I'm not voting for anyone!

[Buzzer]

Whilst I dislike UKIP what they have proven is that a UK based party can be formed and go from 0 to a few seats in 10 years. And in other countries new parties have been formed and got some power quite quickly. If there is genuine desire for change it can be done and done relativelly quickly.

The trouble is, and I think I've mentioned it here before that any new party needs to be made up of people who were previously outside the current system. UKIP may be a new party but it's leadership is made up of the same malcontented faces that lurked in the shadows of the more established parties. George Galloway's Respect Party is the same type of beast. The same piggies wanting their snouts in the trough. I guarantee that if the SDP were to form today that within 6 months its leadership would consist entirely of people that made up the old status quo.

It's the system that needs to change (as someone else has said). We need politicians that have had a career outside of politics, union rabble-rousing, parliamentary consultancy and the like. Where are the scientists in government? It's all lawyers, bankers and career politicians - or even worse children of career politicians. In Iceland they have a comedian as mayor of Reykjavik, in Italy another comedian lead a grassroots movement that has the government worried. These people stood as REAL alternatives and the support is there. And here in the UK, we need more Martin Bells, more Richard Taylors (a doctor who ran and won as an independent).

Just watch out for Bez from the Happy Mondays - I fancy he will win the seat he's contesting in Manchester.

 

[hybrid_x]

why not every friday at midday have lots of policies, laws, and issues presented online - then we all text-vote on them all over the weekend.........and parliament is just there to administer the workings of this?

why not? because the corps and central banks need puppets that the people believe are there to help them.

Government?

"When a parent raises a child, the parent knows they've done a good job when the child grows independent, self-educating, psychologically-balanced, and self-sufficient. Eventually, the child should no longer need the parent. Society should behave much the same way, but it's actually going backwards.

Look at the majority track record of Government: Government promotes social ignorance, lies, fraudulent economics, violence, abuse, conformity, and consumer dependence in order to retain power, instead of EMPOWERING the people. It breaks the legs of the people and merits itself a "humanitarian" by selling crutches.

So next time you hear someone talking about "who to vote for" or nitpicking over the empty rhetoric of a political puppet, just stop and pull back to see the bigger picture. Ask them the question most people don't dare truly ask: Is Government ACTUALLY good or even NECESSARY for society?"

 

[Buzzer]

why not every friday at midday have lots of policies, laws, and issues presented online - then we all text-vote on them all over the weekend.........and parliament is just there to administer the workings of this?

why not? because the corps and central banks need puppets that the people believe are there to help them.

Or maybe because decisions on macroeconomics, long-term housing, pensions et al are a little more complex than 'watch these two Youtube videos and decide whether the Bank Of England should be free to decide interest rates and don't forget to follow the Facebook debate between TV Animal expert Chris Packham and Brixton postman Norbert Smith on long-term care provision for the mentally ill'.

Christ, man - do you ever think things through before posting your tin-foil hat nonsense?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

The trouble is, and I think I've mentioned it here before that any new party needs to be made up of people who were previously outside the current system. UKIP may be a new party but it's leadership is made up of the same malcontented faces that lurked in the shadows of the more established parties. George Galloway's Respect Party is the same type of beast. The same piggies wanting their snouts in the trough. I guarantee that if the SDP were to form today that within 6 months its leadership would consist entirely of people that made up the old status quo.

It's the system that needs to change (as someone else has said). We need politicians that have had a career outside of politics, union rabble-rousing, parliamentary consultancy and the like. Where are the scientists in government? It's all lawyers, bankers and career politicians - or even worse children of career politicians. In Iceland they have a comedian as mayor of Reykjavik, in Italy another comedian lead a grassroots movement that has the government worried. These people stood as REAL alternatives and the support is there. And here in the UK, we need more Martin Bells, more Richard Taylors (a doctor who ran and won as an independent).

Just watch out for Bez from the Happy Mondays - I fancy he will win the seat he's contesting in Manchester.

I'm not sure the system needs to change as it is currently capable of delivering true alternatives as you have pointed out. If there is genuine will to make a change it can be done. I personally think there will be a tipping point when the youth of today finally realise that enough is enough; you will see real change then.

One thing I will add to your list above is that no one over a certain age should be able to vote. My generation has let down the next so what can we offer? Let the next lot have a go. I also believe in certain areas knowledge is a hinderance to creativity; politics is probably one of them.

 

[Wrong-Direction]

Does spoil mean I can smear excrement on the paper?

 

[BLOCK F]

why not every friday at midday have lots of policies, laws, and issues presented online - then we all text-vote on them all over the weekend.........and parliament is just there to administer the workings of this?

why not? because the corps and central banks need puppets that the people believe are there to help them.

Government?

"When a parent raises a child, the parent knows they've done a good job when the child grows independent, self-educating, psychologically-balanced, and self-sufficient. Eventually, the child should no longer need the parent. Society should behave much the same way, but it's actually going backwards.

Look at the majority track record of Government: Government promotes social ignorance, lies, fraudulent economics, violence, abuse, conformity, and consumer dependence in order to retain power, instead of EMPOWERING the people. It breaks the legs of the people and merits itself a "humanitarian" by selling crutches.

So next time you hear someone talking about "who to vote for" or nitpicking over the empty rhetoric of a political puppet, just stop and pull back to see the bigger picture. Ask them the question most people don't dare truly ask: Is Government ACTUALLY good or even NECESSARY for society?"

Wow,a bit of a skewed view of things if I may say so.
If you think UK Governments of any colour are that dreadful,just imagine what it would be like if every dickhead and his dog were voting on a Friday, after a night on the piss,for whatever takes their fancy!
If you think society is going backwards now,I would hate to think what it would be like if your idea came to fruition.
By the way,who would decide what policies ,laws and issues would be presented on line? A Government perhaps?

 

[PoG]

You read their policies and manifestos and then decide which one appears to have the most sensible ideas in you opinion ?

Simple as that.

 

[Buzzer]

I also believe in certain areas knowledge is a hinderance to creativity; politics is probably one of them.

Really? A lifetime of experience in a business sector might actually be an asset to being the relevant Minister rather than a zealous 25 year old ex Student Union leader. And under your system, you would prefer Michael Gove with his lack of experience and 'creative' views on how children should be taught to say, someone with 25 years experience in teaching under their belt.

 

[Herne Hill Seagull]

That's because historically spoiled ballot papers have been so few that they weren't worthy of mention. We can change that!

Yep. Had this very discussion with a workmate this morning. Even if every candidate in an election appals you, imagine any vote in which the spoiled ballot papers outnumbered the winner's vote count. That would be all over the press and something none of the parties could ignore - the media wouldn't let them. It's a better option than not voting.

 

[BLOCK F]

I can't believe some of the stuff on here. Turnout rates in elections vary hugely by social class, ethnicity and particularly by age.

Middle class, white, elderly people are particularly likely to vote -- that's why most political parties are terrified of undertaking some sensible policies which would benefit other groups, because they don't want to upset the groups with the high election turnouts. That's why, for example, parties are not grasping the nettle on housing policy -- the people who'd most benefit from proper rent controls in the private sector, increased building of council/social/affordable housing etc tend not to vote, while the people who benefit from the status quo (middle-aged and elderly house-owners sitting on assets rapidly increasing in price) are more likely to vote. There are lots of other examples.

If young people, people on lower incomes and people in disadvantaged groups voted in larger numbers, some of these things would change.

Yes, of course, whether or not one individual NSC member votes or not, makes little or no difference on this occasion, but by not voting time and time again , you are contributing to the long-term decline in election turnout, which makes it easier for politicians to ignore certain segments of the population and, ironically, you are contributing to causing the very thing you are complaining about (that "politicians don't give a stuff about people like me"...).

Well I must be an exception to the above.
I am white ,middle-class, in my mid sixties and indeed living in a house that may or may not be rapidly increasing in value.Nevertheless,I am extremely concerned about the cost of housing ,especially for our young people,whether they are looking to buy,rent in the private sector or obtain social housing.
Plenty of people like me have children who would love to be able to buy or rent properties,but are unable to do so because of the huge cost.It is an enormous problem for society,but I cannot see that rent control measures in the private sector are the correct way to go.By all means,build more house in both the private and public sector,but stay away from Government interference in rent controls.
By the way,I don't own any buy-to -lets and have always considered my house primarily as a home and not an investment.
What the Government of the day is shit scared of, is allowing interest rates to rise..............that would soon bring down house prices to a more affordable level,but we all know why that won't happen.

 

[willalbion]

Why is there not a box for 'I value my right to vote but all these candidates sicken me'?

 

[BLOCK F]

I appreciate the post and I agree that a lot of the time the major parties will focus some of their policies on those who actually turn up, however many of us can see the bigger picture. Whoever we vote for, the result will always be the same, it makes no difference - so why bother at all?

Representative democracy has become merely a tool to keep the power and wealth amongst those who have it. We are no longer living in a true democracy, it is a corporatocracy, but it isn't far off from being an oligarchy. The media has been screaming "UKIP" at us for such a long time that people have actually bought into the idea, but in reality it will change absolutely nothing other than perpetuate this democratic illusion - it is all just smoke and mirrors to distract people from getting involved with genuine political change.

If young people and those on lower income started to vote en masse like you suggest, there would not be any significant change - the major parties might shift their policies slightly towards them - but the stark reality is that governments do not actually serve the people, they serve a rich and corporate elite, all disguised through lies, deception and propaganda.

Mustafa;a genuine question:do you believe there are any countries where your definition of a true democracy exists?

 

[Lady Whistledown]

Whilst I can't say I've found any of the parties involved particularly appealing, I've always felt it's important for me to vote. There's a small part of me which feels I'd be letting down those who risked everything they had in the campaign for women's suffrage if I decided I couldn't be arsed. It's less than ninety years since the act was passed that permitted all women of voting age that right, and no doubt people still alive who were born in an era when that wasn't the case.

 

[Mellotron]

Because a lot of people died so you can have the freedom to vote.

And the freedom to not vote, as well.

 

[turienzo's lovechild]

i always vote in the general and local elections....i just honestly don't care about the EU elections. I'm not even sure I agree with it as a concept. Unless the EU Parliament is completely 100% sovereign over all member states (ie. we become one country with an absolutely incredible national football team) then I'm not really sure what the point of it is.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Really? A lifetime of experience in a business sector might actually be an asset to being the relevant Minister rather than a zealous 25 year old ex Student Union leader. And under your system, you would prefer Michael Gove with his lack of experience and 'creative' views on how children should be taught to say, someone with 25 years experience in teaching under their belt.

In certain areas and situations indeed; I am not suggested every situation. It's an age old debate, i'm not citing anything new. The lifetime of business experience may be of use in doing something a certain tried and tested way or sure. But it may well the case that a more innovative and creative approach will come from someone with less knowledge and experience. And you might need some alignment; installing a car mechanic to run a hospital might not be a great idea. But using your teaching analogy I would suggest a teacher with 25 years experience versus a teacher with say 5 years.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Really? A lifetime of experience in a business sector might actually be an asset to being the relevant Minister rather than a zealous 25 year old ex Student Union leader. And under your system, you would prefer Michael Gove with his lack of experience and 'creative' views on how children should be taught to say, someone with 25 years experience in teaching under their belt.

This is where I am coming from

http://vuir.vu.edu.au/9625/

 

[spring hall convert]

This stuff about going and spoling a ballot paper is b*****s of the highest order.

People are suggesting there would be a press outcry if loads of people spoiled their papers, I don't think so. We already know the turnout and no-one raises an eyebrow at turnouts of 30% at local and European elections. Not voting/ spoling papers is just playing into the hands of the political elite.

Voting isn't that tough is it? Just pick the option that you find most desireable/ least repugnant.

 

[Notters]

why not every friday at midday have lots of policies, laws, and issues presented online - then we all text-vote on them all over the weekend.........and parliament is just there to administer the workings of this?

why not? because the corps and central banks need puppets that the people believe are there to help them.

Government?

"When a parent raises a child, the parent knows they've done a good job when the child grows independent, self-educating, psychologically-balanced, and self-sufficient. Eventually, the child should no longer need the parent. Society should behave much the same way, but it's actually going backwards.

Look at the majority track record of Government: Government promotes social ignorance, lies, fraudulent economics, violence, abuse, conformity, and consumer dependence in order to retain power, instead of EMPOWERING the people. It breaks the legs of the people and merits itself a "humanitarian" by selling crutches.

So next time you hear someone talking about "who to vote for" or nitpicking over the empty rhetoric of a political puppet, just stop and pull back to see the bigger picture. Ask them the question most people don't dare truly ask: Is Government ACTUALLY good or even NECESSARY for society?"

Er, isn't this what Your Voice party are trying to do? You could always vote for them.

http://yourvoiceparty.org.uk/

 

[beorhthelm]

"When a parent raises a child, the parent knows they've done a good job when the child grows independent, self-educating, psychologically-balanced, and self-sufficient. Eventually, the child should no longer need the parent. Society should behave much the same way, but it's actually going backwards. ...

this could be a textbook example of an aunt sally. why should society behave the same? a person has a single mind and only has to think of its own needs and desires (at most simplistic, its needs and desires can include understanding and inclusion of others). society is many people, with separate and conflicting needs and desires. a child and society are fundamentally different and so the argument against government from that stand point falls apart immediately.

in a small group a single leader or collective decision making works well. as a society grows, it has more of those conflicts. who has a right to this piece of land: the farmer, the house builder, the miner, the public as an amenity? who will arbitrate, who will enforce the decision of that? government. it is necessary, and in principle it is good. its in the application that problems emerge.