Comments on: POWER2010

By: Graham Smith

Graham Smith — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 12:25:55 +0000

Hi Stephen

You can’t really judge a group by the posts left on their blog, that would be like judging Republic by the comments of Simon and Neill!

We’ve met with Power2010 and know some of those involved. The comments you mention don’t reflect their views or ideology. If you have concerns about the content of any comments left on their blog I suggest you email them and make a complaint.

Cheers

By: Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 11:06:47 +0000

Be very wary of Power 2010. I submitted a policy option some weeks ago, then commented on the ‘policy’ of the day, week or whatever it was, simply flagging up my opposition to posters supporting the idea of an English Parliament. The following day my in-box was full of later posters’ additions, including examples of the most violent racism.

Should we really be associating with this group?

By: James Gray

James Gray — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 11:08:18 +0000

@Ian

Yes, the blog has a spam filter but occasionally some still gets through. I’ve deleted the one spam comment from this post – are there any more?

By: Ian McIntosh

Ian McIntosh — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 11:04:09 +0000

Hasn’t this blog got a spam filter? An awful lot of ‘comments’ have been from spammers.

By: Bob Wiggin

Bob Wiggin — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 22:31:20 +0000

Roger Hurst – “Do we really only want the ‘establishment’ to continue to be in charge as we come to the end of the first decade of the 21st century?”

It’s an emphatic no from me then. The people should be in charge and delegate power to the politicians. We should have a written constitution that an elected head of state would be delegated by us to safeguard, and he/she would do that by using, if necessary, some important reserve powers that, once again, the people would delegate to him/her.

By: Roger Hurst

Roger Hurst — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 17:54:09 +0000

Will reform of the electoral system be included? It’s blindingly obvious that the current system with it’s pre-disposition to preserve many MPs in ’safe’ seats, has failed us.
However would Proportional Representation be better?
At least with PR I would feel my vote counted, whereas, at the moment, only those who live in ‘marginal’ seats have any real say who who is their MP.
Why is having more representation of various points of view in Parliament put forward against us having PR?
Surely the point of a Democracy is to allow us to have our say and not just have to go along with what is considered by those in Parliament as the ‘correct’ point of view?
Would NOT having a 2 (or possibly 3) party system mean an inability to govern? It seems plenty of other countries run just as effectively with their parliaments having more of a ‘people’s voice’.
If people support the Communists, Greens, BNP etc why shouldn’t the people’s Parliament reflect that? Isn’t that the whole point?
Do we really only want the ‘establishment’ to continue to be in charge as we come to the end of the first decade of the 21st century?

By: Ian McIntosh

Ian McIntosh — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 15:08:54 +0000

So when do we get to vote on these then? How does it work?

You are right John, we should elect people to all positions that have an influence on how the country is run, including the upper house and head of state.