Just in time for British Oligarch elections, 2015

In this battle between Russell Brand and Rupert Murdoch,
of David and Goliath's media empire, the concept of
"voting as democracy" has been seriously challenged.


[the Sun is ousted in Hoxton]

Brand says "why bother voting?" when it just
perpetuates the destruction of our society?

He's got plenty of points to defend his position.
Any 5-year old can see that we just trade in one
bunch of narcissistic, rich suits for another.

I can also see the following flaws in today's democracy:

-it means that for 1500-1800 days, we're supposed to shut
up and go find work. No. Politics is a daily issue.
-Politicians lie just to get your vote and then do what they want.
they take no consideration of individual MPs, what they think
or what they promised their constituents.
-If there are 20 important issues, 2 or 3 main parties and you have
1 vote, how likely is it, statistically speaking, that you or
the public at large will get those issues solved? That counts
for all kinds of things in the UK, obvious issues, like funding
and directing state education or public health care. The public
is 90% of the belief that the Condem gov is doing the wrong
things, intentionally.
-While we live in times of instant Internet access, of social
media and voting for tv programs. This means that we
are better informed and want to have our say in politics.
Not all social media is politically aware, but a lot of us are.
So, we need more referendums. But instead, the Tories have
killed this idea by equating referendums with the stoopid
vote for leaving the EU. That blocks any discussion of
referendums. Nice chess move, assholes.
-Particularly in the UK, but also most other major countries,
the only people who get elected are either serving themselves
or their rich buddies. And in the case of the UK, these
leaders are usually rich , coddled morons.

Now, there's academic proof that we live in oligarchies,
if the US is an example.

checkit: the Mic
Princeton Concludes What Kind of Government America Really Has, and It's Not a Democracy
By Tom McKay April 16, 2014

The news: A new scientific study from Princeton researcher Martin Gilens and Northwestern researcher Benjamin I. Page has finally put some science behind the recently popular argument that the United States isn't a democracy any more. And they've found that in fact, America is basically an oligarchy.
An oligarchy is a system where power is effectively wielded by a small number of individuals defined by their status called oligarchs. Members of the oligarchy are the rich, the well connected and the politically powerful, as well as particularly well placed individuals in institutions like banking and finance or the military.
For their study, Gilens and Page compiled data from roughly 1,800 different policy initiatives in the years between 1981 and 2002. They then compared those policy changes with the expressed opinion of the United State public. Comparing the preferences of the average American at the 50th percentile of income to what those Americans at the 90th percentile preferred, as well as the opinions of major lobbying or business groups, the researchers found out that the government followed the directives set forth by the latter two much more often.
It's beyond alarming. As Gilens and Page write, "the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy." In other words, their statistics say your opinion literally does not matter.
That might explain why mandatory background checks on gun sales supported by 83% to 91% of Americans aren't in place, or why Congress has taken no action on greenhouse gas emissions even when such legislation is supported by the vast majority of citizens.
This problem has been steadily escalating for four decades. While there are some limitations to their data set, economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez constructed income statistics based on IRS data that go back to 1913. They found that the gap between the ultra-wealthy and the rest of us is much bigger than you would think, as mapped by these graphs from the Center On Budget and Policy Priorities:
Piketty and Saez also calculated that as of September 2013 the top 1% of earners had captured 95% of all income gains since the Great Recession ended. The other 99% saw a net 12% drop to their income. So not only is oligarchy making the rich richer, it's driving policy that's made everyone else poorer.
What kind of oligarchy? As Gawker's Hamilton Nolan explains, Gilens and Page's findings provide support for two theories of governance: economic elite domination and biased pluralism. The first is pretty straightforward and states that the ultra-wealthy wield all the power in a given system, though some argue that this system still allows elites in corporations and the government to become powerful as well. Here, power does not necessarily derive from wealth, but those in power almost invariably come from the upper class. Biased pluralism on the other hand argues that the entire system is a mess and interest groups ruled by elites are fighting for dominance of the political process. Also, because of their vast wealth of resources, interest groups of large business tend to dominate a lot of the discourse.
In either case, the result is the same: Big corporations, the ultra-wealthy and special interests with a lot of money and power essentially make all of the decisions. Citizens wield little to no political power. America, the findings indicate, tends towards either of these much more than anything close to what we call "democracy" — systems such as majoritarian electoral democracy or majoritarian pluralism, under which the policy choices pursued by the government would reflect the opinions of the governed.

Nothing new: And no, this isn't a problem that's the result of any recent Supreme Court cases — at least certainly not the likes FEC v. Citizens United or FEC v. McCutcheon. The data is pretty clear that America has been sliding steadily into oligarchy for decades, mirrored in both the substantive effect on policy and in the distribution of wealth throughout the U.S. But cases like those might indicate the process is accelerating.

"Perhaps economic elites and interest group leaders enjoy greater policy expertise than the average citizen does," Gilens and Page write. "Perhaps they know better which policies will benefit everyone, and perhaps they seek the common good, rather than selfish ends, when deciding which policies to support.
"But we tend to doubt it."

The TTIP proof, without the pudding

You folks don't want the TTIP trade deal to go through.
otherwise, you wouldn't be reading my blog. Plutocrats
don't have time to read blogs.
The deal will be impossible to squeeze out of, once
we're in, so let's get some proof before we decide.

Anyway, the proof about this deal

which is being arranged in SECRET

is in the ISDS- Independent Dispute Settlement process

which by-passes the regular court systems of the EU 

and its member countries. This ISDS already exists in 

many trade agreements, and Germany is in the process

of losing $4 billion on two trade deals gone sour.

ISDS is a private "court" that decides on disputes between
governments and businesses, under some trade deals.
Unfortunately, the "judges" are all chosen from the
ranks of private industry, they don't have any judicial
or law experience, and are almost a bald-faced
slanted kangaroo court that finds in favour of
private biz, with no other recourse for appeal.
So, governments, and we, the public, are screwed
at every turn. Governments will not be able to
make decisions without checking with their ISDS
lawyers. Paying hefty fines in the billions will
bankrupt our governments.

the end of democracy

in short order

One deal went bad when the Fukushima fallout (pun)

caused Germany to speed up its withdrawal from 

nuclear energy, from 50 to 20 years.  A Swedish

company saw themselves losing a lot of money

because of this democratic decision, so they 

sued Germany, and they will win.

The IDS is stacked in favour of corporations, because

the "judges" in the panel are just regular, untrained

BUSINESS folk.

Honest plutocrats have been heard (I'll find examples)

saying that they cannot believe that governments 

sign up to such deals.

Well, the secret discussions will ensure that this

is what happens. Businessmen will say "all is well"

"nothing anti-constitutional to see here", until

the deal is signed, then they'll say

"but, we have a deal."

If you want to watch this debate, or take an MP3/4

pod with you, check this LSE talk which I was at:

http://www.lse.ac.uk/publicEvents/events/2015/02/20150212t1830vHKT.aspx
http://www.lse.ac.uk/newsAndMedia/videoAndAudio/channels/publicLecturesAndEvents/player.aspx?id=2885

The German guy is first. He's all logic and numbers, but the Finnish
guy has seen this stuff in action, and connected it with the
rapacious "trade deals" that the US used to run with capricious
Latin American governments, to run their way around any surprise
blackmail that those tin-pot dictators could dream up.

There's no short-cut around the constitution. It will cost us all.

Here's more stuff for all you proof addicts. 2 things
checkit: 1
Independent
US firms could make billions from UK via secret tribunals
Exclusive: Previously unreported figures from the UN reveal that US companies had sued other nations 127 times in ISDS cases in the past 15 years
Jim Armitage Author Biography
Deputy Business Editor
Thursday 09 October 2014
Britain faces a real risk of being ordered to pay vast sums to US multinationals under the controversial TTIP trade deal being negotiated between Washington and the EU, an analysis of similar agreements has revealed.
The Government has repeatedly played down concerns that secret tribunals established by TTIP will lead to large numbers of American corporations suing the UK in trade disputes.
But United Nations figures uncovered by The Independent show that US companies have made billions of dollars by suing other governments nearly 130 times in the past 15 years under similar free-trade agreements.
…
Most of the US litigation has been brought against poor countries in Latin America and Eastern Europe with which America has bilateral trade relationships.
Previously unreported figures from the UN reveal that US companies had sued other nations 127 times in ISDS cases in the past 15 years Previously unreported figures from the UN reveal that US companies had sued other nations 127 times in ISDS cases in the past 15 years (EPA)
Unions and NGOs have claimed that TTIP will open the floodgates for ISDS cases that will overturn the decisions of democratically elected governments in Western Europe.
…
COMING TO THEIR SENSES
ISDS deals are also not new: Britain's first was struck in 1975 when it set up a bilateral trade deal with Egypt. However, the UN figures emphasise that the number of legal actions being taken under them has increased massively in recent years, with 58 and 56 respectively in 2012 and 2013.
Germany, which is being sued under an ISDS by an energy company over its moratorium on nuclear power, has been particularly vociferous in its opposition. This week, Italy's deputy industry minister said there were so many sticking points to the TTIP deal that there should be a ”plan B“.

”Today it is not possible to reach an agreement that includes ISDS because the Germans will never allow it,“ said Carlo Calenda.
…
”Today it is not possible to reach an agreement that includes ISDS because the Germans will never allow it,“ said Carlo Calenda.
Today the European Council bowed to calls to be more transparent about the talks by publishing its TTIP negotiating mandate.
ISDS actions: Controversial cases
* US tobacco multinational Philip Morris sued Australia over new rules demanding plain packaging for cigarettes, and Uruguay for printing health warnings on them.
* Ecuador was sued by US oil giant Occidental Petroleum after it stripped the company of the rights to explore for oil. Ecuador claimed Occidental was in breach of contract but the World Bank arbitrators ruled in favour of the company.
* Poland and Slovakia were both sued by private health and insurance providers when they attempted to reverse some of the privatisations of their healthcare systems.
* New Zealand withdrew laws on plain packaging after the Philip Morris case, while Canada revoked a ban on hazardous waste exports to the US because of fears it could face an ISDS claim.

2 BBC
Concerns rise over US-EU trade talks
By Andrew Walker BBC World Service Economics correspondent
Activists protest against the TTIP and CETA in Berlin on 11 October 2014 Protesters took to the streets in Berlin on Saturday
There are rising concerns in Europe over negotiations to liberalise trade with the United States.
The project, the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, or TTIP, aims to remove a wide range of barriers to bilateral commerce.
Demonstrations were taking place across Europe on Saturday, with large numbers of events in Germany, France, Spain and Italy,
…
Food safety
One aim of the negotiations is to reduce the costs to business of complying with regulations. A firm in, say Europe, that wants to export to the US often has to comply with two sets of rules.
Critics say the result of this would be lower standards of protection for workers, consumers and the environment. Food safety is a particular concern among European opponents of the negotiations.
People protest against the Transatlantic Free Trade Agreement (TAFTA) in the southwestern French city of Narbonne on 11 October. People in the French city of Narbonne joined the protests
A demonstrator holds a banner in Parliament Square in London on 11 October 2014 Demonstrators in the UK are worried about the impact on the National Health Service
In the EU, campaigners say that consumers could be faced with more genetically modified food, hormone treated beef and chicken meat that has been rinsed with chlorine.
Another major concern is the provisions under discussion to enable foreign investors - for example American firms investing in the EU - to sue a host government in some circumstances if they are hit by a change in policy.
…