Stoatwobbler   10 #25 Posted April 26, 2012 The way I see it, ALL politicians need a good kick up the ballot box on a frequent basis. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Jeffrey Shaw   90 #26 Posted April 26, 2012 The saying is that Oppositions never win elections; it's Governments that lose them. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Darth Vader   10 #27 Posted April 27, 2012 None of the three parties serve the interests of the general population of this country anymore. So who do you vote for?  I like the idea of the anti-austerity party as there is obviously no need for cuts and it is just a stick to beat the general population further with, whilst footballers and other high earners are several thousand pounds a week better off with the recent tax breaks the rich have been given by the Tories and the Lib Dems. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
esme   10 #28 Posted April 27, 2012 None of the other parties serve the interests of the country either, all the parties have their own private agendas which serve to make life better for the party members and if the country benefits as a result of these agendas then it's serendipitous.  Not one politician gives a damn about anyone who disagrees with them, not one politician wants a real democracy where they actually have to debate issues and determine what is right with reason.  Politicians just want to be in charge and have their decisions implemented, and anyone who disagrees with those decisions is wrong and can be ignored as far as they are concerned.  This is why Politicians always want a clear majority in the house, so they can steamroller decisions through without debate.  Rubber stamp politics, they don't actually have to do anything except turn up and take the money, the handful of people in the cabinet make the decisions and everything else is just entertainment for the masses.  This is why the the idea of a coalition caused so much distress after the last election.  Not because it was going to be lib-con or lab-lib or some other flavour, and whoever got excluded would whinge about the coalition not being elected and therefore not having a mandate.  But because there was no clear majority, and politicians of different parties would have to negotiate with each other, instead of simply bulldozing legislation handed down from the cabinet through the house, like they usually do.  Politicians would actually have to work instead of just turn up and vote the way the whip told them to.  So whoever you vote for, if they are part of a party you can forget them putting the country first, the party comes first, then themselves and come election time they might remember the electorate exists and throw out a few populist phrases to keep people happy and voting for them Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Anna B   1,401 #29 Posted April 27, 2012 Ah but I believe the politicians see this as voter apathy, the electorate can't be bothered to tell them otherwise so the politicians can do as they like. Politicians apparently don't see this not voting thing as any kind of protest or a reaction to the perceived lack of any alternative.  After all if you don't want to vote for any of the available candidates you can always stand for office yourself, providing you can stump up the deposit, which you will probably lose if you can't find the time to campaign or drum up the necessary support.  So if you are working full time just to put a roof over your head and food on the table then this option is pretty much closed to you.  It would appear the thinking is that as this alternative exists, then if you don't vote, it must be apathy that prevents you and you will acquiesce meekly to whoever those who do vote put in power.  Despite it being such a monumental effort to engage with this alternative that for all practical purposes it is not viable.  That's why I think There should be a 'non of the above' box on every ballot paper. At least then they might be able to measure public discontent.  Incidently, there's probably never been a better time for standing as an independent. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
esme   10 #30 Posted April 27, 2012 apart from existing party names "None of the above" is not a name you can register as a party name http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/107694/to-names-rp.pdf page 9 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Jim Graham   10 #31 Posted April 27, 2012 That's why I think There should be a 'non of the above' box on every ballot paper. At least then they might be able to measure public discontent. Incidently, there's probably never been a better time for standing as an independent.   I have often suggested that nobody be elected until a good % of the electorate (not voters) have voted for them. This first past the post farce means anyone can be elected if they get the only vote cast. In Sheffield Labour rarely get more than 25% of the electorate voting for them but they get to control the city. It's laughable. That is NOT a mandate. In my view a mandate is when more than half the electorate support you. Then you can say you have the support of the majority. Labour run this council for a minority and that pretty sums up why we are where we are. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Jim Graham   10 #32 Posted April 27, 2012 apart from existing party names "None of the above" is not a name you can register as a party name http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/107694/to-names-rp.pdf page 9   Sounds like a challenge. Perhaps I'll start the None Of The Above Party for independants. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
esme   10 #33 Posted April 27, 2012 I believe the "Jury Team" party is for independents, not 100% on that though Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
wednesday1 Â Â 10 #34 Posted April 29, 2012 Are the public willing to continue to give these double-dipsticks the benefit of a rather large doubt for much longer? Â Â http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/apr/28/andrew-rawnsley-cameron-osborne-poshness Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
rubydazzler   11 #35 Posted April 29, 2012 You do know the rest of that poem, do you? I'm not sure that it quite conveys the sentiment that you (or Rawnsley) wish it to. It's about duty and refusing to give up when all the cowards and self-servers have run away ..  The boy stood on the burning deck Whence all but he had fled Yet beautiful and bright he stood, As born to rule the storm; A creature of heroic blood, A proud though childlike form.  Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
wednesday1 Â Â 10 #36 Posted April 29, 2012 You do know the rest of that poem, do you? I'm not sure that it quite conveys the sentiment that you (or Rawnsley) wish it to. It's about duty and refusing to give up when all the cowards and self-servers have run away .. Â The boy stood on the burning deck Whence all but he had fled Yet beautiful and bright he stood, As born to rule the storm; A creature of heroic blood, A proud though childlike form. Â Â Â Â How about: Â The boys stood on the burning deck drinking copious amounts of champagne Osborne says to Smarmy Dave Oh look we've caused a recession again! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...