|
Post by TinDogPodcast on May 5, 2017 17:46:26 GMT
Why is is not mandatory to vote?
|
|
|
Post by acousticwolf on May 5, 2017 17:59:34 GMT
Why is is not mandatory to vote? Not sure how you'd police that one but to be honest surely a democratic society gives people the choice whether to vote or not? Cheers Tony
|
|
|
Post by fitzoliverj on May 5, 2017 17:59:53 GMT
Why is is not mandatory to vote? Probably either because people think true freedom includes the freedom not to vote, or because they're worried the spoilt ballot papers would win the election...
|
|
|
Post by fitzoliverj on May 5, 2017 18:01:09 GMT
Not sure how you'd police that one but to be honest surely a democratic society gives people the choice whether to vote or not? I'm sure somebody here can confirm, but I believe in Australia they fine you a very small amount of money for not voting.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2017 18:26:36 GMT
Regarding the local elections I should point out the turnouts are not as high as the general election will/should be, so they're not necessarily directly predictive. That said, we can obviously clean the general mood of the electorate from them and if I was in Labour or UKIP, I'd be very worried. It's clear Labour are losing out majorly, they should not have lost seats in Glasgow of all places. Labour is clearly weak at the moment, they will have to seriously turn around their campaign in next few weeks. The growth in Conservative support in Scotland is very interesting. Ruth Davison has pulled off a miracle to get them into second. I don't see that manifesting into anything at a general level, but these are very uncertain times in Scottish politics. Not sure why Glasgow would be any different these days - we do have 100% SNP MPs here. Maybe 5 years ago it would have been a shock but no-one here expected anything but the SNP to take the council - as they will, either as a minority or with a coalition with The Greens. Labour are dead in Glasgow and have been for the past 4 years since they stood with the Tories as "Better Together". It killed them instantly and the last GE wasn't a case of "Will they take Glasgow?" it was "How much of a landslide will they take Glasgow by?" Ruth's "miracle" is really a by-product of the Labour party's slow death. They haven't grown quite so much as Labour has shrunk massively. Where else were Unionists going to go really? It seems very, very clear that as much as elections elsewhere are Brexit oriented, the elections in Scotland are almost entirely Independence based. That's very, very bad news for Labour who are never going to attract pro-Indy voters again, but also aren't seen as staunch defenders of the Union either. Difficult to see anything but another disastrous night for Deputy Dug next month. I still expect the SNP to retain most of the seats next month but wouldn't be shocked if the Tories pick up a few Toff-seats in the borders, Perthshire and way up North with some tactical voting. An absolute shocker for the Lib-Dems in Scotland too - so much for their fightback. Farron and Willie Rennie must be bricking it now. They just haven't picked up any goodwill over their Brexit stance at all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2017 18:28:49 GMT
Why is is not mandatory to vote? If someone isn't informed or engaged enough to do so out of duty...I'm not sure I'd want them being the deciding vote.
|
|
|
Post by acousticwolf on May 5, 2017 18:31:01 GMT
Not sure how you'd police that one but to be honest surely a democratic society gives people the choice whether to vote or not? I'm sure somebody here can confirm, but I believe in Australia they fine you a very small amount of money for not voting. I'm a firm believer that everyone should have the right to (or not) vote, but I also believe that you cannot really complain if you choose not to vote. I would rather turn up and spoil my ballot paper than not vote. I just wished the system had to record the manner of the spoiled papers rather than just counting them - I always give reasons for doing so. Sometimes I exercise my right to vote but choose not to accept the candidates on offer. To anyone who thinks their vote doesn't matter, we have had 4 councillors elected here on less than 15 votes ... in one ward the winner only had 3 more than his closest opponent. Cheers Tony
|
|
|
Post by sherlock on May 5, 2017 18:48:29 GMT
Why is is not mandatory to vote? Freedom to choose not to vote and all that.
|
|
|
Post by sherlock on May 5, 2017 18:54:42 GMT
Regarding the local elections I should point out the turnouts are not as high as the general election will/should be, so they're not necessarily directly predictive. That said, we can obviously clean the general mood of the electorate from them and if I was in Labour or UKIP, I'd be very worried. It's clear Labour are losing out majorly, they should not have lost seats in Glasgow of all places. Labour is clearly weak at the moment, they will have to seriously turn around their campaign in next few weeks. The growth in Conservative support in Scotland is very interesting. Ruth Davison has pulled off a miracle to get them into second. I don't see that manifesting into anything at a general level, but these are very uncertain times in Scottish politics. Not sure why Glasgow would be any different these days - we do have 100% SNP MPs here. Maybe 5 years ago it would have been a shock but no-one here expected anything but the SNP to take the council - as they will, either as a minority or with a coalition with The Greens. Labour are dead in Glasgow and have been for the past 4 years since they stood with the Tories as "Better Together". It killed them instantly and the last GE wasn't a case of "Will they take Glasgow?" it was "How much of a landslide will they take Glasgow by?" Ruth's "miracle" is really a by-product of the Labour party's slow death. They haven't grown quite so much as Labour has shrunk massively. Where else were Unionists going to go really? It seems very, very clear that as much as elections elsewhere are Brexit oriented, the elections in Scotland are almost entirely Independence based. That's very, very bad news for Labour who are never going to attract pro-Indy voters again, but also aren't seen as staunch defenders of the Union either. Difficult to see anything but another disastrous night for Deputy Dug next month. I still expect the SNP to retain most of the seats next month but wouldn't be shocked if the Tories pick up a few Toff-seats in the borders, Perthshire and way up North with some tactical voting. An absolute shocker for the Lib-Dems in Scotland too - so much for their fightback. Farron and Willie Rennie must be bricking it now. They just haven't picked up any goodwill over their Brexit stance at all. The Lib Dems will especially suffer if Labour and UKIP's collapse is as total as it was here as that could potentialy give enough votes to the Tories to straight out overtake them in some seats, even if they didn't lose any votes (and that's incredibly unlikely in itself). Farron should be worried. Hadn't really considered the independence dimension, but it does make sense to explaining what is going on in Scotland. Oh and Corbyn's response to this debacle is absolutely classic. Just keeping focusing on the fact they didn't do as badly as predicted in Wales and ignore the rest of the country.
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on May 5, 2017 19:23:58 GMT
Here in Scarborough all the wrong people keep getting voted in in the elections IMO.
This year however one of my favourite MPs in my area got voted in - Andrew Backhouse. I usually don't like the Tories but Andrew Backhouse is the exception. Very approachable, listens to the people and raises any concern that is presented to him. He helped save a field behind me from being built on, and he's really fighting to save the Futurist Theatre from demolition, even now that the Scarborough Council stupidly voted in favour of demolishing it. I actually think Andrew Backhouse would make a great prime minister - he'd probably be similar to Winston Churchill as he is very good at speachers, and has that same steel sense of determination that many alive during WW2 describe Churchill as possessing.
Unfortunately there are still odd idiots here who people for some reason decided to vote for. Scarborough Council leader Derek Bastiman is an MP so bad that Filey and Whitby placed a vote of no confidence in the Council, yet the majority still voted for him for some bizarre reason. He doesn't care about the town at all, he only cares about achieving his own goals. Same with Andrew Jenkinson: another for some strange reason voted in.
I don't know why people vote for MPs who never listen to what they want, then complain when...*SHOCK*...they don't listen!
Who saw that coming?!?
No doubt the same people who voted in the town I live in for Derek Bastiman and Andrew Jenkinson will also vote for the same ignorant MP Robert Goodwill in the General Election.
|
|
|
Post by number13 on May 5, 2017 19:56:05 GMT
Yeah I was probably exaggerating a bit, mainly due to the endless repetition of 'strong and stable' which is irritating the hell out of me. I'm finding much of the Tory campaign is irritating me, I wonder if its having the same effect on the electorate at large, or whether it's just those that are already disinclined to vote for them. Sloganitis IS irritating (from whichever party) if you follow politics even as an interested amateur. However, I recently heard an ex-MP (forget who) say (approximately) that one of the first things he was taught in politics was: "keep repeating the message, because when you say it the thousandth time and are sick of it, someone is hearing you say it for the first time." Most people only pay the vaguest attention to politics most of the time. The slogan is nothing new and good ones work. Two that stuck with me are "Labour isn't working" (Thatcher 1979) and "Things can only get better" (Blair 1997). One negative slogan, one positive, both direct and memorable. They both won. (I could add "Make America Great Again". It also worked but let's not go there please! )
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2017 20:21:01 GMT
Why is is not mandatory to vote? I'm not sure it would still give you a result you like. Forcing people to vote would probably just mean more spolit ballot papers or votes for the Monster Raving Loony Party, in protest.
|
|
|
Post by sherlock on May 5, 2017 20:21:05 GMT
I'm finding much of the Tory campaign is irritating me, I wonder if its having the same effect on the electorate at large, or whether it's just those that are already disinclined to vote for them. Sloganitis IS irritating (from whichever party) if you follow politics even as an interested amateur. However, I recently heard an ex-MP (forget who) say (approximately) that one of the first things he was taught in politics was: "keep repeating the message, because when you say it the thousandth time and are sick of it, someone is hearing you say it for the first time." Most people only pay the vaguest attention to politics most of the time. The slogan is nothing new and good ones work. Two that stuck with me are "Labour isn't working" (Thatcher 1979) and "Things can only get better" (Blair 1997). One negative slogan, one positive, both direct and memorable. They both won. (I could add "Make America Great Again". It also worked but let's not go there please! ) Definitely, sloganism is an art form unto itself. Doesn't stop it being anymore annoying, I study politics so spend half my life watching political stuff so slogans really do get irritating after all that exposure. Doesn't stop them being effective messages though.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2017 18:06:16 GMT
I don't know why people vote for MPs who never listen to what they want, then complain when...*SHOCK*...they don't listen! You mean like Diane Abbott and Labour?
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on May 7, 2017 18:32:45 GMT
I don't know why people vote for MPs who never listen to what they want, then complain when...*SHOCK*...they don't listen! You mean like Diane Abbott and Labour? I have no idea who she is, but I generally tend to trust Labour more than Conservatives (unless the Tory politician is called Andrew Backhouse, of course).
|
|
|
Post by sherlock on May 7, 2017 18:34:21 GMT
You mean like Diane Abbott and Labour? I have no idea who she is, but I generally tend to trust Labour more than Conservatives (unless the Tory politician is called Andrew Backhouse, of course). Diane Abbott is the Shadow Home Secretary and also a complete liability (imo anyway). She appeared on LBC apparently unaware of how much Labour's police reforms would cost (which as Home Secretary she would be in charge of) to name but one example.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2017 20:51:28 GMT
I have no idea who she is, but I generally tend to trust Labour more than Conservatives (unless the Tory politician is called Andrew Backhouse, of course). Diane Abbott is the Shadow Home Secretary and also a complete liability (imo anyway). She appeared on LBC apparently unaware of how much Labour's police reforms would cost (which as Home Secretary she would be in charge of) to name but one example. Exactly. She's one of the reasons I'm extremely anti-Labour. Well, except the fact that I tend to agree more with the policies the tories put forward. I'm honestly kind of centrist, but don't agree with the policies of any of the parties, bar the conservatives, most of the time. Anyway, point is that Diane Abbott is probably one of the most disliked Labour MPs, with many considering her to be a racist.
|
|
|
Post by jasonward on May 7, 2017 22:30:21 GMT
I have no idea who she is, but I generally tend to trust Labour more than Conservatives (unless the Tory politician is called Andrew Backhouse, of course). Diane Abbott is the Shadow Home Secretary and also a complete liability (imo anyway). She appeared on LBC apparently unaware of how much Labour's police reforms would cost (which as Home Secretary she would be in charge of) to name but one example. I have no idea about the particular incident you refer to, but one of the major problems for any party in opposition is knowing how much things will cost, the party in power has access to a wealth of data and experts that opposition parties just don't. And the cry that opposition parties have not thought through the financial implications of all their ideas and promises is one I've hard pretty much every general election I've been aware of.
|
|
|
Post by number13 on May 7, 2017 22:39:26 GMT
Diane Abbott is the Shadow Home Secretary and also a complete liability (imo anyway). She appeared on LBC apparently unaware of how much Labour's police reforms would cost (which as Home Secretary she would be in charge of) to name but one example. I have no idea about the particular incident you refer to, but one of the major problems for any party in opposition is knowing how much things will cost, the party in power has access to a wealth of data and experts that opposition parties just don't. And the cry that opposition parties have not thought through the financial implications of all their ideas and promises is one I've hard pretty much every general election I've been aware of. This particular interview re. the cost of recruiting extra police reminded me of the time Dr. Evil held the world to ransom for 1 million - no, 1 billion - no, 100 million billion...
|
|
|
Post by sherlock on May 7, 2017 23:26:16 GMT
Diane Abbott is the Shadow Home Secretary and also a complete liability (imo anyway). She appeared on LBC apparently unaware of how much Labour's police reforms would cost (which as Home Secretary she would be in charge of) to name but one example. I have no idea about the particular incident you refer to, but one of the major problems for any party in opposition is knowing how much things will cost, the party in power has access to a wealth of data and experts that opposition parties just don't. And the cry that opposition parties have not thought through the financial implications of all their ideas and promises is one I've hard pretty much every general election I've been aware of. www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/nick-ferrari/diane-abbotts-agonising-interview-over-policy-cost/Whilst it's true about potential lack of information, she makes a point of claiming it's 'fully costed', which based on this incident-it isn't.
|
|