Your most controversial view?

Well then you can start by not regulating until the competition is down enough, and then introduce regulation step by step to suppress competition as any good monopoly does. Heck you could practice a few dubious protectionist policies to give you an advantage with regulation as well, it won't matter when you have most of the means of production. When the time is right you (when you have most of the means of production, you won't get all of it) decentralise the companies.

Well I suppose they'd be accountable to the electorate but when has that ever stopped anything bad? The sad fact of the matter is there are no good guys and bad guys (i.e those on the left seem to blame buisness owners, while those on the right blame unions) its not as simple as that. Some businesses are good and invest into their employees and community, some are bad and no better than slave owners. We have to ALL work together (i.e government, workers, unions) to push out bad industry practices and encourage good ones. Often good industry practices are mutually beneficial, the most successful businesses are often ones that invest something good and moral for the lack of a better word into their communities and customers.

So your answer to capitalism running riot is... more deregulated capitalism? Are you even thinking about this? Actions have consequences. All the while you're carrying out your capitalist anti-capitalist policy, inequality is going to continue to go through the roof and the environment is going to carry on being degraded. These aspects of society have tipping points. There comes a point where people will take things into their own hands, and when the environment suddenly flips into a new, less-friendly state.
.

Yes, deregulated capitalism in the hands of people who want a different direction for the country, think of it like authoritarianism for example, certain leaders used the system to direct it towards democracy (particularly Turkey and Portugal), I am supporting a short term risk (because lets be serious here, you're not going to accomplish what you want without any loss or risk) for long term benefit.

Authoritarianism is never the solution. Any sustainable movement has to be by the people, for the people. The only sustainable society is a society that has been built by its own people. A top-down approach is never going to lead us to where we want to be. Any movement needs to be bottom-up and social. These movements gather momentum by their own and have already been the cause of many successes around the world.

Tell that to Turkey. Your trust in the people is not noble, it is stupid, the elite must be dealt with by an elite it has always been this way, just look at evey revolution in existence, none of them came from the peasants will power. This is why socialism is not taken seriously anymore, its not based on observation, experimentation and comparison, it's pure fancy.

Why are you heralding Turkey as a role model?! Not only are they in a totally different situation to this country but I honestly don't see what you think is so particularly admirable about what they're doing.

All of the big revolutions these days have been bottom-up. The 'Arab spring' was organised by the people through social media. Same thing goes for the Occupy Movement. The massive increase in renewables uptake and nuclear opposition in countries like Germany and the Netherlands has been organised through communities and people, not through the "elite". The elite are not making any progress, they're simply making the problem worse through self-interest.

Next you'll be saying we should combat Nazism by supporting even more extreme Nazism to dismantle them from the inside...

Turkey were the only forwards thinking country in the Middle East precisely because an authoritarian group dealt with the repressive customs of the Ottoman Empire, they are a model of progress because they represent what is necessary to change over 600 years of tradition.

The Arab Spring was awful not progress, it was also not organised solely by people but by groups of elites who led the people and provided equipment and funding.

Germany and the Netherlands are not taking up renewables because a bunch of hippy non violent protesters want them to out of the goodness of their hearts; they're doing it because they see the long term value in it.

No that's a ridiculous argument. A better analogy would be Lloyd George using the Parliamentary system to introduce social welfare.

I honestly can't see how you can call Turkey "forward thinking". They might be marginally less terrible than some of their neighbours but they're hardly the bastion of forward thinking in the world...

The Arab Spring may have been exploited by the elite but it was organised and powered by the people. When Egypt, for instance, imposed an internet blackout, it was groups organised by ordinary people who set up proxies that allowed them to continue accessing the internet and relayed information out of the country into the popular media. All of the big protests were organised socially through social media. There was no leader of that movement, it was a movement of the people.

And of course they're taking up renewables because they see long-term value in it... that's precisely why ordinary people are supporting it. They see long term benefits to themselves and the environment by having small-scale, community-owned solar and wind installations. Most of these developments aren't led by industry, they're led by ordinary people with government subsidies. There's no corporation or place for the elites in the equation. You've got it backwards!

I hope you're not serious with your last paragraph. You are advocating to change an entire political system using the system that caused the problem in the first place. That is completely different to Lloyd George using parliament to introduce welfare because the point of parliament in the first place is to support the people. All Lloyd George was doing was doing what the system was supposed to be doing in the first place.

Some men like to get rammed from behind but would still consider themselves to be straight.

I am talking about, the problems are mainly being caused by Islam rearing its ugly head in public again.

Funny how swiftly you can shift from controversial to plain offensive

Turkey is the most progressive country in the region, yes it has had setbacks, yes it has an Islamist bastard as a president, but all of these are examples of policies to the opposite of the group I am talking about, the problems are mainly being caused by Islam rearing its ugly head in public again.

What has the Arab Spring achieved really? Sod all but misery and same old same old governments.

Industry has no contributions to renewable energy sources? No state funding for it? Oh yes...

I am very serious with my last paragraph, it may be inconvinient to you because it supports my point that you can change a system using a system, just for the record Parliament was never introduced to help the people, it was introduced to pass legislation by the elites against the whims of the King.

Oh come on, don't embarrass yourself by claiming that Islam is the problem. I'm not even going to respond to that.

The Arab Spring hasn't 'achieved' a lot in terms of actual progress but the fact of the matter is that it was a remarkable show of defiance in an incredibly oppressive area. I'm not going to herald the Arab Spring as the greatest thing that has ever happened but it was still a very impressive show of solidarity by the people which was unfortunately oppressed... by the elites.

Industry has no real contributions to renewable energy sources. It doesn't make a lot of financial sense for them and by definition, most sources of renewable energy are decentralised. People are much more likely to support it if the profits from energy installations on their land go into their community, rather than being shipped off into the pockets of a CEO. As I've said, I'm not making up theoretical arguments here. It's a cast iron fact that the take-up of renewable technologies has been led by communities, not energy corporations.

And Lloyd George did not "change" any system. The system was democracy. He introduced social welfare which is wonderful, but he harnessed a good system that was unfortunately corrupted. You're trying to harness a bad system which is terribly corrupted. And the King had nothing to do with it... it was the House of Lords that opposed it...

Why because it's true? Google Ataturk, if you don't know who that is be quiet about things you clearly know nothing about.

Once again the people's revolution has failed! Maybe if it had been led by a group of elites it would have got somewhere. Like say, the Bolshevik revolution or the Paris commune.

Cast iron fact? Google EU investment into renewable energy sources.

Your lack of understanding of English history is showing now, the Parliament became a serious force in English politics after the civil war, the Commons existed to balance the power of the King after the Interregnum not to serve the interests of the people, it has been like that for a very long time, which is why it took until the 20th century for measures to be passed in the interests of the people.

Islam is an easy target that people use as an excuse to blame all of their problems on. Islam doesn't cause any problems. The problems are caused by morons who use their religion as an excuse to abuse people. Using Islam as an excuse for horrific actions is like trying to excuse war crimes by saying "But he's American".

The Bolshevik revolution 'went somewhere'? Because Russia has always been the model of the human rights movement, hasn't it?

Most renewable infrastructure in countries with significant renewables expansion and public support for renewables has been by led by communities! That is a fact! It's irrelevant if funding for that has come from the government or the EU (which it has), those have been investments in social projects, not corporate expansionism!

Could you please give me any kind of source that indicates the King's opposition to DLG's social reforms was in any way significant?

Islam is an easy target that people use as an excuse to blame all of their problems on. Islam doesn't cause any problems. The problems are caused by morons who use their religion as an excuse to abuse people. Using Islam as an excuse for horrific actions is like trying to excuse war crimes by saying "But he's American".

The Bolshevik revolution 'went somewhere'? Because Russia has always been the model of the human rights movement, hasn't it?

Most renewable infrastructure in countries with significant renewables expansion and public support for renewables has been by led by communities! That is a fact! It's irrelevant if funding for that has come from the government or the EU (which it has), those have been investments in social projects, not corporate expansionism!

Could you please give me any kind of source that indicates the King's opposition to DLG's social reforms was in any way significant?

Islam is an easy target and is attacked constantly by bigots, agreed. However there are serious political problems that were recognised by people such as Ataturk, the founder of Turkey. It's simply ignorant to dismiss that Islam and politics is a dangerous relation, as is Christianity and politics, which i'm sure you would agree with so i'm not sure what the problem is.

The Bolshevik revolution went somewhere though didn't it. The people's revolutions never do.

Conspiracy theories.

I am talking about Charles II...

Politics and any religion is a dangerous relation, that's the whole point of secularisation. That doesn't mean that religion, or Islam in particular, are evil.

Oh great, so now the definition of a 'successful' revolution is any revolution that "goes somewhere"? We must clearly be very thankful for the elites of the NSDAP for leading their highly successful revolution against democracy... At any rates, the Occupy movement and environmental movements certainly are going somewhere. Not as quickly as they could be, but that's because of the opposition of the elites to their aims. The elites, by definition, want things to remain the way they are. Why would you want to change a system that works in your favour? It literally makes no sense. The only kind of change you're going to see from the socioeconomic elite is reform that supports them. The change we need will result in the destruction of the present economic establishment. Capitalism and sustainability are mutually exclusive.

And no, it's not a conspiracy theory. It's a fact, which you'd know if you actually made the point of education yourself first. Do you want some evidence? Here you go. Over half of Germany's renewable infrastructure is owned by individual citizens. Only 13% comes from utilities and only 9% comes from industry. Given that Germany is possibly the most progressive country in the world in terms of renewable infrastructure, I honestly cannot understand how you can believe in the arguments you're making. Calling someone's argument a "conspiracy theory" with no other comment suggests that you've given up trying to argue with evidence.

I stopped trying when you started arguing about Turkish history without even knowing the name of its founder. Your anti-capitalist sentiment is not grounded in positive experience, its metaphysical mumbo-jumbo. You can re-read what i've already said i'm not going to repeat myself again.