About the People's Administration Direct Democracy Party
We are musicians, producers, artists and political activists [not politicians] who have registered our movement [the People's Administration] as a mainstream political party with the Electoral Commission [March 2010] so as to create the opportunity to legitimately implement direct democracy using the web and telephone in the UK.
The People's Administration believes that through the use of the web and telephony, [mis]representation in Parliament by politicians is no longer required. With direct democracy, the UK would no longer be America's 51st State.
Politicians are not problem solvers. They are generally from a media or legal background and neither professions involve any degree of training in problem solving. It is engineers, technicians, scientists, philosophers, therapists, authors, artists, teachers, analysts and others who are natural problem solvers and, only direct democracy can allow for their ideas to become reality. Without direct democracy, their ideas will remain oppressed. If we are to be 'responsible' citizens, how can we do this whilst refusing to take responsibility for the most fundamental decisions? Only direct democracy will enable full social responsibility.
We believe that social unity can only be achieved with direct democracy, where the UK electorate can create, propose and vote upon all policy implementation. We believe that people can only take responsibility for their country's actions in a direct democracy. We believe that the people can only have full control of every aspect of their lives in a direct democracy.
We believe that the youth do want to get political and do want to influence common law but, that they do not want to be dictated to by a what they perceive as being a corrupt dictatorial parliament, whilst having no influence themselves. Who would? We believe that this combination amounts to direct oppression of the youth and, that this can be influential in generating a cause for potential youth unrest and discontent. Driven mostly by greed, the following damaged our communities, damaged our cultural reputation, damaged our economy, and they damaged our international reputation:
- Bankers get bailed-out, politicians do a few months soft labour, Rupert Murdoch gets a slap and teenagers get 4 years! The 'caring' and 'compassionate' people of the UK call for a cull of the youth, whilst acquitting David Cameron's mates?
During the 1970's and 80's, anyone who voted for Thatcher empowered her to compromise the social cohesion of our communities in sake of an expanding [but short-term economy] and generally, these are the same people who now complain about our communities being broken and "sick" and who call for the punishment of the victims of Thatcherism itself.
The People's Administration believes that a combination of corporate marketing, neglectful teaching, neglectful parenting, corrupt community 'leadership' and Thatcherism has corrupted and abused the youth for at least two generations:
- Corporate marketing messages that condition children into thinking that their worth comes only from their material status, whist inciting aggression via violent video games
- Neglectful teaching that sees children leaving school without being able to read, write or articulate
- Neglectful parenting from those who bred their future off-spring as commodities or 'stock' which which to secure various social benefits
- Corrupt community 'leaders' who believe [as we do] that there is a Whitehall-led propaganda conspiracy to divide the people from the police, yet who say nothing of this to the youth for fear of damaging their own personal reputations.
During March 2011, the founder of the People's Administration attended talks with representatives of some of Birmingham's youth and community groups with a view to forming a Birmingham-wide unity campaign. The founder of the People's Administration emphasised how he believed that our failure to educate the youth on the relevant political issues could lead to much social unrest in the near future but, they all expressed concerns about sharing activities with the police and things then started to go downhill. At the same time but during separate meetings, West Midlands Police had already assured the founder of the People's Administration that any events held would be supported by them and, that they were even ready to donate venues and facilities along with cars, bikes and a helicopter for the children - all at their own expense and with officers attending during their own time. A few months after the meetings collapsed, Birmingham erupted and the riots started to go racial as well as anti-authoritarian and the so-called community 'leaders' were no where to be seen.
This culture of social inadequacy is maintained by successive governments with weak or corrupt 'leadership' and old-school right-wing thinking - empowered by the electorate who chooses to vote for them, therefore maintaining the system of 'representative' democracy and social irresponsibility.
In our opinion, certain aspects of UK society are responsible for wholesale child abuse and, whilst we seek methods with which to serve further rejection, we believe that it is rejection itself that needs to be countered. The youth will always be part of society regardless of how they behave and so we believe that further punishment and rejection will only serve to cause more illness for all of society.
In the opinion of the People's Administration, the riots of 2011 were not justified, but were reasonable. The youth allowed themselves to be played by government propaganda and so they perceived the police as the enemy [helped along by corruption, racism and a lack of unaccountability from the police].
It is our opinion that although there were many influential social and political factors that prompted these riots, it was still the individual choices made by each participant that started and maintained the riots. No one forced anyone to riot and they could have instead chosen to organise peaceful demonstrations against social neglect or even against the police. This would have achieved far more for them and, it would have attracted the support of the public and the media instead of alienating them.
In the opinion of the government, the riots of 2011 were not justified and were not reasonable [they were born only of reasons linked to criminal intent]. David Cameron says that these youth are "sick", yet he wants to impose punishment and further isolation - not discipline, compassion and healing. The true leadership of UK criminal gang culture is ran by adults [mostly over the age of thirty five years] who are playing the youth [who are vulnerable to the four main contributing elements of youth crime listed above] and so it is these people who would have to be targeted in any anti-gang campaigns - not the youth.
David Cameron's choice of harsh revenge over compassionate discipline [of the youth he wanted to hug pre-general election] is in complete contrast with his attitude towards criminal bankers and convicted criminal politicians. We believe that this blatant hypocrisy contributes towards the perception that the youth have developed towards the politicians, the corporations, the media, and now the emergency services.
5 months in jail for a single mother of two children who was given a pair of shorts by a looter when visiting her apartment - even though she herself was not involved in the riots or the looting at all?
8 years for getting over-excited on Facebook, when others serve less for causing death by dangerous driving and for rape?
As usual, threatening the state is still a crime deemed worse than harming an individual citizen.
Ironically it is the police, sociologists, psychologists and counsellors who believe in a balance of compassion and punishment and do not believe that any solution will come from further isolation of the youth. It is the police who now defend the same youths who targeted them as the 'enemy'.
In the opinion of the rioting youths, the riots were justified but, they themselves can not articulate the reasons for why. We believe that this is why they perceive their own actions as being a protest and not a riot. It was a form of spontaneous expression and if we misread it and punish it, we will all pay a much higher price in the future.
Margaret Thatcher was closer to Rupert Murdoch than any other Prime Minister was previously and this led to the birth of a culture that chose selfishness over compassion and greed over sharing, and that became conditioned into despising claimants of Welfare benefits as state scroungers and those who want "something for nothing" - even though the Welfare State is funded by those who use it.
We believe that the youth of the riots in 2011 are the real children of Thatcher because, it was her ideology that they were enacting. In our opinion, Tony Blair and David Cameron are both the true sons of Thatcher and by voting for either, the electorate has been voting for irresponsibility and for an on-going increase in divisions within our communities and this is why nothing has really changed since Thatcher.
The People's Administration believes that all governments since Thatcher have gradually and quietly shifted the response/community ratio of the work load of all three emergency services so that we only see them when they are responding to threats and never in a community role. When did see the police, ambulance or fire service coming into your child's school? This stopped when Thatcher decided to take milk away from children and we do not think the timing was a coincidence and instead, think that it was representative of Conservative thinking towards the vulnerable.
Along-side this, the ratio of television exposure given between police response work and police community work [both fictional and non-fiction] has shifted so much towards response programming that we only now see the police when they're responding - never seeing anything of their community work. At the same time, Whitehall directives restrict the police from funding any community work - ensuring that on or off-screen, we only ever see the police in response mode and, the People's Administration believes that this is a fundamental propaganda tool that the state is intentionally using in order to alienate the police from the people.
David Cameron is the first ever UK Prime Minister to ban police forces from budgeting for community work.
We believe that there has been an on-going conspiracy behind Whitehall [now involving Rupert Murdoch's media and hidden groups of varying nature] that has been influencing successive governments [via policy formation] since Harold Wilson took office. This is a theory shared by many reputable individuals and organisations [including high-ranking members of the emergency services] and, we believe that this conspiracy is oriented in dividing communities and alienating the emergency services so that they can be used as a cushion to protect governments [as what happened in 2011] when these governments over-exert their control and oppression.
We believe that UK governments have been consciously dividing communities simply to further their control [something that was learned during the formation of the British Empire] and we believe that Rupert Murdoch himself has been instrumental in this process [for his own commercial and political gain]. If you ever see the police performing community-related work, it will only be because those particular officers have chosen to give up their own time outside of work hours so as to connect with their own communities.
It is during the Thatcher era that Parliament as an institution became wholly non-representative of the UK people, instead favouring to support the desires of the media, the religions, the unelected lords and consultants [such as multi-millionaire Alan Sugar], the corporates, the banks, the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers and hidden organisations [shadow governments]. This is the essence of Thatcherism and it's still with us today, maintained and enhanced by both Tony Blair and David Cameron.
It should be highlighted that the founder of the People's Administration was himself a victim of a serious police conspiracy during 1999 - 2001 which was successfully resolved through a series of closed court hearings and so was not publicised but despite this, he still believes that as with any institution, there will be those who maintain their integrity as well as those who are weak and corrupt.
We believe that communities have slowly been conditioned to view the emergency services as the 'enemy' and, in not questioning our own thoughts, feelings and conditioning, we have allowed ourselves to be played by those who now serve only a corrupt but rich minority.
Direct Democracy via the People's Administration is the only current legitimate proposal for self-rule, wholesale political reform and true social unity. If you believe in having full control of every aspect of your life - vote for direct democracy Now!
The People's Administration believes that the people are frustrated with the childish, embarrassing and regressive culture of British politics and of Parliament. We believe that the people wish for politicians to have integrity and to be working together to find solutions on our behalf instead of warring against each other so as to retain personal status and power.
However, it is not within the nature of UK partisan political parties to be able to work with each other [as Peter Mandleson himself admitted on the morning after polling day 2010]. We believe that the new hung parliament will demonstrate this disability and, it is also our belief that removing the ability to make decisions regarding policy implementation through the implementation of direct democracy, will remove the effects caused by these parties not being able to work together.
A hung parliament can though equip Whitehall with the experience of working with all parties and, of identifying the commonalities of various party members regarding policy formation. The hung parliament could also be an opportunity for politicians to start to formulate cross-party working protocols with each other - all in preparation for true and direct democracy.
If the coalition is productive, this would demonstrate that cross-party cohesion is viable. If the coalition is non-productive, this would demonstrate that there is no cohesion. Either way, all possible scenarios will promote reform to direct democracy via the web and phone.
The parliamentary and election reforms that some parties are now wanting to implement do not involve using the web to adapt and modernise by replacing the polling station and, they do not involve handing decision-making ability to the people. Only a reform to direct democracy can do this.
As the parties move more to the centre so as to maintain appeal with a socially evolving UK public, they will lose their identity and connection to their roots and therefore, will not represent anything other than their leadership's own political aspirations.
How can change be delivered by a party that represents the opposite - conservatism?
How can labour's roots-socialism be promoted when they need to support capitalist business structures that maximise instead of optimise?
This is the beginning of the transition from partisan politics to people politics and it's happening now. This is the start of the evolutionary path of so-called 'representative democracy' transforming into direct democracy through the people and by the majority will of the people. It is not merely the result of politicians falling out of favour with the electorate through their abusive behaviour.
The basis of our reform to direct democracy is about all policy-making responsibility being transferred from all ministers and politicians to the people via an on-line voting system. Therefore, the People's Administration will not need more members because current ministers and politicians from all parties and the people, will be working together through the administration which will be managed by a Chief Administrator and not a Prime Minister. This reform intends to change the role of all current ministers and politicians into that of administrators - who will act only upon the majority will of the people - expressed via the web.
Under the People's Administration, party structures will have less and less relevance as we move from centralisation and partisan politics to direct democracy and people politics and so in principal, Alex is opposed to the establishment of another party but, he sees no other way of creating a realistic opportunity to legitimately and peacefully install direct democracy and, he believes that we need this option now.
We are all born with free will - the ability to make choices [freedom]. If during our lives we choose to limit its use, then it is us who restricts our own power and freedom. Up until the point of death, no one can compromise our freedom without us in some way choosing to let them do so. We can choose right now to exercise the power and freedom that we already have, by voting for the People's Administration and direct democracy or, we can continue to choose to be controlled by the minority and to suffer the consequences of not taking responsibility.
Choosing not to vote for direct democracy when we now have the opportunity, is to choose to never again complain about any aspect of any government, as they will only be able to govern our lives because we empower them to do so.
Alex Romane is a Dance music producer who has intermittently also worked outside of the music industry. He has had a varied career history living and working in various parts of the UK but, he has also had periods of unemployment and homelessness. Alex was born in London of English, Greek, Irish and Scottish heritage and within education, Alex studied to GCSE level in a state comprehensive and then acquired a diploma in Psycho Acoustic Music Production during further education but, he is not university educated.
Contrary to an article published by the Trinity Mirror group in 2010, Alex did not establish the People's Administration after being "inspired by disgust at the self-serving actions of MP's, lobbyists and big business." Alex didn't express any sentiment regarding this issue, nor was Alex even interviewed by Trinity Mirror.
Over the years, Alex has learned from his own direct experience of working with such people that living the high-life at the tax payer's expense is for some, something to openly boast about among friends and colleagues. The expenses scandal was born of far more than mere account mismanagement and, it still probably runs all the way through from local council level up to and including British UN delegates 'working' abroad because the media focus was mostly on MP's and the Lords.
The People's Administration party for reform to direct democracy was formed in 2010 only after various organisations, politicians and party leaders [including David Cameron] with whom Alex has met and worked with offering independent policy consultation, rejected fundamental key policy ideas without further discussion or exposure to others, despite them being known to have over a 90% approval rate when put to voter groups by the People's Administration.
Independent candidates can not form a government after winning a general election but parties can, so this has meant that in order for Alex to let the people know of these ideas and for the people to have the opportunity to install true and direct democracy, he chose to form a new political party - the People's Administration. Because of this, not only can you learn about the People's Administration and direct democracy, but you will now also be able to actually vote for a reform to direct democracy by voting for the People's Administration in the next UK general election or by voting to invoke UN Article 21 now through the People's Administration.
Alex's Romane's base philosophy:
Freedom is the ability to make choices.
Power is the ability to influence people.
Democracy is 'rule of the people' and until there is the rule of the people, there is no democracy.
Money is not power. Money enables for the ability to make more choices but can never be used to control others without others somehow choosing to be controlled.
Reality is the sum of all that can be measured. Your reality is the sum of all that you yourself can measure.
Revolution is oppressed evolution expressing itself but unlike revolution, evolution is majority-led and has no use for violence.
If God is the creator of all and God existed before all, then God has no needs and can only have desires. On this basis, A God that desires to punish when there is no need to punish is a human 'God' that is dependent upon human thoughts and human behaviours and so such a God can only be a human concept. Unquestioning followers of religion conform to ideas [morals] that are based upon this view of a punishing, demanding, jealous and weak God and, common law is then formed from these morals and so, it is the illogical and inaccurate religious perception of the nature of God, that is responsible for all of the world's problems. Humans are the aspect of a creative God that chose to experience physicality in human form and so, we are God and God is us - just as the waves are to the sea and the sea is to the waves. The true 'enemies' of man are only ever fear and guilt because, all 'evil' stems from only these and so if we let go of fear and guilt, it would not be a coincidence that we would find that we have no enemy and so, just as with the punishing 'God', the devil is also only a human concept.
There are no such things as wrong, right and facts - these are merely perception-oriented opinions.
There is no such thing as 'society' but, there is every such thing as community.
About the chicken and the egg; the egg came first because an egg can evolve into a chicken and, whilst a chicken can produce an egg, it can not itself evolve into an egg. Chronologically, evolution goes forward and so however it came into existence, the egg must have existed first. In short; an egg can become a chicken but a chicken can not become an egg!
Alex's political activism has so far involved authoring documents [published by the world-renowned British Library] regarding Political Architecture, Religious Theory and Philosophy, previously working directly with David Cameron and his team [independently], working on the Mid-East Peace Process directly with the PLO, creating a potential £2 BN aid package for Somalia, forecasting the UK riots, creating government-adopted policies, creating a potential solution for rising sea levels and diminishing water stocks [with TV presenter and inventor Trevor Baylis] and creating sustainable solutions for the economy and for democracy itself.
Alex believes that nothing is ever stopping any individual politician from any party from bringing direct democracy themselves. Even if done individually on politician's own websites, politicians could still gain insight into public opinion regarding policy implementation.
However, during a televised BBC experiment, it was discovered that even if the electorate could voice their opinions regarding policies directly on politician's own websites, that politicians would still prioritise their own interests above those of the majority when it comes to voting on policies in Parliament.
During the experiment, Anne Widdecombe [coalition member] actually stated that she would "never let majority public opinion voiced on my website influence my parliamentary votes." and she also stated; "I would never let voters make decisions upon policy implementation." confirming that Parliament would not use the Internet to strengthen democracy but, only to further reinforce the illusion that your power has influence and that they're listening - whilst the coalition 'leader' talks of giving "more power to the man in the street."
Alex says; "I have never believed that politicians are able to put into effect true democratic solutions because of party constraints. 40% say that they have little or no power and even if they were able, they are not willing."
Another example of this is with Coalition Deputy Nick Clegg who does actually encourage people to email their opinions and ideas - as if he himself is going to be able to find the time to read them all on a daily basis, before making his own decisions regardless of majority opinion.
The Coalition's attempt at distorting the definition of direct democracy is ran by the Conservative party via one of their own MP's [douglascarswell.com] and in our opinion, it is simply a propagandist attempt at misleading the electorate so that the 'threat' of genuine direct democracy never materialises.
All of this further demonstrates how even representative democracy isn't representative and, isn't democratic either because your opinions will be ignored - even if shared by the majority.
We do not believe that another politician or government with more old-school thinking and dictat is what the country needs any longer. We believe that the country needs direct democracy now!
The fundamental reason for why the ancient Greek civilisation [the creators of Democracy] was so advanced in its thinking was because thinking was not centralised. Without centralised thinking and politics, the Greeks were able to be free in their thinking because there wasn't anyone telling them how to think. Decentralising our political system will decentralise our thinking and therefore, enable for more creative thought and creative solutions to be found for today's issues.
We believe that the basis for why and how this works is rooted in the ability of animals that live in social groups to communicate and understand their reality at another level, a level that is [at the moment], mostly only recog-nised subconsciously by humans. This philosophy is also noted and accepted by many scientists and philosophers including C. Jung [The Vast Subconscious], Lyall Watson [Supernature] and Rupert Sheldrake [Morphic Fields].
In early 2012, scientists discovered that ants and bees specifically use direct democracy and furthermore, they apportion their use of direct democracy as being fundamental to their efficiency and overall survival. In the words of the UK scientists that carried out tests on ants; "The colony's use of direct democracy greatly enhances its survival because it decentralises the decision-making which increases its ability to find better solutions faster."
As an experiment, we suggest that you gather a group of friends together around a jar of beans. Take note of everyone's guess as to the quantity of beans in the jar. Total-up everyone's guess and divide it by the number of people in the group [establishing the average guess]. After counting the beans, notice that the group will have seemed to have known [to within a very close margin] the accurate quantity of beans in the jar.
We believe that many solutions to social, industrial, economic and environmental problems that current politicians perceive as being alternative, should actually be adopted as mainstream and as soon as possible. We believe that the old style of thought currently held by most politicians can no longer provide solutions for today's society and we believe that society is now being held-back by such thinking. We believe that the thinking needs to evolve by setting aside moral, religious and personal judgements and perceptions in place of a more logic-based approach that considers practicality, scientific conclusions and the rights of personal choice over morals, control and the will to punish and, we do not see how this can ever happen without direct democracy.
For example, David Cameron himself says that he is not a man of ideology - implying that he is a realist. For all of his experience, he has not seen that all of what we call reality was at one time just a thought, ideal or dream. Even the simple light bulb was at one time just an idea. The idea evolved into reality through self-determination and practical application so therefore, if we want to change our reality then we need to change our thinking.
Reality is simply; the sum of all that can be measured by your senses [physical or other]. Your reality is; the sum of all that you yourself can measure. If something can be measured [by any means], then it exists!
Ideals are not in conflict with reality - they are the creative source of ALL reality. Reality is thoughts, ideals and dreams real-ised so, if we elect leaders that have little or no ideology, then the thinking and solutions will remain restricted, limited and inappropriate.
Some believe that it is only an ideal to think that we can change the world, yet it is the choices that we all make in every moment of our lives that are constantly changing and shaping the world.
Some believe that direct democracy and self-rule are only ideals, yet if we make the choice to implement direct democracy through the People's Administration - it can now become part of our reality. It can become part of our reality now because all of the components needed are now in existence.
With regards to governmental economic thinking, the centralised globalised capitalist system requires that in order for businesses to survive, they must minimise costs, maximise profits and forever increase their profit margins so as to forever expand. In our opinion, these are not necessary components of a successful business or of capitalism itself and, they can actually be extremely restrictive making businesses inflexible and therefore vulnerable [as with the banks for example].
The English work 'ethic' and corporate capitalist maximisation has ensured that the UK has the longest and hardest working hours in Europe, whilst being one of the least productive countries in Europe.
Within a direct democracy, a decentralised economy where businesses draw upon their local resources, use digital internal processes with digital marketing methods, focus on sustaining a profit [not on expanding profits] and are regulated by localised social justice [as opposed to centralised government regulation], will be the businesses that thrive and re-start a reformed UK economy.
The answers to most, if not all questions about anything can be found in studying nature. Nature never maximises but instead always optimises. For example; plants never consume more energy or space than they need yet they survive, grow and hopefully live to fulfil their purpose. Nature makes the smartest use of what is already naturally available to it, not the biggest use. We believe that the UK economy will be best served if we base our economy upon our natural environment and copy the behavioural elements within it by translating them into business models and, by adapting the current capitalist model so that it is based upon optimising - not maximising.
At the same time, our environment will automatically become prioritised along with our economy and both will thrive. Simply planting a seed and maintaining its growth through to it becoming an edible food is capitalism - and it's fair and it's sustainable if we optimise instead of maximise!
We call this Eco-Capitalism.
It is no coincidence that our global economy is collapsing at the same time as our global environment. Direct Democracy may now be the only tool that could save the economy.
With regards to governmental social thinking, is it any wonder that crime continues to rise when every incoming Home Office minister [of any government] is always told by the permanent Home Office secretaries [non-elected civil servants], that crime will always rise and nothing will ever change this? If this is what they have always believed, then it is no wonder that the thinking behind the solutions is restricted - failing to make a noticeable difference.
This restricted belief system could actually be the main contributing factor towards rising crime - maybe even more contributory than the acts of criminals themselves! Internal Home Office thinking has created a negative self-fulfilling prophecy and, if ministers themselves do not believe that crime rates can fall, then they never will fall.
With regards to governmental environmental thinking, we believe that the Green Alliance's and Prince Charles's assessment of 5 years being how much time the world has remaining with which to adopt measures to stave off the point of no return is correct. Therefore, we do not believe that we have time to let yet another old-style government with limited thinking take control again. Current politicians regard many potential solutions as being too alternative and, we believe that they are scared to risk their positions and power in promoting such ideas to the people and we do not believe that this is beneficial to us or the environment. Direct Democracy may now be the only tool that could save the environment.
For example, a policy proposed directly to David Cameron and his team by Alex in mid-2010 to cultivate hemp bio fuel, food, medicine, fabric and paper pulp crops in the UK has been rejected as being too controversial - regardless of the potential benefits to the environment and to the economy and despite the policy not including the legalisation of hemp growing or its use/abuse, but merely the mass-licensed cultivation of hemp by UK farmers. At the time, we were told that they did wish to pursue the policy but with other crop types but, they wouldn't disclose what crop types.
Evidence of global medicinal use of hemp dates back to 2700 BC and, hemp is now recognised as having medicinal properties that can assist in fighting against the development of the following conditions:
• Alzheimer's disease
• Lung cancer and chronic pulmonary disease
• Breast cancer
• Brain cancer
• Opioid dependence
• Spasticity in multiple sclerosis
Evidence of this is supported by the following institutions - all are campaigning for legal access for patients:
• The American Medical Association
• The American College of Physicians [America's second largest physicians group]
• Leukemia & Lymphoma Society [America's second largest cancer charity]
• American Academy of Family Physicians
• American Alliance for Medical Cannabis
• American Public Health Association
• American Psychiatric Association
• American Nurses Association
• British Medical Association
• AIDS Action
• American Academy of HIV Medicine
• Lymphoma Foundation of America
• Health Canada
British government scientists have themselves in recent years discovered that hemp also has a property that literally cures psychosis, whilst acknowledging that another property [THC] can sometimes actually cause psychosis.
David Cameron and all other politicians ignore all the above findings when they say that cannabis will remain illegal because it is bad for your health. Cannabis has never been criminalised anywhere in the world on health grounds confirming that David Cameron is either stupid, a liar, or both, as it has only ever been criminalised for private corporate gain [particularly to the benefit of Dupont who paid the US government to outlaw the mass cultivation and use of cannabis in the early 1900's]. Up until that point, it was illegal for US farmers to not grow it, as it was so central to the US economy.
Another policy explained in-person by Alex to David to include interactive learning-based schemes in the national curriculum that teach children the value of a healthy local natural environment has also been rejected without explanation - despite the success of pilots in Birmingham and of there being little or no additional cost requirements to implement these schemes nationally and, almost over-night!
Another proposal was a policy to address the BBC licensing issue for the long-term. This has also been rejected in favour of a policy to let the licence payer have a year for free. In our opinion, this will reduce BBC revenue without leaving it the option to replace this revenue elsewhere, which could be extremely damaging to the BBC and, it was also only a short-term solution offered in the run-up to a general election so we question the motives of such a short-term proposal as well as its viability.
Regarding the issue of accidentally-imported Japanese Knot Weed, the previous Labour government had decided to import and introduce a predator bug that eats only knot weed. No forethought has been given to how our ecosystem will be affected when these bugs adapt to survive as the knot weed diminishes. The government scientists have missed that there is a simple tried and tested natural solution that involves only the use of hands and this in itself, could have been a great community-led initiative across the country leading to increased social cohesion at local community level whilst encouraging people to get actively involved with nature.
Just as with our economy, the previous Labour government insisted upon contributing to ruining our environment also - whilst claiming to be rescuing it!
The new so-called 'environmentally-friendly' coalition is not even bothered enough to look into reversing this policy and, they seem incapable of learning from the mistakes of past governments [Mixomatosis with rabbits] and this attitude is detrimental to all of us.
As certain people don't want to let you know about reform to direct democracy or to even discuss it, it became our choice to either give up, or to let the people know about this potential reform in other way.
"One of my life-long ambitions was to develop a potential transition to direct democracy and, to put pressure on those in various positions to implement it. The establishment of the People's Administration was not envisaged until early 2010. I've made my choice and now it's your turn - are we ready to take full responsibility for our lives and for how we affect others? If we're not, then what rights do we have in telling others how they should live? In a direct democracy, the people are the ones who will make all of the decisions and the People's Administration and Parliament will then implement them on your behalf."
Without centralised decision-making, the politicians, the media, the religions, the non-elected lords and consultants, the corporates, the banks and hidden organisations of any nature, can not manipulate the power any longer, as the power will be with every individual.
We believe that voter-turnout would be massively increased if the electorate actually knew that their voice would be listened to and, even more so if voters knew that their own ideas could potentially become policy. Alex has never believed that complacency has played any part in a low voter turnout, but rather that lack of faith, trust and confidence in a largely undemocratic and out-dated Parliament is mostly to blame for this.
In the 2005 UK General Election, only 40% of the eligible electorate cast a vote. This means that the government was elected by the minority who did vote and, policy implementation is then decided by another minority group - Parliament. In our opinion, this was a dictatorship that governed in law, but not in principal, as it is the principals of democracy that have been compromised.
If the 45% who didn't vote in the 2010 general election vote for the People's Administration and direct democracy, we would win the next general election with a landslide victory!
If you are considering not voting, spoiling your vote in protest or voting for 'None of the above', then why not make your vote stand for reform, direct democracy and people politics by voting for the People's Administration?
This reform is not Communism, Proportional Representation, Marxism or Socialism in any form. This proposal is truly democratic as it is about re-awakening the realisation of power for the majority - it is not about controlling and redistributing wealth or any aspect of life. True and direct democracy has no one person, party or organisation controlling it so there will be no centralisation of power, as the power will be redistributed to the people.
By voting for the People's Administration and direct democracy in the next UK, the people would be voting to have all power over all policy implementation at local and national level. This would be a seamless transition from party politics to people politics without revolution, where the people vote upon all policies and Parliament then implements those policies on behalf of the people.
How could any politician deny the people the chance to decide how we will all live, and then claim to be working in our best democratic interests? If any did, it would clearly demonstrate that they do have their own agenda for power and control over others.
Be careful not to buy into the notion that politicians did all that they could to rectify the expenses scandal. Both Gordon Brown and David Cameron had for years, continually blocked previous motions proposed by the Liberal Democrats to self-audit their own members and to reform outdated and undemocratic parliamentary procedures. We feel that this shows how they tried to protect their friends and, it shows how they then removed this protection when they needed it for themselves as the scandal became public.
We would like to highlight to you that the primary response from the leader of Parliament in reaction to the leak of information to the press, was to spend more public money hunting down the person who leaked the information - all on the basis that a crime had been committed.
Again, they were so concerned with protecting themselves that they didn't even realise how this would be perceived by the people. Further public funds were also spent by the leader of the house to try to stop further information from being released - to us, the people.
Last time we checked - it was a crime to steal! They have lied to the people and stolen from the people and unbelievably, it now looks like returning the money and resigning their posts are enough. Some politicians who were prosecuted even invoked their parliamentary 'right' to immunity - highlighting the total lack of integrity and contempt for the electorate that these politicians have for us.
Gordon Brown, Nick Clegg and David Cameron said that they were being realists and honest when they told us what we didn't want to hear; that repairing the economy is going to hurt. In our opinion, they used this as an opportunity to look strong because what they are still too week and scared to tell you is what you really do not want to hear; that to repair the economy we need to repair the environment and that this will hurt even more.
When deciding what countries will produce and sell certain goods, globalisation is more influenced by political relationships than by ecology. Globalisation pays little or no regards to each country's ecology and what each county's natural environment is best capable of producing. When economies become separate and disconnected from their natural environmental strengths, economies weaken.
What you really don't want to hear is that; to strengthen our economy, we must also prioritise and invest in our natural environment immediately. Without a functioning natural environment, we will have no functioning economy and human life will eventually cease to exist. What good is a functioning economy if there is no one alive?
What you really don't want to hear is that; the biggest current threat to human life is the state of our environment - not the state of our economies.
What they don't want you to hear is that; globalisation based upon politics will not work, that the master plan to control every aspect of our lives is flawed, that it has a fundamental root-weakness that actually threatens the prosperity of every nation on the planet.
It is no coincidence that companies that operate environmentally friendly, digitally-oriented practices save money and become more financially efficient. In our opinion, we have no more than the next five years to balance the two and put them back into harmony with each other before we reach the point of no return.
UK voters traditionally prioritise the economy. If this happens in the next UK general election, then it may be too late to turn around our environmental problems because of the limited and selfish thinking within the current parties.
If the UK voter prioritises the environment alongside the economy by voting for direct democracy via the People's Administration, then we will certainly have a chance.
This is an opportunity to say that enough is enough and that we now want to take full control and responsibility. Are these really the sort of people that we should continue to hand over control of our lives to? Do we really still want to be represented by these people?
We are all educated enough to decide upon our own destiny. Making a decision on how we want to live is not a decision for 'experts' or corrupt politicians - it is a decision for the people, as we are all the experts in this field.
Within a direct democracy, the differing perspectives of each current political party could inform us about any potential benefits and/or losses of implementing any policies, when policies are put to the people for a potential national vote.
Our reform to direct democracy would give the people the opportunity to become fully responsible for their country's actions. At present, we reap what other's sew in our name whether we agree with these people or not. For example; Through inappropriate and unpopular foreign policies, we and those of other nations are all paying the price in many ways for the decisions of a minority who abuse our armed forces and send our soldiers to war ill-equipped and in corrupt wars. These wars are never about installing 'democracies' as we are told that they are or we would be fighting in many of the world's countries including Tibet, Sudan and Palestine, and not just the countries who's resources we wish to plunder.
Our own 'democracy' is merely representative and, it doesn't even work at the most fundamental levels. This was demonstrated in the last general election when hundreds of voters across the UK were denied their right to vote due to nothing more than beaurocracy.
These 'mistakes' would not have been possible if voting by web had replaced the expensive and inconvenient method of voting via poorly-managed polling stations.
If there were no oil resources in the Malvinas Islands [Falklands Islands], do you really think that we would still try to somehow claim that these islands that lie almost 8,000 miles away 'belong' to the UK? We talk of being a peace-loving and tolerant nation whilst launching wars in foreign lands and denying the Argentine Government the opportunity to enter into dialogue with the UK [as they constantly request] about 'ownership' of these Islands.
How much more social disharmony and damage to our economy will we choose to endure all for the simple lack of an apology to the families of previously enslaved peoples? Surely any financial pay-out now would be more viable in the long-term?
As a nation, we are blamed for the decisions of our so-called 'leaders' and we are the one's who suffer - when do our 'leaders' ever suffer for us?
We are all being played because the truth is that no one is ever our enemy - only fear and guilt are our true enemies because every 'evil' stems from one or both of these, and only these.
Our reform to direct democracy gives all politicians the opportunity to show that they really are motivated to work for the people and not just for themselves because it removes their decision-making power and any benefits that come with it, should they wish to remain in their positions.
Labour's Ed Miliband is himself often reminding us; 'Look, I am in the persuasion business', so our parliamentary reform would give politicians such as Ed the opportunity to persuade to his heart's content!
An administration would be thoroughly accountable to the people because it will be the people - where a government is not.
It is up to us, the people [not the politicians] to use the power that we have always had, to choose to implement direct democracy now.
Voting for direct democracy outside a general election
This is not a protest campaign.
It is up to us, the people [not the politicians] to use the power that we have always had, to choose to implement direct democracy as soon as possible.
Following the People's Administration Direct Democracy Party [a mainstream registered party since March 2010] on Twitter, gives us your permission [when a majority] to invoke existing laws under UN Articles 21 and 61 [which the UK is signed-up to], so as to take immediate control of all policy decision-making by forming a legitimate UN-sanctioned direct democracy with majority election and without revolution, in the UK.
The People's Administration's constitution for reform to direct democracy and our voting protocols have both been accepted by the UK Electoral Commission and the UN as legitimate. In a general election, the People's Administration does not have to field candidates to secure your vote on the ballot paper. Outside a general election, you can vote for a legitimate reform to direct democracy now!