Archive

Archive for the ‘politics’ Category

Too Much of a Good Thing

October 11, 2017 Leave a comment

I would broadly classify my political views as liberal left but, as you will be aware if you follow this blog, I have drifted away from a conventional view of that type and increasingly disagree with other people in that particular political camp.

I’m not suggesting at all that I have become a conservative, and when I do political surveys I seem to be just as far left as ever, but I do have difficulty with one area where the left have become intolerable recently: that is in their excessive political correctness.

I have heard the claim that there is no political correctness, just correctness, but this is total nonsense. The views that political correctness supports are all very much a matter of opinion and could easily be argued both ways. For example: is affirmative action just another way to treat one group unfairly in comparison to another? Does it simply create another instance of the problem it is supposed to solve? Even if you are a strong supporter of affirmative action you should at least admit that another interpretation is possible.

But that’s not what happens. In various environments where the PC left rule, even suggesting that an officially condoned measure, like affirmative action, might not be fair or reasonable automatically makes you the enemy and liable to a totally mindless barrage of abuse regarding what a “bigot” or “sexist” or “racist” you might be.

It has got to the point where I welcome those labels, because if you have to be a bigot, sexist, or racist to speak the truth, then that’s just what I will need to be.

But that is an example of another phenomenon the left are guilty of: concept creep. Originally to be a racist (for example but other insulting labels are equally relevant here) you would need to exhibit some fairly extreme behaviour, such as refusing to socialise with another racial group, or actively trying to stop that group participating in society, etc. But now all you have to do is suggest that the same group shouldn’t get extra privileges that others don’t get.

In fact it is the other side who are really the racists. I want everyone to be equal. And I know the argument that to make some groups equal they need extra help. Fair enough, but I disagree. But let’s have a reasonable discussion about this instead of just getting abusive.

The problem here is that by not being reasonable the left actually reduce the potential effectiveness of what they want to achieve. Many people are sickened by the ridiculous political correctness they espouse and that just drives them more to the right (it’s happened to me and to many others).

So it’s like too much of a good thing. Getting equal rights for everyone is good, but by giving extra rights to a group who, in the past were disadvantaged, they go too far and negate the good work already done.

And the failure to engage in reasonable debate about a contentious subject indicates to me that they maybe haven’t thought about it too carefully. I enjoy debating my beliefs because I am confident I can defend them, and if I can’t defend them that suggests maybe I was wrong and should change what I think is true. This is a healthy approach to arguing these points, but it’s not one you see very often from the PC left.

The underlying phenomenon powering this set of beliefs seems to be defending marginalised groups. These groups would include non-whites, women, LGBTQs, the disabled, and Muslims. That is OK. If certain groups have genuine disadvantages let’s try to fix that, but don’t go too far.

These groups should still be open to scrutiny and it should be OK to criticise them when it is appropriate and when the criticism is true. And this word, “true”, seems to be one the left are completely oblivious to.

So if I criticised Muslims because surveys show a large percentage of them partially or totally support some of the violence perpetrated by Islamic extremists, then answer that criticism. Show me why it’s not true, or justify it in some way. Don’t just call me a bigot.

And if I say a lot of the rhetoric created by the “Black Lives Matter” cause is nonsense because, in proportion to the number of crimes involved, blacks actually aren’t targeted by US police to any significant extent more than anyone else (despite there being a few clearly racist cops) then show me alternative statistics which show I’m wrong, or explain why the stats aren’t fair. But don’t just call me a racist.

And if I say that it is girls and women who are by far getting the best outcomes in our education system now and, why do we need to create new programs to make this advantage even greater, then show me the facts that counter this idea. But don’t just call be sexist.

But people very rarely even attempt to come up with points to counter mine, because they don’t know them. My opponents just follow an ideology because that’s what they hear in the politically correct echo chamber they live in. When they do see an alternative view their only reaction is pathetic name calling.

There are points which can be made to counter all three statements I made above, but I don’t think they are very compelling. But a person from the PC left stating those points really well might convince me I’m wrong. But that’s just not what they do.

Until this behaviour ends, the left are doomed I’m afraid. We’re just going to get more of the sort of politics that elected Donald Trump. That was mainly the fault of the left being completely out of touch: of refusing to criticise Muslims, of treating police actions unfairly, and of making the presidential campaign a feminist contest, which they lost.

So to anyone on the left still reading this, please take notice. Your excessive political correctness is just destroying your own opportunities to convert more people to your ideals. Do what you think is right, but avoid too much of a good thing.

Advertisements

The Least Bad

September 22, 2017 Leave a comment

It’s general election time again here in New Zealand, and although we don’t have much of the incredibly tedious, sanctimonious claptrap of some other countries, such as the US, it is still starting to get a bit annoying, especially the tendency for using “alternative facts” by the right.

But I do have to say that in other ways it is quite an intriguing contest, because the polling seems to indicate a lot of uncertainty over the preferred major party in the next government, whether the minor parties are worth voting for, and who would make the best prime minister.

I tend to look on the democratic process as a sort of interesting sociological event which can be observed a bit like an anthropologist would watch some primitive rite carried out by a stone age tribe from the depths of the rainforests of New Guinea. In other words, it’s hard to take it too seriously, and even if you could it’s best not to if you want to retain your sanity!

In fact, everyone I have talked to so far is extremely cynical about the political system we currently have. This attitude is reflected in real statistics too. A poll conducted a few months ago indicated a great deal of disenchantment with politics in general (this was before we got the new Labour leader whose promotion might have improved people’s view of politicians a bit).

Here’s a few of the findings from that poll…

The majority of people polled think the economic and political systems are rigged against them. Also, women and those earning less are even more likely to consider the system broken.

Less than half (45%) disagree with the phrase “the country is in decline”, 25% agree with it, and 30% are neutral.

Over half those polled (56%) say traditional parties and politicians don’t care about people like them. And 64% think the economy is rigged to advantage the rich and powerful. But just 50 per cent of people want a strong leader willing to break the rules.

So it seems to me that most people see the current system as defective at best and a complete failure at worst, but they clearly aren’t sure what to do about it based on the figure of only half wanting a strong new leader capable of pushing through change.

And that is fair enough, because past experience with change does not exactly inspire confidence. The last time we had a strong leader determined to push through major change here in New Zealand was 1984. Yes, that ominous year was when a neo-liberal inspired Labour government pushed through massive changes which are only being corrected now, almost 35 years later.

And Donald Trump could be seen as a strong leader determined to force change on the current system, but most people are concerned about his actions (to say the least). I don’t partake in the mindless bashing of Trump that many others do, but there is a lot to be concerned about there.

Having a strong leader is not always a good thing, because strength is only beneficial when it is connected with knowledge, honesty, and fairness, which Trump is sometimes lacking. In fact the worst thing possible is a strong leader with bad ideas!

So it almost seems hopeless. People don’t like the system as it is, but they are (quite rightly) afraid of change too. Maybe we are trapped in a no-win situation.

But that’s not to suggest that participation in the political system is pointless. Not all of the options are equally bad, even if none of them are absolutely good. Voters need to be realistic and remember that voting for the least bad party is better than not voting and effectively giving an advantage to a party you might support less than others.

So we should just be realistic and realise that, unless we are a member of the rich and powerful elite, we cannot really win in any meaningful way, we should just choose based on how we lose the least.

It’s rather unfortunate that our current systems don’t give us the freedoms and other benefits they promise. But the sooner people realise what the true situation is the sooner they can make meaningful choices about how to make it better. And don’t take it too seriously!

Laugh about it, shout about it
When you’ve got to choose
Every way you look at this you lose…

Forget About Growth

August 23, 2017 Leave a comment

I recently read a brief report on how an individual could make the greatest contribution to minimising climate change. This has been a controversial subject for many years now but the need to act is now more accepted.

So it seems that the world is gradually coming around to the idea that climate change is real and – even more gradually – to the idea that we need to do something about it. Even Donald Trump’s latest opinion is that is something that needs to be acted on, but he would prefer not to it through Paris Agreement.

So people who don’t accept climate change as real are probably increasingly irrelevant, and the discussion on what to do about it is where the real conflict now happens. Unfortunately it is now too late to fix the problem relatively painlessly and only difficult options remain. So the people who refused to accept reality in the past have now got us to the point where they now don’t want to act because it is too hard, but that is only because of their past obstructiveness.

But this post isn’t primarily yet another lecture on climate change. I like to tackle the really big subjects so this goes beyond the biggest problem facing modern society and looks at the cause of it, and most of the other major problems we have.

Getting back to the report: it listed several actions an individual could take and showed how many tonnes of CO2 emissions per year that would save. Upgrading to low energy light bulbs would save 0.1 tonnes, recycling would save about 0.2, going vegetarian about 0.5, buying only green energy 1.5, avoiding a trans-Atlantic air trip 1.6, and having one fewer child 60 tonnes.

The methodology used to generate these numbers could be debated, but the overall message is still relevant: that the real source of most of our problems is that there are too many people! When having one less person in the world saves six times more CO2 than all the usual energy saving efforts combined this should be obvious.

There is nothing inherently wrong with burning fossil fuels, we are just burning too much. A certain amount of rain forest clearance is sustainable but it is just happening too quickly. The environment can cope with some level of pollution but not the levels we generate now. Famine primarily happens because there are too many people for what the land can produce in food. Many conflicts happen because populations exceed the levels a country can cope with.

I can remember that a few decades back population control was one of the most commonly discussed issues in environmentalism but now it is hardly heard. What has changed?

That’s hard to know, for sure, but I think a major factor is capitalism’s constant need for growth. We have seen this everywhere. Unless business is growing we have a recession. The idea that the economy might have reached a point where is it sufficiently healthy and we don’t need any further growth just seems impossible to contemplate.

Growth in itself isn’t always problematic – although it often is – but the way that growth often happens is. Here in New Zealand it has mainly been achieved through increased population . We keep hearing that our economy is healthy and growing but, of course, it isn’t. Measures, such as per capita GDP, which calculate the economic contribution for each person, have not changed, and some have actually gone backwards.

So there is no growth except in population, and increased population is causing many social and environmental problems, including poverty, homelessness, and traffic congestion.

New Zealand has a small enough population that even quite significant percentage increases can be absorbed without causing a total disaster, but the same phenomenon in other countries which already have large populations is a bigger problem, and each country affects all the others.

Water pollution is a major issue in New Zealand. Why do we have that? Because we have too many dairy cows, and the reason we have those is that there is a good market for milk powder to feed all the Chinese people who are suddenly participating in the global economy. And the effects of overpopulation is much worse in India and some other countries.

We have too many cows because farmers can make more money by cramming more cows into land which previously was not used for dairying. They are prepared to do this while destroying our environment because, in capitalism, too much is never enough.

There are other causes of overpopulation, of course. I have already blamed capitalism so you might not be surprised to hear the next culprit I will accuse is religion! There is no doubt that religious beliefs such as an aversion to birth control and a need to have large families to increase the number of members of your particular church are a problem (yes, I’m talking about you Catholicism and Islam).

And to make matters even worse, the increased birth rate because of this is often in exactly the countries which are already struggling with famine, civil war, and other significant issues.

We need a bit more rationality in this world. I don’t mean I want to have everyone walking around like robots or Mr Spock, I just mean we could do without the more extreme cases of irrationality which cause a lot of harm to society in general. And the pursuit of growth for no good reason would be a great place to start.

A Ponzi Scheme

August 14, 2017 Leave a comment

Everyone has heard of Ponzi schemes, right? If not, here’s the dictionary definition: a form of fraud in which belief in the success of a non-existent enterprise is fostered by the payment of quick returns to the first investors from money invested by later investors. It is named after Charles Ponzi who set up elaborate money-making ventures based on the system in the early 1900s.

Typically the first few people involved in the scheme promise to pay huge returns to the “investors” and when these are demanded they are paid from the initial investments made from other investors. It can never last, of course, but the original perpetrators usually try to get out before it all turns bad.

A related scheme is known as a “pyramid scheme”. In these the early “investors” are paid a fee by those they recruit and a lesser amount by those the recruiters recruit, etc. It works as long as new people are recruited, but the “deeper” into the scheme you are the less you will get and the more you will be paying those at the peak.

A unique feature of these schemes is that the organisation or individual running the scheme doesn’t actually need to do anything apart from run the scheme. They don’t need to sell anything or provide any service, for example. The scheme is entirely about shuffling money from one place to another (generally from the “suckers” who sign up late to those who were involved in the initial setup of the scheme).

As we all know, there are some pyramid schemes which also sell products (I’m sure we can all name some) but that is more or less just a cover for the dishonest underlying structure.

I was thinking about this recently and realised that there are many aspects of our modern economic system which make it look like just another Ponzi scheme. The economy only works well while there is “growth” or “increased efficiency or productivity”, yet these aims are totally unsustainable in the long term, and even during the short period that they are sustainable they are often undesirable.

In New Zealand a major election issue is immigration. New Zealand allegedly has a healthy and growing economy – and some stats support this view – yet the vast majority of people don’t feel as if they are doing well. How is this possible? Well basically it gets back to the fact that this alleged “growth” we see in our “rock star economy” is all fake. It is primarily due to increased population, provided by immigration, and no real progress has been made at all.

Unfortunately for the politicians supporting this scheme, it cannot last. Like most rock stars our economy will crash and burn when the excesses of its existence overtake any worthwhile contribution it is making. Eventually everyone will realise they are just being ripped off by a giant Ponzi scheme. But by that time the people in government who have created this situation will probably be gone.

Of course I should point out two things here. First, a pyramid scheme is probably a better description that a Ponzi for the economy, but Ponzi just sounds cooler so it better serves my rhetorical narrative; and second, the economy isn’t a pure Ponzi or pyramid scheme and almost everyone would admit that it works well in some ways.

Despite the obvious and numerous faults in capitalism, for example, it does produce the goods and services the First World needs to maintain its lavish lifestyle. As I have pointed out many times in the past, the system is grossly inefficient, poorly focussed, and generally corrupt, but I would never claim it doesn’t have some good points as well, especially for the original investors in the Ponzi or the people at the top of the pyramid (AKA the 1%).

But it will fail because indefinite growth is impossible and because the 99% who support the people at the top of the pyramid will eventually catch on to what’s really happening and rebel. It’s not a matter of if, but when. Like all Ponzi schemes it will fail and it will probably happen through catastrophic collapse rather than a careful restructuring.

When it happens it won’t be pretty, just like poor old Charles Ponzi’s slow and painful decline and death after all his wonderful and elaborate schemes failed.

Care, Think, Vote

August 10, 2017 Leave a comment

On what might be the most important day of the year so far for New Zealand politics (when the leader of the opposition was changed) a reporter from Radio NZ went out to South Auckland, which is a traditional Labour constituency. She asked what they think of Andrew Little (the old leader) and Jacinda Ardern (the new leader). Here’s what people said…

Reporter: Do you know who the Labour leader is at the moment? [possibly to see if they knew the leader had been changed]

First person: No [nervous laugh], no…

Second person: Umm, no I don’t actually, to be honest, no.

Third person: Ah, no I don’t actually.

Fourth person: Um, not as this morning, unless it’s changed already. [so you would know if it had changed, but not if it hadn’t?]

Fifth person: Um, I forgot his name, but I support him 100% [so that’s full support for someone whose name you can’t remember… OK] Yeah. [when told it was Andrew Little] Andrew Little, oh yeah, that’s his name, yeah. He’s a good guy, he’s a good guy. Yeah. [when told he had quit this morning] Well we needed him for like, you know, to win the election. But, I’m a bit gutted now, yeah.

Sixth person: Um, is it Bill English? [no, that’s the prime minister] Am I right? [reporter: have you heard of Andrew Little before] Um, I think so, maybe, years ago. [poor Andrew, he did have trouble reaching the people]

Seventh person: I don’t know. [reporter: What about Jacinda Ardern] Nope. [reporter:Do you know any Labour MPs] Oh, is Helen Clark one? [her friend laughs, and says “yeah”] There you go, Helen Clark. [she was leader about 10 years ago] [reporter: The new leader is Jacinda Ardern] Oh, OK. Cool, cool. [reporter: What do you think about that?] I think that’s a good idea. She’s young, vibrant, you know, she’ll have a lot of ideas, so yeah. [reporter: Do you know who Kelvin Davis is?] Yeah, I do. [reporter: He’s the new deputy] Is he? Well, that is pretty good, yeah.

Reporter: What would make you want to vote?

Eighth person: Build their “module” on more American style of politics which is more, I guess, showmanship, razzamatazz, probably get us a bit more interested in our politics, ’cause our politicians – no offence – are really quite ugly and boring, [no offense taken, I’m sure] so, it’s hard for millennials when all we care about is Rhianna and Drake. [reporter: What about Jacinda Ardern though] Oh, I don’t know, I mean, she’s no Helen Clark in my eyes, who’s a boss-as bitch. [best… comment… ever]

Overall, I’m not sure whether to laugh or cry. I mean, even in the past when I had no interest in politics at all I could at least name the leader of the opposition (as well as the PM and a few other key ministers) so the ignorance of these people is truly astonishing. And considering there will be a general election here in a few weeks you might expect political knowledge to be a bit better than this.

But in contrast, when interviewing people in South Dunedin after Jacinda Ardern became the new leader, we got these responses…

First person: Probably better for them, but too late, I don’t think I’d want to be Jacinda and inherit the Labour Party. [The Labour Party has done very well since Ardern took over]

Second person: She’ll be good but they still won’t get in. [This is still uncertain, but they have a lot better chance now than they did before the change]

Third person: She seems really like a typical NZ person with ambition. I didn’t have too much faith in Andrew Little. [Fair call. I actually liked Little, but he didn’t communicate well with the average voter]

Fourth person: I just think it’s cool having a younger person leading a party ’cause you always see these old men. [Another fair call. Some “old men” did connect with the people, but neither the current PM nor any recent previous Labour leader did]

Fifth person: I don’t know enough about her. I know nothing. [Well at least they admit it, and to be fair we don’t actually know much about her]

Sixth person: She’ll probably put everybody off Labour, unfortunately. [Judging by the polling this person could not be more wrong]

Seventh person: She’s charismatic but it’s too close to the election. It’s a bad look for the party. So yeah, maybe next time. [Apparently it is not too close. Things can change very quickly in politics]

So the question must be at this point, considering that everyone has a vote no matter how good or bad their knowledge of politics is, does democracy even work and is it really the right system?

There are a few caveats I should state here…

First, South Auckland is probably an unusually bad area to look for astute political commentary. Maybe other areas might offer a far better level of understanding (and the South Dunedin responses were better, so this idea has some support).

Second, we don’t know if the people on the broadcast were representative of all the people interviewed – maybe they were just 8 bad examples and there were hundreds of extremely knowledgeable people who didn’t appear… yeah, I doubt that too!

Third, is political “trivia” like this a good indicator of a person’s ability to make a well informed and meaningful vote? After all, I am only using naming the leader of the opposition as a proxy for the general knowlege necessary to vote well.

As you can probably tell by my dubious tone above, I’m not very convinced by these ideas. I think that most people do not have good knowledge of politics and current issues, and probably don’t really deserve a vote. But that is a very anti-democratic idea and it would be difficult to establish a system giving some people a vote while denying it to others.

So I guess we get back to that great quote attributed to Winston Churchill: “Democracy is the worst form of government… apart from all the rest.” Or maybe the Opportunity Party’s tag line should be more appropriate: “Care, Think, Vote.”

Waking Up

August 2, 2017 Leave a comment

I have already mentioned in some past blog posts how interesting I find the ideas of neuroscientist and philosopher, Sam Harris. I recently started listening to his podcast “Waking Up” and before that had read a lot of material he has produced (including the books The End of Faith, and Letter to a Christian Nation) and watched many of his debates and lectures on YouTube.

It must be tempting for some of my debating opponents to say “of course you like Sam Harris – he is another militant atheist, just like you” but it goes beyond that. I find everything he says genuinely thoughtful and he doesn’t just fit in with a stereotype such as materialist, anti-theist, or liberal.

I like this because I am always suspicious of people whose ideas closely match a particular political, religious, or philosophical “clique”. For example, in the past it intrigued me how libertarians always supported the idea of free markets but rejected the truth of climate change.

Those two things aren’t really linked in any meaningful way, but if you found someone who thought a laissez-faire economy was a good idea they would probably also think that climate change was a conspiracy. That is not so much true today because climate change is becoming increasingly difficult to deny, but it was common 10 years ago.

And with conservatives it might be common to find other ideas such as aggressive military intervention and being anti-abortion associated. These really do not seem like they should be linked in any way, yet they are.

Finally – and this is something I might have been guilty about in the past before I “woke up” – liberals are also susceptible to this phenomenon. Many would (and still do) believe in strong environmental protection while also being against genetic modification. A strong case could be made that in order to protect the environment genetic modification is almost a necessity, although I admit there are other options as well.

My point here is that it is unlikely that individuals have some to these conclusions based on deep and unbiased examination of the facts. If they did I would expect to see a lot more variation in how the ideas I have listed are linked. For example, there should be a lot more environmentalist who strongly support research into genetic engineering.

It seems far more likely that these ideas have come about as a result of them being “absorbed” from other people in their social group. So if you live in a conservative environment you would absorb diverse attitudes such as being anti-abortion, pro-guns, anti-welfare, etc, while if you came from a liberal environment the exact opposite would be true.

Both Harris and I seem to be less easily classifiable into commonly recognised groups. We get quite strong negative feedback (often it is genuine abuse and threats) from all sides of the political spectrum. Of course, Harris is a well-known public intellectual and I am just an obscure blogger, but I would still like to think we share a lot in common.

So to give you an idea of why I count myself as a “rationalist” rather than any of the more traditional groupings, such as “conservative” or “liberal” or “libertarian”, here is a list of my attitudes on some contentious subjects…

Equality. I think everyone should get a fair chance to succeed and utilise their talents, but I am very suspicious of political correctness and affirmative action. I would be far happier seeing equality achieved in ways which don’t simply give advantages to “minority” groups even if there is good reason to think they are disadvantaged in some situations currently.

Environmentalism. I strongly support environmental protection. I think a natural consequence of unfettered capitalism is the destruction of the environment, so capitalism must be controlled. I tend towards the idea that we must move on from capitalism completely, but in the interim controlling it is sufficient.

Immigration. I think it is good to have some variety in the backgrounds, cultures, and beliefs of people in every country, but I don’t want that to extend to people with extreme beliefs that might destroy the positive character a country already has. For example, for a Muslim to come to New Zealand they should first prove they don’t take their religion too seriously by eating a pork sausage or some similar test!

Free Markets. I understand why people don’t want their government controlling the economy in too fine detail (or at all in some cases) but I can’t see the advantage in handing over control to large corporations which are probably even less likely to have the best interests of the majority in mind. So I think markets should be controlled where it makes sense but not to a ridiculous extend such as where obsolete industries are artificially kept running.

Abortion. I am conflicted here. The problem is that there is no obvious point where a cell becomes a foetus and a foetus becomes a baby. I think abortion in the very early stages of a pregnancy is OK but how to determine where the point is when a distinct, conscious individual is involved is difficult to determine.

Gun Control. I understand that the best way to avoid gun deaths is to eliminate guns and that is at least partly practical in some countries. But in others, such as the US, that chance has passed so guns must be accepted as a necessary evil. It should be necessary to prove a high degree of competency in using one before a license to own a firearm is issued though. I know that the “bad guys” will just get guns without a license, but at least the legal owners will have a higher level of skill and that might make the defensive advantage of guns greater.

Racism, Misogyny, Xenophobia, etc. I reject the idea of being biased against anyone because of factors such as race, gender, or country of origin. I also know that scientific tests show that everyone is biased in exactly these ways, often subconsciously! But at least knowing that, a person can try to overcome that bias. But, I also reject the over-use of these terms. For example, saying I don’t want a fundamentalist Muslim allowed into the country isn’t racist because Islam isn’t a race, it’s an idea. I reject bais against people, but not against ideas.

I hope that by looking at those opinions I could not be easily labelled with any of the traditional stereotyped political identities. I see some good points in all political positions and yes, I’m not afraid to admit that I agree with a few things controversial figures like Donald Trump have said.

And unlike most of my opponents I can justify my opinions with rational reasoning, not with simple-minded dogmatic hypocrisy which I so often see from people who obviously identify with one political movement. Instead of trying to fit in with that identity and to impress their friends with similar beliefs they should learn to think for themselves. They should wake up!

More of the Same

July 13, 2017 Leave a comment

Here in New Zealand we will be having a general election this year. The current government is lead by the center-right National Party and the main opposition party is the center-left Labour Party. There are a few other significant parties too, which will probably make an important contribution to the final mix in government.

National have been in charge for almost 9 years and have been quite moderate, and fairly solid, but uninspiring. Traditionally, after three terms a government would probably be thrown out, no matter how well they had performed, but this time National have maintained a fairly healthy lead in the polls. Or more correctly, the Labour and Green parties have failed to make any progress.

Why?

Well, it’s fairly simple really – and everyone except the strategists in Labour and the Greens seem to be able to see it. In the past occupying the center has been the path to victory. It is true that the center has lurched a long was into the libertarian-style right in the past 30 years, and that has only returned to a more traditional position recently, but the principle still stands.

But now things are changing. People want something different. They feel betrayed (and rightly so) by all forms of government. Both the right and the left have implemented policies which have badly damaged the middle and lower classes and now both sides of the political spectrum are almost indistinguishable from each other.

So advertising your party as a bastion of solidity and virtually promising more of the same is exactly the wrong thing to do. It’s particularly sad to see Labour abandoning any new ideas (because in the past all the new ideas have come from them) and for the Greens to toe the line and promise responsible financial management.

We don’t want more of that! Responsible financial management has created a super-rich upper class, an increasingly poverty-sticken lower class, and a whole new class of working poor (because wages and conditions are so bad after so much “financial responsibility”).

After the results seen in the US, UK, and France it should be obvious that, whatever the polls say (because almost all of them have failed miserably), people want something different. And if no reasonable party is prepared to offer that then we will get more unorthodox politicians gaining power. And that isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

Because when I walk down the street now I see a lot more people in obvious financial difficulty while at the same time seeing a lot of Aston Martins, Porsches, and other expensive cars than I have ever seen in the past. It’s pretty clear that this financial responsibility they speak of does great things for some members of society, at least!

And don’t ever have the temerity to tell me that those people worked hard for their fancy cars. While there might be a few who work more than most it’s very clear that work and income are no longer linked in any way. People who live in their cars often have multiple jobs while the super-rich can do nothing and still make millions.

Society has never been fair but it’s obviously a lot less fair now than it has been in the past. The greedy might have pushed things just a bit too far now and voters are looking for a way to make a change. It’s a great opportunity for the parties of the left to make a genuine difference but instead of offering something new they are just following the same old path they have been forced into by the necessities of the politics of the last 30 years which were dominated by neoliberalism.

But that ideology’s time is over. It’s time to move on. We don’t want more of the same.