How will you vote at next election?

[Mr_love_monkey]

Originally Posted by timewarrior2001

Many people in this country do not want the asylum seekers, they do not want migrant workers, look at the political parties on offer, who do you think will get the vote from these people?

This, I think, is going to be why, eventually, a party like the BNP will come to power. People are so fed up with the influx of migrants, asylum seekers, etc, whom, they feel, rightly or wrongly, are responsible for the high council tax, bad public services, lack of jobs (after all, despite what the figures say, has unemployment gone down? - I don't think so - juggling the figures so that people on a 'find a job' scheme don't show up as unemployed, is not the same as making sure people have work).

So what will happen is the BNP (or someone) will say, yes, we'll stop the influx, we'll get council tax down, we'll stop Johnnie Foreigner taking all the jobs - and people will be disillusioned and angry enough to want to show they they have had enough, and that they want something done about the issues - and they will vote for them. Of course they won't see the small print - which says 'oh yes, and after we've done that - we start forcibly repatriating people, that we don't consider to be 'pure' british, never mind if you've been here all your life, eventually it will be if you're not what we consider to be the ideal white person, then chances are you're being removed' - and when it does start happening, and when they do start knocking on my door, on my neighbours door, by then it will be too late.

I'm reminded of a poem by Reverend Martin Niemoller

First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out.
Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out.
Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.

A country that is politically unhappy and politically unstable is a dangerous country - it leaves the field open for extremists - would Hitler's National Socialist party come to power if Germany hadn't been in such economic strife, if they weren't so unhappy with the (then) current political set up? Hitler came along and gave them an easy target to blame all the troubles on - someone they could vent their resentment at - and when people realised what was going on, it was too late.

Originally Posted by Mr_love_monkey

This, I think, is going to be why, eventually, a party like the BNP will come to power. People are so fed up with the influx of migrants, asylum seekers, etc, whom, they feel, rightly or wrongly, are responsible for the high council tax, bad public services, lack of jobs (after all, despite what the figures say, has unemployment gone down? - I don't think so - juggling the figures so that people on a 'find a job' scheme don't show up as unemployed, is not the same as making sure people have work).

So what will happen is the BNP (or someone) will say, yes, we'll stop the influx, we'll get council tax down, we'll stop Johnnie Foreigner taking all the jobs - and people will be disillusioned and angry enough to want to show they they have had enough, and that they want something done about the issues - and they will vote for them. Of course they won't see the small print - which says 'oh yes, and after we've done that - we start forcibly repatriating people, that we don't consider to be 'pure' british, never mind if you've been here all your life, eventually it will be if you're not what we consider to be the ideal white person, then chances are you're being removed' - and when it does start happening, and when they do start knocking on my door, on my neighbours door, by then it will be too late.

I'm reminded of a poem by Reverend Martin Niemoller


A country that is politically unhappy and politically unstable is a dangerous country - it leaves the field open for extremists - would Hitler's National Socialist party come to power if Germany hadn't been in such economic strife, if they weren't so unhappy with the (then) current political set up? Hitler came along and gave them an easy target to blame all the troubles on - someone they could vent their resentment at - and when people realised what was going on, it was too late.

I agree to an extent, the government can be sacked by the queen so I dont think it would get as far as forcibly repatriating. Although it is alarming something has to be done, the warning signs are there. I will never condemn the BNP but I also will never condone them. They are after all a representation of some of the populous.

[Mr_love_monkey]

Originally Posted by timewarrior2001

I agree to an extent, the government can be sacked by the queen so I dont think it would get as far as forcibly repatriating.

I'd be very interested to see what happened if the Queen tried to sack the/any government.....

The Royal family really has a figure head role these days, who knows what would happen if they actually tried to use some of the old influence they had?

Originally Posted by timewarrior2001

I will never condemn the BNP but I also will never condone them. They are after all a representation of some of the populous.

Yes, that's the thing really, inorder to be a free country you have to allow people their views even if you find them distasteful - their political views are just as valid as ours - As Voltare said "I don't believe in what you say, but I will fight for your right to say it" - if we start excluding parties from the process, that makes us no better than they are.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by JustAnotherN00b

OK best mention to the following that they are not democracies:

Argentina
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Bolivia
Brazil
Cyprus
Dominican Republic
Egypt
Greece
Guatemala
Honduras
Liechenstein
Luxembourg
Panama
Philippines
Singapore
Switzerland (some cantons only)
Uruguay
Venezuela

With the greatest of respect, what's that got to do with anything? I don't live in any of those countries?

[punky]

I'd vote Tory, but i'm still not happy about that fool Howard running the country. He's gotta be better than Blair thought.

I so wish IDS was still the leader of the conservatives, He' would be a good PM IMHO.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Russ D

With the greatest of respect, what's that got to do with anything? I don't live in any of those countries?

I think JANoob was making a point that compulsory voting doesn't stop a democracy.

[MovedGoalPosts]

Since there's clearly so many who feel unable to vote, as the current options offer no real choice, or through the party system, you like part of the manifesto, but hate other parts, we need something different. So a suggestion, albeit I'm not sure how practical it is.

Voters are presented with a range of policies for each issue, and options on those policies, at the ballot, the voter selects their preference for each option, do it, don't do it, spend more, spend less, etc. It's not a case of having one separate ballot for each different issue, like is proposed if we ever do go for ditching the pound. There would be one ballot dealing with lots of issues. Yes ballots might need to be held every year, instead of every 4-5 years, but effectively we do that for local councils.

As to how we then choose our MPs or whoever, it would probably be some sort of proportional representation, based on the supporters of the different policies.

[Ignition]

Originally Posted by Russ D

With the greatest of respect, what's that got to do with anything? I don't live in any of those countries?

Just with greatest of respect pointing out that compulsory voting certainly doesn't kill off a democracy. I don't live in any of them either but would imagine I'd be quite offended if someone accused my country of not being democratic because I am required to go to the polling booth (not actually required to vote, once in the booth can do whatever you wish with the paper, secret ballot!)

It's viewed as a civic duty along with paying your taxes, etc. I wouldn't mind seeing it introduced here... we'd be in with a chance of getting a Government that was actually voted for by a majority instead of low turnouts as people don't want to choose between the helpless and the hopeless.

[zendawn]

Originally Posted by Damien

Theres an 'other' section ya know?

All other partys can go in there and again if you dont wanna vote they this is not the topic for you as it will just lead to people complaining about the system and such.

Eh? What's got up you?

I was on about the real elections, not your vote.

There should be a 'NONE of the Above' section on the REAL election ballot. IMHO

Then there would be no excuse for apathy, as a non vote could be registered.

[zendawn]

Originally Posted by JustAnotherN00b

It's viewed as a civic duty along with paying your taxes, etc. I wouldn't mind seeing it introduced here... we'd be in with a chance of getting a Government that was actually voted for by a majority instead of low turnouts as people don't want to choose between the helpless and the hopeless.

Yes I agree, voting is a right as well as a duty, one which many people have fought (sp?) and died for.
Altho I dont agree with compulsory voting, I think PR would go a long way to redressing the apathy most people feel when they vote on the FPTP system.

If your stuck in a strongly one sided constituency, it so easy to feel your vote is futile, But with PR even a relative small number of votes can make a difference.

I like the Starship Troopers approach too, where you have to have served in the army before you can vote.
Or at least the Peace corps if not the army, so as to gain a sense of civic responsibility.

[erol]

I am reminded of that great Gore Vidal quote that goes along the lines of

'Don't vote - it only encourages them'

Personaly I would like to see an option of 'none of the above' on ballot forms. I rarely voted in the UK, not because I was too lazy or unconcerned to do so, but simply because there was no one that I wanted to vote ofr. I would have voted however if I could have actively shown that there was no one that I wanted to vote for, if you see what I mean. A general election where the biggest single 'winner' was 'none of the above' would send a pretty clear signal to the existing parties imo.

[Mr_love_monkey]

Originally Posted by erol

A general election where the biggest single 'winner' was 'none of the above' would send a pretty clear signal to the existing parties imo.

It's an idea I like as well..... but what would you do afterwards? - who would be incontrol of the country afterwards? - and how long would that state last?

[erol]

Originally Posted by Mr_love_monkey

It's an idea I like as well..... but what would you do afterwards? - who would be incontrol of the country afterwards? - and how long would that state last?

the party with the most votes would still win the election - it's just they would not be able to swagger around thinking they had a mandate from the majority of the electorate, if more people had said 'none of the above' than voted for the winning party. It _might_ bring a bit of humility to them and mediate their behviour. Least thats how I see it.

[Mr_love_monkey]

Originally Posted by erol

the party with the most votes would still win the election - it's just they would not be able to swagger around thinking they had a mandate from the majority of the electorate, if more people had said 'none of the above' than voted for the winning party. It _might_ bring a bit of humility to them and mediate their behviour. Least thats how I see it.

Nice idea, but I don't think it would work that way. There's no humility in politics (I feel anyway) - I'm sure they'd still see it as a 'storming victory' - because they still got more votes than the other parties. The only way it would work would be for 'none of the above' to be a valid result - and that no one be in power. That's the only way they would ever listen.

...but it comes back to my question of what you would do if there was no clear winner. A coalition of political parties? - each one having a voice - no matter how distasteful it might be (a la BNP) - the 2 strongest forming a coalition?

Does anyone else have any ideas?

[zendawn]

Originally Posted by Mr_love_monkey

Nice idea, but I don't think it would work that way. There's no humility in politics (I feel anyway) - I'm sure they'd still see it as a 'storming victory' - because they still got more votes than the other parties. The only way it would work would be for 'none of the above' to be a valid result - and that no one be in power. That's the only way they would ever listen.

Does anyone else have any ideas?

Yes its a tuff one, off course you would hope that the other parties would take some sort of notice and change, but like you said Politicians arent well know for their humility.

But they do need some sort of 'bloody nose' cuz even with the beating the Conservatives got in the last 2 elections they still havent learnt any lessions, and Labour are still too cocky to take any notice of anything sort of a landslide lose.