chrisp65 Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 anybody that supports a conservative policy is actually BNP sound a bit stupid? its about as stupid as presuming anti tory means pro Labour 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 Tribal mindset innit. About time we moved away from it. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted August 23, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted August 23, 2013 where's the option for hating all the words removed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted August 23, 2013 Author Moderator Share Posted August 23, 2013 where's the option for hating all the words removed?Burn it all down 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaajax Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 Indeed; I take that point but....children may have different attitudes to this and feel more 'comfortable' at their present school and thus achieve better results Kids of this age need to be taken out of their comfort zone and if all their mates had to leave the school too, they'd soon get on with it and be genuinely be excited by the change Nothing is more exciting than going to a new school! ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 where's the option for hating all the words removed? none of the above needs to be put on the voting paper to give everyone the chance to vote 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markavfc40 Posted August 24, 2013 Share Posted August 24, 2013 (edited) So, they use terrorism laws to harass journalists. They encourage Fracking and discourage renewables. They arrest people who peacefully protest. They kettle students and pensioners They cut taxes for the rich and decrease benefits for the poor. They appoint scientific advisors to look at things like Drugs & Bovine TB and then do the opposite of the advice from the experts. They appoint private companies to assess the incapacitated for disability allowance They penalise people in houses where there is nowhere for them to move to. They address the deficit by cutting spending on infrastructure. They get vans driving round to say "go home" immigrants They're the most deceptive, loathsome, dishonest, incompetent, lying, self serving, odious Government we've ever had. And that takes some doing. Been on hols so not been on for a while and only just came across this post. Well said Pete. It sums this current mob up perfectly. Edited August 24, 2013 by markavfc40 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaajax Posted August 24, 2013 Share Posted August 24, 2013 where's the option for hating all the words removed? none of the above needs to be put on the voting paper to give everyone the chance to vote Not really going to achieve anything though, is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted August 24, 2013 Share Posted August 24, 2013 Once the right people know there are swathes of people unhappy with the status quo, something will happen. At the moment there is no real way to protest other than voting for numpties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted August 24, 2013 Author Moderator Share Posted August 24, 2013 where's the option for hating all the words removed? none of the above needs to be put on the voting paper to give everyone the chance to vote Not really going to achieve anything though, is it?Why won't it?1) It would mean people didn't have to vote for fringe parties just to register their disgust at the status quo2) people could actively campaign for none of the above and that in itself would kep MP's on their toes alittle more3) It may increase the number of people that actually turn out to vote, therefore apathy is also easier to measureImagine if none of the above won a seat and there had to be a rerun with new candidates, it would send out a huge message Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaajax Posted August 24, 2013 Share Posted August 24, 2013 But we couldn't have constituencies without someone to represent them so if the election was rerun it would be the same parties standing, we'd get nowhere, even with different candidates standing we'd just be gong through a cycle until eventually soeone from one of the parties is elected. Pointless and a waste of tax payers money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted August 25, 2013 Author Moderator Share Posted August 25, 2013 But we couldn't have constituencies without someone to represent them so if the election was rerun it would be the same parties standing, we'd get nowhere, even with different candidates standing we'd just be gong through a cycle until eventually soeone from one of the parties is elected. Pointless and a waste of tax payers money.Not true at all. How can the will of the people be a waste of the peoples money? Democracy really shouldn't be judged in financial terms, thats a totally ludicrous argument. The principal is a very strong one, the message voting NOTA sends is stronger again. Who is to say on the rerun that an independent candidate might think he has a chance as the electorate in that constituency have already clearly rejected the main parties and puts together a manifesto suited to that constituency.The argument that it won't change anything is utterly daft. It could change something but lets not do that because it probably won't, so its a waste of money and we'll all put up with the same old shite time and time again because thats the way it is. Sorry thats just a dumb dumb argument usually used by those with a vested interest i.e. the red and blue parties 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted August 25, 2013 Share Posted August 25, 2013 there you go, all been said above I take the fact that such an obvious measure of public mood isn't incorporated into the voting slips is tacit acknowledgement by the powers that be that they know it wouldn't look good for them. It would also undermine the coming tax rise so we can directly fund their grubby little clubs. At present, if all parties want us to fund them, and we vote one of them in, we voted to directly give them a cut of our earnings via whatever tax they choose to levy. You will not be allowed to opt out of funding political parties as 'the people' will have voted for it by voting for any of them. To be fair, it's a great business if you can get into it. You can't really blame people for spotting a soft route to money and influence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaajax Posted August 25, 2013 Share Posted August 25, 2013 If people wanted to vote for an independent, why wouldn't they do it in the original poll? So they vote NOTA and hold another election, the same parties stand, same result happens - NOTA. Do they just keep running the polls until eventually some opportunist says the right things and gets a seat in parliament where they have almost no influence whatsoever and eventually get found out and then lose their seat in a by-election when they can't deliver on their promises? That will certainly shake things up in Downing Street. Really, what influence have independents had, apart from maybe a seat on a local council? I know "Power to the people" and "Freedom for Tooting" are great ideas but it's just not going to happen. Rip up your voting card, tick every box, draw on your own NOTA box and put a cross in it, don't bother voting at all... party politics may be unpopular but i's here to stay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted August 25, 2013 Author Moderator Share Posted August 25, 2013 If people wanted to vote for an independent, why wouldn't they do it in the original poll? So they vote NOTA and hold another election, the same parties stand, same result happens - NOTA. Do they just keep running the polls until eventually some opportunist says the right things and gets a seat in parliament where they have almost no influence whatsoever and eventually get found out and then lose their seat in a by-election when they can't deliver on their promises? That will certainly shake things up in Downing Street.Really, what influence have independents had, apart from maybe a seat on a local council? I know "Power to the people" and "Freedom for Tooting" are great ideas but it's just not going to happen. Rip up your voting card, tick every box, draw on your own NOTA box and put a cross in it, don't bother voting at all... party politics may be unpopular but i's here to stay.imagine if it happens in more than one placeParty politics is here to stay, well it certainly is if everyone thinks ;like you Ajax mate, this country needs a huge political shakeup and thi would just be one measure out of plenty of others that would do that. You can't view NOTA as a single cure all thing, it is a small part of democratic change Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 where's the option for hating all the words removed? none of the above needs to be put on the voting paper to give everyone the chance to vote Not really going to achieve anything though, is it?Why won't it?1) It would mean people didn't have to vote for fringe parties just to register their disgust at the status quo2) people could actively campaign for none of the above and that in itself would kep MP's on their toes alittle more3) It may increase the number of people that actually turn out to vote, therefore apathy is also easier to measureImagine if none of the above won a seat and there had to be a rerun with new candidates, it would send out a huge messageWhat a massively pointless exercise that would be. I think you massively overestimate the "support" that None of the above would garner. It will have no impact whatsoever on voter apathy. The clue is in the name.... the can't be arsed to drag themselves off the sofa to vote for candidates now...why would they bother to vote for noone?If you want truly representative politics in the UK we need 2 things. PR and Mandatory voting. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 If you want truly representative politics in the UK we need 2 things. PR and Mandatory voting. I could be wrong squire, but didn't you argue against PR, and quite specifically argued strongly in favour of FPTP, on the thread discussing such matters, around the time of the referendum on this subject? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted August 27, 2013 Author Moderator Share Posted August 27, 2013 If you want truly representative politics in the UK we need 2 things. PR and Mandatory voting.I'm fundamentally opposed to both. I'd take PR in a second chamber at push but would ultimately believe that one chamber of the house must be constituency based though it would need each member be voted in by the single transferable vote not the current shit system. PR is a tool of party politics, you can't have PR without parties, PR rules out the individual independent candidate, that in itself in undemocratic.And forcing people to vote is something I'd consider a breach of human rights (which I realise may sound perverse) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 If you want truly representative politics in the UK we need 2 things. PR and Mandatory voting.I could be wrong squire, but didn't you argue against PR, and quite specifically argued strongly in favour of FPTP, on the thread discussing such matters, around the time of the referendum on this subject?I didn't argue against PR (I did against AV but more on the basis that it was a crap compromise so in that context yes I was advocating FPTP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 If you want truly representative politics in the UK we need 2 things. PR and Mandatory voting. I'm fundamentally opposed to both. I'd take PR in a second chamber at push but would ultimately believe that one chamber of the house must be constituency based though it would need each member be voted in by the single transferable vote not the current shit system. PR is a tool of party politics, you can't have PR without parties, PR rules out the individual independent candidate, that in itself in undemocratic. And forcing people to vote is something I'd consider a breach of human rights (which I realise may sound perverse) PR means party servants, suck ups and yes men will be awarded seats whether we vote for them or not mandatory voting is patently undemocratic mandatory voting would suggest 'they' know if you voted - whilst technically they can already work that out if they had the gumption, it would become the job of the state to check whether you voted for them - no thanks 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts