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!

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.)