Has anyone been following The "Today" programme on BBC Radio 4 which has been running an interesting "Peoples Law" item.

Basically the BBC invited listeners to send in laws that they thought would improve life in the UK.

They shortlisted 5 laws and invited people to vote online or by phone/Fax.

Labour MP Stephen Pound agreed that he would advise and facilitate the winning law through Parliament, possibly by Private Members Bill.

The winning Bill was announced this morning, it came as a surprise only to the BBC and Pound, what the result woud be.

Stephen Pound Labour MP live on Radio went into petulent mode calling the voters unpleasant names and ranting on about laws "slaughtering 16 year olds". It appeared as though he had assumed that the second place Organ Transplant Law would win.

Pound gave the impression he has no intention of "facilitating" the winning Bill, as it seems to contradict his PC views, even though it clearly is the will of the people.

Pound is now taking quite a bit of stick about his reaction.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/reports/misc/law_result_20040101.shtml

Originally posted by Lickszz
The winning Bill was announced this morning, it came as a surprise only to the BBC and Pound, what the result woud be.

Actually, it came as a suprise to me too. I thought it was a bit of a shame that the listeners voted for something that has absolutley no chance of being made law. As much as I hate agreeing with John Prescott, he was right in saying on the programme this morning that there is no way that parliament will legislate for the killing of people and nor should it. It's not about being PC, the whole "killing people is bad" thing has been around for a while and is a concept I'd personally like to keep.

Originally posted by chill
Actually, it came as a suprise to me too. I thought it was a bit of a shame that the listeners voted for something that has absolutley no chance of being made law. As much as I hate agreeing with John Prescott, he was right in saying on the programme this morning that there is no way that parliament will legislate for the killing of people and nor should it. It's not about being PC, the whole "killing people is bad" thing has been around for a while and is a concept I'd personally like to keep.

So, why did the law make the shortlist if it was not feasible and why did Pound agree to put the winning law forward. He doesn't personally agree with it and now he is trying to backtrack. Whether he agrees with it or not is not the issue.

Originally posted by Lickszz
So, why did the law make the shortlist if it was not feasible and why did Pound agree to put the winning law forward. He doesn't personally agree with it and now he is trying to backtrack. Whether he agrees with it or not is not the issue.

Beats me. In fact, as far as I can tell, out of the 5, only 2 really would stand a chance in parliament (the smoking one and the organ one). I'd personally like to see Prime Ministers limited to 2 terms but that law also talked about making voting compulsary which I don't agree with.

Compulsary voting has to be good, but with it you need total electoral reform including PR, limited terms of office and referenda on (effective) constitutional change. An "abstention" box on the voting slip would be good too!

Why on earth should it be compulsory to vote?

Surely the dire state of British politics answers that question Phan?

nope

I don't see how compulsory voting would change the the dire state of British politics.

And how do you propose to enforce it? Fines? Prison? Removal of voting rights?

Low turnout is a strong expression of political opinion too.

Forcing people to turn up at polling stations merely to indicate that they weren't going to turn up and vote unless it was compulsory, just seems futile and counter productive.

And why should people who have no interest in politics, no opinion on parties, have to vote?

Why should we make people, who haven't got a clue about who or why they are voting, vote? Can we expect them to make an informed decision or simply to tick the box at the top of the ballot paper because they don't know what they are doing or why they are doing it?

Originally posted by Lickszz
So, why did the law make the shortlist if it was not feasible

Because some idiot editor on the Today programme picked it to stir up controversy and get Today mentioned in as many places as possible, knowing full well that the both the selected proposed legislation, and the reaction of the fall guy MP would cook up a storm (providing they fanned it well enough).

As for the MP, what? did he sign an oath saying that he would back the legislation proposed? Cos if not, I hardly see why he should have to do anything, especially with such an objectionable and ill thought out piece of legislation.

"Homeowners should be able to use any means to defend their home from intruders."

Any Means? Any Means? - Presumably that would include tactical nuclear weapons and poison gas? As far as I am concerned, preemptive murder of possible burglars would come under "any means".

And what about intruders? If he is a homeowning drug dealer, and is busted by a police dawn raid, who break down his door - is he then legally permitted to mow them down with his heavy machine gun, because they are intruders?

And what about tenants? Why just homeowners?

And why can they only defend their home? What if they are staying at someone elses house?

The proposed legislation was such a wobbly piece of junk, I see no reason why the MP concerned should waste his time doing anything at all with it, when he could be doing something more useful like picking his nose, or ogling Anne Widdecombe in the tea room.

He may have, incorrectly, assumed that the intelligent (haha) listeners of the Today program might come up with something a little less moronic. But he didn't allow for the controversy hungry producers and editors.

Anyone with half a picogram of nous will see this 'proposed legislation' for what it is - utter nonsense worthy of Lewis Carrol or Ogden Nash.

It is important to protect the notion of “democracy” by whatever means are appropriate at the moment in time. Politics is in danger of becoming an irrelevance in daily life, and therefore it provides opportunity for political mischief and misdoings. The way to counter this is through education, knowledge and involvement – like all things in life! Otherwise, why bother with education, healthcare, to anything else for that matter?

General politics is like it is because the voting mass doesn’t really care. Politicians are removing the electorate from the decision process as much as possible for their own political ends – not those of their voters.

There are easy ways of protecting the right to protest by abstention as outlined in my earlier post. An identifiable abstention would carry great weight and would be considered by politicians, unlike non-voting.

I don’t consider that having no interesting politics makes any difference. I have no interest in schools because I have no children, but I understand that they are important for wider society, and pay taxes to that end, along with many others who have no interest or possibly even care!

For those that don’t have a clue – well don’t you think that it is incumbent on politicians to make people aware through deed or debate?

Once the privilege is gone it will be difficult to get back. It should be encouraged and stimulated at all costs – even if that means you having to make a text message vote every 2 years. It’s hardly hard work or an imposition when put like that, is it?

Originally posted by Tony

Once the privilege is gone it will be difficult to get back. It should be encouraged and stimulated at all costs – even if that means you having to make a text message vote every 2 years. It’s hardly hard work or an imposition when put like that, is it?

But you cannot compel people to vote. That is a totalitarian policy.

And once again - how do you enforce it and what sanctions do you impose?

I refuse to engage in the pantomime of democracy we have in this country - how are you going to force me to do so?

You can compel anything that you want in a democracy. That is an essential tenet of the principle, from paying taxes to wearing a seatbelt. Fines are a perfectly adequate enforcement technique.

Your personal stance of non-involvement simply makes the "pantomime" worse. You may simply choose to pay a £100 fine, others will vote. The system will be better for it.

Can I vote for anarchy?

Nomme

Of course you can - if there is a candidate :D

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
As for the MP, what? did he sign an oath saying that he would back the legislation proposed? Cos if not, I hardly see why he should have to do anything, especially with such an objectionable and ill thought out piece of legislation.



The MP agreed to put the winning legislation forward. He knew beforeheand what the shortlist was and possibly had input on deciding it. Basically the voters have been conned again, but isn't that what politicians are masters at? Anybody with a clue about their electorate must have realised what a irascible subject that was and understood that it would be in with a chance of winning. Perhaps he would have been better been honest from the start and stating which laws he had no intention of putting forward whether they win or not. It would have saved people time and trouble and they would not have been under the pretence that their vote counted.

People are clearly unsatisfied with this current law and it is obviously in need of reforming somewhat.

Originally posted by Tony
You can compel anything that you want in a democracy. That is an essential tenet of the principle, from paying taxes to wearing a seatbelt. Fines are a perfectly adequate enforcement technique.

You can try and compel anything that you want in a democracy - your degree of success depends completely on the cooperation of the people to whom it applies. Unless you plan to force compliance with "an offer they cannot refuse".

Your personal stance of non-involvement simply makes the "pantomime" worse. You may simply choose to pay a £100 fine, others will vote. The system will be better for it. [/B]

How will the 'system' be 'better' for it? How can the system be better if people are forced to express an opinion they may not even have, who knows, they may well look to someone else for their opinions. I wasn't going to vote for anyone, but I must, so who would like to buy my vote?

How does voluntary voting make the pantomime of representative democracy worse? And even if it compulsory voting did make the pantomime better, it would still be a pantomime.

If you want to increase voter turnout, you need parties that people want to vote for.

Compulsory voting means that the main three parties need do nothing in the way of campaigning in their safe seats, since their supposedly loyal constituents can't stay silently at home in protest, but neither can they vote for the opposition (that would be beyond the pale)

If you include the "None of the Above" option on the ballot paper, you might as well fill it in automatically for the people who don't show up anyway and avoid fining the apathetic millions of pounds.

And what do you do with non fine payers? Imprison them, remove their voting rights?

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
How will the 'system' be 'better' for it? How can the system be better if people are forced to express an opinion they may not even have, who knows, they may well look to someone else for their opinions. I wasn't going to vote for anyone, but I must, so who would like to buy my vote?
Phan, I pointed you back in the direction of my earlier post where I suggested an “abstention” box on the ballot form, which in turn would shout any protest far louder than simply not turning up. Agreed?

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
If you want to increase voter turnout, you need parties that people want to vote for.

Compulsory voting means that the main three parties need do nothing in the way of campaigning in their safe seats, since their supposedly loyal constituents can't stay silently at home in protest, but neither can they vote for the opposition (that would be beyond the pale)
I totally disagree. Compulsory voting would so widen the count that the opposition parties in a strong seat would have a great opportunity to steal a march by appealing to the wider electorate.

Phan, one thing that we both definitely agree on is that the current system is well and truly broken. Something radical needs to be done to refresh it and prevent politicians from creating what is almost even now an autocracy. That is not what our history has taught is desirable.

Originally posted by Tony
Phan, I pointed you back in the direction of my earlier post where I suggested an “abstention” box on the ballot form, which in turn would shout any protest far louder than simply not turning up. Agreed?

As you say, we are in complete agreement that the current mechanics of political government is a relic from a bygone age.

If you are going to include an abstention box, why not have that as the default vote of everyone on the electoral register? Then when someone fails to turn up at the polling station, their vote will be automatically recorded. It saves all that messing around with administering the system, and saves criminalising the apathetic or uninterested.

I do not see how compulsory voting would contribute to a wider understanding of, and interest in, politics by the man on the clapham omnibus.

If Mo is right and people 'round these parts' will vote for a Donkey wearing a red rosette, then compulsory voting will not serve to make safe seats marginal - quite the opposite. These voters may stay home on a rainy polling day, but if they have to go to a polling booth, they will do what they have been trained to do - vote Labour (or Cons or whatever the safe seat is).

I simply believe that a true democracy includes the option of not voting at all just as it includes the option of spoiling the ballot or taking yourself off the electoral register altogether.

To force particpation in a process that one might see as corrupt, immoral or futile is hardly the hallmark of a pluralist and tolerant society.

Is anyone surprised to learn that this law was 'talked out' in parliament and as a result the bill stands no chance of becoming law.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3672701.stm

I would totally agree with compulsory voting with one proviso....

An option appears on the ballot paper for 'None of the above' or 'None are worthy of my vote'.

Democracy has responsibilities attached as well as rights.

As for defending one's household, my own opinion is that if a total stranger enters your house in the middle of the night then they aren't coming on a social call. The idea that one should wait to see what the person is going to attack you with before defending oneself is ridiculous.

As for slaughtering teenagers, perhaps the question that our elected representatives need to ask is why have personal ethics fallen so far that burglary is a valid career choice for teenagers?

Joe

Well said Joe. :smile:

Compulsory voting gets better politicians????? Rubbish!

Australia has Compulsory Voting, and while many do vote, there is a section which "spoils" its voting paper, thus making it an informal vote, not attracting a fine, and not registering a vote for any candidate.

Education? We are talking of people from all walks of lfe and all countries, many of them not knowing anything about politics, and not interested either. Forced to vote, they tick whichever candidate is at the top of the voting slip. Hence, a donkey vote!
So it is easy for a candidate to be elected by people who are really not voting for him.

The politicians and parliament are just as bad - but it makes them idle, as they know thay people have to vote; they do not have to approach anyone for their vote. They just take a chance.

Apart from all that, I was always taught that the first rule in a democracy was that we have the Right to Vote. Right? Well, let me tell you that the right to vote also carries with it the right not to vote!




:thumbsup:

My initial view is that the ability for any bill (whatever its merits or otherwise) to be 'talked out', without a vote being allowed on it, is an anachronism in our system which which needs to be got rid of ASAP.

In case anyone is unsure what this means, an MP can stand up and deliberately make a speech of indefinite length, until the 'time' allowed for debate has been exahusted.

It is not then possible for Parliament to take a vote on the issue, for some reason.

It is interesting to note that this never happens to any government-sponsored legislation. The government obviously finds ways to prevent any bills they are supporting from being 'talked out'. It only ever happens to bills, like this one, which are put forward by back-benchers or the opposition front bench rather than the government. I wonder why. :mad:

This country needs one hell of a revolution!

United anarchist front anyone?

count me in, what shall be our first cause? there are so many to choose from.

What does it say about Stephen Pound that he made some kind of commitment to take a bill through Parliament before he knew what it would be? He left himself wide open.