Not stirred things up for a while but just for Red Kestrel and his like- minded pals....

....http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-43301423

In particular the short video contained therein. i.e. Viewsnight: The term 'populism' is dishonest, argues journalist Lionel Shriver

Food for thought!

 

Guess that could be levelled at any leader Thatcher (spit) included

 

Yep - so posters on here needing and wanting likes are populists and the ones who get upset that they never get likes are also populists - the ones who dun't dun't care but get loads of likes are popular !!!

 

Wibble (kinda lost me after "Yep" - )

 

Analagy - wobble

 

Hitler was popular, doesn't mean he was right though does it?
If we base democracy on plebiscites you get what happened in California - a bankrupt state because everyone votes for more teachers and police and against tax rises. - in summary the masses are stupid.

 

California which has a higher GDP than the UK or France? It is just as bankrupt as the UK is, probably less so, although both are arguably insolvent.

 

Hhhmmm. But don't both examples evidence propaganda / misinformation in the 1st example and misinformation / misdirection / lack of information in the 2nd example , rather than the broad statement "the masses are stupid" Surely if the masses are stupid, a heirarchical organisation is less stupid, a committee even less so leading to the inevitable conclusion that a single leader is the least stupid leading us full circle back to Adolf. Democracy over dictatorship would have stopped his extreme policies.

I believe that an uneducated group of people deprived of accurate data is no more likely to come to the wrong conclusion than an educated group of people who are also deprived of accurate data. Of course, in the case of Hitler/anti-semitism you could argue that the uneducated were guilty but that is highly debatable as many judges, intellectuals, churchmen, bought into Hitler's distortion of the truth.

My own view is that a group of people from all backgrounds fed sufficient accurate and truthful information will come to the right conclusion more often than not. After all, it is how our criminal justice jury system - for better or worse- functions. If we go back to the referendum, we are still only being fed fed truths mixed with half truths and downright lies - on both sides I hasten to add - (most of which come from sources with a personal agenda).
That is why I get fed up with name calling on both sides and anyone who has an unshakeable belief that their side is 100% right and anyone else is an idiot. Yes I, like a small majority who voted, do strongly believe leave is the least bad choice, not because it is good but because the EU and particularly the Eurozone in my view is a failing institution. HOWEVER, I am by no means certain that I will turn out to be correct, in the same way I am not certain that remaining would have been wrong. Only time will tell who was right and who was wrong.

 

https://www.economist.com/node/18586520

 

I think it should be compulsory for everybody to have to work plebiscite into every post

 

Checks and balances - in a functioning democracy executive power is curtailed by an independent judiciary and a separate legislative body. For the very reason that power, by definition, attracts candidates who are sometimes unbalanced and that the vox populi is not to be entirely trusted. Less we forget a majority of people were in favour of invading Iraq back in the day and what a brilliant idea that turned out to be.

 

Poor post.

 

Yerbut, again, that was based on misinformation. I still maintain that a large number of people with the actual facts at their disposal will 99 times out of 100 come to the correct conclusion more often tha a 'executive' which often has vested interests clouding their judgement. Like the old addage - the people most suited to being given power are those who want it the least .

 

But getting "the actual facts at their disposal" is an aspiration beyond the realms of reality, people are acting on incomplete information which is filtered through many points rendering it requiring careful critical analysis - something which your average person is ill equipped to deploy.