For the Majority,
not the Minorities
can't there be a party that gets 60% of the electorate's vote? We
all have different views but there are plenty of views shared in
common by at least 60% of people.
opinion polls you include the 'dont knows' - or the poll
is meaningless. So in analysing actual election results, you must
include the 'no-shows' - those who stay at home instead of
voting. They're just as important as the ones who turn out to vote.
So percentages must be based on the whole electorate, not just those
who vote. Non-voters are NOT lazy young people who can't be bothered
to get off the sofa - they're people who would LIKE to vote - if
only there was a party / candidate they could support! They in effect
DID vote - for 'none of the above'.
the 2017 snap election called by Theresa May to 'improve' her position,
but which turned out a disaster for her, the Tories were marginally
the most popular party but with just 29% of the electorate's votes.
And Labour who came second, got 27% of the electorate. No party
gets even half the electorate's support - nowhere near! This continues
the trend for the last 40 years . Is it any surprise when you look
at how out of touch ALL of Parliament's MPs are, with ordinary people?
a new party for the centre
need a populist party . A popular party, a people's
party, to represent the majority who don't identify with the establishment
parties of 'right' and 'left'. With new populist policies from the
centre, a party for the centre ground, for the political MAINSTREAM.
PLAYING WITH FIRE THREATENS OUR DEMOCRACY
reckless and narcissistic prime minister, by using one-off legislation
to circumvent the constitution, is endangering democracy for us
The Fixed Term
Parliament Act (FTPA) was put in place in 2011 to bring some stability
into politics. Future governments would not be able to call snap
elections to get political advantage, when opinion polls suddenly
seemed favourable for their party. (Well, that is unless they had
the backing of an overwhelming majority of MPs). Just six years
later, Theresa May decided to do just that (after promising not
to) - when the Tories went 20 points clear of Labour in the polls.
She complied with the FTPA - getting the big majority in Parliament
she needed. Suppose May hadn't managed to get the 440 votes necessary
to call her 2017 election - what would she have done? She would
have abided by the FTPA rule, accepting that this was in effect
now part of our constitution.
But not Boris
Johnson. This reckless and narcissistic prime minister had already,
back in September, showed his disregard for constitution, trying
to use executive powers to get around it - changing the traditional
three week party conference suspension, into a massive six week
prorogation, to prevent Parliament discussing Brexit. This caused
uproar, was opposed by most MPs, and as we know the Supreme Court
stopped Johnson doing this.
Now in 2019
Johnson tried to call his snap election under the FTPA. Unlike Theresa
May, he failed to get the two-thirds majority or anything like it.
What does Johnson do? Abide by the FTPA act? No. This act, part
of our unwritten constitution, isn't good enough for him - he gets
around it by devising a one-off piece of legislation saying "Notwithstanding
the Fixed Term Parliament Act, on this occasion only, I am allowed
to call a snap election with a majority in the Commons of just one
MP". Like Henry VIII - you find a law is incovenient, so
you just remove it. Previously the opposition parties opposed Johnson's
by-passing constitutional procedures. Not this time - on 29 October
with eye-watering hypocrisy, all the Westminster parties helped
Johnson to circumvent the FTPA act, seeing benefits for their own
ambitions. Think about it: this law stipulates a process needs a
two-thirds majority of MPs. How can it be legal to then amend this
law, changing the "two-thirds" requirement, to just a
single vote? Surely to amend the FTPA in this way, should itself
need a two-thirds majority of MPs. Has Johnson acted illegally again?
is this another case for the Supreme Court?
are a dangerous notion anyway. Laws made in Parliament are supposed
to last indefinitely - not just have effect only for one day, and
then magically melt away from the statute book. Now because of what
Boris Johnson did on 29 October 2019 - what's to stop any future
Prime Minister from passing a one-off law saying "Notwithstanding
the FTPA, this government will remain in power for 20 years"
And the date
chosen for the election, 12 December, is itself controversial. There
hasn't been a December poll for a hundred years. There's a reason
- the middle of December is very dark and tends to have very cold
weather. If we get snow or floods, the large part of the population
living in the country could be unable to vote. A century ago, the
Christmas season didn't start until a week beforehand; now it starts
months beforehand, the 12 December date is at the height of the
holiday / party / sickness season, postal services will be slow,
key staff unavailable. Royal Mail's warnings have gone unheeded.
On 12 December in the Midlands it will be dark at 4.30 in the afternoon.
In Glasgow there'll be only seven hours of daylight. In all of our
big cities, this risks disenfranchising another large part of the
electorate - the over 60's sector. If they leave their vote till
the evening, after dark our streets are so dangerous they won't
be able to leave their house so they lose their vote. These risks
were summed up perfectly by Jeremy Corbyn, on 28 October: "the
12th of December is a terrible choice of date, less than two weeks
before Christmas, on one of the shortest days of the year".
The very next day Corbyn and all his Labour MPs voted YES to the
12th December date.
- saying one thing, voting another - sums up the whole dreadful
2017-2019 Parliament. MPs of both the main parties voting, not for
what they believe, but in a way that makes the other party get the
blame when things go wrong.