Heartland

Posted: **06 Apr 2010, 11:34**

Mr Brown has finally called the date and so, depending on your disposition, you're either about to endure a month of pure Hell and boredom or fevered anticipation.
Of course, the latter rather implies that there's any difference between the Tories and New Labour, or that a hung parliament with either party forming a coalition with the Lib Dems will bring sufficient change to provide the country with a paddle to navigate a certain creek.

What I would say, no matter how disaffected or disgusted you are by our MPs, is that if you are a UK resident entitled to a vote you should use it.
While it may seem the dim and distant past to some, the right to vote was hard come by and in some cases people literally died for it.

Apologies to anyone in the choir I happen to be preaching at.

If nothing else, get off your arse to ensure the likes of the BNP don't secure seats through voter apathy.

Posted: **06 Apr 2010, 11:37**

I'm almost in favour of compulsory voting, but it kinda defeats the object of freedom of speech, doesn't it?

I make a point of always voting in every election and urge everyone around me that'll listen to do the same. It's important. And then some.

Posted: **06 Apr 2010, 11:47**

Norman Hunter wrote:I'm almost in favour of compulsory voting, but it kinda defeats the object of freedom of speech, doesn't it?

No.

Posted: **06 Apr 2010, 11:56**

Norman Hunter wrote:I'm almost in favour of compulsory voting, but it kinda defeats the object of freedom of speech, doesn't it?

Aye, it rather goes against democracy!

TBH if people were forced to vote, you'd probably end up with a load of spoiled ballot papers.

Posted: **06 Apr 2010, 12:22**

The BNP seem to have gone into self-destruct mode.

Mark Collett arrested regarding allegations of a plot to kill Nick Griffin

As Collett works (or worked? ) at my building, they've gone into lock-down mode in case any "heavies" (or press) turn up.

So hopefully the disarray will stop any chance they might have had at being a "serious force" this election.

Otherwise, I'm still not sure where my vote is going. But I will definitely vote, I do tend towards the idea of making voting compulsory.

Posted: **06 Apr 2010, 12:24**

Erudite wrote:
Norman Hunter wrote:I'm almost in favour of compulsory voting, but it kinda defeats the object of freedom of speech, doesn't it?
Aye, it rather goes against democracy!

TBH if people were forced to vote, you'd probably end up with a load of spoiled ballot papers.

My point is, you have the freedom not to vote, no matter whether I see it as a waste or not.

Posted: **06 Apr 2010, 12:25**

markfiend wrote:The BNP seem to have gone into self-destruct mode.

Mark Collett arrested regarding allegations of a plot to kill Nick Griffin As Collett works (or worked? ) at my building, they've gone into lock-down mode in case any "heavies" (or press) turn up.

Do the BNP do a BOGOF offer? Two Nazis for the price of one? Stick me down. Candlestick, in the Library.

Posted: **06 Apr 2010, 12:43**

Posted: **06 Apr 2010, 18:10**

it's era of votes in italy too...so i choose to avoid...and at the time it means:"i don't want any of you wankers to govern!!!!"

Posted: **06 Apr 2010, 18:59**

"No matter who I vote for an MP gets power".

*sigh*

But still, it's the Libs for me.

Posted: **06 Apr 2010, 21:11**

Bloody inconsiderate of Mr Brown to call an election while I'm on me holibobs...gonna have to sort out a postal vote...

altho like Maisey...I feel that it doesn't really matter who I vote for...Government wins

Posted: **06 Apr 2010, 22:12**

moses wrote:
Norman Hunter wrote:I'm almost in favour of compulsory voting, but it kinda defeats the object of freedom of speech, doesn't it?
No.

Democracy and freedom of speech are not related. They frequently go hand-in-hand but need not. In a democracy you have the freedom to choose your political representative and the obligation to do so. If you don't like any of the candidates then you can either spoil your ballot, employ a write-in vote, or select "None of the above".
One way that political parties maintain their grip on power is by making politics apepar boring, perpetuating the idea that "voting changes nothing." By making voting compulsory you get more people engaged in the process - more active interest by the electorate encourage politicians to take account of the wishes of the electorate. Better education would help too, incentivise the process. Who you vote for is unimportant - but if you don't participate in the political process then you lose the right to complain about the government that you get.

Posted: **06 Apr 2010, 22:45**

EvilBastard wrote:
moses wrote:In a democracy you have the freedom to choose your political representative and the obligation to do so. If you don't like any of the candidates then you can either spoil your ballot, employ a write-in vote, or select "None of the above".
By making voting compulsory you get more people engaged in the process - more active interest by the electorate encourage politicians to take account of the wishes of the electorate. Who you vote for is unimportant - but if you don't participate in the political process then you lose the right to complain about the government that you get.
Um, no. It's a right to vote, not an obligation. And equally a right not to. If there's a candidate you support then yes, vote for them but if you can't honestly say that you support any of the candidates then don't vote for someone you think will be rubbish just for the sake of it. That's not democracy, it's just dumb. Who you vote for is kind of the point.

Making anything compulsory doesn't get people engaged, it just means that a lot of people are putting a cross without thinking about it. And probably resenting it because they don't have a choice. If fewer people vote then at least you know that the ones who do bother have thought about it. And not voting is saying something too - especially when "None of the above" isn't an option on the ballot paper. There's no "no confidence" system in this country - except by choosing not to vote. Spoiling the paper usually just looks like you weren't taking it seriously. Politicians are concerned about voter apathy but I can't recall ever hearing them express concern about spoiled papers.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not telling anyone not to vote and I will be voting myself but I have chosen not to in the past and I get really angry when people start telling me that it's my obligation to vote for someone who I don't want in government.

Posted: **06 Apr 2010, 22:56**

I best get myself registered then

Posted: **07 Apr 2010, 07:16**

EvilBastard wrote:
moses wrote:
Norman Hunter wrote:I'm almost in favour of compulsory voting, but it kinda defeats the object of freedom of speech, doesn't it?
No.
Democracy and freedom of speech are not related. They frequently go hand-in-hand but need not. In a democracy you have the freedom to choose your political representative and the obligation to do so. If you don't like any of the candidates then you can either spoil your ballot, employ a write-in vote, or select "None of the above".
One way that political parties maintain their grip on power is by making politics apepar boring, perpetuating the idea that "voting changes nothing." By making voting compulsory you get more people engaged in the process - more active interest by the electorate encourage politicians to take account of the wishes of the electorate. Better education would help too, incentivise the process. Who you vote for is unimportant - but if you don't participate in the political process then you lose the right to complain about the government that you get.

Not sure about this one, we have compulsory vote in Belgium, and it doesn't help a bit. To be more precise, we have had the debate for years here saying that the compulatsory vote brings even more apathy to the voters as they don't have a choice and whatever vote they bring, it makes no difference at all.
To be even more precise we do not really have compulsatory vote, but it is compulsatory to show-up....maybe it is not the exact same thing.

Ah, and two additional problems: we do not have two big parties like in the UK (or the US for that matter), but a lot of small parties, the effect of which is that you always need two or three parties to form a government, with a watered programme as it has to be a compromise acceptable for these two or three parties.

Scrap that, it is even a bit more complex...as we have two linguistic regions (the flemish, and the walloons + Brussels which is a combination of the two), and the parties are different in the two regions, you have a government that is watered down by the fact that you have to have a majority overall, which means you will have 4 or five parties with their own agenda, and they need to find a project on which all these parties agree with.

Ah yes, and of course, as the flemish cannot vote for french-speaking parties, and the walloons cannot vote for flemish parties, when any party goes to the election, they have programmes which contain "flemish vs walloons items", whyich they have to sole after the elections....

In other words, you don't know how lucky you are.

Posted: **07 Apr 2010, 09:07**

EvilBastard wrote:if you don't participate in the political process then you lose the right to complain about the government that you get.

I agree.

There may not be anyone you want to vote for but there's sure to be someone you want to vote against.

Posted: **07 Apr 2010, 09:15**

I have no idea who to vote for. But I will vote.

Posted: **07 Apr 2010, 09:16**

Hom_Corleone wrote:I have no idea who to vote for. But I will vote.

Good lad. Just don't waste it.

Posted: **07 Apr 2010, 09:23**

Norman Hunter wrote:
Hom_Corleone wrote:I have no idea who to vote for. But I will vote.
Good lad. Just don't waste it.

The trouble is I'm not sure what constitutes wasting it.
Keeping personalities out of it, the policies of the 2 major parties seem intertwined to the point that it seems to be a case of vote and hope.

Anybody care to enlighten me?

Posted: **07 Apr 2010, 09:42**

I'm half tempted to stick my X in the box for the Monster Raving Loony party if they're standing.

Posted: **07 Apr 2010, 09:56**

Anyway, tinfoil hat time:

I'm wondering whether Mark Collett was in fact a deep-cover lefty, and has chosen just the right time for his shenanigans to do maximum damage to the BNP just prior to the election?

Even if it's not true, I reckon it's worth trying to spread the rumour, just to see if his fascist "friends" believe it...

Posted: **07 Apr 2010, 10:03**

As someone once said about our lot: "If voting could change anything they'd ban it".

All the same, you should still do it.

Posted: **07 Apr 2010, 10:19**

mh wrote:As someone once said about our lot: "If voting could change anything they'd ban it".

All the same, you should still do it.

When it comes to Westminster I'm a great believer in tactical voting, which I why, despite being a card carrying member of the SNP, I'll be voting for the current Lib Dem incumbent!
TBH, I could vote against him as his majority is something like 43% but Malcolm Bruce has actually done a lot of good for the area and his parliamentary voting is pretty much in accord with my own views re Iraq and replacing Trident.

Posted: **07 Apr 2010, 10:46**

Vote with your feet: kick a politician.

Posted: **07 Apr 2010, 10:50**

markfiend wrote:I'm half tempted to stick my X in the box for the Monster Raving Loony party if they're standing.

never been the same since sutch's demise

Heartland

And so it begins

And so it begins