Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • The electorate disgust me. When confronted with the waging of aggressive war, deliberate attacks on civilians, support for brutally murderous regimes, and torture - nothing. But piss an insignificant amount of money away on dodgy expenses and the government might fall.
    • I think it has a lot to do with ease of comprehension of the problem, and relevance to day-to-day issues. For example, in the US, in 2004, 19 percent of voters described terrorism as their most important issue ... only 9 percent of voters described terrorism as the most important issue in 2008 [fivethirtyeight.com], and opinions on global warming vary as a function of personal relevance. [fivethirtyeight.com]

      Waging of aggressive war, deliberate attacks on civilians, support for brutally murderous regimes, and torture are things that happen far away, or at least out of sight (I don't think that the CIA did waterboarding in public), whereas homes are things that all of the electorate have, and hence how to finance them via jobs, benefits, or externalising the problem. The specific ire is that "honourable" members have been (understandably) spouting off about benefits cheats, profligately greedy bankers, and trying to sell the idea of having to become more frugal (because there is no more borrow-your-way-out-of-trouble left), and then it becomes revealed that there is a massive amount of "do as I say, not as I do". One rule for them, one rule for us. I suspect also that a lot of the electorate don't want to care about any part of politics because they're so switched off by the whole charade, and have been for years. My father commented that when Peter Mandleson un-resigned for the umpteenth time, the World at One (no link, because the new webshite is site) was extended from 30 to 60 minutes, and was exclusively about him. Why? What relevance does it have to the 99.9something% of the country who aren't within the blast radius of Parliament Square? The electorate might stand more of a chance of actually caring about politics, policy, and governance if the circle jerk of politicians, spin doctors and attendant media stopped talking only to themselves.