The everyday blog of Richard Bartle.
RSS feeds: v0.91; v1.0 (RDF); v2.0; Atom.
Previous entry. Next entry.
1:47pm on Sunday, 30th November, 2014:
It's weird how the two main political parties in the UK retain their ideologies while organising themselves the opposite way.
The Conservatives are spoken of in the plural form ("are" rather than "is"); Labour is spoken of in the singular form ("is" rather than "are"). Reflecting this, the Conservatives are basically top-down aristocrats and Labour is a bottom-up collective. However, the Conservatives organise themselves as local associations that are big on individuality, whereas . Labour organises itself as a feudal, absolute-loyalty-to-the-leader monolith.
If you're at the top of a hierarchy in your place of work, why would you want to split it up to form smaller hierarchies of which you're not at the top? If being controlling is good, why do you want to be less controlling?
If you're at the bottom of a hierarchy in your place of work, why would you want to join with your fellow workers to form a bigger hierarchy of which you're still at the bottom? If being controlled is bad, why do you want to be more controlled?
The answer in both cases seems to be "fairness", but I don't see much fairness coming from replicating the structures that you believe are unfair in the first place.
The Liberal Democrats are like Labour without the centralised control. UKIP is like the Conservatives without any control whatsoever.
About this blog.
Copyright © 2014 Richard Bartle (firstname.lastname@example.org).