politics and issues

[bombfrog]

And the UK isn't?

[russycarps]

And neither does anyone else.

Capitalism isn't perfect, but it's the best system got. You either join in and make the most of it or sit on the sidelines.

[William of Walworth]

We seem to have left Glstonbury and joined the real world!!

[bombfrog]

oh sweet jesus. You arent aware that there are skirmishes along the indian and pakistani borders practically every frigging day??

Edited March 18, 2009 by bombfrog

[russycarps]

Yep, quite aware TYVM.

Why do you think they remain "skirmishes" and haven't turned into all out war. Could it have something to do with the fact that both countries know that all out war would mean total obliteration of both of them, perhaps?

[beergut100]

I'm not taking the bait any more.

This discussion needs to get back on topic. I work with young people and, by and large, I am a bit frustrated by their apathy; however, it is not only the youth but the people I work with. I am the only person in a unit of about 30 people who is in a union, for example. Most of my colleagues steadfastly refuse to talk about anything remotely political - and these are educated people. Even during the Iraq War very few gave a damn; one or two even started regurgitating myths about hidden WMDs and such rubbish they'd seen in the media.

Yet I have noticed that, as the recession has hit people in the pocket, they suddenly seem to have more political views. Tying this back into music, punk was born of a recession; so maybe not only will people become more political, but some decent new music will emerge.

[bombfrog]

Now you're splitting hairs. Is that the best you can do?

Come on, a proper confilct between two nuclear powers since 1945, I'm waiting.

Edit: @russycarps

Edited March 18, 2009 by bombfrog

[russycarps]

Now you're splitting hairs. Is that the best you can do?

Come on, a proper confilct between two nuclear powers since 1945, I'm waiting.

Edit: @russycarps

[bombfrog]

india and pakistan. As previously detailed.

[Alcatraz]

In my posts on /index.php?act=findpost&hl=&pid=2603208">the original 'no more leftfield' thread I attempted to raise a bit of interest in some kind of activity to keep the political message of Glastonbury alive and let the organisers know how we felt, unfortunately there did not seem to be a lot of interest. When the news came out that leftfield would be back in 2010 and that it was 'just a misunderstanding' I gave up. Unfortunately we have seen little evidence or transparency from anyone at the festival that a return of leftfield is definitely planned, so if we fail to take action this year on the understanding that the status quo would be resumed next year we may be shooting ourselves in the foot and allowing the general publics political apathy to get a foothold at Glastonbury.

Part of my reason for giving in so easily at the last attempt was that I expected people to be engaged by my call to arms and didn’t want to be a loan voice forcing my ideas on everyone. I have no experience of any kind of political activism and didn’t want my potentially ill thought out and naive ideas to prevail when others might be better equipped to deal with the situation, however seeing as other ideas have failed to materialise I will offer mine by way of getting something started:

1) Raise donations from like minded individuals for a public awareness activity at the festival this year

2) Spend donations on the following:

- Flags – possibly a red flag with the clenched fist logo? - Everyone loves flags!*

- Bamboo poles for said flags

- Leaflets

3) Arrange activities around the festival site (speeches, talks, debates etc) – either just a guy with a message standing on a bin with a loud hailer or ask for some of the smaller stages to let us have people speak while they are setting up between acts. The leaflets mentioned above would provide a timetable of such activities as well as telling people about the importance of having a political message at Glastonbury and the history behind politics at the festival.

4) Once all this is in place I propose having people on all the main entrance gates handing out flags and leaflets, telling them what we are all about and encouraging them to display the flags by their tents and take them around the festival site with them

If we could fund the production of a few thousand flags (getting them done in that kind of quantity should be fairly cheap per unit?) then the impact of them being all over the site and in front of TV cameras at the main stages should get the attentions of people that matter, It could also inspire other festival goers (and outsiders through TV and press attention) to change the way they interact with the political world.

*A potential PR pitfall might be the risk of upsetting those who see flags in the crowd as being detrimental to performances (I’ve never taken a flag to a stage for this reason – I don’t want to upset anyone - I usually have a great many decorating my campsite though) but I would like to think that we could convince them that the cause was just. It might also be the case that if there was a backlash to such actions it would just give further attention to our activities.

Opinions, messages of support plus your offer of time, expertise or capital for such an initiative would be very much appreciated.

Edited March 18, 2009 by Alcatraz

[Mardy]

Will drag the thread back to this. I like your thinking and point 3 is something that is very appealing to me.

The glory of it, would be that anyone would be able to speak, on whatever they pleased with the possibility of being challenged by anyone who wishes to. This in a sense is where the Leftfield was limited and hence why the likes of bombfrog don't consider it to be a big loss.

In terms of a message to be sending, its an excellent one, and to anyone else who may be interested in getting something together, say something and we'll see if we can get something going

[beergut100]

Well if that's the best you can do then i'd say the nuclear deterrent has worked spectacularly well.

Edited March 18, 2009 by stevedevine

[bombfrog]

if we accept that no two countries with nuclear weapons have been to war with each other - this is in no way proof that it is the nuclear "deterrent" that has kept the peace. Neither is it proof that it always will keep the peace.

[beergut100]

Scarier than the thought of being sent to the trenches in WW1, or being bombed in the blitz?

Edited March 18, 2009 by stevedevine

[Mardy]

much scarier. I remember watching that TV programme about nuclear war, drama thing called 'Threads' when I was a kid and it scared me senseless. The thought that it could end without warning in 15 minutes, that's a heavy load to carry.

Did you see that documentary last year on Channel 4 about how close we were to nuclear strikes in 1983? F***ing hell.

[jameshunt]

Yes, of course it is

[staggerlee]

sadly most of the youth these days couldnt give a shit about politics. The majority of the youth of today are utterly selfish and totally dedicated to materialistic pursuits. I find the next generation completely depressing.

Have you ever tried having a chat to an 18 year old about politics? They tend to be frighteningly ill informed and totally disinterested.

[jameshunt]

Bit prejudice that mate. What about the thousands of 18 year olds that go on to take a humanities course in University. I was interested in politics when I was 18, my brother is now, as are most of my friends. Also I struggle to imagine the entire youth of the past being actively involved in politics, I would wager that more 18 year olds are aware of the goings on in politics than say 20 or 30 years ago. Unless our education system has got worse that is, which of course it hasn't.

Edited March 18, 2009 by jameshunt

[jameshunt]

Well yes, you could argue that if we dropped our nuclear deterrent we could just rely on our alliances with those that still have them.

It would certainly be cheaper for us, but I would have thought that increasing our reliance on the US was exactly the opposite of what most people wanted to do at the moment.

[bombfrog]

much scarier. I remember watching that TV programme about nuclear war, drama thing called 'Threads' when I was a kid and it scared me senseless. The thought that it could end without warning in 15 minutes, that's a heavy load to carry.

Did you see that documentary last year on Channel 4 about how close we were to nuclear strikes in 1983? F***ing hell.

[port]

Just out of interest, out of all the over 30's who replied to this post, how many of you were actually clued up or interested in politics when you were 18?

[jameshunt]

Personally I'd rather die quickly in a nuclear strike that have to die in the trenches but each to their own.

[jameshunt]

Just out of interest, out of all the over 30's who replied to this post, how many of you were actually clued up or interested in politics when you were 18?

[bombfrog]

Not to a libertarian it isn't. Self is the most important precept there I believe.

[jameshunt]

Rubbish.

The point is that conventional war between the worlds major powers has been replaced by "lack of war" between the major players because of the existence of the nuclear deterrent.

How does not wanting millions of people to die make me selfish?