Is UK An Elite Dictaorship?

The trouble is that a lot of the time we don’t know who is pulling which strings. Of course we all believe that we have free will and make informed decisions, but the existence of ‘nudge units’ and spin shows that this isn’t necessarily true. Echo chambers and the fact that with the best will in the world we tend to mix with our ‘own kind’, whatever that may mean, can limit exposure to other points of view, and the way our education system works prioritises confidence that our own beliefs are ‘true’. It rewards acceptance of particular versions of ‘the truth’, and encourages confident assertion of those truths. People happily rank order particular qualifications, educational institutions and so on, and get extremely defensive about it, without considering that this buys into the perpetuation of prioritising some ‘truths’ above others.

So many people believe in the existence of ‘facts’ and think that because they trust the source that the ones they believe are validated. We see it on here all the time.

There are demands for ‘proof’ (by which the demanders mean statistics presented by someone working for a paper or media source of which they personally approve), as though that makes something true. We hear how the Russians believe the lies of their government whilst happily swallowing the side of the story ours tells us - which may be true, but how do we know?

Did the Brexit vote follow the wishes of an elite? Probably. But which elite was that? Would the same have applied had the Remainers won? (different branch of the elite, maybe - but same stable).

Nobody has answered my question of a few days ago - who are the ‘elite’? Vested interests? Whose? Powerful cabals? Which ones? Media manipulators? Who, and what is their agenda, and why?

I don’t know the answers, but I think that’s the point.

I think it's more a question of defining 'elites' to suit your argument. After all, what is an 'elite'?

Who actually were 'the elite' when it came to Brexit? The halfhearted rich and privileged tory leaders who languidly assumed that everyone would vote Remain, or the rich and privileged opportunists, or eurosceptics, who saw political advantage in working up dislike of their political rivals by emphasising the rivals' elite status and somehow managing to blind a portion of the electorate to their own identical status?

Your post got in before mine, Dd 😄

MaizieD

Your post got in before mine, Dd 😄

All I can say is something about great minds thinking alike

Well great minds…. where is our understanding of democracy in all of this?

I don't think there is any such thing as 'democracy'. Even the much lauded ancient Greek democracy wasn't really 'democratic' as for them, 'the people' were solely free (i.e not enslaved) men.

Our so called 'democracy', based on universal suffrage, restricts that suffrage to those over a certain age, and now sets an unnecessary condition on the so called 'right to vote'.

We will never achieve nationwide satisfaction with every decision made about the administration of the country and the provision of social welfare (even that is disliked by some people, as we can see on these forums). The best we can do is to include as many representative views as possible and attempt to reach a consensus. Which we won't do until we can make our voting system more effective in ensuring that minority views carry more weight.

ronib

Well great minds…. where is our understanding of democracy in all of this?

I don’t think that ‘we’ have an understanding of democracy, really. It seems to mean different things to different people. And even if it worked as it should, whatever that means, there would be an elite. But who that is remains undefined. And realistically, if I were in the elite, I’d be happy with that - it doesn’t do elites a lot of good to be too conspicuous.

I tried to define the fundamentals of democracy on another thread. These are: you decide who can vote, you decide the issue you want to vote on, you have the vote, and then everyone, even those who were on the losing side, accept the decision and implement it. So NO we don’t live in a democracy any longer.

Are the politicians representing the people or are they being manipulated behind the scenes by very rich and powerful people? That is the question in my mind.

Of course politicians are manipulated by others, businesses, media, pressure groups even foreign governments, the only arbiter is the next election.

Manipulation can be good or bad it all depends on your individual view, Democracy can only be a reaction to past performance and future promises, there is always going to be a minority that don’t like it.

I don't agree with your 'fundamentals' at all 'GrannyRose*.

Who is the 'you' who makes the first two decisions?
The third is nonsense.

MaizieD

I don't agree with your 'fundamentals' at all 'GrannyRose*.

Who is the 'you' who makes the first two decisions?
The third is nonsense.

No I didn’t think you would. And the third isn’t nonsense. Why else vote if no one is going to abide by the decision. If a vote has no weight than that is nonsense.

We are obliged by law to accept the decision of a majority vote, but we are also entitled to oppose that decision by any lawful means if we don't agree with it.

Acceptance is constrained by law. Acceptance constrained by law isn't consent.

Consent can be withheld without breaking the rule of law. Without dissent nothing would ever change.

We do recognise that we can't force losers to consent. We have elections at fixed intervals which give the opportunity for the non-consenters to alter the status quo.

I, too, would like to know - who are the "elite".

Because they appear to be a group of people defined largely by what they "think", rather than, say, those that live in the better parts of Hampstead Heath.

I was, once, called "elitist" because I liked Baroque music.

Maybe I was temporarily part of the "elite"?

MaizieD

We are obliged by law to accept the decision of a majority vote, but we are also entitled to oppose that decision by any lawful means if we don't agree with it.

Acceptance is constrained by law. Acceptance constrained by law isn't consent.

Consent can be withheld without breaking the rule of law. Without dissent nothing would ever change.

We do recognise that we can't force losers to consent. We have elections at fixed intervals which give the opportunity for the non-consenters to alter the status quo.

Which is why we have so much stagnation. Always battling the same issues over and over. Accept the vote with good grace and move on to the next issue.

nanna8

Are the politicians representing the people or are they being manipulated behind the scenes by very rich and powerful people? That is the question in my mind.

Unfortunately our politicians do not represent us in parliament so much as represent parliament to us. D feel happier that we were coming to democratic decisions if our MPs were permitted a free vote on all (or even most) issues instead of having to vote with their party.

Which is why we have so much stagnation. Always battling the same issues over and over. Accept the vote with good grace and move on to the next issue.

Why should I accept a vote that is deeply opposed to what I believe in and consider to be bad for the country?

Stagnation is nothing whatsoever to do with not accepting the vote. It's to do with making very damaging decisions and electing appalling corrupt and incompetent governments.

MaizieD

^Which is why we have so much stagnation. Always battling the same issues over and over. Accept the vote with good grace and move on to the next issue.^

Why should I accept a vote that is deeply opposed to what I believe in and consider to be bad for the country?

Stagnation is nothing whatsoever to do with not accepting the vote. It's to do with making very damaging decisions and electing appalling corrupt and incompetent governments.

So we’re the people making damaging decisions and these appalling corrupt and incompetent governments elected democratically?

GrannyRose15

MaizieD

Which is why we have so much stagnation. Always battling the same issues over and over. Accept the vote with good grace and move on to the next issue.

Why should I accept a vote that is deeply opposed to what I believe in and consider to be bad for the country?

Stagnation is nothing whatsoever to do with not accepting the vote. It's to do with making very damaging decisions and electing appalling corrupt and incompetent governments.

So we’re the people making damaging decisions and these appalling corrupt and incompetent governments elected democratically?

It's not undemocratic to oppose government decisions that you feel have damaged the country. Nor to hold them to account. It happens all the time - on many issues.

We cannot not criticise government decisions on the basis of those that voted for it being offended by the implied criticism of their choice.

Having read the article, I pretty much ignored the thread. Although written in the somewhat Johnsonesque style of those who believe their education superior, most of it was more of the "if we can't win in one way we'll find another where we can" pseudo argument.

It appeared the writer was suggesting that he didn't like what he sees as "intellectuals", so he "slurs" them as an elite. He then puts forward a different elite. Shall we call them "oiks" to differentiate them?

In real life, not "Telegraph world", voting groups are made up of cross-sections of people and contain the subsection he entitles intellectuals, the subsection he describes and I called oikes, and everything in between and beyond.

To me, democracy is an ever-changing thing. Hopefully, we continuously improve it. ID photographs are not an improvement; they limit the voting pool and are a tool of authoritarians.

Limiting those who can vote is not growing democracy, just the opposite. As a mainly female forum, we should know that the growth of democracy means adding people to it. This must include those whose views we may not like or who we do not believe as capable as ourselves. It also means making the possibility of casting a vote as easy as possible for as many as possible. As expected, the article was a diatribe from the hard right.

Doodledog although we should be very aware of Nudge Theory used in governance, I am also quite uplifted by how people nudge their own lives into the right place. When you look at organisational behaviour in the workplace, it is used just as much by the worker in job crafting as by those in charge.

In other words the proletariat, are rarely "as green" as the author appears to believe. The sense of entitlement amongst the elite who are actually governing us means that they are unaware of the real power of the people. They do not expect to be found out or punished for their undemocratic machinations. Hopefully, that will be their downfall.

Interesting analysis, DAR

I don't think that we are that far apart, it's just that mine was much shorter 😁

To me it sounds, from the title, like one of those absurd pieces where the fact that we're being ruled by a right wing authoritarian government, comprising a great many wealthy and privately educated people, is totally ignored and the 'elite' is all the middle class people who don't like what the government is doing.

To be fair, I hadn't read the whole article then, and could only get halfway through it when someone helpfully pasted it on the thread....

Whatever decisions government makes are going to be criticized by others that they are too little, too much or too late, that is universal. Many, sometimes most, say they are wrong, enhanced by the media of course, governments including local government makes decisions that it sees as in the interest of “the nation” or “the region” as a whole.

Regrettably a great many decisions are based on what will win the most votes at the next election, give the voters what they want. We can protest and lobby for change, that has to be limited or small groups could do great damage to the majority. Whatever the merit of their cause, everyday life has to go on.

One day I will learn to write short and pithy posts Maizie. Just not today

Dickens and MaizieD
Ok I acknowledge that I over simplified my argument and accept that political opposition is a good and necessary part of democratic government. But surely the opposition should come before the vote and be clearly and rationally articulated. Stagnation results when every decision that is made is continually scuppered by those that don’t like the outcome of the vote. There must be some sort of acceptance that a vote represents the will of the people however much we dislike the result. Otherwise voting is a total waste of time and only offers an illusion of power.

MaizieD

Interesting analysis, DAR

I don't think that we are that far apart, it's just that mine was much shorter 😁

To me it sounds, from the title, like one of those absurd pieces where the fact that we're being ruled by a right wing authoritarian government, comprising a great many wealthy and privately educated people, is totally ignored and the 'elite' is all the middle class people who don't like what the government is doing.

To be fair, I hadn't read the whole article then, and could only get halfway through it when someone helpfully pasted it on the thread....

Have you read anything by Matt Goodwin? I haven't, but I've read reviews of his books and seen his numerous tweets. One reviewer wrote about his latest book "Values, Voice and Virtue", that its "argument is wearily familiar: that the UK's elite stratum has become divorced from the conservative instincts of the majority; that the commanding heights of our culture – media, universities, political parties – have been captured by cosmopolitans who impose their outlook on the rest of the country; and that this woke mob has cultivated a censorious political climate to silence its opponents." Goodwin suggests that left wing liberals have more influence over British society than – for example – landlords, billionaires or the right wing press.

He's become an ally of Toby Young and is forever going on about a "new elite".

If this is what is understood by "elite", I don't agree that it is controlling the country, although there are people who would like others to believe that it is.