Friday 28 June 2013

Another response to another e-petition

Here is the response to an e-petition I signed a while back.  Get your vomit bags ready!

The e-petition 'General Election - 500,000 epetition signatures required' signed by you recently reached 13,789 signatures and a response has been made to it.

As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response: The Government will not seek to dissolve Parliament before 2015. We came together at a time of crisis to fix the country and ensure our long term prosperity. We intend to secure a country in a better state than when we came into office. Although we know that not everything we do is popular, we know it is necessary for Britain to rebuild and compete in the world. We are making progress and keeping our promises by cutting the deficit, cutting crime and immigration, reforming our welfare and education systems to help people work hard and get on. We have cut corporation tax and are slashing red tape to make Britain a good place to do business, and have increased the personal allowance to cut taxes for millions of low and middle income earners, frozen council tax and cut fuel duty to help families with the cost of living. Practically, the Fixed- term Parliament Act 2011 abolished the Prime Minister's prerogative power to dissolve Parliament. The Act provides that Parliament can only be dissolved early if a Government is unable to secure the confidence of the House of Commons within 14 days of a no-confidence vote, or where at least two thirds of all MPs vote for an early general election. The legislation established five year fixed terms for the UK Parliament. The next General Election is therefore planned in law for 7 May 2015, and polling day will ordinarily be the first Thursday in May every five years. A debate in Parliament on an e-petition is unlikely to result in legislation to undo this legal lock. This e-petition remains open to signatures and will be considered for debate by the Backbench Business Committee should it pass the 100 000 signature threshold.

View the response to the e-petition

Thanks,

HM Government e-petitions http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/

Right, I have some comments to make here.

They say that they are trying to "fix the country and ensure our long term prosperity" but the UK is more broken than ever and our economy's in the crapper.

They also say that they "intend to secure a country in a better state than when we came into office" which is not going to happen in the less than two years they have left before they end up lynched by the angry hordes of the poor, the sick and the disabled.

They're "cutting the deficit"? Perhaps someone should inform the deficit that it's been cut because no-one else has noticed it.

They're "cutting crime and immigration"?  That might be true I'm the short term but as people get more and more desperate crime will go up.  As for immigration, we're due a tsunami of East European immigrants very soon now.

They're "reforming our welfare and education systems"?  Shouldn't that be 'destroying' those systems?

They say they're "slashing red tape to make Britain a good place to do business", missing out the words 'for our rich, tax avoiding friends and party funders'.

They say they've "increased the personal allowance to cut taxes for millions of low and middle income earners, frozen council tax and cut fuel duty to help families with the cost of living".  What they neglected to say is that the personal allowance changes have given the rich more money as well, some councils have jacked up the council tax anyway and that the rise in VAT and other 'hidden' taxes together with the stagnation in wages has negated the personal allowance increase for those at the lower end of the socio-economic scale.

And they fall back on the argument that the legislation they brought in would make it impossible for Cameron to dissolve the current administration.  How fucking convenient for them!

So we're stuck with the self-serving scumbags but we knew that anyway, didn't we?

No comments:

Post a Comment