing and provocative conspiracy theorist. But you are grown up, so make your own mind up. His is the usual crime - he is too often correct when calling out the keepers on the woke narratives, and that is now unforgivable.  

15oct23 https://twitter.com/Sargon_of_Akkad/status/1713371848296087847 

Why I Think We Are Fooked

Carl Benjamin 

@Sargon_of_Akkad  @ThePodcastoftheLotusEaters

The West is experiencing an on-going collapse of moral legitimacy. It has been for many years. Many of our elites use support for Israel as a proxy for an unambiguous moral good: preventing another Holocaust. This is why our elites are generally leaping to near-genocidal support of Israel over Palestine. However, support for Israel is actually not that unambiguous due to the power it exerts over Palestine, and this greatly complicates the moral equation. This would normally preclude full-throated support for any cause, but in the special case of Israel, our elites are completely captured and, in a sense, view themselves (at least project the attitude) of fighting the new Nazis and preventing another genocide. This full-throated support in favour of an ambiguous cause naturally creates a (large) constitutency who recognise the inherent unfairness in only one side being properly represented in political discussion, especially when it appears that the people this constituency views itself as defending is facing an impending bloodbath. I would guess that this is radicalising the Islamic world, and shows us to be, in their view, morally backwards and worthy of fighting; more worthy, in fact, of fighting one another. The main problem this presents to the current Western (American) world order is that it is predicated on consent. The West claims to desire a peaceful and stable world in which "human rights" are protected and nations may prosper as long as they respect certain rules. The implication that underpins the legitimacy of said rules is that they are fair and any party should be able to find adequate redress given any wrongs done to them. When it is demonstrated that the rule of human rights is actually a fiction that is used to keep the rest of the world quiet, then this system comes to an end. The erosion of this system has, of course, been happening for many years now. Various pretexts have been used many times to justify a breach of the doctrine of human rights, and this has been grudgingly accepted because the benefits of the Western world order have outweighed the damage done by these exercises of power disguised as moral crusades. However, we have arrived at a position where, in fact, the United States has been economically attacking other states, after deliberately and systematically attempting to erode their standing in the world, based on our own perceived moral superiority. This has created a massive upset in the global economic order and forced the disparate opponents of the West into an economic coalition with one another, whilst massively weakening America's allies. The short-sightedness of this can surely not be overstated, as the plan to judo-flip the various economies of the opposition to bring them to their knees simply hasn't worked; it has been decades for some of these regimes and they still persist, and have been laying the groundwork for a parallel world economy. Needless to say, as the world's economic hegemon, the United States can't allow this to happen. However, it seems that it is happening and it probably cannot be stopped at this point. I think this is really why the political class is gripped with war fervour over a tiny terrorist-run strip of land. It isn't that there is an existential threat to Israel from Gaza, it is that we are looking at the potential to set off a chain of events that shows the West to not have the moral legitimacy it claims to have, which will unravel its own political alliances and put all its enemies into a righteous coaltion against us, whilst destroying the global economic system and throw everything into chaos. The West will need to fight or the Western elites will lose everything. At this point, I think a world war is inevitable. The West's lack of moral legitimacy is seen in its own countries; a very large percentage of the population of almost all of them has severe doubts about the legitimacy of the governments and institutions of those countries because the fifth columns that have been allowed to proliferate within our societies have done their work of making said governments and institutions unreliable, immoral, and degraded. The point of the left has been to weaken us from within by sowing moral discord, and they have done a very good job. They have, in fact, undermined our very claims to nationhood, family, and imperium. We do not view ourselves as the legitimate rulers of anything, and the major institutions of every country spend a large amount of their time attacking the majority population groups of that country. It is well-known that Western militaries have serious trouble recruiting, and that we are struggling economically. To say we are being poorly governed is an understatement and a half and everyone knows it. There is simply no passion to fight for a civilisation that appears to be in collapse, appears to hate itself, and appears to be vindictive to other states on the world stage. Say what you like about Trump, but he actually seemed to be able to respect the nations ranged against the US. This goes a long way. Now, that time appears to have passed. It seems that, in their desperate bid for moral legitimacy, the dominate faction of Western elites are at once going to drive us into a war, whilst the subversive faction of elites are going to stoke the fires of civil war in our own countries while we do it. Personally, I think we're in a position of profound weakness. It isn't that our enemies are strong, it is that we are vulnerable and we don't really know what we stand for or why we should do what we do. So we will use Israel as a proxy for the expansion of our power and this will become an intolerable nightmare for our opponents, and they will probably decide that the best opportunity they will get to escape Western dominance has arrived. It is going to be painful, bloody, and ruinous, but if ever it could be done, now seems like the time. I do hope I am wrong.

Sanity Czech

15oct23

DRAFT edit v0.1

This is translation from a Czech  website of a feature by Petr Robejšek, send to me by an old friend who is an expat Czech living in Australia, who shares the general sense of gloom and despair felt by many of those of us who have lived through the period since world War two and seen a prosperous world, free from totalitarian Nazis and communists. But now gradually turned back into a dystopian nightmare by the entitled generations that have experienced no real hardships, but have fallen hook line and sinker for the classic cultural subversion tactic that was set out in the famous Yuri Bezmenov 1984 briefings. 

https://youtu.be/yErKTVdETpw

See the original at...

https://neviditelnypes.lidovky.cz/spolecnost/doba-je-evropa-v-upadku.A230728_193334_p_spolecnost_nef

Is Europe in decline?

More than thirty years ago, the West celebrated a triumphant victory over communism, but today the vast majority of European countries have only a second hand democracy, a moribund economy, problematic security and an Americanized culture.

Comfortable decades and their consequences

Nevertheless, it would be inaccurate to talk about the decline of European civilization, because these are all the consequences of the long-term degeneration of the political caste.

From the end of World War 2 until about the 1970s, the Western world was fine. At the time, most countries had relatively sound economies in a functional economic and political model. 

And favourable global conditions have ensured prosperity growth largely independently of the quality of political leaders and their decisions. Until the end of the last century, the vast majority of European countries ruled so easily that elites lost the skills necessary to handle even less favorable situations. That is why the number of self-centered speakers grew, climbing into high politics and creating there, across the borders of the parties and the ideology of the coalition of interest with anyone. Top politicians defended the rise of those who could endanger them, and so the quality of the political caste continued to deteriorate.

Then there was a break. The Internet fever of 1996-2001 did not bode well, and the financial crisis of 2008 definitively ended the era of a prosperous economy and global security stability. It suddenly turned out that comfortable governance was only possible on debt, that social inequality is escalating in Europe and that migratory pressure from the South threatens the continent. And that wasn't all.

In an unfavorable situation, two basic strategic mistakes of the ruling elite were fully reflected. On the one hand, rulers have systematically favored the economy to the detriment of other social areas, such as social security, culture, security and science. The whole of Western society has become the service sector for the economy. The logical consequence was the second fundamental error of the elites. Governments have stopped caring for the interests of the majority of the population and have served mainly the needs of business circles. An American study by Martin Gillens and a German one by Armin Schäfer, showed that the political interests of the middle class and the poorer classes play virtually no role in both countries. Both researches concluded that the more important the political goals for these population groups are, the less likely the political caste is to carry them out. That was the beginning of the end of representative democracy.

In the first decade of the new millennium, demands for the quality of governance increased sharply, but second-rate political staff could not meet them. The result has been and still is a continuous chain of crises, failures and halves. In the grip between the growing influence of multinational companies and the effort to maintain power, governments have increasingly begun to pursue conflicting goals, such as sustainable economic growth and current labor savings and increasing sales. European integration or migration policy has also become a synonym for confusion and contradiction. The preliminary peak of curious political plans is the so-called green deal.

The contradictory and de facto inefficiency of its goals is trying to bridge the centralization of everything for European elites. In the last two decades, politicians, businessmen, the media and experts have merged into one ruling group, and their vision for the future is centralist. It is striking that almost all post-communist countries have taken over this philosophy of unity at all costs, one on one. Their leader, but not even most citizens at all, thought that before the historic moment of centralization of political and economic power, it had brought Central and Eastern Europe into a state of needy dictatorships.

We can do it

What we are experiencing today is not only the bankruptcy of specific politicians and governments, but unfortunately also the bankruptcy of representative democracy. The new nobility of politicians, businessmen, the media and experts has different interests than the majority of the population. But how is he supposed to represent them when he speaks differently and about completely different things than most voters. The power of elites today cannot rely on convincing arguments and results, and all that remains is manipulation and propaganda.

And the result? We live in an era of empty words when truth is not sought, but only declares when truth depends only on volume and volume only on money. We live in an era when there are neither promises that must be fulfilled, nor knowledge that can be refuted, nor laws that apply to all.

Examples? Politicians and the media are teatrally desperate for the division of opinion of society and themselves contribute to its deepening. Although they are bothered by differences of opinion within a more or less consistent population that European countries had by 2015. But they do not mind the programmed deep opinion split between Europeans and members of the African or Asian civilization circle. Simply put, no matter how much the Germans, the French or the Czechs disagree about politics or anything else, they still do not go with knives. This signals a truly alarming opinion, but above all the civilizational rift that governments want to import to the continent.

And while German swimming pools are dominated by oriental machismo and the situation in France sometimes resembles a civil war, European governments want „ to stop “ illegal migration by legalizing it. Angela Merkel's legendary air castle hovers over this policy, „ we can handle “.

Another example of manipulative policy is that European society is undermining its own hypersensitivity. Its intellectual and political leaders idealize and romanticize weakness. The world he describes to us is full of victims who are not to blame. They are not responsible for their condition and the majority company is obliged to submit to their needs. In 80 million Germany, there are 3,000 people whom medical science recognizes as transgender. But from the local mainstream, you get the impression that it is at least a third of the population.

We have shown that the rulers have maneuvered into a situation in which they are unable to secure the support of citizens with convincing arguments. And that is why they are not only prone to manipulation, but also to censorship. They cannot change reality according to the values they appropriate, so they change how reality is, must or must not be talked about. They can't handle the real world, so they give people the impression of an unreal world. But even that is no longer enough. Elites can't handle the real world, so I'm realizing my unreal world. How?

Digitization of everything

Especially in the last three years, we have been experiencing a frontal attack on functioning and necessary social institutions in order to undermine the foundations of the stability and performance of the continent. Yes, this is an attempt to subvert European civilization. The world's largest PR agencies are targeted and paramilitary. We have already talked about migration and domination with the naked eye of invisible minorities over most. We can also mention the dramaturgy of panic pandemics, the gender campaign, the systematic breakdown of family structures and, most importantly, climate change.

Media brainwashing, which is strongly reminiscent of communist propaganda, suggests that there is a saving eco-ideology at stake. But at least the Communists promised prosperity, the environmentalists offer only austerities and despotism. The climatic religion and the sacrament of the carbon footprint is a way to morally sanctify and realistically expropriate and politically enslave people. And that is why they blackmail us with supposed hereditary sins against nature. We have to lose weight, supposedly for mother country. But in reality, it is your right to own and your freedom to use your property.

Secondary political and media elites are no longer able to deal democratically with the diversity and free will of the people, and they want to „ solve it by digitizing “ society. The goal is the planability of human behavior and the ability to manage society as a production line

It is no coincidence that the project „ state as a company “ has been haunting Western politics for at least two decades. At the same time, politicians led the hand of the global economic elite, and therefore governments had a dictatorship under this slogan. And over the last three years, Western societies have strongly advocated the tendency to manage not only the economy but everything with the help of modern technologies. The whole society is to turn into a production line and thus become a socio-political version of Taylorism. At the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, obsessed with the flawless operation of belt production, Frederick Taylor tried to increase labor productivity by using detailed prescribed movements of the worker while operating the production line. In Taylor's conception, the worker is only part of the machine.And today's superelites want to enforce the taylor standardization of the behavior and thinking of all people in all situations and thus make society a machine.

The way to do this is to constantly narrow the space in which one can make one's own decisions, simply because, from the point of view of the elites, every free decision is a disorder that threatens their government. They want to solve „ by digitizing society with their inability to treat differences and the free will of the people democratically.

German philosopher Karl Jaspers as early as 1966 and drew attention to the danger of party despotism; he literally spoke of „ the deadly danger of a party oligarchy. “ The crises of the last two decades have accelerated the realization of his prediction and the representative political model degenerates into a dictatorship. The political and economic model that would have arisen if they had succeeded would have been identical to the social structure of the Middle Ages.

At the top of the pyramid of power should stand a few thousand richest ( in the Middle Ages they were royal families ), then the media and scientists ( then they were priests ) and finally politicians and civil servants ( former court officials and claw officials ). At the very bottom is the mass of subjects.

How to get out of this?

Symptoms of the real decline of the West can be seen in big cities. They live in a high proportion of the educated and well-earning population. These are often people unable to think independently and prone to slavishly accept distorted notions of progress and freedom. These include intellectuals in the islands of socio-scientific departments, a large proportion of media workers, many government officials and politicians, apparatchiks of non-profit organizations, and a bunch of rich snobs looking for an impressive opportunity to untie themselves morally. This atmosphere of cities is inflated by the media and pretended to be the mood of society as a whole.

And that is why it depends so much on when the masses of still silent ordinary people, especially those who live, will put their phlegmaticism off the metropolis and understand that representative democracy has served and will either be replaced by despotism, or direct democracy.

Yes, European civilization is in danger of decline, but it can be averted when there are enough people in the still largely silent mass who will start living their own society. One that is not organized „ from top to bottom “, in which there is no need for political intermediaries who still represent only themselves. It is high time to fragment power and return it to individuals who begin to create a self-help and self-governing society from the bottom. It is high time that those „ down “ determined what they decide for themselves and what they let decide on the upper floor. It is high time to start living a new society.

Petr Robejšek