CORNWALL, CORNISH NATIONALISM AND

THE ALTERNATIVE VOTE REFERENDUM

• VOTING YES ON MAY 5^th

Most Cornish people do not want to see greater links to Devon – the so called DEVONWALL issue.

Unfortunately the Act of Parliament that contains the legislation for Alternative Vote also contains the legislation to change the constituency boundaries, the Act is called Parliamentary Voting Systems and Constituencies Act 2011.

Cleverly, (if you are not in favour of AV – like your name is Cameron) however the part dealing with change to constuency sizes is not dependent on the result of the Referendum. If you doubt me read the Referendum Question.

“At present, the UK uses the “first past the post” system to elect Mps to the House of Commons. Should the “alternative vote” system be used instead?”

Take this on board if the result of the referendum is a NO. The changes to constituency sizes will still proceed. That is already law it – unfortunately it is a done deal – DEVONWALL will happen and it is another fight.

The only people who have an interest in saying vote NO to stop the DEVONWALL CONSTUENCY are those who are campaigning for a NO VOTE. NO Vote campaigners have consistently told outright lies throughout this Referendum Campaign. First off they claimed AV would involve a £250 million expenditure on expensive voting machines – it was proved that there were no plans to introduce voting machines. Then Baroness Warsi, the Conservative Vote NO to AV campaign leader, claimed a vote for AV would only favour the British National Party – maybe to some extent it would – but it was a strange claim to make because the BNP are part of the Vote NO campaign.

This leads me to ask questions about Cornish Nationalists and MK. We are usually proud of the links between the Celtic Fringe, yet the SNP and Plaid Cymru are both backing the switch to AV. Getting tweaks made to the constituency rules – the inclusion of Cornwall and the Isle of Wight as special cases – along with the already included “special cases” the Scottish Islands – will be relatively simple compared to getting another chance to change the Electoral System.

I am 62 and for almost half my life the “First Past the Post” Electoral System has been under scrutiny, with claims that it is unfair and cannot cope with a democracy where there are more than 2 parties taking part in an election.

One NO argument made by Cornish Zetetics, is that there would have been little difference in the last General Election between the FPTP result and the calculated AV result. I beg to differ, how many people say, “I agree with party X, but they stand no chance so I will vote for the best of a bad bunch!”. In Cornwall many Labour Party suporters vote for a LibDem, for this reason. I think under AV many more people may vote for MK, before the main party candidate. Maybe no MK candidate will get in, but candidates will have to take into account the Nationalist Feelings expressed by the electorate.

IF YOU WANT A STRONG CORNWALL, TAKE THE FIRST STEPS, VOTE YES TO AV ON MAY 5th

FREE SPEECH

(SUPER INJUNCTIONS)

When I was young, I was always taught that an essential element of the “Unwritten British Constitution” was Free Speech. When I got older and more aware I learnt that this country had some of the strictest Libel and Slander Laws in the world. In fact amongst the, so-called, Western Democracies Britain could be among the most repressive country.

Those of you who can recall Robert Maxwell and the Daily Mirror, will also recall as soon as he had died, (falling overboard from his yacht) members of the media were queing up to say they had known for years that he was a fraud and a conman. However Britains Libel and Slander Laws had prevented them from going public. Once he was dead it was OK because in British Law the dead cannot be slandered or libelled.

However this is not about Robert Maxwell – or ripping off pension funds – this is about a newish legal invention the so-called SUPER INJUNCTION. Not only is an injunction granted to gag the press, but it also prevents the press from mentioning that the injunction has been granted or why.

Legally in Britain we enjoy Free Speech, unless free speech upsets those with money (it would appear, even if that money has been stolen from the citizens of the United Kingdom - provided the thief has sufficient funds to buy the courts)

Very quietly last week a certain Fred Goodwin do you remember him? - (Yes he was the W*NK*R in charge at the Royal Bank of Scotland when it went under). Bought a Judge - no sorry to be accurate - a learned Judge in his wisdom decided to grant Mr Goodwin's application for one of these SUPER INJUNCTIONS. So it is illegal to say what his profession is / was or the Scottish financial institution who employed him. Or the size of his golden handshake and super pension. And we would not know this if a brave MP had not used Parliamentary Privelege to raise the issue in Parliament. Or I suppose to say his mismanagement of a bank was in a great part responsible for the economic crash.

I would not have known if I had not seen this on the BBC News website - MP raises Goodwin media ban order
www.bbc.co.uk
An MP has said the former boss of Royal Bank of Scotland, Sir Fred Goodwin, has obtained an injunction which bans the media from even calling him a banker.

Well Mr Goodwin BOF lives as a tenant in a Housing Association House, is retired on state benefits, has no real savings. Is not afraid of the consequences of breaking corrupt laws and will publish and be damned. BOF believes in Free Speech – Freedom of Information – Wikileaks – A Free Press – Freedom of Expression.

WHEN IN ROME DO AS THE ROMANS

Wrote Saint Augustine in 390 a.d. Now this is not in fact a set of jottings about religion, although it does involve religious practise. What this is about is the failure of Multiculturalism. - It is not often you will read me agreeing with the leader of the Conservative Party. Don't get me wrong I am not advocating Fascist Nationalism, or the “Seperate development model” of the Apartheid era in South Africa. I do believe in the belief in our selves and our own identity and respect for the identity of others.

Last week it was reported that CBS reporter Lara Logan had been assaulted. It was said that after getting separated from her crew and minders, she was seized by security men loyal to Mabourak and was beaten and sexually assaulted by them and their hangers on. Eventually she was freed by Egyptian soldiers and a group of women. Meanwhile in Islamic Pakistan Olga Guerin is the BBC reporter. These two women are not the only high profile western women, who are working for western organisations in the Islamic world.

The Liberal justification is said to be based upon Multiculturalism, they should accept our standards in the same way as we accept theirs. Now this is no longer true. Many European countries are questioning the idea of Multiculturalism. Some are passing anti-Islamic laws, banning the wearing of the Burkha in public places.

Personally I agree, when someone from an Islamic country wishes to visit or live in a country, whose culture is founded in the Judeo / Christian tradition, those people should accept the culture of the host country, practise their religion in private and not seek to impose a foreign culture upon their hosts. It is not good manners, for the guest to demand their host conforms to the guests moral and ethical code.

Having said that, it is also in my opinion, bad manners and unethical for companies and organisations from western countries to send women to work in high profile jobs in Islamic countries. In fact I believe doing this is offensive to the Islamic host country. Furthermore it smacks of the same attitudes as 19^th century European Imperialism - “only when they accept doing things our way will they be civilised.”

I no more believe it is right to insist on acting in a Judeo / Christian way in an Islamic country, than it is for Islamists to protest against cartoons of the Prophet being published in Non-Islamic countries. If people cannot live by the social and moral mores and standards of the country they are visiting then they should not be there. We should all respect, not only each others rights, but we must also respect each others differences and celebrate our own identity.

Which do we want - “First Past the Post” or Democracy?

If you do not know what I am talking about, let me enlighten you. If all goes to plan, on May the 5^th. this year voters in the UK are going to be asked to vote in a referendum on which voting system to use in Westminster Parliamentary elections.

The choice will be either to retain the present “First Past the Post” system, or adopt a new “Alternative Vote” system.

Many people will ask, why should the system be changed? In my opinion it needs to be changed because the present system is no longer fit for purpose.

First Past the Post, was democratic when it was invented, when very few people had a vote, and the choice was between the representatives of only 2 political parties. Even after the 1831 Reform Act, (when the voting franchise was widened out), it was still fit for purpose. At that time there was only a choice was still between the candidates representing 2 political parties, Whigs and Tories. By the end of the 19^th Century these 2 Parties had become the Liberal and the Conservative Parties. At the beginning of the 20^th century a new party emerged – the Labour Party. From the 1920s it became apparent that 3 Parties and “First Past the Post”, were neither compatible nor democratic.

Effectively First Past the Post disenfranchises substantial numbers of the electorate. Take a look at the figures for the last few elections.

2010 General Election: Conservative got 36.1% of the vote and won 306 seats; Labour 29% of the votes and 258 seats; the LibDems got 23% of the votes and 57 seats.

2005 General Election: Labour got 32.5% of the vote and won 355 seats; Conservatives got 32.4% of the votes and 198 seats; LibDems 22% of votes and 62 seats.

2001 General Election: Labour 40.7% of votes and 413 seats; Conservatives 31.7% of votes and 166 seats; LibDems 18.3% of votes and 52 seats.

1997 General Election: Labour 43.2% votes and 418 seats; Conservative 30.7% votes and 165 seats; LibDems 16.8% votes and 46 seats.

1992 General Election: Conservative 41.9% votes and 336 seats; Labour 34.4% of votes and 271 seats; LibDem 17.8% of votes and 20 seats.

1987 General Election: Conservative 42.2% of votes 376 seats; Labour 30.8% of votes 229 seats: LibDems 22.6% of votes 22 seats.

1983 General Election: Conservative 42.4% of votes 397 seats; Labour 27.6% of votes 209 seats; LibDem 25.4% of votes 23 seats.

It does not take a mathematical genius to see that there is no correlation between the percentage of votes cast for a party and the number of seats won. The largest percentage of votes cast for the third party was in the 1983 election – 25.4% - in a democratic system one would have expected a quarter of all seats (162 of 650) to have been LibDem in fact they only got 23 seats – not democratic in my opinion, and most certainly not fair!

At this point I have not considered the uphill struggle faced by the even smaller parties, - the Green Party, United Kingdom Independence Party and many others. In fact it would be fair to say many people do not vote for a party whose policies they agree with, so much as vote to stop a party whose policies they disagree with – a case of voting for the lesser evil. This is not what is meant by the term democracy. It is a fact that when the United Kingdom Government has been involved in drawing up the constitution of other countries, (former colonies, devolution to Scotland and Wales), the prescribed electoral system has never been First Past the Post.

However the system on offer, the Alternative Vote system, is not an alternative favoured by many people. Most people wanted some form of Proportional Representation. However PR results in M.P.s who are not answerable to constituencies, whereas under AV an MP will still represent a Parliamentary Constituency, furthermore he or she will have been elected by at least 50% of all the electorate, who voted. The system is simplicity itself. The voter is asked to to rank the candidates by preference: 1. for most preferred; 2. for second choice; 3. for third choice; 4. for fourth etc. If in the first round of counting, a candidate gets over 50% of the votes cast – they will be elected. If no one has 50% first preference votes, 2^nd round counting will start, the candidate with the least votes is eliminated and their second preference votes are counted. If still no candidate has passed the 50% a third round count takes place, the bottom placed remaining candidate is eliminated their 2^nd preference votes are allocated and counted. This process will continue until a candidate has 50% of the votes. Not perfect maybe, but in this age of many parties more effective and democratic than first past the post.

When people can vote without worrying about wasting their single vote, who knows what the result may be. UKIP supporters may risk voting UKIP first Conservative second preference. Labour may find it looses voters to socialist parties like Respect. No doubt some of the fringe parties who have popular messages will also unexpectedly benefit.

Finally I must tell you members of the House of Lords have attempted to sabotage the Referendum by introducing a 40% Threshold for the referendum turnout. When one considers this vote is taking place 8 months after the Electoral Rolls were compiled, and obviously some people on the roll will have died, or gone to prison it will be realised the threshold is far higher. It also insults the dead, as it effectively presumes that they are NO votes.

I URGE YOU -

PLEASE TURN OUT ON MAY THE 5TH AND VOTE

PLEASE IF YOU ARE A DEMOCRAT VOTE YES FOR AV

JUSTICE FOR DOGS

DOG BITES MAN – fatal for dog

MAN HITS DOG – nothing

DOG RETALIATES TO BEING HIT BY MAN – fatal for dog

Really not fair for dogs.

What has provoked me into writing about this is the action of some old crusty walker in Helston, Cornwall. This took place yesterday (New Years Day 2011 at some ttime between 15.15 hours and 16.00 hours). Two dogs, (a German Shepheard / Husky cross and a retired Greyhound), were playing chase along the concrete lane that runs past the sewage works, about 100 yards beyond the cattle grid. This lane forms a part of the route to Loe Bar, (excuse me for the detail, but someone should take this post very seriously). A group of about 8 walkers, a bit older than me, all clad in walking boots, bright coloured Kagools, woolly hats and carrying these walking poles came towards us. If you were one of this group no doubt you will recognise yourselves, I would read on because this post contains a message for one of your group – no doubt you know who he is!

Now to the crux of the matter – this mob of geriatric walkers, charged on keeping to the centre of the lane, regardless of 4 adults, 2 small children or the 2 dogs. Until that is the dogs who were intent only on their chase game arrived by the crusties legs. The dogs were not threatening but one of the crusties began to poke at the German Shepheard with his walking pole.

Now take note if you are that crustie walker, this is a warning. I have you seen you poke at dogs with your walking pole in the past ot take sly kicks at them. Maybe you cannot help your behaviour, perhaps you have a phobia about dogs – if so why don’t you stay away from where dogs are walked. It is your good fortune that to date you have not touched my dog, because if you did I would be forced to take action.

If my dog takes action to protect himself from you he will be labelled a vicious animal and be put down, no matter what the provocation you have done to the dog. Personally I do not think that this is fair or just. I also believe as a responsible dog owner that I have a duty to take care of my dog. So, in future if you even look as though you are intending to strike or kick me dog, take note I will act in the dog’s defence.

If I see you you use your walking pole to threaten my dog. I shall ram said trendy walking pole so far up your Jacksie, that the spiked tip will perform a tonsillectomy on you before knocking your teeth out.

If I see you go to use your feet I shall use my feet to kick your ass so hard your teeth will rattle. And remember this is not the threat made by some young yob, it is from an old man in your age group who cares passionately about his dog.