What we need in 2011 is an opposition

[Agnostic Bear]

The government doesn't censor anything, really

This makes my brain hurt so much.

[Wig44.]

I agree, the parties agree with each other so it's good time for a small party to come up and tell everyone why the 'big 3' are no longer fit to lead the country. Despite that, unfortunately, all the small parties that run in my town are right-wing (UKIP, BNP) so I'd rather not vote for them as that goes against what I believe in.

UKIP R RACIST FASCIST HOMOPHOBIC ISLAMOPHOBIC EXTREME RIGHT THUGS!!!!!!!!

Politics is in a state. The problem is that if you ask people of the public what their views are on politics they are like 'i cant be bothered I'm going to stick my head in the sand your generation can sort it' or 'that party has been called right wing despite having great policies I'm not voting for them ' 'I've always voted <lib lab or con> so I'll keep voting them'. Then you get people who say they arent interested in politics (you don't care who is running the country?!) and will vote whoever. To the people who don't care about politics: Just don't vote. Please.

[Fez]

This makes my brain hurt so much.

Well what does the government itself censor, as in as a body of acting.

The MP expenses parts and the parts that are responsible for controlling, of course they censor, but as a full government only a few departments will partake in censoring.

[Wig44.]

Well what does the government itself censor, as in as a body of acting.

The MP expenses parts and the parts that are responsible for controlling, of course they censor, but as a full government only a few departments will partake in censoring.

That isn't the same as 'the government doesn't censor anything'. Plus, how would you know the government isn't censoring anything? The whole point of censoring something is so people don't know about it. And before you go 'so how would you know if they do censor things' I'd like to point out that plenty has been censored already. And how do you know that only a 'few departments' partake in censoring?

[Fez]

That isn't the same as 'the government doesn't censor anything'. Plus, how would you know the government isn't censoring anything? The whole point of censoring something is so people don't know about it. And before you go 'so how would you know if they do censor things' I'd like to point out that plenty has been censored already. And how do you know that only a 'few departments' partake in censoring?

I know because the Department of Arts and Culture won't exactly take part in censoring what it has to produce, neither will the Department of Education as there's no needs to. Inside, the government has the numbers it needs to work with, the numbers it publishes publicly aren't tampered in government, most of the time, they're tampered with separate companies making it legal in most areas.

The truth is I don't know the truth, and it's confusing to think that a lot of departments are in the mix of censorship but the government as a whole publishes figures which either scare or encourage their citizens to act as necessary. The Pirate Party, the party I support, was founded to create transparency between governments and their citizens; and in essence echos the existence of Wikileaks. Both Cameron and Obama said in their election pledges it would be a term of transparency, yet we have secret costs everywhere and not everything is as it seems. The fact Obama condemns Wikileaks as a threat, for publishing diplomatic cables and not say war strategies or tactics, shows how scared he is of transparency. It shows he doesn't want his people to know, neither does Cameron, as it's either for their own good or he doesn't feel they have a right to know. Most of the time it's the latter, and it's only the former when it involves say something that would put the government in a position of criticism. The stuff we want to know; the level of our impact on Iraq/Afghanistan, where our taxpayers money goes and MP expenses are exactly the things we want to know and not all of it's available.

I believe the government, mostly, is a house of censorship and I've been wrong to say the exact opposite in retrospect. I was tired when I wrote "The government doesn't censor anything, really", but I think if the body of organizations such as Wikileaks exists to do the government's job for them, then they shouldn't condemn or block honesty that:

- Doesn't harm the government or risk lives
- Shows in-depth the level of which we play on the international stage, but doesn't risk dodgy dealings and stuff that would get us in hot bother
- Shows areas we can criticise the government and improve the country
- Shows the level of security and censorship they employ
- Matters to the citizens.

[Technologic]

Why do you insist on posting drivel from various columnists in what is supposedly the news section?

[Fez]

Why do you insist on posting drivel from various columnists in what is supposedly the news section?

I have to agree with this, it's not a correct real source and yeah it gets discussion going but it's not exactly news. Belongs in the debates section really.

[Nationalism]

Indeed this country needs an opposition party, all three main parties in this country are basically the same.
All three parties lie, cheat and deceit the British public in order to line their own pockets, Cameron says over and over again that we're all in this "mess" together, yet we are not.
This country needs a particular form of party.

[Jordy]

Indeed this country needs an opposition party, all three main parties in this country are basically the same.
All three parties lie, cheat and deceit the British public in order to line their own pockets, Cameron says over and over again that we're all in this "mess" together, yet we are not.
This country needs a particular form of party.

Why should the richer people who clearly save their money and invest it wisely (Hence why they're rich) pay for the mess of others who can't be bothered to save or look after their money. I mean what are you hoping for, a photo of Cameron shopping in Primark one day because he's suffering from the cuts :/

[Nationalism]

Why should the richer people who clearly save their money and invest it wisely (Hence why they're rich) pay for the mess of others who can't be bothered to save or look after their money. I mean what are you hoping for, a photo of Cameron shopping in Primark one day because he's suffering from the cuts :/

What are you talking about? Not everybody who has money in Britain has earned that money, people inherit it. Cameron's farther was/is a stockbroker and much of his fathers family is too i believe, so it's very much a wealthy family he was born into. David Cameron hasn't earned all the wealth he's ever had at all - to say he has and that other rich people have, is very silly.
It's common fact that David Cameron and all these other politicians (who quite can't frankly, don't do squat) won't really feel any different due to these cuts, it's the normal working people like myself and my family that will feel these cuts not snotty, forty faced, slimey British politicians.