I have a question, on Day 3 of our Common Decency campaign
I have a question - on day 3 of our Common Decency campaign, David Cameron is treating the coming election as a straight fight between the Conservative Party and the Labour Party. He is already littering the landscape with distasteful posters attacking the opposition rather than informing us of his plans. So if it’s a fight, surely, in the name of Common Decency it ought to be a fair fight. Right?
But Cameron has at his disposal nearly three times as much money to spend on his campaign than Labour. He has three times as much to buy propaganda which, as we have already seen, does not seem to have the requirement of being truthful (the claim that he has 'halved' the National Debt, for instance).The money for the conservatives has been provided by many of the obscenely, unfairly rich people in this country, as a way of them buying the kind of special treatment that enables them to stay obscenely rich. It’s dirty money.
How can any of this possibly be fair? How can it possibly be democratic? Are we really going to stand for this gross indecency?
This fact alone is reason enough for Britain to rise up and DEMAND fairness in the run-up to this election. And vote accordingly. Or, truly, democracy is dead in our country. Perhaps David Cameron can be asked to explain how he can live with himself, continuing on this demonstrably unfair course?
Bri
People in this conversation
Improvement
Comments (6)
-
Desculpe, vou escrever primeiro em portugues pra nao correr absolutamente nenhum risco de ser mal interpretado. Também quero dizer que eu moro no Brasil onde o asistema é diferente e posso apresentar ignorancia em algumas questoes. Embora, o Cameron tenha tido 3 x mais tempo para arrecadar dinheiro e fazer as suas propagandas, ainda há alguma chance de outros candidatos serem eleitos se as pessoas estiverem realmente enjoadas dele. Isso porque nao é preciso realmente dinheiro para se eleger alguem. (embora seja, pelo menos 80/ do trabalho feito). Ha outras formas de atrair eleitores, que sao menos dispendiosas, embora efetivamente boas.
Encontros marcados atraves de redes sociais deram certo em muitos locais do mundo. Pessoas influentes conseguem unir pessoas onde elas quiserem, alem disso, pode pegar publicos que o Cameron simplismente ignora, por julgar insignificantes, mas que unidos formam uma massa grande. Isso faz diferença. Pode nao eleger imediatamentente o candidato que se quer, mas gera diferença
Sorry, I will write in the first Portuguese to not run absolutely no risk of being misunderstood. I also want to say that I live in Brazil where the asistema is different and can present ignorance on some issues. Although Cameron has had 3 x more time to raise money and make their advertisements, there is still some chance to other candidates be elected if people are really sickened him. That's because it does not really need money to elect someone. (Although at least 80 / the job done). There are other ways to attract voters who are less expensive, but actually good.
Appointments through social networking have worked in many places in the world. Influential people can unite people where they want, moreover, can take public that Cameron simply ignores, by judging insignificant, but together form a large mass. That makes a difference. You can not elect the candidate imediatamentente what you want, but generates Gaps
-
thanks
Happy Diwali Wishes 2016
Happy Merry Christmas Wishes 2016
Happy New Year 2017 Greetings
Raees Sultan movie box office collection
US Open Tennis Results
Clash of Clans Base Guide
thanks
Leave your comments
Post comment as a guest