Election Year or Fear!

[Geoff Parkstone]

.

Maybe, although an old work colleague of mine always said to vote you should have to pass an IQ test of sorts.

Although I suspect that was because he thought everyone who disagreed with him was thick.

I didnt know you and Swale used to work together

I don't feel it should be compulsory but feel we should do more to encourage a bigger turnout.

Would online voting increase turnout?

Im sure online voting is the shape of things to come, but there is a lot to be said for the "in person" approach, not least being that election fraud is much more likely with online voting and can be done on a mass basis. One half way decent hacker could get the Monster Raving Loony candidate elected in Islington North or Clacton with relative simplicity Im sure. Oh wait, they are already in....

Compulsory voting has its appeals but I suspect that would work better in a proportional representation based environment.

Same Grandad always said if you don't vote you have absolutely no right to complain or moan about those in government.

In a way thats true but how many constituencies are rotten? Despite above average swings in each of the last two elections, there are still many people effectively disenfranchised by the "vote for a pig if it has a blue/red rosette on" mentality. Even in the last elections with its huge pro labour swing there was still no point voting for them in my constituency.

[SithHappens]

Maybe, although an old work colleague of mine always said to vote you should have to pass an IQ test of sorts.

Although I suspect that was because he thought everyone who disagreed with him was thick.

I didnt know you and Swale used to work together

I don't feel it should be compulsory but feel we should do more to encourage a bigger turnout.

Would online voting increase turnout?

Im sure online voting is the shape of things to come, but there is a lot to be said for the "in person" approach, not least being that election fraud is much more likely with online voting and can be done on a mass basis. One half way decent hacker could get the Monster Raving Loony candidate elected in Islington North or Clacton with relative simplicity Im sure. Oh wait, they are already in....

Compulsory voting has its appeals but I suspect that would work better in a proportional representation based environment.

Same Grandad always said if you don't vote you have absolutely no right to complain or moan about those in government.

In a way thats true but how many constituencies are rotten? Despite above average swings in each of the last two elections, there are still many people effectively disenfranchised by the "vote for a pig if it has a blue/red rosette on" mentality. Even in the last elections with its huge pro labour swing there was still no point voting for them in my constituency.

With your 'quoting' ability i don't think you'd pass said IQ test.

I'm only joking BTW.

I guess hacking etc is the concern with online voting but I'd think there would be some way to avoid it Who knows though. In covid early figures were found to be wrong when it was discovered they were using an older version of excel to record cases which had a limit on number of rows so online voting might be a stretch.

[Geoff Parkstone]

Liberals / LibDems have been a joke since Rinka was taken out back in the 70's, apart from a brief glimmer of potential relevance that was swiftly pissed away by Clegg, who really should have stayed walking the moors arounf Holmfirth.

[swaledale]

Swale, on Farage: "Where he will fall apart and its happening now, is when he tries to put forward detailed financial policies and move away from ....."

Correct and this is where extremists always fall down, especially when only pursuing one key policy as their platform. Its just the same as we saw with Corbyn. Gets popular suypport for talking a story, but when it comes to the wider world of actual government, dont have a scoobie on practicalities.

Great in opposition, hopeless when the baton is handed to them for wider action.

Spot on!!

[Andy_Faber]

Maybe, although an old work colleague of mine always said to vote you should have to pass an IQ test of sorts.

Although I suspect that was because he thought everyone who disagreed with him was thick.

I didnt know you and Swale used to work together

Beat me to it there GP

[swaledale]

Maybe, although an old work colleague of mine always said to vote you should have to pass an IQ test of sorts.

Although I suspect that was because he thought everyone who disagreed with him was thick.

I didnt know you and Swale used to work together

I don't feel it should be compulsory but feel we should do more to encourage a bigger turnout.

Would online voting increase turnout?

Im sure online voting is the shape of things to come, but there is a lot to be said for the "in person" approach, not least being that election fraud is much more likely with online voting and can be done on a mass basis. One half way decent hacker could get the Monster Raving Loony candidate elected in Islington North or Clacton with relative simplicity Im sure. Oh wait, they are already in....

Compulsory voting has its appeals but I suspect that would work better in a proportional representation based environment.

Same Grandad always said if you don't vote you have absolutely no right to complain or moan about those in government.

In a way thats true but how many constituencies are rotten? Despite above average swings in each of the last two elections, there are still many people effectively disenfranchised by the "vote for a pig if it has a blue/red rosette on" mentality. Even in the last elections with its huge pro labour swing there was still no point voting for them in my constituency.

Except I don't think everyone who disagrees with me is thick, but I do know that people who give an opinion and are unable to support that opinion with reasoning, actual evidence other than what they have read online or in some dubious media are definitely lacking cognitive ability.

But then its always been a mystery as to why the right have so often been able to convince the working class to vote for them, when history shows its not in their interests to do so.

[swaledale]

Mea culpa. I have to admit that in the early days I was completely dismissive of Farage and even on the night of the Referendum I, and many others, went to bed confident in the knowledge that he’d been found out and that common sense would have prevailed.

I was shocked - nothing less - in the morning. The country has, imo, been horribly divided ever since that moment. No one has profited more from the turmoil than NF himself, imo, and I’ll certainly aim not make the same mistake again.
You’re 100% right, there absolutely needs to be firm opposition focussing on his lies, hypocrisy and the source of and motives behind his funding.

I'm rather shocked that you thought the wider voting public had any "common sense"!

More seriously, the problem is that many people can't be bothered with politics, and just vote for what the party that promises them what they think they want. Politicians know this, they also know that any politician that spoke plainly and told the truth would not stand much chance of getting voted in.

Aside from the missteps which have occurred under Starmer's term as PM, one would think that having a technocrat, who is actually getting on with the job of governing would be welcome after a period of performative politics, the same applied to Biden who did in fact achieve many things that benefitted wider US, but know people like charisma, and performative politics as does the media (of whatever persuasion), boring, routine stuff does not make good news, it doesn't capture the headlines and it doesn't capture peoples attention.

That and the fact that any successful government has to have something for everyone, nobody can realistically expect any government to do everything THEY think it should, but people don't seem to grasp that, other than in war time.

[swaledale]

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/po...-shows-400001/

So would you? Obviously doesn't apply to the reform voters amongst us but for everyone else would you go down the 'anyone but reform route?'

I think you know my answer.

My Grandad used to say it's not about voting for who can be the best for you, but more about who can do the least harm.

He was dead right, I always look for the "least worse" option. In part of course, that's because its unrealistic to think any government is going to be totally aligned with any individuals views, its a compromise and that's democracy. Though increasingly it feels that politicians like Farage are promising the impossible, though closer examination reveals that their promises are laced with stuff that their voters will find unpalatable.

I have this argument with people who are enthusing about Corbyn's supposed party if it ever gets established. All they are doing is increasing the chance of a reform victory, which they then respond to by saying that's Labours fault for ignoring us.

To which my response is, to get a chance of implementing even just some of what you want, Labour have to get elected, that means offering stuff that other voters want. Voting for a party aligned to your current beliefs might make you feel good, but if it results in a hard right government, all one has done is shot yourself in the foot.

One has to vote for the best possible outcome, not for some pipe dream of socialism or some other ism that will never happen and hope thHe at overall it works out reasonably well.

[MadAmster]

Comments here on Farridge immediately turn my mind to Wilders. Another one trick pony. Immigration/Islam.

He berated other leaders 2 years ago for not saying they'd increase the minimum wage significantly and for not saying they'd scrap the 385 Euro excess on health care. He was going to look after "Henk and Ingrid". Fictional folk indicating the poorer 50% of white Dutch people. In that election he was by far the largest party. First budget, No significant increase in the minimum wage. The immediate scrapping of the health care excess didn't happen. They announced it would reduce to 175 Euro... in 2027. They also then played about with tax rates, the upshot of which saw generous tax breaks for corporations and the rich. The toughest ever immigration Laws promised, the focal point of everything that comes out of his mouth, haven't materialised.

All mouth and trousers basically, as is, IMO, Farridge. The man whose Limited Company representatives elected to Derbyshire County Council are starting to fall like flies. 2 have already resigned on health frounds. Others are contemplating their navels as they are struggling to both the work of a County Councillor and their normal job. I can see more quitting.

[swaledale]

Indeed, just because you oppose racists storming asylum centres and threatening innocent people it doesn't mean you have to house those asylum seekers yourself.

Its actually quite a statement to suggest you can only be one way or the other.

I'm not even sure any of the more liberal posters on here are even comfortable with the level of immigration or the amount it costs.

As Alan Partridge might say 'I'm hopping mad and want something in the middle'.

Sith, this myth that immigration "costs" this country is just that. There has been any amount of research by different organisations which clearly show that immigrants on the whole are net contributors to the country. Not to mention that the majority end up in higher paid skilled jobs that contribute to society and the economy as well.

Yes there is a lot of hyperbole in the media and by certain politicians that talk about the costs of Asylum seekers, often ironically by the very politicians who created the issue, by housing them in hotels and awarding expensive contracts to private companies, whilst neglecting to process their claims quickly, deporting those who didn't qualify timely and losing track of many failed asylum seekers who have just disappeared.

Its also deeply ironic that the majority of people getting all worked up about immigration and asylum live in parts of the country that have very small (often less than 1%) proportion of the population that are immigrants! Clacton being a prime example.

[SithHappens]

Sith, this myth that immigration "costs" this country is just that. There has been any amount of research by different organisations which clearly show that immigrants on the whole are net contributors to the country. Not to mention that the majority end up in higher paid skilled jobs that contribute to society and the economy as well.

Yes there is a lot of hyperbole in the media and by certain politicians that talk about the costs of Asylum seekers, often ironically by the very politicians who created the issue, by housing them in hotels and awarding expensive contracts to private companies, whilst neglecting to process their claims quickly, deporting those who didn't qualify timely and losing track of many failed asylum seekers who have just disappeared.

Its also deeply ironic that the majority of people getting all worked up about immigration and asylum live in parts of the country that have very small (often less than 1%) proportion of the population that are immigrants! Clacton being a prime example.

Apologies I wasn't referring to immigration via free movement or legal means. I'm well aware they have a positive contribution to the economy.

[ramAnag]

Talking of ‘all mouth and trousers’ - as MA was - see the loathsome (imo) Joey Barton is the latest to try and seemingly hide behind the flag today.
Warned by the judge not to try such a stunt again at his sentencing, I doubt it’s the last we’ll hear of it, but it all just about sums up my shame at the way both the UK and English flags are repeatedly being hijacked these days.

[SithHappens]

Talking of ?all mouth and trousers? - as MA was - see the loathsome (imo) Joey Barton is the latest to try and seemingly hide behind the flag today.
Warned by the judge not to try such a stunt again at his sentencing, I doubt it?s the last we?ll hear of it, but it all just about sums up my shame at the way both the UK and English flags are repeatedly being hijacked these days.

He's a vile human being in my opinion, was as a player, is today. He's a misogynistic racist homophobic wife beating bully.

[Geoff Parkstone]

He's a vile human being in my opinion, was as a player, is today. He's a misogynistic racist homophobic wife beating bully.

Footballers should just stick to football. Lineker, Neville, Barton I'm sure there are more. STFU

[Andy_Faber]

Apologies I wasn't referring to immigration via free movement or legal means. I'm well aware they have a positive contribution to the economy.

In what way Sith? All the independant stuff I can find says legal migration's impact on the economy (using GDP Per Capita) has, I'll quote 'little positive effect', 'very small positive or negative effect' and 'no significant economic benefit'. The main argument seems to be that simple GDP increases, which isn't a valid measure of net contribution. And I'm aware that many (in fact obviously more, as they are a larger part of the population) non-immigrants are also a drain, but that's not the subject at hand.