There are many thresholds to surmount. Some are already being summited, like fear, groupthink, political tribalism. Perhaps the hardest one will actually be the pettiest of all - confronting people in power with the fact they were wrong and having to face embarrassment and humiliation and refusing to admit it. No that wasn't the right si…
There are many thresholds to surmount. Some are already being summited, like fear, groupthink, political tribalism. Perhaps the hardest one will actually be the pettiest of all - confronting people in power with the fact they were wrong and having to face embarrassment and humiliation and refusing to admit it. No that wasn't the right side of history...
Winning this issue isn't enough because the mechanisms of collective reason and policy making were clearly subverted to make this outcome happen. The faulty process that allowed it to exist needs taking on and fixing. And if that is the case you have to ask how many other policy areas have suffered such subversions of public interest. Wherever you look it is elites making up policy to suit themselves not even deigning to pretend they care of the majority agrees, the example you gave with the MP clearly shows this.
Policy is absolutely made up between the ‘elite’ groupthinkers now, and based almost entirely on what they want. Yes, they consult with other groups and organisations sometimes, but never those who will not tell them what they want to hear.
I'm gathering my thoughts about this and trying to piece together an article about it. My explanations run to the beginning of technocratic government/administration.
Technocracy promised the end of petty political squabbles by removing sectional interest and ideology from policy-making, and it promised a "value neutral" rationality & evidence based governance. This was the basis of the entire last 3 decades of privatisations, PPPs and consultancy binges. If you think about it that's actually logically erroneous because politics is mostly about precisely that - groups competing against each other to have their interests put ahead of others. The outcome is the same with gender ideology as with privatisation - you are made worse off but they demand you accept it based on some purported high principle - because they know better than you what is in your own interest.
It is actually very easy to see the evidence of this - look at just how few differences there are between political parties. Whoever you vote for you get the same policies and the same "shut up we know better" attitude. These technocrats have grown into a fully fledged managerial oligarchy who no longer serve the public but themselves & their sponsors. The only thing that can kick them out is the mass population rising up - that is precisely why the elites are so quick to scathe against "populism".
There are many thresholds to surmount. Some are already being summited, like fear, groupthink, political tribalism. Perhaps the hardest one will actually be the pettiest of all - confronting people in power with the fact they were wrong and having to face embarrassment and humiliation and refusing to admit it. No that wasn't the right side of history...
Winning this issue isn't enough because the mechanisms of collective reason and policy making were clearly subverted to make this outcome happen. The faulty process that allowed it to exist needs taking on and fixing. And if that is the case you have to ask how many other policy areas have suffered such subversions of public interest. Wherever you look it is elites making up policy to suit themselves not even deigning to pretend they care of the majority agrees, the example you gave with the MP clearly shows this.
Policy is absolutely made up between the ‘elite’ groupthinkers now, and based almost entirely on what they want. Yes, they consult with other groups and organisations sometimes, but never those who will not tell them what they want to hear.
I'm gathering my thoughts about this and trying to piece together an article about it. My explanations run to the beginning of technocratic government/administration.
Technocracy promised the end of petty political squabbles by removing sectional interest and ideology from policy-making, and it promised a "value neutral" rationality & evidence based governance. This was the basis of the entire last 3 decades of privatisations, PPPs and consultancy binges. If you think about it that's actually logically erroneous because politics is mostly about precisely that - groups competing against each other to have their interests put ahead of others. The outcome is the same with gender ideology as with privatisation - you are made worse off but they demand you accept it based on some purported high principle - because they know better than you what is in your own interest.
It is actually very easy to see the evidence of this - look at just how few differences there are between political parties. Whoever you vote for you get the same policies and the same "shut up we know better" attitude. These technocrats have grown into a fully fledged managerial oligarchy who no longer serve the public but themselves & their sponsors. The only thing that can kick them out is the mass population rising up - that is precisely why the elites are so quick to scathe against "populism".