Wednesday, March 21, 2007

When Do You Stop Talking and Act !


I am seriously scared, yet again, I saw a mention in the New Statesman of the Labour chatter about PR . We know what it is all about really. Alec Salmon gave an infuriating argument for the end of the union in the Telegraph .He suggested that “despite our fears about losing the oil revenue “ England was probably a big enough country to go it alone …yes very funny.
At all events, I see less chance of a Union in the future than there was of a new Empire in the 1960s . Labour simply cannot steal any more money from the English via the Barnett formulas. Parts of Glasgow having a life expectancy below retirement age and .in their welfare wasteland drugs hell-holes, the Scots do not see themselves as fortunate,
Labour have failed to buy the votes form their client state on the “ Celtic fringe” and they now accept that in the first past the post system they may never form a government again in England . We will know more soon, but Michael Portillo was the first to point out the dooms-day scenario of PR and the more I think about it the more I think it likely .The scum will throw the Constitution into the sea before they will let the Right have it forever. I really think they will.

PR is a system I detest.Smply put it confuses the one vital question in a functioning democracy . "If I do not like what I see who do I vote against!" By transferable vote systems allied to the fact that the Conservative party have relatively few second choice voters ,Brown will hope to frustrate the clear wish of the English never to have his like in Power again. He will do some shady deal with the Liberals and assorted extremist loons. That will be the end of democracy in this country. You can forget getting out of the EU which would love this ,in fact , you can forget any connection with policy which will all be brokered in Westminster between insiders of the centre.

If he does this, if he dares wreck Parliament completely because he cannot win , then the talking is over. It is time to take to the street with direct action and if necessary violent resistance . What about it Bloggers are you all talk or are you prepared fight Brown in whatever way is left. When will you say I `m not taking this any more !

I know ..if you want the Consevatives to riot make it a Sunday , we`re all at work !

22 comments:

David Allen said...

I agree that the Transferable Vote system of PR is a Liberal-left racket and to be resisted at all costs. However do not confuse STV/ ATV with PR in general. I think it does have a place in making politics fairer _ but not when it involves any system which presumes to give weight, equal or otherwise _ to people's 2nd or 3rd preferences. (Why should they count as much?) I'm all for a PR system for the upper house: a Senate of 100 members allocated on a PR basis (of votes cast in the GE for the lower house) by party list would have lots of advantages:
_ it would allow the voter-representative link of constituency elections for the Commons to be retained,
_ it would allow smaller parties with thinly-spread votes to have a voice in parliament,
_ it would tend to discourage tactical voting (if you supported one party but voted for another to keep someone else out locally, you would be hurting your party in the Upper House)
_ it would allow parties to bring their technocrats into parliament without resorting to the hit-and-miss of getting them selected in a winnable seat
The public see PR as being all abour fairness _ and fairness must involve some degree of proportionality. However, we must pick apart the different kinds of PR and explain how some kinds favour the corrupt hhorse-trading kind of politician that they so despise.

Newmania said...

You make a very convincing case there david , I have been horrified at the idea of PR but this does look a little better. I think what it comes down to for mke is this though .
Its alright if it has no power but if it does then it is not becaue it removes your ability to, remove the Government ..( and your MP)...but I`m going to think further on this ..you certainly make much the best case I have heard

Newmania said...

..and the more I think about it the less I like it.

later.....

David Allen said...

Of course, N, it is arguable how much power such an upper house should have. I'd suggest a power of veto for 1 year at 2/3rds majority, perhaps. Otherwise to scrutinise and revise as at present.

Newmania said...

Well that has exactly the right ring to it David Ifear otjers will want to go a lot further than that and the de facto authority of an elected chamber would have power well beyond what it officially has which is the problem .

Still no system is perfect and to tell you the truth I `m rather coming round to what you say..(.with ghastly HP Lovecraft style misgivings that are lurking behind a door unseen as yet...to horrible to describe)

David Allen said...

...and if we could combine such reforms with a major cut-back in the scale of the House of Commons too, that would be best. I think there would be strong public support for cutting the number of politicians on the payroll. If the US, a country of 300 million people can manage with a national govt. of 450 odd Representatives and 100 Senator, I think our legislature looks rather bloated...

mutleythedog said...

The problem with first past the post is obvious - but its better than all the others I heard of so far!

Newmania said...

I think our legislature looks rather bloated...


Agreed.


Mutley David is suggesting an element of PR in the second chamber...this is not as bad an idea as some I have heard but basically I agree with you

The Hitch said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Hitch said...

Mr Mania
you are only bitter at the New Statesman as unlike my goodself you have never had a mention in that esteemed organ

Newmania said...

You have never been mentioned in that esteemed organ Hitch I have the current edition and it quite clearly does not mention you.

I was reading it last night and the absence of Hitch was something I especially noticed ...and any way what has this got to do with the price of eggs


(and another any way I care not for the tawdry bauble fame as I have said before )

On theother hand i have it on good authority that my elevation to Doughty Street level will not be long coming

electro-kevin said...

I've no idea what to say about this subject so I will digress:

I would like to see a box on the voting slips marked 'abstention' then we could have a full measure of disenfranchisement in this country. I'm sure the Abstention party would win by a landslide.

Newmania said...

Do you think so Kev ...how so , join a party , vote and campaign. Even your comments around the place make a difference in a small way .

We all do our bit...I am against abstention . If you want to shout at the Telly you have to be prepared to do bit at least..well thats what I think

Newmania said...

Do you think so Kev ...how so , join a party , vote and campaign. Even your comments around the place make a difference in a small way .

We all do our bit...I am against abstention . If you want to shout at the Telly you have to be prepared to do bit at least..well thats what I think

electro-kevin said...

Abstension is activism. There is a huge difference between that and simply not voting. 'Spoiled papers' means anything our leaders want it too and that is unfair on the people who cared enough to turn out but had no way of saying how they felt.

So now we're going to have taxpayer funded parties - how else are we supposed to register that they are failing if our right to refuse to fund them is withdrawn and our financial support for them is enforced on pain of imprisonment ? A frightening development towards one party statism.

An 'Abstension' box would be a small concession to say that we are still a democracy don't you think ?

Personally I think the BBC should be obliged to finance limited political campaigns (well the BBC is public funded by law after all) - there should be no campaigns outside what the BBC provides. Equal time given to all parties. This would limit campaigns and reduce costs and also negate the need for US style electioneering and remove the corrupting influence of big backers.

Newmania said...

The Conservative Party were perfectly happy for limit of £50,000 per backer and I thought that was reasonable.
I must admit Kev I don`t see such cause for despair . There are lots of good people on our side and if I `m honest I assume there are some well meaning idiots on the other side as well.

I disagree that the Parties are so all powerful , they are incredibly sensitive to public opinion . Look what happened with Iraq when a perfecly reasonable , if , in the end misjudged defence decision almost brough the down the Goverment.

No society is going to be free and no-one would want to live in one tnat was . Its far from right but I cannot agree that walking away is the answer

electro-kevin said...

But why not an abstention box ?

Pleeeease ???

Newmania said...

Oh go on then kev...

electro-kevin said...

And as for taking to the streets and rioting - by all means, I'm up furrit but after you, Sir.

Now you didn't honestly think there would be a revolution lead by someone called ... er ... Kevin ???

mary jane rotten-crotch said...

He's soooo hunky !

Philipa said...

Bit difficult for me to do anything - I've had my wings clipped.

electro-kevin said...

Ok, Philipa's out for the time being, so that makes just two of us ... er ... who wants to volunteer to make the Molatovs ?

Blog Archive