888

Wednesday 18 May 2011

How can such a fool be “justice” secretary?

Ed Milliband has rightly called for Ken Clarke to be sacked as Justice Secretary quite how David Cameron could appoint such an incompetent fool be Justice Secretary is beyond me. Ken Clarke has been a constant failure in just about every role he has had in government and should have been out to pasture a long time ago. 15 Months is far too short a time for any sort of rape and the suggestion that it would encourage people to plead guilty is ridiculous as you would end up with the horrible situation of some people pleading guilty to a crime they have not committed. It would be as bad as the unjust plea bargaining you get in the American justice system. This is jsut another part of the dumbing down of Justice to save money highly immoral. This comment from baker 123456 sums it up nicely “The role of a politician is to protect the people they represent...letting violent criminals off with smaller sentences because they 'admit' it is absurd.
Note to politicians..I do not feel protected!!!”

Tuesday 17 May 2011

The catholic Church's broken moral compass

Sometime you give the Catholic Church the benefit of the doubt and that they might actually be blindly feeling their way to morality when they suggest that bishops should co operate with the police by reporting priests who rape and molest children. But then they go and invite one of the world’s most brutal dictators Robert Mugabe to the beatification of Pope John Paul II why is the Vatican’s moral compass so broken as to invite someone like Mugabe? Do they not realise that it is things like this and there policy of encouraging the spread of Aids in Africa by banning condoms that are driving people away from the Catholic Church. But perhaps what they have in common with Mugabe the Catholic Church and Mugabe are both responsible for the death of thousands of poor Africans. Apparently one of three people who were raised Catholic no longer identifies as Catholic the article doesn’t make it clear but I believe that statistic is for the USA.

Wednesday 4 May 2011

PR is best but AV is better than FPTP

It seems that one of the main reasons the AV referendum will fail is because a lot of people would rather have Proportional Representation. I would agree it is my preferred choice as well but AV is a big step in the right direction a definite improvement over FPTP which as we have seen from the No2av crowd has nothing to recommend it. Not once have they provided an argument in its favour instead resorting to ad hominem attacks and fear mongering lies. So don’t vote no just because it’s not PR vote yes to AV because it is a step towards PR and make PR more likely in the future.

A sickening story

It appears from this blog that the no campaing have lying to the poorly educated and ill about the AV referendum. I thought there fear mongering lies where bad enough but this is low even for them.

The No campaign has been dishonest.

Right from the very beginning the no campaign has tried to create fear uncertainty and disorder by lying about AV system claiming it is complicated and expensive AV is very simple. If you are literate then you can understand how AV works. They claim it would be expensive and pulled random numbers out of the air yet there is no reason to spend any more money on administering AV. When the politicians are lying through their teeth and creat personal attacks on Nick Clegg to try and get you to vote no then there is something wrong with the no vote.

First past the post produces hung parliaments

First past the post produces hung parliaments. Since Australia introduced AV they have had less hung parliaments than we have had with FPTP.

First past the post is a loser’s charter.

Under FPTP the most popular candidate is not necessarily the one who wins. In Canada’s recent general election 60% of the voters voted against the winning party. The party that should have lost because it couldn’t get a substantive majority in fact won.

First past the post is a politician’s fix

A great many political careerists want you to vote no. They want you to vote no because under AV they would have to appeal to the majority not pander to the biggest special interests group like they do under FPTP. Under FPTP you don’t even have to win a substantive majority to be the winner. We used to use a AV system but it was replaced by with FPTP by politicians for politicians. AV breaks the cycle of voting for two monolithic parties and allows different ideas to have a chance rather than the same old situation off I like C’s ideas but I won’t vote for them because they can’t win so I will vote for A because I hate B. Even though what A proposes is the same as B.