Poll Say's, 50% of people want Tony Blare out! What is the alternative, Brown.?

Question

An unelected leader of the UK would make this country weaker then we are now. I think, that what we need now is a general election. Vote the buggers out, clear the tables...a new start.

Answer 1

They made lots of promises with lots of spin from the likes of Mandy. Now people are calling him Tony B liar, and he needs to scrap the welfare reform Bill. Do something to help core voters, the elderly, NHS users, sick and disabled. Students too are politically powerful and have been attacked by Labour with student fees. They are angry about that and see their grandparents struggling to pay energy bills to British gas - who are making record profits. All the post offices have closed down. It's OK for us with Internet banking, but granny hasn't got a computer and can't afford broadband. She can put a cross on a ballot sheet though! Cameron will bring in right wing government for the rich and you will suffer again under the Tories. the Lib dems are weak. We may as well all vote Monster raving Loony. Lets hope some back bench Labour MPs wake up - before it's too late. Some are - hence the resignations of some junior Ministers.

Answer 2

The present method of governing Britain is out of date


My idea is that we need a complete revamp in government. Not just change the people, but completely change the way we think about government.
When the current system of democracy was created the population of England was about a sixth of what it is now. So there were 659 MPs for about 10 million people, being a representation ratio of about 15000 to 1.

Now, we have 646 MPs, and about 60 million people giving a representation factor of about 93,000 to one.

So each person's representation has reduced by around 600%.
In other words, you now get about one sixth of the representation that a citizen in 1801 got. Another way of looking at this is to say that, in order to have the same level of representation that we had in 1801, we would need 3876 MPs.
This is obviously ludicrous. and is absolute evidence of a need for a change.

As the population has increased so dramatically, then the effectiveness and fairness of a central government has reduced.
What we now need is an increase in the power of local government, and a reduction in the power of central government.
I propose that we should bring back something akin to the parish councils. We should have constituencies of a maximum of 500 families. These constituencies should have total control over the lives of its constituents, with no interference from outside, They must provide all of their own facilities such as school, health care, pensions, police, ar anything which they feel that they need.
If they feel that they are too small for a particular project or service, then they negotiate with nearby constituencies to make suitable arrangements. There would be no higher level arbitrator. Full responsibility would rest at the local level.

The benefits of this are enormous. Firstly, everybody would know everybody else within a constituency, so when a problem arises it would be easy to get to the source, because it would be to everyone's benefit to do so. This alone would reduce terrorism and serious crime to a minimum. A sort of neighbourhood watch scheme in which everybody takes full part, and makes the decisions. The money presently spent on taxes, most of which disappears in red tape, civil servants' and MPs' salaries, waging war, and hundreds of other expenses from which the average citizen receives no benefit whatsoever, would be spent on directly benefiting the community, on projects voted for by the community.
It is most likely that taxes could be reduced to a fraction of what is presently paid, because all wastage would be readily identified. Everybody would participate in their own government, because they would be able to understand it, and would have a real voice.
There would be no need for secret services, or secrets of any kind, saving another fortune, and removing another load of confusion.

I'm sure you can identify many other benefits, and I'm also sure that any disadvantages could quickly be overcome.

Answer 3

Forgive me my spell check does not work.

Tony has agreed to resign within one year. I am a United States citizen living in the US. In 1972, Vice President Spiro Agnew resinged after it was revealed he had cheated on his taxes and Gerald Ford was appointed by Nixon as Vice President and confirmed by the Senate. Thereafter in 1973, Nixon resigned and Ford became president. He filled the balance of that term without having been elected but, was defeated by Jimmy Carter in the following election.

His defeat was not so much about him as it was againest the Republican party and the Nixon administration. However, he didn't do anything stupid while in office and through the years has become a very respected former president.

Blair's resigning and Bush's 23% apporval rating not only reflects the decsions they have made during their rspective administrations but also the absence of soultions available to them.

Giving them the benefit of the doubt regarding their motives and intentions, which have lead us to this point, they have lost the confidence of the vast majority to be able to lead us in solving the problems we are facing; both domestically and abroad.

At some point, we have to take stock and relieze these policies are not working and begin to explore alternatives. Alternatives not on the table for them, since they have so strongly argued thier positions. For them to "not stay the course" would make them appear weak; something that any politican that has made it to thier level is completely incapable of allowing in their politiacal lives.

Change is good. However, there is no making peace with radical Islam; until such time as we quit indirectly funding their war againest us with our purchase of crude oil from them. And that is not an alternative available to us at this point. We are currently in a jam in which, there is not an answer.

One day, I don't know when, we will make the sacrifices to bring on a new energy source to replace crude oil just as we have transsitioned from whale oil to kerosene to coal to crude oil. The answer is not in the form of nuclear, water or wind energy. It is most likely in the form of hydrogen. Yet creating the infastrucure to bring it to market is an overwhelming task. Hence we remain stuck.

In time, together, we will come up with a solution. We and you and us together are going to be ok.

Answer 4

Polls are misleading. Polls only reflect a sample of people, not a society. A national census is the only reliable survey.

Answer 5

That's the problem with polls. Put Blaire head to head with the alternative and he might not look so bad.

Answer 6

god help us if we get a log tosser in charge of this country.all these parties are the same though .all worried about there back pockets and there fat wages and massive pensions and don't give a toss about us as long as they get there pound of flesh and suck as much of our hard earned out of us .so it don't matter who gets in were still gonna get screwed but we will just sit here and soak up all there crap like the big mug sponges that we are

Answer 7

Your poll is wrong. The latest poll I heard is that 50% of people want Blair in.

Answer 8

Does it really matter who is the figurehead? Let's face facts - Britain is ruled from Brussels and what they say - goes, regardless of who is in 'power'.

Answer 9

The pratts name is Bliar! and the other greaseball is Pickpocket Brown!

Answer 10

never believe polls