snap general election?

ugo.santalucia

I don't understand why we are discussing the post Corbyn when labour is closing in the gap fast.

I think he is an inspirational figure, he stands for values we should all share: equality, education, fairness, peace, as opposed to the dull leader of the tories that depicts a future in vague shades of grey

slowbike

Hmm - perhaps this is a Hot Potato General election ...

They all want to make it look like they're trying to win, but drop enough clangers to make the marginal voters doubt them - thus reducing the possibility of winning ...

Then they can blame the outcome of Brexit on the winning party ...

I, like many, live in a tory safe seat area ... I should vote - but you wonder what's the point - and even if I did - the two main parties both having glaring great big holes in their plans - I'm not sure I'd trust either party leader to look after my Stand Pump safely, let alone any of my bicycles - so why should I trust them with the country ?!
Perhaps I should vote for "None of the above because their leader doesn't know what they're doing" ....

ugo.santalucia

Slowbike wrote:

Hmm - perhaps this is a Hot Potato General election ...

They all want to make it look like they're trying to win, but drop enough clangers to make the marginal voters doubt them - thus reducing the possibility of winning ...

Then they can blame the outcome of Brexit on the winning party ...

I, like many, live in a tory safe seat area ... I should vote - but you wonder what's the point - and even if I did - the two main parties both having glaring great big holes in their plans - I'm not sure I'd trust either party leader to look after my Stand Pump safely, let alone any of my bicycles - so why should I trust them with the country ?!
Perhaps I should vote for "None of the above because their leader doesn't know what they're doing" ....

Vote is a moral duty... see it this way: if the Nazi invaded Britain, most likely you wouldn't be able to vote, other than that things might not be so dissimilar... so basically a few million folks died so that me and you can live in a democracy.

What you vote is irrelevant, vote nothing if you don't believe any of them, draw a big penis on the ballot if you like, but vote out of respect for democracy

veronese68

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Vote is a moral duty...

I agree. Someone told Goo that spoiling his ballot was a waste of time. He said, and I agree with him, that it is a protest showing he doesn't believe anyone is deserving of his vote. If everybody that thought this way spoiled a ballot maybe the parties would change.
I always vote, my mother drummed into me from an early age that it is our duty to vote. How many people have died fighting for the right to vote and people can't be bothered? My son will be voting for the first time, a lot of his friends will be too. At least they feel strongly enough to go and vote. I've been telling them to get the rest of their friends to do so as well. The more young people vote the more parties will pay attention to them and not just the elderly. It's their future, they should care enough to vote.

rick_chasey

Even if no-one died for you to vote, a democracy only works if it's representative.

If everyone followed the same logic, it'd all fall apart.

Rather like not littering or paying your taxes, voting is important, and easy, part of being a responsible citizen.

FocusZing

Veronese68 wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Vote is a moral duty...

I agree. Someone told Goo that spoiling his ballot was a waste of time. He said, and I agree with him, that it is a protest showing he doesn't believe anyone is deserving of his vote. If everybody that thought this way spoiled a ballot maybe the parties would change.
I always vote, my mother drummed into me from an early age that it is our duty to vote. How many people have died fighting for the right to vote and people can't be bothered? My son will be voting for the first time, a lot of his friends will be too. At least they feel strongly enough to go and vote. I've been telling them to get the rest of their friends to do so as well. The more young people vote the more parties will pay attention to them and not just the elderly. It's their future, they should care enough to vote.

I did. My point was the lack of counted votes would show the level of apathy.

It's a shame ballot papers can't also contain the reasons for voting, perhaps when it inevitably all goes digital.

meanredspider

I see this voting thing a bit differently. I don't think my grandfathers both fought in WW1 & 2 in order for me to vote. They fought for my freedom. Part of that freedom is not to vote. Can someone show me what the difference is in those countries where voting in mandated in law? By not voting, you're saying I have no strong opinion on the options before me. Drawing a penis on the ballot paper doesn't help. In fact, turnout (or "voter apathy") is a good measure for the politicians as to how they are engaging the electorate.

I should add that I do mostly vote in national elections and referenda. But, like this one where my postal vote is in Wilts and I'm in Cambs, I won't get bent out of shape. My choice is between Lib Dems and SNP for the Westminster parliament for a Scottish Highlands constituency.

rick_chasey

meanredspider wrote:

I see this voting thing a bit differently. I don't think my grandfathers both fought in WW1 & 2 in order for me to vote. They fought for my freedom. Part of that freedom is not to vote. Can someone show me what the difference is in those countries where voting in mandated in law? By not voting, you're saying I have no strong opinion on the options before me. Drawing a penis on the ballot paper doesn't help. In fact, turnout (or "voter apathy") is a good measure for the politicians as to how they are engaging the electorate.

I should add that I do mostly vote in national elections and referenda. But, like this one where my postal vote is in Wilts and I'm in Cambs, I won't get bent out of shape. My choice is between Lib Dems and SNP for the Westminster parliament for a Scottish Highlands constituency.

It's more about the sustainability of democracy.

If you believe in the broader democracy, choosing to not participate undermines it.

Taken to extremes, if only one person votes....

meanredspider

Rick Chasey wrote:

It's more about the sustainability of democracy.

If you believe in the broader democracy, choosing to not participate undermines it.

Taken to extremes, if only one person votes....

Undermines it how?

And, if only one person votes, then democracy has failed and it deserves to be replaced.

veronese68

FocusZing wrote:

I did. My point was the lack of counted votes would show the level of apathy.

But apathy just means political parties won't bother trying to appease that group. The tories didn't do anything to encourage young people to register as they are unlikely to vote tory. If loads of young people went out and drew penises on their ballot papers the tories might try to have some policies to appease them. As it is they just ignore them.
Voting should not be mandatory, but as Rick says a good citizen will go out and vote.

meanredspider

Veronese68 wrote:

If loads of young people went out and drew penises on their ballot papers the tories might try to have some policies to appease them.

I just don't get why they would do anything different.

meanredspider

I'm beginning to wonder if we aren't moving towards some sort of post-democratic era. Brexit and the US elections have just highlighted to me that there are people that vote that simply don't understand the issues at stake (not because of the outcomes, BTW) and that social media is able to manipulate the voting population (though, I suppose, it was no different than the press - although, at least with the press, you could trace the manipulation).

To my mind, there's no reason why we couldn't implement a more sophisticated method of policy decision making in the future - maybe where you even need to demonstrate that you are "competent" enough to be involved in the decision. "Competence" isn't the same as intelligence but might just be based upon life experiences or some other measure.

veronese68

meanredspider wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

If loads of young people went out and drew penises on their ballot papers the tories might try to have some policies to appease them.

I just don't get why they would do anything different.

If they show they are engaged enough to go out to the polling station they would see some value in attracting them to put an X in their box rather than just ignoring the apathetic. The vast majority of old people go out to vote, so the parties try to appeal to them.
Perhaps too idealistic on my part.
My daughter (15) had an interesting conversation with her godfather the other day. She told him that her and her friends were desperate to vote because the older generation were screwing things up as far as they could see, so it will be up to them to bring about change. Unfortunately I think the likes of them are a minority. Rick will be pleased to know as a result of that conversation he has since joined the Lib Dems.

meanredspider

Veronese68 wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

If loads of young people went out and drew penises on their ballot papers the tories might try to have some policies to appease them.

I just don't get why they would do anything different.

If they show they are engaged enough to go out to the polling station they would see some value in attracting them to put an X in their box rather than just ignoring the apathetic. The vast majority of old people go out to vote, so the parties try to appeal to them.
Perhaps too idealistic on my part.

I'm afraid so. I think the conversation in Tory HQ would go something like this:
"Ha, got off their butts to vote and they'd still rather draw a penis than vote Corbyn..."

fenix

meanredspider wrote:

I'm beginning to wonder if we aren't moving towards some sort of post-democratic era. Brexit and the US elections have just highlighted to me that there are people that vote that simply don't understand the issues at stake (not because of the outcomes, BTW) and that social media is able to manipulate the voting population (though, I suppose, it was no different than the press - although, at least with the press, you could trace the manipulation).

To my mind, there's no reason why we couldn't implement a more sophisticated method of policy decision making in the future - maybe where you even need to demonstrate that you are "competent" enough to be involved in the decision. "Competence" isn't the same as intelligence but might just be based upon life experiences or some other measure.

I think humans have evolved so far that Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection is no longer working.
People whose stupid genes would have died out due to being too stupid to know not to drink petrol or shove fireworks up their bum can be fixed thanks to modern healthcare.

We are getting stupider as a race. There's no other way to explain Trump and Brexit.

rick_chasey

meanredspider wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

It's more about the sustainability of democracy.

If you believe in the broader democracy, choosing to not participate undermines it.

Taken to extremes, if only one person votes....

Undermines it how?

And, if only one person votes, then democracy has failed and it deserves to be replaced.

Well, that's what happened in Italy in the '20s, and it didn't end up all OK for them.

Arguably, a similar thing happened to the Weimar Republic.

If politicians know you're not gonna vote, they don't canvass your needs.

If politicians know more or less everyone will vote, they'll be more attuned to what everyone wants.

meanredspider

Rick Chasey wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

It's more about the sustainability of democracy.

If you believe in the broader democracy, choosing to not participate undermines it.

Taken to extremes, if only one person votes....

Undermines it how?

And, if only one person votes, then democracy has failed and it deserves to be replaced.

Well, that's what happened in Italy in the '20s, and it didn't end up all OK for them.

Arguably, a similar thing happened to the Weimar Republic.

If politicians know you're not gonna vote, they don't canvass your needs.

If politicians know more or less everyone will vote, they'll be more attuned to what everyone wants.

Interestingly, I think the Tories are most concerned that people won't bother voting and are working hard as a result.

I think those examples are good reasons why democracy isn't always a good thing

“The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."

bompington

meanredspider wrote:

I think those examples are good reasons why democracy isn't always a good thing

Can't remember where it comes from - I think it's one of the quotes that is always incorrectly attributed to Churchill - but it goes something like "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried from time to time"

We all get hacked off with democracy from time to time, but you've got to come up with something better... which usually settles into either benevolent dictatorship or a committee of experts.
Both fall foul of human nature pretty quickly.

meanredspider

bompington wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

I think those examples are good reasons why democracy isn't always a good thing

Can't remember where it comes from - I think it's one of the quotes that is always incorrectly attributed to Churchill - but it goes something like "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried from time to time"

We all get hacked off with democracy from time to time, but you've got to come up with something better... which usually settles into either benevolent dictatorship or a committee of experts.
Both fall foul of human nature pretty quickly.

Democracy only works if people feel that there's something to properly engage with. I agree that it's hard to see an altogether different process but apathy shows that there's no longer big issues at stake. Maybe a lighter touch is required so that we don't keep changing things for change's sake but make smaller policy corrections that don't grab headlines (and therefore disinterest politicians) - possibly led by technocrats.

surrey_commuter

we don't need an alternative to democracy we need a different electoral system that represents the votes of the people.

I get all the arguments for voting but in my constituency the winner got 33,000 votes and had a majority of 25,000. There really is no point in me voting. Even in a previous constituency when Ed Davey won by 54 (?) votes it would have been pointless me voting. The only time I have voted (since I was 18) was in referenda in which I have a 100% losing record. My only hope for electoral reform is for the turnout to become farcical.

Pross

You would have thought that after all the ridicule Abbot got that Corbyn would have had his facts and figures to hand before being interviewed after announcing a new policy that would inevitably raise a question of cost. I have a bit of sympathy for the amount of information politicians need to be able to retain and cite and realise they'll get them wrong but when you've just announced the policy surely you'll expect a grilling on it? Even if you forget, the best response is probably to say 'I'm sorry, I've got a lot of policies to remember and the figure has temporarily deserted me'?

rjsterry

Pross wrote:

You would have thought that after all the ridicule Abbot got that Corbyn would have had his facts and figures to hand before being interviewed after announcing a new policy that would inevitably raise a question of cost. I have a bit of sympathy for the amount of information politicians need to be able to retain and cite and realise they'll get them wrong but when you've just announced the policy surely you'll expect a grilling on it? Even if you forget, the best response is probably to say 'I'm sorry, I've got a lot of policies to remember and the figure has temporarily deserted me'?

Or just write them on a piece of paper. You could even have it printed on card with a nice big logo on the back.

@SC: In principle I think PR has a big advantage in 'collecting' up all the supporters of a party that don't happen to conveniently live in a neat correlation with constituency boundaries. The significant downside is that it breaks that link between an MP and their constituency. It's rather counter to the May vs. Corbyn, which-team-do-you-support thrust of UK politics, but I think that direct link to Parliament is important. Mind you, I appreciate that I am lucky to have an MP who I see around the village and has a very prominent office. I know that's not necessarily the same for everyone, particularly in safe seats.

bendertherobot

Pross wrote:

You would have thought that after all the ridicule Abbot got that Corbyn would have had his facts and figures to hand before being interviewed after announcing a new policy that would inevitably raise a question of cost. I have a bit of sympathy for the amount of information politicians need to be able to retain and cite and realise they'll get them wrong but when you've just announced the policy surely you'll expect a grilling on it? Even if you forget, the best response is probably to say 'I'm sorry, I've got a lot of policies to remember and the figure has temporarily deserted me'?

It's poor not to have a piece of paper rather than an iPad. The BBC reckon this is worse than Abbott. I can't agree. But I do wonder how this makes its way briefly to top story when the 7p breakfast thing doesn't.

mamba80

bendertherobot wrote:

Pross wrote:

You would have thought that after all the ridicule Abbot got that Corbyn would have had his facts and figures to hand before being interviewed after announcing a new policy that would inevitably raise a question of cost. I have a bit of sympathy for the amount of information politicians need to be able to retain and cite and realise they'll get them wrong but when you've just announced the policy surely you'll expect a grilling on it? Even if you forget, the best response is probably to say 'I'm sorry, I've got a lot of policies to remember and the figure has temporarily deserted me'?

It's poor not to have a piece of paper rather than an iPad. The BBC reckon this is worse than Abbott. I can't agree. But I do wonder how this makes its way briefly to top story when the 7p breakfast thing doesn't.

...or Hammond getting the costs of HS2 sooo very wrong, ffs he is the chancellor and this is one of the biggest bits of spending we are embarking on.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 42006.html

Never heard of it at the time but the moment Labour fcuk up, its everywhere.

DeVlaeminck

meanredspider wrote:

bompington wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

I think those examples are good reasons why democracy isn't always a good thing

Can't remember where it comes from - I think it's one of the quotes that is always incorrectly attributed to Churchill - but it goes something like "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried from time to time"

We all get hacked off with democracy from time to time, but you've got to come up with something better... which usually settles into either benevolent dictatorship or a committee of experts.
Both fall foul of human nature pretty quickly.

Democracy only works if people feel that there's something to properly engage with. I agree that it's hard to see an altogether different process but apathy shows that there's no longer big issues at stake. Maybe a lighter touch is required so that we don't keep changing things for change's sake but make smaller policy corrections that don't grab headlines (and therefore disinterest politicians) - possibly led by technocrats.

Democracy requires more than just the opportunity to put a cross in a box. It requires a free press, an educated or at least informed and engaged public and so on. The problem isn't democracy it's that we have drifted towards less democracy. What we need isn't technocracy it's a more democratic state.

norvernrob

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

Hmm - perhaps this is a Hot Potato General election ...

They all want to make it look like they're trying to win, but drop enough clangers to make the marginal voters doubt them - thus reducing the possibility of winning ...

Then they can blame the outcome of Brexit on the winning party ...

I, like many, live in a tory safe seat area ... I should vote - but you wonder what's the point - and even if I did - the two main parties both having glaring great big holes in their plans - I'm not sure I'd trust either party leader to look after my Stand Pump safely, let alone any of my bicycles - so why should I trust them with the country ?!
Perhaps I should vote for "None of the above because their leader doesn't know what they're doing" ....

Vote is a moral duty... see it this way: if the Nazi invaded Britain, most likely you wouldn't be able to vote, other than that things might not be so dissimilar... so basically a few million folks died so that me and you can live in a democracy.

What you vote is irrelevant, vote nothing if you don't believe any of them, draw a big penis on the ballot if you like, but vote out of respect for democracy

Absolutely. My original thought was to spoil my paper, because I couldn't bring myself to vote for any of them. The more I see of Corbyn and his ideals though, the more I'm swinging to vote Labour.

I'm under no illusions that the whole thing could be funded in the way the manifesto sets out, because it can't. rich people will always find a way to hang onto more of their money, and some companies will go elsewhere. But, if Corbyn could deliver even a third of what he's aiming for, the country would be a better place to live. If I had to pay more tax down the line to fund it then I'd be more than willing - the Tories are going to raise tax and NI anyway.

The Tories on the other hand have pledged what? They won't even put figures on anything until after the election, the deficit is now at least 8 years away from being balanced and immigration 'in the 10's of thousands' is a promise they can't possibly deliver - this is the 3rd time they've promised it! At least Corbyn is honest about it instead of saying what people want to hear just to win votes.

'No deal is better for Britain than a poor deal' - who's she trying to kid, we all know there has to be a deal done.

meanredspider

DeVlaeminck wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

bompington wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

I think those examples are good reasons why democracy isn't always a good thing

Can't remember where it comes from - I think it's one of the quotes that is always incorrectly attributed to Churchill - but it goes something like "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried from time to time"

We all get hacked off with democracy from time to time, but you've got to come up with something better... which usually settles into either benevolent dictatorship or a committee of experts.
Both fall foul of human nature pretty quickly.

Democracy only works if people feel that there's something to properly engage with. I agree that it's hard to see an altogether different process but apathy shows that there's no longer big issues at stake. Maybe a lighter touch is required so that we don't keep changing things for change's sake but make smaller policy corrections that don't grab headlines (and therefore disinterest politicians) - possibly led by technocrats.

Democracy requires more than just the opportunity to put a cross in a box. It requires a free press, an educated or at least informed and engaged public and so on. The problem isn't democracy it's that we have drifted towards less democracy. What we need isn't technocracy it's a more democratic state.

But why have we drifted that way? Could it be that democracy isn't working that well in a modern setting? And I'm not sure about "less democracy" - there have been two significant referenda in the last 3 years, for instance. The problem might be the public and I'm not sure that there's ever been a time when they were more educated and there's no excuse not to be informed. Engaged? That's another story.

mamba80

meanredspider wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

bompington wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

I think those examples are good reasons why democracy isn't always a good thing

Can't remember where it comes from - I think it's one of the quotes that is always incorrectly attributed to Churchill - but it goes something like "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried from time to time"

We all get hacked off with democracy from time to time, but you've got to come up with something better... which usually settles into either benevolent dictatorship or a committee of experts.
Both fall foul of human nature pretty quickly.

Democracy only works if people feel that there's something to properly engage with. I agree that it's hard to see an altogether different process but apathy shows that there's no longer big issues at stake. Maybe a lighter touch is required so that we don't keep changing things for change's sake but make smaller policy corrections that don't grab headlines (and therefore disinterest politicians) - possibly led by technocrats.

Democracy requires more than just the opportunity to put a cross in a box. It requires a free press, an educated or at least informed and engaged public and so on. The problem isn't democracy it's that we have drifted towards less democracy. What we need isn't technocracy it's a more democratic state.

But why have we drifted that way? Could it be that democracy isn't working that well in a modern setting? And I'm not sure about "less democracy" - there have been two significant referenda in the last 3 years, for instance. The problem might be the public and I'm not sure that there's ever been a time when they were more educated and there's no excuse not to be informed. Engaged? That's another story.

Rather than blame the voters, perhaps we should look at our yah boo politicians, lying, expenses and broken promises... its hardly surprising they are held in such low esteem.
the 2 referendum you mention? in both cases, the electorate was lied to and post vote we can all see it but nothing is done, its condoned.

surrey_commuter

NorvernRob wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

Hmm - perhaps this is a Hot Potato General election ...

They all want to make it look like they're trying to win, but drop enough clangers to make the marginal voters doubt them - thus reducing the possibility of winning ...

Then they can blame the outcome of Brexit on the winning party ...

I, like many, live in a tory safe seat area ... I should vote - but you wonder what's the point - and even if I did - the two main parties both having glaring great big holes in their plans - I'm not sure I'd trust either party leader to look after my Stand Pump safely, let alone any of my bicycles - so why should I trust them with the country ?!
Perhaps I should vote for "None of the above because their leader doesn't know what they're doing" ....

Vote is a moral duty... see it this way: if the Nazi invaded Britain, most likely you wouldn't be able to vote, other than that things might not be so dissimilar... so basically a few million folks died so that me and you can live in a democracy.

What you vote is irrelevant, vote nothing if you don't believe any of them, draw a big penis on the ballot if you like, but vote out of respect for democracy

Absolutely. My original thought was to spoil my paper, because I couldn't bring myself to vote for any of them. The more I see of Corbyn and his ideals though, the more I'm swinging to vote Labour.

I'm under no illusions that the whole thing could be funded in the way the manifesto sets out, because it can't. rich people will always find a way to hang onto more of their money, and some companies will go elsewhere. But, if Corbyn could deliver even a third of what he's aiming for, the country would be a better place to live. If I had to pay more tax down the line to fund it then I'd be more than willing - the Tories are going to raise tax and NI anyway.

The Tories on the other hand have pledged what? They won't even put figures on anything until after the election, the deficit is now at least 8 years away from being balanced and immigration 'in the 10's of thousands' is a promise they can't possibly deliver - this is the 3rd time they've promised it! At least Corbyn is honest about it instead of saying what people want to hear just to win votes.

'No deal is better for Britain than a poor deal' - who's she trying to kid, we all know there has to be a deal done.

They do seem to cut and paste the deficit reduction and immigration promises from the last manifesto.

The Standard (Osborne knowing where the bodies are buried) asked each member of the cabinet which industries they thought should have immigration quotas. Not one of them replied. Does that mean they have no plan or too embarrassed to share it.

meanredspider

mamba80 wrote:

Rather than blame the voters, perhaps we should look at our yah boo politicians, lying, expenses and broken promises... its hardly surprising they are held in such low esteem.
the 2 referendum you mention? in both cases, the electorate was lied to and post vote we can all see it but nothing is done, its condoned.

We're the people who voted them in! And we're the voters that bought the lies! And we should blame the politicians? Too funny. Democracy - we get precisely what we deserve.