Amateur hour

[RAENORTH]

Another week, another party launch. Last Monday it was the turn of Jury Team, Sir Paul Judge's brainchild (though, quite honestly, I am not sure anybody's brain was much engaged in the process). This event took place in Millbank Tower, rather than One Great George Street, which was something of a mistake. The latter is a much more attractive venue and right in the heart of Westminster. The former is a rather ghastly and characterless structure some distance away from the nearest transport points.

View full article here

[Robert of Ottawa]

Just perusing the list of proposals, without actually reading them I must admit, it appears to be the usual grab-bag of idealistic rational complaints about the (British) parliamentary system. Whenever these items are disussed, it becomes apparent that the bureaucracy will end up ruling; the democratic vote will become less meaningful, such as with proportuional representation.

I thought the UK Liberal-democrats existed for these people.

The plain truth is that if you really give an Eff about your lot in teh political system, you get involved. Politicians delight in apathy; and all that cynicism is just apathy by another name. You get the government you allow to push you around.

[RAENORTH]

Just perusing the list of proposals, without actually reading them I must admit, it appears to be the usual grab-bag of idealistic rational complaints about the (British) parliamentary system. Whenever these items are disussed, it becomes apparent that the bureaucracy will end up ruling; the democratic vote will become less meaningful, such as with proportuional representation.

I thought the UK Liberal-democrats existed for these people.

The plain truth is that if you really give an Eff about your lot in teh political system, you get involved. Politicians delight in apathy; and all that cynicism is just apathy by another name. You get the government you allow to push you around.

I agree. It is a pretty unimpressive lot. You can't quite work out why Paul Judge is investing such time and effort into such a bunch of no-hopers. It seems a particularly inept way of going about achieving what he appears to want to achieve. One almost suspects there must be a hidden agenda. Can he really believe that any of the ragbag he is adopting have any chance whatsoever of getting elected?

[mick mcgough]

"One almost suspects there must be a hidden agenda."

Well he was still giving money to the Tories as recently as October 2008 .

[SandyRham]

If these guys genuinely hate the strangulation of the Party system then I'm interested. If they exist to provide economies of scale for Independent MPs then I'm interested. I've offered to set up each of their potential MPs with a blog/forum setup like this and will suggest that the good Dr. would certainly get votes should he choose to stand.
Have they got the Vision ?

[devilskitchen]

That [Ayn Rand] opposed private charity as well is a separate issue and one on which I part company with the lady.

OK, I have only read Atlas Shrugged, but as a manifesto of beliefs it is pretty comprehensive.

From that, I would not say that Rand opposed private charity, but that she opposed charity for certain reasons. You should give to charity if you yourself take value from the act of giving; however, it is incumbent upon you to assess those who you are giving charity to. If you give them charity because the person to whom you are giving demands your charity as a right, and they are unwilling to stir themselves but are merely content to live off alms, then it is wrong to give to them. It is wrong to give to those in these circumstances, regardless of your personal motives, because your charity will trap them in a cycle of evil because they will then never have to bestir themselves to live by their own talents and hard work -- a situation that Rand believed to be absolutely immoral.

If, however, your charity will improve their lot or you give because that person has given you value (they are a friend, or have performed some past service), then you can give to them -- as long as you wish to do so. You should not do so because you feel guilty about it, but because your charity will help them to reclaim their lives and to make more of themselves through their own efforts.

That, at least, is my reading of her views; and, given the amount talked and written about, for instance, the Benefits Trap, it seems an entirely reasonable stance to take.

DK

[Bert Rustle]

... One almost suspects there must be a hidden agenda. Can he really believe that any of the ragbag he is adopting have any chance whatsoever of getting elected?

Such an agenda may become apparent when electioneering is in full swing. In my opinion this will be demonstrated by who loses votes to JuryTeam rather than the vote that they themselves achieve.

JuryTeam may be a result of internecine squabbling within the Establishment Party but I would hazard a guess that the former will serve as a convenient black hole for the votes of those disillusioned with the latter.

Any views for a hidden agenda for Veritas? Who gained from their creation?

Kilroy was here, where is he now?