Directions Faculty Agenda Registration: Fill & Download for Free

Original Question: Were American elections determined as much by sex and gossip when fewer Americans had college degrees?Back in the “old” days, during the last millennium where I lived for over a half a century, politics were not so sleazy. There were scandals, but they were not on the three broadcast stations, ABC, NBC, CBS TV, not in the newspapers (the print versions were all that existed). Reporters who knew about President Kennedy’s liaisons did not widely report on them.http://cspc.nonprofitsoapbox.com/storage/Fellows2011/Buonpastore-_Final_Paper.pdfAs is evident today, many of the journalists during the Kennedy presidency knew of or had heard of various indiscretions partaken by the President of the United States. Some of these journalists even had proof, yet none saw fit to publish the extent of the President’s sexual liaisons. While the idea of the president maintaining a private life may be applicable here, it is certainly not the case when all of the facts are reviewed. Later in this paper, the extent to which President Kennedy may have exposed the United States to potential national security risks during his trysts will be examined.What percentage of high school graduates attended college from 1950–1970?College enrollment rates of high school graduates, by sex: 1960 to 1998The numbers of students in college now is much higher. 65.9% Fewer U.S. Graduates Opt for College After High SchoolIs the culture effecting college students or are college students effecting culture. That may not be the driver in either direction. The music and the social media platforms, in my opinion are driving the culture. What I can say is that the percentage of Democrats v. Republican professors is stunning. This may be the answer, not the education but the social issues discussed in college (agenda?) I will let you, the reader, decide. Keep in mind that in the mid-1960’s a sexual revolution began and there was a lot of “Sex & Drugs & Rock & Roll”Republicans Outnumbered in Academia, Studies FindIn a separate study of voter registration records, Professor Klein found a nine-to-one ratio of Democrats to Republicans on the faculties of Berkeley and Stanford. That study, which included professors from the hard sciences, engineering and professional schools as well as the humanities and social sciences, also found the ratio especially lopsided among the younger professors of assistant or associate rank: 183 Democrats versus 6 Republicans.The political imbalance on faculties has inspired a campaign to have state legislatures and Congress approve an "academic bill of rights" protecting students and faculty members from discrimination for their political beliefs. The campaign is being led by Students for Academic Freedom, a group with chapters at Berkeley and more than 135 other campuses. It was founded last year by the leftist-turned-conservative David Horowitz, who helped start the 1960's antiwar movement while a graduate student

The Human Resource Development (HRD) Group of COUNCIL OF SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIALRESEARCH (CSIR), New Delhi, provides opportunities to bright young men and women in the form of direct Senior Research Fellowships (SRFs)andResearch Associateships (RAs) for training inmethods of research under the expert guidance of faculty members/scientists working in universities, laboratories and institutes of Government Departments and recognised laboratories of industry in various fields of science and technology.SENIOR RESEARCH FELLOWSHIPSESSENTIAL QUALIFICATIONS:MSc/BE/B.Tech or equivalent degree with at least 55% marks and one publication in Science CitationIn dexed (SCI) Journal and should have completed at least two years of post MSc/BE/B.Tech research experience as on the last date of application, as evidenced from fellowship/ associateship or from dateof registration for Ph.D. ORM .Tech/ME or equivalent degree in engineering/technologywith at least 60% marks .ORBE/B.Tech or equivalent degree with at least 60% marks and two yearsresearch experience as on the last date of application.ORMBBS/BDS or equivalent with at least 60% marks and one year internship.ORBPharm/BVSc/BSc(Ag) or equivalent degree with at least55% marks and one publication in SCI Journaland should have completed at least three years research experience as on the last date of application, evidenced from fellowship/associateship or from date of registration for Ph.D.ORApply Online on or before 30th June 2017 at Human Resource Development GroupOnly online applications followed by hard copy will be accepted.MPharm/MVSc /MSc(Ag) or equivalent degree with at least55% marks and one publication in SCI Journaland should have at least one year research experience as on the last date of application,evidenced from fellowship / associateship or from date of registration for Ph.D.Documents in support of research, teaching (not below the undergraduate level)experience and Ph.D. registration should be attached.Those who have been awarded PhD/MD/MS/MDS degree or have submitted their thesis for the awardof PhD/MD/MS/MDS degrees are not eligible for the position of SRF.Those who are eligible for RA will not be considered for SRF.OTHER CONDITIONS/INFORMATIONAGE LIMIT :Senior Research Fellow(SRF):Maximum 32 years as on the last date of application.Research Associate(RA):Maximum 35 years as on the last date of application.Age limit is relaxable by five years for SC, ST, OBCs and physically handicapped on production of suitable certificates from the competent authority. Women candidates are also given age relaxation of five years.SELECTION PROCEDURE FOR SRF/RA:Selection will be made through interview of candidates short -listed on the basis of their academic records, experience and assessment of research work already carried out and published by the candidates, by discipline -wise high level expert committees.The SC/ST candidates called for interview will be paid single second class rail/busfare to and fro by the shortest route from the station mentionedin the address for correspondence given in the online a pplication from (within India) to place of interview on production of documentary proof as per rule in force .Merely fulfilling of the essential qualifications will not entitle a candidate for being called for interview. CSIR reserves the right to call or not to call a candidate for interview.D.CANDIDATES APPLYING UNDER THE CODE STS 71Only those candidates desirous of working on one of the following broad topics may apply under the Code STS 71:∑R & D Management (Planning, Priorities, Evaluation, Social and Economic Impact,etc.)∑Intellectual Property laws, Policies, Management and evaluation, etc∑Technology forecasting, Assessment and Management;∑Policies, Programmes, and approaches for innovationpolicies, promotion instruments and management ;∑S & T Policies, Programmes and interface with global economic agenda.∑S & T interface with Society, Polity and Production sectors.∑Studies on Technological Change in the Production Sectors.∑Studies on mobility of S & T professionals: Demands, Trends, Impact, etc.∑Studies on International competitiveness of Indian S & T.∑Societal impact in the open economy era.Subject code should be carefully selected (given in Appendix I) and it should be directly related to past education &experience and future area of study. Identification of irrelevant code or code not matchingwith the proposed topic of research may lead to rejection of the application.Candidates applying under this code should have essential qualification as applicable to other codeswith an exception that degree at the master level can also be in management, social sciences, commerce, etc.E.FELLOWSHIP IN TRANS DISCIPLINARY AREA TDR/81 :The objective of fellowship in Trans disciplinary area is to encourage research in new and emerging areas where boundaries between disciplines are transcended and knowledge and perspectives fromdifferent disciplines are integrated.Trans disciplinary research brings together two or more disciplines to generate new knowledgethrough collaborations outside the limits of one’s own discipline.Application received under this code and not having any Trans disciplinary component in the proposed topic of research may lead to rejection of the application.Candidates applying under this code should have essential qualification asapplicable to other codes.F.INSTRUCTIONS TO THE CANDIDATESThe candidates should carefully read these instructions before submitting their applications:i.A candidate can apply in only one subject code.Code number of the subject should be carefully selected (given in Appendix I) and indicated against the appropriate column. It should be directly related to past education and experience and future area of study.Identification of irrelevant code or code not matching with the proposed topic ofresearch may lead to rejection of the application. No change of code would bepermitted .ii.Details from the time of obtaining the qualifying degree till the last date of application should bementioned clearly in column 18 of application form.Unaccounted period, if any,may lead to rejection.iii.All the necessary documents i.e. office orders in support of the research experiencementioned in column 18 of application form and proof of PhD registration should be attached, otherwiseapplication will be rejected.No testimonial will be accepted as proof of research experience.iv.Candidates should be prepared to produce original certificate, PhD registration, research experience (office orders), reprints & letter(s) of acceptance about papers under publication,NET, GATE certificate at the time of interview and later when required.v.Applications will be processed on the basis of information provided in the onlineapplication.(If the information given in the application form does not matchwith the originals at the time of verification of documents, the candidate may not beallowed to appear for interview).Applications/ documents received after the last date will not be entertained.vi.Those who have already applied three times and not called or selected need notto apply.vii.Date of interview will not be changed on request from candidates.viii.Misrepresentation or hiding of facts shall lead to disqualification.ix.Every effort is made by CSIR to have committees with wide-ranging expertise,therefore, complaints of rejection on this account will not be entertained by CSIR after the interviews.x.Decision of CSIR on all matters including calling for interview, selection, recommendation and placement etc. shall be final. No correspondence in the matter will be entertained.xi.Canvassing if any form will be a disqualification.No interim enquiries will be attended to.xii.The candidates are advised in their own interest to apply early enough to ensure timely receipt of their application by the CSIR on or before the closing date.for further details visit csir website .

1 Introduction Nearly all countries have a hidden history of which they, for very good reasons, are not proud. That history is very infrequently mentioned in the national media but is referenced enough for the occurrence of these key events to be beyond dispute.1.1 The Major Reason Why The United Kingdom Has A Hidden HistoryThe United Kingdom is a nation which has fully implemented the baleful predictions of Oswald Spengler’s Decline of the West, that isfirst, the country has been entirely taken over by monied interestssecond, that this takeover of the UK Government by the rich (their greatest lobbyists) was a natural evolutionary development of western economies and in Spengler’s view was both inevitable and irresistibly unavoidablethird, that all of the nation’s privately-owned and government-controlled media would become utterly compliant in accepting and promoting that take-over and useless and incapable of objectively reporting on events or providing accurate information, andfourth, Spengler stated that there is a tendency for nations which have been taken over by monied interests to fall under the control of politically inept but monied “Caesars” who have minimal competence in running the country but who nonetheless gain a political power despite lacking the capability to govern effectively in the national interest.All of these results have happened in both the UK and the USA. SeeSee Do you see any merit in Oswald Spengler's claim that "The Decline of the West" is fast approaching? andGeorge Tait Edwards's answer to What are your thoughts on the 20th century, German philosopher Oswald Spengler and his theory on the decline of the West?2 Definition: Items of hidden history are developments which encompass three major effects: these area hidden history item partially explains recent events (such as election or referendum results)the British Media while mentioning these changes in a very minor way do not recognise their explanatory effect in altering the course of history and ignores the relevance of these changes upon continuing political developments, andthe population of the United Kingdom have become almost completely uninformed about how major recent significant events have come about and about how the economic development of the country and its social policies are the inevitable consequence of their hidden history.Let’s examine these situations in more detail3 Recent Major Hidden Historical Events There appear to be six major factors in the recent hidden history of Britain. These arethe destruction of a fully-functioning British democracy byMargaret Thatcher’s 1992 Poll Tax andthe application of David Cameron’s Individual Electoral Registration Act 2013the 1992 election of John Major due to absence of Poll-Tax avoiding previous votersthe election of David Cameron in May 2015 due to the partisan reduction of non-Conservative previous voters through the Coalition Government’s implementation of the Individual Electoral Registration Act 2013the BREXIT result which was brought about by the removal of at least eight million previous voters from the parliamentary electoral rollsthe destruction of the NHS as an accessible public service due to the redefinition of doctor’s GP services as emergency services and the almost complete conversion of nearly all NHS hospitals and facilities into cash-limited semi-privatised hospital and health service trusts focused on cost saving rather than services to patientsthe destruction by the Government of the social contract and living standards of the poorest sections of British societyAll of these developments have their consequences, which are continuing to affect the political development and basic characteristics of the UK. It may be useful to illustrate these events in turn.3 Scale of these itemsNone of these items is trivial. Each of these was enough to produce results which were, for example, in direct opposition to the opinion polls.3.1 The destruction of a fully-functioning British democracy by Margaret Thatcher’s Poll Tax in Scotland in 1989 and In England and Wales in 1990See Poll tax (Great Britain) - WikipediaThe piloting of the Poll Tax in Scotland, which was suggested and supported by Oliver Letwin who was a member of Thatcher’s Cabinet, ultimately resulted in over half the Scottish Electorate receiving a notice of failure to pay the Poll Tax.3.2 The election of John Major due to absence of Poll-Tax avoiding previous votersAs the above Wikipedia reference points out:“There is also some evidence that the poll tax had a lasting effect of people not registering themselves on the electoral register to evade collection attempts. This may have had an effect on the results of the 1992 general election, which ended in a fourth successive Conservative victory, despite most opinion polls pointing to a hung parliament or narrow Labour majority.[3]”The UK Poll Tax removed millions of voters from the Parliamentary Electoral Register. All poll taxes everywhere have been implemented in order to deny the poor the right to vote and to help to elect right-wing governments. This is particularly so in the USA, but Thatcher’s Poll Tax did that in the UK in 1992.3.3 The further destruction of a fully-functioning British democracy by David Cameron’s Individual Electoral Registration Act 2013 (2013 IER)See How David Cameron’s Coalition Government Stole the 2015 General Electionwhich lists in detail all of the below and moreThe Coalition Government of Cameron-Ashdown passed the Individual Electoral Registration Act 2013 and after then Cameron had ten significant choices in the implementation of that Law. At every turn Cameron chose to reduce the number of voters on the Parliamentary Electoral Rolls in order to produce a partisan advantage for his party.At every stage in the process of implementing the 2013 IER Cameron opted forFirst, voter deletion rather than inclusionSecond, the same kind of voter deletion as had occurred in Northern Ireland in 2002, when about 10.2% (but see page 4 of the House of Commons Library Briefing Paper Number 6764, authored by Isobel White and dated 21 July 2015 which estimated a slightly higher number of 10.5%) of voters had been removed from the Parliamentary Electoral RollsIt should be noted that:“The Labour Party knew that a badly-implemented individual elector registration system would damage democracy by creating large levels of voter under-registration. These under-registered voters were mainly labour voters — students, tenants of local authority housing, ethnic minorities — so Labour had a sound democratic reason as well as a political reason for not wishing to progress this process. But the Conservative Party had no similar qualms and, as events have demonstrated, had no reservations about damaging the British democratic process if it suited their partisan objectives.”Third, the use of a limited Government database which initially reduced the electors on Parliamentary Voting Rolls by 5.5 million voters - what happened was“The DWP records used in the “Confirmation Live Run” for England and Wales initially identified voters from the DWP database only produced a voters’ roll of 36.9 million voters with 5.5 million voters not confirmed, so initially disenfranchised these 5.5 million voters — 13% of the electorate — an even larger percentage loss than 10.2% (or 10.5%?) reduction in voters in Northern Ireland.”Fourth, The abolition of the 2014 HER/Annual canvass“The abolition of the 2014 Household Electoral Review (HER) was a deliberate decision of the Coalition Government which removed the possibility of correcting the flawed early 2014 register resulting from the 2013 IER Act register by writing to the missing electors. It is impossible to conclude that this was not a deliberate partisan act to minimise non-Conservative voters.”Fifth, the absence of ring-fencing of the money allegedly provided to improve the Parliamentary Electoral Register so that Councils with government income cuts were not obliged to use that money for its stated purpose but could lessen the effect of cuts elsewhere in their budgets, which most didSixth, the denial of the suggestion that voters could register on voting day at the boothsThis is best practise elsewhere (eg in Australia) but Cameron refused to consider itSeventh, the refusal to consider the issues raised by the Electoral CommissionAll Electoral Commission recommendations about how the 2013 Act could be made fairer or more comprehensive were totally ignoredEighth, the voting down of parliamentary motions criticising the fast implementation of the 2013 IER ActThe Conservatives had the objective of creating a one-party UK state, as reported in New Commons boundaries top Conservative government agenda which saysNinth, the reduction of the penalty for non-responses to a request for voter registration from a likely £1,000 on the previous HER system to a weak comment on the IER Enquiry forms about how “You might be fined £80”The lowering of the penalty for non-responses and the encouragement of non-registration of an individual’s voting rights acts to produce a flawed PER which advantages the Conservative Party.Tenth, the Cameron Government proposes to use the reduced 2013 IER Act Parliamentary Electoral Roll produced in early 2015 as the basis for the computer-assisted gerrymandering of constituency boundaries in 2016 with the objective of locking out Labour Governments and “locking in Conservative Governments for generations”These ten factors demonstrated that David Cameron was hell-bent on destroying the previously more fully-functioning British Democracy in order to deliver the partisan advantage of continual Conservative Governments. Which is what has happened.That would not matter so much if Conservative “ruled-by-the-rich” Governments were capable of running the economy for the benefit of all and funding the SME inventions and innovations which are the growth key to more (about 75%) future developments.But for the last 900 years or so, Conservative Governments in China and the West have produced tremendous national economic decline - in Wang Anshi’s 11th century China, in the 14th century Yongle Emperor and Ming Dynasty China, and in ending the mercantile economies of the UK and the USA during the 20th century. No nation has ever become a world leader when led by the Conservatives, or remained a world leader under that Party, because their major role in history has been to end such leaderships.3.4 The election of the David Cameron Government in May 2015 due to the partisan reduction of non-Conservative previous voters through the Coalition Government’s implementation of the Individual Electoral Registration Act 2013It should be noted that:Despite the opinion polls predicting a Labour victory, the Conservatives won the May 2015 election. The Government takeover of the Parliamentary Electoral Rolls and the denial of the vote to millions of previous voters produced that result.The number of missing voters compared to the previous-to-2013 Parliamentary Electoral Rolls (PER) was somewhere between 5.5% and 12.5%. The Conservative Government, not content with removing 5.5% of voters in the first computer run, had written to a further 7% of voters challenging their right to vote and saying if they did respond by December 2014 their names would be struck off rom the PER.The distortion of the votes was mysogynist, anti-working class, anti-BME, anti-student, anti-young and racialist. This occurred becauseit was made more difficult for newly married women to re-instate their voting rightsthe greatest number of lost votes was in working class communities and in the B&ME communitystudents attending university were no longer automatically registered as voters unless they filled in an electoral registration form given them at University registrationparents could no longer register “attainers” or children about to become voters - children had to do it themselves, and about 60% to 75% of these potential voters did not registerthe greatest loss of previous voters was 40%, in the largely Black community of Hackney.The Electoral Registration Commission was struck dumb and became a Government agency, no longer suggesting ways to improve democratic registration.The head of the Cross-Bench Constituency Committee who suggested he would like to investigate the effect of the 2013 IER Act on the 2015 election results was immediately sacked by Cameron. That was not something Cameron wanted investigated or publicised.The Pollsters who promised an investigation into what went wrong with their forecasts became silent when they realised that the Government had taken over, and removed millions of electors from, the Parliamentary Voters’ Rolls. This had had removed the capability of the opinion polls to predict the outcome of elections, for only exit polls could be reliable in future. And any investigation would highlight the actions of the Conservative Government in damaging the PER, and that Government was a major customer of the pollsters.3.5 The BREXIT result which was brought about by the removal of about 8 million previous voters from the parliamentary electoral rolls3.5.1 The Brexit Result WAs Not A Reflection (as regularly claimed in the House Of Commons) of the Will Of The British People But The Result Of Cameron’s Reduced Parliamentary Voter RollsDavid Cameron wrongly judged on the basis of the opinion polls that the REMAIN vote would win. He bet his premiership on that result, and lost.Theresa May came into power when David Cameron resigned. May was a leader of the Remain movement and for three years she developed, and tried to persuade the House of Commons, about her so-called BREXiT negotiation which was a Remain document in all but name. May knew that an actual BREXIT would be economically disastrous for the UK and did her best to get a Remain result under a Brexit banner. That did not work.3.6 The destruction of the NHS as a government-funded service due to the redefinition of doctor’s GP services as emergency services and the almost complete conversion of nearly all NHS hospitals into cash-limited privatised NHS hospital trusts.The total costs of all UK health services in 2017 was £197.4 bn, then 9.6% of GDP. Government expenditure on the NHS was 79% of total expenditure at £155.6 bn, so private health costs were 21% of health expenditure at £41.6 bn that year.3.6.1 The redefinition of doctor’s GP services as emergency servicesFor decades after the NHS was created, patients could see their doctor within a day or two. Now all the NHS GP services have been redefined as an “emergencies only” service and only what the patient regards, and the surgery agrees, as an emergency will receive immediate treatment. It takes on average about six weeks to see a doctor. The new “emergencies only” system assumes that parents can always accurately diagnose childhood illnesses. Unfortunately they cannot always that.3.6.2 The End Of Increases in UK Life Expectancy After 2018 Because of Austerity And Cuts In NHS FundingAn American Report Life expectancy in the UK has previously increased every year since records began in Scotland in 1945 and in England in 1979 but in recent years that is no longer happening. See one press report based on an American report atUK life expectancy drops while other Western countries improvewhich says“The Mail Online reports that "Britain and the US are the only 2 western nations where life expectancy is falling," describing a study looking at changes in longevity in high-income countries.”The changes are significant:“The researchers found a number of countries, including the US and the UK, experienced decreased life expectancy from 2014 to 2015.In the UK, life expectancy at birth declined by 0.19 years for women and 0.26 years for men.But while most other countries bounced back from 2015 to 2016, the US and the UK did not.“That US-based report typically blames the victims and suggests increasing opiate use might lie behind the decrease in lifespan - not so valid for the UK as it may be in the USA. A more insightful British analysis based upon research by the Institute of British Actuaries indicates life expectancy in the UK has fallen considerably since 2010:Life expectancy falls by six months in biggest drop in UK forecastsA Report From The British Institute and Faculty of Actuaries(Longer term influences driving lower life expectancy projections)“The Institute and Faculty of Actuaries, which calculates life expectancy on behalf of the UK pension industry, declined to speculate on why longevity is deteriorating for men and women in England and Wales. Some analysts, however, blame austerity and cuts in NHS spending, others point to worsening obesity, dementia and diabetes.”And“The actuaries said the evidence of slowing life expectancy that first emerged around 2010-11 is “a trend as opposed to a blip”.Falling longevity has accelerated. Last year’s analysis cut forecasted life expectancy by two months. This year it took off another six months.Compared with 2015, projections for life expectancy are now down by 13 months for men and 14 months for women.”And:“Pension companies have already begun to cash in on falling expectations. This week Legal & General said it was releasing £433m of the reserves it holds to pay future pensions because of the reductions in longevity expectations.”The UK reduction of life expectancy is obviously a very real effect.A more relevant report by Sir Michael Marmot, the Director of UCL’s Institute of Health Equity -see Life expectancy rises 'grinding to halt' - paints a relevant and accurate picture. That source says that“Using data from the Office for National Statistics, Sir Michael's research, widely reported in the media, has shown that the rate of increase in life expectancy has dropped by almost 50% since 2010. Between 2000 and 2015, life expectancy at birth increased by one year every five years for women and by one year every 3.5 years for men. Post-2010, however, life expectancy for women has only increased by one year every 10 years, with men's life expectancy increasing by one year every six years.Sir Michael says this shows that life expectancy growth is "pretty close to having ground to a halt", which is "historically highly unusual" given the increases seen over the past century. "I am deeply concerned with the levelling off, I expected it to keep getting better," the Epidemiology and Public Health Professor commented, noting that although conclusions about the lack of increase are not readily apparent, it is "entirely possible" austerity has had an impact.” The issue of geographical inequality is highlighted:“InequalityThe 2017 Marmot Indicators clearly show that inequalities in life expectancy between and within local authorities have persisted. Life expectancy for men varied from 74 in Blackpool to 83 in Kensington and Chelsea - a nine-year gap. Among women it varied from 79 in Manchester to 86 in Kensington and Chelsea - a seven-year gap.Within local authorities there was considerable variation in the inequality gradient in life expectancy between small areas based on level of deprivation. For men, in Barking and Dagenham these inequalities were equivalent to a two and a half year gap while in Stockton on Tees and Kensington and Chelsea the figures exceeded 16 years.” Education is also a significant factor in life expectancy. And the conclusion of Sir Michael’s summary report is:“Standards of LivingThe Marmot Indicators suggest that the UK is falling behind other G20 countries, and that despite reductions in unemployment, there have been significant increases in the numbers of people who do not have sufficient income to live an acceptable standard of living since the Marmot Review of 2010.The Marmot Indicators illustrate that across all regions the numbers not having enough money have increased. In London, the West Midlands, the North East, North West and Merseyside, and Yorkshire and Humberside, 3 out of 10 individuals live in households with insufficient income to meet a healthy standard of living.Having sufficient income is important for physical and mental health, children's wellbeing and development, and to enable people to afford or be in the mind set to prioritise a healthy lifestyle.”Clearly it is not just the NHS which is not safe in Conservative hands but the living standards of the whole economy are at risk and the lack of sufficient money to pay for a healthy standard of living is a major reason for the observed reductions in life expectancy.4 ObservationsIf you really know the hidden history of the United Kingdom, the current and recent actions of politicians become almost hilarious. For exampleex-Prime Minister John Major [who was only elected due to the removal of millions of voters because of the Poll Tax, which was devised by the now-Sir Oliver Letwin who might have been knighted for that service to the Conservative Party] is now objecting tothe suspension of Parliament by Boris Johnson (who is only in office because the BREXIT vote succeeded, and that happened because David Cameron disenfranchised millions of non-Conservative voters through the takeover of the Parliamentary Voters Rolls via the IER2013 Act -and these missing voters, as the opinion polls show, would have tipped the balance to produce a REMAIN vote) andBoris Johnson seems the epitome of Oswald Spengler vision of a “modern Caesar” with inadequate political or diplomatic skills as evidenced by his almost-immediate loss of control of Parliament and his absence of a realistic negotiating position with the EUAn election during October 2019 would have unpredictable results - the opinion polls cannot predict because far too many voters have been disenfranchised by the 2013 IER Act and the erratic behaviour of Conservative MPs must have loosened voter loyalty to that party.The BBC announcement that Nicaragua isn’t a democracy is little short of hilarious. The BBC has had over a hundred programmes discussing BREXIT and not one of these has mentioned the responsibility of the 2013IER Act in producing that undemocratic BREXIT result.5 Conclusions5.1 Britain is not now, and has not been since 1980, a democratic country. Ruled-by-the-rich economies not only become undemocratic but become low-growth and much less significant economies.5.2 The major reason why once-great mercantile economies such as the UK in 1890 and the USA after 1945 become low-growth economies is because the British Conservatives and the American Republicans not only rule in the interests of the rich but attack the living standards and social support systems of their working class. That phenomena explains the fall in the British and American economies during the 20th century and even now.5.3 Quite why the Conservatives and Republicans not only rule for the rich but also attack the incomes of the their working classes is a mystery to me, but the observation that they do so cannot be denied. Much of the origin of that policy may lie in the prejudices of rich businessmen who think their wealth could be increased by underpaying their workers.5.4 Britain’s nearly 800 banks supporting SME invention and innovation - its workshop of the world -has been mainly reduced to four London-based banks, none of which support SME invention and growth. British industry is minor except when foreign funded, and likely to be shut down where so funded.5.5 FDR’s great mercantile economy in 1945 has been reduced to a relatively minor low-investment low-growth manufacturing economy with disproportionate military clout.5.6 Even today, with more than century of British mercantile decline and with over 70 years of US mercantile decline, the major priority of national leaders is tax cuts for the rich. That’s what Trump’s tax cuts - 80% of which were paid to the richest 1% of families - are about. After a few days in office, Boris Johnson announced his intention to provide tax cuts for the rich. Neither policy has anything to do with increasing SME invention and innovation in the UK and USA, so both countries are losing their higher-development futures.This Answer may be too long to be popular on Quora.