A Reinvention of British Politics

« Reblogged from: ProjectGetElected »

All I see around me is heartache and pain. Idiots and morons.


Does anyone care?

When I was a lad we cared. We cared about music and girls... we cared about politics and fashion... we cared about life and death... we cared about freedom and justice... we simply cared.

There was a reason why we cared; we had a pride in our nation. We had pride because this was a great nation. Great Britain. Not because we ruled other countries (which Britain was infamous for in the past), but because British citizens were outstanding. We had great politicians, great painters, great photographers, great designers, great entrepreneurs, great industrialists, a great banking system, and a great respect for the monarchy.


Today... No one cares.

We don't care about the environment. (At least, most of us don't.) There are a few overbearing pop stars (like Sting) that bleat on about saving the planet while schlepping from continent to continent in their own private jets (using fossil fuel and emitting CO2 gasses like mad). Other than these wannabees, no one 'really' cares.

We don't care about our over-populated world. We have children younger, and live longer. Teen can't spell condoms (let alone use them). We have the likes of Jeremy Kyle blaring on about sticking 'something on the end of it' and making a living from talking to these horny juveniles - as though they care; they don't. Neither do we. (What's it matter to the average Britain if some snotty-nosed brat is the father, or the other five possibles? I ask you, do you care? Really?)

We don't care about education. The sodding degenerates that pretend to be students don't really care about education either. (They just want to drink cheep larger and loaf about, saying pretentious crap like 'in my opinion' - then quoting some facile entry in an outdated tome, they haven't even bothered to read properly. "In my opinion, Einstein got it right when he said, Go Go!" All Bollocks. Total crap.) They don't have the experience to have an opinion; what does someone know that's just got out of nappies? (Bugger all.)

We don't even care about politics either. (Or the country wouldn't have voted in a load of Tory twits and wet wallies from the Lib Dems. Nick Clegg promised to be better than he's being, and the country swallowed it! If we were fishes we'd be wrapped in paper and smothered in salt and vinegar.


This was once a great nation.

Now we're a third-world nation, with too many children living in poverty and squalor. Half the country's unemployed, most of the rest's under-employed and under-paid.


What's this world coming too?

With all this, its not surprising that Britain is no longer 'Great'. Most people don’t care. Britain isn't a place of tolerance and pluralism, its a hive of prejudice from the head to its underbelly.


The problem is … I care!

I care about human rights, and civil liberties. I care about freedom of speech and the political climate. I care about education and child poverty. I care about immigration, intolerance and prejudice. I care about the unemployed, the unemployable and the under-paid under-employed. I care about businesses, finance, banks and bankruptcy. I even care about British and European politics, and political lies and deception. I care enough to want to change things …


A reinvention of British politics.

It has become time for a reinvention of British politics; a reform of Parliament. I am not a defender of the status quo. Neither am I a rebel, just for the sake of it. (Even though I'm a punk, I'm a Parliamentarian at heart.) The present structure and formation of Parliament is an obstacle to the reform of that Parliament, and its government.


As Nick Clegg stated at the 2009 Lib Dem party conference (in Bournemouth) the "choice before people is the choice between fake, phoney change from David Cameron's Conservatives, and real change..." (He then offered the Lib Dems as that change; but, as hindsight has proved, they are more of the same.) So now it is time for a change - every nook and cranny of the British political system must be reformed.

"I will build a reputation for being honest and straightforward. I am a socialist by upbringing, a mediator by instinct and a realist by temperament."

(British) Social Media Party

The (British) Social Media Party are the true "progressives" in UK politics.

It's time for the people to retake power. We don't want change, we demand it!


This is Project Get Elected. Put A Punk in Parliament and change British politics forever...

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.

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.

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!)

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?