 |
| The seven party leaders who could square off in televised debate before the May general election. |
Warning to American Readers
- Please do not be frightened or confused by this article. Unlike Americans, the British voters have multiple real political parties to choose from in their coming elections. That is called freedom, something American voters have not experienced in multiple generations.
- Here we see the open borders Conservative Party trying to limit their exposure in debates. What I find interesting is how so-called "Conservatives" mindless knee-jerk and keep voting for endless immigration.
LONDON — David Cameron has made his "final offer."
After much speculation and negotiation the prime minister said late Wednesday evening he would participate in only one televised debate ahead of the general election in May.
In a letter to broadcasters, Cameron said he won't partake in a head-to-head debate with Labour leader Ed Miliband, but agreed to a seven-way leaders' debate.
The BBC, Channel 4, Sky and ITV had proposed three separate debates, two involving the Conservatives, Labour, the Liberal Democrats, UKIP, the Greens, the SNP and Plaid Cymru, and a third debate between just Cameron and Miliband.
Cameron's director of communications told broadcasters the one and only debate would have to happen before the dissolution of parliament, the week ending March 30, and could be 90-minutes long.
But the other parties and the broadcasters appear to be holding firm on more than one debate.
Following reports Wednesday night, Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg tweeted:
While on Thursday morning, former Lib Dem leader Paddy Ashdown said if Cameron won't do the head-to-head debate, Clegg could stand in for him against Miliband.
"I’m told that Downing Street is now depending on the Liberal Democrats to say no. Well, I’ve got bad news for them. We’re not going to," Ashdown told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.
(Mashable.com)Nigel Farage speaking at UKIP meeting
Farage speaks out against the open borders Conservative Party.
 |
Free Elections - Maybe the U.S. should try it
The Scottish National Party could win 56 of Scotland’s 59 parliamentary seats, according to the veteran polling analyst Mike Smithson. This would virtually wipe out the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats north of the border.
The projected success of the SNP would almost cancel out Labour gains in other parts of Great Britain, producing a dead heat between the two main parties on 7 May, according to Ashcroft’s projections.
The former Tory treasurer, who now insists he is an impartial pollster, suggested that the Tories and Labour would be tied on 272 seats each. Labour won 258 seats in 2010 while the Tories won 306 seats.
Labour and the Liberal Democrats were shocked by signs of the depth of the SNP breakthrough despite losing the independence referendum in September. (The Guardian)
|
 |
| Free Elections - What a Concept
On October 14, 2014, just before the phony U.S. elections, the people of Belgium elected the lower house of their Parliament.
.
In free elections the Belgians elected 12 different political parties to represent every possible faction of their society to the national government. If you did not like one party you had multiple other real parties to choose from. That is called freedom in every democratic nation on earth.
.
Meanwhile back in the U.S. the two corrupt, Washington D.C. funded political parties magically won 100% of all elections to Congress. If you did not like either the open borders Democrats or the open borders GOP you were basically told to fuck off.
.
Until the American people demand and get true election reform we are doomed to be ruled over by a centralized and corrupt oligarchy.
|
 |
| Chamber of Representatives (Belgium) Many political parties to choose from. That is called freedom. |
8 comments:
American Conservatives Stalinist?
Nixon went after cannabis to jail his political enemies. The essence of Stalinism.
"Look, we understood we couldn't make it illegal to be young or poor or black in the United States, but we could criminalize their common pleasure. We understood that drugs were not the health problem we were making them out to be, but it was such a perfect issue...that we couldn't resist it." - John Ehrlichman, White House counsel to President Nixon on the rationale of the War on Drugs.
BTW the advantage of the American system is that the coalitions are formed before the election.
I think that is a good thing.
You are under the illusion that we have free elections at the Congressional level.
"Our" candidates are selected for us, and financed by Washington D.C. oligarchs. The elected candidates do not represent the people. They represent only the special interest groups that funded them.
The days are long dead when local people selected a leader to go to Washington.
Now the "leaders" go to Washington first, plant their lips deep in the asses of big money interests, raise million of dollars and then return home and claim they are fighting for the people.
Bullshit.
Well no. I'm not under that illusion. In fact what you describe never was in America. Wealth always had primacy.
But unlike some other places our oligarchs are a tad smarter than average.
We get to solve one problem that is really bugging us each election cycle. Elections are not about control. They are safety valves.
***** Elections are not about control. They are safety valves. *****
No and yes.
The political hacks very much want control. But yes they are a safety valve.
But our old small House districts did allow multi-party elections and more average people to be elected. Now only millionaires and those willing to be bribed by millionaires can win office.
You are forgetting about our founding when only property owners could vote.
Skin in the game.
Yes, sounds good.
Post a Comment