Do you believe extreme elite groups must exist?

There will always be an elite, it was ever thus, the high ranking officials in the Soviet Union had their dachas. They all have their hierarchies, go to any hard line communist country and there the political elites will be living high on the hog whilst the rest of the population suffer from malnutrition.

Closer to home I shudder to think of global elites such as BlackRock allegedly buying up portfolios of rental housing stock, not yet even built. Haven't we had enough of foreign investors running our utilities into the ground, without a global investment management company presiding over social housing. I'm also suspicious of Bill Gates who in the US, as a private citizen has acquired more farm land than any other individual, why? to control the food supply, or to push certain farming practices?

When you think about it, most countries have been run by 'elites' for hundreds of years. They were the ones who owned most of the land, who made up the government of the country and who ran the country in their own interests. We UK in the have only had universal adult suffrage for the past 100 years and it looks more like an 'experiment' in that context than 'normality'.

I don't think we've really come to terms with the concept of running a country for the benefit of all its citizens and the former elites have done all they can to keep it as far as possible in their interests.

There is no doubt that the qualification for entry to 'the elite' that we seem to be talking about is wealth, which is why its 'members' do vary over time, with approval given to the less wealthy in government only if they mainly serve the needs of the elite and act to protect their wealth.

Elites are diverse, of course. We have sporting elites, intellectual elites, industrial elites etc. but the one that affects us the most is the one that has the greatest influence on how the country is run and for whom.

We certainly need good leadership in government, but would we call legislators (e.g MPs) an elite? If we don't, then I think that we don't really need the 'elites'. Their places could always be filled.

GrannyGravy13

There have always been elites.

Elite athletes.

Elite educators.

Elite politicians.

Elite royalty.

Elite wealthy.

Whether or not we approve is not going to make an iota of difference.

I'd like to think that, via democracy, we could close the extremes, GrannyGravy13, otherwise why bother with democracy?

DaisyAnneReturns how would you close the extremes ?

What are 'the extremes'?

MaizieD

What are 'the extremes'?

Good question 🤷‍♀️

GrannyGravy13

DaisyAnneReturns how would you close the extremes ?

Good question.

I disagree with the whole premise of the OP.

Trump like Farage is a populist and and has built his power on being very quick to pick up on what many ordinary people feel and say it out loud. In their turn, others have been quickto jump on the band wagon. Thesegroups disintegrate when the central magnet goes.

These groups exist at every level of society, from choral groups to businesses to politics. How many amateur groupsofanything are destroyed by liques that take over.

These ideas about powerful elitesis bukum. They are as powerful as those who keep them there. Who keeps them there? We do with our votes and complacency.

Look at what has happened to the Conservative party since it lost power. How powerful are their elites now? Lady Mone is a pariah with a priceon her head and Borises closest lieutenantsareshafting him in the Covid enquiry.

There aren’t formal groups working in any particular direction whether elitist or not, but there are informal groups at all levels in society that act in similar ways. Any attempt at a formal group would be subject to government control

The largest group is the stock and finance markets, acting as individuals with common cause they not only influence their own lives but the lives of many others

^
Closer to home I shudder to think of global elites such as BlackRock allegedly buying up portfolios of rental housing stock, not yet even built. Haven't we had enough of foreign investors running our utilities into the ground, without a global investment management company presiding over social housing.^

I tried to raise the alarm over this subject on another thread.
But dont think I was believed.

New housing developments are being bought by pension funds.
To rent out.

I think every known society had or has a ruling elite. I believe democracy is the most effective method of controlling elite excesses. For democracy to work it needs an educated electorate. An educated electorate is less likley to be bought and sold by the super-rich.

It stands to reason that the political right are not so keen on paying for education.

fancythat

^
Closer to home I shudder to think of global elites such as BlackRock allegedly buying up portfolios of rental housing stock, not yet even built. Haven't we had enough of foreign investors running our utilities into the ground, without a global investment management company presiding over social housing.^

I tried to raise the alarm over this subject on another thread.
But dont think I was believed.

New housing developments are being bought by pension funds.
To rent out.

Is Black Rock a multinational finance company?

It is Terribull who mentioned BlackRock. Not me.

Caleo

fancythat

^
Closer to home I shudder to think of global elites such as BlackRock allegedly buying up portfolios of rental housing stock, not yet even built. Haven't we had enough of foreign investors running our utilities into the ground, without a global investment management company presiding over social housing.^

I tried to raise the alarm over this subject on another thread.
But dont think I was believed.

New housing developments are being bought by pension funds.
To rent out.

Is Black Rock a multinational finance company?

BlackRock, Inc. is an American multinational investment company. Founded in 1988, initially as an enterprise risk management and fixed income institutional asset manager, BlackRock is the world's largest asset manager, with $13. Wikipedia

Caleo

I think every known society had or has a ruling elite. I believe democracy is the most effective method of controlling elite excesses. For democracy to work it needs an educated electorate. An educated electorate is less likley to be bought and sold by the super-rich.

It stands to reason that the political right are not so keen on paying for education.

As I said earlier, what we know as 'democracy', with every adult having a vote and so a chance to choose who governs us is a fleeting experiment in the context of 1,000 years of being ruled by a small number of wealthy people, with most of the population not having any choice in the matter.

The fact that we still have extremely wealthy people influencing government, and our choices ( who ultimately owns the media?) in order to gain the most advantage tells me that we're not yet controlling 'elite excesses'. The fact that people praise wealthy philanthropists instead of asking why they are able to acquire and control so much of the country's (and the world's) monetary resources tells me that we're still complicit in this.

You get very rich unscrupulous people like Epstein grouping together because they like each other and ‘sing from the same hymn sheet’. They have always existed and have always had a huge influence behind the scenes. I would go as far as to say the majority of of the extremely rich are unscrupulous- that’s how they got their money.💰 Many make donations to worthy causes but you wonder whether it is a. to look good or b. guilty ‘conscience’ if they have one.

Lathyrus3

Yes honestly.

I can’t think of anyone, individual or political party that isn’t primarily concerned with gain for the few ie themselves.

I did vote for what I thought might be the best of a bad job, but even then Iwas mistaken 🙁

Interesting. I assume you mean that you voted Labour, but are not impressed with their record so far.

I was wondering if you'd actually written down two lists - one with the issues which are important to you and which Labour is failing on - and the other with how your now chosen party would have dealt with the issue.

Would you really be happier with your chosen party, especially as it doesn't have a track record, so you don't really know hoe it would perform in practice?

Remember that Labour hasn't produced what people were hoping for, so how does anybody know what the outcome of an unproven party would be? History tells us that there are much worse situations the people of the country could be in.

My DH has pointed me in the direction of Helen Andrews who spoke at the National Conservatism Conference. Sort of interesting. Andrews is suggesting that the rise of woke is due to increasing feminisation - more women than ever before are taking up key roles which were previously male dominated. This leads to a change in attitudes so instead of the male mindset of logic and not too sure what else, the female culture of emotional responses become dominant.
I am not too sure about this argument because it seems to me that the top tier of power is still held by men.
I think life has improved since the days of the Egyptian pharaohs and Roman emperors but there’s still a fair way to go.
Sorry if this is a bit garbled but I have a cold ….

I agree growstuff- It's always hard for any government to produce what people were hoping for. Reform local council candidates promised to cut wasteful spend and thereby cut council tax. Now in office realising what most people already knew- there is no/very little wasteful spend and not able to deliver on their promises....

Look at USA- Trump blamed inflation on Biden and said he would cut it, stop Ukraine war in a day etc etc. less that one year in office, yesterday more than 5 million people participated in organised NO KING demonstration across 2,100 cities to express public anger at Trump's rule. DOGE cuts, turning back on abortion rights, decimating federal services, decimating public healthcare, seeking to control the law, universities, education, threatening free speech etc etc.

Yes there are MUCH worse situations the people in this country could be in.

My DH has pointed me in the direction of Helen Andrews who spoke at the National Conservatism Conference. Sort of interesting. Andrews is suggesting that the rise of woke is due to increasing feminisation - more women than ever before are taking up key roles which were previously male dominated.

As the term 'woke' is used by people on the right as part of the culture wars; to describe something that they wholeheartedly disapprove of I can only assume that 'feminisation' of former male roles is considered to be a 'Bad Thing'.

Many many years ago, when I and my children were much younger we went on a 'family weekend' along with a number of DH's work colleagues and their families. The venue was a place the men had been to for one of those then fashionable 'management outward bound' type training courses. At one point the children were divided in groups by sex, and given a practical problem solving task using rudimentary, ad hoc type equipment. They took it in turns to try solve the task within a specified time. . Same task, same time. Parents watched but weren't allowed to offer any help or advice.

What was noticeable was that the boys at once leapt in with their individual solutions; no discussion, just manipulating the equipment. They didn't actually complete the task successfully within the time. Whereas the girls went into a little huddle and discussed their ideas before trying them out, working as a team. IIRC they achieved the objective.

I would emphasise that none of the children had met each other before.

When people start this sexist nonsense about 'feminisation', as if it were undesirable, I am always reminded of this episode.

That’s a very valid point MaizieD. I think Helen Andrews is arguing for a return to one income households - that is women not holding key positions in paid employment. The removal of HR departments so that quotas can’t be applied and so on.
I currently think feminisation would help more than hinder? Haven’t told DH yet ….

Umm. I haven’t got a chosen party growstuff. That’s my whole point really. There isnt a party of vision and integrity for me to vote for.

I did vote Labour and I am sorely disappointed. With that majority they could have really made a difference to the lives of the majority in issues that most are struggling with. housing, fuel and water. That would have been a start.

Sometimes I think we expect miracles. 15/16 months is not a huge amount of time to reverse the level of underinvestment in infrastructure over the previous 13 years and with the inherited financial position and huge financial challenges.

Starmer was open that the early stages would be about putting plans, reforms and strategic investments in place to deliver in the longer term, i.e. his 10 year plan- The Great British Energy Bill, The Leasehold and Common Reform Bill, The Planning and Infrastructure Bill, Water (Special Measures) Bill etc etc.

Personally I'm willing to give the government a bit more time and think we in the UK are in a much better position that USA after 8/9 months with Trump.....

I agree that we can’t expect everything to be fixed in a matter of months. It d be quite happy with a 10 year vision and ongoing plans that detail how the changes will be made.

Please can you direct me to where I can find the plans you mention above and the etcs too.

MaizieD

Caleo

I think every known society had or has a ruling elite. I believe democracy is the most effective method of controlling elite excesses. For democracy to work it needs an educated electorate. An educated electorate is less likley to be bought and sold by the super-rich.

It stands to reason that the political right are not so keen on paying for education.

As I said earlier, what we know as 'democracy', with every adult having a vote and so a chance to choose who governs us is a fleeting experiment in the context of 1,000 years of being ruled by a small number of wealthy people, with most of the population not having any choice in the matter.

The fact that we still have extremely wealthy people influencing government, and our choices ( who ultimately owns the media?) in order to gain the most advantage tells me that we're not yet controlling 'elite excesses'. The fact that people praise wealthy philanthropists instead of asking why they are able to acquire and control so much of the country's (and the world's) monetary resources tells me that we're still complicit in this.

There are shades of grey. It's not all black and white. I knew a widower who had apparently been rich enough to to tell me that his late wife and he had more money than they needed so they unburdened themselves and founded a home for disturbed boys.