Thursday, 1 June 2017

Governance by opinion? Or evidence?

Governance is the administration of a community's shared resource..... and that has certain implications, in terms of duty of care and health and safety of the community, the entire community.

Governance by opinion?

Who would vote on that basis, and why?

A VERY important question, one that demands evidence for an accurate answer.

The Brexit campaign was an example of opinion over evidence, as was the invasion of Iraq, the bombing of Libya, the support of violent militia in Syria, and not least, the policies pertaining to how our State assists and help the most vulnerable in our Society.

I find it utterly appalling that political decision making, policy is based on opinion (ideology, etc) rather than a full appraisal of all the available evidence.

The media provide opinion and present it as fact. The Politicians react to the media and discuss opinion, rather than the evidence. I see this as a matter of health and safety.

So as to why the Election, now?

Europe will not negotiate on the basis of opinion, and an opinionated Government will find it difficult to engage in an honest negotiation, and that will be come apparent to one and all, and their grip on power will be severely diminished for some time.

So they want out...... before it all goes badly.

They know a Corbyn led Government or progressive alliance Government will be evidence based, and they will attempt to disrupt, derail that Government (from within and without) rather than be mature enough to negotiate in good faith, for all of us.

So they are handing the chalice over, and it remains to be seen what they will do after that - I think they will be disruptive.

Please bear in mind that this is really just an opinion - about the motives behind the snap election, and that I need evidence to support this conclusion and to determine the appropriate response.

My most urgent concern is the primacy of opinion in the electorate, dominated by media output, (and to a degree the way the State curriculum in history disables evidence led analysis) which enables any Government to get support for policies by touting/triggering opinion.In a similar vein, I detest the word 'benefits' when applied to Social Care.

It really ought to be called 'assistance' or 'help' so that when people who do not look at all the evidence suggest that we should not help or assist those who need it, it becomes very clear what the issue is.

Kindest regards


"Do what you love, it's Your Gift to Universe"

*If you like this post, if you found the themes resonant, if you agree in part, would you be kind enough to let others know about it? I would really appreciate that. You could drop a comment too, if you felt the urge. Or not. I will moderate contributions, and block any that are abusive. For obvious reasons. Thank you for reading.


KayCee said...

This is exactly what I have been feeling/thinking. I find it so frustrating that we give people the power to govern without first confirming that they are competent to do so. I don't understand how it is not illegal for people in power to lie to the public? If a heart surgeon made false claims/lied about their competence for the job and someone died there would generally be an uproar and they would be held accountable at some point, but if a politician does it and there is large scale loss of life/negative outcome (as a direct result of policies implemented/invasions/war/benefit cuts/budget cuts etc) the world just carries on, no one is really held accountable or it is dismissed as the unfortunate by product of having to make "hard decisions" ...I feel like the world is going completely insane - none of it makes sense to me! Wealth and power seem to hold more importance than life and love but in truth only one side of the scale has real value and unfortunately it is not the one that seems to be carrying most weight in today's world ��

corneilius said...

HI Kaycee,

Thank you for the comment.

It does seem quite insane, until one looks at the system and sees the evidence that the psychology of the bully is writ large across it - hierarchies of competing power do not lend themselves to healthy human society, they have to be bullies. But they also pretend otherwise.

For too many people, the benefits we have today are held in contrast to slavery and feudalism, rather than assessed against a metric of genuine psycho-social health, and the vast evidence that egalitarian social systems have been pre-eminent among humans for most of the 2 million years or so that we can trace... egalitarianism is a sign of a healthy society.

Strangely we are educated to believe that this one is egalitarian, and in spite of the evidence, many people retain that belief, through conditioning, blind hope and fear.

I think the grass roots are more inclined towards egalitarianism than those who hold power....