That doesn't give the general population much credit, making the assumption that people don't have the ability to know if something is actually important to them or not, only doing as the media instruct. And whilst I agree in part with the idea behind what your saying, I see that as a necessary risk in the pursuit of a fairer system of governance. What I would say is I think referendums should be held under strict broadcasting rules and budget constraints and should actually be about presenting the country with facts to make an informed decision not a political agenda. What this policy would do is allow political movements to build from internet communities, and universities and ground level thinkers and progress to a stage where the country has to take notice. I believe it could be an incredible tool for empowering people.
I think it all started to change with the BBC when they stood up to the government about the Iraq war, refusing to toe the line like the tabloids and the Murdoch empire. The BBC said that the invasion was illegal, gave air time to people like David Kelly, and reported on his suspicious death. And as a result its very existence was threatened, a wide ranging review of it's funding and the licence fee was held, and one of its 'Heads/DGs' was replaced. Since then its reporting has been muted, and it has toed the line. But even that is obviously not good enough for the Murdoch backed Tories, who now want to close down the BBC.
Under proportional representation we would see drastically different results that would loosen the grip on power of Labour and the Tories. Allowing for a wider variety of views and more accurate representation. If changing the way our government is elected, which would result in big changes to representation isn't against the current establishment then what exactly would be?
The policy of proportional representation, auto referendums and the ability to remove an MP by constituents are all things which are against how the establishment is currently run. Ignoring any preconceived ideas about what UKIP stand for, these are policies that would change how things are done and loosen the grip of the current establishment on power. These are views shared by the greens and lib dems amongst others. And yes, as you say, they'd benefit from the change in the system and quite rightly so, they get far more votes than they get actual representation! But whatever the motivation behind the policy, the result of the policy would be a loss of power by those who currently hold such a tight grip on it.
No it doesn't. Changing the voting system means any party who can gain support can gain influence, it doesn't matter why they want the change, the effect of the change is the important thing.
I don't give the general population much credit. They watch X Factor, listen to **** music and vote for the Tories and UKIP. They're idiots! Most people have no idea what's good for them politically and get most of their information about politics from a biased media. They're up in arms about some things, but don't have any grasp of the facts about the issues at all. Spin and propaganda dominate the headlines, the politicians are all full of **** and social media sites are basically gossip, so I'm not remotely surprised. That link that was posted on this thread a while ago showed that people felt that the Tories had the worst policies of the 5 major parties. The electorate genuinely doesn't know what it's voting for, unfortunately. It's intentional. If people knew, then they might change things.
Ignoring the first line, I do tend to agree with a lot of what you've said, it's a shame the state of politics and news. Edit: just realised the X factor bit was in the first line and thought I better make it clear I think it's a total pile of **** and can't believe so many people are suckered into it. Listen to some real music!
X Factor's a marvelous replica of the political system. A small, select group of rich arseholes pick a group of talentless, attention seeking wannabes and tell the public to pick which one they like best. Then they weed out anyone with a personality or individuality, rig the voting system and end up getting who they wanted originally, plus a load of money.
I definitely agree with the 1st line and the rest. It is an unfortunate and sad fact that whoever the Sun has backed in an election in the last 30 years has won that election, regardless of the different policies put forward in that time... As a result, notice how fast everyone was to drop the Leveson enquiry recommendations, and how no media organisation even mentioned them or the scandals that brought about the enquiry. (and how all the Sun/NOTW reporters seemed to get off scot free, while the investigation has turned on how the enquiry was handled instead...)
The reason I don't agree with the first line is because I don't think someone is automatically an idiot for voting for the Tories or for UKIP without knowing there circumstances or reasons first. I've met plenty of intelligent people who make seemingly odd political choices and often if you look beyond your perception of the party in question and listen to why people have voted a certain way it could well be based on a strong view on a certain subject rather than holding the selection of views and values that you personally associate with said party. That said I do tend to think anyone of my generation who votes for the Tories or labour after the two taking it in turns to pillage the country and **** the future for our youth is slightly off there head
Unfortunately, I seem to know a lot of Conservatives and on social media, they were posting this everywhere: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32719779 "Woo! Unemployment down & pay has risen by 2.2% in the last quarter compared to last year". Ignoring the fact that most of the new jobs which have been created are either poorly paid apprenticeships, zero-hour contracts or temporary employment, I don't think that's anything to be gloating about. Wouldn't surprise me if workfare is included in those figures, either! As for pay rising, I bet there's been an increase in pay for those in the private sector/those at the top which have probably distorted the figures dramatically. And even if the figures are genuine, it's a 2.2% increase in the last few months compared to last year! That's hardly anything. Although unemployment may be down, so is growth. The only way that can happen is if people are in short-term or unstable employment... But what are the odds of that, right? Also and I can't remember if this was mentioned before, but I found out that the full-time employment figures include those that are self-employed. The average weekly earnings for those that are self-employed are down 20% since 2006. Not the like the Tories to manipulate the figures though. This is why I understand @PleaseNotPoll's views on the British public. They'll see stuff like this and think things are going well, be easily persuaded by politicians who are a master at being spin doctors, but they won't actually look into what they say and whether they are lying/distorting the truth or not. There's a reason you shouldn't take things at face value but a lot of people tend to do so. Frustrating.
I know quite a few tories, lots of them are intelligent (sorry your the only intelligent ukip supporter i know) but the reason i call them idiots is that a lot of them are public sector workers in wales, all live in wales, one is disabled and 2 are working class. Yet now theyve got their wish and the tories are in - wales will get less money, theyll be job losses in the public sector, so some of these voters may lose their jobs, if they do lose their jobs then theyll be hard pressed to find another in a stagnated economy and will find lityle welfare support. The disabled have been hit up to 17 times harder than anyone else, and the last time the tories were on it took us 20 years to recover in wales. Someone i know voted tory last election and was surprised when she almost lost her job in the cut backs. That is why i think they are idiots, its like turkeys voting for xmas. Or maybe a better analogy is that 'they are alright now, they got a job/savings so dont need to care about anyone else, but they could easily be the next one out of a job/our become disabled. Then theyd be as ****ed as the people they are dismissing now.' UKIP supporters i dismiss because they follow a racist, sexist leader if a party made up of right wing tories, ex bnp and national front members and daily mail/express readers. Who somehow believe that we will be stronger and more dominant in the world by standing on our own and makingbit more expensive for everyone else to trade with us. And, of course, for believing a investment banker who says 'its all johnny foreigners fault'
Let's not forget that Nigel Farage said that immigration is the reason the M4 gets so congested. A laughable and quite frankly, ludicrous claim to make. Has he apologised for it since? Of course he hasn't. That in itself sums him up to a tee. The only reason why his resignation was rejected is because he is basically the personification of UKIP. If he leaves, the others don't have a clue of what to do. Hence why no one else was eager to put their name forward for the leadership position.
Dont forgrt that at the sametime as blaming immigrants for the m4 congestion (and him being late for meetings). At the sametime he wants to stop improvements to the rail line, which would surely ease that congestion.
I think there were a few people who wanted to put themselves forward for the leadership which has caused some of the recent ruffled feathers within the party. It seems compromises have been made and some staff reshuffled.
