Election

Or look at it another way, if the results of the 2001 election are reversed, Con 41%, Lab 32%, Lib 18%, Other 9% the the tories would only have a majority of 12 as opposed to Labours 154 with the same results! Is that democracy?

 

It's a system both main parties are happy with, as it provides them wiith a duopoly of power. For voters, it has the benefits of simplicity, and the many and various types of PR on offer generate discussions of so much heat and so little light that they could slip effortlessly into a subjective vs objective hifi argy-bargy.

 

One of my Aussie work collegues told me a few years ago that it is compulsory to vote in Australia and that you can get a $100 if you don't. I don't know whether he was pulling my leg a little , however it seems like a good idea to me.

 

Just found this so i guess it must be true:
http://www.australianpolitics.com/voting/systems/compulsory.shtml

 

Agreed. I've never missed voting in a General Election to date (bar the second 1974 one when I was laid up with tonsilitis). If none of the cndidates on offer appeal, I simply scawl 'none of the above' on the ballot paper.

 

Of course the main parties are happy with it, why wouldn't they be. They'd probably be just as happy with Buggins turn and not have elections at all, but that wouldn't even have the veneer of democracy.

Voters aren't that daft and many of the PR schemes aren't that hard to grasp. Those who wish to endlessly debate the pros and cons of different schemes which admittedly can be confusing often have a vested interest in doing so ie. they don't want it to happen.

Ask a simple question - does the current system ensure that our representation in parliament accurately reflect the voting wishes of the population? Clearly the answer to that for the current system is a resounding No - it may or not be an accurate reflection, but it certainly doesn't ensure it.

Ask another question - would a system of proportional representation ensure that our representation in parliament accurately reflects the voting wishes of the population? The answer would be yes or at least a lot more so than the current system.

There has to be something inherently wrong with a system which could theoretically leave the party with the most votes, no seats at all (I know it doesn't happen but it is theoretically possible).

 

Oz also has a very low 'spoiled vote' turnout.

We should have a much more open debate on PR, like you say it doesn't suit the main two so its not going to happen. Interesting figures based on 2001's election result under a very simple PR system; (Working on 646 seats)

Labour - 265
Con - 206
Lib - 116
Other - 58

Not a clue how you would decide who gets who....

 

PR is irrelevant. If you were to embark on serious electoral reform, the first thing to look at would be implementing some form of "direct democracy" ie giving the electorate a direct say in the running of the state.
What we have now is famously a 5-year dictatorship. PR would simply make that a 5-year dictatorship by committee. Not an improvement.
No political party would accept direct democracy, of course, as it undermines their raison d'etre.
The other *really good* idea would be to make participation obligatory - not just at the time of voting, but in the decision making process.
I think the two are, in fact, linked. You can't really have a direct democracy unless the citizenry is directly involved in developing the agenda and implementing the laws.
Although we ahve the technology to do these things now, the ideas themselves are hardly new. They were doing all of of this in Athens 2.5 thousand years ago.

 

WHY don't we have a "None of the above" option!? Most of the cretins that come canvassing are IME people you'd NOT trust or HAVE any confidence in.

BTW - I agree with AmazingTrade re student debt/house prices, but both of these got me in the crap in 1996, before Labour, so BOTH parties are equally responsible.

Lessez faire is a very poor move when you have hundreds of thousands of people unable to realisticaly afford to get on the property ladder, all thanks to Buy-to-let/holiday home owning assholes...

 

Why are they assholes? A number have 2nd or holiday homes. Are they all assholes?

The problem is not enough houses have been built.This is a problem that has been going on for years. When mortgages became easier to get in the late 80s, the housing scramble started. Supply and demand has put up house prices. I remember the bidding wars when I bought my first house. This supply and demand has forced people out of the market. More houses need to be built. If there people prepared to pay the price they will get the house.

As for student debt. It is bad news but in a number of cases the debt could be lower if students didn't go crazy as often.

SCIDB

 

Of course, the downdside would be that if you limited students to, say, one night out per week, the economy of cities like Newcastle would collapse overnight!

 

Trouble is Dom a fair number of 'buy to letters' are using property as an alternative to pension funds and who can blame them when investment returns aren't great, annuity rates are poor and G Brown helps himself to a few billion out of the pot each year.

Things may get even worse in some respects when the new A Day pensions are launched next April because, from what I have read, it will be possible (for the first time) for pension funds to invest in residential properties (previously/currently only commercial properties were/are allowed). So inevitably you will get a number of people using their pension funds to buy property.

Matt.

 

I won't be voting. I'm too lazy, ignorant, cynical and selfish to give a shit.

 

An extremely sensible move IMO. I'm not counting on the various company pension schemes or my own private scheme to give me a comfortable retirement allthough they will provide a safety net. The real retirement income will come from property.

As long as people need places to live in property will have an intrinsic value and/or be able provide (rental) income and as such is IMO one of the best, if not the best, things you can invest your money in.

Michael.

 

Will the person who said they're going to vote for the BNP raise their claw and slither to the front, so I can throw stones at them. Thank you.

-- Ian

 

wasn't me, Ian.

I will probably vote lib dem, I liked labour at the beginning, but they became arrogant, and sided with george dubya, whom I have mixed views on.

As well as the disgusting repugnant marketing and spin designed to confuse obfuscate and miss the point, rhetoric instead of actions.

And filling an already bursting country with benefit scroungers, it will not do the country any good to be unable to cope with healthcare, roads, housing, jobs, though I do accept that some work migrants are needed and in general find many foreign people nicer and more polite than some english. Thats not racist, its pure common sense.

I don't like the legitimate waste of money and bloated targets/managers that have multiplied, but they have done some good.

blair is now a lame duck grinning idiot liability who is passed sell by date.

tories making all the right noises about real issues, BUT is it just talk again?

I suppose they are all a mix of good and bad. swings and roundabouts.

Abolish the lot I say and replace with administrators who do the people's bidding.

People are inherently greedy bastards, and should be restricted to owning one house. That's the housing problem, not numbers. I hope the housing market will collapse and sting them as widely touted.

 

The person who did poll for the BNP probably doesnt realise that these forum polls are not anonymous and the mods/admins can see who voted.

Shall we have poll to vote for whether the BNP voter should be outed

 

btw, it may be worth having a punt on the lib dems if this poll is anything to go by. The bookies have them at 150-1 to win at the moment!

 

Not worth it Robbo, I think we at ZG are rather more liberal lot than Joe Public.

 

And, if we wish to poison a candidate's chances, we administer the necessary antivote.