The idea that certain political parties could be excluded from government on the basis of not adhering to a certain set of guidelines or definitions is remarkable. It's post-democratic liberalism in its clearest form - one for political theorists to think about!
I think its outlandish this is conceivable in a democracy. Sadly it was given too much truck by Labour left, who frequently placed short term media management over right thing. That will have long term consequences for any sensible debate on this stuff
This isn't about the definition, but the idea that preconditions must be met for you to be allowed to govern. I believe in a minimum wage, but I don't think those opposed to one should be excluded from forming a govt if they get the most votes.
Post-democratic liberalism.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
In Britain the over 65s is set to increase by 40% between 2016 & 2036, while those over 80 will double. That's a massive shift in care needs.
(2)
The relationship between ageing & age-related conditions is exponential rather than linear, meaning the social costs of ageing are extraordinary. The chances of suffering from Alzheimer’s roughly doubles between the ages of 70 and 75, doubling again between 75 & 80 & so on.
(3)
This is great, and cycling in London is an undoubted good news story, but for the rest of country (beyond places like Oxford & Cambridge etc) this image is unthinkable.
In the UK bikes are 1% of all vehicle miles and the number of miles cycled is still below even the mid 80s >
It’s like buses. Using them has gone up in London but....down in the rest of the country (because the infrastructure and prices aren’t as good). This is so bad more bus journeys are now made in London than the rest of England combined!
On moving away from cars the U.K., with a few exceptions, is failing. London shows that’s because of resources & political will, but because the capital does well it’s easy for those there to think real progress is happening. Nationally it isn’t.
The night before the report was published Corbyn and Starmer were allegedly in direct contact. The next morning the Labour did the dirty and broke his word. Not for the last time.
Blaming others is a habit for Starmer, it even extended to his chief of staff. He comes across as dishonest and dislikeable.
Of course it was socialism. It was overseen by a society where production for exchange value, and defined by wage labour, was minimal or inexistent. That still means bad things happened. And Stalin was dead by then!
Market capitalism has achieved x,y,z at which point someone will say ‘it wasn’t market capitalism because these people were bad!’
Marx also clear, socialism is not communism - former is not yet realm of freedom.
What next ‘it’s not real socialism until everyone is vegan’? >
Like probably we should be, yes, but a socialist society wouldn’t have to include that predicate, no. Same applies to plastic free, zero carbon - all good things.
People saying changes to the Official Secrets Act represents the 'end of British democracy'.
Are you aware of the already existing Official Secrets Act and its history? Or that Julian Assange is *already* in prison?
Thread (1/5)
There are a hundred other statues, besides the OSA, which forbid the disclosure of valuable state information. In Britain we have no constitutional right to free speech, tho we have some protections under European Law.
(2/5)
What is more we live in one of the most secretive countries in the world. Mi6, as one example, has not disclosed one page of one file since its founding in 1909 (!) Even Russians, for instance, know more about the history of their security services than we do.