Comments on: Subvertisers Suck

By: chris macrae

chris macrae — Thu, 30 Sep 2004 02:13:02 +0000

Perhaps the way to illustrate simpol is to click one of the blogs where we start discussions on a topic, search who has deep human views, keep linking until some common sense seems to be emerging - try our water blog linked to my name above. Simpol is an open collaborative attempt to develop 50 or so most urgent conversations on policy - water being a first example...

By: Leon

Leon — Thu, 10 Jun 2004 11:59:59 +0000

Forgive me if this sounds cruel (because I don’t doubt your good intentions) but it’s exactly this kind of intiative that exemplifies all that’s wrong with the anti-globalisation movement. The circular reasoning behind not adopting a policy until enough people sign up so as said policy isn’t “out of date” (whatever that means; who’s judging the criteria?) isn’t really the most convincing argument for signing up. It’s little different to saying “we want to change the world for the better, but we’re only going to tell you how we’ll do it once enough people say they agree with us.” (I’m sure, in their heart of hearts, every movement on the political spectrum, from radical anarchists to the BNP, wants to “change the world for the better” in some way or other, but that doesn’t mean they’re necessarily right.)
Apart from that, the belief that, come the glorious implementation of SP, in whatever form it takes, will mean that “politicians are then freed up to practice party politics again without fear of upsetting corporations” betrays a naive understanding of the way politics works and always has worked.
It’s an elegant and simple solution, yes, but like most simple solutions, it’s not a solution at all.

By: Josie

Josie — Thu, 10 Jun 2004 07:58:05 +0000

For now, policies are provisional. They will evolve and expand as more people, from expert policymakers to normal bods like me, adopt SP and join in designing a global, sustainable future.

(And directly from their Interntional site as the UK one is lacking in this area:)

There are two other very good reasons why SPâs policy content remains provisional for now.

Firstly, itâs clearly going to take some years for SP to be adopted by sufficient nations around the world. So if we fixed SPâs measures today, theyâd likely be out of date by the time SP came to be implemented.

Secondly, since new adopters are joining our ranks all the time, SPâs policy content must be developed in an ongoing, flexible, dynamic and democratic fashion and be capable of evolving right up to the point when implementation approaches. Only at that point need SPâs policy measures be fixed.

It's foggy admittedly because it's not like a PARTY as such, more an international movement based around the voting system. SP is only concerned with policies that must be enforced globally in order to work at all (a la kyoto). Once SP has worked to bring in the global 'policies' that SP adopters have decided should be enforced (and because of their nature these policies cannot be solidly defined until just before they are implemented) politicians are then freed up to practice party politics again without fear of upsetting corporations.

It pigs me off really that it is all so complicated to explain because it's actually a very elegant solution to all those global problems that get me (and many other people) depressed. I'm more left than the lefties and more green than the greenies and probably have some blue qualities too (and a big streak of yellow - lol), but I know that whatever party I vote for, if in power they still cannot act to solve the problems that trouble me the most.

I don't want to evangelise SP - I can't think of anything that would put people off it quicker. I hate those people. But what can you do when you really think you've found the answer?

By: Jack

Jack — Tue, 08 Jun 2004 13:29:49 +0000

Does it actually say anywhere on the site what their 'policy' is, other than that it is 'simultaeneous'?

Strange. I'll stick with the Socttish Socialists, pledge or no pledge...

By: Josie

Josie — Tue, 08 Jun 2004 10:27:09 +0000

I'm kind of anti-globalisation in that I don't think that the big boys of industry are taking enough responsibility for their actions in an environmental and exploitation sense, but I agree you need the markets. This is why I have adopted the Simultaneous Policy.

I'll be spoiling my vote with the words 'Simultaneous Policy'. There isn't candidate who has pledged in Leeds, although there is one in Cambridge. From reading your weblog I reckon that Simpol-UK is something that you might want to check out too, in time for the next election perhaps...

By: Kevin

Kevin — Sun, 30 May 2004 18:53:52 +0000

Heh. Nice blog. Anti-glob. does seem to have become an interesting fad, especially in the arena of the identikit goth/skate/whatever kids outside GOMA, just another fashionable add-on to a rebellious middle-class upbringing. Hm. That sounds very cynical, but it's true ;)

By: Jack

Jack — Wed, 26 May 2004 11:53:38 +0000

Yeah - a couple of folk have said the same, but I still reckon that subvertising a union is just plain sucky - it's not as if they were making some specific anti-Unison point, they were just altering adverts regardless of who placed them...

Update: Chris Applegate notices that they also have a pop at the Nationwide, a mutually owned building society (again, hardly a blameless beacon of loveliness, but again not exactly an enemy of all that is right and good).

By: Donny

Donny — Wed, 26 May 2004 11:31:19 +0000

Unison aren't all their cracked up to be. They keep no records of their members subs, and are particulary bad at negotiating deals which have an effect on two seperate parties within their membership. Unison are very unpopular amongst medical secretaries at the momemnt, as my mother will testify. Pay freezes for three years, that sort of thing.