atw: Re: OT: Grumbling About Elections... [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
- From: Peter.Martin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 13:35:21 +1000
Christine:
Couldn't let this go by without trying to bring it all back to reality.
>So the politician, or the manager, or the recruiter will compromise what
they feel they have to compromise in order to be allowed to remain within
the system. >The more corrupt the system, the more they have to
compromise, and I think many of us would agree that we are seeing rather a
lot of compromise these days.
You imply that compromise is a bad thing, (or even, a result of
corruption... )
Of course, suggesting that all compromise in politics is wrong per se, is
nonsensical. And implying that current compromises arise from a more
corrupt system would be even sillier. You nearly do that by running two
separate statements into the final sentence above. Did you want to make
that implication? (See below.)
All politics is about the resolution of conflict. Resolution of
conflict is always going to have to involve compromise when people have
different views about the best courses to follow. If you want "purity"
and no compromise, get ready for the war you start, because that's where
you'll be taking us. Until the next set of compromises stop it, we
hope.
The inevitable consequence of a real avoidance of all compromise is
outright warfare -- be it local, tribal or national.
Easy assumptions that we all know what the right thing to do is, and that
all we have to do is what (I/we/you) want, are wishful thinking and
fanciful dreaming. You must have a grasp of that after a few years on
this list.
If you want to test how easy or hard it is to get agreement, get 6 people
into a room, give them a political issue, and get them all to agree on it.
Then do that a few million times. You're dreaming if you think that can
avoid compromise. It will actually make the necessity for compromise
immediately apparent -- if not with the first 6, with the next.
The reason we have artful compromises at present is because we elected a
mixture of different parties of different beliefs. We didn't elect a
single-party group or a single coalition in a majority. So, in order
for the Parliament to
a.) avoid open warfare
b.) do some useful work and keep the country running
the mixture of members we elected had to work out a way to compromise.
So surprise, surprise! We finish up with a Prime Minister who is
capable of arranging an amazing set of compromises to try to get some
things done. I happen to think that makes her a better politician than
most of those I've seen (or worked with) as some of the independent MPs
have suggested.
Even if every seat in the Parliament were to be filled by one party,
apparently avoiding the need for compromise, you can bet the first thing
that happens is that that party will split into factions or groups, and
will require a new compromise.
Do stop whingeing about compromise. By all means talk about policies
that are wrong. But assuming that compromise is per se wrong because it
leads to policies you don't like is tantamount to saying you want your
way, and you don't want to let other people have their way, or even the
smallest bit of their way if it disagrees with yours.
Peter M
--
This message contains privileged and confidential information only
for use by the intended recipient. If you are not the intended
recipient of this message, you must not disseminate, copy or use
it in any manner. If you have received this message in error,
please advise the sender by reply e-mail. Please ensure all
e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or
using.
Other related posts:
