Election Debate... thoughts?

  • User Deleted

    This profile has been archived

    Not strictly related to the theatre industry... but was just wondering what everyone's thoughts were on last night's debate with Clegg, Cameron and Brown? Would be interesting to get some opinions on it.

    • 20th Apr 2010
    • 2967
    • 52
  • User Deleted

    This profile has been archived

    I think it was sterile, bland and predictable. Mainstream politics is still depressingly old school ties, white, male RP dominated ( I know Brown is Scottish, but he doesn't sound it ). None of these men has one ounce of charisma or passion that would get my attention and ultimately my vote.

    Frankie Boyle today described Nick Clegg as "a man who looks like he would leave a stag night early because he didn't want to miss Holby City."

    • 16th Apr 2010
    • 1
  • Simon Burbage

    Actor

    Policies not personalities!

    • 16th Apr 2010
    • 2
  • Amber Elliott

    Actor

    Frankie Boyle for PM!!!! :O)

    • 16th Apr 2010
    • 3
  • Cathy Conneff

    Actor

    They were all slimier than frog sputum. All I wanted them to do was answer the question...all incapable of doing so.

    Won't be voting for any of these clowns.

    • 16th Apr 2010
    • 4
  • Luke Stevenson

    Actor

    We will forever have the same cycles of boom, bust, war, greed and poverty unless we change the structure of society.

    The Venus Project, a blueprint for a news structure for society, presents what I believe to be our only option long term. It describes a resource based economy which produces goods and services in abundance as opposed to the deliberate scarcity we have now.

    Please check out

    www.thevenusproject.com/

    The Zeitgeist movement is gaining real momentum now. Time to get on board.

    • 16th Apr 2010
    • 5
  • Luke Stevenson

    Actor

    www.thezeitgeistmovementuk.com/

    • 16th Apr 2010
    • 6
  • Alan Brent

    Actor

    I was tempted to watch reruns of Strictly Come Dancing...instead I updated my profile pages on my websites....cleaned the house and took my cat for a walk...

    • 16th Apr 2010
    • 7
  • Lee Ravitz

    Actor

    In seriousness, I think the debate was as pointless as it was because the essential element that was really needed to galvanise it, which was public contribution, was so resolutely damped down. It seems representative to me of the state of the current democracy that the a forum supposedly allowing a questioning and auditing of our potential (and actual) political leadership was deprived of the single most important contribution, the public voice. Instead, a carefully policed debate, with a hand picked and quiescent audience sat in the studio for several hours. What was the point? No-one was ever at risk of being heckled, or seriously taken to task for their statements. They might as well have stuck to the usual vapid statements of policy and left things at that. Moreover, where does the preceived need to suddenly start aping American electoral practices stem from? The hope that something of say, American charisma may rub off on the English electoral debate, perhaps?

    While I will always stand by the fact that living in a pluralist and tolerant commercial democracy is a better option than living under the sort of regimes that govern about 75% of the earth's land surface, it's fair to say that the English electorate are, by now, being presented with what is effectively a non-choice between leading parties who have moved so closely towards occupying exactly the same centre ground that the policies which they collectively believe in are virtually identical, and those that distinguish them one from the other are precisely the ones that no-one wishes to support. Large numbers are washing their hands of the voting process because they feel they are being presented with equally dire choices, and some will vote in the attitude that it really no longer matters who is in power and who is out because the same line will be followed, regardless. I am convinced that the country is heading for a hung parliament, and that this may well be the biggest wake-up call the main parties can recieve as it will show them clearly how little the electorate actually cares for *any* of their declared positions.

    • 16th Apr 2010
    • 8
  • Forbes KB

    Actor

    I watched it and am taking an active interest in British politics for the 1st time in my life! I too will not be voting for any of the main parties because none of them had the ability to answer any of the questions put to them with anything other than pre rehersed manifesto statements!

    For God sake vote guys, but don't vote for the big 3 and don't vote for any of our incumbent MP's! We the people can force change in this country and to do that we have to remind the polititians who has the real power!

    • 16th Apr 2010
    • 9
  • Guy Press

    Actor

    Just about to film 3 ppb spoofs. They've all left themselves open to ridicule again!! Thank God!! However, Nick Clegg did come over as the most relaxed and personable so we'll reflect that!

    As for Debate thoughts..... unfortunately I feel it was so stage managed it was practically a pointless exercise.

    But at least Clegg finally got the media to recognise him. As for Cameron Direct his youtube site is so easy to spoof already!! And as for Mr B I do feel very sorry for him being pushed thru media hoops.

    I hear the BBC want to make them all do The Wall...... ;-)

    • 16th Apr 2010
    • 10
  • User Deleted

    This profile has been archived

    If you're worried about freedom of speech (and especially for those of you who are script writers etc...), then you need to think seriously about NOT voting Labour. In my humble opinion... :)

    • 16th Apr 2010
    • 11
  • Luke Stevenson

    Actor

    The term and meaning of a Resource-Based Economy was originated by Jacque Fresco. It is a system in which all goods and services are available without the use of money, credits, barter or any other system of debt or servitude. All resources become the common heritage of all of the inhabitants, not just a select few. The premise upon which this system is based is that the Earth is abundant with plentiful resource; our practice of rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant and counter productive to our survival.

    Modern society has access to highly advanced technology and can make available food, clothing, housing and medical care; update our educational system; and develop a limitless supply of renewable, non-contaminating energy. By supplying an efficiently designed economy, everyone can enjoy a very high standard of living with all of the amenities of a high technological society.

    A resource-based economy would utilize existing resources from the land and sea, physical equipment, industrial plants, etc. to enhance the lives of the total population. In an economy based on resources rather than money, we could easily produce all of the necessities of life and provide a high standard of living for all.

    Consider the following examples: At the beginning of World War II the US had a mere 600 or so first-class fighting aircraft. We rapidly overcame this short supply by turning out more than 90,000 planes a year. The question at the start of World War II was: Do we have enough funds to produce the required implements of war? The answer was No, we did not have enough money, nor did we have enough gold; but we did have more than enough resources. It was the available resources that enabled the US to achieve the high production and efficiency required to win the war. Unfortunately this is only considered in times of war.

    In a resource-based economy all of the world's resources are held as the common heritage of all of Earth's people, thus eventually outgrowing the need for the artificial boundaries that separate people. This is the unifying imperative.

    We must emphasize that this approach to global governance has nothing whatever in common with the present aims of an elite to form a world government with themselves and large corporations at the helm, and the vast majority of the world's population subservient to them. Our vision of globalization empowers each and every person on the planet to be the best they can be, not to live in abject subjugation to a corporate governing body.

    Our proposals would not only add to the well being of people, but they would also provide the necessary information that would enable them to participate in any area of their competence. The measure of success would be based on the fulfilment of one's individual pursuits rather than the acquisition of wealth, property and power.

    At present, we have enough material resources to provide a very high standard of living for all of Earth's inhabitants. Only when population exceeds the carrying capacity of the land do many problems such as greed, crime and violence emerge. By overcoming scarcity, most of the crimes and even the prisons of today's society would no longer be necessary.

    A resource-based economy would make it possible to use technology to overcome scarce resources by applying renewable sources of energy, computerizing and automating manufacturing and inventory, designing safe energy-efficient cities and advanced transportation systems, providing universal health care and more relevant education, and most of all by generating a new incentive system based on human and environmental concern.

    Many people believe that there is too much technology in the world today, and that technology is the major cause of our environmental pollution. This is not the case. It is the abuse and misuse of technology that should be our major concern. In a more humane civilization, instead of machines displacing people they would shorten the workday, increase the availability of goods and services, and lengthen vacation time. If we utilize new technology to raise the standard of living for all people, then the infusion of machine technology would no longer be a threat.

    A resource-based world economy would also involve all-out efforts to develop new, clean, and renewable sources of energy: geothermal; controlled fusion; solar; photovoltaic; wind, wave, and tidal power; and even fuel from the oceans. We would eventually be able to have energy in unlimited quantity that could propel civilization for thousands of years. A resource-based economy must also be committed to the redesign of our cities, transportation systems, and industrial plants, allowing them to be energy efficient, clean, and conveniently serve the needs of all people.

    What else would a resource-based economy mean? Technology intelligently and efficiently applied, conserves energy, reduces waste, and provides more leisure time. With automated inventory on a global scale, we can maintain a balance between production and distribution. Only nutritious and healthy food would be available and planned obsolescence would be unnecessary and non-existent in a resource-based economy.

    As we outgrow the need for professions based on the monetary system, for instance lawyers, bankers, insurance agents, marketing and advertising personnel, salespersons, and stockbrokers, a considerable amount of waste will be eliminated. Considerable amounts of energy would also be saved by eliminating the duplication of competitive products such as tools, eating utensils, pots, pans and vacuum cleaners. Choice is good. But instead of hundreds of different manufacturing plants and all the paperwork and personnel required to turn out similar products, only a few of the highest quality would be needed to serve the entire population. Our only shortage is the lack of creative thought and intelligence in ourselves and our elected leaders to solve these problems. The most valuable, untapped resource today is human ingenuity.

    With the elimination of debt, the fear of losing one's job will no longer be a threat This assurance, combined with education on how to relate to one another in a much more meaningful way, could considerably reduce both mental and physical stress and leave us free to explore and develop our abilities.

    If the thought of eliminating money still troubles you, consider this: If a group of people with gold, diamonds and money were stranded on an island that had no resources such as food, clean air and water, their wealth would be irrelevant to their survival. It is only when resources are scarce that money can be used to control their distribution. One could not, for example, sell the air we breathe or water abundantly flowing down from a mountain stream. Although air and water are valuable, in abundance they cannot be sold.

    Money is only important in a society when certain resources for survival must be rationed and the people accept money as an exchange medium for the scarce resources. Money is a social convention, an agreement if you will. It is neither a natural resource nor does it represent one. It is not necessary for survival unless we have been conditioned to accept it as such.

    Our lives will be the same whatever party we vote for. Its time for real change.

    www.thevenusproject.com/

    www.thezeitgeistmovementuk.com/

    • 16th Apr 2010
    • 12
  • User Deleted

    This profile has been archived

    At the beginning of World War 2 .... I'm afraid America sat on its arse for three years .. plenty of time therefore, to start upgrading their War machine !!

    • 16th Apr 2010
    • 13
  • User Deleted

    This profile has been archived

    Hi Luke - there's a slight flaw to your argument. Yes, society can provide all sorts of medical services, food, etc.. but I think you'll agree we have a problem sharing it around the world (and even the country) equally. Removing money won't solve one of our biggest problems which is our innate capacity for selfishness. We will still make sure that there's a hierarchy when it comes to wealth distribution, whatever the wealth is defined as (money, food, peanuts etc..). also if, as you say, we are "outgrowing" every service that requires money - I'm not sure where that leaves us - no doctors, lawyers, teachers, refuse removal workers, water purifucation plant workers, electricity plant workers. Do we really not need ANY of those things? Even actors?!!! Are we all expected to be paid in half a dozen eggs or three goats. In which case, as some stage the goats will become more precious than the eggs (or vice versa) and you are STILL left with a monetary system - it's just not printed on paper! Do we all have to work for nothing? I'm slightly confused!! :)

    • 17th Apr 2010
    • 14
  • Luke Stevenson

    Actor

    I can understand why you cant possibly see any alternative to capitalism. It's all any of us have ever known.

    But human beings have been around a lot longer than capitalism, and believe it or not, there are small places in the world where human beings coexist peacefully without a monetary system.

    I can also understand why you think selfishness is human nature. It is what you are told. It is not true. Human beings are a product of their environment. Our environment has been carefully constructed by the establishment.

    I am filming all day today so can only reply on my phone.

    Tomorrow I will thoroughly answer your questions and any others if there are any.

    Alternatively, search 'Zeitgeist Addendum' on Google video for a thorough description of what I am talking about. That would be best as the people behind this are incredibly inteligent scientists who explain it far better than I do.

    I am not trying to patronize anyone or pretend I'm clever. But you have to understand that the scale of human suffering on our planet is intolerable. If you consider that the methods of science could be directly applied for the benefit of society to eradicate needless human suffering, you realise there is no use for politicians. They have no expertise in anything other than propaganda and manipulation.

    However there is no "they" in this. Politicians and bankers are also a product of their environment. This is a choice that we as a species can make right now. We just have to understand it, and this is my motive for my reaching out to fellow artists and free-thinkers on this site.

    I could be talking crap, or I could be ill informed. But I think you owe it to yourself to consider what I'm saying and research it for yourself.

    Human beings have been around for a long time and society has always changed. You know as well as I do that we can't go on how we are now forever. We all know that society has to change.

    Do you honestly think that capitalism is it? Capitalism is our final destination? We can't find a structure for society that benefits all? I'm telling you that human beings are incredible, and we can do anything.

    All of the problems we are looking to politicians to solve cannot be solved as they are inherant in a capitalist society. You can't have rich without poor. You can't have poor without greed, competition and human suffering. We have never solved any of these problems as it is impossible to do so within the framework of our society.

    As I say, if you. dont have time to watch the film, I will answer questions as beat I can tomorrow

    Luke

    • 17th Apr 2010
    • 15
  • User Deleted

    This profile has been archived

    C'mon, Luke ... where are you going ??. This smacks of a perfect brainwashing, and a fool you are not !!. Money ... in any shape or form, is the l.c.d. of bartering. These scientists, that help us all ... how are they paid ? ... two cauliflowers and a cabbage ?? ... and the equipment ?? ... a bag of prawns ??. The list is endless that requires payment of some kind ... before we receive the benefit of their expertise.

    Your theory is all well and good in some small village in the outback ... but try applying it to a Company like the NHS, with hundreds and thousands of employees. I can hear the workforce now, as they arrive to work ..

    " Christ ... we're getting paid in turnips today !!". ... " sod that for a game of dominoes " !!.

    • 17th Apr 2010
    • 16
  • Charles Delaney

    Actor

    ..Bartering is a useful tool but most items bartered are 'cash converted'eventually.

    Money in one shape or form has been around since people! Ancient coins are being dug up all the time;They just didn't know how to print it until the printing press was invented

    a few hundred years ago!

    • 17th Apr 2010
    • 17
  • Luke Stevenson

    Actor

    Keep em coming guys. Rip me to shreds. As soon as I am typing on a keyboard and not a phone, I will detail how a resource based economy would work because you are still thinking within the limitations of capitalism.

    • 17th Apr 2010
    • 18
  • Lee Ravitz

    Actor

    I have a lot of sympathy with this sort of argument, Luke, as I have brought myself up on a complicated diet of predictive science-fiction, futurism, Anarchist and Socialist theory, the history of revolutionary movements, and the work of thinker-humourists such as Robert Anton Wilson, and having taken a close look at your posts, I see how the theory works. Others on the forums, I think, are a bit baffled because they cannot inherently trust that such utopian ideals could ever become a reality, and that remains an open question. There is a good argument to say that, if enough people have begun to question the system and to demand raised expectations, then the system will have to change in line with their attitudes, but I can also appreciate that people recognise the inertia and longevity of certain human practices - which we have tended to evolve because they have proven useful to us, and not simply because they have become imposed by 'capitalist society'.

    The creation of a monetary economy is a case in point - it tends to evolve at the point at which a society complexifies and becomes populous, because there is no longer any easy way to mark and order transactions that are being made between extensive numbers of people. There is liable to be too much possibility of cheating and short measure when a society has grown beyond the boundaries of being, say, a village society within which a certain communal, often patriarchal, authority is held over everyone, and a representative economy emerges to help regulate these transactions. I can easily believe that money was first introduced as a medium of 'trust exchange' and 'credit' by working merchants, whilst the true progenitors of modern capitalism, the landlords, literally counted their wealth in the number of slaves and fields they physically controlled. The idea that there is even such a thing as 'capitalism', and that inherent value accrues in theoretical stocks of virtual, rather than actual, liquid wealth, is of fairly recent derivation in comparison. Similarly, the ideal of the abolition of all representative wealth as a means of exchange is as old as human wish-fulfillment: Plato and Plutarch wanted it abolished, St. Augustine condemned lending at interest, during the Reformation, many Protestant sects attempted to live by barter economy, the French and Russian revolutionaries destroyed the financial infrastructures of their nations in their attempts to redefine economy and came close to the abolition of money. In some respects, all of these ideals changed the world, but in other respects, they have left us continuing to be saddled with the same problems in new forms. Therefore, to simply formulate a 21st century version of the type of thinking that informed Sir Thomas More when he inveighed against clerical rapacity in 'Utopia' in 1516, or Prince Kropotkin when he formulated co-operative Anarchist principles in 'Mutual Aid' in the late 19th century, or Buckminster Fuller's ideals of sustainable energy growth and systems synthesis from the 1950's, is not enough in itself, because we have been here before, addressing these self-same problems and have singularly failed in making these ideals into a reality. This is not to say that they could not, one day, BECOME a reality, which has been the hope of reformers and progressive thinkers throughout the ages - but the lineage is always checkered. Plato stands probably near the start of it, and while on the one hand, he depicted the ideal of a society run on a basis of perfect equality with the most intelligent and rationalising technocrats in control of it, there is a valid argument to say that Hitler actually came near to realising that kind of societal vision in Nazi Germany. In many ways, if you had stripped him of his political concerns, the society he was attempting to build was a 'forward thinking' technocracy, urgently combining the best modern values with the values of tradition, and rationalising its existence in accordance with the latest 'scientific' principles (whether that be building more enviromentally friendly housing or adopting eugenics programmes). This is one reason why he was so admired throughout Europe regardless of his complete lack of humanity before he precipitated mass war.

    The real issue is: given that the principles of reforming society in terms of a brighter, rationally planned and equalised future are so appealling (and, I suspect, would, at root, be of interest to the vast majority of the population could they be implemented tomorrow), how is this to actually be achieved? And I mean that in practical terms? What is it about this plan that ensures it can come to fruition? What is there about it that ensures it can gradually replace the way we actually structure the governmental systems of the world now? When, say, Socialist and Anarchist groups hoped to reform the inequalities of industrial (and yes, capitalist) society in the 19th century, they had to face precisely these kinds of thorny arguments. There were 'gradualists' who assumed the triumph of the Marxist proletariat was inevitable, and were prepared to work within the system until it inevitably collapsed - perhaps we might argue a similar policy could be in place here, and the world will come around to reforming in terms of a communal consciousness once society is no longer sustainable in its present form. But might this not be a case of closing the stable door after the horse has bolted? Others in the 19th century attempted to speed the process of the transfer of power - the only way they could come up with to do that was to initiate violent coup d'etats and forcible seizures of power, which tended to blight the security and honesty of their intentions from the start. Working through electoral candidacy, party manifesto and the ballot box tends to be a more acceptable alternative, but can a wholesale change ever be initiated in this way unless the movement becomes a mass party garnering unstoppable levels of support?

    I would be interested to hear if there are more concrete plans as to what the project is aiming to do to raise awareness and alter existing practices, as opposed to what the theory states, because a theory can state anything it cares to, and still effect no practical change whatsoever.

    • 18th Apr 2010
    • 19