Project Get Elected (2)

« Blogged from: ProjectGetElected »

Intro:

The initial decision...

Two weeks before my 47th Birthday I decided I'd like to be an MP. But things are not always as they seem...

Is politics on the decline?

In 1945 72.8% of the electorate voted in the General Election - by 2001 that had dropped to just 59.4% - but in the last General Election, of 2010, only 65.1% of electorate bothered to turn out. (Figures from http://www.ukpolitical.info/ Turnout45.htm and exclude votes deliberately or accidentally spoiled.)

UK Political Info (2012)
Image: ukpolitical info

This general decline in political interest is caused by an apathy in the general electorate of the United Kingdom. The reason is, people are not engaging with political parties any longer. As the Guardian warned in a recent article (of 06/07/2012) British Democracy is in "long-term terminal decline... and disillusioned citizens [have] stop[ped] voting". We feel let down by the sleaze and the lies and want (even expect) more...


A state of mind can't easily be changed

As I said, things are not always as they seem. We all say "I'm too old to change now" or "its too late for me". But it isn't, you know. While ever your alive, it's never too late!

So I made a decision to change things!

The thing is, I'm a punk. I may have blue hair, but I'm no young Conservative. I'm a working man, but Labour isn't my colours either. I'm a socialist and democrat, but I'm no Liberal Democrat. Neither the Greens nor UKIP appeal, and the fanatics (BNP, SNP, etc) don't interest me in the slightest.

So what's a punk supposed to do?


Taking a stand

At first, it was one of those throw-away ideas. You know, the sort that we have from time to time; when we think "Ooh, that seems like a good idea". And that's usually as far as it goes. We make a random decision to do something, that disappears just as quickly as it comes.

But it didn't go. It lingered on, and on, and on.

By morning, the 10th of September 2012, it was clear in my mind - a need, an urge, a must...


When, if not now?

It had to be now ... or never!

So I sat down and decided to form my own party: the (British) Social Media Party was born.

But who sets off on a journey without first deciding where they are going to end up? I had one place in mind, and that was Westminster. I decided I'd become A Punk in Parliament.


Project Get Elected

As I set off down this road to Westminster I decided to document my life experiences here and on several of my blogs:

Project Get Elected is an integral part of that process. If not my actual road map, it shall become my compass - pointing me in the right direction.

i-thorts' i-Views: Is it in society's interest to keep drugs and prostitution illegal?

Reblogged from i-thorts' i-Views.

 Should Drugs & Prostitution 

Be Illegal?

That's the question that any politician should ask; but not many ever do.

The law of this land is drugs are bad keep away from them (but alcohol and tobacco is okay so long as tax is being paid on them) and prostitution is immoral therefore bad; so both are equally illegal.

The thing is 'immoral' isn't the same as dangerous and 'bad' isn't the same as harmful.

Anything taken to excess is 'bad for you' - from sugar and fat to alcohol and cigarettes - but that doesn't necessarily stop their sale to the public.

Is it immoral to sell ones body for money? It's worst to sell it to feed a drug habit (for something that could be anything masquerading as the 'real deal').

Drugs and prostitution go hand-in-hand and feed each other.

Statue to honor the sex workers of the world. March 2007, Amsterdam.

Prohibition of alcohol in the 1920s proves that if something is forbidden it takes on a coolness to some; an irresistability one found say. One that lures in the young and the foolhardy. And by making a commodity (alcohol, drugs or prostitution) illegal it makes that product even more profitable.

Desirable and profitable are the two words that make any business-man or -woman sit-up and take notice. But when you add illegal to this mix the business goes underground and the gangster takes over.

Crime and profit are bed-fellows. If the is a profit to be made the criminal faternity will find a way. That's how so many young and venerable women are dragged into a life of forced-prostitution - and kept there by an induction of drug addiction.

Legalize drugs and that half the battle solved. Legalize prostitution too and that most of it solved.

At what cost, I hear you state. That's simple. Make the sale of drugs a licenced affair (like alcohol and cigarettes). Prohibit their sale to minors and tax them in the same way.

Make prostitution a job. Tax their earning and make it licenced to easy prosecution of offenders. Get the girls off the streets and into safer environments with health and safety regulations in the same way that any service industry would have in place.

A plumber wouldn't ply his/her trade from a streets corner, so why should a prostitute? Safety for any venerable individual is paramount these days. So why do we have this antiquated attitude to the sex-trade.

Morality doesn't come into selling cigarettes and alcohol, so why should it be used to justify outlawing prostitution!

Drugs are freely sold from businesses 24-7. We just call them beer, wine, spirits, cider, cigarettes, and tobacco. Is there that much difference between someone legally addicted to painkillers and someone with an illegal recreational drug habit? Why this duel standard exists is taxation.

Tax all drugs for recreational and tax prostitute's earnings and make both legal; that removes the dilemma and reduces crime overnight.

i-Politics: More Austerity For Britain

reblogged from i-thorts' i-Politics

An Extra Of Austerity 

Foreseen For Britain

Alongside the statement on Wednesday, the Chancellor's Autumn Statement on Wednesday, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR - the independent fiscal watchdog) are set to tell George Osborne that the Government's efforts to reduce borrowing are in danger.

The OBR are expected to warn this week that the Chancellor looks set to miss his target for bringing down Britain's debt mountain; raising the prospect of more austerity measures.

Unless the Chancellor puts forward further hardship measures, Economists - alarmed by just how difficult it seems for the debt-ratio to begin decreasing in the foretold timescale of 2014-15 and 2015-16 (which Mr Osborne set to reduce GDP) - warn that Mr Osborne's goal for reductions to the gross domestic product were totally underestimated. This means the Chancellor's duel debt-reducing targets are more at risk because of the low growth-estimates and their knock-on impact on the Treasury's revenues.

"When the OBR was established in 2010 I said that the evidence of its success would come when a Chancellor of the Exchequer wished it had never been set up. I think that moment is approaching..."

Sir Alan Budd, chairman of the interim OBR, Sunday Telegraph 02/12/12

As if things aren't bad enough! The outcome being an extra year of hardship is foreseen for British citizens .

Theory of Disproportionate Borrowing

I do believe there would be revolution if the people of this great nation understood our banking and monetary system. Some individuals even believe there is a secret cabal of Banks working against the best interests of people of the world.

« From:- Credit Crisis or Banking Conspiracy? »

---

« Reblogged from: Philosophy page »

Theory of 

Disproportionate 

Borrowing:

The redistribution of consumer wealth increases consumer spending which boosts the economy (often not by manufacturing), causing importation of mass goods -which, in turn, increases the country's debt, thereby causing more inflation; thus, goods rise in price. This price hike means that consumers need to boost earnings or borrow to cover this increase. This cycles on and on until something stops it.


There are two ways to tackle this problem:

A downturns in the country's economy is usually a short-lived problem that stems from a lack of demand. The (John Maynard Keynes - Labour style) solution is a simple but radical one: Involving a short-termed boost in the Government's public spending. (Once the economy returns to a state of buoyancy, the government reclaims its budget deficit by increasing taxes and reducing public spending once more.)

John Maynard Keynes 
(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

This is known as the "demand management policy." It's when the economy slumps and public spending goes up. Then, when trade is booming once again, the government spends little or nothing.

The other method, is to do as the Conservatives have always done (this is the Adam Smith method). Cuts across the board, hitting welfare, unemployment, and the NHS. Hoping this halt in spending balances out the lack of demand enough to kick-start the economy once more.

Profile of Adam Smith 
(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Both in the past have worked well; however, there are also problems with both economic solutions: These only work well in the short-term and create as many problems as they solve.

The main problem though is one of demand. If there is no current demand, surely it stands to reason that a false boost through an increase in public spending is the economic equivalent of putting a plaster on a knife wound.

It won't work.

Cutting spending only makes life harder, putting a further strain on general consumer spending and the economy in in particular.


So what is the solution?

That's the difficulty. Without demand there isn't much that anyone can do. 

Demand is the only real issue here.

Credit Crisis or Banking Conspiracy?

A follow up article to: 
« The Banks In Crisis - A World Bank is in Order »

Last week I said: "Some believe that the double-dip resession was the calculation of the banking fraternity to 'shear-off' money from the public. That the planned sudden shortage of money was designed to effect money markets across the word; that it was engineered to put people into debt. Thereby, obliging countless millions (who have nothing) to those who have the supply of money - banks and money funds. Surfdom by the backdoor, as it were."

I do believe there would be revolution if the people of this great nation understood our banking and monetary system. Some individuals even believe there is a secret cabal of Banks working against the best interests of people of the world.

In Britain at the moment there is a triple-dip scenario (this is the third recession of the credit crisis here). When, on 14/11/12 the Bank of England warned growth might not get back to pre-crisis levels until mid 2015. GDP (economic output) might only rise by 1% next year. Even so, there are still no prospects for the jobless millions.

Back in June, Robert Zoellick, the outgoing head of the World Bank Group, warned the G20 summit that Europe ran the risk of sparking a 'Lehman-style' global crisis - especially for developing nations - for whom consequences might be quite dire.

(The bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers in September 2008 proved to be the trigger for the deepest slump in the global economy since the 1930s. One we seem incapable of shaking free of.

"...prepare for the uncertainty coming out of the eurozone and the wider financial markets" Zoellick told G20 back in June. "Uncertainty in markets is now starting to increase costs for developing countries. The ripple effects are making everybody's life harder."

World Bank President, Robert B. Zoellick

During 2012 high-income country growth is expected to increase by 1.4%; while, growth in developing country is expected to slow to a measly 5.3%. (According to an update in the Bank's June 2012 Global Economic Prospects, the global economy is expected to increase by 2.5% by the end of 2012 and up to 3% during 2013.)

Zoellick said he was concerned that the prolonged crisis was starting to lead to pressures for protectionism and economic nationalism. (Since the financial crisis began, in 2008, the World Bank Group has committed more than $280 billion to its members.)

I feel he was right and that things can only get worse before thet get better.

"Bankers own the earth; take it away from them but leave them with the power to create credit; and, with a flick of a pen, they will create enough money to buy it back again..."

- Sir Josiah Stamp, Director, Bank of England, 1940.

If there is a world conspiracy of Banks to keep poor-people poor and themselves rich, it would seem to be working.

Banks in Crisis - A World Bank Is In Order

Some believe that the double-dip recession was the calculation of the banking fraternity to 'shear-off' money from the public. That the planned sudden shortage of money was designed to effect money markets across the word; that it was engineered to put people into debt. Thereby, obliging countless millions (who have nothing) to those who have the supply of money - banks and money funds Serfdom by the back-door, as it were.

If this is so, then what of the banking crisis? More money manipulation? I hazard to think not.

Banking District (Photo credit: bsterling)

Decisions taken by administrative bodies, and their appointed delegates, and civil organizations, all employing a variety of methods, none of which give their customers an opportunity to vote "yes" or "no" for the outcome.

Bankers think they own the earth. Our plan is to take it away from them. The power to create money and control credit should be in the hands of the people; in the hands of a world government run to help the people, not harm them. I want nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in public hands, nothing less than the economy of the whole world.

Who's Afraid of World Government? (Photo credit: Truthout.org)

The power of the internet is so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that it encompasses everything. This world conspiracy of social media has been steadily growing. This conspiracy plays a definite recognizable role in most peoples' lives; and it will become the mainspring of every political movement during the 21st century. At last this extraordinary wellspring from the underworld of the geek has gripped the world's people by their hair and become the undisputed master of commerce. The growth of social media has made it possible to centralize the of world's economic control for the direct benefit of the people and not all current economic groups.

A world financial system dominated by the political system of each country but with a centralized head. Credit controlled by one fund, so everyone has the same chances.

Education Is At It's Best When It Is Free...

I believe there's only one thing that matters in this world: Education. Education. Education.

 Cyberpunk65

And education is at its best when it is free... and publicly provided to all.

It is so vital in preparing the youth of all nations... in the foundation of a liberty-loving people with an interest in free world government... that higher education is also free to ALL.

World Education Logo

(As hackers and geeks are fond of pointing out: All information should be 'freely available to all' - and that should include the best education attainable.)

Geek Circuit Polaroid

"There needs to be a focus on the creation of a world of democracy, peace and prosperity for all. For the welfare of the whole world and the new world order."

From The New World Order - A Revolution »

Why Do We A Need Global Government?

Many prominent world leaders have called for a one world government.

The published goal of the (British) Social Media Party is a one world government.

The Commission believes that world events, since the creation of the United Nations in 1945, combined with advances in technology, the information revolution, and the now-global awareness of impending environmental catastrophe, create a climate in which the people of the world will recognize the need for, and the benefits of, global governance...

There is no historic model for the system here proposed, nor is there any method by which the governed may decide whether or not they wish to be governed by such a system...
  - The Commission for Global Governance
Our Global Neighborhood »

The State will look after you "for your best interests," as they say.

Labour Calls for £7.20 an Hour 'Living Wage'

Reblogged from The Writing's on the Wall: i-Politics:


Ed and David Miliband have put their political rivalry aside to work on plans for millions of workers to be paid a “living wage” of at least £7.20 an hour - Read More @ Telegraph »

i-thorts' i-Politics: Welfare Cuts? - Not In Our Back Yard!

Reblogged from The Writing's on the Wall: i-Politics:

BBC reported (Child benefit 'nimbys' accused) that Middle-classes are fuming at the thought of losing some (or all) child-benefit one parent is earning from £50,000 to £60,000 and over. (Families of three children could loose £4,000.)

This comes after poorer couples (working under 24 hour a week between them) lost up to £100 week (£5,200 a year) in working tax from this April ... and no one battered an eye or even seemed to report it. These are families on minimum wage, earning under £6,000.

Why The Nuclear Deterrent Has Had Its Day!!

One year after the expected date of the next election - sometime in 2016 - the UK will be making the decision of to commit about £20 billion to replace the four Vanguard submarines (which will be approaching the termination of their service), each of which carries a Trident D5 missile.

A Trident missile armed Vanguard class ballistic missile submarine leaving its base in the Firth of Clyde. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Since 1994, these four submarines and their nuclear weapons system have provided the UK's main deterrent. The question is, is Trident really a deterrent - or merely a political insurance policy?

If a country like Iran or North Korea should launch a nuclear attack on Britain, then four Triden D5's wouldn't stop the barrage of weapons that would expectedly be thrown at us. So why do we have them?

The answer is a simple one. To strike back and cause damage to any aggressor that might think to wipe us out. Vanguard has the ability to take Trident close enough to hart any aggressor.

They doesn't really protect, they might deter slightly, but that are good for retaliation. "Wipe us out," they threaten, "and you'll regret it!" That's as bad a a dog that barks at a burger after he's robbed your house.

The truth about the nuclear deterrent is: it isn't one at all. No sane person wants to go down in history for pressing the button; and wiping out thousands of innocent individuals. Nuclear isn't like a missile that can take out a specific military target - it burns indiscriminately, men women and children alike. A Trident D5 is powerful enough to destroy a major capital city (like New York). There are no winners in a nuclear strike - not even the aggressor.

During the 1980's, Labour were commitment to unilateral disarmament. However, the 1983 elections put pay to their plans; and from the moment Tony Blair took on leadership of the party, Labour's stance on defence toughened.

English: United States Trident II (D-5) missile underwater launch. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The Conservatives stance is to back full Trident replacement. The Liberal Democrats want something else, a policy that is distinct and radical; a less elaborate deterrent might suffice. (Whatever that less-elaborate-deterrent might be is still unclear.) Ed Miliband has not said where he wants to take Labour - concerning the nuclear deterrent.

£20bn in capital expenditure is a cost that Britain can ill afford.

We have a rare opportunity to make a radical change. The (British) Social Media Party was founded to overcome the sovereignty and national independence of singular governments, and form an all-powerful one-world government with the sole aimed of promoting disarmament and guiding peace. (The most powerful clique in history.)

I have but this one objective: to bring about the surrender of the sovereignty and the nationalism of countries. I want to end national boundaries and racial and ethnic loyalties to increase and ensure world peace. What I strive for will inevitably remove the dictatorship of governments and the loss of freedoms the people suffer daily.

The existing order is breaking down at a very rapid rate, and the main uncertainty is whether mankind can exert a positive role in shaping a new one. Or are we doomed to await for the collapse. I believe a new order will be born sooner than later and that the death throes of the old and the birth pangs of the new will be a testing time for the human species.

Outwardly, most governments seem democratic. However, operating within each government or political system is another body - representing another form of government - the bureaucratic elite.

It is possible to fashion unity while cherishing diversity; a common action is possible, despite the variety of races, interests, and beliefs we see amongst socialists. Progress and peace and justice are attainable.

What our intent is, is to create a worldwide economic power superior to the political governments of the nation-states involved. When we attempt to evaluate its promise, we have to bear in mind the distress of a generation or so during its construction by gallant and graceful people.

But before the new world order becomes an efficient and beneficent world system countless people will hate it (the fortune 400), some will even die protesting against it (the malcontents who never have enough). But the stability of the future peace of the world depends upon it.

By reluctant enthusiasm, the world seems to be definitely drifting towards a world social democracy. So I say to all governments and their people: Let's fashion together a new world order of peace in our time.

A World Party - A Revolution

Eventually, the world as we know it will cease to exist. It will become one nation, one singularity. With a single governing body, a single currency, a single agenda. That's the world I can't wait to be in.

Take away political nationalism and you have no need for country embargos. Remove nation-states and there can be no world wars

World War III (film) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

What happens in Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, or the US should be as important to anyone as what's happening in their own country; it's important to every human being on this planet. What happen in the political area effects economies - and that affects lives in so many ways.

If there's trouble in Russia today, it could spill-over into any other country across the world. This has happened in many of the Muslim countries over the past few years. Riots take on an energy and a life of their own; social media takes the mantle and continues it elsewhere.

Borders have little meaning when peoples in separate continents can converse and plan strategies through Facebook or Twitter or a myriad of other sites. Gamers can become terrorist by using a few choice words to other gamers.

The web has no safe zones. There is no hiding behind a countries lax or hacker-friendly laws.

Hacker Dojo (Photo credit: mightyohm)

There needs to be a focus on the creation of a world of democracy, peace and prosperity for all. For the welfare of the whole world and the new world order. A world financial system dominated by the political system of each country but with a centralized head. Credit controlled by one fund, so everyone has the same chances.

Bankers think they own the earth. Our plan is to take it away from them. The power to create money and control credit should be in the hands of the people; in the hands of a world government run to help the people, not harm them. I want nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in public hands, nothing less than the economy of the whole world.

The power of the internet is so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that it encompasses everything. This world conspiracy of social media has been steadily growing. This conspiracy plays a definite recognizable role in most peoples' lives; and it will become the mainspring of every political movement during the 21st Century. At last this extraordinary wellspring from the underworld of the Geek has gripped the world's people by their hair and become the undisputed master of commerce. The growth of social media has made it possible to centralize the world's economic control for the direct benefit of the people (and not all current economic groups).

i-Politics: Camerons Empty Rhetoric

Reblogged from The Writing's on the Wall: i-Politics:

Labour says Cameron's 

'Need to Make Prison Work' 

is empty Rhetoric

Private firms, voluntary groups and charities will be paid to help offenders turn their lives around, the government have decided. This is a new drive to beat crime, put forward by the Conservatives.

David Cameron, Leader of the Conservative
Party, United Kingdom. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

David Cameron has spoken out in a fight against crime - his most intense since taking office. All but the most high-risk prisoners will be given help by 2015.

Cameron has warned though there isn't a "blank cheque" for this initiative; he expects "more for less".

Cameron invited that serious crime would hold long prison sentences. He is adamant that he's no going "soft" or being "liberal" in crime. Stating that "...we need to make prison work."

Labour's Shadow Justice Secretary, Sadiq Khan, accused the Tories of " empty rhetoric" yesterday. Adding: "After 29 months, this Tory-led government's justice policy is in tatters. Today's announcement.... is ... a weak Prime Minister who is pandering to the backbenchers..."

This comes after a week where Andrew Mitchell was forced to reign (after swearing at the police) and George Osborne was caught in First-Class rail with a none-First-Class ticket (and refused to pay the upgrade fee).

I hicks that if Mr Cameron wants to shoe he's tough on crime, then he need to start with his own MP's.

Project Get Elected (Part 1)

I decided on the 10th of September, twelve days before my 47th Birthday, that I'd like to be an MP.

The thing is, I'm a punk, I'm neither a Labour man nor a Conservative. And the Liberal Democrats have been shown to be a traitor to there own policies; so they are out. I don't have faith in the fringe parties - neither Greens nor UKIP. And the fanatics don't interest me in the slightest (BNP, SNP, etc).

So I sat down and decided to form my own party: the (British) Social Media Party was born.

(Photo credit: CyberPunk65)

Within the first month I created a twitter account (@B_SocialMedia_P), a Facebook Fan Page, a Google+ page, a weblog, a mission statement and spoke about the party on two of my other blogs.

This is where I am now. I'm trying to come up with a philosophy (but it's slow going).

i-Views: Would Charles Be A Democratic Monarch?

Taken from i-thorts' i-Views:

Is the Prince of Wales fit to be the next king?

In a democratic society, it is imperative that government (not unelected royalty) have control.

Charles, Prince of Wales (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The veils, thrown over Prince Charles's letters to ministers, from 2004 - 2005 continues to show how undemocratic our next monarch has become.

His job is to work with the government of the day, not against them!

If Charles wishes to have a political opinion, then he should voice it publicly, and not hide behind disclosure vetoes. (He wants them kept secret forever.)

He should renounce the throne and lobby openly for political office. The next monarch, like the present one, has to play a role of impartiality. As commander of the armed forces, the head of the Church of England, and the figure-head of this country it is more than important for the him to play a neutral role in politics. The king or queen cannot be seen to have a political agenda!

He or she should not try to sway political opinion his or her way. That is undemocratic for a British Monarch; since Cromwell, the crown has become a symbol of fairness.

Are we to return to the bad old days of a state-run by the crown? That is truly undemocratic.

If the king-in-waiting abuses his power now, how much further could he take these abuses once he takes the crown? Might he try to sway political opinion his way on anything he disagreed with? Could he even devolve parliament altogether and take their job on his own shoulders?

There is no telling what Charles has in mind. It isn't, however, upholding the British constitutional laws. (He bent them the moment he became a political animal.) This is not how a British Monarch should behave. As a divorced man he should have given up the throne (a divorcee cannot be the head of the C of E) but the rules have been changed to allow him to stay the king-in-waiting.

Now (using his powers of influence), he is blocking the ruling to disclose these letters to ministers. Is that because it would make his political views public - thereby, rendering him ineligible to take the crown? Or is it something even more unpalatable? Might he be trying to hide just 'how much' he has influenced British political policy during 2004-5 (the space of those letters)?

So far, Charles has succeeded in keeping a lid on this political hotpot. But he can't keep manipulating the facts to suit himself forever.

The true nature of his Highness' meddling will come into the light eventually, and I believe it won't be pretty.

What do you think?

Should Andrew Mitchell Resign?

reblogged from i-thorts' i-Politics

If it was a sack-able offence to be a jerk, then half the cabinet would lose their jobs. So, should Andrew Mitchell really resign?

The allegation is that he called police “f****** plebs” and “morons”; however, Mitchell denies using those “words attributed” to him.

English: Andrew Mitchell. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Having stayed away from the Tory's conference (last week), probably in the hopes of quelling speculation over his future.

Not that it seems like he has much future, with the 1922 (backbench) comity baying at his heals for answers.

The police are not happy with the whole incident (where Mitchell is alleged to have sworn at an officer outside 10 Downing Street). There are questions as to whom is lying - police officer or Member of Parliament. Mr Mitchell may have to answer these questions at Scotland Yard.

i-thorts' i-Views: Isn't 'Compassionate Conservatism' An Oxymoron These Days?

Reblogged from The Writing's on the Wall: i-Politics:

From a party that wants to cut Welfare by £10billion, isn't it a little two-faced for the Tories to claim they're policies are the best way to help thee poor, the weak and the vulnerable?

Conservative Party (UK) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

"It's not enough to know our ideas are right. We've got to explain why they are compassionate too." Cameron tells the Conservative party conference.

Rowena Holland with Conservative Party leader David Cameron. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

"My mission from the day I became leaders was ... to show the Conservative party is for everyone, north or south, black or white, straight or gay."

(Cameron, however, didn't include 'rich or poor' in this list; a distinction that is ominous by its omission!)

A Bit of PM Name-Calling

reblogged from i-thorts' i-Politics

David Cameron has little time for the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, dubbing him a "blonde haired mop" with a mouth.

• • 
    

Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, 2009. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

This was ahead of the conservative party conference, where it is believed Jonson will be up to his usual show-stealing antics.

Proportional Representation Makes Sense

• 
• • CyberPunk65
  • 
    Wednesday 3rd October 2012       

"...is a concept in voting systems used to elect an assembly or council. PR means that the number of seats won by a party or group of candidates is proportionate to the number of votes received. For example, under a PR voting system if 30% of voters support a particular party then roughly 30% of seats will be won by that party. PR is an alternative to voting systems based on single member districts or onbloc voting; these non-PR systems tend to produce disproportionate outcomes and to have a bias in favour of larger political groups. PR systems tend to produce a proliferation of political parties, while single member districts encourage a two-party system."
  - Taken from: Wikipeadia

Don't settle for less. Choose PR today. Choose the (British) Social Media Party!!

Conference Season is Boring!

reblogged from i-thorts' i-Politics

They say a week in politics is a long time; but with this Labour Party conference it's seemed longer.

Ed Milliband MP speaking at the 

Labour Party conference. 

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

To me, conference season is a time for leaders to show off their metal in the face of their true believers.

But so far it's been boring. Where are the rising stars, nipping at the proverbial ankles? Where are the party goofballs and political suicides?

For me, there has been a lack of spark and fire.

I've had the hardest time keeping interested. Clegg did a little impromptu karaoke. But Miliband has bored the pants off me with his 'one nation' stuff. (It's the same 'no policy' Labour as usual.)

Let's hope the good old Tory nut-jobs won't let us down. (If he Chief whip doesn't keep them in toe, then Cameron's smarmy smile might keep them at bay. Hopefully not, though.) This has been a far too civilized and calibrated rendition of keeping to the party-theme for my taste for both the Limp Debts and the Later Party.

So, lets hope the Cons have someone to entertain us. Cameron's false set of promises won't!