Cullis,

Would you really want UKIP to have more seats? Really? Is that what you are saying here?

I don't think Tim is saying that, but there must be an alternative system that reflects how people actually voted! The above is absurd.

I think the wards simply reflect the phenomenon that "birds of a feather flock together"; for example in this part of the world, a chimpanzee would get voted in if it wore a blue rosette (and funnily enough, would probably do a better job than the current incumbent MP).

Then again, you don't see any tories complaining about the results, do you? The system may be a bit rigged, but as long as the rigging keeps morons like UKIP on the fringes or out of British politics altogether, I think I can live with it.

The gaping faultline in that form of argument is that "the people" cannot be trusted to decide for themselves, so the politicians know best what we need and what is best for us, the electorate.
In itself, not much of a step onward from "no votes for women and a parliament composed of vested interests such as wealthy landowners" (not all that long ago in fact).

By the way, for those in the UK, there has just finished on the BBC a pretty good discussion about this very topic - every politician on the Question Time panel agreed that the current system is not fair and there were various suggestions about how to improve the current system.

One thing struck me, that was not discussed therein; two actually -
1) there is much more interest in politics in England since the rise of the SNP.
and 2) in general, contributions by the public to discussion points are better informed than they have been in the past (hence "due deference" to the politicos is declining and the latter are more often on the defensive).

In short, people are waking up.

As evidenced by the metro being the best selling car in the UK for many years, and 10th best seller of all time, and the mass market bollocks on the TV, the sun is the best selling newspaper
and thats before I even consider the stream of muppets coming through my ED department!

Education, education, education
 

A stat mentioned on the TV debate of last night is that 25% of the UK people voted for the current government = 37% of those who actually voted on 7th May x the % which represents those who were registered to vote but some did not turn out on the day.

Quite so, and there are many more examples.

So, the UK is decrepit and definitely gets the politicians that the people deserve, OR they are waking up and reading something other than the Sun newspaper; useful, informed blogs for example or this very Bulletin board or, --------------- name your own ideas for educating the populance.

You think so? I hope so!

https://thepoorsideoflife.files.word...5/img_4167.jpg

Murdoch FTW!

http://a.abcnews.com/images/Business..._110719_wg.jpg

Newspapers by circulation in the UK;

The Sun, Daily Mail, Daily Mirror, Evening Standard, Daily Telegraph, Daily Express, Daily Star, The Times, Financial Times, Daily Record, The Guardian, The Independent.

FYI The Sun has a higher readership than the Mirror, the Guardian and the Independant put together. Out of these list, these are the only 'left-wing' publications. The rest of right or centre right, mostly tabloids. Murdoch, Desmond, The Barclay Brothers and The Rothermeres own the UK press and they set the agenda.

But the UK is full of benefit scroungers innit?

http://www.centreforwelfarereform.or...in-context.jpg

1billion is too much, totally, but look at that in relation to tax avoidance... You won't hear much about that in the Daily Mail or Murdoch press though.... Bank Rescue package in 2008 = £500 billion. Will you hear about banking reform in the Tory press? No, keep on blaming the "benefit scroungers" and forget about the real scroungers, i.e the rich and monied who enjoy all sorts of benefits but you'll never see any channel4 "poverty pornos" about that.

doh

Well, perhaps it is just a hope on my part; maybe most people are still fast asleep.

I am broadly aware of your various statistics, including those about the printed press; the latter are losing circulation year on year as other means of communication rise in usage.
Personally, I haven't bought a newspaper in over a decade and I have only every read one or two very local weekly publications.
I do look at them on line very occasionally, such as a certain big seller which a few days before the election used the front page to support 3 different parties in 3 different areas of the country; perhaps they were confused, perhaps hypocritical, perhaps paid to publish??

There is so much information made available via the WWW nowadays for anyone to even want, never mind need, to rely on print to remain informed.
Just as a single "for instance":
The Guardian newspaper and Mohammed 'Al' Fayed

I think you are dead right about that. The press and the traditional forms of power who control it no doubt feel very threatened by the meteoric rise of social media. Perhaps this is why Murdoch the Misanthrope lashed out and bought up MySpace, though it backfired spectacularly.

If you can read between the lines of the speech Cameron read the other day, the one about 'terrorism' and 'British values', apart from sounding a bit Nazi-esque, what it contained was very scary and I think it was part of a growing response to the new emerging power of social media. For example, if someone posts an article about "ISIS", you could post something that would incite violence but if one were referring to British or American troops invading another country, you could be arrested and charged. This happened.

Consider this along with the Tories trying to scrap the Human Rights and replace it with something more conducive to establishment interests, with anyone who 'challenges democracy' or is an 'extremist' (extreme ironing in danger nowadays?), the Tories are keeping the machine built by NuLab steamrollering over our civil liberties and freedom.

Anyway I digress! Apologies. :innocent: