Petition - second best

'Should Donald Trump be prevented from making a State Visit to the United Kingdom?' This is a Petition on the UK Government Website and it has attracted more than a million supporters.
But the word petition already leaves a sour taste in the mouth. It tastes too much like asking someone superior and powerful to grant a favor. Much better to give it the legal form of a binding referendum, that way no energy is wasted in signing up and disappointment is prevented. The last thing the reigning Politocracy wants is to be told what to do by the citizens.

Unaccountable Politicians are after our Cash!

Governments in many countries plan to ban cash holdings/transactions in order to herd us into digital banking that will allow them to track all financial transactions and suck every possible penny of taxes to finance their spending schemes. What just happened in India or the EU is just the indication of things to come and could never have happened with proper democratic safeguards, i.e. the full and explicit agreement of the citizens in a referendum that was required to give a qualified majority.

Brexit Referendum - Lessons to be learned

Citizens of the UK got a master class demonstrating how a potential referendum can be abused and become a political football. A 'promise' to hold a referendum about the country's future relationship with the EU was not worth the paper it is written on.
At present any referendum that is generously conceded by the governing class it is not really done in the full spirit of giving power to the people. That would only be the case if a referendum would be a permanent part of the political process or could be demanded to be held whenever a qualified number of citizens demand one.
Some may criticise that it is unfair that a small majority makes such a far-reaching decision which could bind the other half of the citizens to a policy their do not agree with.
This is a valid point and any referendum that has far-reaching implications, in particular about a constitutional matter, should require a more substantial quorum to make it binding.
This point conceded one would have to contend with the objection that all the decisions that led the UK to become deeper and deeper integrated into the EU should in turn also have been subjected to a referendum with an equally high quorum hurdle.
As matters stand, the citizens had hardly any say. Even the original referendum about joining the then EEC was based on promises that were never kept.
In any case a referendum is merely being used under duress or used as just another trick to push through policies that the 'Elites' want to pursue can be abused. This is the usual argument against Direct Democracy and while it has the ring of truth to it is is based on a wrong form of referendum.If politicians honestly want to return power to the citizens (or as they always claim: 'Listen to the People') they would not cling to their power and support Direct Democracy and introduce it as binding requirement when any significant political decision is made.

Moaning no substitute for proper Democracy

Election Campaign promises forgotten, endless criticism in the Media disregarded - all too often the citizens feel helpless in face of poorly executed or plain wrong political decisions.

The easy solution is obvious, but very uncomfortable for the 'Elites' that are in control of Government and the Civil Servants, Bureaucracies and Quangos that often benefit from these policies.

A headline in today's Daily Telegraph illustrates this: "Foreign aid contractors that do not deliver value for money to be named and shamed under new plans"

A few questions come to mind immediately: Who decides what is 'value for money', will the naming scheme ever be implemented? by whom? and will it have any positive effect?

But the more relevant question really is: who appoints these contractors? who decides on what terms they are engaged and who supervises them?

There is zero democratic control in all this - the citizens have no opportunity to get involved.
And the REALLY important question raised by this headline is the following: Why should the citizens be forced to make donations to foreign entitites, many of them in the grip of corrupt cliques?

There is no hindrance for private citizens to donate whatever amount of money they wish to give to Mr. Mugabe or to India (which seems to be able to afford its own space programme).
The state should only do what the initiative of private citizens cannot achieve.

In addition, all government policies and their implementation, in particular the allocation of public funds, should be subject to the will of the citizens.

Establishment Politicians hate Referendums

No wonder Jean-Claude Juncker begs EU leaders not to hold referendums...because voters might choose to leave

CETA deadlock broken - but who asked the citizens?

All very well that the comedy with Wallonia trying to bloc the Trade Deal between the EU and Canada has been ended. But let's not forget that the whole procedure of approval has basically been done behind the backs of the citizens.

Think Tanks - Direct Democracy needed to dilute their influence

Like them or not, Think Tanks have sprouted all over the world and they have preferential access to policy makers in most states. Often they are actually sponsored by taxpayer-funded political parties as is the case in Germany and Austria. But making all legislation subject to the ultimate say-so of the electorate would go a long way to dilute the influence of unelected Think Tanks.

How Think Tanks Amplify Corporate America’s Influence (NY Times)

Political Debate off course - what's new?

Headline reads:Boundary Change must not hit the gender ratio in House of Commons.
Now that tells you that the political class is not really interested in solving major issues confronting the citizens. Instead an important change in the composition of constituencies is hijacked by a discussion about an aspect that appeals mostly to political correctness without solving problems such as national security, health care, education and house building - all subjects of real concern to the electorate.

Facebook meddling with Media Content

It is about time that the dominating Internet Portals such as Facebook and Google are brought under democratic control. When providers have a dominant market share the Competition and Monopolies regulators should not be fobbed off with spurious arguments such as 'we must not interfere with new technologies, ie stand in the way of progress etc'. What applied to Rockefeller's Standard Oil in the early 1900s must apply to the Internet Barons today. When the providers start tinkering with the flow of news and information alarm bells should start ringing in the sleepy offices of the regulators and legislative assemblies. Naturally, the USA will not be too keen as most providers are based there but a confrontation with the lobby-infested corridors of power in Washington can not longer be avoided.

Facebook cracks down on clickbait

Olympic Games - beyond control of Citizens?

As another (expensive) Sportsfest starts in Rio de Janeiro the question of who benefits from this taxpayer funded largesse comes to the fore again. Taxpayers may think that their money is well spent but the Olympic 'Movement' (if you can call it that as it is dominated by a clique of insiders beyond democratic control, i.e. there is no influence from the wider public or at least those citizens involved in sports as amateurs or professionals) is resisting all efforts to be fully responsible for money spent to host the event. 
Rio 2016: Economists question wisdom of hosting Olympics
Opinion: Olympic denial: The benefits to hosting the Games are just hype