May 7 was the most disproportionate election in British history,

[al**bear]

New analysis by the Electoral Reform Society (ERS)

Ukip could have won as many as 80 seats in the general election under a different voting system, according to a new report.

A more proportional method of allocating seats would have dramatically increased the size of Nigel Farage's party in the House of Commons, while the Greens could have ended up with 20 MPs.

Ukip and the Greens received five million votes on May 7, but ended up with just one MP each.

New analysis by the Electoral Reform Society (ERS) suggests that an alternative system of voting would have led to both parties picking up many more seats, while the Conservatives would have seen their tally of MPs fall by almost 100.

"May 7 was the most disproportionate election in British history," said Katie Ghose, chief executive of the ERS.

"It's about time we had a fairer system for electing our MPs.

[joamur_gosof]

Here here archie .well said and exactly that 🙂

[joamur_gosof]

The first-ever national elections were held in the UAE on 16 December 2006. A small number of hand-picked voters chose half of the members of the Federal National Council—which is an advisory body. UAE has largely escaped the sort of Arab Spring, which other countries have had; however, more than 100 Emirati activists were jailed and tortured because they sought reforms. Furthermore, some people have had their nationality revoked[56] A member of the ruling family in Ras al-Khaimah was put under house arrest in April 2012 after calling for political openness. Mindful of the protests in nearby Bahrain, in November 2012 the UAE outlawed online mockery of its own government or attempts to organise public protests through social media

Here is the direction I think this country is heading

[cee-dee]

No chance.

[electric*mayhem*band]

          Harriet @ #26.

[joe_bloggs*]

Germany has had many co-alition governments and seems to do ok

[joamur_gosof]

You live in hope yourself then 🙂

no chance that an amalgamation of wealth can control politics and via that its people ?or just no chance here in UK ?  if second why no chance ? do you know of a secret society that will jump to the rescue if such things occured here .

Your nieve at best if you think money and religion isn't a manipulator,as in UAE

[joamur_gosof]

Its quite worrying I have the last word here ,as one would expect a vicious debate by all, most of course who can quite easily show me the follies of such an argument  against such a once prideful country that would never stoop so low as to gather wealth (aka pilfer) at the expense of its people ,let alone try and control the good folks daily movements ,thoughts ,routines,looks,habits,etc....

But alas nope,its all quiet on the 'we will show you' front .

[malacandran]

The politicians are doing their best for us, and we should all vote for them. 

[upthecreekyetagain]

It is very difficult, (also pointless), to debate with anyone who simply makes statements or allegations without producing any evidence to backup their claims.

[malacandran]

---

@upthecreekyetagain wrote:

It is very difficult, (also pointless), to debate with anyone who simply makes statements or allegations without producing any evidence to backup their claims.

---

That sounds like a good definition of a politician

[joamur_gosof]

I produced evidence of corruption and money in UAE and made the suggestion I feel this is the direction this country is heading....which would you like to discuss first,how wealth is being distributed to give power to a few select here in this country ? What kind of evidence do you want me to show how I see that...a chart ? a newspaper report ? what..............

Now I looked and looked and looked everywhere I knew to debate with papko ,how I see things ..but he wanted non biased just facts ..a bit like yourself with statistics and there is nowhere you can find unbiased or absoloute fact statistics,so I could not debate it and also I could not find the thread it was on either so I assumed it was gone.

I also am suprised proving me wrong with your facts and statistics sounded like well 'I am not bothered to prove anything to someone who theorises'.Well as I said earlier it is quite worrying that there are no facts to just put an end to my silly theorising of where I see this country heading except NO CHANCE in red . If I  theorised the war on Iraq was made up by oil land grabbers then I am sure facts would put me straight.

Appreciate that on a discussion forum ,you all cannot be bothered with a theorist ,but slightly thinking two fingers I won also 🙂

[joamur_gosof]

A couple of facts about opinions on the people by government people (the voice of the people) Directing the countries people where ?and generating wealth for who ?

Current MPs also don’t have to worry about grafting harder to earn more. They are about to pocket an inflation massacring 10% pay rise, whilst working age claimants face a 10% cut in the cash available to pay their benefits. Their £7,000 a year windfall hasn’t made Labour leadership candidates at all shy about giving impoverished claimants a good kicking, however. Caroline Flint, for example, told the Sun that Labour needs to start attacking benefits scroungers and should give people a “kick up the backside”.

Andy Burnham, in a speech to an auditing firm who have been involved in tax avoidance, argued that Labour is seen as “soft on people who want something for nothing”. And, the really depressing thing is, Burnham wouldn’t see even a hint of irony in that statement.

The boss of Britain’s largest welfare to work provider believes that claimants are better off in low paid, insecure temporary work “rather than sat at home watching Jeremy Kyle”. He also argues that the government have to get the “people who are technically unfit to work, back to work” and believes that the appointment of Maximus will lead to an extra 2.5 million people being sent to his company.

[joamur_gosof]

footnote ,all good stuff  and many will be saying jolly good show as they do in UAE 

next up will be a couple of facts on social media policing from a government point of view...if I can be bothered as its pretty pointless discussing anything with anyone  

[joamur_gosof]

Facts are simple and facts are straight

Facts are lazy and facts are late

Facts all come with points of view

Facts don't do what I want them to

Facts just twist the truth around

Facts are living turned inside out

Facts are getting the best of them

Facts are nothing on the face of things

Facts don't stain the furniture

Facts go out and slam the door

Facts are written all over your face

Facts continue to change their shape

Talking heads lyrics ironically

[joamur_gosof]

The Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act was fast-tracked through Parliament in three days last July.

It allows Britain's intelligence agencies to gather people's phone and internet communications data. But former Conservative minister David Davis and Labour's Tom Watson will argue that the legislation is incompatible with human rights. Individuals or organisations have the power to seek a judicial review of any decision by a public body that they believe has been made unlawfully.

However, Mr Watson and Mr Davis say the legislation was rushed and lacked adequate safeguards, and needs to be re-thought. They will argue that the legislation is incompatible with the right to a private and family life, and data protection, under both the Human Rights Act and the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights. Their legal challenge comes as Home Secretary Theresa May draws up proposals to give police and spies new powers to monitor internet and phone use.

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@joamur_gosof wrote:

A couple of facts about opinions on the people by government people (the voice of the people) Directing the countries people where ?and generating wealth for who ?

Current MPs also don’t have to worry about grafting harder to earn more. They are about to pocket an inflation massacring 10% pay rise, whilst working age claimants face a 10% cut in the cash available to pay their benefits. Their £7,000 a year windfall hasn’t made Labour leadership candidates at all shy about giving impoverished claimants a good kicking, however. Caroline Flint, for example, told the Sun that Labour needs to start attacking benefits scroungers and should give people a “kick up the backside”.

Andy Burnham, in a speech to an auditing firm who have been involved in tax avoidance, argued that Labour is seen as “soft on people who want something for nothing”. And, the really depressing thing is, Burnham wouldn’t see even a hint of irony in that statement.

The boss of Britain’s largest welfare to work provider believes that claimants are better off in low paid, insecure temporary work “rather than sat at home watching Jeremy Kyle”. He also argues that the government have to get the “people who are technically unfit to work, back to work” and believes that the appointment of Maximus will lead to an extra 2.5 million people being sent to his company.

---

The problem with comparing different areas and specifics of government spending, (e.g. MP's pay and in work benefits), is that other comparisons can also be made.  For example Welfare spending in the last 15 years has increased from £59 billion to £110 billion, (86%), and in the same period the pay of firefighters has increased from £23k to £29k, (26%).

Both comparisons are meaningless - one side of the comparison is a total sum, the other an individual.  I can think of numerous arguments as to why in work benefits shouldn't be cut but an MP pay rise isn't one of them!

. . . . 'claimants are better off in low paid, insecure temporary work “rather than sat at home watching Jeremy Kyle”' - are you suggesting that it is better that claimants do nothing?

[cee-dee]

Have a read of this and show us all where something similar is being done here? (please don't get swayed by the first few paragraphs, read it all?):-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-32976294

[fallen-archie]

Very interesting article and one which could apply to Scotland at present. One wonders what Vladimir or Joe Public can do about it.

[joamur_gosof]

exactly my point ...you cannot find unbiased data anymore...........

I am suggesting the country is heading in a dire to our freedoms direction,thats all the little bits and bobs tied together ,the undercurrent 

NO CHANCE , was the only answer  ..then I added its worrying and I am not bovvered then turned up.

Intersting link from CD 

Finally Why  is the country NOT going in the direction I suggest ? Facts on a matchbox please sent to wwwcafe ...while you can that is 🙂

[joe_bloggs*]

---

@joamur_gosof wrote:

A couple of facts about opinions on the people by government people (the voice of the people) Directing the countries people where ?and generating wealth for who ?

Current MPs also don’t have to worry about grafting harder to earn more. They are about to pocket an inflation massacring 10% pay rise, whilst working age claimants face a 10% cut in the cash available to pay their benefits. Their £7,000 a year windfall hasn’t made Labour leadership candidates at all shy about giving impoverished claimants a good kicking, however. Caroline Flint, for example, told the Sun that Labour needs to start attacking benefits scroungers and should give people a “kick up the backside”.

Andy Burnham, in a speech to an auditing firm who have been involved in tax avoidance, argued that Labour is seen as “soft on people who want something for nothing”. And, the really depressing thing is, Burnham wouldn’t see even a hint of irony in that statement.

The boss of Britain’s largest welfare to work provider believes that claimants are better off in low paid, insecure temporary work “rather than sat at home watching Jeremy Kyle”. He also argues that the government have to get the “people who are technically unfit to work, back to work” and believes that the appointment of Maximus will lead to an extra 2.5 million people being sent to his company.

---

Looks like the MP's pay rise could be in trouble:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33003782

BBC assistant political editor Norman Smith said PM David Cameron was under pressure after many opposition MPs said they would give the money to charity.

Labour's leadership hopefuls Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper and Liz Kendall have said they will reject the extra money and Labour leader Harriet Harman is thought likely to do so, our correspondent said.

Education Secretary Nicky Morgan, SNP leader Angus Robertson and Lib Dem leadership hopeful Tim Farron have all said they will give the money to charity.Downing Street had previously indicated that although the prime minister was opposed to the rise, he would accept it.