Open Britain: Keir Starmer Opposed to Proportional Representation against Wishes of Labour Members

While the UK democracy system is better than some, America for instance with their Electoral College, it does need improving so the voice of people is much more evident.

Not only should we embrace PR, but should we go further and only have political elections for a Prime Minister and for MPs have no political allegiances and have MPs to vote in Parliament with the will of their constituents and not of their leader.

So on the ballot paper put the leader of each party under the name of their party, but for voting for MPs just state the candidates name and no mention of their party. Each prospective MP would have their individual manifesto and if they veered from it then they would be immediately accountable to all their constituents.

Now that would be true democracy

Beastrabban\'s Weblog

‘Dear David,

The Labour leadership’s radio silence on PR has finally broken. We have our answer.Byline Timesreportedtoday that Keir Starmer is officially against Proportional Representation. While the silence to date has been a constant worry to various electoral reform campaigners, including Open Britain, today’s news is a definite blow.

Ironically, this bad news for PR campaigners immediately followed some great news. Yesterday, the Union of Shop, Distributive, and Allied Workers (USDAW)added its name to the listof Labour-backed trade unions that support the campaign for PR.Labour stakeholders – from trade unions to party members – are overwhelmingly supportive of a fairer voting system.Unfortunately, they don’t get to write the manifesto.

Last month, Labour’s National Policy Forum held a consultation which gave Constituency Labour Parties, branches, unions, and others the chance to make policy suggestions relating to different policy areas. According to Labour for a…

View original post 323 more words

Sheffield tree inquiry: council misled the public and courts in ‘dark episode for Sheffield’ | The Star

Sheffield Council misled the public and courts in what was described as a ‘dark episode’ for the city, according to the damning findings of the street tree inquiry.


Trust in anything has to be earnt and can take considerable time to achieve, if ever, but this trust can so quickly disappear where actions happening are irrelevant, dishonest, unbelievable and much more. Then trust has to be re-earnt if it is ever possible to do, but large and assumed powerful organisations tend to believe that they can do as they wish and don’t show respect to others.

So, let’s hope this is taken by Sheffield City Council (SCC) as a warning to do better next time, but, in the past, there will have been other occasions of similar actions, so will ‘lessons be learnt’ we all hope so, but will they.

This is not just lessons for SCC but all other authorities and especially governments, for governments are seen to be so much more powerful and they do exert their assumed power on these other authorities which is not generally recognised by the population and the authorities are blamed when it should be the government.

It is not the authorities and government who should be powerful, but the populations, but in many instances the populations are discounted to the point of being irrelevant and that is so wrong.

Just relying on elections is way insufficient and many more ways need to be available for the populations voice to be heard and for it to be so much easier to do.

But, here the ability to bring these actions has been made so much more difficult has they can be expensive and the access to Legal Aid has been, over the years made so much more difficult to receive and the time it takes can, if when possible, is far too long.

We are supposed to live in a democratic country and while the UK is so much more democratic than some countries, there is still a much longer way to go for it to be fully democratic, will it, well only time will tell.


Source: Sheffield tree inquiry: council misled the public and courts in ‘dark episode for Sheffield’ | The Star

Do we need political parties? In theory, they’re the sort of organization that could bring Americans together in larger purpose

Americans are not the first to fret over the potential harm that parties can inflict. But parties can also promote the common interest.


For a democracy there needs to be more than one source of a political agenda for there needs to be an element of choice otherwise it is not democratic. However, for a true democracy it depends on the element and freedom of choice.

For in Russia, while in theory there is more than one political party, but effectively there is only one, as there are strict limitations placed on any others and certainly on members of these others.

In America we are all aware of Democrats and Republicans, the two main parties but there are some minor parties being Libertarian, Green, Constitution, and Alliance parties, but their share of the vote is insignificant compared to that of the Democratic and Republican parties.

While in the UK there is Labour and Conservatives who tend govern mostly, but there is also the Liberal Democrats, with the Scottish Nationalist in Scotland, Plaid Cymru in Wales, and in Northern Ireland, Sinn Féin, Democratic Unionist Party, (DUP), Alliance Party of Northern Ireland, Ulster Unionist Party, Social Democratic and Labour Party, and others. Any who win seats in General Elections or Bi-Elections are entitled to sit in the UK House of Commons in London, but in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland they also have their own Devolved Assemblies, although the Northern Ireland Assembly is not currently sitting due to a dispute with the DUP.

Now the definition of a democracy is: the belief in freedom and equality between people, or a system of government based on this belief, in which power is either held by elected representatives or directly by the people themselves. (Cambridge Dictionary)

But, I believe that a true democracy is not only persons governing by being elected by the population on political party agendas, but then govern not only for those who elected them, but for everyone of the population, which may not be the same. So, in the UK during 1918-2022 the share of the vote for the elected ruling party has been less than 50%, so not for the majority of the population. Even those persons voting for whichever party they did, it can’t be said that they agreed with everything that Party was standing for. In the UK both the name of the candidate and the party they are with are both mentioned on the ballot paper in each said Constituency  so, it can’t be assumed that everyone who voted was for the party or the candidate. The winning Candidate who then becomes a Member of Parliament, (MP) is supposed to represent all of the persons in the in the said, Constituency, not just those who voted for them, but in many instances they could be voting on Party lines, just as can be seen in the applauses in Bidens American Address.

It is my belief that when voted in Party politics should be put on one side and the ruling assembly be run on what is best for the whole country and not what is best for some selection of the country, that would be a true democracy and where it is seen not to be there should be immediate accountability and not waiting for the next election.

Source: Do we need political parties? In theory, they’re the sort of organization that could bring Americans together in larger purpose

Matt Gaetz and Lauren Boebert refuse to stand or applaud for Zelensky | The Independent

War-time president receives standing ovation from members of Congress


Who would have politics, but for our sins we have.

Ukraine is fighting for its sole existence and for democracy, if Ukraine fails then, not only will Ukraine not exist, but the writing will be on the wall for democracy too.

Perhaps, the Republican Party is not bothered about democracy, but the majority of Americans are, so, they need to put politics aside if they wish for democracy to survive and this will only occur if Ukraine survives too. For, if Ukraine loses the Ukrainian/Russian war, Putin will see this as his ‘Green’ light to extend his takeover of not just all of Ukraine, but all countries around and maybe many more, the start of a new Russian Empire.

Is this what the Republicans really desire, or are they too in the pocket of Putin. The democratic West will be finished and perhaps, even the World.


Source: Matt Gaetz and Lauren Boebert refuse to stand or applaud for Zelensky | The Independent

What the criminal referral of Trump means – a constitutional law expert explains the Jan. 6 committee action

The House Committee’s criminal referrals show that the proceedings are not just about a historical record – they argue that Trump should be held accountable for four criminal charges.


A Democracy ‘Falls or Stands’ by its Rule of Law, so it is extremely important for America to be, still, seen as a Democratic country, for in the past years through the Trump Presidency and thereafter it has been viewed that money and assumed power is above the Rules of Law.

If the actions of Trump, even one of them, let all that has occurred, had been done by anyother in America they would not be, currently, free to roam as they wish to for they would have been immediately arrested, so it is seen that money and assumed power in America does to some extent bring privileges not afforded to others. This is far from good to ensure democracy continues to exist and leads to the road of supreme power as in a dictatorship. We see in the rise of Putin in Russia how a country which was to some extent becoming more demorcratic and now gone back to being a full dictatorship.

So America please at last see that justice is there for everyone, for not only Americans but everyone in the World.

Source: What the criminal referral of Trump means – a constitutional law expert explains the Jan. 6 committee action

US faces new era of political violence as threats against lawmakers rise | House of Representatives | The Guardian

Members of the House will now get up to $10,000 to upgrade their home security as experts warn such threats endanger the health of US democracy


It should be, without saying that violence of any nature should never be condoned and especially violence to anyone doing their job of work.

However, these days violence appears to be coming a ‘norm’, when it should never be. This appears to be occurring in all countries, be it left or right wing factions and everyone should be working against this trend continuing, especially those in some area of leadership and power of influence.

But, it appears America, to some extent, is an instigator of violence, with some persons in legislator areas, both past and present, actively encouraging violence to persons who don’t represent the same views of them without any apparent fear of arrest and prosecution. This only creates the impression to those whose reactions to be violent are their prime actions to do so. This has to be wrong completely and if allowed to continue will certainly lead to escalation of violent actions leading to eventual disintegration of Law and Order.

Yes, there is freedom of speech, but not to the extent of creating violence to others.

America holds the belief that it is the ‘land of the free’, but it should be free within restrictions so that the human rights of all concerned are respected and not just for the most powerful.

Democracy and Liberty for everyone not just a stated few.

Source: US faces new era of political violence as threats against lawmakers rise | House of Representatives | The Guardian

The Spanish state has launched an offensive against exiled Catalan MEPs

Just shows how, currently, undemocratic Spain is, one would believe that Franco is still in authority.

Josep Goded

The Spanish state via unionist parties has launched an offensive against Catalan exiles and MEPs. The Committee on Legal Affairs of the European Parliament, led by Adrián Vázquez from Spain’s extremist party C’s, announced that it could not verify the MEP credentials of exiles Carles Puigdemont, Clara Ponsatí, Toni Comin, as well as Jordi Solé. He asked for Spain’s Electoral authority, which is under influence of the far-right, to make a decision on the matter. However, Vázquez himself admitted that, for the time being, practical problems would not be an issue for them to continue doing their jobs as MEPs.

“The European Parliament has yet to receive any notification and documentation from Spain to prove the four civilians meet the requirements to get the credentials,” he said

The most surprising part of Vázquez’s explanation is that the decision of what should happen to the four MEPs is in the hands…

View original post 101 more words

Leaders like Trump fail if they cannot speak the truth and earn trust : The Conversation

The absence of trust in a nation’s leader and government jeopardizes an effective response to a health crisis. It also creates a political crisis, a loss of faith in democracy.

Source: Leaders like Trump fail if they cannot speak the truth and earn trust : The Conversation

Opher talks to Opher about Democracy and Government.

What is actually being said, is that no form of Government is totally good, so make the best of what you have.

I also agree that the party system is not fit for purpose as when there is a Party it has been formed for a reason, but in time the way the party is may not be totally in tune with the original reasons for which it was created.

Why is this?

Well situations could change with the passage of time and the changes that have taken place, within the country, Society, the population, etc could mean that the original reasons are no longer relevant.

Or perhaps, the persons in control of the Party are no longer wishing to abide by the original reasons

or other reasons and maybe a mixture.

For myself I do not agree totally with any current Party and with some, virtually nothing they stand for.

I also query the political system for what or whom do we vote for.

Do we vote for a Party or a persons, well currently, it appears both for when it suits it could be a Party or a person.

If we vote for a person then the winner, the MP is supposed to be the MP for all the constituents irrespective of whether they voted for the MP or not, and not just the people you voted for the MP. For the result depends on a number of things, like turnout, percentage of turnout who voted for each candidate.

Turnout could be between say 50% to 70% , so a MP could win a vote by much less than 50% of the total persons in the constituency.

Also not all constituencies are of equal numbers of eligible voters.

So, that is another problem as not all persons within a constituency will be eligible to vote.

None of this shows who voted for the Party and who for the individual candidate and why they voted. Did they like the look of the candidate, like their views and were the views theirs or the Parties.

When people vote did they read the parties manifestos, if so, did they understand then or agree with everything within the manifesto of whom they voted for.

Should the party system be abandoned for voting for MPs and maybe just used for electing a Prime Minister.

Could the Government then consist of the best people for each Ministerial position, irrespective of the Party they belong to.

Just some points to consider.

Opher's World

You don’t like Democracy do you?

No I don’t. I used to but not any more.

Brexit – with all its lies, division and propaganda has clearly demonstrated the flaws. The wealthy elite and those with vested interests ran the show. I do not believe the majority understood what they were voting for. They were carried along on a nationalist narrative fuelled by xenophobia and racism.

Propaganda won.

Why is that?

Well I used to have faith in people but I don’t any more. I guess that I think that half the population have an IQ below a hundred and are much too influenced by the media. They are largely ignorant on many matters, poorly educated and gullible.

The problem with democracy is that the vote of a stupid and ignorant person is exactly the same as that of an intelligent and knowledgeable person.

That’s harsh. I thought you valued…

View original post 449 more words

Amber Rudd resigns from Cabinet and quits Tory party as she hits out at Boris Johnson’s purge | Daily Mail Online

  • Rudd said there was ‘no evidence’ to suggest Johnson was seeking an EU deal 
  • She said she ‘could not stand’ for the dismissal of 21 Tory rebels last week
  • Ms Rudd called the exiles ‘good, strong conservatives with progressive values’
  • In addition to quitting Cabinet she stood by them by surrendering the whip

Cabinet Minister Amber Rudd resigned from the Tory Party last night in protest at Boris Johnson’s sacking of the rebel Tory MPs who voted last week to block a No Deal Brexit.

In a devastating parting salvo, the Pensions Secretary — one of only a handful of Remain supporting Ministers in Mr Johnson’s Cabinet — said she thought there was ‘no evidence’ that Mr Johnson was trying to strike a deal with Brussels.

Announcing that she would be standing as an independent Conservative in her Hastings and Rye constituency, Ms Rudd attacked the Prime Minister’s decision to deselect 21 Tory rebels as an ‘assault on decency and democracy’.

Ms Rudd was criticised by her former Remain allies after pivoting to sign up to Mr Johnson’s Cabinet and backing his pledge to leave the EU ‘do or die’ and had been under huge pressure over her ‘pivot.’


Source: Amber Rudd resigns from Cabinet and quits Tory party as she hits out at Boris Johnson’s purge | Daily Mail Online