text:
Referendums in the United Kingdom
Referendums in the United Kingdom are occasionally held at a national, regional or local level. National referendums can be permitted by an Act of Parliament and regulated through the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, but they are by tradition extremely rare due to the principle of parliamentary sovereignty meaning that they cannot be constitutionally binding on either the Government or Parliament, although they usually have a persuasive political effect.
Northern Ireland border poll
UK EC membership referendum
Scottish devolution referendum
Welsh devolution referendum
Greater London Authority referendum
NI Good Friday Agreement referendum
NE England devolution referendum
UK AV referendum
Scottish independence referendum
UK EU membership referendum
Until the latter half of the twentieth century the concept of a referendum was widely seen in British politics as "unconstitutional" and an "alien device". As of 2018, only three national referendums have ever been held across the whole of the United Kingdom: in 1975, 2011 and most recently in 2016.
Two of these referendums were held on the issue of the United Kingdom's relationship with Europe with the first held on the issue of continued membership of what was known at the time as the European Communities (EC), which was the collective term for the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), the European Economic Community (EEC) and the European Atomic Energy Community (EAEC), and was also referred to by many at that time as the "Common Market". This was the 1975 European Communities membership referendum which was held two and a half years after the United Kingdom became a member on 1 January 1973 and was the first national referendum ever to be held within the United Kingdom. The second took place forty-one years later by which time the various European organisations (with the exception of EAEC) had been integrated by subsequent treaty ratifications into the European Union (EU) when the electorate was asked to vote again on the issue of continued membership in the 2016 European Union membership referendum.
The 2011 AV referendum on the proposal to use the alternative vote system in parliamentary elections is the only UK-wide referendum that has been held on a domestic issue. The referendum was held as a result of the Conservative – Liberal Democrat Coalition Agreement which was drawn up after the 2010 general election.
The Government of the United Kingdom has also to date held eleven major referendums within the constituent countries of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland on issues of devolution, sovereignty and independence; the first such referendum was the 1973 Northern Ireland border poll and, as of 2018, the most recent is the 2014 Scottish independence referendum.
There have also been numerous referendums held by local authorities on issues such as temperance and directly elected mayors.
Status of referendumsEdit
Major referendums have been rare in the UK, and have only been held on major constitutional issues. Historically referendums within the United Kingdom were opposed on the supposition that they violate the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. In May 1945 the then Prime Minister Winston Churchill suggested holding a referendum over the question of extending the life of his wartime Coalition until victory was won over Japan. However, Deputy Prime Minister Clement Attlee refused, saying "I could not consent to the introduction into our national life of a device so alien to all our traditions as the referendum which has only too often been the instrument of Nazism and Fascism." In March 1975 Margaret Thatcher also quoted Clement Attlee that referendums are "a device of dictators and demagogues" as Napoleon, Mussolini and Hitler had exploited their use in the past.
There are two types of referendum that have been held by the UK Government, pre-legislative (held before proposed legislation is passed) and post-legislative (held after legislation is passed). To date the previous three UK-wide referendums in 1975, 2011 and 2016 were all pre-legislative. Referendums are not legally binding, so legally the Government can ignore the results; for example, even if the result of a pre-legislative referendum were a majority of "No" for a proposed law, Parliament could pass it anyway, because parliament is sovereign.
For any UK-wide referendum to be held legislation has to be passed by the UK Parliament for each vote to take place, as there is no pre-determined format or voting franchise for any such vote. However, unlike a general election there is no legal requirement for HM Government not to take any official position in any such vote. For example, in 1975 under the then Prime Minister Harold Wilson the government formally recommended a "Yes" vote to staying in the European Community and in 2016 the government formally recommended a "Remain" vote to stay in the European Union (a decision which indirectly led to the resignation of David Cameron as Prime Minister following the decision to "Leave the European Union" by the British electorate). In the 2011 referendum no official position was taken as the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government was split on the issue.
Legally, Parliament at any point in future could reverse legislation approved by referendum, because the concept of parliamentary sovereignty means no Parliament can prevent a future Parliament from amending or repealing legislation.
Finally, under the Local Government Act 1972, there is a provision under which non-binding local referendums on any issue can be called by small groups of voters. This power exists only for parish councils, and not larger authorities, and is commonly known as the "Parish Poll". Six local voters may call a meeting, and if ten voters or a third of the meeting (whichever is smaller) agree, the council must carry out a referendum in 14–25 days. The referendum is merely advisory, but if there is a substantial majority and the results are well-publicised, it may be influential.[1]
Planned referendumsEdit
The Labour Government of 1997–2010 held five referendums on devolution, four of which received a yes majority. Despite the number of referendums that was held during this period no UK-wide referendum was held. One concerning the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe was cancelled, given the French and Dutch rejections of the treaty. Another, on whether the UK should adopt the euro, was never held.
The Labour manifesto for the 1997 general election stated "We are committed to a referendum on the voting system for the House of Commons."[2] Despite the research carried out by the Jenkins Commission in 1998 suggesting an AV+ system for Westminster elections, the 2001 manifesto did not make such a promise. After the inconclusive 2010 General Election the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives formed a coalition. As part of the coalition agreement, both parties formally committed to holding a referendum on changes to the electoral system. The referendum was held on 5 May 2011 and was defeated.
Since the Government of Wales Act 2006 became law, there can be referendums in Wales asking the people whether the National Assembly for Wales should be given greater law-making powers. The Welsh Labour Party - Plaid Cymru Coalition Government in the Welsh Assembly held such a referendum in 2011, resulting in a yes vote.
The Scottish Government held a referendum on Scottish independence on 18 September 2014. It attracted a turnout of 84.59%, the highest for any referendum held in the UK. The majority (55.3%) voted against Scotland being an independent country. In March 2017 the Scottish Parliament authorised the Scottish Government to seek to hold a proposed second Scottish independence referendum.[3]
The Conservative Party announced in 2013 that they planned to hold a referendum on whether Britain should remain in the European Union (following a renegotiation of powers between the UK and EU), in 2017.[4][5] However, their Liberal Democrat coalition partners took an opposing stance so it was not Coalition Government policy. The Conservatives then attempted to pass the required legislation as a Private Member's Bill (the European Union (Referendum) Bill 2013–14 introduced by Conservative MP James Wharton), but this was not passed by the House of Lords. Following the 2015 United Kingdom general election the Prime Minister, David Cameron committed the new Conservative government to holding the referendum. It took place on 23 June 2016.[6] The referendum resulted in an overall vote to leave the EU, as opposed to remaining an EU member, by 51.9% to 48.1%, respectively.
Under the European Union Act 2011 there is also provision for the United Kingdom to hold future referendums in the event of powers being transferred from the UK to the European Union under any treaty changes.
Organisation and legislationEdit
There was no independent public body to regulate referendums within the United Kingdom until the Labour government led by Tony Blair in 2000 set out a framework for the running of all future referendums when the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 or PPERA was passed, creating and giving the Electoral Commission responsibility for running all elections and such future referendums. The act also permitted the appointment of a "chief counting officer" (CCO) to oversee all future UK-wide referendums which would be held by the chairperson of the Electoral Commission.
LegislationEdit
Separate legislation (i.e. an Act of Parliament) by the Parliament of the United Kingdom is required for the holding of each UK-wide referendum which is held to set out the referendum question, its format, the franchise for each plebiscite, and how each count is to be conducted. In the following is a list of legislation which has been passed by the UK Parliament to enable the holding of the following UK-wide referendums.
Referendum Act 1975 (United Kingdom European Communities membership referendum, 1975)
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 (United Kingdom Alternative Vote referendum, 2011)
European Union Referendum Act 2015 (United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016)
National referendumsEdit
To date only three referendums have been held which have covered the whole of the United Kingdom. The following is a description of each of the three national referendums.
1975 European Communities membership referendumEdit
See also: United Kingdom European Communities membership referendum, 1975
All but two areas voted "Yes"
On Thursday 5 June 1975 the United Kingdom held its first ever nationwide referendum on whether to continue its membership of the European Communities (EC) principally the European Economic Community (EEC, or "Common Market") as it was more widely known at the time. The UK had been a member of the EC since 1 January 1973 and the vote came about after a manifesto commitment by the Labour Party under the then Prime Minister Harold Wilson in the UK General Election in October 1974 and following a renegotiation of EC membership. All of the major political parties and mainstream press supported continuing membership of the EC. However, there were significant splits within the ruling Labour party, the membership of which had voted 2:1 in favour of withdrawal at a one-day party conference on 26 April 1975. Since the cabinet was split between strongly pro-European and strongly anti-European ministers, Harold Wilson suspended the constitutional convention of Cabinet collective responsibility and allowed ministers to publicly campaign on either side. Seven of the twenty-three members of the cabinet opposed EC membership and the party was formally neutral on the issue.[7] The referendum which was non-binding was conducted in its entirety under the provisions of the Referendum Act 1975 as there was no prior procedure or legislation within the United Kingdom for the holding of any such plebiscite. The two campaign groups in the referendum were "Britain in Europe" advocating a yes vote and "National Referendum Campaign" advocating a no vote.
The voters were asked to vote "Yes" or "No" on the question: "Do you think the United Kingdom should stay in the European Community (the Common Market)?" Of the 68 counting areas in the counties and administrative regions of the UK who voted "Yes", only the Shetland Islands and the Outer Hebrides voted "No". In line with the outcome of the vote, the United Kingdom remained a member of the European Communities which would later become the European Union.[8]
United Kingdom European Communities membership referendum, 1975
National result
Yes 17,378,581 67.23%
No 8,470,073 32.70%
Valid votes 25,848,654 99.78%
Invalid or blank votes 54,540 0.22%
Total votes 25,903,194 100.00 %
Registered voters and turnout 40,086,677 64.67%
National referendum results (without spoiled ballots):
17,378,581 (67.2%) No:
2011 Alternative Vote referendumEdit
All but ten areas voted "No"
See also: United Kingdom Alternative Vote referendum, 2011
The alternative vote referendum, as part of the Conservative – Liberal Democrat Coalition Agreement drawn up after the 2010 general election, was a nationwide vote held on Thursday 5 May 2011 (the same date as local elections in many areas) to choose the method of electing MPs at subsequent general elections. The referendum concerned whether to replace the present "first-past-the-post" system with the "alternative vote" (AV) method. The voters were asked to vote yes or no on the question "At present, the UK uses the "first past the post" system to elect MPs to the House of Commons. Should the "alternative vote" system be used instead?". It was the first nationwide referendum to be held for some thirty six years and was legislated for under the provisions of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 and the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 and is to date the first and only UK-wide referendum to be held on a domestic issue. Turnout was low at just 42% nationally and was also marked by relatively low key campaigning. The two campaigning groups for the referendum was advocating a yes vote Yes to Fairer Votes and advocating a no vote NOtoAV.
AV was rejected by 67% of voters with all but ten of the 440 voting areas voted "No" and the proposed legislation to introduce AV which was subject to the referendum was repealed.
United Kingdom Alternative Vote referendum, 2011
No 13,013,123 67.90%
Yes 6,152,607 32.10%
Invalid or blank votes 113,292 0.59%
Total votes 19,279,022 100.00%
Source: Electoral Commission
6,152,607 (32.10%) No:
13,013,123 (67.90%)
2016 European Union membership referendumEdit
A total of 263 voting areas voted to "Leave" whereas 119 voting areas voted to "Remain" in the referendum.
See also: 2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum
On Thursday 23 June 2016 the United Kingdom voted for the second time in 41 years on its membership to what is now known as the European Union (EU) with the overseas territory Gibraltar also voting on the issue for the very first time. The referendum was called after Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron made a manifesto commitment in the 2015 United Kingdom general election to undertake a renegotiation of the UK's membership to the European Union which would be followed by a in-out referendum. All of the major political parties were in favour of remaining an EU member, except for a split within the Conservative Party. The cabinet was split between pro-EU and anti-EU ministers, and Cameron suspended the constitutional convention of Cabinet collective responsibility, allowing ministers to publicly campaign on either side. Seven of the 23 members of the Cabinet opposed continued EU membership.
The referendum was legislated for under the provisions of the European Union Referendum Act 2015, which legally required HM Government to hold the referendum no later than 31 December 2017 and also the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. Voters were asked to vote "Remain a member of the European Union" or "Leave the European Union" on the question "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?" The main campaign groups for the referendum were advocating a "remain" vote was Britain Stronger in Europe and advocating a "leave" vote was Vote Leave.
The "Leave" option was voted by 52% of voters, as opposed to 48% of voters who wished to "Remain". Of the 382 voting areas, 263 returned majority votes in favour of "Leave" whereas 119 returned majority votes in favour of "Remain" which included every Scottish council area and all but five of the London boroughs. The vote revealed divisions among the constituent nations of the United Kingdom, with England and Wales voting to leave, but Scotland and Northern Ireland voting to remain. The national turnout was 72% which was eight percentage points higher than the turnout back in 1975, although the majority was 12 percentage points lower. It was the first time a UK-wide referendum result had gone against the preferred choice of HM Government who had officially recommended a "Remain" vote and it led to a period of political turmoil. As a direct consequence of losing the referendum, David Cameron announced his resignation as Prime Minister on the morning after the vote. He left office three weeks later on 13 July, and was succeeded by Theresa May.
United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016
Leave the European Union 17,410,742 51.89%
Remain a member of the European Union 16,141,241 48.11%
Voting age population and turnout 51,356,768 65.38%
National referendum results (without spoiled ballots)
Leave:
17,410,742 (51.9%) Remain:
16,141,241 (48.1%)
List of other major referendumsEdit
Since 1973 there have been eleven other referendums held by the Government of the United Kingdom within the constituent countries related to the issues of sovereignty, devolution and independence in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales and in parts of England (in the North East and London).
EnglandEdit
1998 Greater London Authority referendum, on whether there should be a Greater London Authority, consisting of a Mayor of London and a London Assembly (yes)
2004 North East England devolution referendum, on an elected regional assembly (no)
Northern IrelandEdit
1973 Northern Ireland sovereignty referendum, on whether Northern Ireland should leave the United Kingdom (UK) and join the Republic of Ireland (no)
1998 Northern Ireland Belfast Agreement referendum, on the Good Friday Agreement (yes)
ScotlandEdit
1979 Scottish devolution referendum, on whether there should be a Scottish Assembly (small majority voted yes, but fell short of the 40% threshold required to enact devolution)
1997 Scottish devolution referendum, Two questions: On whether there should be a Scottish Parliament (yes); On whether a Scottish Parliament should have tax varying powers (yes)
2014 Scottish independence referendum on the question "Should Scotland be an independent country?", 18 September 2014 (no)
WalesEdit
1979 Welsh devolution referendum, on whether there should be a Welsh Assembly (no)
1997 Welsh devolution referendum, on whether there should be a National Assembly for Wales (yes)
2011 Welsh devolution referendum, on whether the National Assembly should have increased law-making powers (yes)
Local referendumsEdit
Referendums have been held in local areas in England, Wales and Scotland since 1913. These have covered issues such as local government administration, transport, prohibition, and other local questions. The areas covered have generally corresponded to local authority areas, civil parishes, or wards, with all local government electors of the relevant area being eligible to vote.
Advisory referendumsEdit
Principal authorities in Great Britain have the ability to hold an advisory referendum on any issue relating to its services, financial provisions, and other matters that are relevant to the area.[9] The power for principal local authorities to hold a poll within England and Wales is specifically granted by the Local Government Act 2003;[10] previously local polls relied upon a council's power to consult residents and collect information.[9] In Scotland the power is similarly implied by the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, and an additional power is conferred by the requirement of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 to consult before introducing a road charging scheme.[9] The power to hold local referendums has not been extended to Northern Ireland.
A local advisory referendum is not required to follow the legislation governing the conduct of other referendums and elections in the UK. The local authority can choose how to conduct a local referendum, and may choose to hold the vote solely by post, instead of using polling stations.[11]
Transport referendumsEdit
Main articles: Edinburgh road tolls referendum, 2005 and Greater Manchester transport referendum, 2008
The City of Edinburgh Council held a postal-ballot referendum in February 2005 over whether voters supported the Council's proposed transport strategy. These plans included a congestion charge which would have required motorists to pay a fee to enter the city at certain times of the day. The result was announced on 22 February 2005 and the people of Edinburgh had rejected the proposals. 74% voted against, 26% voted in favour, and the turnout was 62%.
Strathclyde water referendumEdit
Main article: Strathclyde water referendum, 1994
Strathclyde Regional Council held a referendum in 1994 on the plans of the Conservative UK government to privatise water services within Scotland. The government planned to sell the three recently established water authorities in Scotland, created under the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994 as a precursor for privatisation, which would bring Scotland in line with the 1989 privatisation in England and Wales. Strathclyde council, which previously held responsibility for water services, planned the referendum in response to overwhelming public opinion against the move. The referendum, conducted by post, resulted in 97% voting against the plan, with 70% of the electorate participating. Although the referendum had no legal effect, the plan to privatise Scottish water services was eventually dropped.
Statutory referendumsEdit
Legislation in England and Wales obliges local authorities to hold and abide by the results of referendums in certain circumstances.[9]
In England, raising Council Tax above a level proscribed by the Local Government Secretary requires approval in a referendum.[12] The threshold was initially set at 2% in 2012 for all types of local authority, but for authorities that fund social care the threshold was increased to 4% in 2015 and 5% in 2017. From April 2018 the figures for both types of authority have been increased by an additional 1%.[13] This provision applies to all precepting authorities,[note 1] when this is not the billing authority (i.e. the district council), the latter will hold the referendum on the precepting authority's behalf, and recoup the costs. Only one council tax referendum has been held, on behalf of the Bedfordshire Police and Crime Commissioner, and the rise was rejected.[14] A proposal for a referendum to increase the council tax for Surrey County Council by 15% was initially approved by the council, but plans for the increase were abandoned before the referendum could go ahead.[15]
The Localism Act 2011 allows parish councils or local community groups to create neighbourhood development plans. The plans are intended to guide planning decisions within the neighbourhood area, by outlining the amount and type of development that should occur in the area, what land may be built upon and how existing buildings may be reused. For a plan to come into force, it must be approved by the electorate in the local area in a referendum. Neighbourhood planning referendums have a high success rate, with all being approved as of December 2015.[9]
Mayoral and other governance referendumsEdit
Main article: England and Wales mayoral referendums
A local authority in England and Wales can hold a referendum on changing its executive arrangements between a directly elected mayor, a leader and cabinet, and in England only, a committee system.[9] A referendum can be held by three methods; by a resolution of the council to hold one, under an order from the government, or upon receiving a petition signed by five percent of registered voters within the local authority area,[16] in the only example of the initiative process in the United Kingdom. If successful, the council must change its governance system, and hold an election for the mayor if necessary.
The process differs between England and Wales. In England, a referendum can be held on moving between any of the three systems, and following the vote another referendum may not be held for 10 years. A council is not required to hold a referendum to change its executive arrangements,[note 2] but a change that has occurred as a result of a referendum can only be changed following another referendum. In Wales, a council must hold a referendum to change between a mayor and leader and cabinet, with the minimum period between votes set at five years.[16]
Fifty-three referendums have taken place in local authorities to establish whether there is support for directly elected mayors. Sixteen were successful and a mayoralty was established; in thirty-seven local authorities an elected mayor was rejected by voters. An additional six referendums have been held on removing the post of elected mayor, with three mayoralties being retained, and three disestablished.[16] Ten referendums were held in 2012 as part of the government's manifesto to introduce elected mayors in the largest cities in England without the position.[17] Only one new mayoralty was approved, and no further votes have been ordered by the government. Two referendums have been held in response to a petition on moving to a committee system, in the Borough of Fylde and in West Dorset. Both referendums were successful.[18][19] On average, turnout is similar to that of local elections, with the highest turnout 64% in Berwick-upon-Tweed (held alongside the 2001 general election) and the lowest 10% in the London Borough of Ealing.
Prohibition referendumsEdit
The temperance movement led to two countries of the UK gaining the right to hold referendums on the sale of alcohol in the local area, upon the request of a number of local electors.
The Temperance (Scotland) Act 1913 provided that polls could be held in small local areas in Scotland to determine whether to instate a level of prohibition on the purchase of alcoholic beverages; the provisions were later incorporated into the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1959. Between 1913 and 1965 1,131 such polls were held, with the vast majority (1,079) held before 1930.[20] These provisions and the local polls were abolished by the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976.
The Sunday Closing (Wales) Act 1881 mandated that all public houses in Wales be closed on Sundays. The Act was extended to Monmouthshire in 1921. Under the terms of the Licensing Act 1961, on the application of 500 local electors, a referendum could be held in each local government area at seven-year intervals on whether that district should be "wet" or "dry" on the Sabbath. Most districts in the border area and the southern industrial area went "wet" in 1961 or 1968, with most others following suit in 1975. In 1982, the last district, Dwyfor, in western Gwynedd, went "wet" and it was thought that the influence of the Sabbatarian temperance movement had expired and few referendums were called, but surprisingly a further referendum was called in Dwyfor in 1989 and the area went "dry" for another seven years on a 9% turnout. The whole of Wales was "wet" from 1996, and the facility for further referendums was removed by the Sunday Licensing Act 2003.
Parish pollsEdit
A parish poll is a referendum held in a civic parish under the Local Government Act 1972.[21] The cost of holding such polls is met by the parish council.[22]
"A poll may be demanded before the conclusion of a community meeting on any question arising at the meeting; but no poll shall be taken unless either the person presiding at the meeting consents or the poll is demanded by not less than ten, or one-third, of the local government electors present at the meeting, whichever is the less."[23]
In September 2007, villagers in East Stoke in Dorset forced a referendum, under the Local Government Act 1972, on this question: "Do You Want a Referendum on the EU Constitutional Treaty? Yes or No?" Of the 339 people who were eligible to vote, 80 voted: 72 votes for Yes and 8 votes for No. The poll was initiated by a supporter of the United Kingdom Independence Party, a political party noted for its Euroscepticism. The poll was criticised by the chairman of the parish council as "little more than a publicity stunt."[24][25]
Accession of the United Kingdom to the European Communities
Elections in the United Kingdom
Referendum Act 1975
Parish and Community Meetings (Polls) Rules 1987
Referendums (Scotland & Wales) Act 1997
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011
Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000
Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act 2003
2004 North East England devolution referendum
European Union Act 2011
Edinburgh Agreement (2012)
European Union Referendum Act 2015
Category:Referendums in British Overseas Territories
^ Although the legislation includes parish councils, the government does not currently enforce a cap.[12]
^ A council can adopt a Mayor with a resolution approved by two-thirds of the councillors.
^ "Holding a Local Referendum". Direct Democracy Campaign. Archived from the original on 16 November 2009. Retrieved 9 May 2010.
^ "1997 Labour Party Manifesto". Labour-party.org.uk. 1 January 1999. Archived from the original on 31 July 2008. Retrieved 9 May 2010.
^ Mure Dickie (28 March 2017). "Scottish parliament backs second independence referendum". Financial Times.
^ "David Cameron Pledges EU Referendum if Conservatives Win Next Election". Raidió Teilifís Éireann. 24 January 2013. Retrieved 19 February 2013.
^ "David Cameron: EU referendum bill shows only Tories listen". BBC. 14 May 2013. Retrieved 14 July 2013.
^ "Cameron promises European Union referendum by 2017". The Irish Times. 9 May 2015.
^ DAvis Butler. "The 1975 Referendum" (PDF). Eureferendum.com. Archived from the original (PDF) on 15 August 2016. Retrieved 19 May 2016.
^ "Research Briefings – The 1974–75 UK Renegotiation of EEC Membership and Referendum". Researchbriefings.parliament.uk. Retrieved 19 May 2016.
^ a b c d e f Sandford, Mark (4 March 2016). "Local government: polls and referendums" (03409). House of Commons Library. Retrieved 3 November 2016.
^ "Local Government Act 2003". Section 112, Act No. 2003 c 26 of 18 September 2003. Retrieved 3 November 2016.
^ "Edinburgh rejects congestion plan". BBC News. 22 February 2005. Retrieved 18 October 2016.
^ a b Mark Sandford (26 September 2016). "Council Tax: Local Referendums". Briefing Paper. House of Commons Library (05682). Retrieved 24 October 2016.
^ "Council tax bills in England may rise by up to 5.99%". BBC News. 20 December 2017. Retrieved 20 December 2017.
^ "Bedfordshire Police council tax rise rejected at referendum". BBC News. 11 May 2015. Retrieved 28 October 2016.
^ "Surrey Council tax rise of 15% scrapped". BBC News. 7 February 2017.
^ a b c Sandford, Mark (17 October 2016). "Directly-elected Mayors". Briefing Paper. House of Commons Library. 05000. Retrieved 3 November 2016.
^ Syal, Rajeev; Meikle, James (4 May 2012). "David Cameron plan for elected mayors rejected as English cities vote no". TheGuardian.com. Guardian News and Media. Retrieved 3 November 2016.
^ "Fylde Referendum: Voters Approve Change in Governance". Fylde Borough Council. May 2014.
^ "West Dorset votes for change in council system". Bridport and Lyme Regis News. Newsquest. Retrieved 3 November 2016.
^ "Temperance Polls (Hansard, 15 December 1965)". Hansard.millbanksystems.com. 15 December 1965. Retrieved 4 December 2010.
^ Foggo, Daniel (1 October 2000). "Parishes reject euro by overwhelming margin". The Daily Telegraph. London.
^ "Parish Polls". South Staffordshire Council. Retrieved 3 November 2016.
^ "Local Government Act 1972". Legislation.gov.uk. Retrieved 5 July 2016.
^ "Villagers back EU referendum call". BBC News. 21 September 2007. Retrieved 9 May 2010.
^ "East Stoke Parish Poll on 20th September 2007 - "Do You Want a Referendum on the EU Constitutional Treaty? Yes or No?"". East Stoke Parish Council. Archived from the original on 31 October 2007. Retrieved 8 November 2016.
The Electoral Commission - Referendums
The Electoral Commission - Mayoral Referendums
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Referendums_in_the_United_Kingdom&oldid=902509668"


One of the most important concept I learnt in life is.
First Things are the most important things for your life; the only ones that really matter.
The rest is only noise.
How many times did you schedule to exercise (How to avoid to die young) after work and inevitably skipped ?
Work is an insatiable animal, it devours our time; the last call or email typically takes 2 hours and we end up leaving the office at 8.00pm. So long exercising or read that book that sits on our night table for 1 year!
What you need to realize is that everyone wants our time and money and most of the time exclusively for their benefit.
Saving money is the same (The 3 simple habits to Reach Financial Freedom) ; if you wait the end of the month saying "I will save what I will not spend this month" very likely you will end up saving a lot less (if zero) than if you had immediately (after you got your paycheck) transferred some money to a saving account.
You and me know right…?
If you start our day scheduling the "First Things" we will be sure to move on in life.
This means waking up before everyone else and setting up 2-3 hours to complete the tasks.
Reading or writing that book (or blog) or concentrate on your next business with kids, wife or peers around it's impossible; you need to find a timeframe for yourself alone.
Not everyone is a morning person, I also experimented working late a night (when everyone was sleeping) , however I reached the conclusion is better to complete the "Thirst Things" in the morning.
Typically (unless you are very determined) it's difficult to always leave work at 6.00pm to go to the gym, or schedule to work from 10pm to midnight.
Your job, peers, kids or wife will put a lot of pressure to get also that timeframe.
Early in the morning there is no that risk; you will have 2-3 hours for yourself.
I understand this translates in waking up before 600am (I wake up at 530am shooting for 8 hours sleep) but it's a sacrifice to get your life back from the madness of the day, where everyone wants a piece of you, often for not important (at least for you) issues.
They must be the most important two hours of your life, necessary to refocus, giving a direction to your life.
You must see these 2-3 h as the timeframe allocated to stretch your comfort zone (The most dangerous place to be!); the rest of day must be dedicated to enjoy the, this time, valuable comfort zone you created (with kids, wife, in the hopefully nice place you created).
Many people spend most of their time working in a job as an employee.
If you spend most of your live doing one thing you better love it.
And the bad news is that you have only one life.
(The most dangerous place to be: The Comfort Zone).
Yes…just because they don't like their job?
If you spend 8-10 hours a day in a place, with people and doing something you hate what do you think is the effect on your body and brain?
Understand that, NO, it's not normal to have a miserable existance because everyone has it in a miserable job surrounded by miserable everything.
If you are not happy in your job I am not suggesting here to drop it and just run away (even thought I am sure you will be better off than in your present situation).
Deferring your happiness in the weekend or in the 3-4 weeks off a year is not living, it's wasting your life.
And this is not an option for somebody like you who decided to be happy (as I hope you did if you are reading this blog).
What is important to understand here is the verb: must.
Hating your job => hating your life => you must change the game.
You don't have any other options.
In life we avoid what we hate in 95% of the cases.
We don't eat that dish or buy that car we hate.
So ask yourself why you picked that job that you hate.
I doubt that somebody pointed a gun to your head and forced you to accept that job offer.
Very likely you studied decades to get the qualifications of that job.
Very likely you were very excited when you got that job offer.
Very likely you are the one who designed all this.
You built the cage that is trapping you now.
Ask if you hate your job from the beginning or the initial enthusiasm faded away.
Ask yourself why it faded away and how to renew it.
What changed in your job? The job? You? Both?
Don't leave any of these questions unanswered.
Changing job is perfectly normal, you indeed need to change it once in a while.
Hating it is not normal.
Sure, but…do you know what you like?
Even if this question sounds trivial (" Of course I know what I like!" ) it is not.
If you really know what you like (what you really like… 21 Minutes to Learn How to be Happy Doing What You Love) and you are not scared to attain it you will work toward that goal, consciously or unconsciously.
But if the fear prevails, you will be stuck in a job you don't like.
You will discover that what you really like it's not necessary laying on a beach or partying all day long but something more meaningful.
Find what you like, let the fear go and take actions!
Yes, a job is a way to bring money home and very likely you need that money.
1) If you really need that job to bring money home you need to do your best to like it !
Even if you don't want to change your job because you cannot find another one with a better salary now, this strategy doesn't pay off.
In the long run if you are doing a job you really like the results will be better so the money.
I know it for sure, I followed the money twice in my career and it didn't pay off, at all.
Focus and Commitment: go to Eleven!
If you don't like one of the four your job will become a hell, so your life.
Without clear objectives and passions you are just squandering your life.
Especially if you are young, follow the passion instead of the money.
As I mentioned, I once made the mistake to accept a job I didn't like but with better salary than another one I liked more.
Believe me, I am still paying the consequences for such mistake.
Had I followed my passion very likely I would have had a faster career path and more satisfactions.
It's all in the passions, in what we really like.
You will be never successful in a field or position you don't like.
In your job always give 110%. Always, also if you don't like it.
This is the only way to get advanced (why should you get a promotion or more money if you are just doing your job?).
This is the only way to be fair with your employer (yes it matters!), for your professionalism and dignity.
In every realms of your life always give 110%, adopt that as your lifestyle.
Always give an outstanding commitment in everything you do; no matter your job, exercising, loving your wife or getting things done.
This is a great habit to cultivate, all your life.
How often do you exercise…?
Five thousands steps per day?
Do you know your are going to die soon this way?
Human beings like every other living species are made to use their body daily.
But still….think about the life of most of us today: getting on the car to go to the office, 8-10 h glued at our desk on the computer, back home in the car, couch, bed…repeat.
But you already know it…right?
And often when I ask "Why don't you exercise" the classic answer is I don't have time!
Again and again, the only way to have time is to make it and stick with the schedule .
You don't have time for exercising but easily you can allocate everyday 2 or 3 hours to surfing the net or watching TV!
Schedule a timeframe and a plan and stick with it.
Pick whatever sport or exercising you prefer.
Personally I like walking, running and fast weight lift for the major muscles (in many Gym they have room dedicated to this Express Circuit where you makes 2 series for about 30 min).
If you never exercising before start small, and increasing over the time.
Take a personal trainer if you really needs a motivation, however on the Internet you can find many blogs of schedule, training and also people in your city hanging around to exercise together.
In my case exercising comes pretty natural because I love doing it.
But what if I absolutely hate exercising?
Here is the bad news: you must do something for your body, that you like it or not.
If you absolutely hate physical activities at least walk.
Walking (or running) should be in every training program.
Walking at least 30 minutes a day is mandatory to keep the body active; you should never forget this.
We are human bodies machines and like every machine we need to keep basic functions and walking is one of them.
Start today and you will never regret it.
Do you control life, or life controls you?
If you are focused on what you do you control your life.
To be really focused is one of the most difficult achievement in life.
That's why so many people fail to get what they want.
You and me are the people….you know what I am talking about.
To be focused it's a habit that requires a lot of commitment, time and…well…focus.
So, why it is so difficult to be focused even thought we recognize its importance?
First of all not many people are aware of the power of focus.
It's part of the human nature to lose focus, to get distracted.
Usually the most we like the task the most we can keep our focus; but most of the times we still need to be concentrated.
Make this exercise, whatever you are doing (a report, writing, eating) try to focus only on that activity for 20-30minutes.
How many times we started writing that email or report and by the end of day it is not completed yet?
So the tasks cumulated, we stay in the office until 800pm and we have the impression that nothing got done.
Well… actually because you really got nothing done, because you wasted your day losing the focus, switching to another activity, losing again the focus and switching again.
Think about it, the huge amount of time you waste during the switching.
Be real, you cannot spend one day just answering some emails and writing 1 page of report.
Focus is essential to get the things completed and in the right way.
Focus is essential to put the right attention on what you are doing.
Without focus our life is jumping from one task to another, without direction.
And without directions you cannot go nowhere and get anything done.
To achieve things and create value you need focus. If you want to play an instruments or read an essay you need to allocate time for it and just being focus on it.
Don't think that if you don't get the right focus on something it necessary means you don't like it.
(Generally because when you like something time flies doing it).
I love running and writing but I still need to be very disciplined to allocate the time for these activities.
I love running but I can tell you that most of the time I would rather stay in the bed than hitting the road at 5.30am in a rainy day.
But once in the run…it's fantastic, the focus and the pleasure it's there.
The same for writing and in general for everything I love.
Again, don't be deceived about identifying your passions in watching TV, playing games or surfing the web because when you are doing it "time flies" and you are very focused.
When you watch TV, play games or browse the web time flies because your brain is off as a result of the very addictive nature of those things.
Don't be fooled…trillions of dollars are spend on designing video games, social networks and everything else on screens highly addictive to increase our screen time.
Those things are highly addictive like alcohol, drugs and tobacco.
Practice focus: start small, on the daily activities: when you eat don't watch TV or be on the phone, just eat; when you start an email just don't do anything else until completion.
Let the phone ring (unless it is a very important customer or a real emergency) and check the voice message later.
Commit 10 min of focus on one activity and gradually increase to 15-20-30 minutes.
The goal here is to allocate a timeframe for an activity and complete it in the decided timeframe.
Thirty minutes for a report, 30 minutes for emails , 1 hour exercising etc. with no interruption.
By the end of the day the results will be astonishing: the important report completed, the inbox clean and your workout done.
Be beamed focus in everything you do; you will reach your goals and the world will be yours!
Complaining is the worst thing you can do to yourself.
If you spend most of your time complaining of something it means you need to change that something.
As simple as that, otherwise you are going nowhere.
Complaining is not changing a situation, it just aggravates it. This because you are putting focus on a negative situation and what you put focus on it expands.
As human beings we need to find solutions to problems, not problems to situations.
Finding the problem is easy, it's the 5% of the job.
Everyone can step in a situation and find dozens of problem in it.
The value is to bring solutions to problems.
Complaining you are fat will not make you lose weight.
Eating less and moving more will.
Losers find problems to solutions and complain.
Winners find solutions to problems and prosper.
It is up to you to decide on which side you are.
Most of the people seem stuck in their lives, jobs, marriage, situations, etc. and they complain all the time.
Some people prefer compromising (e.g. a job or partner with few/no satisfactions) rather than disappointing family members.
In some case the compromise can be acceptable (for example not taking a job abroad to stay close to family members).
But, most of the time it's an excuse!
They use the Family card to complain and justify the reason why they don't make enough money or why they are not courageous enough to bring some changes in their lives to live in their Dream location doing what they love.
Fear is the number one obstacle that prevents people from growing.
Think about it : almost every personal improvement goes through some degree of fear (learning how to swim, sky, or to change for a better job/place).
If you don't win your fears you will not grow and stay in your Comfort (or fear) Zone.
But why do we fear so much and what?
Basically for two main reasons: not leaving a comfort situation and for reason number three: sense of unworthiness.
Often we resist change because we don't think we are able to achieve things in life ("to be unworthy").
So instead of trying the take big leap we decide to stay in our condition certain that this is the maximum we can achieve in life.
This behavior comes from of our society that inculcates a strong sense of modesty and negativity.
Having spend my life in different Countries and Continents I was able to experience the strong influence of the society on its people.
Usually the development of a Country depends upon to the degree of positivity and hope of the society.
Many people just don't grow because they are negative, they don't believe in themselves because they were thought in that way .
They spend their time complaining and their society is characterized by conflicts.
Conversely, where union and positive attitude are predominant, people are growing, intellectually and economically.
Again but why it looks like everyone around us is complaining?
Well, because people are (for some reason) negative and moreover because complaining is easy.
Yes, complaining is the easiest thing in the world.
Think about it, complaining can justify your failures in every situation, job, relationship… in everything.
So, is it easier to wake up and improve the situation (or simply accept it) or just complaining? Complaining it's your boss, partner, friend, family, the weather, the economy, , etc. fault?
This is exactly why people spend their time complaining. It easy and justify our failures.
That's why you are going to easily see people complaining about their boss while they take their thirty coffee break instead on working on improving the quality of their job.
If you don't like a situation work to change it.
Don't stop until it change.
And it usually works if you are really focus and convinced to change it.
When you don't like a job or boss simply change it, it easier than you think. You of course will go through a slight disconformable period due to the changing process (disrupting your Comfort Zone) but you will find a solution to a problem.
I know many people are thinking now "You picture it too easy; it's impossible to find another job".
I can tell you it easier than you think; I made it several time through my life and now I am happy.
But you really need to face the situation and win the fear of change.
There are billions of jobs, partners, places and situations out there.
Better than what you are experiencing now.
Don't just sit and complain about your situation stating it's impossible to change and trying to show the world it's not your fault for the failure.
We are the only one responsible for our success and failures.
For sure some external factors can influence some situations but only marginally and very temporary.
All the decisions we made are up of us; our jobs, partners, friends, health and wealth.
Make this exercise, I promise you it will be very illuminating.
Stop complaining for 9 days.
Not only externally but also internally, mentally.
Whenever you feel like complaining just stop, think about something else, tell yourself you will complain later, at the end of the 10 days.
I promise you: after the 10 days you will see the whole world from a different angle and start understanding the negative power of complaining.
And the great power you have inside of you, if you just want to use it.
Again, make a favor to yourself and the whole world stop complaining and aim for the excellence.
Why the Writer Block simply does not exist.
I don't have blocks on what I love, you should have not either.
I can, right now write for hours, days, months.
Maybe not like Hemingway but like me, talking about what I love.
If I have to write about what I love, this comes natural, fluent, because I have tons of things to say..and I want to see all of them.
That's why the Writer Block simply does not exist.
If you are blocked is because you have nothing to say, you are not interested in the topic.
If you love playing tennis, you will play it. If you are not playing it right now is simply because you don't like it, not because you don't have time or your body cannot.
We should write because we have something to say, not something to fake, to build up to meet our audience, because we need readers.
We do need readers because we do want to be read but, first and foremost, we do need to have a message to convey, to share, to debate.
A message that ignites something in your readers, that makes them think, wish to be better, or simply create a small revolution inside their soul.
And what you are going to do with all that saved time ?
Listen, if money is the only thing you are looking for and blogging is what you think is the solution you should stop write now writing and reading the tons of blogs bragging they make hundreds of thousands of dollars per month.
Yes you can make money blogging.
You can get a job to flip burgers and be sure you can make more $$$-hour.
Excluding some exception of very first comers (but with very strong valuable messages like Steve , very hard workers (100+h/week like Michelle) , mediocre blogs who were able to get visibility on top 10 blogs worldwide (too many unfortunately) not many bloggers make tons of money.
Just write what you really believe in.
What you would like others to listen.
From suggestion on investing in mutual fund, to how to build a giant castle made of Play Doh.
It doesn't matter the topic.
As long you write about what you love and convey a valuable message.
Enlighten other people with your gifts. your achievements, your energy.
Open their eyes like many other blogs, books, magazines, websites, people opened yours and mine and changed us forever.
No, you cannot have NOTHING to say.
You are much better than that.
You don't want to end up like him…do you?
It's February my fellow readers.
How many of you are still following that fantastic 500 calories a day diet no fat, carbs, sugar nothing…?
How many of you already lost tons of Kg, stones, lb etc etc?
I am not a dietologist or an expert in the field.
1) Diets say everything and its contrary.
Eat low carbs….no low fat…no low sugar…skip lunch…I mean dinner…no beer only wine…I mean only red wine…pasta yes…pasta no…mediterrean diet is great…wait but bread is not good…only white rice diet…the nutrition pyramid is the mantra to follow…well but so many carbs etc.
Have you ever wondered why there are so many theories and buzzs around losing weight?
Food industry (and its derivate) is the biggest industry in the world.
What I mean with derivate?
1) Food packaging, transportation, fertilizer, infrastructures, real estate, (btw do you know that the real business of Mc Donalds is Real Estate and not burgers)??? , commercials etc.
2) Health care related to food. Abuse of food generated diseases…diseases generated trillions of money to treat them.
3) Gyms. Most of the people going to Gym is there to lose weight. No fat on our waist no big dollars in Gym owners.
How many times did you hear the following equation ?
Eat less, move more and you control the weight.
This is only a part of the equation.
This because not every calorie is the same.
Additionally reducing Calories In has a direct impact on Calories Out because our body has the natural tendency to reduce the Calories used (Calories Out) in case it starts receiving less Calories In (it's a natural process of avoiding starvation and death).
I don't want to go into the details since I am not a Doctor and the argument is long and complex but I might suggest you some interesting reading from Dr. Jason Fung like The Obesity Code and The Complete Guide to Fasting.
Again, I cannot say Dr. Fung Theories are the Undeniable Truth but they do give a different interesting prospective on diet, food, diabetes and some common mistakes.
I personally used some suggestions like Intermittent fasting and I got benefits both from general feelings (e.g. more energy, less bloated) and losing weight (2-3% of my original weight..again I was not particularly overweight when I started).
2) There is too much emphasis on exercise and not enough on resting.
Exercising seems the panacea for losing weight.
I have a bad news…it's not.
It might help but it is not.
In one hour run (that I am pretty sure you don't do it daily) you are going to burn around 600-700 Calories.
Half an hour and it drops to 300-350 Calories.
Considering now the total budget of 2000 Calories for someone who tries to control his weight.
Three hundreds calories are 15% of the total. (20% if he is on a 1500 Daily Calories budget).
Or…do you know how many calories there are in one pizza?
Roughly 820 calories (yes you would need to run for 1h 15min to burn it).
Drink two beers (230 Calories) or a couple of glass of wine and you just drank your run.
Watch out I am not saying you don't have to exercise.
You must on the contrary because exercising have tons of benefits.
I am just saying that the contribution of exercising on losing weight is much less than you think unless you run very long distances (marathons or ultramarathons (I can tell you based on my experience that when you run 50-60 miles per weeks (90-100Km) you definitely lose weight).
Everyone associate sleeping as a synonymous of laziness.
Executives shows their budget of productivities claiming that they sleep only 4 hours per nights!
I am not the one of stating it but Professors from the Department of Medicine, University of Chicago.
Similar study are everywhere out there but nobody is talking about it?
There are no money surrounding the statement Sleep more (and without pills or whatever external help) while there are tons of money around saying Do that and buy my products in the process.
Why we Sleep (from Prof. Matthew Walker).
Below is quick look at the Professor and his theories on other benefits of sleeping (and the damage of lack of it).
Society is pushing toward an exaggerate diet mostly based on highly processed carbs with the results of an epidemic of obesity.
Conversely (especially in the USA) we see people eating low fat diets , new gyms popping up everywhere, many people panting trying to reach the 10,000 steps on their brand new bracelet but we see those same people severely overweight and dying of hearth attack or developing diabetes 2 in their 40s.
Did you follow the money?
Watch out the Calories In-Out balance (I personally use and love the App MyFitnessPal (free with some Premium features) . This is one important step but not everything.
Drastically reduce carbs like bread, pasta rice etc. and highly processed food.
Try some intermittent fasting to regulate the insulin in your body (e.g. 16:8 or more aggressive Warrior Diet).
Read Read Read. Try to get some exposure to books, article, researches from independent and entitled professionals. The mantra here is Do not follow the money.
Track your weight daily: where you focus results appears…Don't forget to track your weight for one month and discover you are 10 lbs (5Kg) heavier.
If you can eat at home. Not only you will save a lot of money and learn something fun but you will drastically reduce the processed food you ingest and improve the quality of the ingredients.
*Let me ask you…what is the food with highest content of Vitamin C in the world…the Orange right…? That's what most of the people think but it's not true…have you ever wondered why?
Ironically comfortably enough is the main goal for many people.
A roof on the head, enough food in the refrigerator, a nice tv, car and sofa.
What do you want more then right?
Well if you are one of my fellow readers you want more right? (otherwise you would be (again) comfortably browsing the tv on your couch instead of browsing blogs on personal development).
Let me state it straight….most people love to be comfortable…9 to 5 until 65 and ending their life in a nursery home…and I am happy for them.
But we are not one of them, we want to live our life differently…on the edge. Experiencing different things…suffering now to move to another dimension later…to get financial independence to be more free.
That's where the excitement start.
Living in a Comfort Zone.
Life is made of different comfort zones.
We go through them all our life.
When we reach a comfort zone it's… well "comfortable"; the things around us are familiar, we know how things works, we have no fear.
When we stably reached a comfort zone and we are (again X2) too comfortable it's sign we need to move to another one and not just adopt small changes in our lives (like Forbes suggests).
Because if you are too comfortable you are not growing.
Moving to the next comfort zone and growing is often painful…so we try to escape changes as adult.
A baby at some point will need to start walking.
He will fall and hurt himself (the pain) but the price is worth it…he will walk (the growth) because the curiosity is much bigger than the pain.
The same when we leave elementary school to middle school, the separation is painful, the environment is new but again we are growing!
And interesting enough in most of the cases (if not the totality) nobody regrets the change.
But later in life changing becomes more and more difficult because changes can be more drastic, not necessary needed and without a safety net.
Or very simply because as adults, we are more scared.
Typical examples are changing your job or leaving your home town; for someone it just seems impossible.
Leaving a secure job for starting a business, or the simple act of stop smoking.
When we decide not to change it's in that precise moment that we stop growing, we stop speaking about the future; we speak only in present and past tense.
The "Yeah but…" ; finding excuses to remain in the actual state.
Men need to grow, always, otherwise they must be dying.
What trigger a change ; what is the revelation, the "Ah moment", the turning point?
In every instant of our life we are the sum of all the experiences accumulated since we were born.
We think differently of what we were used to 10 years ago and will think in 10 year.
What we can understand now was unconceivable 10 years ago and in 10 years from now we will have a different understanding.
I call it the turning point.
In my life different events triggered deep changes in my life and prospective; start living abroad, losing a parent, leaving difficult situations and people behind are some turning points of my life.
I start loving me more , taking more care about my self, saving money, believing I deserve more that I thought.
Hadn't I never took critical steps (e.g. leaving certain situations or habits) my life would surely be on a different path, for sure worst.
It took courage to leave the comfort zone and luckily some events happened so fast and so concentrated to accelerate the processes.
But again I took the first step.
In our life we always know when it's time to change; if we don't it's because we lie to ourselves (the "Yeah…but…") or we created a thick layer around our micro world that make us blind.
I firmly believe our life should be on a path of continuous improvement; the changes can be small, microscopic (there is no need to leave your job or hometown if this is really what you love to do) but they must be there.
But then, why so many people are not happy around us? Why they complain about their job, misfortune, money, everything else?
Because they stop growing and being negative is the easiest path of accepting (or justifying ) their situation.
Every time someone asks me how I am doing my typically answer is "Great!" and I strongly mean it. Of course someday I am tired, sick and in a not perfect mood but it's what inside of me that makes me feel great.
The feeling great comes from the love and passion to move ahead, to the next step.
I am falling and failing all the time and I will fall and fail some more.
Maybe I will not reach all my goals but some for sure and this is all that really matters to me.
"We become what we think about, all day long" (Ralph Waldo Emerson).
How much life do you really live?
Is it blurred. Isn't it?
How much life do you really live and how much do you waste?
Yes of course you are busy.
You are the busiest in the world right?
Doing something with all free time wasted in front of a screen it's practically impossible.
It's imperative to limit the screen time to children who are several times more vulnerable to the devastating effect of screen time on the brain and on the body.
Kids are practically not playing outside anymore.
Just ask any sport shop selling tennis rackets or soccer equipment.
Kids are playing sports but in video games…that's it.
Especially for preteen and teenagers the brain goes through major changes and the impacts of the screen is devastating on attention disorders (if you have a kid you can experience it everyday), emotions and personality, creativity, self-confidence, learning and social skills and sports.
In 2010, researchers found that kids who logged more than two hours a day in front of a computer or TV screens had a higher chance of psychological difficulties on a standard questionnaire.
Do you notice how addict you are on checking continuously your phone, email, wearable etc.?
Every year trillions of dollars are invested in R&D of screen makers to keep you glued on their device.
User Experience is called, I call it addiction.. and a nasty one.
There are no restaurants where I don't see pathetic couple or group of friends not talking and just glued to their phone.
That's sad…and as said pathetic.
We spend hours doing stupid and useless stuff on the phone, not looking for the cure of cancer.
We need to stop and right now.
Decide right now the screen time that is absolutely essential.
Total: 1h – 40m per day.
This should be your max screen time per day.
Be very clear on when you will use your screen time (e.g. Instagram only immediately after dinner or never) and STICK to the plan.
Why the 4% rule is not true and can ruin your life.
Because usually the are not true, or a lie.
if you have a certain amount of money invested in a mix of stocks and bonds, 4% is roughly the maximum rate at which you can withdraw from the principal and being sure you will not run out of money.
The 4% is the max withdrawal rate…and perfectly matching your spending.
What about if you need to spend more?
Most of the blogs talking about Financial Independence and Early Retirement are (curiously) based in one of the most unfriendly Countries for Retires: the USA.
USA is one of the greatest place to make money while you are young, healthy and employed.
USA is also one of the greatest place to spend ALL YOUR money if you are not young, healthy or employed.
Yes all of it and I am not the one saying it.
A recent RBC Wealth Management study estimated that a healthy 65-year-old couple today can expect to spend more than $400,000 on health care in retirement.
Why then most of the bloggers retire in the USA?
I am not an economist, like most of bloggers and readers of Financial Independence topics are not either.
What I want to be sure is that I save enough to have money for my retirement with an ample margin.
My rule of the thumb is pretty simply.
Align the percentage with the net return of dividend from Index Fund (as of today below 2%).
Because no matter what my capital is untouched and I have a good margin.
For the same reason why we all should invest in something more predictable with index funds tracking the total market and not try to invest in single stocks, we need to play with our money and life with a very ample margin.
Be safe, even if this means retire few years later.
Don't play with something so serious.
Wait to say yes and let me answer for you.
No, you don't need that iron and plastic box sitting in your garage or parked (maybe far) somewhere in the street for seven reasons.
I am going to show you 7 reasons why you don't need a car…and if you really need it how to spend 10 times less than today.
Let's turn on the engine.
The Country with Highest Car density is USA (are you surprised?) with 910 cars every 1000 people.
In second place there is Italy with a density of 625.
Highest Car Density in the USA…how surprisingly!
On average the cost of a car in the USA in 2018 is roughly $35,000 (there is a nice post of Financial Samurai on the cost of cars in the USA you can find here) .
In Italy is roughly $24,000 (link here)..
Expensive…isn't it? Let's go deeper….expensive vs what?
How much a family is making in the USA, Italy or Spain per year?
Americans makes roughly $60,000 per year (before taxes…let's say $45,000 after taxes) and (on average) spend $35,000 for a new car. Keep in mind these figures are averages…but they give a clear indications on the impact of owning a car.
The impact is devastating: Americans spend on average three quarters of their annual salaries on purchasing a car. For Italians one year of salary is not enough…!
Owning a vehicle on average cost an average of almost $9,000 just for driving 15,000 miles annually.
In 2017 only in the U.S. more than 40,000 people died in car accidents, 110 every day! Car is one of the most dangerous place to be and full autonomous driving (i.e. no more human driving cars) is still decades away. People are scared of planes and lightening while they face dangers thousand of times bigger daily.
According to United States Environmental Protection Agency Transportation?, the transportation sector generates the largest share (nearly 28.5 percent in 2016) of greenhouse gas emissions. Greenhouse gas emissions from transportation primarily come from burning fossil fuel for our cars, trucks, ships, trains, and planes. Over 90 percent of the fuel used for transportation is petroleum based, which includes gasoline and diesel.
Additionally the dependence of fossil fuel created the (often negative) political dependence on the Country producing it. But you already know it…right?
How long do you think you use your car?
30% of the time? 20%?
An interesting report found out that in Britain the average car is parked at home for 80% of the time, parked elsewhere for 16% of the time and is only on the move for 4% of the time.
4%…think about it…you spend tons of money for something you use only 4%.
Owning a car is one of the main negative think fro your finalce, heath and sanity.
Unless you live in a very remote area there are many alternatives to car: public transportations, biking, Uber (even thought for Uber the Risks of accidents are still there), walking!
We are the tree and the Internet the forest.
I am the tree falling right now…am I making a sound (are you reading me?).
How much information are we exposed today outside work and family?
News, dozen of blogs we follow, hundreds (or thousands) of people we follow on social media (Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Linkedin. Pinterest, Line, Whatsapp, Wechat, Snapchat, Tiktok, etc. etc).
How can we possible follow everything?
We cannot…even thought we pretend.
The same happens to everyone, too much (addictive) inputs and not enough time.
Thus the question to all of us bloggers.
Who is really reading my blogs?
Who's reading it with involvement (or only to use my audience to his advantage)?
Should I keep writing if nobody is reading me?
Am I bringing value? ..or better… Do I care to bring value to the community or I care only for myself?
Grabbing the attention of people in internet is increasingly difficult due the one (even less) second attention span we have today in these era of overflow data. We get attention when we touch some nerves, when we say something interesting, useful, when we are able to present it correctly.
Why should I be here reading you and not the other millions of blog out there or playing Candy Crush?
Where is the VALUE FOR ME in what you say?
Will I be a better person after reading what you say?
Everyone is (technically) reachable anytime/everywhere and EVERYBODY can speak to 3.2. million people right now.
This leap in technology is amazing.
Few years ago (20 I would say) we were barely able to keep contacts using landline phones and only with people whom we knew.
With the advent of the cellphones we extend our reachability everywhere and all the time.
Even thought you might be used to this reality or you are too young to remember the world without cell phones, think for a moment on the great impact of it on our lives.
Think about the implications of being able to reach an audience of 3.2 millions people right now.
Well…I am doing it…right now…with this post…and you are one of those 3.2 millions people.
You don't know me (at least personally).
You can change my life right now just sending me an email, a tweet or a comment.
I might have already changed your life.
Who is writing a blog has a passion, whatever is the message.
The passion is usually so strong that the blogger would love to blog all the time thus (unless the blogger is very rich), he would love to make blogging his primary source of income.
All considered, if someone wishes to make some money from blogging, this desire is not only fair but sacrosanct because if I, blogger, am producing and offering value (thus I have readers) such value should be rewarded.
Conversely if I don't produce any value…very likely I will not have readers thus I will not make any money through ads or products.
Why should it be the opposite?
The problem is that most of the people employed (so a big portion) cannot realize the equation value = money because they cannot link the value of staring a computer in a cubicle with the making of "something" (a products, a line of code etc.).
Even worst, sometimes (often?) in the corporate world such link doesn't even exist…people doesn't produce any value but they get the paycheck anyway…overachievers will compensate their lack (and get frustrated).
Conversely, blogging is pure entrepreneurship: you get money in direct proportion of the value offered…no office politics, cheating or friends of friends game is playing here.
P as your Promotion: are you promoting your blog in every social channels? Are you networking with other like-minded blogger?
P as Place: Is it easy for the reader to access your blog posts?
P as Price: Are you offering a service with a reasonable price? Are you offering it for free? Or it's too expensive?
Understand that if only one P is not satisfied by your offering, your blog will be a major failure.
Your product has no value? Nobody will buy it (in case of a blog, nobody will read it…why wasting time to read things that have no value for the reader)?
Your blog is great but you don't advertise it enough? Nobody will find it.
Similarly if you publish it in a difficult website to navigate or in Social Channel nobody uses, people will have trouble to access it.
Your e-book or course is great but you charge too much vs the perceived value of the reader?
Conversely, you are not charging anything for your products or use affiliate links? You will not have revenues (in same cases this is acceptable since not everyone is blogging for revenues).
Making some money on the blog can be fairly immediate and easy with affiliate links and random ads. One of the rule of the thumb (you can find many rules on the web) is that you make roughly $1/year for each visitor you have per day with a Bounce Rate of 100% and roughly 1000 pages published on your blog using Google AdSense (with a CTR of 1% and CPC of $0.25).
Without going into the details…yes you can make some money from your blog inducing your readers to click on Ads but you need a lot of traffic so something to say (again: No value produced = no money gained).While I do believe in the power of marketing and creating a network of bloggers/people with identical interests I am a firmly believer that readers sticks with you if you have something valuable to say.
Why I don't believe in Google AdsYou might have noticed I don't have Google Ads on this blog (and in others blog).
Conversely I had them in others websites used for pure marketing/commercial activities where they makes sense since the only goal was promotion of products and services.
Blogging for me it's a different story, I do want to share with you my story, suggesting you some products I use and consume and I really want to share to the world since EXCELLENT for me and making some money in the process.
Filling my website pages with Random computer generated Google Ads suggesting you some Shrimp Antonia Bag Pink Size One it is simply not for me.
Conversely suggesting you to use great tools like Personal Capital to keep tracking your finances is something I really believe into it like in other products I do really use and enjoy on a regular basis.
Use the gift of communication to be brilliant, to express yourself, to change the world.
Don't scam people or treat them like stupid, take out those annoying Google Ads pushing your readers to buy crap just for you to get the commissions.
Have something to say, bring value in this world and value will pay you back in form of money, notoriety, personal satisfaction or just inner peace….the most important one.


Come learn about the sacred Hawaiian shamanic practice of Ho'oponopono, one of the most transformative processes you will ever be exposed to. The basis of Ho'oponopono is forgiveness, but in a way you may not have considered. In this class, you will learn about the origins of Ho'oponopono, why and how it works, and the many ways you can use it in your daily life to transform your personal world and the world at large. Following the presentation, we will hold a group Ho'oponopono Circle, with emphasis on supporting positive change in the collective consciousness. Handouts are included.
Vec Talarico is a Certified Angel Card Reader, She works with the Angels and is trained in Emotional Polarity Therapy and teaches Integrated Energy Therapy. Vec has taught classes in the Fort Wayne area for many years.


Ideal Ratcheting Cable Cutter [email protected]@K!!!
Ideal 400 MCM Ratcheting Cable Cutter 35-056 - NEW!
Ideal 35-032 500 MCM Long-Arm Cable Cutter, 22"
Ideal 35-033 1000 MCM Long-Arm Cable Cutter, 32"
Ideal 35-031 250 MCM Long-Arm Cable Cutter, 14"
IDEAL Electrical 35-032 LG 1000MCM Arm Cable Cutter 32 in.


If you are a man in London who is dedicated to developing yourself, optimising your potential and maximising your masculine polarity, then Authentic Man Within's free talks and events are for you.
At Authentic Man Within we regularly host free talks and events at societies, academies, educational facilities and meet-up groups around London. Presently, our talks and events will be delivered by our primary coach and founder, Sebastian Callow. Moving forward, some of our trainee coaches will also be hosting free talks and events around the capital.
Primarily, our events will be directed solely towards men, masculine development and men's dating and lifestyle. However, occasionally we will host events and facilitate groups for both men and women to achieve more depth and greater discussion.
Fundamentally, we want to contribute towards you becoming more capable, emotionally intelligent, happier, more present, more aware, better at expressing yourself, all-around more attractive and better at relating to women.
1) Courage – The capacity to embrace fear and use it as a catalyst for moving in the direction of what one knows to be right and good.
2) Integrity – Total alignment in the way one thinks and feels, and the way one acts and expresses himself in the world.
3) Purpose – A massive shift in taking consistent actions aligned with achieving one's life goals and life purpose.
If you're excited by the prospect of developing yourself and your dating life, and experiencing the freedom that comes from embracing your masculine core, then don't hesitate!


text:
News Criminal Defence	20th Oct 2020
Gudrun Young successfully represents former Blue Peter presenter and TV celebrity John Leslie
Gudrun Young successfully represented former Blue Peter presenter and TV celebrity John Leslie, who was cleared of an allegation of sexual assault at Southwark Crown Court. The jury took just 23 minutes to unanimously acquit him of an allegation that in December 2008 he had grabbed a woman's breasts at a Christmas party being held by the talent agency which represented him. The woman did not report the matter to the police at the time but came forward in December 2017, saying she had been prompted by the MeToo movement. In his defence, Leslie said that he had no clear memory of the party in question or of meeting the woman but was adamant he had never sexually assaulted anyone in his life.
John Leslie (whose full name is John Leslie Stott) told the jury how his hugely successful television career was brought to a dramatic end in October 2002 when he was wrongly named by Matthew Wright live on Channel 5 as having been the man Ulrika Jonsson claimed in a recently published autobiography had raped her 14 years before. She described her attacker as a TV presenter but declined to name him. Although Matthew Wright subsequently retracted his comment and has publicly apologised to John Leslie, the damage was done. Leslie told how he had become the target of a ruthless campaign in the tabloid press where he was painted as a sleazy sexual predator and how the papers ran adverts offering to pay women for stories about him. Fighting back tears, he described how his life had been blighted by false sexual allegations, almost driving him to suicide. One such allegation had resulted in him being charged in 2003 with indecent assault but the matter was dropped by the prosecution before the trial. Leslie recalled how he had attended the very same court building in 2003 with his then-girlfriend Abi Titmuss and was told by the judge that he could leave the court without a stain on his character. He hoped after that to be able to revive his career, but his reputation never recovered and he continued to be hounded by the press. Contrary to the image of him portrayed in the tabloids, Leslie told the jury he was someone who respected women and would never behave in that way.
Gudrun pointed out numerous inconsistencies in the complainant's account and asked how it was possible for Leslie to have assaulted her in the manner described, in the middle of a crowded bar at a party, and for no one to have seen it. She also questioned why she did not report it at the time when Leslie was "famous not for his TV work, but for being a disgraced former celebrity, someone who had had a spectacular fall from grace in 2002" and whose name had become synonymous with accusations of this kind. It was suggested that the woman had been influenced by his reputation and inspired by the MeToo movement in the wrong way by making a false allegation.
Gudrun told the jury that by 2008 John Leslie was a broken man, whose career was in tatters and that he was extremely paranoid and anxious about false stories being sold about him. The idea that he would have brazenly gone up to a woman at a party and grabbed her breasts was "simply ludicrous".
Friends and former colleagues of John Leslie's including Anthea Turner, Yvette Fielding, Diane-Louise Jordan and Fern Britton gave powerful evidence at court on his behalf, describing him as a kind, decent and upstanding man, "a perfect gentleman, a million miles away from his public image".
Following the verdict Leslie broke down in the dock. Her Honour Judge Taylor, trying the case, said at the end: "Mr Leslie Stott, for the second time you leave this court without a stain on your character and I hope you never have to appear again".
Please see National Media Links here, here and here.
Gudrun was instructed by Grant Ambridge of Murrays Partnership.
Gudrun Young clerks@2harecourt.com linkedin
Related Expertise

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Vilém Brodecký (1. srpna 1874 Karlín – 21. ledna 1950 Praha) byl československý politik a meziválečný poslanec Národního shromáždění za Československou sociálně demokratickou stranu dělnickou, později za Neodvislou radikální sociálně demokratickou stranu, Socialistické sjednocení a opět poslanec (později senátor) za Československou sociálně demokratickou stranu dělnickou.

Biografie
Původním povoláním byl úředníkem na železnici. V 90. letech 19. století se zapojil do odborového hnutí železničářů a stal se členem české sociální demokracie. Počátkem 20. století zastával v rámci sociálně demokratického hnutí v Rakousku-Uhersku centralistické postoje (podpora zachování silné celorakouské strany, nikoliv její rozvolňování na separátní strany jednotlivých národností). V letech 1911–1918 byl členem politického subjektu Česká sociálně demokratická strana v Rakousku, který prosazoval tyto centralistické představy. Následně se zapojil do sociálně demokratického hnutí v ČSR. V letech 1918–1933 byl ústředním tajemníkem Unie železničních zaměstnanců.

Podle údajů k roku 1929 byl profesí tajemníkem železniční unie. Bydlel v Břevnově.

V letech 1918–1920 zasedal v Revolučním národním shromáždění. V parlamentních volbách v roce 1920 získal poslanecké křeslo v Národním shromáždění za sociální demokraty. Během rozkolu ve straně, kdy se od sociální demokracie odtrhlo bolševické křídlo (Komunistická strana Československa), patřil k malé skupině, která stála na pomezí obou frakcí a která se pak ustavila jako Neodvislá radikální sociálně demokratická strana. V roce 1923 spolu s ní vplynul do nové formace nazvané Socialistické sjednocení, aby se v říjnu 1924 vrátil do poslaneckého klubu sociální demokracie. Za ni mandát v parlamentních volbách v roce 1925 obhájil a do parlamentu se dostal i po parlamentních volbách v roce 1929.

V parlamentních volbách v roce 1935 získal senátorské křeslo v Národním shromáždění. V senátu setrval do jeho zrušení v roce 1939, přičemž krátce předtím ještě v prosinci 1938 přestoupil do nově vzniklé Národní strany práce.

Za německé okupace spolupracoval s domácím odbojem a v letech 1941–45 byl vězněn.

Odkazy

Reference

Literatura

Externí odkazy

 Projev Viléma Brodeckého v Národním shromáždění roku 1930

Čeští odboráři
Poslanci československého Národního shromáždění
Senátoři československého Národního shromáždění
Českoslovenští politici české národnosti
Osobnosti československého odboje během druhé světové války
Členové centralistické české sociální demokracie
Členové ČSSD
Narození v roce 1874
Úmrtí v roce 1950
Narození 1. srpna
Úmrtí 21. ledna
Muži
Narození v Karlíně

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia