PR for national elections in the UK?

The normal political practise these days is to leak potential future government policy ideas to the MSM prior to it being discussed in formal channels. This leaking of policy ideas to a government friendly journalist presumably allows policy developers to obtain some feedback on a new (or more often rehashed) idea, and of course if it goes down badly with the public the story is easily denied.

Being a cynical citizen, I’d say this is cowardly policy making followed by people often out of touch with the demos. The latest rumour/policy story is ‘Proportional Representation’ (PR) for UK national elections.

“Lib Dems may be offered PR as part of power-sharing deal”

…”seen by senior cabinet ministers as a move to prepare Labour for power-sharing with the Liberal Democrats if there is a hung parliament after the next election.”

The arguments over PR have raged on and off for a long time, but it shows that some individuals inside the Labour government feel electorally weak, by even raising the idea of PR as this stage.

I believe that PR is a fairer system than first past the post as it gives greater representation to the people and of course more influence to (presently) smaller parties like the BNP. I hope they bring it in a.s.a.p.

Bring on a hung parliament!

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article3356203.ece

“Realist Party” isn't that the BNP?

From time to time I look in on the sky news discussion forums. I’m not a fan of sky (News International), but their news discussion board, does allow greater freedom for discussion especially compared the BBC's pathetic ‘have you say’, but only on subjects we permit approach.

The politics section occasionally has good discussions and two constant topics are the BNP and the Muslims/Islam etc. Now and again some interesting points will be made. The board does suffer a high level of trolls who whenever like minded people are engaged a respectful debate arrive with the name calling, insults and what I would describe as Marxist influenced mindset, which they may or may not be aware they have. But this aside, ideas are exchanged.

One recent thread encouraged people to post what their policies would be if they had their very own political party. Some were well conceived, but I saw most sense in poster ‘Panthos’ manifesto.

How many items on his list don’t make common sense? Maybe I’d change three or four but that’s it. As another poster comments:

waspish-

“Panthos this is an almost perfect manifesto can you give nick griffin a ring I’m sure he’d love it every bit as much as the working white indigenous minority will. magnificent, clear, consise and nowhere to hide.”

panthos-

“Email is on the way waspish, the people have spoken !”

++++++++++

“Panthers “Realist Party” Manifesto:
Making a change for a better Britain.

1 Out of the EU and into good neighbour agreement to save £10 billion a year
2 End the new 8,5000 Quango’s under Labour costing industry £30 billion
3 Mine coal for power stations
4 Encourage mass production of electro-cars and passenger vehicles under British companies
5 Re-Nationalise Gas, electricity, postal services and telecommunications
6 Privatise the BBC
7 Remove all road cameras except in city centres
8 Replace traffic wardens with city wardens to pick up dog turds as part of their job
9 All hospitals to be accountable to regional health authorities
10 All police forces to be accountable to the Mayor
11 A Mayor to be elected in every ‘Borough’
12 Councils to be accountable to the Mayor
13 Mayors are accountable to the people through public forums of 1,000
14 Public forums are accountable to the people of their districts
15 An MP and an Independent Representative to be elected for every Borough
16 Independent Borough Representatives to be elected to upper chamber
17 MP’s to be accountable to the people by a legal duty to fulfill their manifesto
18 The Queen to appoint the Speaker in parliament
19 The Queen to appoint the speaker in the Lords
20 A Written Constitution to be drawn up within 5 years
21 All persons to be accountable in law to uphold the Constitution
22 Repeal the Human Rights Act
23 Bank of England to remain independent but Chancellor to be accountable for it’s decisions each month
24 Preserve our Gold Bullion and return what Brown gave away
25 Scrap VAT and replace with a 10% purchase tax on certain items
26 Replace car-tax with MOT and Insurance Disk and added fuel charge
27 Trade with Europe and the Commonwealth
28 Impose a Trade Barrier with all non-democratic regimes
29 1 year Work permits given to skilled workers and professional only
30 5 year Work permits automatically permit permanent residency providing no imprisonable offences have been the case
31 Citizenship may be granted after 10 years residency dependant on acceptance and an examination on The British Constitution has been passed including language.
32 Only Christian schools are permitted, pay for them yourself if not state school
33 Parents with kids at private school to get a grant for relieving the state of the burden
34 Family allowance to be means tested
35 Deport all none citizens to country of origin if failing to adhere to the above or if been imprisoned, grant of £5,000 to assist.
36 Refuse entry to ‘extended’ family members
37 Tax on fuel to rise annually in steps to encourage rail transport
38 Mag-Rail to replace main line rail
39 Prime Minister to be subject to 4 yearly fixed term of office
40 Mandatory election if PM changes
41 Foreign Office to engage an office of foreign trade brokers for the world
42 Drug companies to be nationalized and drugs to be given in aid to countries who need them. Costs of prescription to come in line to pay for the service and research.
43 Return Armed Forces to Britain to protect ports, airports and London
44 Ban foreign take-overs of companies and replace with trade licences, and ban tax leaving Britain.
45 Maximum limit on private money leaving Britain is £2 million
46 Ban socialism and all other extremists from the country
47 Make them go underground like rats, and give our army something worthwhile to do ferreting them out
48 Bring back the death penalty
49 MP's are subject to committees for what they say in parliament and may be suspended and fined and their party fined
50 Age of retirement is 60, Pensions to follow wage index
51 All public employees to adhere to contracts which include wage increases in line with inflation
52 Minimum wage retained but increased only in line with inflation
53 All unemployed physically capable of working to serve term of 3 months community warden work at minimum wage if unemployed longer than one year
54 Kick fakers off sick benefit (6 month checks), and make it an imprisonable offence to rob the state.”

http://messageboards.sky.com/ThreadView.aspx?ThreadId=8908

A Crude Awakening

Just recently I watched the movie-documentary ‘A Crude Awakening: The Oil Crash’. Before I watched it I thought it was yet another disaster movie (which have been common lately), with the usual formula of lessons learned and ultimate triumph though new technology. But it wasn’t that type of thing at all, no it was a documentary and far scarier!

A Crude Awakening: The Oil Crash

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0776794/

The Plot summary from IMDB :-

“Supported by a powerful mix of archival footage, NASA shots of burning oil fields, and, often unintentionally hilarious, historical film excerpts, OilCrash guides us on an exotic, visual journey from Houston to Caracas, the Lake of Maracaibo, the Orinoco delta, Central Asia's secretive republic of Azerbaijan with its ancient capital Baku and the Caspian Sea, via London & Zürich. OilCrash visits cities around the world to learn of our future from such leading authorities as oil investment banker Matthew Simmons, former OPEC chairman Fadhil Chalabhi, Caltech's head of physics, Professor David Goodstein, Stanford University political scientist, Terry Lynn Karl, peak oil expert, Matthew Savinar and many more.”

The main themes of the movie are the costs of being dependent on oil and I don’t just mean for transportation and power. I knew oil was used in many by-products but I really didn’t appreciate the true picture. The rapid decline of easily obtainable oil and the future we face with increasingly less oil, for a world requiring more and more oil from less and less places. Increasingly dealing with the future oil sources being what are effectively war zones.

The film also highlights the real lack of commitment of resource and money to finding long-term alternatives to oil. The most memorable part of the film for me was the statement alone the lines that to avoid the worst impacts of the changeover of our economy from oil to an alternative, we would need to begin the process 20 years before the global peak supply of oil is reached, the peak potentially happened 10 years ago or so.

The film revolves around the arrival and passing of the global state of ‘Peak Oil’ which is nicely explained in Wikipedia as:

“Peak oil is the point or timeframe at which the maximum global petroleum production rate is reached, after which the rate of production enters its terminal decline. If global consumption is not mitigated before the peak, the availability of conventional oil will drop and prices will rise, perhaps dramatically.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil

I first heard the term Peak Oil several years ago via the BNP website, yes that’s right the BNP website. They maintain a section on their site which is a good introduction to Peak Oil and worth checking out.

http://www.bnp.org.uk/peakoil/index.htm

While the movie is quite depressing, due to the nature of the subject, there is some optimism in the ability of the human race to adapt, with which I would agree, and add that we would stand a better chance if we elected convictions politicians with vision. Quality leadership is sadly lacking from the usual offering of the Lab-Lib-Con establishment with their big business links.

So if you get the chance see this film you should, and afterwards think whether we have a government which is able to take the UK through the transition from oil to an alternative without disaster, I think not.

Dear BNP

A couple weeks back now I sent an email to the BNP for their ‘Your Say’ page, suggesting it was time for a name change. Unfortunately it didn’t make to cut, maybe it didn’t go down well or maybe they just thought I was talking total crap, it’s possible. I prefer to think it’s because they receive so much mail these days not every email can get posted.

Anyway if it had been posted, I was hoping for some comments from others to gauge opinions.

So here’s the email:

Subject: Hi, for the you say page.
To: letters@bnp.org.uk

“Is it time for a name change?

I have watched with quiet respect as over the last few years as Nick and his team have modernised the party, but remained true to the core nationalist goals. Internally the party is greatly different to that which split from the extreme National Front of the 1980’s and has since the late 1990’s become a viable option for the electorate to consider. Externally the image of the party to most people remains negative, largely due to the efforts of the establishment, media and leftist groups.

For sometime now I have been thinking that it might now be the right time for the party to consider changing its name. BUT WHY? Bear with me and I’ll explain. For many the BNP has a negative image and they will never look at the parties true message because they are told it is bad. If they were to look at the party policies, I doubt there is much they would disagree with. The BNP needs everyone to at least consider its policies, so a name change would provide a short-term chance to reach new voters, before the new name is demonised.

Secondly it is my belief that most N. Irish, Scots and Welsh have never really seen themselves as British, possibly in part but never as the core of their identity, instead getting this from their national cultural traditions. I suggest that only the English seem to have succumbed to the label British with the English identity under attack from every quarter. In today’s Britain many English themselves have given up calling themselves British which is increasingly a purely legal term, as our beloved governments tell us that every Johnny come lately is equally British.

I would recommend changing the party name to the United Kingdom National Party (UKNP), thereby stating in the name the wish to be the nationalist party for all the UK indigenous peoples, another thought would be to adopt a party colour for identity.

Anyway just my view, what do others think?”