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

‘It was RIGGED for Remain!’ Brexiteer makes BRILLIANT point to silence complaints


Exactly.

Also we are told we should respect Democracy, so there was a Referendum in 2016 where the turnout was above 70% way above the general 60% or even lower percentages and these other elections are respected and the result not queried.

The electors were lied to, Yes but by both sides. If one side lied more than the other does this make the lying by the lower party any more believable than the majority party. In fact, the Electorate are lied to at all elections by all Parties. In fact the electorate are lied to by Politicians every day.

The result was a win for leave , yes, by a small amount, but some General Elections have been won by even smaller amounts and they were not queried and a rerun requested.

As it was a leave win and MPs say they are there for their electors, why is there a majority of MPs on the side of remain. Is it that they really do not respect the wishes of their electorate, but follow their own opinions, even when this is the opposite of that of their electors, is that respecting Democracy.

If we do not leave the EU then Democracy within the UK is Dead.

Yes, it may be the wrong decision, but so may be the election of particular Parties in a General Election, but we do not have the losing side demanding a rerun.

If we remain in the EU this just proves that some, may be all, MPS are in it for themselves and they do not care or respect the views of the electorate.

ukgovernmentwatch

Brexiteer Tim Montgomerie V Remainer Amrou Al-Kadhi

During BBC’s Politics Live BrexiteerTim Montgomerie claimed if the referendum hadbeen rigged it would have been in favour of Remain, not Leave.  He said the massive spending by the government on the Remain campaign supported this.

Politics Live panel guest Remainer Amrou Al-Kadhi brought attention to the fact that Jeremy Corbyn has been reluctant to support a second referendum or a Remain campaign.

Mr Kadhi called on the Labour leader to rally his party because more MP’s are more Remain than leave.  BBC presenter Jo Coburn asked the political commentator Mr Montgomerie how he felt on the claims that the 2016 referendum was moot because people were lied to.

Mr Montgomerie responded:

  • “I think if we cancelled elections or referenda in which politicians hadn’t told the whole truth, I’m not sure we would have any government or referendum outcome ever…

View original post 551 more words

Democracy and the ‘Voice of the People’.


Democracy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

democracy means rule by the people.[1] The name is used for different forms of government, where the people can take part in the decisions that affect the way their community is run. In modern times, there are different ways this can be done:

  1. The people meet to decide about new laws, and changes to existing ones. This is usually called direct democracy.
  2. The people elect their leaders. These leaders take this decision about laws. This is commonly called representative democracy. The process of choosing is called election.[2] Elections are either held periodically, or when an officeholder dies.
  3. Sometimes people can propose new laws or changes to existing laws. Usually, this is done using a referendum, which needs a certain number of supporters.
  4. The people who make the decisions are chosen more or less at random. This is common, for example when choosing a jury for a trial. This method is known as sortition or allotment. In a trial, the jury will have to decide the question whether the person is guilty or not. In Europe, trials with a jury are only used for serious crimes, such as murderhostage taking or arson.

To become a stable democracy, a state usually undergoes a process of democratic consolidation.

The above is a definition of Democracy, but there are many others.

My own view is Democracy is the free voting by the population of a country to elect members to enact the views of the population.

Mainly this is done by a General Election here the population elect members (MPs or Members of Parliament) to represent them in a collective body, in the UK this is in Westminster, the House of Commons. Each candidate in each constituency issue their own Manifesto or is it the manifesto of their party. Ideally the voters in each constituency vote for their representative from the information contained in the such Manifesto. But in reality do they for each household my not receive details of each prospective parliament candidates manifesto and in many instances not even their name. When they vote on Poling Day the voting paper contains the name of each person up for election and also the Party they represent. So are the electorate voting for a named person, a named party, or both. Well who knows for this information is not available.

Then in the Manifesto there are so many areas contain within it. The voter my believe in all of the stated areas, but in reflection do they for who collects this information. However, the winning candidate in each constituency is them the MP for that constituency and when all results or in the Party who has the most elected MPs is requested to form a Government, if they can or a coalition of other parties or party. When this process is concluded are there any rules that the winning party progress through their 5 years on the basis of the manifesto, short answer is no, but it is assumed that they will and if they do not there is an opportunity at the end of 5 years to vote them back in or not.

During the course of the Parliament there my be occasions to call a Referendum on a stated subject with various options available from 2 or more.

One such referendum was the 2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum and this should have been a simple process for there was only 2 options to leave the EU or to remain. Facts were produced by all the various parties on either remaining or leaving, but were the fact mentioned correct. No they were not in many instances from both sides remain or leave.

The result was 52% to 48% to leave the EU, so this should have been cut and dried that all persons involved should have been working together to obtain the best possible result to leave. But remain did not honour that result and started an all out campaign to reverse the result.

The result was, in no question, a result to leave based on the percentage of those that were prepared to vote and the turnout was 72.21%, way above the usual percentage turnout for a General Election being

‘In 2001, turnout fell to 59.4%, its lowest level since 1918 and down 12% points compared with 1997. Although turnout rose again in 2005-2010, it was still below its 1997 level. In 2017 UK turnout was 66.8%, and turnout in each of the countries of the UK was below the 1918-2017 average for the UK, which was 72.9%.’ according to Turnout at electionsContains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.

Based on that information the elected representatives should have supported the leave vote as it was a turnout large than any General Election, certainly since 2001 and the results of General Election are not normally questioned.

This brings into question do elected representatives, MPs have to follow the views of their electorate, or can they do as they please, surely with such a turnout and a result not based on party allegiance, they should have abided by the result.

During our negotiations with the EU there should have been no question to query that the UK was going to leave the EU, but with the strong demand by persons not respecting the result, did they believe such or was there a strong feeling that the remainers would succeed in overturning the 2016 result.

Many points have been raised to invalidate the result, the people did not understand what they were voting for, leave lied during their campaign, the views of the younger generation (those under 18 years of age at the time of the Referendum) were not represented, leave voters had now changed their minds and therefore there should be another’s Peoples Vote. The later, in fact, implying that the 2016 Referendum was not a people’s vote.

All of the above could be said of General Elections, but there is never such a campaign to overthrow General Election results.

However, with the winning margin being so small, although there have been winning margins as small, if not smaller in General Election, it could be said that the winning vote may not have been definitive, as the remainers do claim, but if they are correct then the results of General Elections should also be declared invalid.

Labour are now campaigning as are many remainers for a’People’s Vote. but should they not be saying another ‘People’s Vote’ for are not all votes a ‘People’s Vote’, for if they are not, who then is voting, are they not people?

These are purely ‘sound bites’ to emphasise their cause, for they do not want a people’s vote, but a vote that they agree with, a vote to remain in the EU.

However, as I have already said, the People’s Vote. on this question has already been done, the 2016 Referendum. If it is deemed that another referendum is required, which I do not agree with, then the only questions to vote on should be on how we leave the EU, of which, ‘No Deal has to be one option and in effect the nearest option to the 2016 referendum, which stipulated that a vote to leave would mean ‘No Customs Union’ and ‘No Single Market’.

As the elected representatives, MPs, are to some extent not proceeding on how their constituents voted in 2016, in which case any constituency that voted to leave, then their MPs should be conducting themselves likewise and then the same for MPs of constituencies that voted to remain.

Do we need a revision of the voting system?

Whereby in every aspect the MP of any constituency has to vote in accordance with the majority of all of their constituents, whether they voted for the MP or not, for a MP is the representative for all the constituents, not just those that voted from them.

It also beggars the question, that in General Elections can both the Party and the Candidate be mentioned on the ballot paper. surely it should be only one and then the people would be clear who or what they are voting for, either a Party or a Person, for you can not have both.

Should it be a Party then the MPs always for as the Party wishes irrespective of what their constituents wish, or if a named MP, then the MP should always vote how their constituents wish irrespective of how their Party wishes.

No matter what our current system of voting and the conduct of elected representatives is a shambles and drastic changes are in need of being required.

 

Juncker sends DESPERATE letter to MPs in last-ditch attempt to win Brexit deal support


This is about tim, but is it too late.

All along the EU have been of the opinion that the UK will not leave the EU, buoyed up by the unrelentless campaign by remainers to overthrow the 2016 Referendum result.

The Remainers have and will not ever respect the referendum result and are clearly no respecters of democracy.

If, as is more than likely, Mays deal is not supported then No Deal is the only alternative. In no way should there be any approach to remain in the EU.

If there is another referendum, which I feel there should not be then the only two options should be No Deal or if possible a renegotiated Mays deal, with the proviso that should it not be possible to renegotiate then the fallback is no deal.

If another referendum is forthcoming and remain is one of the questions then I see no point in voting as the leave vote will be split, giving an advantage to those who do not respect democracy, the remainers.

Should it come to pass that we remain in the EU, then I see no point in ever voting again, as if a referendum can not be respected why should any other vote be respected.

As to lies being made, I would says lies were made by both leave and remain and in effect lies are made in every election, for do we really believe what is stated in any Manifesto.

ukgovernmentwatch

On Monday, a letter from Mr Juncker is expected to try to reassure MPs the Irish backstop would keep the UK in a temporary customs union if it needed to be triggered. Mr Juncker and Mrs May are currently exchanging letters ahead of Tuesday’s vote to try to determine what can be done to help the deal pass through Parliament. One option that has been discussed is the possibility of the European Commission making additional pledges to conclude a trade deal with the UK by the end of 2021 in a hope to ease Tory fears the backstop could become a permanent arrangement.

https://nytimespost.com/juncker-sends-desperate-letter-to-mps-in-last-ditch-attempt-to-win-brexit-deal-support/

GW: That EU Irish Backstop fillip has now been rumbled hence the ”desperate letter”

View original post

DWP Employee Knowingly Lied To MP Says Claimant


Lies and then more lies, that is par for the course for the DWP and MPS just lap it all up.

But then what is it about MPs and lying.

Do MPs understand about lying, what evidence is there for yes or no. The Expenses scandal, #Me Too, need I say more!

Same Difference

Spotted here.

I now have enough evidence to show that a DWP employee knowingly lied to my MP with the intent to deceive. The DWP is ignoring my formal complaint request. My MP really wants to believe the DWP so is ignoring my correspondence. Does anyone know what the law is for a public sector working knowingly deceiving an elected official?

People in the comments thread of that Facebook post are asking for the MP to be named and shamed. However, that is not what concerns Same Difference. The questions we feel we must ask are: How many more DWP employees are doing this? Will anyone ever do anything to stop it happening, if there are more?

These questions may be stupid ones, and we fear we can guess the answers to both.

However, that’s the whole problem, isn’t it, readers?

View original post