I'm ashamed of my government

I just read on the BBC news website that our "esteemed" home secretary has made a speech.
The fact that I am in the 70% of the country who did not vote for them, unfortunately does not matter.

Nothing new about that - the job of home secretary appears to be one of opening their mouths and using the knee jerk reaction to assist in changing feet!

Today Theresa May has made it clear that free movement of people in the EU is not for people to head to the UK to look for work or get health treatment - in other words you can only come to the UK if you are "worthy".

This is, to my thinking, abhorrent - it is the kind of policy that turned away (and continues to turn away) refugees escaping oppressive regimes. How many innocent valuable lives have been shut out of our country in the last 100 years?

Our government and media again seem to have confused legal and free movement from other countries in the EU, innocent people seeking refuge from cruel and oppressive governments and those coming to Europe seeking a better way of life.

The level of immigration is higher than the government would like - hence the Theresa May foot shuffle as she changes which foot is in her mouth.

What is the point of our being in the EU if we decide to pick and choose what we want to be part of - Sometimes I think that Napoleon had us pegged when he said that we were a nation of shopkeepers.

David Cameron (who I still have not forgiven for calling what I do at work "pointy head") who is in charge of what I call the "Taurus excreta" department said that he wanted the UK to be a "buccaneering" trading nation.

Shows what a classical private education at the best schools can accomplish - Buccaneer is another word for pirate or thief. Not really the best description for British industry.

Having said that I guess daylight robbery does more or less count about our banking sector!

I'm off in disgust to listen to Monty Pythons Accountant sea song

It's fun to charter an accountant,
And sail the wide accountan-cy.
To find, explore the funds offshore,
And skirt the shoals of bankruptcy.
It can be manly in insurance.
We'll up your premium semi-anually.
It's all tax-deductible,
We're fairly incorruptible.
We're sailing on the wide accountan-cy.

The people have spoken - but, as usual the politicians hear what they want to hear!

Yesterday there was a general election in the UK and this morning I was able to hear about 10 seconds of the news before I gave up in despair and turned the news off!

All the results are now in and the new parliament looks like this - Tory with a side order of SNP.

On a gain of 1.4% of the votes the conservatives gain 21 extra seats, the Labour vote went up 3.6% and they got just 15 extra seats. Maths is difficult.

On 41% of the total votes cast in England (I'll deal with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in a bit) the Conservatives got 319 out of 533 seats - HOW DOES THIS MATHS WORK?

For the UK it is even worse - 36.9% of people voted conservative - less than 4 people in 10! Yet he has a "democratic mandate" from the people which includes all of us - we voted for him so we got him..............
My constituency is worse - our MP was elected by 31.6% of the voters


If we had Proportional Representation (PR) here the house would look quite different.

Under PR we would in England have -
Conservative - 219 seats
Labour           - 169 seats
Lib dems       - 44 seats
UKIP             - 73 seats
Green            - 22 seats
Others           - 5 seats (independents mostly)

However there is a number that made their statement by Not Voting AT ALL  - these people do not want a government enough to turn out. Or just don't care - so lets give their vote to nobody at all - if they cannot be bothered to vote, nobody should be elected - there were 3 MILLION more people DID NOT VOTE than voted Conservative - 3 MILLION.
Over 1 person in 3 did not vote who could have voted.

The new English parliament looks like this
Conservative - 144 seats
Labour           - 111 seats
Lib dems       - 29 seats
UKIP             - 48 seats
Green            - 15 seats
Others           - 3 seats (independents mostly)
Empty           - 183 seats (Saving 67060 per seat so - £12,271,980 saved per year = ~£70 million by the time pay rises are taken into account in the term of the parliament!)

Scotland has 56 SNP (50% of the vote), 1 Labour (24.3%), 1 Conservative (14.9%), and 1 Liberal MP (7.5%) 

Under PR it looks like this in Scotland - 

SNP         - 35 seats

Labour     - 17 seats

Conservative - 9 seats

Liberals    - 5 seats

UKIP        - 1 seat

Green       - 1 seat

Others  - none

Taking into account the 1.62 Million people who did not vote we get

SNP         - 21 seats

Labour     - 10 seats

Conservative - 6 seats

Liberals    - 3 seats

UKIP        - 1 seat

Green       - 1 seat

Others  - none

Empty -  17 seats (1.14 million pounds saved)

Wales has 40 seats and 25 Labour (36.9% of the vote) 11 Tories (27.2%) Plaid Cymru (12.1%) 1 Lib dem (6.5%) no UKIP(13.6%) and no others

Under PR we get in Wales

Labour           - 15 Seats

Conservative - 11 Seats

Plaid Cymru  - 5 seats

Lib Dem        - 3 seats

UKIP             - 5 seats

Green            - 1 seat

Others           - 0 seats

Taking the 785909 people who did not vote into account we get

Labour           - 10 Seats

Conservative - 7 Seats

Plaid Cymru  - 3 seats

Lib Dem        - 2 seats

UKIP             - 4 seats

Green            - 1 seat

Others           - 0 seats

Empty           - 14 seats (£938840 saving per year)

Northern Ireland has 18 seats and an electorate of 1,236,683 

DUP                               - 5 seats (Actual 8)

Sinn Fein                       - 4 seats  (Actual 4)

SDLP                             - 3 seats (Actual 3)

UUP                               - 3 seats (Actual 2)

Alliance party                - 2 seats (actual 0)

The others got 1 seat for real and get 1 seat under PR

But lets take the whopping 41.9% who did not vote at all

DUP               - 3 seats

Sinn Fein         - 3 seats

UUP               - 2 seats

Alliance          - 1 seat

Everybody else none with 8 empty seats (Saving us a cool £536480 a year in salaries)

For the UK a a whole we get the following taking no votes and PR

Unfilled - 223 seats saving £74771900 over a 5 year term

Conservative - 159 seats

Labour - 131 seats

UKIP - 54 seats

Liberals - 34 seats

SNP 20 seats

Green 16 seats

DUP and Plaid - 3 seats each

Sinn Fein and others - 2 seats each

SDLP, Alliance party and TUSC - 1 seat each

Is the UK turning into a rotten borough?

Today's news headline on the BBC website ia "Leaders set out rival 'choices'"

What choice do we actually have here? It makes me think that we seriously need to examine our electoral system as I fear that we are rapidly turning into a rotten borough, or at least a modern version of one.

Historically a rotten borough was a throwback to when a constituency had a royal charter to elect members of parliament, these were often controlled by the mp or landowner with people given little or no choice on who they elected.

Rotten or pocket boroughs were officially abolished in an electoral reform act in 1832.

In this election we had various party leader debates and all the parties talk about "Choices" we are told that to get a government of a particular stripe we have to vote for that party.
In our system over 50% of the votes were wasted in the last election - over 64% in my constituency were wasted. - votes posted for losing candidates and no votes

I am seriously annoyed that the media and politicians have perpetuated the myth that we have a democratically elected government - in truth who are we electing?

I get to vote for 1 person to become the mp for this constituency - that person represents a party (I have no choice in that - there are no independent candidates) - a vote for a candidate is seen as a vote for the party of the winning candidate (regardless of who I actually voted for)
As a voter I have no say about who the parties nominate for election, nor do I have a say in the policies or beliefs of the parties, nor do I have a say in the leader of that party.

We do not vote for the party leader - nor do we elect a government.

Given the major disconnect between who we actually vote for and the reality I think that it is time for electoral reform .

The Government will say that we had a referendum on electoral reform and the vote was in favour of the first past the post system, but they don't listen to the question they actually asked which was would you like to change the existing electoral system to the alternative vote? - this was a simple yes or no question with a very specific yes answer - this is not the same as electoral reform.

In actual fact the party leader with the greatest number of seats in the house sets up a meeting with an unelected monarch who invites them to form a government.
If there is a coalition we get no say in that either - it seems to me that things have been stitched up.
the politicians and those in power.

Life will not change significantly no matter who is in Government - in fact things stay pretty much the same - so vote for choice or live in a rotten borough where democratic power is kept well away from the people and in the hands of parties who have their own agendas and an unelected octogenarian.

Hey in Britain we can do both.


In actual fact I do, as a member of a trade union I am allowed to vote in Labour party elections, but I abstain from voting as I have no particular affinity with or wish to be a member of any political party. I also do not pay the political levy on the union membership.

The weekend before an election

Unless you have been living under a stone for the last several months there is a general election here on Thursday (7th May)

I, for one, have had more than enough of the rhetoric and attempts to score hollow points victories.

I'm going to give you my honest opinion here

I've checked the wording on my polling card and guess what - all these leader debates, party political broadcasts, endless tedious interviews on the news, TV and radio were all to divert the attention from the question you are actually asking me.

In the election I am being asked to elect a candidate to be a member of parliament.

That is right I am voting for a PERSON, I am not voting for the prime minister, the government, or even for a party - I am electing a person to become a member of parliament

I am fed up, sick and tired, of politicians making up answers for me to questions that they have not asked.

The way the system works is amazingly good at NOT listening to the country.
Our next Prime minister will be the leader of the party that gets the highest number of seats in the house of commons - not the party with the highest number of votes, nor even the one best able to run the country.

The next guy who takes up residence at No 10 Downing street will not have been elected by the population, nor does he have a democratic mandate - an octogenarian monarch will actually invite him to form a government.

The leader (elected by his party members) will then unilaterally appoint the cabinet and the new (unvoted for) cabinet.

Somehow my vote for a local MP who is a person is somehow read into this one cross on a piece of paper into a vote for a party (that I may not have voted for), everything that the party stands for and every crazy idea that they will come up with in the next 5 years until they pretend to take an interest again in what we want.

I am also worried about how our process has evolved from - in the words of the US constitution
"Government of the people, by the people and for the people"
To "Government of the economy, by the elite, for the bankers"

I did find it interesting to notice when a colleague started talking about listening to customers requirements and meeting his needs and requirements our prime minister's eyes glazed over and within a couple of seconds he had lost interest and dismissed us as "pointy heads" as though the concept of listening to customers and doing what they want is alien to him?

The right to cause offence?

Today that old Etonian Champagne lout,  David Cameron decided to disagree with the leaders of the Islamic faith and the Pope, leader of a billion believers in the world - so hardly minorities who call for people to show respect for deeply held faith and beliefs.

Mr Cameron said that in today's society there should be the a "right to cause offence about someone's religion" - there is however no such right to ridicule for example Stephen Fry marrying his two decade younger "toy boy" yesterday, I mean to suggest that this is anything bust normal and completely  acceptable would lay myself open to accusations of homophobia - despite what the church has traditionally taught.

Of course there has to be the freedom to lie and offend - otherwise how the heck could the politicians of the world get their message across?

The right of freedom of speech is worth defending - but if their is the right of freedom of speech then surely nothing has to be off limits including me expressing an opinion that is deeply held that marriage should be between a man and a woman and for life (the fact I am not married need not make me unqualified to hold this view, which I am happy to admit is an ideal)
There should be the right of freedom of the press, but there should be the responsibility of the press to act responsibly and not ruin innocent people's lives.

The right of freedom of speech is ironically, as I mentioned before, not accompanied by any requirement to listen - therefore I suggest the following -

1  If you want to make fun of deeply held religious beliefs, then the least you can expect us to do is SHARE OUR VIEWS WITH YOU - AT LENGTH and to ridicule your inconsistent beliefs as well - I mean if you expect us to take a joke, we are surely allowed to share back

2 If you expect us to carry on watching your ridicule and offensive diatribes you can expect to be turned off and we won't buy your shoddy magazines or watch your shoddy shows.

3 If I actually am present when you do this kind of thing I'll stand up, put my fingers in my ears and shout "LA LA LA, I'm not listening" turning my back on you to show my feelings

As the lead up to the UK general election happens - no doubt politicians of all persuasions will spout more and more unbelievable things to try and convince us that they

A Have honest intentions
B Have a clear agenda and
C The resources to carry it out

As we all know, the last person who entered parliament with all these credentials was Guy Fawkes.

Terrorism and over-reaction

The other day terrorists attacked and killed a number of people in Paris at the headquarters of a satirical magazine called Charlie Hebdo.

Now I have some pretty strong feelings about freedom of speech and freedom of expression and based on absolutely NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER I feel that Charlie Hebdo would be a magazine that I would not approve of - it seems that they regularly attack faith and push the boundaries of decency.
Guess what folks - on that basis I don't BUY the magazine - I mean why the heck should I spend MY money on something I don't agree with and is likely to wind me up.

Whatever the provocation I think that going on the rampage with guns is over the top and unlikely to present a showcase for tolerant or mainstream Islam, any more than the crusades were a lesson in tolerant and loving Christianity!

The people who carried out this violent attack were not acting rationally nor within the teaching of their faith, but more to the point WHY THE HELL DID THESE IDIOTS BUY THE MAGAZINE THAT SO OFFENDED THEM??

One of the downsides of freedom of speech is that sometimes we have to allow people we disagree with the freedom to spout their hate message (Like Nigel Farage and UKIP)
there is however no need to go out and SEEK being offended - what kind of moron would actively watch a UKIP party political if they are (I'll tone it down from "Rational human being" to) a Europhile.

The other thing that got me was the idiot decision by that old Etonian Champagne lout David Cameron who does prime minister impressions (Have you heard his Tony Blair?) who has decided that means of communications that are not designed for public consumption have to be able to be read by the security services - so end to end security will be illegal.

DAVID - this means that you have access to my bank account if I want to use online banking - this is unsafe - if you want to compromise this so the security services can read it what is to stop bad people using the same loophole and backdoor?
It is like the blooming ridiculous TSA approved locks on luggage - these can be picked by security who have tools to do this and obviously NO sets have EVER been lost or mislaid.........

You say the innocent (like  Jean Paul de menezes and the at least 30 other cased of justice miscarriage in the last 10 years) have nothing to fear........

I hope that David Cameron does not get his way on this bill that would not make us any safer