The Election Thread

[Jolfa]

[sharn]

Unfortunately i'm guilty of not voting this time.. but i really tried to! I even went down the polling station. But i refused myself voting unless i felt i fully understood what i was doing, which at the moment - i don't. Maybe I should have just voted Green MP/Lib Dem councilors or something ( We didnt have nay Green Locals apparently!?) Voting Green clearly wouldnt have won them a seat from our neck of the woods but as you say Rowan - it's a voice heard. But ive made a promise that i'm going to start trying to understand this stuff because it seems.. I know it does matter.

We are part of a very long line of people in this world and to struggle against oppression - it is our duty and it comes hand in hand with our Liberty. I agree - it's going to take more than just crossing a few boxes until the common people are properly heard nationally ( In any country). Picket lines and Protests to the Goverment is and has always been the only way. And theyre conspiring against our Rights to do that by making it 'illegal' by statute.. But that means nothing.. because it's our Right! By Common Law. And if a goverment tries to take away our rights.. The tradition of this country is in place to protect us. But A court of Law does not act until it is 'asked to'. So basicslly we've got to take breaches of our rights ( By goverments or anyone else) before the Law - which (although is also becoming corrupt) is Primarily there to Defend Human Rights. But knowone can claim somebody elses rights for them. But it's just a mechanism - and doesn't act of itself. It's like a tool. It might be the perfect tool, but if we dont use it it's useless. Basically.. We need to Know our Rights and Fight for them when they are breached and use the system that's been put in place to Defend our Rights if we feel theyre not being afforded to us. But because often we don't bother.. We're basically not objecting. Basically, if we don't object.. we consent. (And this is something i need to really think about myself. Because i'm guilty of sitting back and watching too many things happen that i dont agree with) It goes beyond the Elections. It's every single day. ( Just a little motivational speech for Pashley26.. So you know that theres more you can do than just vote - if you ( As you have - and i quite understand) feel it's becoming meaningless. )

I'm not sure this FPTP buisness is quite right though?! What is that all about? What good is it supposed to acheive?

[Mark W]

I'm not sure this FPTP buisness is quite right though?! What is that all about? What good is it supposed to acheive?

When there was only ever really likely to be 2 parties who were going to have the chance to win (or even realistically be voted for), it seemed fine as it tended to deliver clear-cut majority votes (when looking at the pie charts above, it's worth bearing in mind that without the unprecedented success of the SNP in Scotland, Labour's slice would have been bigger so the "2 main parties" thing would be even clearer). Now there are multiple parties people want to vote for and have representatives of in government, it isn't really fair at all.

Seeing as you mentioned human rights up there - the Tories are planning on scrapping the Human Rights Act now they're the ones in power again too...

[sharn]

Nice Pies..

*Conspiracy* LibLabCon

Got to say.. My impression is that UKIP is a genuinly Anti-establishment party and is indeed the only (Political) threat to the Global Agenda from this country. Or at least, It could be.. if the People get behind it. Although maybe the U.K would then suddenly become an enemy itself .. Suddenly harbouring weapons of mass destruction or something? Or housing (un-approved) TERRORISTS?! Or maybe we'd just be left alone to drift along at our own leisure because we've got nothing to offer or steal?

Obviously I like Greens and i think we'd definatly need members of Parliment coming from that angle.. but above that we need an Independant Goverment otherwise it's a small voice at a big table.

Next election.. Coalition Independant-Green! Or just more of the same?

[sharn]

Seeing as you mentioned human rights up there - the Tories are planning on scrapping the Human Rights Act now they're the ones in power again too...

I know! How mad is that. But basically - as i understand it.. It's absolutely impossible for a govermemnt to ever breach Human rights. Regardless of where they claim they have protected them ( because thats supposed to be there primary function! not all this international fiddle diddle crap) Human rights are inalienable - they are not legal rights given by goverments - they are fundamental rights - Of the Natural Law - commonly understood and cannot be given or taken away from an individual - ever. The Goverment are not above the LAW! Thats a fact. But as mentioned.. like anyone else they Can (and very often do) act outside it and then be subject answerable to the Law.. If an Individual ( Or every individual in a nation!!) bothers to appeal to the court to gain their Rights & Justice if theyve been breached.

But most are not aware they even can ( And neither was i until recently) and are under an impression that the goverment is infallable. Apparently.. It is not.

They are elected by you, to represent, serve and protect you. They are not your masters or your owners and are accountable to you as Your elected representatives.

Thats my understanding. Or am i missing something?

Edited May 9, 2015 by sharn

[Milford Cubicle]

The Goverment are not above the LAW! Thats a fact.

They kind of are when they can get found out to be doing somthing illegal and can change laws retroactively so they don't have to get in trouble for it.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/mar/15/dwp-law-change-jobseekers-poundland

[Mark W]

Jeremy Hunt did the same thing when he decided he wanted to arbitrarily close some hospitals, an action which was ruled to be illegal. They've got a cabinet full of devious c**ts, basically.

Related to that, it seems George Osborne, or someone acting on his behalf, has been making the most of the "right to be forgotten" law. A lot of news articles featuring claims of him massaging figures or flat-out making mistakes and being rebuked by official bodies no longer seem to appear on Google. The story about his brother converting to Islam was one of the first stories to be removed when the law first came in, incidentally.

There are also echoes of Grant Shapps (Tory MP) altering his own Wikipedia entry in favourable ways and editing Wikipedia entries for opposition/rivals in negative ways...

[Skoze]

I sincerely hope it all kicks off when they start seriously meddling with things. I'd be surprised if the majority of Tory voters knew quite what they were voting for, there's an awful lot of questionable practices/ ideas behind the scenes.

[manuel]

Did not know this! Where did you find that out?

We need a review of the voting system IMO. I cannot see how it's fair that one persons vote counts for more than another just because they live in a different area.

Turnout was around 66% and of those 36% voted Tory. Works out at around 24%.

[sharn]

They kind of are when they can get found out to be doing somthing illegal and can change laws retroactively so they don't have to get in trouble for it.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/mar/15/dwp-law-change-jobseekers-poundland

Yes, If they do something Illegal.. they might be able to retro-actively change the 'Legal Laws' Or 'Statuary Laws' Because indeed they themselves make the Statutary and define the 'Legal'

But i was referring to human rights. ( This is what i have come to understand..)

Legal and Lawfull are different things. The Goverment cannot change the Common Law or 'Natural Law' ( which includes and is basically focused on) Human rights.. Nobody can.. because these are Commonly understood and are 'Self evident'. And these are to do with Human Rights. Not Legal and Illegal which can be defined and changed by the state Goverment willy nilly. These 'Legalities' are really just 'Company policies' ( And we've just had a nationwide 'General meeting' to elect a new CEO and company policy). The U.k is a registered company. As citizens we are ( arguably mis-treated..) Employees. The oath of allegience (which was done on your behalf at birth) is your contract of employment. And is merely a contract which at the same time formed an application to create a 'Legal' identity witthin the realm ( like a buisness or Corporation) which has the same identical name as you ( But is often written in capitals) and is linked to you at birth and it is that 'legal identity' that is held in servitude because infact no Human can be held in such because it's against their fundamental, Inallianable, Common Law Rights. We , The Living Being, act on Behalf of our Legal identity (Which is not living and so has no Human rights and cannot act itself) which is bound by 'Legal' and 'Illegal' Statutes ( Goverment made laws)

This is what i have come to understand with regards to our situations. I may be wrong.. i'm still in research. And it makes some sense to me. Does not part of you question why should anybody be able to demand money from you? Or Tell you- you cant Do or Say something? They can' Demand or enforce that. Unless you make an oath/contract promising that they can. ( Which you yourself cant even do! Because your Fundamental Human rights are self evident & inallianable - and cannot be taken or Given away. Not even by you - You can just stop claiming them) SO instead what we ( they get us to) do is Identify ourselves as the legal Person and then therefore confirm we are to be treated as Property - with no Human rights.

Even so, No-one is outside of 'Natural Law' ( Even if youre outside of or not bound by 'Statuary' Law - ( No Living human actually can be)) - which protects fundamental Freedom, Life and Liberty ( To have for oneself and not to deny for another) This is Commonly understood and Inalienable. Basically, it is claimed that Statuary laws (Legal/Illegal - Like tax - growing herbs - etc) are company policies applicable only to corporate entities ( The term Persons does not just apply to human beings and is infact often referring to your 'Legal Person') NO harm or breach of your Human Rights should ever come to your Natural body because of 'Statutes' that are applicable to your Legal Person. ( I.e YOU should not be imprisoned for you a debt on your Legal Person). Unless you ( un-wittingly) volunteer to be accountable for it and affirm that YOU are infact 'IT' ( The Legal). It's being widely claimed that when you are asked to give or confirm your name.. It is the name of your Legal person (The same name but in Capitals) which is being identified and from then you are not being treated as Human being. But instead are presumed to be something Not- Living (with no human rights to Life/Liberty/Freedom)

Sounds whacky, and theres alot more to it. And i'm very new to all this.And i may have completely mis-understood all this. I myself have never publically claimed this position or ever tried to excersize this claimed right. I am just studying the subject. But there seems to be some sense in it.

Anyway, Just trying to say that if you know who YOU are and do not (Unwittingly) identify yourself as a non living entity - (Apparently) NOBODY can breach your Human rights - Not even Goverments.

But obviously they dont want people to understand this. So they give us lots of things to entertain our(real)selves ( The living being inside you) - whilst our bodies are considered 'Hollow, Dead, Property of the state'.

Maybe this is true. Maybe it's not. If it is.. We have a majority who are unaware (if it is) and a completely militarized 'civil army' of Policy-officers ready to enforce the Rule of state upon Living Humans without themselves knowing its potentially Unlawfull ( not illegal)

Dark. ''But you are a Light if you so wish to shine''

Edited May 9, 2015 by sharn

[Mark W]

*Conspiracy* LibLabCon

Got to say.. My impression is that UKIP is a genuinly Anti-establishment party...

I'm not so sure that's the case bearing in mind it's staffed by a lot of former Tory MPs (who are very much in favour of the establishment as it's benefited them for their entire lives - although not a former Tory MP, Farage has claimed over £2million over the years in expenses so he's done pretty well out of the establishment too...), and funded by former Tory donors - not to mention Growth Financial Services, a wealth management firm, who gave them £500,000 - who again are in favour of the establishment. As a quick overview of some of them: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/05/21/ukip-nigel-farage-anit-establishment_n_5363871.html

Farage's whole schtick was that he was a "man of the people" which is why it's no coincidence almost all of his public appearances generally featuring him smoking or having a pint. It's easier to come across like that to mop up the disaffected Tory/BNP voters by occupying that middle ground between the two whilst appearing to be "an ordinary bloke" (despite being incredibly wealthy). His party members coming out with statements that lead to them resigning, and the subsequent press coverage, allows him to play the poor, undertrodden guy going up against The Man despite being fairly complicit in how it all works. It all allows them to create that anti establishment narrative, even though the party is made up of a significant number of career politicians, contains a Baron, etc...

EDIT: Related:

As anger at the mainstream politicians has grown, the capitalist class have had a semi-conscious policy of encouraging support for Ukip as a 'safe' form of protest. Ukip's right-wing nationalist programme does not offer any way forward for working class people; its politics are to the right of the Tory Party.

Ukip is a party of bankers and millionaires, with Farage a millionaire ex-stockbroker. Ukip's big-business donations include one from the ex-chair of Lonmin, the mining company responsible for the August 2012 murder of striking workers in Marikana, South Africa.

However, using populist supposedly 'pro-worker' rhetoric (but completely opposing workers defending themselves via strikes) combined with right-wing nationalist, anti-immigrant propaganda, they have been able to partially step into the vacuum that exists because of the absence of a mass workers' party. Many workers who vote Ukip do not know - or care - what they actually stand for, but want to use them as a means to voice their protest.

[sharn]

I'm not so sure that's the case bearing in mind it's staffed by a lot of former Tory MPs (who are very much in favour of the establishment as it's benefited them for their entire lives - although not a former Tory MP, Farage has claimed over £2million over the years in expenses so he's done pretty well out of the establishment too...), and funded by former Tory donors - not to mention Growth Financial Services, a wealth management firm, who gave them £500,000 - who again are in favour of the establishment. As a quick overview of some of them: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/05/21/ukip-nigel-farage-anit-establishment_n_5363871.html

Farage's whole schtick was that he was a "man of the people" which is why it's no coincidence almost all of his public appearances generally featuring him smoking or having a pint. It's easier to come across like that to mop up the disaffected Tory/BNP voters by occupying that middle ground between the two whilst appearing to be "an ordinary bloke" (despite being incredibly wealthy). His party members coming out with statements that lead to them resigning, and the subsequent press coverage, allows him to play the poor, undertrodden guy going up against The Man despite being fairly complicit in how it all works. It all allows them to create that anti establishment narrative, even though the party is made up of a significant number of career politicians, contains a Baron, etc...

EDIT: Related:

To be honest, i agree with you. And i take back that statement that i think theyre 'Genuinely' Anti-establishment and replace it with.. Their Policy of getting out of the EU seems to be 'the most' Anti-Establishment Policy from Any party.

It does seem to me that it's a 'voice crying in the wilderness' of a overwhelming shift to Globalism.

I'm not bothered about looking into what money his got/claimed.. unless i was to do that for all of them. But my gut feeling is that he, out of all of them is the Lesser of alot of bloody Evil.

Although i did read something where that point was being raised and Farage pointed out that Yes - he had claimed "million for his campaign( And it was totally within his Legal Rights) but that infact his proposition would actually diminish that right which he claimed to be a ' waste of money ' (That Campaigners, MPs can claim so much etc etc) But in order to 'fight fair' he optimized what was available in order to increase his scope. This i can understand.

Youre Never going to have a 'Man from down the pub' In Politics.. The LibLabCon certainly aint. My impression is that Farage IS the most 'Normal' bloke ( Albeit he's made alot of Money (Doing His Own buisness prior to politics))

I'm not surprised at all that theres some members of the Party who have backgrounds coming from other parties Thats irrelevant. My discussion is on the Manifesto of the Party and the character of the Elected Leader.

I still believe that UKIP is the only Party with which - if the General people got involved and behind, could actually be a voice for U.K Citizens. At least, thats my Impression. ( But i know very little about Politics!)

[Mark W]

I'm not surprised at all that theres some members of the Party who have backgrounds coming from other parties Thats irrelevant. My discussion is on the Manifesto of the Party and the character of the Elected Leader.

But a manifesto isn't a guarantee that they'll do what they say, as history has repeatedly proved. The people in the party will dictate what they do once in power, and that's why the history of their members (and more importantly in the modern day where they're all getting their funding from) is relevant. Would a fairly firmly establishment company like GFS donate £500,000 to UKIP if they thought they were genuinely anti-establishment? Would a Baron - who's entire position in life is based upon the establishment - want to completely change the order of things?

The £2m of expenses I mentioned with Farage was unrelated to this election/UKIP's position, that was from his time as an MEP. He frequently claims that he's poorly paid despite having a £64k salary (and all the perks of being an MP such as expenses, allowances, pension, etc.). I don't really see how someone who believes that, whilst being supported by other affluent people who have very similar backgrounds to the Tories, is suddenly going to want to stand up for 'the common man'? As another example of their true colours:

However, using populist supposedly 'pro-worker' rhetoric (but completely opposing workers defending themselves via strikes) combined with right-wing nationalist, anti-immigrant propaganda, they have been able to partially step into the vacuum that exists because of the absence of a mass workers' party. Many workers who vote Ukip do not know - or care - what they actually stand for, but want to use them as a means to voice their protest.

In 2011, in the wake of the huge - 750,000 strong - trade union demonstration against cuts to public services Ukip supporters initiated a counter-demo which demanded 'more cuts'.

That doesn't really sound like a party acting as a fair, representative voice for most people?

If the main crux of your argument is their stance on the EU I'm just not really convinced that that's enough to vote for them on with the massive deficiencies in the rest of the party. I don't really believe that leaving the EU is the best thing that could happen, and with their questionable stance on a lot of other issues (whether in official party policy or from the comments by members of the party) I can't really see them being much of a force for good. Their existence just smacks of opportunism rather than anything overwhelmingly worthwhile. The only particularly worthwhile thing I can see that their MPs have voted for was to make the House of Lords be fully elected.

[Milford Cubicle]

Their Policy of getting out of the EU seems to be 'the most' Anti-Establishment Policy from Any party.

I think the Green's anti austerity stuff is a hell of a lot more anti-establishment as is the fact that they are the only party talking about monetary reform which is probably the most important issue in this country as well as the most anti-establishment one as well.

The £2m of expenses I mentioned with Farage was unrelated to this election/UKIP's position, that was from his time as an MEP. He frequently claims that he's poorly paid despite having a £64k salary (and all the perks of being an MP such as expenses, allowances, pension, etc.). I don't really see how someone who believes that, whilst being supported by other affluent people who have very similar backgrounds to the Tories, is suddenly going to want to stand up for 'the common man'? As another example of their true colours:

And all that for not doing anything either,

https://www.facebook.com/peteacousticshaw/videos/10204913220902538/

[sharn]

But a manifesto isn't a guarantee that they'll do what they say, as history has repeatedly proved. The people in the party will dictate what they do once in power, and that's why the history of their members (and more importantly in the modern day where they're all getting their funding from) is relevant. Would a fairly firmly establishment company like GFS donate £500,000 to UKIP if they thought they were genuinely anti-establishment? Would a Baron - who's entire position in life is based upon the establishment - want to completely change the order of things?

The £2m of expenses I mentioned with Farage was unrelated to this election/UKIP's position, that was from his time as an MEP. He frequently claims that he's poorly paid despite having a £64k salary (and all the perks of being an MP such as expenses, allowances, pension, etc.). I don't really see how someone who believes that, whilst being supported by other affluent people who have very similar backgrounds to the Tories, is suddenly going to want to stand up for 'the common man'? As another example of their true colours:

That doesn't really sound like a party acting as a fair, representative voice for most people?

If the main crux of your argument is their stance on the EU I'm just not really convinced that that's enough to vote for them on with the massive deficiencies in the rest of the party. I don't really believe that leaving the EU is the best thing that could happen, and with their questionable stance on a lot of other issues (whether in official party policy or from the comments by members of the party) I can't really see them being much of a force for good. Their existence just smacks of opportunism rather than anything overwhelmingly worthwhile. The only particularly worthwhile thing I can see that their MPs have voted for was to make the House of Lords be fully elected.

Again, i agree with you.. and these concerns were enough to convince me NOT to vote for them myself. What i am saying is that if some of these inner-party problems could be addressed and Local People ('Normal' people') Started to take an interest and become active in this group, i think the overall direction of the Party could result in something with which the 'voice of the common people' could be heard.

Of course Farage is not himself a 'common person'..Are any of them?

Just so you know.. I have No allegience to UKIP at all, i dudnt vote for them and am just expressing my impressions. So I'm fully happy to scrutinize this party with you.. Infact i want to. I'm just not willing to overlook the same issues with the others aswell.

I can totally understand what you said and i agree that right now it seems this party might not be capable of leading. Just to confirm.. i was talking about in the future, if certain issues were be adressed. ( It seems the presence of some potentially racist members is one of the main problems?!)

Regarding, expenses, funding, backing etc.. It seems to me this is abit unfair to scrutinize just them considering the obvious corruption in all the parties? I'm not saying it's right.. It just seems like a bit of a given?

But even so, overlooking that.. To me, the proposition to exit the EU Is in itself a massive middle finger to the Internationlist/Globalist agenda.. Which fundamentally i am against. Maybe it's not correct to say 'ANti-Establishment' because of course theyre innevitably going to have wealthy funders (That's obvious - they (Or any other party) are not going to be funding by the local darts team )

I'm really not an expert and i'm happy to say i just dont know about these things you highlighting. Ive never heard him claim he's poor. But iv'e not followed every single thing. Ive heard him claim he hasnt had a proper holiday in over a decade and stuff like that. Although i can imagine that there would be a campaign to spoil the reputation of such a party.. Who is clearly (and is the only one) proposing something different to the current system.

The main crux of my leaning towards UKIP (had i voted) was indeed the proposal to get out of the EU ( which would still take some time) and it seems that wasnt enough for me either this time. Because i was worried about all the things you also express!

Their existance does indeed smack of opportunism.. Because thats exactly what it is.. The need is their! There was an unrepresented voice in th U.K. Thats what this is all about isn't it? Surely the OPTION to leave the E.U has got to be a represented Always?!?! Nobody is representing anything else other than being (politically) Melted into a Europe Union and many people dont like being part of the EU for whatever reason or are fundamentally/politically against Internationalism/Globalism.

My limited understanding is that whilst being part of the EU.. The goverment who you have democratically elected is not actually completely in charge of your country and has only Limited power. So effectively YOU only have Limited power over the destiny of your country. (All arguments of whether we actually ever bother to try and make our goverments represent us aside. Even if we did.. As part of the EU - They couldnt!)

Anyway, i still like Farage. He has a commical eyebrow

[Mark W]

Part of the Conservative election campaign/manifesto was an EU in/out referendum which is scheduled to take place in 2017 (or possibly even 2016). To me that seems fairer than a party just saying "We're going to GTFO."

You can omit the "potentially" from the "potentially racist members" thing up there too, btw

[sharn]

I think the Green's anti austerity stuff is a hell of a lot more anti-establishment as is the fact that they are the only party talking about monetary reform which is probably the most important issue in this country as well as the most anti-establishment one as well.

And all that for not doing anything either,

https://www.facebook.com/peteacousticshaw/videos/10204913220902538/

This is why i dont do Politics - You have to actually think about what youre saying (A)

Yes youre right, on a policy by policy level, the Greens are more A-E. Maybe i'm just overwhelmed by the argument of Independance over Globalism, fundamentally.

I'm quite ashamed of myself for labelling any Politiclal group as 'Anti-Establishment' regardless.

I'm totally with Greens.. But at the minute doesnt seem like theyre strong enough to lead either. They obviously have their heart in the right place and I'd be happy for them to be in 'power'. I hope they can gain a good influence on whichever party may lead until they do. But Whilst part of the EU surely that influence is only ever even further diminished?

As i said, My ideal scenario would have been..

''Get out of EU and Save the Planet!'' Independant-Green.

[sharn]

Part of the Conservative election campaign/manifesto was an EU in/out referendum which is scheduled to take place in 2017 (or possibly even 2016). To me that seems fairer than a party just saying "We're going to GTFO."

You can omit the "potentially" from the "potentially racist members" thing up there too, btw

Didnt they promise that at the last election and then literllay never did?

As i said and as you can tell, i know very little about all this.. so what exactly should we be looking forward to now we are remaining in the EU for another 'term'?

Really are they all Racists? Man i've been taken for a ride. I mean, I'm under no impression that there arent any racists or just as bad 'eliteists' in any of the other leading parties but iv'e been duped into thinking UKIP was actually a 'peoples party' rather than just a 'racist peoples party'

Good campaign Nige.. You Got me.

Edited May 9, 2015 by sharn

[Mark W]

I didn't say they were 'all' racists, just that you mentioned "some potentially racist" ones.

Very much related to all this - the Met briefed news outlets to not cover the protests as they were really happening today, leading to all this shit going on without any mainstream news coverage whatsoever apart from some token late-in-the-day coverage of the damage done. I don't agree with the vandalism and all that stuff, but the fact the powers-that-be were so concerned by it they told the media not to cover it properly is pretty telling.

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

Very much related to all this - the Met briefed news outlets to not cover the protests as they were really happening today, leading to all this shit going on without any mainstream news coverage whatsoever apart from some token late-in-the-day coverage of the damage done. I don't agree with the vandalism and all that stuff, but the fact the powers-that-be were so concerned by it they told the media not to cover it properly is pretty telling.

Bunch of wankers causing a ruck for the hell of it? I really don't care if the news didn't report it as it was happening. Obviously the world will see it on Facebook and the like so they'll never keep it quiet. 'Get the Tories out' banners a couple of days after a General Election?

[sharn]

I didn't say they were 'all' racists, just that you mentioned "some potentially racist" ones.

Very much related to all this - the Met briefed news outlets to not cover the protests as they were really happening today, leading to all this shit going on without any mainstream news coverage whatsoever apart from some token late-in-the-day coverage of the damage done. I don't agree with the vandalism and all that stuff, but the fact the powers-that-be were so concerned by it they told the media not to cover it properly is pretty telling.

I know, just exaggerating the stereotype Protests are good if theres also thought out way of actually achieving whatever is being requested/demanded that it can bring attention to. Or its an actual picket - stoping something taking place?

[manuel]

I could understand marching / rioting for proportional representation, but against the result?!? Better off rounding up the non voters and punching them in the face.

[Mark W]

Can't hate that reference:

Equally, it seems a lot of people there were there calling for PR rather than just the "f**k the Conservatives" element. However, that's a lot more of a sellable angle for newspapers because it's easier to get people riled up by it and also make people think of the protests/marches in a more negative way. It's worth noting that the "majority of peaceful protesters" bit is generally buried pretty deeply in a lot of reports because it's easier to just go with the "___ arrests, "Tory Scum" written on memorial, policeman injured" eye-catching bylines/lead-ins.

It's just funny though how when there have been anti-government protests in foreign countries where the state has suppressed media coverage of it and hacked social networks/e-mails to get info about who's protesting and where/when, our government have been quick to complain and say it's not on, yet they told the press not to cover the protests here as they were happening, and it also happened to be the same day that Theresa May said she wanted to introduce tougher surveillance laws and Cameron's plans to 'get rid of encryption' started getting aired again. I'm not comparing things like the Arab Spring to what happened yesterday, but there are definitely parallels with how their/our governments react to that kind of thing.

Something interesting I read today about the NHS too:

Before the 2010 general election David Cameron promised "no more top-down reorganisations of the NHS", then within months of coming to power his Health secretary Andrew Lansley launched the biggest top-down reorganisation in the history of the NHS (the Health and Social Care Act). Cameron also made the pre-election promise that the Tories would "cut the deficit, not the NHS", before launching £20 billion worth of NHS cuts. In 2011 the former Tory leadership candidate Michael Portillo admitted that David Cameron and the Tories had lied to the public about their intentions towards the NHS before the 2010 General Election: "They did not believe they could win an election if they told you what they were going to do because people are so wedded to the NHS."...

In 2009 the Tory MP Jeremy Hunt co-authored a book which called for the NHS to be dismantled and called it "no longer relevant". In 2012 David Cameron appointed Jeremy Hunt as Health Secretary, meaning that the man who is now responsible for the NHS is a man who has called for it to be completely abolished. The fact that David Cameron would appoint a Health Secretary who is on record saying that the NHS should be abolished illustrates exactly how gullible he imagined the general public to be when he made the pre-election promise that "the NHS will be safe in my hands". Medical professionals have voted time and again against the Tory NHS reforms. The British Medical Association have also passed motions of no-confidence against the current Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt, and his predecessor Andrew Lansley.

I don't think they've announced who's going to be the health secretary in the new cabinet yet but I can't imagine they'd change him in that they consider that he's done a 'good job' since 2012.

Fun 'Benefits' facts too: Last year, benefit fraud cost the UK £1.1bn (for reference, pensioners aged 85-89 claimed £20m in fraudulent pensions benefits). The amount of benefits that were underpaid due to error was £1.6bn. In fact, if you take into account all incorrectly paid benefits, they total more than 3 times the amount that's fraudulently claimed.

[sharn]

I rekon if someone ( or a group of people) organized an official protest and claim for Political reform on the election process - campaigned and made it easy enough for people to support and that support be officially recognized in a petition then i think the clear majority of the public would sign and support it. As we know many people didnt vote and i bet the majority was thinking ' whats the point'. They may not have voted but i'd bet theyd sign such a petition. I bet even many who voted conservatives would still sign it.

Ive got a feeling we simply just dont know the 'Magic words' and specific processes needed for things to be recognized and lawfully have to be acted upon.

A public act of dissaproval is one thing. A razor sharp case of law, backed by a public majority is another. I myself have no idea how to conduct such a thing. But i'm sure someone does. Given that they are OUR elected representitives.. There HAS to be a proper formal way in which we can demand to be represented - at any time, regarding any issue. Surely?

Anyways.. thought i'd share a couple of videos for anyone interested in Law and Human Rights..

*Be one of the first 30 people in the world to watch this video* Even though it was made in 2009 (Theres many other videos that explain this and i urge everyone to find them and understand what has transpired)

Could the real ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, please stand up.. Oh wait, Its a peice of Paper, Errrrr

(I've seen another video where this guy leads a party of around 20 people to perform a citizens arrest on a Judge in the U.K who is allegedly commiting many breaches of Law)

Anybody else heard of this stuff before? What do people know/think?

Edited May 11, 2015 by sharn

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

Considering under PR the Conservatives would still have won (though not with a majority- not sure that's necessarily a good thing) and the big winner would've been UKIP I'm not sure it's the way to go. Yes it's 'fairer' in the grand scheme of things but I also don't know quite how that works at a local level. At Westminster if 30% of votes means 30% of seats how are local MP's determined? In my constituency I don't expect or know how I'd be 30% represented by Conservatives, 25% by Labour, 10% by UKIP etc.