A tyranny of the majority.

A tyranny of the majority (or tyranny of the masses) refers to an inherent weakness of direct democracy and majority rule in which the majority of an electorate can place its own interests above, and at the expense of, those in the minority. This results in oppression of minority groups comparable to that of a tyrant or despot.^{[1] So says Wikipedia.} 

‘First past the post’ political voting in the UK is a system guaranteed to disenfranchise large numbers of voters who choose not to cast their votes for one of the main political parties, so with the Greens, for instance, many thousands of voters spread across the country will rarely come together in sufficient numbers in one constituency to win a seat. The Green Party has one MP. The Liberal Democrats have nine, but over 100,000 members, almost the highest number in their history.  Of course it also means that UKIP and other extremist parties lose out on seats for which I am grateful, but you can't have it both ways.

An alternative system is called Proportional Representation. This is an electoral system in which the distribution of seats corresponds closely with the proportion of the total votes cast for each party. For example, if a party gained 40% of the total votes, a perfectly proportional system would allow them to gain 40% of the seats. All parties are therefore represented in Parliament, though successive attempts to move to this system have failed over the years and again only recently. 

A small overall majority is generally needed to form a viable government, sometimes achieved through a coalition with another party or parties. The ability of opposing parties to prevent legislation from being passed, following a debate, or the ruling party being forced to rethink or withdraw a bill is an important part of the checks and balances in our system of government. A massive majority gives the ruling party complete victory on every occasion, unless significant numbers of their own MP's vote against it or abstain. This is arguably unhealthy, although the House of Lords can vote against a bill and send it back to the House of Commons for another vote, though this usually only delays the inevitable. Some are even suggesting getting rid of the Lords which would remove an important part of the system, in place for centuries to mitigate the power of the Commons. A fully elected House of Lords would be a more justifiable reform.

With Brexit, Mrs May wants a big majority to stifle all opposition though it is likely to make no difference when it comes to actually negotiating with our EU partners, and they have said as much. We might be able to prevent a ‘Hard Brexit’ and perhaps stay in the Single Market or Customs Union if the opposition can muster sufficient votes. Who knows? God help us if Mrs May drags us out of the European Commission on Human Rights.

So, don't be tempted to vote with the perceived majority and give the Conservatives a landslide victory. This would be counterproductive and we may all live to regret it!

It's not over until it's over. The electorate have another chance to stop Brexit in its tracks.

The president of the European Parliament Antonio Tajani has said Britain would be welcomed back with open arms if voters changed their minds about Brexit on 8 June, challenging Theresa May’s claim that “there is no turning back."

“If the UK, after the election, wants to withdraw [article 50], then the procedure is very clear,” he said in an interview. “If the UK wanted to stay, everybody would be in favour. I would be very happy.”

He also threatened to veto any Brexit deal if it did not guarantee in full the existing rights of EU citizens in Britain and said this protection would forever be subject to the jurisdiction of the European court of justice (ECJ).

What makes billionaires and rich people want to become politicians? They may be good at business, making money, or simply managing an inheritance, but these attributes do not necessarily confer a sense of social responsibility. If you are rich, and famous, and a senior citizen, why on earth would anyone want to do this? But that is precisely what Donald Trump has done in jumping straight from property tycoon to President of the United States. Ronald Reagan was an actor, though a State Governor on route to the top job. Is it power they want? Or is it because they believe that with wealth comes responsibility? Not just to manage their own affairs, but everyone else's too. Or do they just want to be remembered in the history books? Some British MP's from privileged and wealthy backgrounds appear to want to lord it over their constituents like some benevolent aristocrat or medieval baron. What do they have in common with ordinary people? They can hardly be described as one of us. I suspect that some of them feel that it is their right and duty to govern, and make decisions for the rest of us, and then retire to the House of Lords, still meddling with our affairs. ironically some of these benevolent millionaires may do a better job than those from more humble backgrounds, whose motives might not even be as pure as their wealthy Honourable Friends, especially if they espouse extremist views and lack social responsibility. However there are many decent men and women with the right qualities who choose a career in public service as politicians because they want to represent you and I and promote our best interests and those of the nation as a whole. They are of the people and for the people. We surely need a very eclectic skill mix indeed to form a successful government. The essential question to ask, however, is this; are they in it for themselves or for us? They are, after all, public servants and elected representatives, whether they behave like it or not. If their motivation is to do good then I think we can accommodate people from all walks of life, including billionaire businessmen and women, but the question still remains, why do they do it? And perhaps too, why do we vote for them?

It has been discovered that The Colosseum, the huge Roman amphitheatre used for animal shows and gladiatorial combat, was built with the spoils of the sack of the Jewish temple in Jerusalem, a new archaeological find suggests.

A recently deciphered inscription was made public yesterday as organisers prepared for an exhibition on the monument, opening next week. A feature of the show is a large, altar-like stone with a chiselled Latin inscription, which tells how a senator, Lampaudius, had the Colosseum restored in AD 443.

But holes still visible in the surface clearly corresponded to different lettering, this time in bronze, which had been previously fitted into the stone. After a long study, Prof Geza Alfoldy of Heidelberg University, working with Italian archaeologists, deciphered the puzzle. He concluding that the original inscription read: "Imp. T. Caes. Vespasianus Aug. Amphitheatrum Novum Ex Manubis Fieri Iussit."

The translation is: "The Emperor Caesar Vespasian Augustus had this new amphitheatre erected with the spoils of war. There is no doubt what war this was, the sack of Jerusalem," said Cinzia Conti, the director of surface restoration at the Colosseum, yesterday.

Ms Conti said the Emperor Titus inaugurated the Colosseum in AD 80 with 100 days of festivities, but his father, Vespasian, had first opened it in AD 79, shortly before he died, when it was still unfinished. The original bronze lettering on the stone altar would have been made for the original opening.

Related Articles

The sack of Jerusalem occurred in Vespasian's reign in AD 70, when a revolt by the Jews was crushed and Jerusalem was captured by Titus. The temple was destroyed and a million people were said to have died in the siege. The Arch of Titus, at the end of the Roman Forum nearest to the Colosseum, commemorates the victory, and bas-reliefs show Roman soldiers making off with booty from the temple.

Two years after the sack of Jerusalem, in AD 72, work on the Colosseum, officially known as the Flavian Amphitheatre, began.

Some archaeologists believe that some of the temple treasure is still buried and undiscovered. A copper scroll discovered in a cave bear the Dead Sea suggests there is mileage in this theory.