Once again the nation is gripped by election apathy , or is that an oxymoron ? Well you know what I mean .
I am glancing at my postal voting papers next to me on the desk and have found 3 reasons to open the envelope :
1) I am fortunate to live in a reasonably democratic and corruption-free democracy and it is worth recognising that officially
2) The incumbent councillor has been a hard working and caring representative , and the council have been helpful to my charitable endeavours
3) I know the EU candidate well enough to recognise him in the street , so why not help a chap you know to get a nice , cushy, plum job that is something of a sinecure . I doesn't really matter that his party is really a pressure group with a single policy that if successful would mean it could fold if it achieved it's goal. Hint , hint .....you know which one I refer to
In the past I achieved number 1 by spoiling my ballot paper vis a vis the EU candidates and I reckon the incumbents at Downing St got the message 'cos we didn't sign up to the euro
But gratitude to somebody who has been good to you can't be overlooked so it looks like the envelope will be opened (slowly , not torn open with enthusiasm and excitement like there's a cheque inside) and the democratic process will trundle slowly forward
What will YOU be doing ?
You might also be interested in
Replies (20)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
An EU vote does what ...
One suspects that for the most part UK voters regard EU elections as a bit of a non-event - which is really only supported by those promoting themselves for these lucrative 'posts with perks'
Personally I don't have a clue who our local representative is or even what they have done for our benefit. Although, what I do see is the likes of the Kinnock family etc. who have done very well out of being an abject failure in the UK political system and lined their pockets handsomely in Europe (not a dig at any party, just those appearing in the news - all parties have been at it)
Not really in favour of the EU in it's current form because it has evolved into a corrupt, self-serving body which is light years away from the original concept of a trading alliance. But then this is probably the result of the politicians awarding themselves ever more powers & money and inevitably results in corruption of one form or another coupled with massive hand-outs to emerging 'basket case' countries as bribes to top up the EU power base
On the other hand UK elections are an entirely different matter and there is a fairly direct correlation between ones vote and results / performance. However, it is questionable whether the electorate should be able to opt-out of UK elections as so many have done because they have been turned off by our politicians and become apathetic.
How about making voting in UK national elections mandatory - after all under the current system 50% of the 30% who voted (i.e. 15% of the population) is a rubbish mandate for any political party
Mandate to govern
I am in favour of compulsory voting , after all you can do as I have done and spoil the paper , which is as good a message to the "system" as any.
You correctly point out that the mandate to govern is woefully low , but that is the system , it is known by all , so those who fail to vote in a positive manner are saying they are not really fussed. Flawed but fair
The only thing the EU has going for it is that it may have contributed to the lack of conflict in much of Europe since 1945 , as countries can get angry with each other without having to send their citizens to kill one another in the name of national glory and jingoism
.
I will be voting Green.
But given the choice of "vote racist rubbish", "vote money for my mates" "vote dither" and "vote for I oppose what you stand for", there doesn't seem much in it.
I have in the past spoilt my paper but the Greens actually on balance policies I mostly agree with, so I am going to break out the sandals.
Never mind who to vote for better worry about postal fraud
We all have different party views and green certainly is not mine , but at least we can differ without having to worry about being jailed over it
What does worry me is how easy it is to defraud the system , especially when vulnerable people or those who may not be au fait with our polticial process are concerned. These people's votes are up for grabs and I reckon the few stories that make the news are the tip of the iceberg
What is needed is a very stiff prison sentence and financial penalty as this sort of stuff strikes at the heart of our democratic system
I reckon that those applying for postal votes would in the main turn out in any event unless they are busy or out of town , so it doesn't really reach those that are unhappy with politics and won't vote.
Time for a root and branch reform of the voting system , but please keep first past the post , at least it means you know what you vote for and what you can reasonably expect
Green party ...
http://notesbrokensociety.wordpress.com/2014/01/26/no-confidence-an-epit...
Going Green ?
Perhaps our green correspondent doesn't live in Brighton or is so green that they recycle everything and have no household waste to be uncollected
As I have said before ....
... I am in favour of compulsory voting, with the caveat there is either a "none of the above" box, or a way of indicating I am voting for best of a bad bunch, rather than someone I think is capable.
At least the Euro elections give you a chance to vote for who you want as every vote counts, the general elections are so skewed depending on where boundaries are drawn and give an imbalance of power, especially as you may have to tacticaly vote for your second choice to ensure your third choice doesn't win - we moan at the coalition, but, had people not voted clegg to keep brown out we would still be in a recession deeper than the Mariana Trench.
May be a lanslide to UKIP may be what is needed to re-engage the political "elite" with us plebs!
The wost thing is party politics, and a travesty of democracy - the three line whip!
in my view power should be devolved as far as practical, I would rather taxes set locally and collected locally and a per-capita payment made up to central governmant to deal with national issues like defence, justice etc. Local decisions should be taken at a local level, and representation should reflect the will of the electorate, not party dogma.
Same, same, same
It seems to me that in the key area of the economy the major parties all hold the same (misguided) views.
I would vote for a party which planned to increase government spending, reduce taxes, and increase the deficit, in order to provide a fillip to boost growth in the economy and to provide better public services.
Instead of which all the parties intend to damage our economy further - if they can manage it - sucking at its lifeblood by collecting more in taxes and reducing expenditure. That's collective madness on the part of the main political parties.
But apparently, at least for voters, There Is No Alternative!
RM
@Russian Blue
I have no words for your comment. I know many a intellect with the cop on of a pea. That is the view of people who don,t like the results .
It's power, not votes, that count
This country is governed by big business, and they don't even have a vote (and don't need one).
All the parties kow-tow to big business. We have too many international companies who take from the country and give little in return, but yet politicians fall over themselves to help them. The politicians think they are luring a golden goose to the country, but it usually turns out to be a cuckoo in the nest.
I vote Tory ...
... for the same reasoon I support Chelsea!
Blue is the colour ... :o)
Red is the colour of danger, very apt for the labour party then, and orange just can't make its mind up, or rather a mix of red for danger and yellow for cowardice - a recipe for disaster.
As for greens, nobody likes them in their diet, even though we know they are good for us!
Then there's electoral boundaries ...
This is a huge issue because it results in the UK currently having different classes of voters; where some people’s votes are worth more than others because of the inequality of the number of constituents within existing boundaries.
‘.. For example, 87,000 voters in the East Ham constituency together get one say in the government. The 66,000 voters living 10 miles away in Islington North get one say too. So, if you live in Islington, your voice counts for more ..’
This situation clearly favours some political parties over others. However, to change this inequality could result in one party (Labour) never being elected again in the foreseeable future and this in itself would be detrimental to the UK.
The country needs a strong opposition and a viable alternative in order to prevent the incumbent party doing precisely as they please without any opposition
A similar problem will be encountered if Scotland votes for independence - at which point Labour will lose quite a number on MP's and the balance of power will reside with the Conservatives. The Scotland issue doesn't really affect the Conservatives because their standing in Scotland is negligible anyway, so they have nothing to lose and everything to gain
What's the solution - does one allow these inequalities to remain knowing full well that one side clearly has a huge advantage (Labour) which potentially balances the political spectrum or change the boundaries resulting in the Conservatives being in power for ever (all power corrupts!)?
Therefore in one sense maintaining the status quo with inequality may well be good for the country and the best way forward - although in absolute terms it is grossly inequitable
Where next with democracy ?
The answer is to re-engage with the public by policiticians setting a true example of morality and probity . Cat in hell's chance at the moment and unlikely to improve . So for the foreseeable future the lack of interest continues to let the wrong type of person easily rise to the top of the tree and the vicious circle continues.
The media could help somewhat if they really wanted but as they like to ruin the live's of those in the public eye it is hardly going to let those that we need to , to enter politics . That is one of the reasons I have declined to stand in local elections in spite much arm twisting from the main parties and many locals .
Without the media ..
... we would never know the extent of self-serving hypocrisy among our politicians. Don't shoot the messenger. If the politicians didn't misbehave there would be nothing for the media to report. Nobody would support lies and half-truths being reported by the media, but most stories have some basis in fact and I, for one, am glad that the public learn of the double standards exhibited by politicians.
Exposing double standards
Of course the electorate are entitled to know if those who serve us are corrupt and the media has a role to play but the manner in which misleading headlines and twisted sound bites are used is unfair.
If a polititican parks on a double yellow line in a private capacity and receives a ticket it's a safe bet that somebody somewhere in the media will use it to gain eyeballs by besmirching the driver. And I am not referring to a minsiter for transport
Perhaps we should examine the affiars of the journalists and then we'll see who occupies the moral high ground
An independent team of properly empowered internal auditors would go much further in ensuring that politicians are not on the take , after all it usually boils down to money when a political scandal kicks off
A journalist with whom I am acquainted approached me last year about running a piece on some of the charitable work I am involved in . I play very hard ball with him and raely give him copy . Why ? Because he told me that the story isn't "juicy" enough because there is nothing negative in it and wanted to put a slant on it that would cast some sections of society in a poor light. When I do give him a quote it is given by email and he is told by me he can only use the words I give or else he cannot publish. It takes me 30 seconds to pen the words and 30 minutes to work out how he can truncate the quote or misuse it. Unsurprisingly he rarely publishes .
Another publication's editor threatened me repeatedly earlier this year for refusing to take his calls.
The fact that some news items are a force for good does not justify trying to destroy people's reputations on the back of rumour and conjecture
Entirely different animals ...
Unfortunately we have got to the state where the politicians themselves have debased the whole system and are now paying the price with every misdemeanour being reported as a horror story.
Also doesn't help that they have tried to either kowtow or muzzle the press freedom (depending upon what they want at the time) in cahoots with others who have vested interests (i.e. Hugh Grant - Davina Brown etc.)
The fundamental difference between journalist & politicians is that the former do not 'elect' to be in the public eye or have aspiration of 'ruling' the rest of the population - being cynical, making a difference is not about lining ones own pockets. As a wag once said – wanting to be a politician should automatically debar you in the first place
Don't agree with 'internal' auditors or regulation - this should all be external and subject to the rules of law. Frankly theft is theft irrespective of whether one is a politician (not a perk of the job) or not and if you are caught with your hand in the till (no matter how small) then your political career is over without a pay-off. Without this basic line in the sand then there is no public trust
Essentially each to his own and knowing how journalist operate, then if politicians play with fire then they should not be surprised if they get burned
Politicians and oversight
The problem of using the law as it stands is that it takes forever and a day to get to the point of justice , by which time the press have had plenty time to influence the jury . An internal system whereby they would be subject to financial penalty and disgrace would be swfit and fairer.
There are many people out there who genuinely want to do good for the community within a political context. Regrettably politics has followed society in terms of its aggression and lack of probity. then again if we have politicians that are supposed to representive of their constituents then perhaps it isn't so bad after all
.
Re the greens, not really sure what one city council has got to do with anything. They dont even have control of it, they are in minority at Brighton.
Plenty of useless blue/red and yellow councils. Mine is either blue, yellow or a mix of both but always without fail, utterly useless and clueless, and sometimes cynically corrupt.
This is the problem ...
... ideally power should be devolved, but councils suffer from far greater corruption and cronyism than Westminster - which is the stumbling block.
For your average Joe, doesn't really matter who is crapping on you, it all smells the same!
Councils and cronyism
On a council , especially a small one , those with a vested interest step out of the debate but you can bet your bottom dollar that it's a case of "you scratch my back I'll scratch yours" . I have seen terrible abuse in the planning process but there's little that can be done about it - it's the way of the world and the very essence of politics .
If you really want to get on top of the system , get yourself elected !