Manifesto - pledge - Political Promises. Just other words for LIES.

Low voter turn-out, disillusioned voters and lack of respect for politicians of all varieties - a problem that effects the UK and many other democratic nations. 'Manifesto', 'pledge' and 'election promise' are just words that politicians spray around with no desire to see them become reality. Empty words repeated so many times they have no meaning.

Make each party  MANIFESTO legally binding before an election. A manifesto that they are legally obliged to enforce within SIX MONTHS of being voted in. These manifesto pledges will be spread over a number of political areas ( 4 year tax levels, health care spending, environment, foreign aid etc ) and they would be legally binding. If they fail to follow up on these pledges, it automatically triggers an immediate election and

Manifesto. Politics. Hot air with no right to recall. Pledge. Promise. Lie.

Low voter turn-out, disillusioned voters and lack of respect for politicians of all varieties - a problem that effects the UK and many other democratic nations. 'Manifesto', 'pledge' and 'election promise' are just words that politicians spray around with no desire to see them become reality. Empty words repeated so many times they have no meaning.

Make each party  MANIFESTO legally binding before an election. A manifesto that they are legally obliged to enforce within SIX MONTHS of being voted in. These manifesto pledges will be spread over a number of political areas ( 4 year tax levels, health care spending, environment, foreign aid etc ) and they would be legally binding. If they fail to follow up on these pledges, it automatically triggers an immediate election and

Modern society & religions.

Politics and religion should be kept apart by a long stick of rational thought. Regardless of whether or not we can truly call today's Britain a Christian country, religions should have no place in the politics of a modern, forward thinking society, other than a personal freedom. However, in this country today we have 'faith schools' of all denominations veering from the national curriculum and brainwashing children with divisive lies, non-elected religious leaders sitting in the House of Lords voting on state issues and a system of local government based on religious parishes and councils. The whole system is flawed, in need of an overhaul and is not fit for purpose.

Modern society should be about taking the best available evidence, technology and knowledge to create a

Legally binding MANIFESTO. Improving democracy.

With politics, both home & abroad, being at the centre of everyone's attention at the moment, our screens are full of hopeful, career politicians spewing half-truths and pretending that they (a.) believe them and (b.) intend to implement them. What is the answer to this blatantly un-democratic lie-fest? One thing stands out to me.

Make each party  MANIFESTO legally binding in the run up to an election. A manifesto that they pledge to enforce within SIX MONTHS of being voted in. These manifesto pledges will be spread over a number of set political areas that each party has to declare ( tax levels, benefit levels, environment, foreign aid etc ) and they would be legally binding. If they fail to follow up on these pledges, it automatically triggers an immediate election and

Breaking News - Human man quits privileged position.

Can a #Humanist/#Rationalist be a Royalist? After all, we are talking about a fellow human who is considered to be better and more worthy than those beneath them. Living in a privileged position of generational wealth and power, handed to them by war and tyranny throughout history. I'm not sure that it is something that belongs in a modern world of equality and rationality.

King Juan Carlos of Spain has recently (2ndJune2014) abdicated the throne, handing the 'job' to his son, Felipe in what could be seen as a PR stunt designed to halt a slide in Royal popularity. Is that cynical or does it have some truth - Juan Carlos Human has had a hard time publicly in the last few years. He went Elephant hunting in Botswana, splashing his inherited wealth whilst the vast majority of the Spanish people struggled through a large financial crisis. Is that not a bit anachronistic?

Is the idea of a British monarchy ruling over the lower orders relevant in a modern society? Does it have a place other than as a figurehead for a 'Disney-style dream castle theme park' with a large team of PR bots designed to boost tourism? Should a royal family have any power to rule or hold any opinions? When they do, they find themselves in hot royal water for expressing an interest. ( see Prince Charles discussing Ukraine/Russia ) Are there really some humans that are genetically better suited to rule over others? When you say it like that, it makes you wonder how relevant it really is. Or is that just cynical me? Discuss.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-27662301

Some thoughts on Europe, migration and economics.

Unless there is economic parity across a 'European State', ( or any state ) there will be a population movement from areas of the lowest economic benefit to those of the highest. That is a global, economic occurrence. Within the EU, the free movement of population between states is one of the fundamental rights. This free movement will lead to increasing pressure on the services, infrastructure and economies of those countries that are seen to be in the higher economic group. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_in_Europe_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita
This, in turn, will lead to a decrease in the standard of living in these areas unless there is a major investment in the infrastructure which has not been happening on a large enough scale since the economic downturn in 2007. Economic migrants following these routes, are less likely to bring with them savings, pensions, higher skill sets, qualifications or experience, all of which would benefit the economies to which they move. http://knoema.com/atlas/maps/GDP-per-capita

Do we therefore have to accept that certain areas will have to take a decline of standard of living as part of a European experiment or a global market? Could the refusal to accept that decline be partly responsible for the rise of anti-Europe, anti-immigration parties in the UK and the EU elections of 2014? After all, it is only by pulling out of the EU that countries can start to control immigration and access to services without breaking EU rules. The UK has not even had a referendum or vote on EU rules since the 1970's.

At the next level up, a global economic model will also lead to such changes. Are we seeing the beginning of a mass movement of population and wealth on a global scale? If so, there are billions of people worldwide that fall well below the average GDP per capita. Do they have the right to move freely to another country or state? Is uncontrolled immigration sustainable within individual states? Discuss.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Asian_countries_by_GDP_per_capita
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_African_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

Female Bishops to sit in the House of Lords?. How very modern.

The Question should not be 'Why don't we have female bishops sitting in the House of Lords?', we should be asking 'why do we still need unelected bishops there at all?'. In a move that will no doubt be seen by some  as 'modernising', female bishops are to be fast-tracked in to the House of Lords, the upper level of our, so called, 'democracy'.  Of course, that all depends on the church agreeing that female bishops are a good idea in the first place. These unelected officials will then sit, making laws and choosing the direction of our country's politics, as their male counterparts have done for centuries. It is far from modernising, it smacks of a bygone era when religious people ( CofE ) were consulted by a monarch to help guide lawmaking. It is nothing more than a blatant attempt to make the religious appointment of unelected political leaders more acceptable to an increasingly secular society. The whole system is anachronistic, non-democratic and designed to keep religious and hereditary privilege at the highest political station of the land. There has to be a more representative and modern way of doing things. 26 Lords Spiritual. 88 Hereditary Peers. Over 650 nominated Life Peers. A couple of female bishops will make all the difference, I'm sure. Discuss.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10844909/Women-bishops-to-be-fast-tracked-into-House-of-Lords.html

Low Voter Turn out and contempt for politicians? A solution.

Here's an instant solution to the problem of low voter turn-out, disillusioned voters and lack of respect for politicians of all varieties - a problem that effects the UK and many other democratic nations.

Make each party  MANIFESTO legally binding before an election. A manifesto that they pledge to enforce within SIX MONTHS of being voted in. These manifesto pledges will be spread over a number of political areas ( tax, health care, environment, foreign aid etc ) and they would be legally binding. If they fail to follow up on these pledges, it automatically triggers an immediate election and

Keep your religion out of our politics.

Politics and religion should be kept apart by a long stick of rational thought. Regardless of whether or not we can truly call today's Britain a Christian country, religions should have no place in the politics of a modern, forward thinking society. However, in this country today we have 'faith schools' of all denominations veering from the national curriculum, non-elected church leaders sitting in the House of Lords voting on state issues and a system of local government based on religious parishes and councils. The whole system is flawed, in need of an overhaul and is not fit for purpose.

Politics should be about taking the best available evidence, technology and knowledge to create a