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.

5 Steps To Global Government

The current climate of Austerity makes the overwhelming need for a Global Government even more drastic then it ever has. I hate the fact that good people are being harassed and harangued by nation-states that insist its for our own good. This is clearly wrong.

The published goals of the World Aliance Party is global government, a global bank and a one world order where all lives are equal. This might be a tall order, but so was democracy.

There are 5 steps in achieving our first goal: A Global Government. And I'm going to let you into a little secret... They're achievable in our life times.

The Future Is Yours

As a youth I was probably the most arrogant person you could meet.

I was a Conservative in the 80s (not a card-carrying-one I might add), but I believed the guff that Saint Margaret T proclaimed with all the relish and zest of a Young Tory Entrepreneur.

I believed the stuff about the unions trying to run the country (via Labour), and I even accepted the stuff about the Conservatives having the answers to the economy problems of the 80s.

My love affair with Tory politics came to ahead in the 90s when I woke up to the mess they had left behind them. And with the revelation of my own naivety, I lost faith in the Tory party totally. I underwent a change; doing a 180 degree turnabout from what I used to be.


I’m better now - lol

Whats World Government

What's World Government Anyway?

I intend to share what I've read about world/ global government, what I've learn on the subject, and what I believe one should be.

I'll also show how having just one government would change everything for humanity.

Firstly, What Is A Global Government?

Currently, we don't have anything like a global or world government:

"'World government' refers to the idea of all humankind united under one common political authority."

~World Government @ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

To put it in a nutshell. Its the globalisation of politics ~ without borders.

WAP Launches

The centre party relaunched to challenge historically elite political parties

Relaunched and Rebranding the (British) Social Media Party as WAP (World Alliance Party).

The website, that shut down last January, is returning from internet limbo ~but as WAP~ is hoping to reconnect with its users and revive its fortunes.

"We're happy that we've returned under our improved charter," Cyberpunk65, their political leader said yesterday. "Now we need to maximise this opportunity to build our party congress."

The decision to relaunch itself as an open, multi-faith party is more than a challenge, it's a promise to change modern politics completely.

So welcome to the WAP - WORLD, Alliance Party ~ we welcome all.

Check for our constantly updating info.

Thank you

(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 »

(Brit) SocialMedia: 'U-turn' over scrapping of GCSEs

Planned switch from GCSEs to Baccalaureate in England 'abandoned'

Plans to scrap GCSEs in key subjects in England and replace them with English Baccalaureate Certificates are being abandoned by the government.

The reversal was announced by the education secretary in the Commons, alongside curriculum changes.

Michael Gove said plans for the new exams had been "a bridge too far".

« Read the Rest @ BBC News »

---

See also: « Michael Gove: Labour think poor children should stick to their station »

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.

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.

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).

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!

Observer via Guardian claim a need for a social democratic party in Britain

reblogged from i-thorts' i-Politics

The Observer via Guardian claims: We desperately need a true social democratic party. How can this be? When we have a new social democratic political party: the (British) Social Media Party.

SDP logo (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

• 
• • 
    

The history of British politics has been linked inextricably with social and democratic parties. The one of the originals being the British Labour Party:

"The Labour party could be characterised as a social democratic party until John Smith's death, but it ceased to be as such in England with the advent of New Labour." - The Guardian

However, once New Labour took over from the Labour Party they lost their emphasis of social 'anything' - selling off state-owned or state-run industries and organisations. Leaving this country devoid of any central party, and a lack of social (and Socialist) democratic political parties.

"England has no major left-of-centre party."
- The Guardian

Some of the fringe parties including the greens and later the SDP itself (which was later swallowed by the Liberal party and became the Liberal Democrats) have tried to fill the void.

"This has created a large void that the Lib Dems under Kennedy and Campbell moved into slightly and Clegg has sped away from. Labour under Miliband shows little sign of promoting public service over capitalism or representing people as active citizens rather than passive consumers."
- The Guardian

But due to voter apathy - and limited media exposure - together with the current 'First Past the Post' style of politics have kept these smaller parties at the fringes of the political spectrum. Only the spirited little Social Media Party seems to fit the bill - and offer a more reasonable 'Proportional Representation' style of politics (which the Lib Dems got in on, but have so far reneged on). Where every vote counts - just as every 'like' and 'follow' and 'tweet or retweet' count in the Social Media realm.

To expose how unfair the current system is, if only 2% of the people who voted last time for the fringe parties (and also the Lib Dems) JOINED OUR PARTY and VOTED FOR US, then they could have HAD THE POLITICS they expected from the fringe parties and the Liberal Democrats.

You see, Britain doesn't need another SDP, just a correctly functioning political party (with the significant numbers of real people as members.)

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+]