54,000 People Sign Petition for a UK General Election in 2016 - Polidicks

[quote]A new petition is calling for a General Election to be held this year. It’s part of the continued fallout of the Panama Papers that revealed the prime minister’s late father had an offshore account. David Cameron later admitted he had money invested in the trust. But this was not enough for more than 50,000 people who have signed a petition to ‘Hold a General Election in 2016’.[/quote] [url]http://metro.co.uk/2016/04/08/petition-calls-for-general-election-this-year-after-david-cameron-admission-5804720/[/url]

If this actually does happen, then we could possibly see three elections in the same year. USA, UK and Australia.

So nothings gonna happen, right?

These online petitions are so pathetic, I have no idea whether some of them are started ironically with things such as "Ban David Cameron from returning to the country" or "Re-run the 2015 general election".

[QUOTE=cody8295;50094915]So nothings gonna happen, right?[/QUOTE] Needs 100,000 signatures to be discussed in parliament as far as I know.

[QUOTE=cody8295;50094915]So nothings gonna happen, right?[/QUOTE]the power of these official petitions are that the uk media reports them, same thing happened with the tax credit cuts and disability cuts. theyre also a good signifier to the opposition that it would be good optics to keep hammering cameron.

I don't think its pathetic to want to stop the person running our country if he's willing to let thing like the panama files fly, If you're elected by the people you should be able to get kicked out by the people. Being stuck with a potentially criminal leader is dumb, once you're the leader of a country you represent the PEOPLE not your family or your dad. but yes, banning him is dumb.

[url]https://twitter.com/HouseofCards/status/718196777346801665?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw[/url]

[QUOTE=Lollipoopdeck;50094961]I don't think its pathetic to want to stop the person running our country if he's willing to let thing like the panama files fly, If you're elected by the people you should be able to get kicked out by the people. Being stuck with a potentially criminal leader is dumb, once you're the leader of a country you represent the PEOPLE not your family or your dad. but yes, banning him is dumb.[/QUOTE] he isn't potentially criminal That's the entire point about this, there is NOTHING illegal about doing this with your money (with the exception of those who were looting their countries, but that's another issue). I think you need to go back and read the story again if you don't get this. Even if he had hidden £50 million in Panama, it wouldn't be criminal if the money itself was gained legitimately. Additionally, he didn't have any money in his father's company when he took office either. Nor is he 'letting things like the panama files fly', given the amount of high-profile anti-tax evasion measures the coalition government at least attempted to use.

I can't even fathom how he got back into power in the first place. He comes across as such a slimy weasel. That being said though all the other candidates were hardly that much better.

I think its disgusting how certain people are trying to use the panama papers to rescind the election of the other year. They're still angry that labour lost and haven't hidden that fact, this is just a convenient excuse to get rid of a politician that was democratically voted in but they don't like. As said above, Cameron sold his shares in his dad's company and as such is largely free from wrongdoing... unless the sins of the father are the sins of the son, which is ludicrous and akin to saying 'The Germans of today are still responsible for the Holocaust'. [editline]8th April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=kapin_krunch;50095142]I can't even fathom how he got back into power in the first place. He comes across as such a slimy weasel. That being said though all the other candidates were hardly that much better.[/QUOTE] He's a weasel but he's the only candidate I, and everyone I spoke to, could conceive leading the country. Miliband was an alright guy but he came across as such a weak man thanks to the media constantly torpedoing him.

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50095112]he isn't potentially criminal That's the entire point about this, there is NOTHING illegal about doing this with your money (with the exception of those who were looting their countries, but that's another issue). I think you need to go back and read the story again if you don't get this. Even if he had hidden £50 million in Panama, it wouldn't be criminal if the money itself was gained legitimately. Additionally, he didn't have any money in his father's company when he took office either. Nor is he 'letting things like the panama files fly', given the amount of high-profile anti-tax evasion measures the coalition government at least attempted to use.[/QUOTE] The whole reason this is bad is because it's not counted as part of your wealth/income come tax season, thus it's considered Tax Evasion. Which is a crime in most places

Can't you impeach the guy? That's what we're doing (or trying to do) with our "presidenta" now.

[QUOTE=Ruski v2.0;50095168]this is just a convenient excuse to get rid of a politician that was democratically voted in but they don't like.[/QUOTE] "Democratically"

[QUOTE=Native Hunter;50095179]The whole reason this is bad is because it's not counted as part of your wealth/income come tax season, thus it's considered Tax Evasion. Which is a crime in most places[/QUOTE] It's not illegal, and it never was.

The actual movement of money to tax havens isn't illegal in the slightest. There is legal precedent in the UK that means that people are entitled to use whatever crafty measures they wish to avoid tax as long as it isn't explicitly against the law. Moving your money to Panama is completely legal, the problems are [B]moral[/B] and not [B]legal[/B]. This is the difference between legal tax avoidance and illegal tax evasion. [editline]8th April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Morbo!!!;50095203]"Democratically"[/QUOTE] Yes, democratically. He won the UK election under the rules of the UK election. Interesting how the left are always suddenly so interested in electoral reform (which the public rejected in AV+) after they lose.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;50095221]It's not illegal, and it never was.[/QUOTE] Now why the hell would a country let tax evasion be legal, it doesn't make any sense

[QUOTE=Native Hunter;50095274]Now why the hell would a country let tax evasion be legal, it doesn't make any sense[/QUOTE] Because everyone will try to reduce the amount of tax they pay. There are all sorts of kinds of tax evasion that millions of ordinary people use every day that don't involve strange schemes where your money is sent to Panama. You would be being punished for flaws and loopholes in a law rather than for actual law, which to most people (including myself) seems unfair and the fault of the country itself for not designing the laws better.

[QUOTE=Matthew0505;50095282]So you knew you were being fed bullshit but ate it anyway?[/QUOTE] The problem was it wasn't so much as bullshit as it were the media maliciously highlighting his real lack of leadership skills. Also cheers FlashMarsh, I also find it funny how whoever loses the election cries about the voting system.

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50095222]The actual movement of money to tax havens isn't illegal in the slightest. There is legal precedent in the UK that means that people are entitled to use whatever crafty measures they wish to avoid tax as long as it isn't explicitly against the law. Moving your money to Panama is completely legal, the problems are [B]moral[/B] and not [B]legal[/B]. This is the difference between legal tax avoidance and illegal tax evasion. [editline]8th April 2016[/editline] Yes, democratically. He won the UK election under the rules of the UK election. Interesting how the left are always suddenly so interested in electoral reform (which the public rejected in AV+) after they lose.[/QUOTE] Av wasn't really voting reform though seen as it kept all of the problems of fptp. If we'd rejected stv or something then it would be fair but av isn't that different and doesn't fix the problem of 37% (IIRC) of voters being considered a majority

I'm pretty sure that a similar result would happen if there was a system like STV offered, but okay then. [editline]8th April 2016[/editline] If they rejected mild electoral reform with more familiarity to the current system, why wouldn't they reject more serious electoral reform as well?

Not really a whole lot of people considering the population is 60m +

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50095496]I'm pretty sure that a similar result would happen if there was a system like STV offered, but okay then. [editline]8th April 2016[/editline] If they rejected mild electoral reform with more familiarity to the current system, why wouldn't they reject more serious electoral reform as well?[/QUOTE] Honestly, I think lack of education is the issue. Nobody I spoke to could even define AV at the time, and politics is basically entirely untaught at school unless you choose to learn about it around 16-18.

They debate these stupid petitions in parliament all the time 95% of the time nothing happens and people lose interest

Already at 61k, if it hits 100k it will keep people talking about this and the Tories wont be able to sweep it under the rug. Cameron wont resign but his approval rating will hopefully take a big dive

[QUOTE=Tacooo;50095760]Already at 61k, if it hits 100k it will keep people talking about this and the Tories wont be able to sweep it under the rug. Cameron wont resign but his approval rating will hopefully take a big dive[/QUOTE] noone outside of your bubble cares

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50095836]noone outside of your bubble cares[/QUOTE] It's major news everywhere buddy.

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50095836]noone outside of your bubble cares[/QUOTE] True that

[QUOTE=Mesothere;50095920]It's major news everywhere buddy.[/QUOTE] No-one who isn't very politically aware has mentioned it, which signals to me that they don't care all that much

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50095935]No-one who isn't very politically aware has mentioned it, which signals to me that they don't care all that much[/QUOTE] Except it was a headline in every major newspaper in the UK and is currently trending on Twitter as well as a demonstration taking place this weekend outside of Downing Street? No one seems to care though, right?