Welcome to Punk Politics

~Punk Politics~

Anarchy IS "regarded as a political ideal." (Google definition)

"Anarchy is the condition of a society, entity, group of people or a single person which does not recognize authority. It originally meant leaderlessness, but in 1840, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon adopted the term in his treatise What Is Property? to refer to a new political philosophy, anarchism, which advocates stateless societies based on voluntary associations."

~Wikipedia.

We believe anarchy and government go together nicely. As long as you are happy to have anarchistic views, and implement them through self-governance.

I believe in punk politics (and us punks pretty much own anarchy lol). And in my school of thought anarchistic government is achievable.

(Brit) SocialMedia: Alliance of Labour, UKIP and Occupy Members Attempt to Reform City of London

"Ahead of elections this month to the City of London Corporation, an unlikely political alliance is pressing for radical reform and greater accountability from an institution where many ancient traditions continue to hold sway"

From Guardian Feeds »

(Brit) SocialMedia: Brussels plot

SHAMEFUL MEPs are already plotting to torpedo the historic EU budget cut.

The Euro politicians want a secret ballot on the issue so they can vote for a rise anonymously and escape their national leaders’ fury.

Tories warned the sinister plot, unveiled yesterday by the MEPs’ German president Martin Schulz, would “almost certainly” succeed...

« Read the Rest @ The Sun »

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 .

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 »

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.

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?

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.

Labour to give 16-year-olds the vote

reblogged from i-thorts' i-Politics

Arriving in Manchester, before Labour conference, Ed Miliband told young people of his vision for a Labour Britain: He believes 16-year-old should have get vote.

---

CyberPunk65
i-thorts' i-Politics September 30th 2012

---

If 16- to 18-year-olds could vote, George Osborne might have thought twice about getting rid of EMA (Educational Maintenance Allowance) - it would have hit Tories at ballot box.

Ed Milliband MP speaking at the Labour Party conference. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Miliband has a project to "rebuild Britain" by involving young people more in politics. He wants young people to have a voice.

Miliband concedes that the coalition’s welfare system changers are acceptable to Labour, but lacked compassion towards the disabled.

Miliband admits agreeing with some of the government’s policies - but not most of them.

He can’t "wave a magic wand" though.

"We can’t have people going to food banks while millionaires have been given £40,000 tax cuts." Miliband argues, "It’s not right."

i-Views: 51% Lib Dems Are Dissatisfied with Clegg as Leader!

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

Nick Clegg takes a battering in the latest (Mori / Ipsos) poll; 66% of those voting were unsatisfied with him.

• 
• • CyberPunk65
  • i-thorts' i-Views, Wednesday 19 September 2012

Nick Clegg and David Cameron. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

This isn't exactly news for anyone that lives in the UK. Clegg's popularity has dropped steadily since the election.

From the moment the coalition was formed, and the Lib Dems took on some of the Conservative's policies, they were bound to be branded as 'wannabes' and 'turn coats'. And as Premier of the Lib Dems Clegg is the obvious target.

With just a couple of days until the annual Liberal Democrat Partry conference in Brighton, the News it pretty bleak. Because he's the only party leader to be ranked so low by his own party faithful; 51% were unhappy with him. (Whereas, only 27% of Tories dissed Cameron, and 34% of Labourites unhappy with Miliband.)

Even if there are no real pretenders to Clegg's crown; Lord Oakshott, the Lib Dem peer, seems to have his eye on Nick's throne and is quick to point out his foibles.

Nevertheless, when the party fateful hit Brighton, all back-biting will be put to one side to show a united front to the voters.

Rt Hon Nick Clegg MP (Photo credit: ThisIsDL)

That's the plan. However, good party conferences have a life of their own, and characters that surprise or shine. So we shall see.

Labour Ahead in the Polls - So Far - States Poulace Poll in The Times

reblogged from i-thorts' i-Politics

Ed Miliband. („Ed's speech on how we need fundamental change in the Labour party to win again.“) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

There are now whispers in the House about defeat (in the 2015 elections) for Cameron and Clegg, which could impact heavily on their party leadership, ahead of the conference season - due to new Poulace poll (in the Times) putting Labour ahead.

• • 
    
  • 
    

The race to win the next general election is already on, and Labour has taken the lead. A 50 point lead ahead of Conservatives. (45% of those questioned would vote Labour in at the next general election; that's a five point increase since July polls.) This could (if the polls are right) put Ed Miliband on course for a masive victory in 2015.

The Tories are down to a 30% share of votes in a general election - a four point drop! Nevertheless, in the very same poll, 23% are happy with how David Cameron carried out the activities of Prime Minister; putting him is ahead in the popularity race. And 34% thought he would do a better job as PM than Mr Miliband. (That's more people would like to see Cameron remain as PM next time round.)

The voters branded Miliband and Nick Clegg as both: "out of his depth", "weak", and "indecisive". Cameron was branded: "doesn't listern", and "arrogant". Voters branded alll three parties: "out of touch".

Social Media Party - The British Political Party That Promise You More

Reblogged from i-thorts' i-Views:

Social Media Party
Launch!  

A new British political party launched 10/09/2012: The Social Media Party. “A cross-party party” designed to appeal to members from the full political spectrum.

generic multi-axis political spectrum chart (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

We believe in a state that allows individuals to take part in the decision-making process that affects their lives, to contribute fully to that society (and their own communities) to attain these ideals. United by a common belief in respect, equality, education, and social justice.    -The (British) Social Media Party’s mission statement claims.

So why is this non-entity (unknown) taking on the big three? Because with the help of the social media world any party can!

To put it in their words: “We can out-campaign them. This is a social media world and the main three are still thinking mainstream. They Tweet and Like now rules the globe.”

It’s obvious that they’re switched-on to the technicalities of a digital environment, but is it possible for a non-entity to really take on these titans?

Well the Green party was once a non-entity and now they have a nice percentage of the votes. Labour too were once newcomers on the political scene (now they are major players).

Mobile web growth (Photo credit: Will Lion)

So how does the Social Media Party expect to go from zero to hero?

“We promise all our voters power. Power of autonomy, power to choose policies, power to decide how their vote will count.”

Is this a return to a call for proportional representation?

“In social media terms, every like and each tweet counts, so should every single vote! That’s true democracy in action!”

But can they win elections?

“I believe we can! Elections are all about numbers. Twitter and Facebook are our battle grounds. Once something goes viral theirs no stopping it! We just need to go viral. Lol.”

Why wouldn't you vote for the (British) Social Media Party?

Why the Social Media Party Could Win a British Election

.: social-media-party :.
(Photo credit: cyberpunk65)

Today is the birth of a new political party

(British) Social Media Party

If you look at the party-system we currently have, its obvious none of the major players seem to have a clue how to use social media for political gain.

Once they get to grips with it not being about mico-party-political broadcasts, then they might get somewhere. But with only a handful of MPs sharing the nouce or having the gumption to use social media properly, it makes the Social Media political party very threatening to the big three.

Say, for instance, that the MPs with social media skills had formed their own party (a party formed across the political divides) with the sole purpose of changing the political scene and really allowing the people to have their say; they would sweep the boards!

It would be a landslide win!

Their former parties wouldn't know what hit them!

Social Media can be that effective.

One of the reasons social media works is diversity. So they would have to put aside previous party squabbles with this realisation in mind.

Could it work? Yes. Would politicians put aside petty differences to gain the ultimate power? You bet!

Policies are easy: let the people decide. (Then there can never be a backlash. You wanted it you got it. It was your idea.) Who could argue with such logic.
Mass media would be part of the championing process. (The British press loves an underdog. And if they try to sabotage a campaign? Then the strengths of social media would batter their arguments with mass rebuttles. Even the press can't fight - all reader demographics - everyone!)

This is the beauty of the idea. Win on all levels. It's a win win situation! That really is the power of the tweet and the like.

All we need now is a few politicians to start the ball rolling.

Got to love the (British) Social Media political party.


Now that's something to Blogs about lol....

Would you vote for the (British) Social Media Party?
[join today on Google+]

Let Both Coalition Parties Do Battle

reblogged from i-thorts' i-Politics

Prepare for both coalition parties to commence battle.

At the Lib Dem conference (around the end of this month) the party will considers the proposals for wealth taxes. Earlier this months, Nick Clegg  attempted to shape that debate by floating the consideration of a new wealth tax (see Lib Dems Tax Unearned Wealth). 

Nick Clegg addresses the Conference Rally in Bournemouth. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Prime Minister David Cameron and Chancellor George Osborne are under growing pressure as their flagship austerity plan fails to stimulate growth.

Osborne is dismissive of Clegg's proposal. He says the top 1% of earners contributes the most. So he will monitor their debate with almost detached interest.

All sides are now spoiling for a fight. Let battle commence.