Bad enough that the EU mafia and its zealots in the national political establishment treats democracy with utter contempt:
… the EU establishment making Ireland vote again when it voted the “wrong” way
… the French elite ignoring their referendum and passing the Lisbon Treaty ANYWAY through parliament
… the EU/Franco-German Axis forcing out the democratically-elected PM of Greece for daring to suggest a referendum on the the euro for his people and replacing him with an ex ECB/EU/GS apparatchik like some Nazi Gauleiter in 1938
… the EU zealots pushing their agenda for a United States of Europe which NOT ONE SINGLE EUROPEAN CITIZEN HAS EVER VOTED FOR
… the launching of the euro KNOWING it would fai,l but believing that the failure would FORCE European nations to federate (see here: http://www.nemo-insula.net/public/EU/cases/eurocon.htm – Nobody can say they have actually HIDDEN their agenda.)
No, all this is the quasi-fascism we have come to expect from the EU but this contempt for democracy is now spreading into our OWN country:
10,000 postal votes for Labour in this last bye-election in Wythenshaw. TEN THOUSAND people who “can’t get to the polls”? What sort of banana republic is this?
It is well-known that in “Muslim areas” heads of households routinely fill in everyone’s ballot card for them and post them off.
The “secrecy” of a ballot is totally insecure with postal voting; there is no doubt whatsoever that many women in “ethnic areas” have their votes decided by men.
It is staggering that this is allowed. Labour of course, greatly enhanced postal voting KNOWING it would massively help them.
Added to this is the boundaries inconsistency, which massively favours Labour. This is from “The Daily Telegraph”:
“The geography and the electoral map are against the Tories: they need a 10-point lead on polling day to get an overall majority of one seat”. He cites research from YouGov pollster Peter Kellner showing that if Labour and the Tories were to gain an equal share of the vote at the next election, Labour would get 80 more seats.”
The Labour Party would NEVER be elected without Scotland, so in effect the English have their government decided by the Labour-voting benefits-lumpenmass in Scotland.
And the “(West-)Lothian Question” has not been solutioned, just ignored. As it is difficult to solve without their losing votes and power, Labour in particular hope it will just go away – people get bored with stuff so quickly – but it won’t, and English are feeling increasingly angry. And on a point of information, if the SCOTS can vote on whether to be independent why can’t the English do the same? Or indeed whether we want the SCOTS to be independent?
THE FPTP VOTING SYSTEM
This NEVER returns a HOC which is representative of the people. MILLIONS OF CITIZENS are NEVER represented in parliament. This is a quite extraordinarily undemocratic state of affairs. YES, there are some practical advantages of FPTP and YES, PR can be a pain, but the current system is UNDEMOCRATIC.
1951: Labour had the most votes, yet Conservatives had a majority of 15 in HOC seats.
1974: Conservatives have most votes but Labour was given the right to form a government because they had the most seats.
1983: Labour won 27.6% of the vote but 32.1% of the seats. Lib/SD 25.4% of the vote, yet 3.5% of the seats. Yes, Labour won 2.2% more votes than the Liberal-Democrats but 28.5% more seats.
In 2005, Labour won a majority of seats and thus formed a government on just 35% of the vote.
in 2010, Labour and the Tories together got only 65% of the votes, yet still had 87% of the MPs. Meanwhile only 32% of the current House of Commons were elected by 50% or more of those who voted, a record low.
FPTP encourages tactical voting, so that we NEVER KNOW the true wishes of millions of voters, who may have voted negatively to stop candidate A instead of for candidate B, for whom a vote would have been considered “wasted”.
FPTP suffocates smaller parties and thus articficially sustains larger, established ones, which inevitably become ossified. If such a system existed in business, it would be outlawed as hopelessly monopolistic and harmful.
Summary: FPTP means that:
An election NEVER produces a representative HOC.
MILLIONS of voters are unrepresented.
Because of tactical voting, We NEVER KNOW the true party-preferencies of British citizens.
THE VOTING AGE
Now Labour of course is pushing hard to lower the voting age, which is yet another cynical ploy to win more votes. Of COURSE when you are young you are idealistic and since Labour – unbelievably – manages to project itself as “the caring people’s party”, then the younger you are the more likely you are to vote for it. But how many 16 year-olds have either the knowledge about politics or the judgement required to make any sort of rational decision?
But no doubt it will pass, and the next thing will be to remove the vote from the over 80s on the basis that they are too senile to vote the right way.
All the above collectively mean that democracy in
Britain is badly flawed, which is dangerous.
It STINKS, but of course the dinosaur parties
will change nothing as it SUITS THEM.