info please anyone!
uk...@otherdayjob.gravytrain.co.uk
entitled to vote under a system of proportional representation at the
forthcoming european elections.
The type of pr sytem to be used is known as "The party list" but there
are different versions of party list.
Does anyone know the full details and could they let me know please!
Thank you in anticipation!
abelard
typed:
the bastards in the party machines put their favourite time servers
at the top of the list...
according to the %age vote they get....the more time servers for
that party get on the gravy train....
the position on the list determines the prospects of the various
time servers...
regards...
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news and comment service, logic,
energy, education, politics, etc >750,000 document calls yearly
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wotan
<uk...@otherdayjob.gravytrain.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3d3f99a61cabd479...@news.teranews.com...
1) The so-called "EU" is an illegal crime syndicate that has
no right or authority to form a parliament, and no British
government has any right or authority to run an election for
them.
2) To vote in any such illegal election is to admit that they
exist and to give them the opportunity to claim that they have
some electoral authority.
They have none, and were formed in open contempt and
definace of the electorates of Europe. (the real Europe,
that is.)
Stephen Glynn
Apparently we used this method to vote in the Euro Elections in 1999, though
I can't remember anything about it (though I recall voting in the local
elections then). But anyway, there's an article about it at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/euros_99/voting_in_the_uk/348838.stm
with a link to a worked example at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/euros_99/voting_in_the_uk/348846.stm
HTH
Steve
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.622 / Virus Database: 400 - Release Date: 14/03/2004
Paul Hyett
>
>1) The so-called "EU" is an illegal crime syndicate that has
>no right or authority to form a parliament, and no British
>government has any right or authority to run an election for
>them.
>
>2) To vote in any such illegal election is to admit that they
>exist and to give them the opportunity to claim that they have
>some electoral authority.
So you won't be taking the chance to register a BNP protest vote then?
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
Email to pahyett[AT]activist[DOT]demon[DOT]co[DOT]uk
uk...@otherdayjob.gravytrain.co.uk
wrote:
>On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 15:09:13 GMT, uk...@otherdayjob.gravytrain.co.uk
>
> typed:
>
>>There has been little comment on the fact that mainland uk will be
>>entitled to vote under a system of proportional representation at the
>>forthcoming european elections.
>>The type of pr sytem to be used is known as "The party list" but there
>>are different versions of party list.
>>Does anyone know the full details and could they let me know please!
>>
>>Thank you in anticipation!
>
>the bastards in the party machines put their favourite time servers
> at the top of the list...
>according to the %age vote they get....the more time servers for
> that party get on the gravy train....
>the position on the list determines the prospects of the various
> time servers...
>
>regards...
hhmm , I would like to get into this a bit more as it is supposed to
indicate support on a proportional basis.
From what you say it smells a bit.
State broadcasters have not to my knowledge discussed the voting
proposals on any current affairs.
uk...@otherdayjob.gravytrain.co.uk
<stephe...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
><uk...@otherdayjob.gravytrain.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:3d3f99a61cabd479...@news.teranews.com...
>> There has been little comment on the fact that mainland uk will be
>> entitled to vote under a system of proportional representation at the
>> forthcoming european elections.
>> The type of pr sytem to be used is known as "The party list" but there
>> are different versions of party list.
>> Does anyone know the full details and could they let me know please!
>>
>> Thank you in anticipation!
>>
>
>Apparently we used this method to vote in the Euro Elections in 1999, though
>I can't remember anything about it
Neither can I.
Alan G
wrote:
I can
I didn't bother voting. We don't have even a semblance of democracy
Stephen Glynn
<uk...@otherdayjob.gravytrain.co.uk> wrote in message
news:e08ceec715dbffb4...@news.teranews.com...
Well in one sense it does indicate support on a proportional basis. If you
look at the worked example on the BBC website I referenced elsewhere in the
thread it split the seats in the East Midlands European Constituency
something like 3 Labour, 2 Lib Dem and 1 Tory (can't remember, but something
like that) rather than giving them all to Labour, which is what would happen
on the same number of votes cast for the respective parties on FPTP.
Though there is, as abelard points out, the problem that you don't get to
choose the candidate to whom your vote is allocated on the party list.
However, no one's ever asked me in any election who I want the various
candidates to be and even if they did I wouldn't be able to help them much.
I mean, I know what the sitting MP (Labour) and the sitting councillors are
like because I read about their doings in the local paper. But when come
the next General Election and someone comes round saying he's standing on
behalf of the Tories or the Lib Dems very few people are going to be
particularly interested in who they are other than the Tory or the Lib Dem
candidate.
Essentially, unless it's quite an unusual set of circumstances is anyone
going to be particularly interested come an election held under STV about
whether his vote goes to Smith, then Jones and then Brown instead of going
to Brown, then Smith and Jones so long as Smith, Brown and Jones are
candidates for the party/parties he wants to back?
Steve
Steve
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.648 / Virus Database: 415 - Release Date: 31/03/2004
abelard
typed:
>On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 00:08:11 +0200, abelard <abe...@abelard.org>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 15:09:13 GMT, uk...@otherdayjob.gravytrain.co.uk
>>
>> typed:
>>
>>>There has been little comment on the fact that mainland uk will be
>>>entitled to vote under a system of proportional representation at the
>>>forthcoming european elections.
>>>The type of pr sytem to be used is known as "The party list" but there
>>>are different versions of party list.
>>>Does anyone know the full details and could they let me know please!
>>>
>>>Thank you in anticipation!
>>
>>the bastards in the party machines put their favourite time servers
>> at the top of the list...
>>according to the %age vote they get....the more time servers for
>> that party get on the gravy train....
>>the position on the list determines the prospects of the various
>> time servers...
>>
>>regards...
>hhmm , I would like to get into this a bit more as it is supposed to
>indicate support on a proportional basis.
no system where *you* do not chose/vote-for individuals can pretend
to democracy...the position is bad enuf already....
pr is complex and comes at many different levels and forms....
the continent has used various forms of pr....they usually result in
buggins turn and weak government...or even adolf.....
britain and the us have used fptp (first past the post) with generally
more stable, and in some ways more successful, government
most forms of pr lead to tails wagging dogs...which is why tails like
the lib dems want them so much....
now i move to my own views....
i think democracy is fundamentally dep't on the level of population
education (this has some problems in that the practice of democracy
tends to educate the public)
i regard the us as having too much democracy....and the uk as having
to little for current educational levels....
i think the uk should move to av (alternative vote) which gives more
power to the voter....but not more than i believe they can presently
exercise responsibly....
(australia uses such a system)
a political system is far more than a voting system....eg the usa is much
better off in having a bill of rights...and almost all advanced
countries have more freedom of information (a vital ingredient in an
democracy worthy of the name) than the uk....
the last two administrations...socialist major and socialist bliar have
heavily eroded freedom in the uk (similar things prepared the way for
adolf)
a major part of their error/criminality/stupidity lies in centralising
power...
another is the egregious undermining of the rule of law....
britain is very badly 'ruled'....i fear greatly for britain.
for more on my own position start here...
http://www.abelard.org/iqedfran/iqedfran.htm
>From what you say it smells a bit.
to the rafters...to the skies....
>State broadcasters have not to my knowledge discussed the voting
>proposals on any current affairs.
that is not what government propaganda is for....
the bbc is a wholly government owned propaganda arm.....
it is very little else.
regards.
fred_eg_bowinatuck
> no one's ever asked me who I want the various candidates to
> be and even if they did I wouldn't be able to help them much
Selecting the candidate used to require merely an opt in,
whether under the US or UK constiuency and party systems.
Stephen Glynn
"fred_eg_bowinatuck" <fred-eg-b...@hatemail.com> wrote in message
news:c4llrc$2kbnce$1...@ID-71384.news.uni-berlin.de...
Don't quite understand. AFAIK candidates in the UK have always been
selected according whatever their party's selection procedures are. I
don't know how -- for example -- the Conservatives or Labour select their
candidates but I do know that if I want a say in who's selected I'd first
have to join the local party branch.
Stephen Glynn
"abelard" <abe...@abelard.org> wrote in message
news:faqr6013j4j277otj...@4ax.com...
> that is not what government propaganda is for....
> the bbc is a wholly government owned propaganda arm.....
> it is very little else.
>
> regards.
>
That would explain why HMG was so delighted by the BBC's coverage of the
fighting in Iraq and of the David Kelly affair.
abelard
<stephe...@ntlworld.com>
typed:
>"abelard" <abe...@abelard.org> wrote in message
>news:faqr6013j4j277otj...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 21:10:40 GMT, uk...@otherdayjob.gravytrain.co.uk
>> that is not what government propaganda is for....
>> the bbc is a wholly government owned propaganda arm.....
>> it is very little else.
>That would explain why HMG was so delighted by the BBC's coverage of the
>fighting in Iraq and of the David Kelly affair.
it is of course very much more complicated than my accurate comment....
the direct motivation of particular politicians is often purposely highly
opaque....
there is a substantial block of extremists in the parliamentary labour
party...these extremists are closely akin/embedded to much of the
naive leftist 'academia'....
all major parliamentary parties tend to be coalitions....
the extremist wing of the oldnewoldlabour party....probably best described
by keynes as 'the party of catastrophe'....are leveraged by what
keynes referred to thus...also when describing the labour party...
'too much will always by those who do not know *at all* what they are
talking about' (keynes emphasis) 0333376021 p297
the bbc and much else in the media(and the labour party) is peopled
by shallowly educated 'academics' who also have very little in the
way of real world experience....
their heads are stuffed with inchoate 'theories' which have little
conformity with realism/reality.....
bliar does seem to have exhibited surprising good sense over irak...
i would guess due to adequate briefing from the forrin office....
imv he is also a man of good will even if not of great intellect.....
it is natural this would involve some conflict between the party,
its media and 'academic' hangers on....and those who have taken
the difficult, though necessary, actions in the middle east....
among other matters it is my view that under the pressures of *real*
responsibility, bliar is gradually growing in experience and thus in
stature...
one of bliar's better character traits appears to be some lack of
arrogance...he appears to be capable of learning....
i shall increasingly understand the reality as long as his *actions* on
europe tend to be cautious....
i have never believed for example he would go into emu...and have
said so on many occassions...though how much of that was brown
or fear of losing i do not know....
i suspect he has merely used it as a political stick to beat the
tories....
i don't like it....but i am far from convinced he is now stupid enuf to
want emu if he ever was...
likewise i don't think he wants the new 'constitution' in europe....
but he has the fleas in the party and the continuing political
concern to keep the tories on europe and distracted....
he is a public liar....i don't think he needs to lie so much
which is why i regard his lies as pathological...
but my end concern must always be what he does...not what he says!
as first stated above...this is complex muddy waters....
perhaps i will have moved a jot forward for you from my original comment.
what is the government?
the power at the very centre....or the clowns chorus around the periphery.
i tend to presently lump the bbc with the clowns chorus....
the standards of many establishment institutions have become far less
intellectually rigourous....
the bbc encapsulates that deterioration in spades....
but the deterioration is part of the erosion at the centre of the uk
establishment....
fortunately there still appears some tatters of the core of britain at
the top....
i fear greatly that for the persistence and robustness of that core....
i fear the sloppy populism of old europe invading the remaining heart of
britain.
but it hasn't happened entirely yet....
regards..
fred_eg_bowinatuck
> AFAIK candidates in the UK have always been selected
> according whatever their party's selection procedures are.
Sounds like stating the obvious.
> I don't know how -- for example -- the Conservatives or
> Labour select their candidates but I do know that if I
> want a say in who's selected I'd first have to join the
> local party branch.
Even though the principle has been much eroded, nay destroyed,
that local branches choose their candidates. There have been
more and more restrictions, notionally starting with approved
ending with centralised lists.
Stephen Glynn
Possibly I misunderstood your comment. I referring to your statement
"Selecting the candidate used to require merely an opt in, whether under
the US or UK constiuency and party systems". Certainly in the US people get
a say in who should be the Democrat or Republican candidate for various
elected offices just by registering themselves with the electoral
authorities as a Republican or Democrat and then voting in the primaries.
My point was that we've never had such a system here, AFAIK.
Steve
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.648 / Virus Database: 415 - Release Date: 01/04/2004
fred_eg_bowinatuck
> Certainly in the US people get a say in who should be the
> Democrat or Republican candidate for various
> elected offices just by registering themselves with the electoral
> authorities as a Republican or Democrat
They have to opt in,
by declaring themselves Republican or Democrat,
a concurrent but not a concommitant part of registering to vote.
https://ovr.ss.ca.gov/votereg/OnlineVoterReg
POLITICAL PARTY:Ensure you have selected a qualified political
party, or "I Decline to State a Political Party" or "Other". If you mark
"Other," you may print the name of an unqualified political party. No
person shall be entitled to vote the ballot of any political party unless
he or she has registered with that party. However, if a voter has
declined to state a political party affiliation, and the political party
permits it, the unaffiliated voter may vote in the party's primary election.
'the unaffiliated voter may vote in the party's primary election',
they just have to opt in, if accepted by that party, by another route.
uk...@otherdayjob.gravytrain.co.uk
Then I bow to your superior memory!
The only thing that I remember is the green party getting swindled
out of their representation by what I was fairly convinced was a first
past the post "election".
>I didn't bother voting.
Nor did I.
> We don't have even a semblance of democracy
Alas the selfservers have rather hijacked the meaning of the word to
the detriment of us all.
uk...@otherdayjob.gravytrain.co.uk
>pr is complex and comes at many different levels and forms....
>
>the continent has used various forms of pr....they usually result in
> buggins turn and weak government...or even adolf.....
>britain and the us have used fptp (first past the post) with generally
> more stable, and in some ways more successful, government
>most forms of pr lead to tails wagging dogs...which is why tails like
> the lib dems want them so much....
>
in the legislative assembly. At the end of the day if the legislators
are unable to carry the majority then it is perfectly proper for their
proposals to be sufficiently diluted/aletered/modified to attract
majority support.
This is how the will of the people .Every legislator has one vote and
they are perfectly entitled to use that vote to the best
effect.Whatever the outcome of a vote it is nevertheless , democratic.
If such democratic voting results in muddled or inadequate legislation
then the electorate must be persuaded that change is justified.
>now i move to my own views....
>i think democracy is fundamentally dep't on the level of population
> education (this has some problems in that the practice of democracy
> tends to educate the public)
>i regard the us as having too much democracy....and the uk as having
> to little for current educational levels....
>
>i think the uk should move to av (alternative vote) which gives more
> power to the voter....but not more than i believe they can presently
> exercise responsibly....
>(australia uses such a system)
>
>a political system is far more than a voting system....eg the usa is much
> better off in having a bill of rights...and almost all advanced
> countries have more freedom of information (a vital ingredient in an
> democracy worthy of the name) than the uk....
>
>the last two administrations...socialist major and socialist bliar have
> heavily eroded freedom in the uk (similar things prepared the way for
> adolf)
>a major part of their error/criminality/stupidity lies in centralising
> power...
>another is the egregious undermining of the rule of law....
>
>britain is very badly 'ruled'....i fear greatly for britain.
>
I agree!
abelard
typed:
why not get active in your local constituency party
abelard
typed:
>
>>pr is complex and comes at many different levels and forms....
>>
>>the continent has used various forms of pr....they usually result in
>> buggins turn and weak government...or even adolf.....
>>britain and the us have used fptp (first past the post) with generally
>> more stable, and in some ways more successful, government
>>most forms of pr lead to tails wagging dogs...which is why tails like
>> the lib dems want them so much....
>>
>I believe that the tails are only persuing their rightful voting power
>in the legislative assembly.
it doesn't matter what you believe...
what matters is the real world effects of various systems.
> At the end of the day if the legislators
>are unable to carry the majority then it is perfectly proper for their
>proposals to be sufficiently diluted/aletered/modified to attract
>majority support.
you might argue that....but there remains problems with whether
it will work to sound government...
>This is how the will of the people
you live in a representative democracy...'the will of the people'
is often dangerous and foolish....
representatives specialise and are deemed to act in the best
interests of the nation according to their judgement...
they are not appointed to carry out the will of the people
>.Every legislator has one vote and
>they are perfectly entitled to use that vote to the best
>effect.Whatever the outcome of a vote it is nevertheless , democratic.
>If such democratic voting results in muddled or inadequate legislation
>then the electorate must be persuaded that change is justified.
that applies to changes in the elective process....
>>now i move to my own views....
>>i think democracy is fundamentally dep't on the level of population
>> education (this has some problems in that the practice of democracy
>> tends to educate the public)
>>i regard the us as having too much democracy....and the uk as having
>> to little for current educational levels....
>>
>>i think the uk should move to av (alternative vote) which gives more
>> power to the voter....but not more than i believe they can presently
>> exercise responsibly....
>>(australia uses such a system)
>>
>>a political system is far more than a voting system....eg the usa is much
>> better off in having a bill of rights...and almost all advanced
>> countries have more freedom of information (a vital ingredient in an
>> democracy worthy of the name) than the uk....
>>
>>the last two administrations...socialist major and socialist bliar have
>> heavily eroded freedom in the uk (similar things prepared the way for
>> adolf)
>>a major part of their error/criminality/stupidity lies in centralising
>> power...
>>another is the egregious undermining of the rule of law....
>>
>>britain is very badly 'ruled'....i fear greatly for britain.
>>
>I agree!
depressing....
it seems i am not alone...that is worrying in itself....
it makes it less likely to be that i am misassessing the situation on
personal emotional grounds...
we have a grave problem with the tory party....it has been captured by
a socialist coup....
the lib dems have been invaded and corrupted by socialist defectors....
there is no decent right wing/libertarian influence remaining in britain.
regards....
uk...@otherdayjob.gravytrain.co.uk
Agreed.
>Essentially, unless it's quite an unusual set of cumstances is anyone
>going to be particularly interested come an election held under STV about
>whether his vote goes to Smith, then Jones and then Brown instead of going
>to Brown, then Smith and Jones so long as Smith, Brown and Jones are
>candidates for the party/parties he wants to back?
Even so it is fundamentally important to ascertain the
wish/feeling/mood and general desire of the electorate and attempts by
the selfservers who discuss and formulate the rules of pr voting
behind closed doors should be rigorously challenged ,for it is these
people who are the enemies of democracy.
They will ,when forced to hold pr elections ,activley seek out
counting methods like dhondt which is bound to be off putting to the
average joe.
uk...@otherdayjob.gravytrain.co.uk
<stephe...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>"abelard" <abe...@abelard.org> wrote in message
>news:faqr6013j4j277otj...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 21:10:40 GMT, uk...@otherdayjob.gravytrain.co.uk
>>
>
>
>> that is not what government propaganda is for....
>> the bbc is a wholly government owned propaganda arm.....
>> it is very little else.
>>
>> regards.
>>
>
>That would explain why HMG was so delighted by the BBC's coverage of the
>fighting in Iraq and of the David Kelly affair.
>
>Steve
>
But soon brought its wayward servant back into line!
uk...@otherdayjob.gravytrain.co.uk
wrote:
Been there ,done that seen it for the cesspit of self interest that it
is!
abelard
typed:
>On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 03:06:32 +0200, abelard <abe...@abelard.org>
>>why not get active in your local constituency party
>
>Been there ,done that seen it for the cesspit of self interest that it
>is!
and so it will stay if you and people like you use that as
a reason for passivity.
anone...@spam.nothanks
wrote:
>>pr is complex and comes at many different levels and forms....
>>
>>the continent has used various forms of pr....they usually result in
>> buggins turn and weak government...or even adolf.....
>>britain and the us have used fptp (first past the post) with generally
>> more stable, and in some ways more successful, government
>>most forms of pr lead to tails wagging dogs...which is why tails like
>> the lib dems want them so much....
>>
>I believe that the tails are only persuing their rightful voting power
>in the legislative assembly. At the end of the day if the legislators
>are unable to carry the majority then it is perfectly proper for their
>proposals to be sufficiently diluted/aletered/modified to attract
>majority support.
Sure. But the creation of a majority is an outcome o the rules
chosen...
uk...@otherdayjob.gravytrain.co.uk
wrote:
>On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 19:56:06 GMT, uk...@otherdayjob.gravytrain.co.uk
>
> typed:
>
>>On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 03:06:32 +0200, abelard <abe...@abelard.org>
>
>>>why not get active in your local constituency party
>>
>>Been there ,done that seen it for the cesspit of self interest that it
>>is!
>
>and so it will stay if you and people like you use that as
> a reason for passivity.
I welcome any practical method of democratic change. The system cannot
be democratised from within except when such democratisation is
inevitable.
I would like to see more direct action where practicable.
In this regard I feel the opportunities provided by the internet are
ignored to a considerable degree.
ukmp
abelard
typed:
>On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 00:18:43 +0200, abelard <abe...@abelard.org>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 19:56:06 GMT, uk...@otherdayjob.gravytrain.co.uk
>>
>> typed:
>>
>>>On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 03:06:32 +0200, abelard <abe...@abelard.org>
>>
>>>>why not get active in your local constituency party
>>>
>>>Been there ,done that seen it for the cesspit of self interest that it
>>>is!
>>
>>and so it will stay if you and people like you use that as
>> a reason for passivity.
>
>I welcome any practical method of democratic change. The system cannot
>be democratised from within except when such democratisation is
>inevitable.
thing can be changed by some means from within....but vested interests
always build up....
i think you are reifying 'democratisation'...you must consider its
brother...mob rule....
people who change things spend their lives studying the problems...they
tend to work for decades....they often don't see the full effects in
their own life times....
>I would like to see more direct action where practicable.
>In this regard I feel the opportunities provided by the internet are
>ignored to a considerable degree.
it is already exerting considerable pressures....
i expect that to grow....
but to change an embedded system that has grown for very good
reasons over a very long time requires much ability...
it is easy to change things and then discover the changes are
not all positive...baby goes out with bathwater...
*you must know just what you want to change..and why....*
even then you need feedback from others because you'll never
think of all the ramifications...
steady improvement is usually better than revolution....
but the socialist centralisation and removal of liberty poses great
problems/dangers...
the feedback are removed from a system by such actions....
the system is much being fiddled with by shallow half educated people
who seek to 'do something' when they'd be better doing nothing....
all governments sail between street pressure and steady improvement...
regards..
uk...@otherdayjob.gravytrain.co.uk
wrote:
>On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 21:38:30 GMT, uk...@otherdayjob.gravytrain.co.uk
>
> typed:
>
>>On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 00:18:43 +0200, abelard <abe...@abelard.org>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 19:56:06 GMT, uk...@otherdayjob.gravytrain.co.uk
>>>
>>> typed:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 03:06:32 +0200, abelard <abe...@abelard.org>
>>>
>>>>>why not get active in your local constituency party
>>>>
>>>>Been there ,done that seen it for the cesspit of self interest that it
>>>>is!
>>>
>>>and so it will stay if you and people like you use that as
>>> a reason for passivity.
>>
>>I welcome any practical method of democratic change. The system cannot
>>be democratised from within except when such democratisation is
>>inevitable.
>
>thing can be changed by some means from within....but vested interests
> always build up....
And are usually well entrenched already!
>i think you are reifying 'democratisation'...
Wishing to Curb the excesses of the bliars and the blinketts by means
of a written constitution is , in my opinion an entrely practical
aspiration.
you must consider its
> brother...mob rule....
>
Mob rule forms part of the current administration and is whipped up on
que.
>people who change things spend their lives studying the problems...they
> tend to work for decades....they often don't see the full effects in
> their own life times....
Only to be cast aside by the bliars of this world with hardly a puff
of meaningful protest.
>
>>I would like to see more direct action where practicable.
>>In this regard I feel the opportunities provided by the internet are
>>ignored to a considerable degree.
>
>it is already exerting considerable pressures....
>i expect that to grow....
Agreed but I am impatient to see the citizen become as organised as
the oppressor.
>but to change an embedded system that has grown for very good
> reasons over a very long time requires much ability...
>
>it is easy to change things and then discover the changes are
> not all positive...baby goes out with bathwater...
You win some you lose some ,but democratic procedure allows lessons to
be learned.
>
>*you must know just what you want to change..and why....*
>
>even then you need feedback from others because you'll never
> think of all the ramifications...
Every citizen is entitled to hold opinions as to what should change
and democracy is the vehicle to proggress those opinions.
>steady improvement is usually better than revolution....
Which in the uk is usually negated by whatever means is available.
>but the socialist centralisation and removal of liberty poses great
> problems/dangers...
> the feedback are removed from a system by such actions....
>
>the system is much being fiddled with by shallow half educated people
> who seek to 'do something' when they'd be better doing nothing....
>
>all governments sail between street pressure and steady improvement...
>
>regards..
Yes , they make their pile for as long as they can and eventually the
other large minority look electable and ready for their turn on the
gravy train.
ukmp