www.mainstream.org.uk Here and the rest of Europe - back to normal. Now.

For the Majority, not the Minorities Why 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. In 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'. In 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 We 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. JOHNSON'S PLAYING WITH FIRE THREATENS OUR DEMOCRACY "our reckless and narcissistic prime minister, by using one-off legislation to circumvent the constitution, is endangering democracy for us all" The Fixed Term Parliament Act (FTPA) was put in place in 2011 to bring more 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. (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 party leaders 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. Most laws stipulate what the public can or cannot do. The FTPA is different, it tells MPs what to do and says "You must have the support of 440 MPs to call an election". It doesn't say "You must have 440 MPs to call the election, unless you decide that's too difficult, and so amend the FTPA rule so you only need a majority of one vote". Has Johnson acted illegally again? is this another case for the Supreme Court? One-off laws 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. 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 decide to vote in 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 ordered all his Labour MPs to YES to the 12th December date. This hypocrisy - 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.

Tory Home secretary Sajid Javid "No single solution to knife crime" We've got a knife-crime emergency. Every week the toll of knife stab victims mounts; and every week our knobhead politicians like Javid, come up with another "new plan" which is going to work. more...   MAINSTREAM - a brief history MAINSTREAM is a small, new political party - founded in 2005 and based in the West Midlands. The idea of MAINSTREAM is to try and re-create, what we always had up to about 40 years ago - a party capable of getting majority support - i.e., the support of more than 50% of voters, in an election. Our Parliamentary system of first-past-the-post is not going to change any time soon: it was confirmed by a people's vote in the 2011 referendum. We're keeping it. Right now it's not working well - but that's not down to the system : It's down to the useless collection of politicians, and political parties, which have taken over our politics. They're all totally out of touch with ordinary people, representing only powerful and rich minorities and pressure groups. Their ideas about what's right and wrong, what's sensible and what's sick - don't come from the grass roots or from working people - they come from snooty intellectual think-tanks based in North London. continue ....

Changing the EU from the inside is IMPOSSIBLE. Now we can put pressure on them from OUTSIDE, to return to the original Free-Trade, free movement zone, an assembly of sovereign states each with its own laws and parliament, WITHOUT any EU 'directives' and 'European Parliament'

2005-2019  Mainstream . Published by Mainstream, PO Box 6239, Coventry, CV3 9JD. (Party registration PP492.)