Wednesday, May 04, 2011

YES TO AV, NO TO AV, that is not the question.

Dear People of Great Britain, "Do you want Alternative Vote, or don't you?"

that's what you're being asked BUT THAT'S NOT THE QUESTION.

You'll notice FREE PLANET has been quiet on the lingering subject of Alternative Vote but it's now time to 'state the obvious'. The hung parliament vote of 2009 should have told ANYONE how the Great British public felt about Parliament, it should have told ANYONE how the Great British public felt about Politics.

"We don't want your stinking parliament."
"We don't want your stinking politics."

That is what the roughtly three-way split for Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrats at last year's General Election said. People had worked out that no matter who gets into parliament, You The People get shafted in the name of PROFIT that only ever benefits the rich. People are sick of living in debt, people are sick of paying taxes, people are sick of subsidizing the Corporate War Machine with their daily grind.

So, what happened, when the Great British people decided they didn't rate EITHER of the main three parties? What happened when Parliament was given a VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE? Well, two of these 'no longer wanted parties' shimmied together in uncomfortable coalition and made a parliament against the people's wishes. Remember, you didn't vote for this coalition government, they organised it themselves.

And it's the same with the AV question. It's not that you want AV or not. It's that the parties are THEMSELVES split about it. Not only is there a red/blue paradigm in politics where IT DOESN'T MATTER who gets into power, they all answer to The City of London, even the Queen. Same with AV, it doesn't matter how you vote, you get shafted either way. AV (yes) just means more voters contributions go towards helping coalition local and general governments. AV literally means, "There are so few people voting, we have to redistribute all the Common Purpose votes to our own advantage, so that we look good. AV (no) is just purgatory.

When will you see that parliament is NOT IN YOUR BENEFIT, it is only in the benefit of the mafia-like grip enoromous Conglomerate Business Firms have on the governments of the world. I wanna see some clever accountant do a financial projection of our country that DOESN'T INCLUDE THE COST OF GOVERNMENT. I wanna see seven billion people's verdict on wars, I wanna see seven billion people's verdict on Corporate Espionage. I suspect ALL OF THEM will say they hate being at financial war with any other people, they hate the drain on their resources and the pollution of that territory by DU munitions and unexploded munitions. Ask the people if they wanna work their fingers to the bone so that a few elites can drink the best champagne and eat the most expensive caviar in corporate board rooms the world over.

In fact, you know me, I wanna see an end to all top-down government and a return to local (ethically technological) solutions to food, water, waste, housing and transport but that's just me, wanting my insane Free Planet.

And no this is not my desperate claim to the Presidential seat, NOBODY should want to be in power. NOBODY.

May 6th update: well, the overwhelming (70% of voters) rejection of the NO TO AV vote vindicates my own NO vote on this issue. But it's goes much deeper than that if we want to retain a government to run this country for our own real benefit.

For example: why doesn't the party who wins the General Election get to run the local councils, too? Call me naive, or 'out of touch with reality' but this seems a much better result FOR EVERYONE. We vote in the rulers, we get to say how our local lives are run. I am, of course, talking about ONE VOTE, NATIONWIDE. In this way, ALL THE VOTES are totted up and parties are alloted the representative numbers of seats in parliament so that proper political debate can still go ahead, BUT the party who won the elections SHOULD get to filter their victory through the running of our councils as they see fit.

Gah, I wonder...

No comments: