[Closed] Not poking anyone with a stick but this interests me as a concept -

Sounds like someone who has resigned themselves to supporting an unelectable party.

Personally I don't see the point of supporting a party which will never be in power as they will be about as much use as tits on fish.

Single issue stuff yes, UKIP, Suffragettes, errrr......Save Greenodd post office
Something as complex, changeable and nuanced as running a country? No.

I can't think of anice example where external pressure/opinion made a change

What about the Good Friday Agreement? External pressures forced Parliament to pass it into law. But you're always going to need Parliament for the law bit.

"Does anyone support the notion that you can change things politically without being in parliament/power?"

I think you could argue that many major changes begin at the grassroots somewhere, grow, and eventually encompass political opinion, such that change is effected. Eventually changing political parties themselves I guess.

Does anyone support the notion that you can change things politically without being in parliament/power? I can't think of anice example where external pressure/opinion made a change (Brexit was allowed by Parliament to happen?) So as a genuine discussion point is it possible to make social change (don't mean protests) outside of Parliament?

Yes, but not always in a good way - 'celebrity' for example.

Recently Emma Watson, a 26 year old Actor - made an passionate speech about gender equality and especially about empowering women in education and how more should be done to promote women in education.

She made some good, if obvious points of course, but on a lot of topics she was well off, for example for the last 20 years the way we educate our children and young adults has changed, which means Girls and Young Women are out performing Boys and Young Men by a meaningful margin - if anything we should be looking to empower male students.

Someone at 'The Sun' made an ugly cack-handed attempt to counter her arguments which only made things worse, but like so many of these sorts of things her views are being presented as fact, and anyone who dares to offer an alternative view is being shouted down.

But ultimately, she's a UN Goodwill Ambassador because she was in Harry Potter, and that's not some throwaway comment, yes she's got a degree, from a 'good' Uni - you don't get the gig for that, yes I'm aware she's been in a few other things, but you don't get the gig for being Reverend Iris in the Vicar of Dibley.

So, Emma Watson, the 26 year old Actor - not Jocelyn Bell Burnell or May-Britt Moser gets to influence the political landscape of the West because she was Hermione and that's suppose to mean something.

...about as much use as tits on fish.

Mermaids?

Poll Tax riots?

So, Emma Watson, the 26 year old Actor - not Jocelyn Bell Burnell or May-Britt Moser gets to influence the political landscape of the West because she was Hermione and that's suppose to mean something.

Surely her mass appeal may help engage some of those who would normally ignore significant issues in the world and possibly prompt them to help.

I'm not usually one for "celeb culture" but I find it hard to see why this could be considered to be a bad thing.

oldmanmtb - Member
...Does anyone support the notion that you can change things politically without being in parliament/power? I can't think of anice example where external pressure/opinion made a change (Brexit was allowed by Parliament to happen?) So as a genuine discussion point is it possible to make social change (don't mean protests) outside of Parliament?

I'm sure the French, the USA, the Russians, the Irish and a few others can think of some examples.

Sometimes it comes down to blood and bullets when the establishment loads the dice too much its way.

"Does anyone support the notion that you can change things politically without being in parliament/power?"

Big business does it daily. All you need is money.

Not entirely true, km79. Take a look at the work of Citizens UK. They are all about the power of you and me, and they have managed to make some real, concrete changes at both national and local level.

If the only driver of sociopolitical change is government then we live in tyranny.
I think that we are headed blindly into such a tyranny.

I can't think of anice example where external pressure/opinion made a change

And for the current generation, - the sausage roll tax U-turn gate.

Does anyone support the notion that you can change things politically without being in parliament/power?

My girlfriend has changed local or national government legislation at least twice. Once with a some photographs. Once with a short piece of video. Neither have been widely viewed.

Rupert Murdoch.

I think I've mentioned on another thread 'politics' and 'parliament' aren't the same thing but people tend to use 'MP' and 'Politician' interchangeably even though a pretty large proportion of MPs aren't politicians.

An MP's job is to represent and constituency they are a 'committee' in the true sense of the word - a person to whom something has been entrusted.

Politics is about shaping public opinion not responding to it. So politicians set the agenda of government but - the issues on which our MPs vote on our behalf. But you don't need to be in government to shape those policies or to influence the shape the public opinions that those MPs have to then represent.

@pmj

"Does anyone support the notion that you can change things politically without being in parliament/power?"

Some do. But they're doing their A levels at the moment.

I can't think of anice example where external pressure/opinion made a change

Via democracy it does. We had years of a centrist government because the lack of electability i.e. public opinion of the leftist party forced a change. Uk politics shifted to the right. Doesn't suit everyone of course but it suited the majority.