The Politics Thread

[a1]

I'm sorry, so is Australia a totalitarian state or not? Or Argentina, Belgium, Greece, Italy or the other 27 countries that have it? Drop the platitudes, start the politics. Why would it make us a dictatorship to have it?

its not "free" .

i'll guess 5% of the votes in these places are random or extreme left / extreme right just as a "feck you" to whoever made them vote.

that dilutes the vote miles more than " dont vote coz i dont care / dont vote coz it dont matter / whatever other reasons people dont vote " coz it gives more 'proportian' to the people that change their minds all the time (even more than volantry voting systems do now). it distorts the vote.

theres probably more reasons why its "wack" . the main one is its not 'free'.

these places that have it might not be totalitarian (yet?) but it might be a slippy slope to someplace worse in the future.

plus i'm not sure it works (in countries like say- australia [and not say zimbabwe ] ) i think over a long time , its probably counter-productive...

say the left bring it in , you just end up with a right wing country

and vice vera.

give it enough time and you probably get this 'someplace worse in the future.'

it's a terrible idea.

[Lord Kangana]

You are compulsorarily required to attend a polling station on polling day. Its your democratic right to either spoil or not write on the ballot paper. How does that change the outcome, other than encouraging democracy(that'd be the idea that we all get an equal say in our country, rediculous and undesirable as that is).

[a1]

You are compulsorarily required to attend a polling station on polling day. Its your democratic right to either spoil or not write on the ballot paper. How does that change the outcome, other than encouraging democracy(that'd be the idea that we all get an equal say in our country, rediculous and undesirable as that is).

in these 'compulsary vote' countries/states, i would assume that spoiling your vote is illegal or something. coz in effect youre not voting.

i would assume further that if say there is a vote to go to war or something. when the MPs vote- theyd have to choose yes or no.

no matter what the vote is about:

go to war = yes or no

something to do with computers an 82 year old career politican thats only seen one twice has no idea about = yes or no . (this is how i suspect some DRM laws came about)

like i said , i think it knackers the 'voting system' somehow. but mostly its not free (if i thought about it enough i'd probably conclude somehow it works out worse than forcing people to sign up and fight wars [erm] conscription. (!?)

[Horza]

Nope, informal voting is not illegal in Aus. After getting marked off the roll you can walk out, donkey vote, slip in a blank ballot, write a libertarian manifesto decrying the brutality of the state coercing you to show up at a church or a school hall for a few seconds on a saturday morning every couple of years without fear of anyone noticing or caring.

[Lord Kangana]

You are compulsorarily required to attend a polling station on polling day. Its your democratic right to either spoil or not write on the ballot paper. How does that change the outcome, other than encouraging democracy(that'd be the idea that we all get an equal say in our country, rediculous and undesirable as that is).

in these 'compulsary vote' countries/states, i would assume that spoiling your vote is illegal or something. coz in effect youre not voting.

i would assume further that if say there is a vote to go to war or something. when the MPs vote- theyd have to choose yes or no.

no matter what the vote is about:

go to war = yes or no

something to do with computers an 82 year old career politican thats only seen one twice has no idea about = yes or no . (this is how i suspect some DRM laws came about)

like i said , i think it knackers the 'voting system' somehow. but mostly its not free (if i thought about it enough i'd probably conclude somehow it works out worse than forcing people to sign up and fight wars [erm] conscription. (!?)

This is about the most crackpot logic I've come across. "Say if there was a vote to go to war"?????? Have you noticed, we're in one?!? Did we get to vote on it?? How everyone having the ability to have a say whether we go or not is undemocratic is utterly absurd, and completely beyond me.

[Worthy4England]

This seems to be moving off at a bit of a tangent.

There's two separate issues.

1) Do you make the vote to elect the government mandatory.

2) Having elected a Government, do you then have referenda on certain issues.

My view on both is about the same.

On 1) No, I wouldn't make voting mandatory - it's not democratic in that inhibits an individual's right not to vote. The other thing is it encourages the completely inane to possibly put X's in boxes "for a laugh" which doesn't achieve anything for anyone. I would be tempted also to remove the vote from anyone who reads the Sun more than once a week - as they can't possibly hold an infirmed view on anything outside of the X Factor. .

On 2) having elected the Government in the first place, I think you have to stick with them (regardless of whether you voted for them or not). Once you head down the referenda route, it starts to become absurd. Most people I suspect wouldn't mind a referendum on "Should we go to war" but what about things that aren't quite so critical - "Should we ban smoking", "Should we raise taxes" etc. Thin end - thick wedge for me.

[Prufrock]

This seems to be moving off at a bit of a tangent.

There's two separate issues.

1) Do you make the vote to elect the government mandatory.

2) Having elected a Government, do you then have referenda on certain issues.

My view on both is about the same.

On 1) No, I wouldn't make voting mandatory - it's not democratic in that inhibits an individual's right not to vote. The other thing is it encourages the completely inane to possibly put X's in boxes "for a laugh" which doesn't achieve anything for anyone. I would be tempted also to remove the vote from anyone who reads the Sun more than once a week - as they can't possibly hold an infirmed view on anything outside of the X Factor. .

On 2) having elected the Government in the first place, I think you have to stick with them (regardless of whether you voted for them or not). Once you head down the referenda route, it starts to become absurd. Most people I suspect wouldn't mind a referendum on "Should we go to war" but what about things that aren't quite so critical - "Should we ban smoking", "Should we raise taxes" etc. Thin end - thick wedge for me.

But that is what a democracy is worthy, or at least the system we claim to have copied. The ancient greeks would be turning if they could see what we've done with democracy. Obviously on the face of it our system is more inclusive, but thats only because our societal norms are. The only question on referenda (referendums? im never quite sure whether we've given up on latinate plurals?) is practicality and security. In this day of the internet i cant see how it would be impossible.

As for the compulsory vote thing, I beleive it should be introduced, as in Australia, with the option of abstaining. When people talk of idiots putting crosses in random boxes, to me thats treating the symptoms, not the cause, EDUCATION EDUCATION EDUCATION.

[Lord Kangana]

W4E: I think most of the arguments against compulsory voting don't understand its non-compulsoryness (erm, spell check..). Your only obligation is to register to vote, and then appear at a polling station on election day. There is no-one forcing you to vote either way, and considering this lot polled less votes than Kinnocks losers in '92, surely democracy will wither on the vine if we don't do something pretty quick?

[Worthy4England]

Ok - First of all, it is currently illegal not to register to vote as far as I'm aware, so the only difference is, you make people cart their butts to the polling station so they can tell you they don't want to vote? Doesn't work for me, to the point of it being nonsensical. As for the education side - it's a non-starter. The Sun educates people that the Euro is silly because we wouldn't have coins with the Queen's head on, it's the widest circulation daily we have. The Sun isn't incorrect, the coins wouldn't have the Queens head on, informed debate though? Not really.

On the referenda issue, it's not the practicalities of it, which could probably be worked out over a number of communications channels securely - it's why you would do it and on what? The 2004 Legislation that prohibited the catching of yellow and red fish in between February and March every year really got my back-up - I want a referendum on it, can I? Will only cost a few million to set up and run to set up each go - and who decides on what to have Referenda on? House of Parliament? Wouldn't happen very often with a Governement with a majority and would probably happen to often with a Government with a slender majority.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Obsession with relative wealth/income etc. seems to me to be class jealousy most of the time.

That's a fairly simplistic view Mummy.

Here's another one: the ability to dismiss concerns over wealth inequality seems to me to be quite some privilege.

Ahhh, I didn't read DSB as calling you priviliged particularly, more that anyone who could dismiss the gap between "wealth" and "poverty" so easily probably hadn't experienced the latter - which doesn't necessarily make them a member of the former either...

Again, I wasn't even necessarily using 'privileged' in the loaded way that you suggest.

But who cares?

Sorry if it rattled you, Mummy; that wasn't my intention, and I strove to word it as personally inoffensively as possible - hence pre-loading it with "Here's another one" (ie simplistic view). I wasn't happy with the final word, which has more undertones than a Teenage Kicks convention, but I was running out of time and didn't want it gnawing at me all evening. Apologies again if that feeling was transferred to you.

For the record, Worthy's pretty close to capturing what I meant. There's a distinct echo of Weller's sighing lines in Man in the Corner Shop: "It must be nice to own a factory". I'm not attacking Mummy for his background (of which I know nothing) and I know not whether he tours the streets of Toxteth handing out food parcels; what I'm saying is that to be able to summarily dismiss the angst caused by poverty is nice work if you can get it. As, to some extent, is being able to sit on my fat ass in front of a new computer boffing on about it instead of doing a weekend job to supplement income. There's richer and poorer than all of us; I'm sure there were/are some characters at Cambridge to whom Mummy was infra dig and I feel sorry for you mate if so. It's all part of the same thing.

Oh, and one other thing: Given the things s/he's trying to say often seem interesting, does A1 come with subtitles?

[a1]

Oh, and one other thing: Given the things s/he's trying to say often seem interesting, does A1 come with subtitles?

i think compulsary voting is proper bad.

one - its not free (like free as in freedom) it should not be looked at like its a 'duty' . how it works now is OK .

two - it 'screws' the stats.

three- everyones alright.. this recent economic shizz comes and goes in waves, it'll sort.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Better, mate, and I've been on the ale...

I think you're right on the first two points and most of the last one. However, I doubt that "everyone's alright". There's a harsh economic climate a-comin'. Mrs Barnet's an MA in Economics and has been devouring information like a holidaying football fan scanning the back pages of papers left in airports. This shizz is going to affect a lot of people, friend, starting with the woman I spoke to on Friday who said she couldn't help me because "my entire team has just been laid off". She's English, though, so she apologised first.

[Little Green Man]

I think the problem is that the whole voting shizz needs sexing up. It would be a hell of a lot better if there could be a bit of entertainment while the count is going on, maybe with a couple of songs from Atomic Kitten, or some Irish dancing for those constituencies in the Province. They should get a celebrity to be the returning officer (back-lit with a few sweeping blue stagelights), although they might have to rejig the last bit of the announcement so they could include that enormously exciting ten second pause before announcing the winner.

Or maybe be they should replace the whole thing with a phone vote show called Man-Date, presented by that shrieking harridan Davina.

Any politicians out there that might want to help flesh out either of these ideas?

[Athers]

Definitely need to get that bloke who does the voiceovers for E4 and X-factor on board LGM.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

what I'm saying is that to be able to summarily dismiss the angst caused by poverty is nice work if you can get it.

Which is something I have never done.

I just don't equate poverty with income inequality.

Income can be equal, with a lot poverty, or very unequal, with none at all.

[lovethesmellofnapalm]

what I'm saying is that to be able to summarily dismiss the angst caused by poverty is nice work if you can get it.

Which is something I have never done.

I just don't equate poverty with income inequality.

Income can be equal, with a lot poverty, or very unequal, with none at all.

So you dismiss relative poverty as a concept then?

The most searing indictment of New Labour is that they have allowed and indeed endorsed the mendacity ,selfishness and greed of the Thatcher years.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

So you dismiss relative poverty as a concept then?

Correct.

[communistworkethic]

oh dear

and you also missed the point earlier that income can be unequal and there be lots of poverty - which is generally the case

Clearly you have been privileged young'un not to see anything like poverty so as to be quite so as dismissive of it, in spite of a denial.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Whether people can afford to eat properly, heat their homes etc....

Complete red herring to start comparing them to average incomes and the like.

What makes them impoverished is that they can't afford those things, not where they fit into the grand scheme of things.

[Lord Kangana]

So why can't they afford it then?