This page will be updated to show instances where our democracy has been manipulated by the following.

Religion

I wasn’t going to add religion to this book as I didn’t think Religions got involved in our democracy…. I did not think.  However it appears that like the constitutional Monarchy, they do get a say in Democracy without being voted in.

Whilst researching I came across, completely by accident Sandi Toksvig’s twitter video on the 3^rd Feb 2023, she mentions two countries in the world where representatives of the state religion automatically get a seat in the legislature, they are the U.K and Iran.  The UK is not as oppressive as Iran, I think Sandi including Iran into her argument is to add a shock value to the argument, or to prove that what happens in the UK regarding Religion, having a seat in Democracy is just as archaic as Iran doing the same? Which is fair enough if that’s what she wants to do.  I just want to concentrate on the U. K’s lack of democracy for now. So I looked into her point “26 Bishops from the Church of England, selected by the Church, sit as a matter of RIGHT in the House of Lords, Not Bishops from Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, nor leader of other beliefs, Muslims, Catholics, other Christian faith’s, Hindus, Jewish, Sikh, Humanists, Buddhists and so on, none of them have an automatic right, just church of England Bishops”… Remember when people voted for Brexit and they said they didn’t want un-elected people making laws in “our country”, who elected these Bishops, Lords and Royalty?  She goes on to say “These Bishops can vote on every law that is passed and 9 of them turned up in 2013 to vote on the act of parliament which introduced same sex marriage, unsurprisingly they all voted against it, including the present Archbishop of Canterbury, it became law anyway…. But it’s a law the church doesn’t have to abide by, because the Church of England has an exemption from equality legislation, meaning they do not have to follow British laws” Nothing says democracy more than Un-elected Religious leaders from just one Religion and one Denomination being given automatic rights into the house where Laws are made and passed to be allowed to vote on laws of the land, knowing full well they are exempt from the laws that the actual elected officials try to pass.  So why does the Church of England get this right?  Most of us were taught in school about Henry the 8^th.  He was married to his first wife Catherine of Aragon, however he wanted to marry Anne Boleyn and was unhappy that Catherine had only given him girls – The bitch! he wanted to get his marriage annulled however the Pope at the time refused to annul the marriage, so Henry did what all people would do in that situation and assume supremacy over religious matters.  Come on, we’ve all done it.  He started his own religion the “Church of England”, because nothing says a Democratic Land more than the un-elected head of state creating a new denomination just so he can do what he wants.

So One Denomination of One Religion in the UK gets to “elect/choose” 26 people to go into the House of Lords and vote on whether legislation becomes Law.

The House of Lords

The amount of people in the House of Lords changes constantly, unlike the House of Commons, there is no upper limit of how many Lords there can be.

Resignation Honours

Resigning Prime Ministers can recommend peerages who have supported them. i.e:

Political Lists / Working Peers

Lords appointed to Boost the strengths of the three main parties, as if the House of Lords wasn’t Democratic enough, the main parties can make people lords to help them in the House Of Lords.  Having trouble getting laws through the HOL, just get more Lords, I go into the power of the political parties in another section but this just shows how much power they have and what they can do with that Power.

The House of Lords scrutinizes legislation, Voters vote in MP’s to make Laws and the “HOL holds the Government to account”, really?  They can introduce Legislation or propose amendments to bills before they get passed, they are unable to prevent bills becoming laws – Except in some special circumstances), but they do have the power to delay the Bill for up to a year, as a body “independent” of Political process, the house is classed as a “revising chamber” – The reason I put “independent” and “Revising Chamber” in quotation marks is because as you can see from the start of the Wikipedia page hundreds of them are attached to Political Parties, with only 44 of them (At the time of writing) Non-Affiliated, wow those four are going to do a lot against the 272 Conservative Lords – Democracy in action there.

Lords are not allowed in the HOC where MP’s are, this made it tricky when Rishi Sunak appointed Lord Cameron to be the Foreign Secretary, In this instance Cameron had someone represent him in the HOC and Bills were put forward to become Laws, they would then go to the HOL where Lord Cameron could digest his own legislation.  An Unelected person was in the HOL whilst also holding a role in the HOP – Conflict of Interest or what.

The activists “LedByDonkeys” on the 24^th Jan 2024 projected a film onto the house of Lords to talk about Boris Johnson and Liz Truss resignation “honour” list – The link is below it is narrated by Carol Voderman.

I could put some bits in from this video, but it explains what is happening better than I ever could, however I would like to mention that the first person Carol mentions Matthew Elliott, is a founder of Conservative friends of Russia, the country the UK is putting sanctions on at the moment, which is strange as the Conservative will attack others for having links to Russia, but will continue to accept money from Russia and make excuses up about why.  But the below shows how they are all linked, Government, linked to foreign influence via Lobbying.

Royalty

The Royal Family: Quick history about the Royal family: Queen Anne was the last Stuart Monarch, she died in 1714, the hereditary heir was James the 2^nd, however he was Catholic, so we had to find a Protestant to take the throne, so the throne went to 52^nd in line to the throne George the 1^st, the German House of Hanover, now had the British throne.  So basically the royal family is of German decent because of a religious law over 300 years ago.  But that was then, surely it’s different now?  Surely we have moved on in the 20th century?  The law should be for everyone, we pick the politicians they vote for the law, everyone including the Royals and politicians should be bound by that same law.  Until that happens there is no chance of the UK being a Democracy.

Now I could go on and on and on about how the Royal Family are overpaid, under worked, looked after hand and foot, basically the Parasites of the U.K, yes I have researched this so I could show that Royals by putting their names on Charities and turning up to food banks with no food has no impact on the Charities, however I want to keep this about Democracy and how they hinder it, so I have removed the research I’d done and stuck to the facts (Who knows maybe I’ll write what I found out at a later date), but here goes.

Royal Consent

Most people will not have heard of Royal Consent, I hadn’t until I started writing this book, a lot of people I spoke to that I told about it, didn’t know about it, but one of the comeback’s that Royalist’s like to throw at Republican’s is that “they don’t get involved in Politics”, this simply isn’t true, they get involved but only if it effects them.  The Queen and Charles have the right to vet laws before being approved by Parliament, basically we vote in who we want to run the country, but these laws then go to the Queen to see if it affects her and her money, before going to Parliament to become law, these include persuading government ministers to change a 1970’s transparency law to conceal her wealth from the public. As well as requesting exclusions from proposed laws (you know those pesky laws that us sub-servants have to abide by otherwise we go to Prison), relating to road safety and land policy that affected her state.  If I commit a crime or a crime is committed on my property the Police can enter my house with a search warrant from a judge, however they cannot enter onto a Royal estate even if a crime is committed or suspected to have been committed without the authorization of the head Royal, was Elizabeth now Charles, I’m not saying they do anything illegal on their many many many properties, however this means that they are above the Police and Judges

There is a law that was brought in called the Freedom of Information act:  The main principle of the freedom of information legislation is that people have a right to know about the activities of public authorities….. Guess who is exempted from the Freedom of Information act, yes the Royal Family, I don’t know what they are hiding, but again it shows an arrogance and disdain for the general public that laws can be passed but they are above following laws and rules that the rest of us have to follow.

A story broke on the 11^th of April 2024 by the guardian, that a courtier from Buckingham Palace rang up the Welsh Government “demanding” assurances that King Charles could not be prosecuted under the new Welsh Law.  This, if true is not shocking, it’s to be expected the UK Royal Family are constitutional Monarch’s unless it effects them, according to the report the Welsh Governments chief legal adviser was “not happy” that the king was to be given the special exemption from prosecution, however he agreed to it, and the Royal family say they were just checking that correct procedure  was being followed, now call me cynical if you like, but as every law has to be signed off by Charles, otherwise it doesn’t become law, the “correct procedure” could be either Charles is exempt or he doesn’t sign it and it doesn’t become Law, in which case both the Guardian’s report and Buckingham Palace are both right.  But what does this say about Democracy whether true or not, that a person can have enough power to stop laws from coming into play, laws created by Democratically elected Politicians, because it affects them personally?  How Democratic is a country where a whole family is above the law.  In a different report counteracting the Guardian’s article and putting Buckingham Palaces side to the story a Welsh Spokesman spoke to GB News saying that “the immunity for the Monarch from prosecution is a long-established principle”, so even when defending Buckingham Palace spokespeople admit that the Royal Family are above the law.  In a detailed statement it went on to say “It is not possible for Welsh subordinate legislation to make the Sovereign criminally liable, not least as it would be constitutional inappropriate to prosecute a Monarch in whose name the Crown Prosecution Service and Courts would act”, so basically because the courts have the word Crown in them, he is above the law, imagine if he was to take you to court, you wouldn’t stand a chance.  First every Police Officer has to make an Oath “that I will well and truly serve the King in the office of constable”, the commissioner and deputy commissioner of the Met police are both Royal Appointments, all cases in the CROWN Court are “the King verses”…. Because the King is also head of the Criminal Justice System, you would go to Prison which is His Majesty’s Prison, People don’t realise how much power this constitutional Monarch has.  I will come back to this later on

The point is how can we be a democracy when an undemocratic head of state is not subject to the same laws as the rest of us? if they have Royal Consent to by-pass laws so they aren’t hit by them, no one else has this privilege so why are the Royal Family allowed to veto what the MP’s who were voted in by the Voters in a Democracy bring into law?

Devolved Nation's

Devolved Nations, don't hinder Democracy themselves, however they show how rigged the UK voting system is.

When voters go to the polls on Election day, they vote for the person and party best placed to represent them in the Houses of Commons, at least that is the “illusion”, and if the Mp’s who got voted in had enough power themselves to make changes by themselves, it would make more sense for you to vote with who is best aligned with your views, however this is not the case, whilst yest you are voting for a person to be in charge of your area, there isn’t much point if that person can’t do anything down in Westminster to help your area.  This is why so many people vote for a political party as opposed to a candidate, but I will come back to how un-democratic political parties are, for now I want to concentrate on the Welsh, Scottish and Irish Assemblies

Voters, in their respected Nations, go to the polls to vote for the SNP, Shin Fein, Plaid Cymru etc.… knowing full well the people they vote in have legislative authority, they decide their own laws in these countries and the M.P’s pass them, so it must feel like Democracy for them, almost like voting made a difference, but that is where the Illusion starts.  There is section 35 order which means a UK secretary of state (so basically the secretary of State of the Ruling party in Westminster, which will not be someone from one of these parties), can block a new law that has been passed in one of the above countries, this has never been used so when you go to vote for any party other in these countries mentioned above, you can be sure that your M.P will not be stopped from passing laws by Westminster….. Until 17^th Jan 2023, when the Scottish Secretary blocked the gender recognition bill, whether rightly or wrongly, isn’t the point, the point is how can a country who votes to be led by, in this case the SNP, be stopped from passing a law in their country that has gone through their parliament? luckily this has only happened once…. So far, but it could be a precedence, it's a slippery slope to block another country’s democratic process (Unless you are the CIA in which case it would be just a Tuesday to meddle in other Countries Democracy providing that country has an abundance of Oil), this isn’t the only issue though, if Westminster can block another countries election, this could cause protests / riots? Or it could make people of these countries realize that their vote is ignored / pointless unless it goes on one of the two main parties in Westminster that has any chance of gaining power and making change, which would make the UK even less of a democracy than it already is by making the entire UK (Not just England) a two-horse race for power – i.e If people realize that voting SNP is pointless because Westminster can stop the Laws, then they may start voting for Conservatives or Labour, not just because it is the only way to make their voice count and so they get their voice heard, but also to stop the party they REALLY don’t want to get into power from getting into power.  But that is just one example of “democracy” in action where people’s votes are suppressed or ignored in the United Kingdom.  It would be interesting to find out how many people vote Conservative or Labour, not because they want to, but because their MP being aligned to one of these parties, if the party gets to Govern, they can influence more from within the party than outside it.

For example, in the 2019 General election, 7 members of Sinn Fein got elected to represent Ireland, these Elected Officials do not go to Westminster, it is actually Sinn Fein policy NOT to take their seats in the HOC.

So, in Northern Ireland these MP’s get the most votes and are elected to represent their constituents, which I’m sure they are honored to do so, but they do not take up their seats in the Houses of Parliament to vote on laws that will affect the people who have voted them in, there are two reasons for this, one is they feel they should rule themselves (Quite rightly, if this was a Democracy they would be allowed to do so) and the other is the parliamentary Oath, they cannot swear allegiance to the British Monarchy and if they feel that strongly about it then they really shouldn’t have to.  Below is another example of an MP who doesn’t believe we should have a Monarchy yet is forced to swear allegiance to take up their seat to look after their Constituents, MP’s should be answerable to their constituents rather than a Monarchy and until that happens we will not have a Democracy.

Foreign Influence

You would think that the UK's Democracy is confined to UK Voters, yes we have a Foreign Secretary and a shadow Foreign Secretary, but sadly it's not up to us the Voters about who gets in, it takes money to get into being an MP, so it increases your chance if you are a member of a Political Party, and where do these Parties get their money from?  It's not the voters - at least not all of it, the Labour Party had half a million members a half a decade ago, but a lot of those have gone, now that those members aren't heard, listened to nor have a say in how the party is run, either having quit the party or thrown out as they weren't the type of members the new Labour party wanted.  So they rely on donations to keep going, these come from Big Businesses and also Foreign donations.  The parties aren't bothered who or where the money comes from, however the MP's do need to declare the donations and that is how we know about them, but what we don't know (at least not for certain) is what they get in return?  It's hard to believe that they are giving money to political parties for no reason than out of the goodness off their heart, so which Countries are intwined into our "Democracy" and how?   

Russian Interference

The Conservative government (at the time) commissioned a report to find out if there was Russian interference in U.K politics, I know right, that would be like me creating a report into whether I know my own name,  they could just ask any number of the Russian backers who have donated to the party and saved time and money, but that isn’t what the Conservatives are about, the report was concluded in March 2019, however after going through the security and intelligent agencies the report finally made its way to the then Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who jumped into action by…… not announcing when this important report to let the public know if Russia was meddling in the Elections in the United Kingdom until…. The day after the 2019 General Election.  He Finally released the report on the 21^st July 2020.

What the report found was “there is substantial evidence that Russian interference in British politics is commonplace” According to the Guardian the main points are:

• UK Government failed to investigate evidence of successful interference in Democratic process - Alarm bells should be ringing loud and clear especially when “the UK Government failed to investigate evidence of successful interference in democratic process” … There is evidence that Russia has interfered with our politics but our government who benefits from this, by being in power and accepting donations from Russian’s can’t be bothered to look into it. Nothing says democracy more than a hostile nation interfering with the U.K’s election and the UK government not caring.
• “credible open-sourcing commentary” suggesting Russia sought to influence Scottish Independence referendum – This isn’t clear what result they wanted or how they went about it, but the report does go on to say “evidence of coordinated interference in online narratives following the 2014 Scottish Independence referendum in efforts to spread uncertainty over the result.
• Russian Interference is the new “normal” – What was the old normal?
• Links between Russian Elites and UK Politics – So Russian money men have links to UK Politicians, not surprising political parties will accept donations from anyone, what they want in return isn’t as open though.
• Intelligence Community “took it’s eye off the ball” on Russia – What were they focusing on? It’s easy for me to sit here in hindsight and say “how could you let this happen”, but there may have been other more important things that they had to concentrate on at the time, but after the poising of ex-Russian Federal Security Officer Alexander Litvinenko in 2006 on British Soil, the UK Intelligence services should have looked closer at what was happening, that should have been a wakeup call, or maybe having a Government in place that actively takes Russian Money they were told to not do anything to upset the apple cart?
• Uk’s pen and pencil voting system makes direct interference harder – This is a good thing, they can’t interfere with people putting an X in a box, so they just influence them through social media, spreading fake stories to turn people’s heads.
• Defending UK’s democratic process is a hot-potato” – Seriously? This should be a priority, why isn’t the Government more involved in keeping democracy clean?
• New Legislation needed to replace outdated spy laws – Good Job nobody put a Russian ex-KGB spy into the house of Lords then, oh wait…. (have I mentioned this before?)

Russia’s main intelligence agency has meddled in Britain’s democratic process though a “sustained” cyber campaign since 2015, says the UK Government. Not shocking, what is shocking is two things, one that the UK Government have said this and two – The Conservatives have and will continue to accept donations from Russians including those linked to Putin

United States of America

On July the 2^nd 1776, US Congress voted to declare independence from the U.K, Independence from the U.K Monarchy hasn’t hurt America, in fact the U.S.A get involved in so many other countries election’s instead, however they don’t seem to like it when Russia get involved in their election’s to elect Trump, but that’s nothing to do with the U.K, However America did affect the UK during an election and showed what they will do when it comes to other countries Democracy.  The U.S will get involved in / over throwing have one of two things in common (or in some cases both), a) they are left wing, mainly communist countries against the Capitalist America of which both main parties are intertwined with and b) they have oil.  But that’s a topic for another book, “why America believe they can dictate other countries they disagree with”

However the reason I bring the U.S.A up, is they showed their true hands when it come to the UK Democracy when it looked like the UK might elect a centre left Prime Minister, in a recording that got leaked, the then US secretary of State was asked what he would do if Jeremy Corbyn (the left wing leader of the Labour Party between 2016 and 2019) was to be elected Prime Minister his response was “It could be that Jeremy Corbyn runs the gauntlet and gets elected, it’s possible you should know we won’t wait for him to do those things to begin to push back, we will do our level best, it’s too risky and too important and too hard once it has already happened”, so here is one of Donald Trump’s (America’s President at the time) top men admitting that they would intervene in the democracy of another country, not really a surprise as America have been doing this for years and years, but to my knowledge this is the first time that a) they’ve admitted this is what they do, normally it’s the CIA or FBI doing these kind of things and b) to a European Country at that, not that where the country is in the world makes any difference (to me or them), it’s just surprising as the UK doesn’t have that much oil.  Yes, America has been getting involved in other countries democracies for years however it wasn’t until the UK was looking to elect a left wing candidate that they suddenly went from “we have a special relationship with the U.K” to “we need to step in”.  Notice that now Jeremy Corbyn is no longer the leader of the Labour Party, now that the Establishment are back in control of both main parties in the U.K, America are no longer bothered about getting involved with the UK’s “democracy”, why? Because they got what they wanted / needed, you can have whoever you want in power as long as America approves.

Israel Interference

After the awful attack on an Israeli concert on the 7^th Sept 2023, Israel retaliated as you’d expect, however a retaliation became Genocide, two months later and the SNP tabled a motion to request a ceasefire, what kind of monsters would vote against a motion like this?  What kind of Horrible human beings could be in Parliament (representing you, that you might have even voted for?) and think voting against a motion for a ceasefire is a good idea or even a good look…. Conservative MP’s would be the answer, however almost as bad as voting against wanting a ceasefire would be what a lot of Labour MP’s did and that was to not even bother to vote, some did vote against it and you need to applaud them for putting their morals ahead of the party, some even had to quit the shadow cabinet to vote for a ceasefire, however others didn’t mainly because Labour told them not too, they put the party above their morals, or it could be that Labour Friends of Israel MP’s put the money they are being given by Israeli representatives ahead of their morals, this is just me summarising, I could be wrong, however one in particular Kim Leadbeater who abstained, had such a backlash on social media, that she put out a video post saying “Of course I want a ceasefire in Gaza, what human being wouldn’t, but I won’t be voting for the SNP amendment because even if I did, nothing would change”… She does have a point, Israel isn't going to listen, and we shouldn't be getting involved in other Countries "democracy", however I'll make an exception when that Country is committing War Crimes and Genocide, voting to ask another Country to not kill other people, should have been a no-brainer, whether it passes or not, it shows you care and you want a ceasefire and you have done everything in your power to get one, However She basically points out how pointless Politics is, even if the amendment passed (It didn’t) proves three main points on this website.

1. Scotland can’t change anything as Westminster parties have the higher majority, so they are in fact in charge of all four nations
2. Foreign influence has more power than constituents over MP’s
3. Politicians will 90% of the time put the party or whoever pays the party ahead of anything else.

If Politicians are wanting to make voting mandatory in society, basically making people vote no matter what, that I have seen mentioned a few times already, then they should vote every time as well, but while they have a choice we should also have a choice – But back to Kim and Israel.

Unsurprising Kim is a member of Labour Friends of Israel, Labour Friends of Israel do not want a ceasefire, no matter what Kim says.  Anyway, a few days later Parliament had a vote about a second reading of the Rwanda Policy, a Policy to send Immigrants crossing the English Channel to Rwanda for processing, even though the Government (at the time of writing) has a majority of 56, so it should easily pass, Kim DID bother to turn up for this one, even though her vote won’t change anything, strange that, even stranger is a few days after that Kim shared a video of the Israeli ambassador to the UK saying they do not want a 2 state solution to the problem in Palestine, which Kim rightfully called “a disgrace”, but she’s not too disgraced to keep taking Israeli money nor too disgraced to vote for a ceasefire, you see MP’s will do what they are told, by the party or risk being thrown out and the party will do what is asked by the people making the Donations, basically whoever pulls their strings and it is not the voters.  They may come round to your house once every 5 years to ask you to vote for them, but they know it’s meaningless. 

I’m not going to vote for the SNP ceasefire motion as it won’t do anything, I will vote against the Rwanda plan even though it won’t win and it won't do anything, it's all a game is politics, the MP's do as they are told and will vote the way of the party.

What Kim forgets is that Good people who do nothing cannot be considered good people and even if she didn’t believe that voting for a ceasefire would do anything, surely it’s better to try and to do something when in a position of power than to just do nothing except post a video later on about how little you did, grandstanding is pointless, she had the power to show she wanted to do something and did nothing.

However a letter was signed by 135 MP’s and Lords to urge the UK Government to suspend the arms sales of weapons to Israel, the letter noted that UK made weapons were likely to be used by Israel to bomb British doctors in Gaza….. Kim did not sign it, she really wants a ceasefire, but won’t vote for it, she won’t put her name on a letter to asking the Conservative Government to stop selling bombs to Israel, the big question is what influence does Israel have on the UK Labour party, who are now in Government?

Am I saying these countries run our Democracy?  No, but they aren’t giving our MP’s money, gifts, and trips for nothing.  Influence, maybe, preferential treatment, maybe, but while either main parties are in charge and taking donations, from foreign agents we cannot be a free democracy.

o that is Israel getting involved in UK Democracy through the Labour Party, however just to show they don't play favourites, they also influence the Conservatives as well, through the Conservative Friends of Israel.  Alan Duncan who was a Conservative Minister, he mentions in his book that: "A lot of things do not happen in Foreign Policy, or a Government, for fear of offending this lobby" In his book he also mentions Priti Patel who was fired by Theresa May for going to Israel and not declaring the meetings through official channels, "she has engaged offline  with a foreign government over issues of policy" - below is an extract, but I advice anyone interested in Politics to read his book

China

I thought I’d have a few days off from writing this section, so I went to London with the family, but what happened while I was there?  A news story that a Chinese Parliamentary researcher at Westminster had been arrested for spying for China, since then the researcher has been charged.  The researcher had access to several Conservative MP's, that's no surprise, with the Conservatives in power (at the time), no wonder, the researcher was targeted / used, I'm sure if Labour had been in power then they would have been the one targeted. 

But you would think that the UK media would be all over this, since being charged I can't find anything.

The Printed Media

The printed media are your tabloids and broad sheets, basically the only uses are for your guinea pig cage or if you have run out of toilet paper, so how does print media hinder Democracy?, well 3 Billionaires own 80% of the UK media, this wouldn’t be a bad thing if they were unbiased and reported the News, however this type of reporting has well and truly gone out of the window, it used to be that the News told you what had happened and you made up your mind about how you felt about this, now though, the Newspapers tell you what they want you to think, all three companies are owned by Non-Dom Billionaires, who hire journalists to push their agenda onto you.

News UK have several Newspapers such as the times, the Sunday times and the Sun newspaper, it is owned by Rupert Murdoch an Australian American billionaire, and according to a report in the Guardian in 1999, Rupert has paid no tax in the UK since 1988

The Daily Mail Group is owned by Jonathan Harold Esmond Vere Harmsworth the 4^th Viscount Rothermere – I only put his full name in to get the word count up – He has a non-domicile Tax status and owns his media through a complex structure of offshore holding and trusts.  He is a tax exile in Paris. – A Lord hindering Democracy, not again I hear you shout.

Richard Desmond – Owns the Daily Telegraph and has donated to UKIP, and after Robert Jenrick the then Secretary of state for housing accepted his approval of a 1 billion luxury housing development in Isle of Dogs, Jenricks approval was against the advice of the planning inspectors, met a deadline which saved Desmond 40 million pounds that would have gone to the council, he sent Jenrick a text saying “we don’t want to give Marxists loads of doe for nothing”, The council would have used that money to improve schools, NHS, roads etc, but instead it stays in Richards off-shore account, well not all of it did, a few days later Richard gave the conservative party a donation.

None of this proves they hinder Democracy, this is just a back story to show you what kind of people run these papers.  So other than not paying tax to the UK how do they hinder Democracy?  By using their power and influence, which is what owning a newspaper is all about.

Rupert Murdoch boasts about picking the winner of every single General election since 1979 at least.  That is no fluke, his influence even if you don’t buy his papers are immense, stories get talked about, you might see the headlines on the front page just by walking into a shop, nearly all the head lines are sensationalist.

These are the front pages of the Sun newspaper on election day:

1979 – “Vote Tory this time” – Result Conservative Majority

1983 – Maggie’s Massacre – Result Conservative Majority

1987 – “it’s the Sun that Won it” – Result Conservative Majority

1992 – “If Kinnock wins today will the last person to leave Britain please turn out the lights” With Labour Leader Neil Kinnock’s head as a light bulb – Result Conservative Majority

1997 – “The Sun Backs Blair” – Winner Labour

2001 – “Blair has done enough to win our backing” Winner Labour

2005 – “Blair set for victory but Majority slashed” – Winner Labour, amazingly at the next election the sun changed to Conservatives and the result?

2010 - “In Cameron we trust” – Winner – Conservative in coalition with the Liberal Democrats

2015 – “Save our bacon” a picture of Ed Miliband eating a bacon sandwich – Winner David Cameron, loser the U.K.

2017 – Get in the Cor-Bin – Throwing out then Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn – Winner Theresa May, but a hung parliament, so the next two years started the biggest smear campaign ever against any human being until the next election, this was the closest Rupert came to not being in charge of the UK and I don’t think he liked it, there was talk of him storming out of an Election party when the Exit polls came in showing a hung parliament.

2019 – Save Brexit, save Britain – Showing Boris Johnson in light and Corbyn in a dark and dismal Britain.  I would say this was the end of any chance of Democracy as from this we got the Illegal Brexit (more on that later) pushed through and Labour moved over to the right so Rupert Murdoch and the non-dom multi billionaire media owners have so much power, that they have created a UK where it doesn’t matter who you vote for as they benefit either way.

These newspapers keep telling people who to vote for and it is destroying the U.K.  especially 2015, when thanks to them we got Brexit, then in 2019 we got a hard Brexit deal even though Boris won by telling people he had an oven ready deal, they then had to break the law to get it through parliament, but I will get into lying politicians and how that affects Democracy later, how can you have a Democracy with people who lie to win votes?  Well you can’t and that’s why we don’t

These newspapers went all out to get Brexit, but why push something that you know will harm the country and the people who buy your newspapers? I’m guessing (there is no real way for me to know for sure but the owner of the newspapers will have made a lot of money out of Brexit and that is why they spent years drip feeding stories about the E.U.

A perfect example of this is the bent banana story that Rupert’s Sun newspaper threw out to influence people against the E.U in the 90’s.  The Sun had a front page story about how the E.U was going to ban bananas that were too bent, inside there were a cut out and keep Euro-Banana and a banana hotline, this may have been the start of the Euro-Myth in 1994, stories designed to turn people against the European Unions, it may have taken 22 years, but this was the start of drip feeding stories to turn their readers and the general population against the E.U and it worked because in 2016 the U.K left the E.U, why is Rupert so against the E.U? well a comment attributed to Murdoch by Anthony Hilton the city editor of the Times, (one of Rupert’s papers) goes “I once asked Rupert why he was opposed to the European Union”, “that’s easy” He replied “When I go to Downing Street they do as I say; when I go to Brussels they take no notice”, Rupert Murdoch has denied he ever said these words, so it’s impossible to say which one is telling the truth, the one whose paper has been known to lie or the journalist who worked for one of these papers that has been known to lie.

Basically, if you want to win an Election and be Prime Minister, you have to be Murdoch’s puppet, if you don’t you WILL get smeared, you WILL be lied about and your reputation WILL be tainted… With this being the case how important do you think your vote is if Rupert backs the winner every-time, This creates a more worrying question, if this is the influence he has in elections, then what influence does he have over the Prime Minister that he helps elect, what favours does/can he ask of a Prime Minister that is only in power because he backed that person? – The sun even had a front page stating “It’s the sun what won it” to show how much influence they have, he has since back tracked this statement, but it is no fluke that who the sun gets behind always get into Number 10,

On the 13^th November 2016, two of these tabloids mentioned above had pictures of the then current leader of the Labour Party Jeremy Corbyn (more on him later) “doing a dance” on the way to the Remembrance Sunday service – Here it is below

However it is not true, fabricated, fake news, a down, right lie, George Durack said so, how would George know?, well below is the actual photo, un-doctored and an explanation of what really was going on

He was walking and talking to George a constituent who had fought in the war and was accompanying him to the service.

This isn’t just bad Journalism, this wasn’t done by mistake, these are lies and deceit to fool the public, to make THEM angry about something that didn’t happen, but the truth matters not to certain newspapers.

They purposely cropped photos to paint their agenda that the then current leader of the Labour party was dancing on the way to the service, imagine the disrespect that those newspaper’s have for the public and the Remembrance Service that they can blatantly lie about what someone was doing to try and destroy one person whom they don’t like, imagine going to this kind of length to portray someone who was going to pay their respects as some kind of dancing fool, they didn’t even do this just to sell their newspapers, they purposely lied to try to turn the voting public against the leader of her majesty’s opposition, (who obviously did nothing when Democracy is being attacked….as usual), how insulting is it to all those who died in the war for a newspaper to lie to their advantage, imagine being a journalist at one of these Newspapers, you know this is false, you know it is a lie, you know that you are attacking an innocent person, but you go along with it because you got to pay the bills, I saw this happen so much through the Corbyn years, journalists who never cared about Jewish peoples suffering suddenly became the fighter of antisemitism while ignoring all other discrimination including Anti-Semitism in all other parties and then once Corbyn was no longer leader these same fighters of Antisemitism no longer cared that Jewish people were / are getting chucked out of the Labour party left, right and centre… well mainly left.  Jewish Labour members are 30% more likely to be expelled from the Labour party in 2022 than at any other time and yet, the Newspapers and their “Journalists” no longer seem to care, selective fighting racism doesn’t help the people who are the victims of racism.  But it shows what they are capable of, what levels they will stoop to, it shows you can take a perfectly innocent photo, crop out a person and make out that perfectly ordinary photo into a bad reflection of that person, now this really was fake news, imagine being the person who took the photo and sent it into the Sun thinking “I can change this to put our readers against this person that my boss doesn’t like”, however they purposely took a photo of the leader of the opposition who they didn’t like, and painted a picture of him to put him in a bad light….. How many other times have they or others done this to influence your decision on something without you even knowing?  Even if you think I wouldn’t have been fooled by that, could you have been fooled by other attempts to trick you, might not involve Corbyn or politics, could be painting a member of the Royal Family in a good light whilst painting one they don’t like in a bad light?  Both Kate and Meghan missed the Queen dying, Kate was being a good mum looking after the three kids at home, but Meghan was being horrible by…. Staying at home and looking after her kids.  See what I mean, same situation, but two different narratives.  P.S I’m not defending nor attacking either woman there I’m pointing out how these newspapers can change your perception of someone.  If they have this much power to change how a person think’s/feels towards someone or something, to drip feed stories into your head for 20, 30 maybe 40 years, what else have they done and are they doing that I didn’t find out about?

What happened about the above photo?  The two Newspapers in question removed the article, of course they had to, they were in the wrong, they lied to suit their narrative, but none of that mattered, because once the lie went out into the public domain people jumped on the fake news, people were up in arms, saying things like “Has he no respect”  It either didn’t matter to these people that it was a lie or they didn’t know and it caused outrage, which was the whole point of doing it, at no point did these outraged people think “wait why would someone be doing a dance?” most person would think that because why would someone just start dancing in the street without being Mick Jagger or David Bowie?  Or would they think Is there a story behind this / more to this than these pictures? i.e was there music or Morris Dancers and he was joining in, I’ve never danced while walking down the street, I’m not saying others haven’t but why would the leader of the Opposition choose THAT moment to dance on the way to the Cenotaph?  It’s not the thing you’d expect someone who would have the media looking at him to do, but no, people who wanted to be outraged and angry, were given an opportunity by a lie and they took it, the newspaper created the stink then sat back and watched their “useful idiots” run with it. Drip feeding a narrative, a lot of people probably didn’t fall for it, but was it a drip feeding moment where their attitude towards him changed?

On the 26th Feb EVERY Newspaper changed it's front page

Can you believe the hypocrisy?  Were they being fair to the voting public when they were lying like the above.  Why should we care now that they are crying foul?  Yes A.I is a worry and a danger, but seriously, if they couldn't be bothered to do their job correctly for democracy why should anyone care if A.I replace any Journalists?  If the Newspaper owners don't pay their taxes to contribute to society that they take so much from how is that Making it fair?.  Karma is a bitch.

Here are a few Daily Express Headlines:

“only Cameron can save Britain”

Vote May or we face Disaster”

“down but not out! Why we MUST put faith in Boris”

“Put faith in Truss to delivery for Britain”

It’s clear where it’s loyalties lie, and that’s fine, putting faith in Truss lost billions in peoples pensions, millions of peoples mortgages sky rocketed the markets went into panic mode, however people will believe the papers have their best interests at heart or believe they are an informative read.  If they were really trying to inform people rather than mould them into how they want the voting public to think, then they would be out of business with such headlines, what is that saying? Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me, well these headlines have fooled the voing public for 40 plus years.  They aren’t trying to inform people, they don’t even need to get things right, but you have to wonder why people buy these “Rag Mags” when they get so much wrong?, if I was this bad at doing my job I’d expect to get fired

Here we have several headlines from the same Newspaper, one on the left is before the Brexit vote saying what will or will not happen if we vote to leave the European Union and then on the right we have headlines from the same Newspaper after Brexit showing that what they told you would happen, the opposite came true…. Yet people keep buying Papers it’s quite strange, they tell you lies, convince you through lies of how to vote knowing it will benefit the owner of the paper and then when the opposite happens, there is no apology, no facing up to the truth, it’s just another news day with no comeback for the damage they cause.

But surely the Government our elected officials are here to protect us against the lies of the media?, well obviously not if the Political parties need the tabloids to help get them elected, but the lack of Government regulations on the Press is more evident when you look at the Leveson press regulation reforms that were approved by Parliament, the Government simply did not implement them, why not, if Parliament has agreed to regulations of the Press and we have voted in the MP’s surely it is the “will of the people” to enforce them?, because this would give us more trustworthy Journalism in the UK, the Government would actually have rules for journalists to follow and that is something we can’t have in this country, they may even end up having to tell you the truth about the political parties and we definitely can’t have that..

But the Leveson Inquiry was a three part investigation into the Press, Part one as mentioned went ahead, investigated, laws produced and then the Government didn’t implement them, Part two of the Inquiry was shelved in 2018 by Theresa May, part two was to investigate offences like Phone Hacking, Data Theft, Bribery, perversion of Justice, intimidation plus more, Who was she protecting, why were the Billion pound Press industry saved by Theresa May from more scrutiny and possible prosecution?  But it seems like the Levison Enquiry is shelved in the long term because one of Jeremy Corbyn’s policies was to implement part one of the Levison enquiry and to hold part two…. Now you can understand why the press went so far out of their way to make sure he wasn’t elected…. So they can carry on doctoring photos, tapping phones and getting the UK to vote in the favor of the owners of these newspapers.

I just need to point out that our Press has been voted the least trustworthy in Europe 3 years running.

Mark Twain is credited as saying the following: “A lie can travel around the world while the truth is putting on it’s pants”

I don’t want to shout “fake News, fake News” as it sounds Trumpian (A word made up about the ex-American President who blamed everything negative about him in the media by standing on a podium and shouting “fake News”, however instead of standing on a podium shouting fake new, I decided to write a book and include facts to prove it was fake news.

Einstein said in 1949: “There will come a time when the rich own all the media and it will be impossible for the public to make an informed decision.” – I think that time has been around for my entire lifetime maybe longer!

Without an independent impartial media, we cannot and will not have free elections.  It is that simple!

The Visual Media

The BBC is funded by people by paying the license fee, there are no advertisements on the BBC, so this technically should give us independent reporting and programming, however this maybe the case with most shows, unless they are putting subliminal messages into episodes of Doctor Who, this is not the case when it comes to the New’s.  It’s incredible to think that hard working people are paying money to an institution that distorts the truth to them, to get them to vote the way the corporation wants them to vote.

Visual media hinder Democracy in the same way that the Print media hinders Democracy, they hire certain Journalists who will push their agenda, so who are the people at the top of the Media and how do they get there?

Robbie Gibb: BBC Board - Former Tory aide and head of Communication for Ex Prime Minister Theresa May, brother of ex-Tory MP Nick Gibb and after Emily Maitlis left her role working for the BBC she accused him of being a “tory Agent” who had actively influenced editorial policy.

Tim Davies: BBC Director General – Stood unsuccessfully as a councilor for the Conservative Party in Hammersmith and Fulham in the 90’s and was deputy chairman of the Hammersmith and Fulham Conservative Association in the 90’s.

Richard Sharp – Former - Chairman of the BBC – A Major Tory Donor (£400,000) who made “significant errors of Judgement by failing to declare his role in facilitating an £800,000 loan for Ex-Prime Minister Boris Johnson” – Richard quit his role due to facilitating this loan.

Samir Shah – Current Chairman of the BBC – The Government’s “preferred candidate” to be the Chairman of the BBC, and unsurprisingly he won despite other MP’s raising concerns over him, but you do wonder why a taxpayer funded institution has to have the Government to push a candidate into a position, It’s like a prisoner choosing it’s own guard, a person put forward by the Government for this role, will be sympathetic to the Government who gave them this chance, but it isn’t the Government who gets the final decision, it is the Monarchy and then you wonder when the below happens.

Does the above mean anything? Maybe not, but isn’t it amazing how people with connections to the Conservative party who were in charge of the country for 14 years find themselves at the top of the British Broadcasting Corporation? Wouldn’t running the BBC be a conflict of interest if you have donated or stood for a Political Party that is putting you forward for this top role?

None of the above proves that our democracy is a lie, fake, it just shows that the Party that gets in power, gets to control the BBC with “their” people.

I know what you are thinking, this doesn’t explain the current political party in charge (Labour), and you are right, if the BBC are continually writing articles and putting spin on the News to make the Conservatives look good, so how come Labour beat them in 2024?  Good question, Labour didn’t win in 2024, Reform won it for Labour, Reform took away so many votes from the Conservatives, that Labour won with less votes than Labour got in the 2 previous election’s, one of which was the biggest defeat Labour had ever had in its entirety.  Why is that? Is it that people have started listening to me?  No, the BBC along with the other media (Which I’ll get to) kept giving Nigel Farage (Leader of Reform) a platform, so in 2019 Reform pulled a lot of candidates from quite a few areas to get Conservatives to win and “make Brexit happen”, but in 2024 they put candidates up against the Conservatives, only won 4 seats but by taking away votes from Conservative candidates they secured a massive majority for Labour, with Labour needing less votes to gain a majority.  This wasn’t the only reason why Labour lost in 2019, but I will get to that later, it is however the reason that Labour won in 2024.  It is worrying that Reform has influenced the last two elections by removing or standing candidates to affect the overall outcome.  Democracy only stands a chance in an equal field, removing and standing candidates to effect the overall outcome of Election isn’t very Democratic

So how would the BBC affect our Democracy, again like the print media with manipulation.

Below are two pictures of Jeremy Corbyn (the ex-leader of the Labour Party).

Notice any differences between these two pictures?

The first is the un-edited picture of him.

The second is the same picture however in this segment of Russian interfering with our Democracy, the BBC very kindly decided to put Jeremy near the Kremlin, fair enough, they had to put someone there and it wasn’t going to be Boris who got paid to play tennis with a KGB operatives wife for a donation to the Conservative party, so fair enough the BBC put Jeremy closest to the Kremlin (As if the closer the picture of the Politician to the Kremlin the closer the politician is to Russian Politics is this a subliminal message), however the BBC did what the Sun newspaper also did, they took a photo and changed it to suit their narrative, they did it to make Jeremy’s hat look more Russian.  Have a look at the two pictures again and you can clearly see it, this can’t have been done by mistake can it?  So it’s a one off.

Below is a link to a Top British QC who claims to have a letter from a senior BBC Figure confirming BBC biased against Jeremy Corbyn.

Here is Laura Kuenssberg who did a report on Jeremy Corbyn and breached impartiality and accuracy guidelines.

Again, a one, two or three off – Maybe, that is for you to decide, but it does seem that an organization run by Tax payers money with a lot of Conservative’s in charge at a time when the Conservatives were in power, kept making these Faux pas for 5 years against the leader of the opposition, whose Policies they despised.

On Election Day in 2019 Laura (allegedly) broke Electoral law by saying “It’s not looking good for Labour” in response to the results of postal ballots already counted.  The Electoral Commission responded by saying “It may be an offence to communicate any information obtained at postal vote opening session, including about votes cast, before a poll has closed”, I have to say allegedly because the Conservative run BBC said no law were broken, even though what she said contradicts what the Electoral Commission said.  But it’s all ok because the BBC said it was fine.  Remember how strict they are in the voting booth, you can’t take anyone in with you, you can’t take a phone in, you can’t take photo’s of your ballot paper, but Laura can tell you inside information before the vote has closed, either she was lying and actually knew nothing (Which isn’t unusual for a Journalist in the UK) or she knew about the postal vote, in which case she broke the law by talking about the pending result, or she already knew the result because it was rigged which is Electoral Fraud?  One of these three must be correct!  Which shows that political parties need to do everything they can to gain power so they can keep power and make these decisions.

Just to recap: The Political editor of the BBC, a person who has a history of inaccurate reporting on the Labour leader at that time, made a comment regarding the Election postal votes about said Leaders party and how the votes had looked before the votes had closed, contra to the law which says you cannot talk about it.  Seem legit – Democracy in action.  But again it’s for you to decide if she broke Election Law and if the BBC swept it under the carpet during a Democratic Election to help the person they wanted to win.

But these must be a four off now? or four accidents? maybe.  However when Boris Johnson turned up to pay his “respects” to our fallen hero’s during Remembrance Sunday and lay a wreath, he looked disheveled and he put his wreath down the wrong way round, so the BBC showed the footage of Johnson laying a wreath 3 years earlier, yes Johnson did something that made him look bad, during the run up to an and the BBC accidently used an achieved video of him doing it right on that nights news, it was just a complete fluke that it was one month before the 2019 Election, and to show impartiality, Corbyn got criticized because he didn’t bow low enough, his poppy was too small and his coat wasn’t expensive enough.  Seems fair.

I don’t/didn’t want to show any Biased either way, forget about your opinions of Jeremy Corbyn as a person, or a politician or his politics, this is just me pointing out the lengths the media will go to, to subvert Democracy, cover it up and carry on as normal to get the result they want.

In July 2023 the Director General of the BBC had a private meeting with the conservative 1922 committee, It was a private meeting with conservative M.P’s, no other parties M.Ps were in the room, (no Labour, No Lib Dems, No Greens) to reassure these Conservative M.Ps that a former Conservative adviser and Downing street Director of Communications who now happens to be part of the BBC reassured them over their issues with the BBC coverage, other politicians and parties may have had issues, but they are irrelevant.

Richard Tice was the leader of Reform party formerly the Brexit party.  They, up until July 2024 had zero MP’s in the houses of commons, until Lee Anderson defected, so they had zero MP’s elected on a Reform manifesto, however that didn’t stopped Richard Tice from going on Question Time 5 times in 2 years.  Now I have no problem with people being on question time, they need politician’s and they need them to be varied in their opinions and policies.  I am just curious how a leader of one party with no MP’s (until Lee Anderson defected) can get so much screen time, (it goes back to the point about Reform being the deciding vote in the last two elections, by giving them a platform and stopping others like the Green party who did have an MP in the HOC, is giving Reform a voice and not others).  It is why failed PM Liz Truss (who got outlasted by a Lettuce) is still invited on to so many TV shows to give her views  It’s almost as if the media is run by people who share the same “values” as these “MP’s” so they get invited more and more onto these political shows.  This doesn’t force people to vote one way or the other, however if you pile one view all over the BBC, then psychologically you are getting through to people, it’s the drip drip drip of biased news that eventually takes hold, it could be the reason why people are more likely to vote Conservative when they get older.  It reminds me of the saying: “Until the Lion learns to write, every story will glorify the hunter.” By Chinua Achebe. 

Still not convincing about the BBC though, is it?

Laura Kuenssberg finishes interviews in a strange way:  After interviewing David Cameron (Conservative) she said “It’s good to have you back”, Kemi Badenoch (conservative) “It’s great to have you with us this morning” Yvette Cooper (Labour) “Well there are plenty of people who come to this studio who will disagree with you, many people watching will disagree with you too, but Yvette Cooper you set out Labour’s position this morning, thank you” – This from the woman who broke the law on reporting on Election day, but when you work for the state broadcaster, so who is charge of the BBC?

Laura interviews Yvette Cooper and you can hear how she finishes the interview at 53 minutes and 44 seconds

Now listen how she finishes the interview with David Cameron at 25 minutes and 50 seconds

Now listen to how she finishes an interview with Kemi Badenoch – 29 minutes and 25 seconds

We cannot have a Democracy when we get one vote every 5 years in which all the candidates are owned and controlled by the same people and get to choose who is in charge of the media we pay for.

GB NEWS

One person I didn’t mention above was:

John McAndrews – Director of News –John joined the BBC in November 2022, but the reason I bring him up is he previously editor director and director of News programs at GB News, a channel that hosted live shows presented by not one, not two, not three, not four but 5 Conservative MP’s and was found by OfCom of “material misleading the audience” during McAndrews tenure,

On the 11^th March, 2023 the HM Treasury tweeted “tomorrow Chancellor Jeremy Hunt will appear on Saturday morning with Esther and Phillip on GB News where he’ll discuss next week Budget, and the government’s plan to halve inflation, reduce debt and grow the economy”.  What is wrong with this?  Esther and Phillip were both sitting M. P’s at the time and the ministerial code states that no M.P’s are allowed to be interviewers how can we have impartiality when MP’s are hosting TV and radio shows?

Gb News – Is a “news” channel, but many people have called it a Conservative propaganda station, and here is why, it was started by Dubai Hedge Fund and Billionaire Conservative Donor Paul Marshall, the station hires Conservative MP’s to host shows and OfCom have to keep investigating them for breaking impartiality rules, which isn’t surprising when it is owned by a Conservative Donor, presented by Conservative MP’s, and it was announced on the 9^th April 2024 by byline times that more than one million pounds of UK taxpayers money had been spent on almost 10,500 ads since the channel launched in 2021.

But the Media can have a positive impact, however this positive impact gets hi-jacked by Political parties as they love an opportunity to attack the “other side”, for example In 2023 ITV made a show called Mr Bates vrs the Post Office, it tells the story of the Post Office scandal, where hundreds of sub-postmasters were wrongly prosecuted for theft by the Post Office, while it turned out it was the organizations computer system Horizon that was at fault.  The only issue with the TV show is it missed out one person, Adam Crozier the ex-chief of Royal Mail between 2003 and 2010, now you would think the CEO of the Royal Mail would be an important part of this story, this after all happened during his tenure, but was not important enough to be mentioned by the makers of the show: ITV…. Adam Crozier left Royal Mail in 2010 to become Chief Executive of ITV and a director of ITV studios, who happen to be the production company behind the Show. 

This isn’t hindering Democracy, per say, but it makes you wonder what other aspects of history is distorted by powerful people in media?  This just shows that if you have the right job and the right connections you can change or ignore history.  But the two reason’s why I bring this up as it technically isn’t hinder democracy as it isn’t stopping people from voting nor is it trying to influence people to vote in a different way  It’s because 1) it shows that powerful people at the top can change or ignore history to either make them look good or to leave them out of something that looks dodgy, I’m not saying Adam had anything to do with this, but it’s just surprising the chief of the post office isn’t mentioned in a show about the biggest scandal in Post Office history, the second reason I bring it up is because of how every major political party is calling out the other parties for having played a role, £0.30p Lee Anderson used his question at PMQ to “ask the Prime Minister if Ed Davey (Leader of the Lib Dems, who was the Government minister in charge of the post office back then) should clear off” – Another bizarre question from a Conservative MP, It’s a dig at the Lib Dem leader but directed at the Prime Minister, very strange, while The other Conservative MP’s and Nigel Farage are saying that Keir Starmer should have done something while leader of the CPS, however they conveniently forget or ignore that these weren’t public prosecutions, these were Private prosecutions and so most of them wouldn’t have come near him, so another clutching at straws there, to push the blame onto someone else.  But it’s more about putting ideas into peoples heads whilst the Lib Dems says that the then deputy Prime Minister Oliver Dowden should have sacked Paula Vennells from her cabinet office role in 2019 after losing a high court judgement exposing her full involvement in the horizon scandal. 

Don’t worry they gave her a CBE that year instead.

This just shows how they are all “in it together”, and all the parties are trying to blame each other to get the blame off them, it started back in the 90’s so it went on during Labours time in power, followed by the Conservative / Lib Dem coalition, before carrying on during the Conservative’s being in power, all three main parties in England were in power to some extent during this disgraceful period and instead of trying to make things right, by correcting past mistakes, they, like rats leaving a sinking ship, are all throwing blame at each other, because at the end of the day, staying in power is more important than the people who got their lives ruined and the best way to stay in power is by attacking mouthing the other parties.  It’s the same people associated with the same parties every time.  The political parties should be working together as elected officials to make the UK better like Labour and Conservatives did during the war, however this isn’t something they are interested in doing and the main reason for this is the most un-democratic entity in the UK, whilst also posing as the most Democratic entity in the UK.

Technology

Social Media

The UK media is a complete un-hinged joke, I’m sure all these journalists that went to college and university, wanted to become a hard-hitting investigative journalist, they studied hard and had aspirations of winning awards for their efforts and make a change to society by finding out and reporting the truth….. But then the owners of the newspaper / TV station pay them a lot of money to throw away their morals, dignity and report whatever they are told to report.  They don’t even have independent thoughts, look at the Twitter messages below, all about Mick Lynch (The Secretary-General of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers), the day he went on TV and gave interviews:

What are the chances of all 4 “journalists” using the term rattled in a tweet about the same person? With advertising they say you have to show an image or a phrase 5 times before people start to notice it, are these “journalists” trying to do the same thing?  Seeing 4 different people, who work for different Media organizations use the same phrase/word on the same day about the same person can’t just be a coincidence, what are the odds of 4 people using the same word?  Well it wasn’t 4, there were a few Conservative MPs who also used the word “rattled” In total I counted 8, is there a whatsapp group all these people are a part of and are getting their instructions?  Maybe.  Who decided that this was the term they would throw down the public's neck?  Who contacted all these journalists and told them the term we are going for today is “rattled”, “Today’s Sesame Street was brought to you by the letter X and the term rattled”

On the 3^rd March 2023, Francis Scarr who works for the BBC “Watching Russian state TV so you don’t have to” tweeted a picture of Jeremy Corbyn on Russian TV.  No need to add anything else, how dare Corbyn address Russian TV and give a speech to Russia about the war while it’s still going…..

Except he didn’t, further down in the reply to the tweet’s, when asked if Corbyn was addressing Russian TV or talking at the Stop the War rally Francis admits “The latter, it’s footage from his speech at the rally.  The quote is from the voice over in correspondent Alexander Khabarov’s report”  Isn’t it so good that this “journalist” is paid by the BBC which we fund to watch Russian TV so we don’t have to then duplicitous report what he is watching, this shows that “Journalists” have an agenda, I’ve shown it with the print and visual media that “journalists” will post deliberately misleading information, I don’t want to shout fake news, but Social media just as written and Visual media hire “journalists” to push their agenda.  He finally deleted it 2 days later; however, how many had already seen it, believed it was Corbyn addressing Russian TV, because of his duplicitous reporting, made their minds up and decided that Francis’s tweet was real instead of agenda-pushing narrative?  But luckily, we don’t have the Russian media lying to us, our own media can take care of that thank you very much, would you like to charge more for the license fee?

How can we have a free democracy when “journalists” paid for by the taxpayer are lying about someone who is an independent backbencher rather than speaking the truth?  If we cannot trust our media, it is no better than North Korea or Russian media for its truth-telling abilities.

Since Elon Musk took over Twitter or as it’s now called “X”, it has given a new lease of life to “fake news” as Trump would call it.  And it gets harder and harder to find out the truth, who can you trust now?

Here is the owner of X “bribing” voters to vote for Trump, Elon Musk was born in South Africa, so it would also be another case of foreign influence in another country's “Democracy”

So Bribing people to vote for the person to win is one way the Owner of X hinders Democracy, but he also uses his platform to make 50 Serious false claims about the upcoming Election – 10 could be excused as carelessness, but 50 is rampant lying.

Now, one of the items that Musk brought into X was Community notes, where someone can post something, and users of X can counter it with facts or the truth. Amazingly, none of these 50 had the option to correct or add points to the claims, what are the odds?

But it’s not just Twitter that does this:

On the 16^th of October 2024, Sofia Patel, the Head of Operations at the Labour Party, posted a message on LinkedIn asking 10 volunteers to travel to America and campaign for Kamala Harris to become President.  Below is an article because the post was removed

Why is the UK Labour Party getting involved in another country's Election?  This is another example of a Foreign influence getting involved in another country's Election (Which I hear happens every time there is an Election) while using Social Media, Keir Starmer said they are volunteers and as such are not getting funded by the Labour Party and doing this in their own time, but why it is another Countries Democratic Process that you are interfering with, and it did happen all the time at all the other elections, but it’s perhaps more apparent now due to Social Media.

A.I

A faked audio clip of London Mayor Sadiq Khan went around on social media late in 2023, apparently calling for Armistice Day to be rescheduled due to a Pro-Palestinian march taking place on the same day, police investigated and found that the matter did not “constitute a criminal offence”, Mr Khan said it was clear that the intend had been “To sow seeds of hatred and division”, but this goes back to the fake news I mentioned earlier, it only takes a second to be fooled by scam artists and in this case if you already believe Mr Khan would do this then it is only going to enrage you more when you hear it, this is dangerous for Democracy (Even the little Democracy that we have) as how long will it be before we get Deepfake videos of the leader of a political party being made to sow division and circumnavigate an election?.... Only a few months later when a Fake Joe Biden (President of the United States) Robocall was made and sent to some voters telling them not to vote in the state’s primary election.

Political Parties

Out of all the sections so far, by far the biggest hinderers to Democracy are the political Parties, (this may change as I can imagine Social Media and A.I overtaking political Parties).  It sounds strange to say as what could be more Democratic than Political parties where members can get together and have a say in how the Party is run?  Well that’s all part of the Illusion, get membership from Voters to make them feel they are in control.

You are more likely to get elected if you are from a political party, since 1945 there has only been one By-Election where one of the two main parties (Labour or Conservative) did not finish in the top 2, By-Election Rochdale 2024

George Galloway: (WP) – 12,335

David Tully: (Ind) – 6,638

Paul Ellson: (Con) – 3,731

A shocking result? … not really, as Labour dropped their support for their candidate just as the by-election got underway, however this is how much power political parties have, because in the General Election in 2024 with Labours backing the result was different.

Paul Waugh: (Lab) – 13,027

George Galloway: (WP) – 11,587

Michael Howard: (Reform) – 6,773

You dramatically increase your chances of being elected into the Houses of Commons as a member of a political party than as an independent, out of the 650 MP’s voted in to the HOC in July 2024, only 5 were independents, that is less than 1%, however, these 5 Independents created an independent alliance, it is not a political party, but by creating this alliance they will be allocated more parliamentary time to ask questions and speak in debates, put simply, if you want to get elected you increase your chances of being elected by being a member of a political party but also you increase your chances of being able to speak more frequently in the HOC if you are a member of a Political Party.  It’s like emotional Blackmail, if you want your vote to count, if you want your MP to be able to speak up in Parliament, you have a better chance of this happening with an MP that is affiliated with a political party.  It is similar to the point I made regarding the other countries in the UK, where if you are from Ireland, Wales or Scotland, your best bet of getting heard in Westminster and getting votes on what matters to you, then you have to vote for a main party, otherwise the SNP, DUP etc… can be overruled by one of the main parties.  This stops people from voting for whom best represents them, instead they vote 1. To stop the other side and hinder their chances of getting things changed and 2. So their vote can count and not get overruled, this is not what a Democracy should look like.  Yes people can still vote for what they really want, but they also know that unless their MP gets to Westminster their vote was pointless.

The Whips

The Whips are MP’s who are there to make the M.P’s tow the party line (To make sure these MP’s vote the way the Political Party wants them to vote and not how the MP really wants to vote), basically the whips job is to use whatever they can to get you to vote for what the party want, there are talk of the Whips dragging people out of the toilets to get them to vote the party way during Margaret Thatcher’s time. 

Notice the wording on the official parliament’s website?  “Vote the way their party wants” how is this Democratic?  You want to be a member of our Party you vote, how we tell you to vote?

Jan 2022, 12 Tory MP’s accused the party Whips of Blackmail, with threats to take money away from their constituency.  A voter may vote Conservative because that voter wants to be represented in Parliament, by the MP they vote for and for that MP to put the constituency first, but then the MP that the Conservatives put forward is then forced to vote for the party which could potentially be against that same voter and what that voter stands for, The party has so much power that they can make the MP choose between the Party or the Constituency they represent.  How can they represent you when the party whips are telling them how to vote?

But in some instances MP’s have voted against the party whips, the bullying, the blackmail the pressure didn’t work and the MP’s voted with what they believed was right and what they believe the Constituents that they represent wanted them to do, as 7 Labour MP’s did shortly after the General Election of 2024.  They all had the Whip removed for 6 months, in essence they were all expelled from the Party for 6 months, now having to sit as independent, doesn’t sound too bad, early in a Parliamentary term, for the next 6 months they would have to sit with the Opposition and get no support from the party, no canvassers, no leaflets, no money from the party, no high-profile boosting support from Senior Labour MP’s, they don’t get to join in on the Labour decision making, they are effectively become one voice in a room where the Labour Party has a majority of over 80, basically ignored, again not that big a deal if at the beginning of a Parliamentary Term, but if they don’t get the whip back, they cannot represent the party at the next Election and their chances of getting re-elected is over.  Losing the Whip is Political suicide, your career is over.  Unless you are a very popular MP and your constituents will vote for you as an independent – Which happened in the case of Jeremy Corbyn

All Political parties receive donations, it’s how they keep afloat, it’s what helps them get more MP’s into the Houses of Common’s, the more money they can put into an Election campaign the more chances they have of getting that MP into the HOC, which means the Party has more influence in the HOC, which in turn means they can have more influence towards the companies who have donated to the party

See how Donations to Political Parties work now?  I’m not saying there was anything un-towards but would the Conservatives have received the £12,000 if they hadn’t of used their political position to save one of their Donors £45 Million?  To be fair the Conservatives didn’t get a great deal out of this deal, unless there were other donations that weren’t declared.

So the Political Parties need money to survive and campaign, they accept donations and then use that to help the Businesses/Company/Donor when that MP is in Parliament with their political decisions, do you really think MP’s care for or want to help their constituents?, the MP’s will do what the Whips say and the Whips are there to make sure the MP’s do what the Political party want them to do and the Political Parties are going to listen to the Donors who give money to the Party, Donations buy influence in every Party.  You give MP’s your vote because you are told you have a duty to vote, people died for you to have your vote and that is really what this comes down to, people were fighting and dying to get people to have a vote / say, so what is the best thing to do in that situation?  Give everyone the vote but take away their choices, no one needs to die fighting for the vote anymore, just give them the vote and make it pointless to vote. 

All the MP’s are under the thumb of the Political Parties who are under the thumb of Lobbying big business Donors they just made all the Politicians the same, all MP’s are taking money in the form of Donations.  There was an MP, who was a teacher before becoming an MP, they served one 5-year term and an MP and now it’s reported that their net worth is £5,000,000.  How does that happen?  Well the below is how important it is to become an MP (for the money) and the best way to do this is through a Political Party and tow the Party line.

It’s hard to say the other parties hinder Democracy as they aren’t in a position to influence politics, other than the same way Labour and The Conservatives do, i.e take donations, ask questions etc, but without a majority nor being in opposition they can’t really hinder Democracy, I will post here if that changes or if I see / find anything where that isn’t the case, however there are aspects where Non Main parties have hindered Democracy and one party in particular who have controlled who became Prime Minister in the last TWO Elections!

Conservatives

The Conservative Party or Tories as they are also known, are the most successful Political Party in the United Kingdom and have always been either in the Government or the Opposition for over 100 years.  Is this Democratic?  Yes, it’s up to the other Parties to challenge them, however the things they do to gain power is where Democracy falls down.

There are the claims that they make:  Full fact showed that in the run up to the 2019 General Election: 88% of the Conservative facebook ads were misleading.  88 percent compared to 0% from Labour, that doesn’t happen by mistake

How do they get away with this?  Well the ad’s are not checked by regulators, this is Social Media and the Conservatives working in tandem to subvert Democracy with mis-leading or unfunded claims.  The result?  A conservative victory in the 2019 General Election, I know someone who says that she decides who to vote for by the leaflets they deliver, so the question is, how many people did the Conservatives get to vote for them using lies like these? 0?, maybe 1, maybe 1 million, either way, if you want to bring in Voter I.D to stop fraud which the Conservatives have, then surely you should stop your own adverts from being mis-leading?  Once in power the Government can make these issues go away for the Political parties, it doesn’t matter how “Independent” the Government task forces are.

But maybe this was a one off, maybe they don’t always attempt to trick people into voting for them?

Back in 2019 and the election the Conservative website changed their official website to look like it’s a fact checking website.

The public have increasing turned to independent websites such as Full Fact and Channel 4’s FactCheck, but when a political party can attempt to mis-lead the public by pretending they are independent and checking facts when as mentioned above 80% of their leaflets were mis-leading how trust worthy can their “FackCheck” be?  MP’s who are a part of the party are only there because they know their chances of getting Elected increase by being a member of one of the two main parties (in England anyway), so the Politicians who have got into Parliament know it’s with the “support” of these kind of dubious antics through the party, so they do everything for the party instead of their constituents, they do not work for us!, but how can you believe what you see or hear when political parties can change their website to mis-lead the public into thinking they are honest, truthful and respectful?  How can you have a fully functioning Democracy when the parties can do this?  Having said that they only have 75.4k followers, in a country of 50 million voters not many people follow the Conservatives, but anything they say can be retweeted and passed around and soon would get to millions of voters who could be followed by the above into thinking it’s official and worst of all…. Truthful.

But the Con’s didn’t stop there, they also produced leaflets that looked like Newspapers.

This is more deceiving as it’s not made clear that it’s a Conservative advert or that it’s not a real newspaper, at least with the FactCheck it says it’s from CCHQ on it (However how many people know this stands for Conservative Campaign Head Quarters?).  It looks like a genuine local newspaper, so it could easily fool people into thinking it’s independent information.

The Conservatives also created the below “driving Charge Notice” which seems a clever way of scaring people to go along with you and tricking people into thinking they have a driving charge notice.

All three are duplicitous, sneaky, under hand and playing on people’s fears, in a true democracy there wouldn’t be the need for this type of underhand trickery.  Or at least there would be some sort of punishment for these kinds of scare tactics.

If you want to know how undemocratic the U.K is due to the Conservatives, in 2021, Liz Truss was elected the Prime Minister by 120,000 Conservative member’s give or take (They might not even have been from this country, but I’ve already mentioned other countries meddling in our democracy, well anyone can be a member of the Conservative party and pay the party it’s not necessarily people from the U.K)….. She then had to drive up to Scotland to ask the unelected head of state if she can be Prime Minister.  Liz Truss became Prime Minister whilst receiving less votes than Count Binhead received when he tried to become Mayor of London.

She then lasted a whole 8 weeks before resigning having done untold damage to the Country (I know one person who lost so much money from his pension that he had to work another 3 years, however Liz is still getting invited onto the media to give her opinion’s, strange that someone who blames the media for her downfall, is going onto TV shows to express her opinion, (that’s almost like starting a Political website, partly blaming the media for the Country not being Democratic and linking to the same media that you blame). 

But even Liz Truss being elected by (less than) 120,000 Conservative members is more Democratic than Theresa May in 2016 when she became Prime Minister, not one SINGLE person voted for her to be Prime Minister.  The Conservatives had been elected through a General Election in 2015 and David Cameron was elected to be the Prime Minister, he then quit when the Brexit vote didn’t go his way and he was replaced by Theresa May, but unlike Liz Truss it didn’t go to the Members to choose in this case, she was Elected leader of the Conservatives and Prime Minister un-opposed when her opponent pulled out.

Then after Liz Truss, we got Rishi Sunak but again it did not go to the UK to decide, nor did it go to the Conservatives Party members, again he won un-opposed, the Conservatives thrust 3 Prime Ministers on the UK without letting the UK have a vote on whether they wanted these people to be Prime Minister.  What kind of Democratic Country does that?

Now I can sit here and say the people voted Conservatives because their parents did, they got successful with the Conservatives in power, or they like the colour Blue, or it’s that they believed the leaflets, or that they spoke to the candidate and they listened to them or it’s that they don’t like Labour and if you don’t vote for one of the horses in a two horse race then you get the one you really don’t want.  These are assumptions on my behalf and I don’t want to make assumptions about why people vote for Conservative or Labour, let’s be fair it’s their vote, and people are allowed to vote how they like, I’m pointing out that a) it may not be as free a choice as there are a lot of factors manipulating your decision, b) people need to know what these political parties are doing / using your vote for.

On the 13^th of November 2023, David Cameron was brought in to be Rishi Sunak’s Foreign secretary, why does this damage Democracy?  Well for those who have had their head buried in the sand for the last 7 years….. Well done if you are one of them, you have made a very wise choice….. David Cameron was the Prime Minister who brought in the binary choice of Brexit, 40 plus years of laws and regulations broken down into a yes or no question, one where politicians were allowed to lie during the build up to it, (so I guess it was a normal election then), so that is the back story of the man who broke Britain and then quit to let others clean up the mess, which is an impossible mess to clean up, but that’s another matter… I will also put below the tweet that David Cameron sent out 5 days before the General election of 2015 between himself and Ed Miliband

This website could have just had this one tweet as this proves everything that is wrong with Democracy in this country…. Lies and fear from the main parties, it’s been tried and tested under the conservatives and now Labour are doing the same route with the budget is going to hurt”, “we have to make some tough decision” etc…  This is all the main parties can offer you, fear.

But for now lets get back to the point in hand, David Cameron became Foreign secretary, however there is a small little insignificant problem with him becoming Foreign secretary and that is the fact…. He’s not an MP, he hasn’t been voted in by ANYONE since 2015, so the only way he can be in Government, i.e. in Rishi’s cabinet is for Rishi to put him in the House Of Lords, Rishi gave David Cameron a Lordship so he could be an unelected Government Official – The Conservatives had over 350 MP’s and none of them were good enough for the job as Foreign Secretary? what does that say about the Conservative MP’s who were voted in by their constituents? However, there is another problem: a Lord cannot go into the HOC, so David Cameron has an MP to speak for him in the HOC, then when the bill comes into the HOL where David can vote on his own motion.  And while in the HOL waiting for his motion to come to him he can Lobby the other Lords into voting his way…. The reason I specifically use the word Lobby and Lobbying is because David has form when it comes to Lobbying.  After quitting as Prime Minister he started a job at Grensil Capital, while at this company he used his contacts in the Tory Party to Lobby MPs to let Grensil Capital be allowed access to the government coronavirus loan support.  A Parliamentary inquiry found that David had shown a “significant lack of judgement” in sending 62 messages to former colleagues pleading for them to help the controversial bank…. That he also owned stock options that could have been worth tens of millions of pounds was just a fluke, I guess.  If this doesn’t show how pointless a parliamentary select committee is then what does.  “Lack of Judgement” I have other words for it, but that would be against my better judgement to use them, anyway it is at this point that I’d like to remember that Dennis Skinner in Parliament called him “Dodgy Dave” ….. Dennis Skinner was thrown out of the House of Parliament, you cannot call people out in Parliament, you cannot tell the truth in the HOC…. And that is a serious issue for Democracy, along with Lobbying, how is this not a conflict of interest, he used his contacts to push his ex-colleagues into giving a loan to a Company he had shares in and stood to make tens of millions of pounds and it’s just a lack of judgement?  How are MP’s looking after our best interests if they can be lobbied by people in a position of power, not just the Royal Family but ex-politicians?  Do MP’s really work for the people who vote them in?

Dominic Cummings on the 26th Jan 2025, admitted on Twitter that increase of Immigration into the UK is deliberate, by the Conservative party, you cannot trust any Political party to do what you vote them to do and here is the proof.  All those Conservative voters, who went into the ballot box to vote Conservatives because of their "immigration policy" have been dupped into believing that the CONS want to keep immigration down.   Can you trust the party that is tough on immigration if that same party purposely don't want to know how many people are entering the Country.

Labour

The Labour Party was founded in 1900 out of trade unions and left wing groups.  It won 29 seats in the 1906 general election with Keir Hardie becoming the leader of the new found party.

The High Court said he could be on the Leadership Ballot and so was able to defend his Leadership, however Labour won a high Court appeal to stop new members voting in the leadership election.  None of this seems Democratic.

Regardless, the Leadership Ballot went ahead with Jeremy Corbyn getting a higher majority of 61%.  You would think that the Labour party and It’s MP’s would now get behind the twice emphatically elected Leader?  You would be wrong.

On the 19^th April 2017, Theresa May (Then Leader of the Conservatives and Prime Minister) had called a snap election, even though she had a small Majority (17 seats), she risked this for two reasons, 1. She needed a bigger Majority to get Brexit done and 2. Labour were 20 points behind so it was a no brainer – Corbyn resisted calls from within the Labour Party to call for a referendum on Brexit to be overturned and instead focused on healthcare, education and ending Austerity – I wonder who these people were?.  To be fair this was pretty Democratic as May was Prime Minister having never been elected as such by the people of Great Britain.    

Yep this is the happy face of Stephen Kinnock, one of the Labour MP’s who tried to make Corbyn quit “celebrating” Corbyn taking away the Conservative Majority meaning Labour have more power in the HOC.  It increased it’s share of the popular vote to 40%, resulting in a net gain of 30 seats, it was Labours greatest vote share since 2001, it was the first time Labour had made a net gain of seats since 1997 and the Party 9.6% increase in vote share was it’s largest in a single General Election since 1945.  Remember these are facts not biased.

So that’s where the Labour Party stops in-fighting and starts getting support right?  Not even close.

Below is an article where the ex-minister Peter Mandelson told an event that he is actually working to bring an end to Corbyn’s leadership – Peter Mandelson is a Lord, the president of international think tank Policy Network, honorary President of the GB – China Centre.  So just to confirm that is a Lord, a Lobbyist who is also connected to a foreign influence, getting involved in the UK Democracy.  If we were playing Democracy Illusion Bingo, we’d win!

In February 2019 seven MP’s resigned from the Labour Party to form the Independent Group citing Corbyn’s handling of Brexit and Anti-Semitism, in a true Democracy these MP’s should have stood for re-election to see if their constituents wanted them or a Labour MP that they had been voted in under the banner of.  But at least they did what they thought / believed was the right thing to do.

Whether you believe Alexander Boris De Phiffle Johnson would have won anyway despite, the hierarchy of Labour MP’s and Labour Officials fighting the twice elected leader or the media relentless attacking the leader of the opposition or providing what has been shown as a grudge against him, is irrelevant, the point is the above used their influence, power, contacts and worse of all Labour members fees (most of who voted Corbyn as leader in Labour) to try and stop voters from having a free choice and in turn helped the Conservatives.  Can you imagine conservative MP’s working to try and install a Labour party?  Just wouldn’t happen, this isn’t a case of someone buying a “Vote X” poster and putting it in their window or in their garden, this is a case of Labour head office using members subs to help the Tories win general elections.  Where can you find these people now, well one is leader of the Labour party, a few are in the house of Lords, ironically put there by Conservatives – maybe due to services to the conservative cause, their reward for subjugating democracy is a cushy role in the house of Lords where you earn £330 just for signing in and a lot of them are still on the gravy train, that’s right, people who wear Labour rosettes fought hard for a Tory government, got it and get to keep their jobs, if anything they got promotions.  Democracy in action.

In May 2019 The EHRC (Equality and Human Rights Commission), launched an inquiry into whether Labour had “unlawfully discriminated against, harassed or victimized people because they were Jewish, after several complaints.  It found that there were several cases to answer for, but improvements had been made.  Jeremy Corbyn having now stood down as leader said “One Anti-Semite is one too many, but the scale of the problem was also dramatically overstated for Political reasons by our opponents inside and outside the party, as well as by much of the media” – All working together to hinder democracy or do they have a point that Antisemitism was rife in the Labour Party?

He was suspended for a few weeks by the Labour Party while they investigated what he had said, below is 15 reasons the Jewish Voice for Labour have about the Report.

Jeremy was then re-instated into the Labour Party, but wasn’t given the Whip back by the leader of the Opposition Keir Starmer, he held it back for 19 days, (which then became 4 years) basically he could keep paying his membership fees and appear at Labour Events, but he was not an MP for the Labour Party.  Until finally Keir Starmer on the 28^th March put forward a motion to ban him from standing as a candidate for The Labour Party, stating: “the Parties standing with the Electorate in the Country, and it’s Electoral prospects in seats it is required to win in order to secure a Parliamentary Majority and/or win the next General Election, are both significantly diminished should Mr Corbyn be endorsed” Now Hindsight is an amazing thing, and yes Labour did win in 2024.  But was that win really down to Jeremy Corbyn not being a Labour Candidate?  Jeremy Won Islington North despite not being a Labour Party member, having the Labour Party money behind him and Labour Activists helping him campaign, whilst Jonathan Ashworth who before the Election was the shadow Secretary of state for Work and Pensions lost his Job as an MP after getting 37,157 in 2017 and 33,606 in 2019 both under Corbyn as leader, he managed 13,760 with Keir in charge, or Wes Streeting who was the Shadow Secretary of state for health and social care, who received 25,323 in 2017 and 28,024 in 2019 under Corbyn , managed 15,647 under Keir Starmer and managed to get back in as an MP by a total of 528, or even current Prime Minister Keir Starmer who got 41,343 in 2017 and 36,641 in 2019 under Corbyn but managed 18,884 when trying to become Prime Minister, getting 48.9% of the votes in that area when under Corbyn he’s managed over 60% both times.  Do these figures really sound like the figures of a Party who were right in their assessment that they will do better without Corbyn?  What about the total amount?

2017: Number of Votes for Labour Under Corbyn: 12,877,918

2019: Number of Votes for Labour Under Corbyn: 10,269,051

2024: Number of Votes for Labour Under Starmer: 9,708,716

They won and that is all that matters but was that because Corbyn wasn’t part of the Labour Party or because Reform put their candidates up against Conservatives to take seats and votes from them?  The big question really is Did Keir really believe that by banning Corbyn from being a Labour MP it increased Labour chances of winning or was this all a ploy in the hope to stop what Corbyn started, to diminish the flame that he had lit and if that is the case, who is pulling Starmer’s strings to do this?  If these three Labour hard hitters want to keep their jobs at the next election, they probably need Corbyn back to save them.  Does the above figures sound like a guy that wasn’t popular?  People say that Boris won in 2019 because he appealed to people on both sides and he was more popular than Corbyn, however he only managed 329,770 more votes than Theresa May got in 2017 so the notion that Boris was more popular and that Labour voters gave the Conservatives their votes (As the media and Boris would want you to believe) is nonsense, no the real reason other than the Character Assignation in the Press and the Sabotage of Corbyn comes from Brexit

2017: Corbyn “we respect the referendum” – 12,877.918

2019: Corbyn “lets have another vote on Brexit” – 10,269.051

A loss of nearly 3 million votes because Labour adopted a policy of a second referendum when the whole Country wanted it over, but why would Corbyn change his mind after two years?

Amazingly Labour lost 52 seats in 2019……51 of them were in Leave Constituencies' that wanted Brexit.  What are the odds, that the Shadow Brexit Secretary is touting for a second referendum, including a motion at the Labour Party Conference to include it in the next manifesto, was this a case of a Labour Sensior member working to lose an election to get rid of Corbyn or did he actually believe a second referendum was a vote winner?  Either way he shouldn’t be where he is because that is a massive mis-judgement.

Wow he dropped that hot potato fast.  “We demand another referendum, bye Jeremy, right lets vote with the Conservatives on Brexit”

Was he unpopular?, Was he an Anti-Semite? Or was it the media, Labour, Conservatives, Lords all working together to stop the leader of the Opposition from having a fair chance of being Prime Minister and in turn stop Voters from having a fair choice at an election?  That is for you to decide.

There are many many questions about this time in the Labour Party 2015-2019

If Jeremy was an Anti-Semite, how was he voted in every single General Election since 1983? – And so unpopular that he was able to be re-elected without the Power of the Labour Party behind him.  Something that I’ve covered already is very hard indeed.

If Jeremy was so unpopular how did he turn around a 20 point lead of the Conservatives to a hung Parliament and take away May’s Majority?

If he was unpopular how did he get more votes than Keir Starmer did in 2024

If he was unpopular why was there a need for the Media to run a character assassination to the extent of Laura Kuensberg inaccurately reporting stories of him?

If he was so unelectable why did the USA Secretary of State say they would push back if he was to become PM?

If he was so unpopular why would Peter Mandelson feel the need to have to undermine him every day?

If he was so unpopular why would Israel need to offer a bribe to any MP who could stop him being leader of the Labour Party

If he was so unpopular why has the Labour Party membership drop substantially with Keir in Charge?

If Labour felt they had a better chance of winning without him being in the party, why did they think they had a better chance of winning with Ed Milliband in the party who was leader during the 2015 Election defeat.

If the EHRC want to stop all Racism in every party then why have the refused on three occasions of investigating the Conservatives when the Brotherhood of Islam requested an inquest.  Why Investigate one set of Racism in one Party and not all Racisims in all Parties?

If the Labour Party was institutionally racist under Jeremy Corbyn, how come only 0.03% of members were found guilty of Anti-Semitism – Are you trying to tell me there were more occasions in the Labour Party than the Conservative Party?

Why have none of the Anti-Corbyn Labour Officials who worked to lose the General Election to Oust Corbyn been made accountable to the Members whose fees they potentially mis-used?

A lot of questions should be asked as this all seems suspiciously like powerful people working together to hinder Democracy, but who would ask them?  The Media?  The Labour Party, The Conservatives, the Lords?  Why would they when they are the perpetrators?

Reform

I touched on this in the Visual media blog: Reform pulled candidates from standing in the General Election in 2019 so that Boris Johnson would win and have an overall Majority to “Get Brexit Done” a simple three-word slogan there, Political parties seem to use these slogans a lot, but due to removing candidates the result was:

Boris Johnson (Con): 13,966,451

Jeremy Corby (Lab) : 10,295,912

However once Jeremy Corbyn was no longer a threat and Brexit had well and truly got the UK done, there was no need to help the Conservatives, so Reform put their candidates forward against them and the result was as follows:

Keir Starmer (Lab): 9,708,716

Rishi Sunak (Con): 6,828,925

This isn’t a case of Labour winning, it’s a case of Reform taking enough votes away from the Conservatives to enable a Labour victory.

It’s scary to think that a political party that ISN’T in power has the power to decide who the Prime Minister is.

Liberal Democrates

In a similar way the Liberal Democrats made a deal with the Conservatives, when in 2010 The Conservatives didn’t get enough seats to rule out right, they entered a Coalition with the Lib Dems to get things done, again this isn’t a Democratic move no matter what anyone says, a perfect example of this is the Tuition fee increase.  The Lib Dems said there would be no Tuition Fee increase if they got in, then when the Conservatives got in and needed the Lib Dems, the Lib Dems jumped at the chance to have a little bit of power and so when the Conservative Government brought forward a proposal to increase Tuition fee, they voted for it.

It also shows not to believe the leaflets they print as the article shows that the Leader of the Lib Dems saying that the Conservatives want to raise Tuition fees by £7,000 and that the Lib Dems are committed to abolishing Tuition fees.  Once they entered a Coalition with the Conservatives, they automatically dropped their manifesto pledge and voted with the Conservatives to raise Tuition fees by £9,000

A sniff of power and they went against their own voters.  People say “what choice did they have?” well one of the choices was to stick by their manifesto pledge, let the Conservatives lose the vote, could even have led to another Election, however by going against their Manifesto pledge they hurt trust in politics amongst Lib Dem voters and helped the Conservative bring in a policy that the Lib Dems were against, in 2010 they had 57 MP’s, and after 5 years of doing the Conservatives bidding, they were down to 8.  Years and years of hard work to increase their standing and MP’s gone by a whiff of power.

The DUP

After Theresa May’s Election Gamble of 2017, the Conservatives signed a Confidence and supply agreement, where they give the DUP of Northern Ireland 0.5 billion and they in turn support the Minority Conservative Government to get laws past.  This isn’t Democracy in action, this is a bribe, the DUP will support the Conservatives for money, now I’m not saying any of that money went to any DUP MP’s, I’m sure it went to Constitutions where the DUP were in power.  But how does that look?  The Conservative Government could find £0.5 billion for Northern Ireland when they are in trouble but not at any other time?  The DUP will vote with the Conservatives (even if they don’t believe in the law) just to get money and the other problem with this is, if the £0.5 Billion goes to area’s where the DUP are in power, it may make the voters see the difference in their area in this once in a lifetime deal (Half a Billion really can do a lot in a deprived area) and so the DUP get more votes, it’s all about the Political Parties trying to get stronger rather than the Constituents.  Voters of areas not run by the DUP, might see what they have managed to do with the 0.5 billion and it could encourage more people to vote for the DUP, believing it is in their areas best interest, when really it was a bribe from a Desperate Political Party who have the Nations finances at their fingertip.  There is nothing wrong with spending more money on Northern Ireland, I think we should, but not this way, not in a “You help us, and we pay you” kind of way.  It just shows what a joke Democracy is.

Money makes Politics rotten

The DUP did the right thing to get the best deal they could from a UK Government who wouldn’t have given them the time of day otherwise, but it’s not very Democratic to have a party of 10 MP’s “helping” a party of 318 get things passed for money.

Elections

So, we come to the actual Elections, I know what you are all shouting reading this, (if you are still reading this).  “But every 5 years we go to the polls and CHOOSE who we want to represent us”.  Yes, we go to the Polls, yes, we can vote, but do you really get a choice when there is so much influence from other countries, Newspapers and TV? In 2019 it took

864,743 to have just one Green party M.P

642,303 to have zero Brexit party M. P’s

334,122 To elect each Liberal democrat

50,817 to elect each Labour M.P

38,300 to elect each Conservative M.P

38,316 to elect each Plaid Cymru M.P

25,882 to elect each SNP MP (and as mentioned before these MP can’t change anything due to the amount of English based M. P’s)

But yet the biggest number at EVERY election is “Did Not Vote”, now I know a lot of people will say, that doesn’t prove we aren’t Democratic, if anything the fact that they have the chance to vote and choose not to makes us a Democratic country, instead of asking why so many don’t use their democratic right to elect someone to represent them, what you should be asking is what needs to change to get people more involved in politics, it suits the establishment if people don’t vote, aren’t engaged and don’t know what the politicians do / stand for, How can you have a democracy when millions of people don’t feel they have anyone who could represent them and don’t see the point in taking 10 minutes out of their lives every 5 years?

I have a friend who says they wait for the leaflets to come out before making their choice and that’s all well and good and her choice, but those leaflets are just an advertisement, not so much a lie, but more telling you what they want you to hear and not what they really plan to do.  For example, in 2019 did any Conservative leaflet tell you they were going to vote to dump raw sewage into rivers.  Did they say they were going to vote to starve hungry children?  Must have missed that bit out, don’t worry it wasn’t in the Labour one either, EVERY leaflet says they are the party to save the NHS, maybe they think they are saving the NHS? But can they really all be the party to save the NHS?  When the NHS was raised into law, every Conservative M.P at that time voted against it, said it would bankrupt the Country, not the first time Conservatives used scare tactics to try and stop something from happening.  They were wrong, they just didn’t like the idea of poor people getting better without someone making money out of it.  That is what Politics comes down to.

Willie Sullivan, Senior Director of the Electoral Reform society, said:

“When it takes 900,000 votes to elect one party’s MP and just 26,000 for another, you know the system is not just struggling, it’s bankrupt.

Millions of voters have gone totally unrepresented, with worryingly warped results in many areas.  The Conservatives have won a majority on a minority of the vote”

He later says “people will not tolerate being systemically ignored, this has to be the last election under Westminster’s warped voting system” – It should have been the last election, but as this system is in essence a two-horse race, why would either of the two horses want the system changing? 

Why would a Political Party bring into law something that would hinder their chances of getting elected in the future? – Remembering how much power the Political Parties have.  I believe Liberal Democrats and SNP already have put this forward, but they can’t get into power because the Conservatives and Labour get most of the votes, so why don’t people change their vote from a party who don’t offer a fair electoral reform to one that does?  It’s simple, a lot of people don’t vote for what they want, they vote to stop what they don’t want.  You don’t want the Tories in charge, then you vote Labour / Lib Dems in most of the areas, you don’t want Labour, you vote Tory, do you care what the party you are voting for stands for? No, you just want to get the Tories out or want to stop Labour getting in.  You know full well a vote for other parties even if you prefer their principles or policies is wasted.  You don’t want your vote wasted so you try to make it count, the Politicians know this so do the main Political Parties, so the Political Parties take your vote for granted, because they know you have nowhere else to go. 

This is why so many M. P’s who disagree with their parties won’t quit the Party, They need the party more than the party need them, you just have to look at the ChangeUk party.  7 MP quit their party over several issues in 2019, in the 2019 election they all lost their seats.  Take one for example:

Anna Soubry:

2015 General Election got 24,163 votes as a Conservative in Broxtowe

2017 general election got 24,163 votes as a Conservative in Broxtowe

2019 general election got 4,668 votes as part of the independent group for Change

The elected official was Conservative, Darren Henry who got 26,602 votes, so you can see why people don’t often leave their parties even if they don’t agree with their parties Politics, the Parties have so much power, I’m not saying anything bad about Darren Henry… His voting record will speak for itself, but you could put a vegetable with a blue or red rosette on and they’d be guaranteed to win in most places and in some places, I think they have.

Because a lot of people vote for the party not the person, the parties know this, the politicians know this and so they tow the party line, even if it is against their principles and against their own constituents, they might have a stern word about the policy they are voting for or against, but in the end a lot of MP’s are career orientated, hanging onto the party coat tails.  Without the party they wouldn’t stand a chance as shown with Anna Soubry.

Voter I.D

Voter I. D was brought out to stop Fraud.  You must now show your I.D so you are able to vote, not only that but specific ID as well, yes not all ID is equal it seems:

However, I’d just like to point out there are 650 MPs in the HOC and out of these 650 MP’s there are more under investigation for sexual crimes than people who were convicted of Fraud during the 2019 General Election.  So, explain why we needed to stop voter fraud? 

Jacob Rees-Mogg – Ex Conservative MP for Summerset was a speaker at National Conservative Conference which was organized by the Edmund Burke Foundation on the 15^th May 2023 where he said “Parties that try gerrymandering* end up finding their clever schemes come back to bite them, as I dare we found by insisting on Voter ID for elections, we found that people who didn’t have I.D were elderly and they by and large voted Conservative, so we made it hard for our own voters and we upset a system that works perfectly well.

Gerrymandering is: “An attempt to change how people vote in order to impact the outcome of Elections”.

Here is a conservative M.P, who was in the cabinet at the time admitting that they brought in a policy trying to impact the outcome of Elections.  Why are there no journalists making a big deal of this?  I think that is obvious why no Journalists are making a big deal of it, because they are in cahoots with the MP’s.

The most shocking part of the above Article was the numbers:

“In Walsall, 1240 were turned away, 473 returned with ID so 767 didn’t get to cast their vote, in Bradford 1261 were turned away, 763 returned, 498 didn’t get to vote”

Over 1,000 people didn’t vote in two areas because they didn’t have ID with them but had taken the time to use their Democratic right to vote.  The other part of the Article I noticed was:

“we’ve long said that people pretending to be each other at Polling Stations is not a Major Issue in the UK” and “There was one conviction and one caution for Impersonation Nationally”

1,000 people were stopped from voting (In two areas) because in one General Election, 2 people tried to vote twice?  And why can’t they vote for someone else, they may have a good reason, however in Parliament:

We cannot have a democracy where M.P’s can admit to changing laws which impact  the outcome of Elections and nothing happens, M.P’s will bring in laws to make it easier for them to get in (although in this case it back-fired), Journalists don’t seem to care as the people who pay their wages are supporters of the party that keeps getting in…. None of this says Democracy.

It’s hard to know exactly how many people this law affected but according to the Guardian more than 2 million voters may lack photo I.D required to vote and how many more have lost their ID or it’s run out of date, or simply don’t want to show someone their ID so they don’t bother voting, in a Democracy you shouldn’t make it harder for people to vote.

A Law was brought in to stop the people who commit or are accused of committing voter fraud in Elections…. All 164 of them, that is the number from the 2019 General election, however out that of those 164, Matt Hancock (Ex-Conservative MP and Health Secretary) admitted there were only 6 cases of voter fraud.

So that would take 333,333.33 elections before the amount of people being held back from voting due to this new policy reached the amount of actual fraud cases.  It seems a little overkill wouldn’t you say?

But not as much as the offenses, a candidate was given 6 months in prison (suspended for 12 months), given a 15-day rehabilitation requirement, ordered to complete 180 hours of community service and ordered to pay £2,366 for submitting a nomination that included forged signatures.

West Yorkshire police found a man had voted twice using his own name and his sons.

He got 8 weeks in prison, again suspended for 12 months, given a fine for £50 and not allowed to vote for 5 years, which all seems really harsh considering a) does one vote really matter that much (Which you’d think the dad would know that him voting twice wouldn’t matter to the end result) and b) it really doesn’t matter due to the Candidates who are controlled by the Political Parties anyway.

But it does seem strange that they will bring out a law to stop people from doing this, when Politicians are allowed to vote by Proxy.  

Lobbying

The fact that MP’s can be Lobbied by big business in the first place is un-democratic, the fact that they have to declare these donations just shows how pointless it is, all it means is the public know who is paying our MP’s and who the MP’s are owned by.  The MP’s may receive money from a Company or a Lobbying firm, but they could be the front for a shady organisation, they declare the donation, but do they say what the donation was for or what the Lobbying firm gets in return?  Not really just shows that the only way to get Democracy is to get money out of Politics, which would then get most Politicians out of Politics, if they can’t make any serious money then what is the point of being a Politician?  To help their constituents? Please to make the world a better place? Don’t make me laugh.

They have to declare them, but it is meaningless.  What they should have to declare is why they are getting donations?  If it is from a Climate Change Denying Organization and then the MP votes for a policy in favour of Denying Climate Change it is obvious, but due to our awful pointless Journalists in this country nothing gets looked into like it used to, and even if it did, the MP’s would lie and carry on as normal, there is no accountability in Politics any more.  Keir Starmer received tickets to a Taylor Swift Concert, she then got a Police Escort through the streets of London to her Concert.  I’m not saying there is anything wrong with this, Downing Street Deny it was a thank you.  So Case Closed.  He paid the cost of the money back, which is the end of it.  But the Optics of the PM being given the tickets, TS then getting a Police Escort through London don’t look good.

Tufton Street (Mainly 55 and 57)

55 and 57 Tufton Street is a Street in London pretty close to the HOC where the real power of the UK is. You might never have heard of this place and that’s understandable, however behind the doors are some of the most influential lobbying groups in the UK, what makes these groups dangerous is a) they are so close to HOC, b) They are in the ears and MPs are in the pocket of them, c) they score the lowest possible score for financial transparency possible on who funds you?

These groups accept donations, they don’t say from where (Unlike MP’s they don’t need to declare them) and brag about the policy changes they have made through Government, still think your vote matters, is your one vote every 5 years as important to the MP as the money coming from these places?  Maybe every 5 years the MP comes round to ask for your vote, tells you what they believe in, when really what they believe in is how much can they make once in power.

Big businesses:

Big businesses are similar to Lobbyist, however they fund the parties, they shouldn’t need to as members should be funding the parties, actual voters should fund parties and have a say in how the parties are run, but as there aren’t enough members and the parties love/need money, then donations from big businesses are welcome, not just welcome but actively chased by parties, but the Businesses / owners of the business will want something in return, no one gives away free money without getting something in return and big businesses giving money to political parties are no exception, but their money gets more return / investment if they are backing the party that is in power, that is why between 2019 and 2024 the Tories have fallen out of favour with the voters and it started to look increasingly like Labour would get in at the 2024 Election businesses owners suddenly started swapping sides, Monday the 29^th Jan 2024, the owner of Iceland who has been a big donator to the Conservative party, tweeted “Britain needs sound leadership after years of chaos.  That’s why I quit the Tories – and now back Labour”

Gareth Quarry is a multimillionaire who has switched his allegiance to Labour and donated 2 x £50,000 to the party, he said it was because the Conservatives were “Riven with Arrogance and Complacency” 

Didn’t seem to bother him before, but suddenly the Tories looking like they won’t be in power he changes his allegiance. 

Kasim Kutay, after donating £25,000 to the Conservative party in 2008, shortly before they came to power, has since given £50,000 to Labour since 2022

John Armitage has previously given £3,100,000 to the Conservatives but announced in 2022 that he now supports labour and has made a personal donation to Keir Starmer, he has said “Many people are fed up with a regime that tolerated a dishonorable and bad prime minister for a long time”…

I'm sure all the above is just a massive coincidence and that they are now donating to Labour because they care about the UK and not because Labour look like they will gain power which they could influence.  if you think it is a coincidence, then I have a bridge to sell you.

Do they care if Labour are a disaster when in Power?  Not really because they’ll still get favourable policies and if the Conservatives look like they might get back in power, they can always go back and start donating again.  Yes the Political Parties don’t care about the voters, they care about the Donors, the Donors don’t care about who is in power as long as they listen to them, and we will not have a Democracy until we take Money and the ability to fund Parties out of Politics.

I guess the question is Do donations have any influence on MP’s policies?  I cannot say, the only people who would know for sure are the MP’s and the Donors, but if the Donors didn’t get anything back, then they’d stop donating and as yet, they don’t appear to be slowing down the donations.  I know enough businessmen and women to know that they never give anything away for free and if you think that they are giving their money to these parties for nothing then more fool you, until we stop political parties from being allowed to accept donations from big businesses then we’ll never have a (free) Democracy, and as all the main parties are accepting of the donations as well as freebies, then the Parties are answerable to the money men and not the voting public like they should be.

Just seems strange that Jeremy Corbyn isn't welcome in the Labour Party as big business start donating to the Party.  But when the Rich threaten to leave the UK unless you vote in their favour, then you can be sure we do not have a free Democracy.

"Within Minutes" - Not even going to let him put his feet under the Desk before they leave, because how dare the Voting public not vote the "right way"