Starmer... stop giving me your toughest battles... (defending you on the internet)
Timeline
Post
Remote status
Context
5
What does piss me off though is all the goyim who think this is a Labour problem, or even specifically a Keir Starmer problem.
Conservatives and Lib Dems would support this. This isn't an ideological thing, it's institutional rot. This is happening all around the world, it's the unelected parts of the government growing greedier and greedier, demanding more surveillance powers.
Conservatives and Lib Dems would support this. This isn't an ideological thing, it's institutional rot. This is happening all around the world, it's the unelected parts of the government growing greedier and greedier, demanding more surveillance powers.
@yomiel Conservatives would go for this under the exact same justification (protect da kids).
@Griffith
I think it's odd the cognitive dissonance in the average normalfags mind that they simultaneously think that in certain circumstances, the head of state is receiving orders to do things, and other times it is their own doing/agenda. Even that dichotomy in and of itself is kind of retarded.
This online ID thing is an obvious example. Opinions among British rightoid goyim masses are split between this is being Klaus Schwab WEF directive or that it being communist Keir Stalin's next step of tyranny. Both ignore the more obvious possibility of this merely being a symptom of an unregulated and unaudited surveillance state operating within almost every nation, democratic or not.
This kind of thinking is not just low IQ, it also prevents real systemic change.
I think it's odd the cognitive dissonance in the average normalfags mind that they simultaneously think that in certain circumstances, the head of state is receiving orders to do things, and other times it is their own doing/agenda. Even that dichotomy in and of itself is kind of retarded.
This online ID thing is an obvious example. Opinions among British rightoid goyim masses are split between this is being Klaus Schwab WEF directive or that it being communist Keir Stalin's next step of tyranny. Both ignore the more obvious possibility of this merely being a symptom of an unregulated and unaudited surveillance state operating within almost every nation, democratic or not.
This kind of thinking is not just low IQ, it also prevents real systemic change.
@condret @Griffith
I'm not moralising about it, as you say it's more like an machine than a person with an agenda. Ultimately, the 'deep state' is practically necessary, unelected bureaucrats are essential in systems the size of even small governments, and being elected wouldn't even change anything beyond making the system of democracy far more complicated and costly.
There must, however, is all modern governments fundamentally suffer with this balance between the elected executive and the unelected government departments.
A common example is department using more money year on year because if they don't their budget will be cut. This is a bad system, yet this is how it works. However, it isn't a simple as saying 'optimise your spending' instead, and only offering fixed, per year budget increases, because they may start underperforming their job. After all, a government department's job is not it's stated job in and of itself, but rather to keep the department open and running. So long as people staffed there earn their wages and the government stays content with the job they're doing, there's not really a problem on there end.
I haven't the foggiest how you'd go about fixing this really, and that's just one of the problems the unelected branches of government face.
I'm not moralising about it, as you say it's more like an machine than a person with an agenda. Ultimately, the 'deep state' is practically necessary, unelected bureaucrats are essential in systems the size of even small governments, and being elected wouldn't even change anything beyond making the system of democracy far more complicated and costly.
There must, however, is all modern governments fundamentally suffer with this balance between the elected executive and the unelected government departments.
A common example is department using more money year on year because if they don't their budget will be cut. This is a bad system, yet this is how it works. However, it isn't a simple as saying 'optimise your spending' instead, and only offering fixed, per year budget increases, because they may start underperforming their job. After all, a government department's job is not it's stated job in and of itself, but rather to keep the department open and running. So long as people staffed there earn their wages and the government stays content with the job they're doing, there's not really a problem on there end.
I haven't the foggiest how you'd go about fixing this really, and that's just one of the problems the unelected branches of government face.
Replies
0
No replies yet.