And I was pointing out that if 90% voted this time much the same as last time, theres not much hating going on, if any. You are presuming people changed heir vote out of hate without any evidence.
OK, then let's substitute 'hate' for dissatisfaction, general dislike ... vague antipathy ... whatever since you seem entirely too focussed on that one word.
I doubt anyone has judged who to vote for on the basis of how they intend to make 100 billion in cuts, because none has said a word about it. im not a half wit, have spent hours reading about this and Im not sure whether we face a disaster or not. Its very unclear. Anyone who has only listened to the debate highlights may have seen politicians queried about this, and every time they say we will make some efficiency savings and it will be fine. They all say this, none argue. They have all put forward their view that this isnt an issue.
You almost entirely missed my point, I'm not saying there's an imminent disaster, or indeed that there isn't - but I do believe action, and real action at that is needed to help ensure the latter outcome. I didn't say you were a half wit. It was a genralised observation.
I'm not so much of a 'panic merchant/multiple convoluted scenario merchant' as Jason, for example - but then I'm sure much of what he writes is as much regurgitated hand Tory rhetoric/blame Labour and the EU (the new evil empire,
please!) for everything as it is a genuine belief.
...So 3 million voted to engineer a hung parliament. Worked quite well.
If you say so ...
Thats true. But nowadays people are more interested and more rebellious. So once they would have voted lab or con depending if they were dustmen or lords.Now hardly anyone is either and it is blatantly obvious they are not being represented. A bunch of professional politicians has totally run away with the ball and we want it back. Carry on that way and suddenly you get abreakthrough of 200 BNP when they get to the critical mass.
More rebellious, probably - more interested, I'm not so sure. Certainly turnout was higher this election than for a while.
The reasons for this are undoubtably varied but I rather doubt a sudden surge of 'interest' in the political process and a fervent desire for democracy is a major one. Voter apathy is endemic, has been for years. I think simple frustration is nearer the mark. Also, this time there was an opportunity for clear and visible payback.
well since you ask, a years delay is sufficiently long to be annoying, and then very annoying if every bill keeps being rejected by the lords. Whats more, if the lords was clearly representative and keeps disagreeing with the commons, people will start to notice that their will is being blatantly flouted by the commons. Then come next election... The accusation levelled against the lords evry single time it challenges the commons is that it is undemocratic and should stop interfering. Being elected proportionately it would truly represent the conscience of the nation nagging at the government.
I'm not convinced that a politicised Lords (by which I mean politicised in the
popularly elected sense) is
by definition a step toward being
better. The Lords fulfils a purpose and I think that it should have far sharper teeth, only then would I entertain the notion that a fully elected house could realise any potential benefits of increased democratisation.
There is absolutley no justification for any kind of elected government in a democracy which isnt democratic. What did you say was the justification for the commons? That it gives a clear result? Why is this good?
I agree, but then I made no such assertion. A clear result is an outcome, I do think that's better than a blurred one. That doesn't mean the result itself, or the process by which is it acheived are
necessarily so.
You're putting words in my mouth - and that's
my birthright.
Goodness! Theres hardly a politician on the telly just now who isnt arguing that because they got 1% more than the other chap then the united will of the people means they must have their way. It seems to be news to them: someone needs to explain it to them quite pointedly.
That's TV, don't be disengenuous.
But if you reckon the population doesnt want any of the fring parties and I reckon they do, then give me single transferrable vote and we will see. If your right nothing will change. If im right, we will get a lot more libs and greens
Again, I
didn't say that people didn't want fringe parties. I said that they would always exist - and that the relative importance issues/policies whatever they espouse may wax and wane, disappear or become mainstream.
I have no idea where you're getting some of your observations, perhaps you could actually go back and read what I wrote instead replying to what you'd like me to have written. Otherwise, it makes any rational discussion almost impossible.
When was the electorate ever asked to vote on an issue? er? staying in the EU about 1975? Never since?
Whoosh ...
What do you mean? At present to get into power you have to have the support of 40% of the population. Thats not very granular. To get an MP you probably need about 40% in any one constituency. Now, on PR you might need 1/650 of the total votes cast nationally to get 1MP, maybe 100 votes per constituency. The alternative under the present system is for the 60,000 trainspotters all round the country to all move to Crew, put up someone for parliament and vote for him. That would work, but is it fair to require them to do this?
I see what Jason means, you're making almost no sense.
Im an informed chap, but whats the point of voting for who i want. They cant win....Why would a sensible person waste their time going to vote when they know it will have no effect? You presume people dont care, rather than they have made a sensible decison it is a waste of time.
If that's the case it's primarily because people
make it so. Assuming a candidate stood in each seat, if 80% of people who cast a vote did so for for the Monster raving looney party then that party
would form the next government.
If people vote for who they want, instead of out of some sense of resigned fatalism that to do so is futile (or, because they're too spineless to own their choices should it come to pass) do you really believe it
wouldn't make a difference?
If not then your statement makes little sense, or one must conclude that voters did in fact vote for who they wanted. If they didn't, they'll simply get what they deserve.
Personally, I think it's largely that too many fell into the traditional trap of believing a vote for any other than the red or blue team was a vote wasted. That's as sad an indictment of contemporary politics as it is of the victorian electoral system that perpetuates it.
On that, I think we might agree but even the current system does allow for real choice, and real substantive change - but people seem unwilling to act to bring it about. The reasons are myriad, but nonetheless the mechanism does exist.
Thats true, but since it would have to be accompanied by a rule that if you get 6% you get 6% of members, it would be much more fair than now. Were you seriously suggesting that because plaid cymru got 0.6% of the vote their three members should be barred from parliament?
Votes need to be considered in context. Regional votes such as that are hardly the same in nature or weight as the 'Land is power' party. You chose a rather poor example.
No I wasn't suggesting that such a narrow view be taken, I was illustrating my argument that parties that garner 100 votes out of 50,000 in a general election seat are preety much 'background noise', generally underserving of formal representation - at least not beyond the parish hall.
Of course these candidates know this, but surely some threshold is needed otherwise Parliament would need to increase in size by an order of magnitude.
Yes. Why do you presume people are incapable of making an informed choice between more than 2 parties? The actual attempts by any party to explain themselves to voters are truly pathetic...because under our system it doesnt matter.
I said no such thing. I said
true democracy requires active (and informed) participation and that I see precious little evidence that such a requirement would be met by sufficient people to render it viable.
I don't presume, it's based on experience and not just in the UK - much of the rest of this forum should provide some empirical evidence of that. :smile:
A great many people tend to live by the headlines and the soundbites, and even worse take them as gospel. Not all, of course but enough to ensure that the political status quo is maintained.
Meanwhile editorial colums meet (vicariously) their desire to while about the greed and incompetence of the very people they elect and a backdrop of red top headlines fill much of the rest of the gap between peoples aspirations and they desire to take action to realise them by appealing to the lowest common denominatator.
Yes, that's a somewhat cynical view. Do you have credible evidence to the contrary?