UKH

So we in the UK watch on as our civil liberties are eroded, we're fkd over by Brexit, our corrupt politicians help themselves and their cronies to the national wealth, start illegal wars....

Meanwhile across the channel they try to raise retirement age to 64 and the French populace are out on the streets torching their town halls....

I've come to the conclusion that the Brits actually enjoy everything being a bit sh1t. Revolution just isn't our thing.

A guy on the Johnson thread mentioned Romance Fraud which I thought was good. I'd also say Stockholm Syndrome.

E

The issue is some of them re out on the streets. Alot also understand the pension problem in France . Economically its unsustainable with an increase from 10 m to 17 million in the older pouplation which is then funded by younger working families.

So not  very fair on them!

Just a reminder as to why companies avoid France and invest elsewhere.

Basically this. I’m centre left politically but I think the pension settlement in France is crazy and just storing up problems for the protestors’ children and grandchildren.

Also, France just has a more violent political culture than we do and I’m not sure that’s great. Prime example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_massacre_of_1961

Of course we had Bloody Sunday but that was in Ulster rather than London. 

Learned helplessness from 350 years of being ruled instead of being citizens.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/nn9g5d/austerity-nostalgia-keep-calm-and-ca...

I wonder what the King of France thinks of the protests?

Violence tends to be by blokes who are thuggish to be blunt. Most of us are not big fans of that approach we run from violence.. I would not want to have that sort of violent politcal culture.Its awful.I fail to undersstand why people find it a great idea.

As a last resort to prevent the dehumanisation of society it is, unfortunately, very necessary.

Clap trap.You have a vote.What you are saying in a roundabout way is that the violent Jan 6 riots in Washington were OK?Its the same thing just with a different hard right wing approach. It really is no different.

And that's delivered such bounty over the last 50 years for the UK! Robust political protest should be part of a healthy democratic society. Same as a free and balanced media another thing we're useless at here. Its just another form of check and balance. Arson, less so!

The idea that democracy starts and finishes with a cross in a box every four or five years is nonsense. The violence in France may not be what we want, but the right to protest and to make demands of our governments is a fundamental part of the democratic process. 

Not strictly accurate although I know what you  mean. The London Mob was a feared presence in the 18th century. It was the gradual move to formalised legal processes and law enforcement coupled with increasing democratisation that led to a reduction in rioting as a means of expressing grievances. 
I’d say the ‘learned helplessness’ is a more recent phenomenon emerging from the fossilisation of the two-party system and resulting democratic deficit, amongst other things. 

We were pretty good at rioting relatively recently.

We’ve also had two sitting MPs murdered fairly recently, and the political climate hasn’t improved.

A good point of course. But murdering politicians is quite easy to do - easier than instigating a violent riot - and so may not indicate much about broader political cultures. Japan recently had a very high profile political assassination but in the context of a less openly adversarial political system (at least in my limited understanding). 

Sorry to correct you but the French didn't have a vote on the matter.

And neither did we (Brits) when our retiremnet age was increased.

Any of your ancestors who were Chartists or trade union members are now turning in their graves. 

I’m not arguing that France doesn’t have a tradition of violent uprisings, but we aren’t entirely devoid of uppityness, historically anyway. The poll tax riots (which I was at but broke no windows) banged a nail in thatcher’s political coffin.

Would we need the right to protest if MPs were able to vote according to the wishes of their constituents rather than having to kowtow to their party on the vast majority of votes?

Ha, yes...

https://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/manuscripts/2018/10/09/the-night-nottingham-...

According to family tradition one of mine was involved in this warming display.

we in the UK watch on as our civil liberties are eroded

A lot of folk don't want liberty. 

Lock me down harder baby? Yes please.

Restrict movement? Yes please.

Ban speech that may offend someone? Yes please.

etc.

Why would we not want the right to protest? 

And to answer your question, just because an MP voted to reflect the wishes of their constituents (presumably you mean a majority of their constituents) does not mean there may no be opposing voices, either within an individual constituency or more widely. 

As an example, a majority of voters in Dover might support the efforts this government is making to stop migrants and asylum seekers arriving in small boats and might expect their MP to vote for such measures. That does not mean there are not others in Dover who disagree with those efforts, and who wish to protest against it. 

Having the right to protest against the actions of the government is a fundamental plank of any democratic state. You only have to look at regimes which do not allow protest, or who meet protest with guns and tanks, to realise that is a not a place we want to be. 

Or at the recent legislation to clamp down on protest that our regime has introduced...

If the UK government were to try to raise the retirement age for ordinary working people while at the same time permitting the wealth gap to grow to record levels, I would hope there'd be a public outcry and revolt, as that would mean that ordinary people were subsidising the accumulation of wealth by the super-rich by working longer.

That's what's happened in the UK in recent decades and there's been barely a murmer.

If democracy worked surely it would be a waste of time to protest against the will of the majority?

Democracy is not uncompromising tyranny of the majority. It's compromise to accommodate other views so that violence is not the more sensible option to achieve compromise or change.

Elected government may not be the most important factor, the key factor may be change of government. The extreme examples of that are GW Bush or Trump. A peaceful transition was more important than the fact that Gore and Clinton got more votes.

Without the possibility of change there is the possibility of violence so the opposition is just as important as government to democracy.

Multiple power bases in civic society are required to act as a check on government power and much or most democracy is outside government and parliament. Which is why authoritarians will suppress or co-opt independent institutions trade unions (eg Solidarnosc), professions, clubs (eg Hitler Youth replaced scouting etc), religious bodies (eg treatment of Falun Gong), civil service, courts and lawyers (eg enemies of the people), human rights bodies and universities etc etc etc.

If civic society is not much or most democracy and crucial to it, imagine a society with government party approved trade unions, religions, climbing clubs, employers etc. It wouldn't make it a democracy just because the government party were elected.

For me the fundamental difference is the French broke the chain of a ruling elite ...

While the UK remains an effectively feudal country I don't see a lot changing....I am not a fan of blood letting but a metaphorical guillotine is what this country needs....remember parliament was created by the landowning robber barons and their ilk to keep the King's powers in check, not because they felt the plebiscite needed a voice and certainly not so that the country's resources could be shared equally and fairly

But that's not how representative democracy works, and why most of us vote for an MP based solely or almost solely on their party, not anything about them personally.

I wonder how long it is going to be before we and other countries with similar state retirement systems change things.

The current one where the working age population pay for the state pensions of the retired population is ridiculous.

With an aging population the current system needs either an increase in the retirement age, an increase in contributions from the working population or an increase in the numbers of working age people and probably all three.

The state pension should be like private pensions, ie you pay in during your working life for your state pension when you retire, but hopefully because it would not be run by private companies there would not be a profit element.

Dave

Isn't France a republic?

The UK population isn't aging (see longevity stats which have stalled and are maybe reversing). The bigger current problem is the working population is getting financially squeezed. I'd add the UK DB pension valuations are dishonest, meaning we are being asked as members and employers to overpay into them.

I would agree that this is how most people vote.

Look where its got us