Direct Democracy and Policing
The UK General Election 2010 resulted in a hung parliament where a majority government could not be formed without a minimum of at least two parties having to form a coalition. To achieve this, politicians of all parties considered which of their own policies to compromise in an effort to appeal to other rival parties in the hope of obtaining power by forming a governing coalition.
In an attempt to get into alignment with the electorate, politicians were suddenly pro-coalition. Below are the three most common statements expressed by politicians, followed by the logic that explains how these politicians could not possibly believe in these statements themselves:
"The hung parliament result shows that people wish for parties to be working together."
Many Labour, Conservative and Lib Dem party members claim that the electorate actually voted for a hung parliament. They say that "democracy has spoken" and has told them that the people wish for parties to be working together. Boris Johnson himself actually explains how the "great british public in a genius move, has decided to mix up the colours of politics."
We believe that they say this in an attempt to stay on-side with the electorate - it is a form of damage limitation. We do not believe that they wish to be working together because if they did, then they would have done so without being forced to do so by a hung parliament.
Also, it is not possible for the electorate to consciously and collectively vote for a hung parliament without there being a highly co-ordinated, open and national conspiracy to do so - which was not the case. A hung parliament is actually the result of no one getting what they want, as there is no box on the ballot paper to tick for 'Hung Parliament' or 'Coalition'.
Despite what these politicians now say, none of these same politicians encouraged the electorate to vote this way before the election and, they instead actually warned against the dangers of votes resulting in a hung parliament.
In our opinion, all votes are either for a candidate/party or against a candidate/party but not for a hung parliament. It is difficult to interpret what the electorate is actually expressing with such a result but, to assume that the electorate consciously and collectively voted for a hung parliament is highly misleading.
Our interpretation of the results are that people now see little difference between the parties and have no effective alternative option to vote for.
"We are obliged to work together in the national interest."
Again, if politicians really believed this, they would have already been working together cross-party without being forced to do so by a hung parliament. In our opinion, this is a cover to justify compromising and selling-out on their own policies and their own supporters, so as to assume the over-all power that comes from forming a government masking as an administration in an outdated representative democracy.
"The people want a different kind of politics."
Again, it is not possible for the electorate to consciously and collectively vote for a hung parliament without there being a highly co-ordinated, open and national conspiracy to do so - which was not the case. We have also never been given referenda on any issues regarding parliamentary or electoral procedure or reform and so, to suddenly pretend to be championing the people wanting to re-shape British politics is to demonstrate complete hypocrisy.
All reforms and potential reforms to Parliament and to the electoral system are red herrings - they are not real compromises to be put in place to strengthen UK democracy but instead, are being offered-up merely to maintain the illusion that we live in a true democracy [which we don't]. The only true democracy is a deliberative direct democracy.
Before the last general election, certain politicians and the mainstream media were made aware by the People's Administration, that direct democracy can now be implemented via a mainstream party. They are also aware that this would lead to a total loss of power as all policy implementation would be decided by the electorate.
Politicians now demonstrate that they will experiment with our Parliament and our electoral procedure as and when they choose - without consulting the electorate or even letting the electorate themselves have referenda on such issues.
...All of this whilst they continue to 'remind' us that they are there to work for us and, in the interests of the nation and of strengthening democracy.
The hung parliament and resulting coalition government could be transitional towards direct democracy.
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 will remove the reasons as for why these parties can't work together.
A hung parliament will 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 through the People's Administration.
If the coalition is productive, this would demonstrate that cross-party cohesion can work. If the coalition is non-productive, this would demonstrate that there is no cohesion. Either way, all possible scenarios lead the way to a reform to direct democracy via the web because this is the most efficient way of resolving all current and potential parliamentary and electoral issues for the long-term.
Voting for direct democracy outside a general election
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.
This is not a protest campaign.
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!