UK Column Discussion

There seems to be a clear process of manipulation taking place.

First of all Gordon Brown had fielded the idea of voting reform way ahead of the recent General Election.

Secondly the media had been pushing the idea that there could be a coalition government. This also was way ahead of the election date and even at that time it was clear that New Labour was a dead duck and also historically the Lib Dem results are usually dismal.
Thirdly it seems that David Owen had been working towards coalition government( understandable since it is over 60 years since any flavour of Liberal had been elected) and how else would it be possible to implement the EU agenda of the International Liberal Democrats.

Wouldn't it be ironic if David Milliband had lost the New Labour leadership battle because of the quirkiness of the voting system. He was in the lead for three rounds. Just like our own General Election result with the present system they try to convince us that the country voted for coalition because that is what we ended up with.

Even this recent article below is exposing how the new voting format is being pushed through without proper discussion.

Also of significance

Quote:Rebel MPs say it is an outrage that the Government wants to stage the vote on the day of local elections, arguing that no sensible democracy would hold a national referendum on a major constitutional issue on the same day as other polls.
and

Quote:Mr Clegg is understood to have been assured by senior Tories that any attempt to shift the referendum date will be blocked.

Daily Mail
David Davis leads charge against vote reform as Conservative rebels demand delay to referendum
By James Chapman
Last updated at 8:32 AM on 6th September 2010

Tory critics, such as David Davis, fear that AV would marginalise their party
David Davis today puts himself at the head of a simmering Tory rebellion over the Coalition's plans for reform of the voting system.
David Cameron's former leadership rival insists the Government must consider shifting the date of a planned referendum on whether Britain should adopt the so-called 'alternative vote' (AV) system.
Mr Davis also says ministers will have to agree to implement a threshold for a minimum turnout in the poll if they want to get legislation through the House of Commons.
Today Tory backbenchers will signal the Coalition's first major rebellion as they voice objections to the Voting System and Constituencies Bill.
Though the legislation is expected to pass unscathed through the Commons tonight, there is a real prospect of the Government suffering its first defeat when it returns in the weeks ahead, with even some normally loyal Tories expected to vote against the legislation.
The Prime Minister agreed to allow the public to decide if there should be a shift to AV, which would see voters able to rank candidates in order of preference, as part of Nick Clegg's price for bringing the Liberal Democrats into a coalition government.
The legislation will be debated today as Parliament returns early from its summer recess.
Leaders of a Tory revolt against any change to the traditional first-past-the-post voting system claim the mood has 'hardened' against the plans.
They intend to back an amendment to the Bill to delay the referendum ballot from May 5 next year to September.
Rebel MPs say it is an outrage that the Government wants to stage the vote on the day of local elections, arguing that no sensible democracy would hold a national referendum on a major constitutional issue on the same day as other polls.
Mr Clegg is understood to have been assured by senior Tories that any attempt to shift the referendum date will be blocked.
How the AV system works
The Alternative Vote system means that instead of just putting a cross against the name of one candidate, voters can pick as many candidates as they like, ranking them in order 1, 2, 3 and so on.
Any candidate who secures 50 per cent of the first-choice votes is elected immediately.
But if they fall short of a majority, the candidate with the least first-choice votes is eliminated from the contest, and those that voted for him then have their second choice votes counted instead.
This process continues until one candidate gets 50 per cent of the vote.
When a second preference candidate has already been excluded, the third preference is taken into account.
Supporters praise the way AV ensures every MP starts out with at least some support from at least half their constituents.
Voters can also back a minority candidate as their first choice knowing that their vote is not wasted, since their second preference is likely to come into play.
Opponents say the system encourages tactical voting while among Tory critics, such as David Davis, there are fears that AV would marginalise their party, as Labour and Liberal Democrat voters would usually give their second votes to each other as Left-leaning parties.
Mr Davis, the most senior MP to back the rebellion, told the Daily Mail: 'What we are looking to do is to get the Bill modified to take on board certain things.
'It is quite important that a referendum on such a fundamental change is not voted through by, say, 10 per cent of the population.
'Having a minimum threshold to ensure the legitimacy of the thing is going to be vital. The Government has also gone for the date of the local elections, which I don't think is very clever.
'That will mean the referendum is not wholly representative, because there will tend to be higher turnouts in areas where there are local elections taking place.
'We must avoid a situation where the legitimacy of such a major constitutional change can be called into question.'
Former minister Gary Streeter said: 'There is a lot of concern about the implications for the Conservative Party, about [whether] we would ever have an outright Conservative government again.
If that is the case, we have to ask ourselves, why would we ever vote for this?'
Daniel Kawczynski, Tory chairman of the All Party Group for the Promotion of First Past the Post, suggested up to 70 Labour and Tory MPs could join forces to block the move.
Labour, the only party to propose an AV referendum in its manifesto, is determined to vote against it in the hope of fracturing the Coalition.
It claims a move to reduce the number of MPs from 650 to 600 in tandem with the referendum amounts to 'gerrymandering' as it will reduce a pro-Labour bias in the existing system.



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...z10ku6jb5n

I have just found this article which is dated 27 Sept. It confirms the premise of the original post.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...count.html

Quote
He also attacked the fact that the Labour election was conducted using a system of alternative vote, where people have first and second preferences. This system could be used in UK general elections if it passes a referendum next May.

Mr(Philip) Davies said: 'This huge number of spoiled ballots is a kick in the teeth for those who support AV.' Quote

Let's just look for a moment at Milliband's background.
I don't see anything 'British' about the man.
A Jewish, Eastern European Marxist.
Fits the criteria of current British politics perfectly.
The right man to look after the best interests of the indigenous population!

(02-10-2010 03:13 PM)hetzer Wrote: [ -> ]Let's just look for a moment at Milliband's background.
I don't see anything 'British' about the man.
A Jewish, Eastern European Marxist.
Fits the criteria of current British politics perfectly.
The right man to look after the best interests of the indigenous population!

The inclusion of the outcome of New Labour's labour leadership election was to illustrate the point that under the proposed new voting system there is potential for the final result not to reflect the(consistent) will of the majority. This must surely be seared into the mind of one particular individual.

This has shown that there is scope for manipulation in much the same way that the Conservatives majority in the last General Election was most likely stolen by the fraudulent activities of New Labour in areas which it has been pointed out has a very high percentage of immigration.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11441382

As far as I am concerned it would be justice if Labour were banished from entering No 10 for the next hundred years but to be kind perhaps this can be reduced to 70 years when the secrecy surrounding David Kelly is lifted. ( perhaps this could be the marker for future generations.)

The result of this is that a majority had to be sought through coalition with the Lib Dems who could of chosen either way and although we are told that things are working out harmoniously I regard them as the Cuckoo in the nest in the same way that the Soviets were during the second world war and then the Cold War (Hot Peace).

It is clear that the population was taken in by Bamby Blair who then presided over what became an elected dictatorship with all of the nonsense that the newly elected Conservatives have now been steadfastly dismantling..

Of particular interest is the fact that in the first article quoted as 'Mr Clegg is understood to have been assured by senior Tories that any attempt to shift the referendum date will be blocked'. These Senior Tories have not been named (but we can make an educated guess here) and it would be good at this stage if they could be ousted from the Party which now has true potential but which can be despoiled by the fly in the ointment and that is the links with the Bilderbergs et al.

Jack the Ripper had true potential too. His 'fly in the oinment' was his interest in the internal organs of prostitutes. Perhaps just as with the Conservative's unbalanced need for greed if we could see past these 'small' flaws we'd all see what a barrel of lovelyness J.T.Ripper was too, beneath the hype, so to speak.

I’ve been wondering all evening (it’s seriously late now) if I’m being too flippant to portray my actual position, in the above post?

I stand by it but then again perhaps it is necessary to separate the Conservatives I know and loath from the image and perhaps more-so from the spirit of conservatism, which has nothing to do with the criminality with which the current members of the Conservative Party associate themselves. When I face it some aspects of conservatism could look a little bit like the face of a governing body set up by the people in a Utopia free of the manipulations of the union of the internationalist corporations and the state. If conservatism just pruned away 96.657% of it's anti-virtues then all would be well, (describing these anti-virtues would present a big analysis which I'm too shagadelicly discharged to perform at three twenty A.M. on a Sunday morning, as it is now - here in sunny, or moony, Manchester.)

I’ll say this though, some form of conservatism has to be a positive thing in the U.K., with our history. Even if we are too politically correct to recognise it we have been seen as the ‘Top Country’ continuously since the nineteenth century even up until very recently, even though since the mid eighties we have recognised ourselves to be a non-superpower still the other nations have seen us as being somewhat glorious enough to give us a pop-slot at pole position, granting us kudos beyond that of even the citizens of the U.S.A. This is not without cause. I know, speaking personally, I do rock…

This analysis in the Mail article explains the enthusiasm Nick Clegg has for a change to the Alternative vote system. My first post on this matter highlighted a previous Mail article in September 2010 that told of the promise to Clegg that the referendum would not be deferred as a consequence of the possible conflict with the May Election.

The obvious concern with the new system is that with its built in complexity it would provide an even greater opportunity for covert election fraud to take place and it could be added that whoever controls the counting machines can control the outcome of any election. This is not fanciful thinking because a whistle blower in America told how he was commissioned to install such a program into the hardware. Not only was this program undetectable to the casual user but there was a facility to remotely remove it to protect against any subsequent forensic analysis.

The headline could just have well have pronounced that AV would ensure coalition government for years to come and we can see what this would mean by the present situation where it facilitates the reneging of election premisses in the name of compromise.

The establishment of coalition being the accepted norm is in my opinion the long term plan and all indicators is that it had been the long term goal of the Lib Dem Grandees. Gordon Brown Spoke of it while still in office and if New Labour had stayed in power they would no doubt be still pushing it. However Their experience of the leadership election where Ed Milliband was able to steal the position from his brother through the intervention of the Unions at the last hurdle, has given them second thoughts. Despite this agenda has to be pushed forward no matter what and since Britain no longer has sovereignty under EU law then our politicians have become no more than lakys for the EU Soviet rather than having the interests of the people as their priority.

This situation will provide flip flopping between Conservative and Labour, dependant upon the Lib Dems choosing and the ultimate destruction of this nation that was once able to stand alone against the might of the Nazi jackboot will be complete upon the confusion of differing policies but the underlying agenda will proceed.

Much of the Middle East is striving for the freedoms that we have so long taken for granted yet the machinery for such a system was slowly being put into place by labour but the Conservatives to their credit have been unwinding much of this. However what we are witnessing is the installation of changes and policies that none of the electorate had signed up to and very slowly but surely changes are being made. No doubt the Labour goals can be reintroduced another time. Let us hope that it is not a case of one step forward and two back.
Takealook.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...years.html

I don't get to into puppet politicians too much but I think their controllers must be patting themselves on the back with the success of the coalition and it's ease of dropping of pre election policies in the name of compromise!

It has recently been pointed out that under the alternative vote system that those who's first choice is Conservative are unlikely to vote Labour and vice versa therefore there is a good chance that the LibDems will pick up the majority of second votes.

With the current drubbing of the Lib Dems at this week’s Barnsley by-election the idea of AV may appear to be a more attractive proposition for UKIP voters and anybody who have dreams of dumping the present shower and Labour's prospects for re election but there is never any guarantee of anything. Just like the Lottery the only guarantee is that we are more likely not to win and that is the ever present reality.

When Clegg made his presentation in support of AV it was presented very simply so that 'Every one can understand' the benefits but in doing so it couched other unanswered questions. This was followed by Cameron's opposing view but it seemed that it was merely a counterfoil to provide a 'balance'.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/pol...18371.html

How can it be better to have the populations second choice(50%) over their first at 49%?

'Hypocrisy' of the AV backers who have changed their tune

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...-tune.html

and

We must not sleepwalk into disaster on vote reform says Cameron
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...eform.html

Quote:“this matters, please do consider the arguments and go out and vote”. AV is the wrong system, only used in three other countries in the world - Australia, Papua New Guinea and Fiji, and they want to get rid of it.