4 ms·

Hard to argue with his conclusion. In the UK, the three main political parties are shockingly similar; I can't think of a single truly-significant policy differ

Hard to argue with his conclusion. In the UK, the three main political parties are shockingly similar; I can't think of a single truly-significant policy difference. As an example, the 'left wing' party wants to restrict university tuition fees to £3000pa, whereas the 'right wing' party wants them to be £9kpa. Such things are the limits to our political discourse. They even look the same, like slightly-morphed versions of Tony Blair. Same suits, same accents, just different tie colours. Honestly, I find it slightly spooky. If you agree with Mr. Stross that this is a structural problem (and I do), then remedying this within the system seems pointless. So what? Trying to replace the system seems equally doomed, because as soon as your replacement structure gets any traction, the System will squash it. The only way that I can see is to try and work around it - to create new structures and forms not as competition to the current system, but as subversive alternatives. Bitcoin is the best example of this at the moment, and it will be very interesting to see how that plays out. Make no mistake, the prospect of growing BTC adoption is genuinely threatening to the Beige Dictatorship, and a crackdown seems inevitable - but its success less so.

DanBC 14y ago
> If you agree with Mr. Stross that this is a structural problem (and I do), then remedying this within the system seems pointless. So what? Trying to replace the system seems equally doomed, because as soon as your replacement structure gets any traction, the System will squash it. I think it's a shame that guerilla gardening didn't take off more. Or that graffiti artists don't also clean up bad graffiti. Or that there are not more voluntary home gardening schemes - there are a bunch of people who enjoy gardening but don't have gardens, and a bunch of people who don't enjoy that kind of thing (or who can't do it) but who do have gardens. There must be some kind of way to get them together. Unfortunately, doing it within the system means insurance and criminal records checks (and the misuse of those) and etc etc etc.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
michaelt 14y ago
I've heard two game theory ideas about why politics works the way it does. The first is: When you have three political parties and each party has about a third of the vote, it makes sense for the two parties that are closest to merge, giving them two thirds of the vote, letting them win and implement their policies. So electoral systems like in the US and UK naturally tend towards being two-party systems. (There are other countries with political systems that don't tend towards two-party systems, but these have their weaknesses too; Belgium's multiparty system sometimes doesn't produce a government at all.) The second is Hotelling's Law [1] - to win elections, both parties want to attract floating voters/capture the middle ground with centrist policies, so both parties end up next to each other. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotelling%27s_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotelling%27s_law

DanBC 14y ago

> If you agree with Mr. Stross that this is a structural problem (and I do), then remedying this within the system seems pointless. So what? Trying to replace the system seems equally doomed, because as soon as your replacement structure gets any traction, the System will squash it. I think it's a shame that guerilla gardening didn't take off more. Or that graffiti artists don't also clean up bad graffiti. Or that there are not more voluntary home gardening schemes - there are a bunch of people who enjoy gardening but don't have gardens, and a bunch of people who don't enjoy that kind of thing (or who can't do it) but who do have gardens. There must be some kind of way to get them together. Unfortunately, doing it within the system means insurance and criminal records checks (and the misuse of those) and etc etc etc.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

michaelt 14y ago

I've heard two game theory ideas about why politics works the way it does. The first is: When you have three political parties and each party has about a third of the vote, it makes sense for the two parties that are closest to merge, giving them two thirds of the vote, letting them win and implement their policies. So electoral systems like in the US and UK naturally tend towards being two-party systems. (There are other countries with political systems that don't tend towards two-party systems, but these have their weaknesses too; Belgium's multiparty system sometimes doesn't produce a government at all.) The second is Hotelling's Law [1] - to win elections, both parties want to attract floating voters/capture the middle ground with centrist policies, so both parties end up next to each other. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotelling%27s_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotelling%27s_law