UK General Election 2015
Discussion
Axionknight said:
I do understand what you were getting at - they shouldn't be allowed to vote because they are too stupid, failed by an education system run by political parties they would have no power at the ballot box to change or protest against if your proposals were put in place. 
basically, yes.now, you tell me what the alternative is?
(look at the scottish referendum results detail as a guide)
you think it's right that the future of this country is decided by gullible simpletons?
the sad part here is that a lot of the current political intake is the very same ill-informed, gullible simpletons, but with total belief in their own abilities - a very scary mix!
I actually find it quite scary that the best they have to offer (as presented to us on the political TV shows) appear to be no better than the 'stars' of TOWIE etc.
How do you explain people like Miliband, Cameron and Clegg being their party's leaders? Are they really the best people out there for the job?
Munter said:
The question is then where do you draw the line.
The generally accepted age of "maturity to adulthood" in the country: E.g. 18
The point where one can expect to have any income tax spent by the gov: E.g. 16
A point above those chosen by gut feel of someone on the internet: E.g. 30
Or
Should we stop using age as an indicator of someone's right to vote. Instead there could be other requirements. In the past it was land ownership. I'm not suggesting that. But it might be worth changing to a system where people's ability to understand the concepts involved in politics has been assessed as adequate.
can you imagine the outcry if you had even the most basic of 'tests' people had to pass to be able to vote?The generally accepted age of "maturity to adulthood" in the country: E.g. 18
The point where one can expect to have any income tax spent by the gov: E.g. 16
A point above those chosen by gut feel of someone on the internet: E.g. 30
Or
Should we stop using age as an indicator of someone's right to vote. Instead there could be other requirements. In the past it was land ownership. I'm not suggesting that. But it might be worth changing to a system where people's ability to understand the concepts involved in politics has been assessed as adequate.
you would have Mr McCluskey going apoplectic!
We should be looking to increase participation and turnout, not ban people from voting because they "don't understand", or whatever other subjective measure you want to apply.
In some ways there is already a move to ensure only the "right" people have a vote - There are 5-6m people missing from the electoral register already.
In some ways there is already a move to ensure only the "right" people have a vote - There are 5-6m people missing from the electoral register already.
Munter said:
The question is then where do you draw the line.
The generally accepted age of "maturity to adulthood" in the country: E.g. 18
The point where one can expect to have any income tax spent by the gov: E.g. 16
A point above those chosen by gut feel of someone on the internet: E.g. 30
Or
Should we stop using age as an indicator of someone's right to vote. Instead there could be other requirements. In the past it was land ownership. I'm not suggesting that. But it might be worth changing to a system where people's ability to understand the concepts involved in politics has been assessed as adequate.
Yes, you should have the vote if you pay income tax.The generally accepted age of "maturity to adulthood" in the country: E.g. 18
The point where one can expect to have any income tax spent by the gov: E.g. 16
A point above those chosen by gut feel of someone on the internet: E.g. 30
Or
Should we stop using age as an indicator of someone's right to vote. Instead there could be other requirements. In the past it was land ownership. I'm not suggesting that. But it might be worth changing to a system where people's ability to understand the concepts involved in politics has been assessed as adequate.
edh said:
We should be looking to increase participation and turnout, not ban people from voting because they "don't understand", or whatever other subjective measure you want to apply.
In some ways there is already a move to ensure only the "right" people have a vote - There are 5-6m people missing from the electoral register already.
So you're happy to have an uneducated population voting on issues they can't grasp, in the name of increasing participation?In some ways there is already a move to ensure only the "right" people have a vote - There are 5-6m people missing from the electoral register already.
It's not working very well so far. How long do we wait for before implementing change?
edh said:
We should be looking to increase participation and turnout, not ban people from voting because they "don't understand", or whatever other subjective measure you want to apply.
In some ways there is already a move to ensure only the "right" people have a vote - There are 5-6m people missing from the electoral register already.
don't disagree with you, the issue is how you do it?In some ways there is already a move to ensure only the "right" people have a vote - There are 5-6m people missing from the electoral register already.
It would be nice if our political class could actually raise their game and actually debate properly on real stuff rather than the kinder-garden crap we have now.
Munter said:
Esseesse said:
Yes, you should have the vote if you pay income tax.
Parents give birth to a disabled child due to complications.Mum quits job to care for said child.
Mum doesn't get to vote but Dad does?
A positive contribution to society can come in forms other than cash.
Perhaps allow a vote for someone who stays at home, married to someone who is out paying income tax. Or maybe the marriage/family PC issue could be avoided if you allowed a transferable tax allowance between couples of any orientation and/or gender, and then allowed both to have a vote if between them income tax was paid.
Esseesse said:
Munter said:
Esseesse said:
Yes, you should have the vote if you pay income tax.
Parents give birth to a disabled child due to complications.Mum quits job to care for said child.
Mum doesn't get to vote but Dad does?
A positive contribution to society can come in forms other than cash.
Perhaps allow a vote for someone who stays at home, married to someone who is out paying income tax. Or maybe the marriage/family PC issue could be avoided if you allowed a transferable tax allowance between couples of any orientation and/or gender, and then allowed both to have a vote if between them income tax was paid.
Alternatively we could just make it age related, lets say 18 years old...
Munter said:
The question is then where do you draw the line.
The generally accepted age of "maturity to adulthood" in the country: E.g. 18
The point where one can expect to have any income tax spent by the gov: E.g. 16
A point above those chosen by gut feel of someone on the internet: E.g. 30
Or
Should we stop using age as an indicator of someone's right to vote. Instead there could be other requirements. In the past it was land ownership. I'm not suggesting that. But it might be worth changing to a system where people's ability to understand the concepts involved in politics has been assessed as adequate.
Imo age is irrelevant. Should be tax payers, retired tax payers and those with unpaid occupations like carers who can vote.The generally accepted age of "maturity to adulthood" in the country: E.g. 18
The point where one can expect to have any income tax spent by the gov: E.g. 16
A point above those chosen by gut feel of someone on the internet: E.g. 30
Or
Should we stop using age as an indicator of someone's right to vote. Instead there could be other requirements. In the past it was land ownership. I'm not suggesting that. But it might be worth changing to a system where people's ability to understand the concepts involved in politics has been assessed as adequate.
tangerine_sedge said:
Zod said:
REALIST123 said:
Sadly, I think you're right. Too many people in this country haven't a clue what's coming and, even worse, don't really care.
2020s election will be interesting. If the next government gets that far.
You do realise he thinks UKIP is going to be calling the shots?2020s election will be interesting. If the next government gets that far.
Just as a reminder Farage key performance measurements of achievement when he took leadership in 2010 after the Lord Pearson debacle were a) win 2014 Euro election outright and b) get first seat in Westminster in 2015GE. I thought no chance.
First is clearly checked off, second is definitely realistic, some would argue already achieved, but those were by elections.
Also, based on the pathetic arguments and behaviour of the traditional parties, one could argue Westminster is stirred even if not yet shaken.
FiF said:
tangerine_sedge said:
Zod said:
REALIST123 said:
Sadly, I think you're right. Too many people in this country haven't a clue what's coming and, even worse, don't really care.
2020s election will be interesting. If the next government gets that far.
You do realise he thinks UKIP is going to be calling the shots?2020s election will be interesting. If the next government gets that far.
Just as a reminder Farage key performance measurements of achievement when he took leadership in 2010 after the Lord Pearson debacle were a) win 2014 Euro election outright and b) get first seat in Westminster in 2015GE. I thought no chance.
First is clearly checked off, second is definitely realistic, some would argue already achieved, but those were by elections.
Also, based on the pathetic arguments and behaviour of the traditional parties, one could argue Westminster is stirred even if not yet shaken.
Green leader on Newsnight - I think they may be useful idiots for the Tories. She went all out to say she would never go into a coalition government with the Tories or UKIP (so won't attract a single vote) but had a long conversation about various roles with Labour (when it looks like they won't win a seat).
FiF said:
It just got even more confusing.
Latest Ashcroft poll, parachutes unprompted Greens into 4th place with 11%
Lots of interesting facets in the report behind the numbers> For example:Latest Ashcroft poll, parachutes unprompted Greens into 4th place with 11%
When asked whether they had seen/heard anything about the GE.
someone said:
There’s no excitement building. It feels more like a local election. There’s something coming but not anything big like who’s going to run the country.”
They have a point. A higher proportion (compared to expected votes) of the attention has been on UKIP & Greens, who plainly won't be running the country. So the big 2 have all the play for still.Or:
LAP said:
If each leader were an animal, what would they be? Cameron would be a fox, being smart and sleek – or, less charitably, “a giraffe, looking down on everybody”. Farage? A peacock, or a weasel. Clegg? “A Chihuahua in David Cameron’s handbag”. Miliband? Puzzlement. “Certainly not a predator… one of those animals that, when you go to the zoo, you’re not bothered whether you see it or not.”
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2015/01/ashcroft-national-poll-con-29-lab-28-lib-dem-9-ukip-15-green-11/#more-73680a said:
Green leader on Newsnight - I think they may be useful idiots for the Tories. She went all out to say she would never go into a coalition government with the Tories or UKIP (so won't attract a single vote) but had a long conversation about various roles with Labour (when it looks like they won't win a seat).
A nice summary of the Greens policies. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/green-par...
Absolute bonkers how anyone in the right frame of mind can vote for these loons.
jogon said:
0a said:
Green leader on Newsnight - I think they may be useful idiots for the Tories. She went all out to say she would never go into a coalition government with the Tories or UKIP (so won't attract a single vote) but had a long conversation about various roles with Labour (when it looks like they won't win a seat).
A nice summary of the Greens policies. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/green-par...
Absolute bonkers how anyone in the right frame of mind can vote for these loons.
Not funny !!! We really are finished if these commie cretins get a toe hold
Munter said:
edh said:
We should be looking to increase participation and turnout, not ban people from voting because they "don't understand", or whatever other subjective measure you want to apply.
In some ways there is already a move to ensure only the "right" people have a vote - There are 5-6m people missing from the electoral register already.
So you're happy to have an uneducated population voting on issues they can't grasp, in the name of increasing participation?In some ways there is already a move to ensure only the "right" people have a vote - There are 5-6m people missing from the electoral register already.
It's not working very well so far. How long do we wait for before implementing change?
fblm said:
Imo age is irrelevant. Should be tax payers, retired tax payers and those with unpaid occupations like carers who can vote.
We all pay tax. If you mean income tax, then we disenfranchise the millions earning below the IT threshold. But why single out IT?
powerstroke said:
Not funny !!! We really are finished if these commie cretins get a toe hold
EXACTLY!and when you look at who is supporting them, it's the clueless students and the anti-fracking twonks.
Watched newsnight, she's just a car crash on so many levels, I honestly think she believes the crap she is spouting, yes, she really is that thick.
powerstroke said:
jogon said:
0a said:
Green leader on Newsnight - I think they may be useful idiots for the Tories. She went all out to say she would never go into a coalition government with the Tories or UKIP (so won't attract a single vote) but had a long conversation about various roles with Labour (when it looks like they won't win a seat).
A nice summary of the Greens policies. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/green-par...
Absolute bonkers how anyone in the right frame of mind can vote for these loons.
Not funny !!! We really are finished if these commie cretins get a toe hold
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff