This is a bit scary...penalised for disagreeing with the government(26 Posts)
I can't find a thread on this, but did look.
China has launched a new system likened to credit scores which will make getting a loan easier/harder based on your score. Except it is not just about money. Apparently if you post things that the government disagree with your score goes down (and not this one, but other articles have mentioned that even if you don't but your friends on social media do, you will be penalised!)
It isn't compulsory until 2020, but seems quite scary that this level of social control can exist. All aimed at keeping those who disagree in a position where they cannot do much about it as their quality of living goes down so therefore it is easier to agree.
Or is it not as creepy as it sounds?
It's not really much different to here.
Look at how much control our government have and how much it has increased in recent years. People aren't joking when they call us the nanny state.
Those who disagree with government here also can't do a thing about it otherwise the numbers relating to our own general election would have seen UKIP in power. Not saying this would have been better btw.
The poor people affected by the welfare state cuts aren't in a position to do anything about it neither and these are the most vulnerable in our society.
Snow do you have a link to the reporting please?
China is a country where you can be "reformed through labour" for such deviancy as being a Christian, following Falun Gong or voicing discontent at your situation - so I think there is already a very heavy penalty from the government for disagreement. No matter what NewLife says, it's not quite the same as the UK, despite that being a snappy soundbite
I heard this on R4 - there's a bit more information about it here and it seems that the government one isn't the creepy one, but it still feels distinctly Orwellian.
Ah one flower that is a different spin to the link I read! Will try and find it....
Note this is from an alternative news network so take it with a grain of salt (that's why I posted the independent link earlier)
Or I didn't post it but I thought I did!
the numbers relating to our own general election would have seen UKIP in power
Really? After finishing a poor third with less than half the votes of either of the parties in first and second? Or are you saying they should have been part of a coalition.
And while first past the post can make it difficult, it can lead to sweeping changes. Look what happened in Scotland.
I thought UKIP got the most votes, so were the most popular, sounds like I got it wrong.
So in this case I should have said whichever party got the most votes would be in power, not just seats.
I do think we need to look at a comparison to this country where we aren't as free as we have been before.
So much of what we are allowed to do with our children has changed dramatically over the past 10 or so years, as we have been nannied by government.
Or is it not as creepy as it sounds?
I don't know, if you can get loans easier if you agree with the government, that might at least provide an opportunity for poor people to get out of poverty. (The capitalist rating system where you're rated on whether you have enough money to not really need a loan isn't that ideal, either.)
I also find it really nice of them to warn people that they watch their social media. I mean, the US government spies on us, too, and they didn't warn us about it. The more naive people might be shocked to be denied visa to the US on grounds of things they wrote on social networks.
I thought UKIP got the most votes, so were the most popular, sounds like I got it wrong
I'm afraid you did get it wrong. UKIP got 12.7% of the votes cast. The Conservatives came first with 36.8% while Labour got 30.5%. Due to the way first past the post works they got far fewer seats than some parties that got more votes. Under a more proportional system they might have got 60-80 seats rather than 1. However, a more proportional system would move further from your goal of giving power to the party with most votes in that frequently the party that finished third would be able to decide which of the two major parties formed the government. In all but two General Elections since the Second World War the party with most votes has also had most seats and took power.
My view is that there are dangers to our freedom - free speech and the freedom of the press are constantly under threat. But I am not convinced we have lost freedom overall. I think there have been some losses but also some gains. The changes in what we are allowed to do with our children are far more to do with changes in society (and moral panics whipped up by the press) than anything the government has done.
I agree we are allowed to do less with our kids than we used to be. Then that segues into the whole argument of whether it is actually safer now (as the crime stats show?) but we are more worried because the news is more instant and in our faces?
I also didn't know you could be banned a U.S. VISA based on what you put on social media sites. I know employers look on social media sites but I guess I thought the visa people wouldn't have time due to volume?
I also didn't know you could be banned a U.S. VISA based on what you put on social media sites
No you cannot currently be refused a US visa based on postings on social media sites. The US has a specific policy preventing immigration officials looking at social media posts from visa applicants. This is somewhat controversial, partly due to the San Bernadino terrorist attack. Tashfeen Malik, who carried out the attack, got a visa despite extensive posts on social media about jihad and martyrdom. The authorities are under some pressure to look at social media for evidence of terrorist activities and/or sympathies before granting a visa and have started some small scale pilot programmes. But right now your posts on social media have no bearing on whether or not you will get a visa.
I agree we are allowed to do less with our kids than we used to be
There are certainly some things we used to do that are frowned on now. But I remain of the view that this is mainly about social pressure rather than the government imposing restrictions.
If you think the Chinese ideas are scary try looking at the Scottish government "Named Person Scheme" where everyone is allocated a state guardian from before birth to 18.
Taxi drivers transporting children to school have been told they have a legal obligation to report anything the children might say that could be a safeguarding issue.
The SNP also prevents members of its own party from speaking out against any of its policies. Add to that the fact that we have cross party groups for just about everything up here and you can see how far that toeing the party line influence stretches.
China has always donhe this under communism.
I just finished a very good book on North Korea and they in effect have something similar including that 3 generations of the family are punished if one does something wrong.
We're nothing like as bad as China yet, but there has been a growing tendency in the West to present certain narratives - austerity, neoliberalism, inequality - as 'the only possible way' and anyone who says otherwise as idealists, dangers to society, or the latest one, 'social scourges'.
In his New Year speech promising a game-changer of a year Cameron explicitly referred to those who wave banners, sign petitions and generally dare to disagree with him as 'social scourges'. He has such a gift for words doesn't he, I've found my new username www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35207859
Cameron explicitly referred to those who wave banners, sign petitions and generally dare to disagree with him as 'social scourges'.
No he did not. He referred to young people being priced out of the housing market, poverty, lack of social mobility and extremism as social scourges. His reference to those who wave banners, sign petitions, etc. was to point out that the government can actually do something about those issues. He did not call them social scourges.
Its not the worst thing China does to its citizens though, is it? In fact it is positively benign in comparison to some actions
prh47, perhaps just unfortunate soundbiting on the BBC then. I think I'll still keep this username to remind me to not be an idiot.
For a rather better comment on the current narrative you can have a look at this kittysjones.wordpress.com/2015/07/28/inverted-totalitarianism-and-neoliberalism-oh-dear/
perhaps just unfortunate soundbiting on the BBC then
If you take the last paragraph of his message out of context I agree it sounds like he is branding those who demonstrate. Looking at the message as a whole his meaning is clear.
I've taken a quick look at the post to which you link. I've not read it all but the first few paragraphs are really just stating a truism in politics. In order to win you need to frame the debate (or at least stop your opponent from doing so) and label your opponent early, before the he/she can generate his/her own image (of course, labelling only works if the label you attach is one that resonates with the public - no point in trying to label Cameron as a Nazi, for example, as that simply doesn't match the public's perception of him. Labelling him as a toff was more successful but the public simply doesn't care).
For a long time the Conservatives were on the receiving end of this. Blair's Labour were very good at framing the debate and labelling each new Conservative leader. Under Cameron the Conservatives have got better at making sure the public debate is held on their terms, helped by a Labour party that currently seems to have forgotten the need to communicate with the public and thinks it is enough to shout "evil Tories".
I think (giving new username a whirl) it's a bit more extreme than simply framing a debate, and that politics should be about more than simply winning party lines. But we'd have to start a new thread.
Everything we hear about China over here, should be taken with a pinch of salt.
I had a few classmates from China when i went to uni. Yes, there are sime cultural differences, but not as bizarre as many people imagine. Like "they eat dogs", etc.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.