[Politics] Is democracy in crisis?

[Machiavelli]

Research by the The Institute for Public Policy Research supports Labour’s proposal to reduce voting age to 16 and suggests offering ballots to foreign nationals.

Britain is sliding towards populism because a record number of renters and non-graduates are staying at home during elections, research claims.

Its suggestions for reform include giving millions of foreign nationals in the UK a right to vote and changing the day of elections to the weekend.

As far as I can see..and I haven’t read the full report… the theory is:

1. Voter turnout is down amongst non graduates and renters (amongst others)

2. This is giving rise to Populist support

3. We certainly don’t want that so children and foreigners should be allowed to vote.

The think tank argues that “the only off-ramp to the heightening doom loop of voting patterns, skewed policy and populist politics is democratic reform”.

So if you don’t like the way the electorate are voting- change the electorate.

I'm of the view that if you pay taxes on labour or business, then you ought to be given the right to vote. You obviously don't. That's hardly a surprise.

 

[Rdodge30]

I'm of the view that if you pay taxes on labour or business, then you ought to be given the right to vote. You obviously don't. That's hardly a surprise.

Which 16yo’s are paying taxes? …that would
be none.

As for foreign nationals voting, it happens in many countries- with residency requirements.

My concern is that the report seems to suggest that because people are voting a certain way we need to get different people to vote.

 

[beorhthelm]

I'm of the view that if you pay taxes on labour or business, then you ought to be given the right to vote. You obviously don't. That's hardly a surprise.

i misread this first, leading to an interesting question: should a business have a vote? pays taxes after all.

the current criteria for voting is citizenship, one of the few actual distinctions these days. pretty common across countries, being a tax payer is a poor criteria and really an US obession.

 

[Shins]

Haven't read any of the thread so apologies if I've gone back on topic.

But yes, democracy is in crisis. It has been since governments have allowed free PRESS to become muddied will lying opinion and non fact based MEDIA. Now politicians and influencers are using that same space to lie for their own benefit. Again, allowed by current or shadow governments.

Can't see the trend reversing. Will always be who shouts loudest. We all know which side that will be.

Happy New Year.

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

Haven't read any of the thread so apologies if I've gone back on topic.

But yes, democracy is in crisis. It has been since governments have allowed free PRESS to become muddied will lying opinion and non fact based MEDIA. Now politicians and influencers are using that same space to lie for their own benefit. Again, allowed by current or shadow governments.

Can't see the trend reversing. Will always be who shouts loudest. We all know which side that will be.

Happy New Year.

This has always been the case, there’s just more transparency about when they lie now, and when things aren’t fact checked.

 

[dsr-burnley]

Indeed.

So 'we' didn't fancy Jezza but we did fancy Starmzy.

I am at a complete loss to understand what is wrong or hard to follow and understand about any of that.

It is what it is.

(I have no sympathy with liberals and greens who think they will never get a liberal or green government and therefore want to change the system, while po-facedly lecturing the rest of us about how our vote doesn't count and how horrible and unfair it all is. Be better, and people might think about voting for you )

Though Corbyn's party got more votes in each of his elections than Starmer did in his. The Labour majority is a function of the electoral system, not any supposed popularity Starmer has ahead of Corbyn.

 

[dsr-burnley]

Research by the The Institute for Public Policy Research supports Labour’s proposal to reduce voting age to 16 and suggests offering ballots to foreign nationals.

Britain is sliding towards populism because a record number of renters and non-graduates are staying at home during elections, research claims.

Its suggestions for reform include giving millions of foreign nationals in the UK a right to vote and changing the day of elections to the weekend.

As far as I can see..and I haven’t read the full report… the theory is:

1. Voter turnout is down amongst non graduates and renters (amongst others)

2. This is giving rise to Populist support

3. We certainly don’t want that so children and foreigners should be allowed to vote.

The think tank argues that “the only off-ramp to the heightening doom loop of voting patterns, skewed policy and populist politics is democratic reform”.

So if you don’t like the way the electorate are voting- change the electorate.

That's the sign that democracy is in crisis. When they don't like the result of democracy so they try to fudge the vote to get a different result.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Though Corbyn's party got more votes in each of his elections than Starmer did in his. The Labour majority is a function of the electoral system, not any supposed popularity Starmer has ahead of Corbyn.

I didn't have you down as a Corbyn fan.

Sunk got 6 million votes. A fraction of what Starmer got.
On that basis do you imagine that whereas Starmer is not popular, Sunk was hated?
Or perhaps you think that Sunk was actually really popular but people were duped into not voting for him by the BBC.
Goalposts are there to be moved, are they not?

The reality is popularity is relative. And like any football season one side can be measured only against the opposition that season.
You would need to be an idiot to try to make some sort of comparison between the the EPL winning Leicester and this year's Liverpool.
There is absolutely no point to be made.
Same applies to the 'popularity' of Corbyn versus the 'popularity' of Starmer.
That's the reality.

If you want a bit of unreality pontification, here goes:
There was a real sense of urgency to vote when Johnson was up against Corbyn
There was a sense of foregone conclusion in 2024
Anyone imagining Sunk would win was deluded
So millions of Starmer supporters stayed at home

(My own opinion is Starmer lacks the gut appeal of a Johnson: he's not funny, or charismatic and has a weird nasal voice.
Sadly these things are incredibly important to millions of voters )

 

[abc]

(My own opinion is Starmer lacks the gut appeal of a Johnson: he's not funny, or charismatic and has a weird nasal voice.
Sadly these things are incredibly important to millions of voters )

I think millions of voters simply want a leader and party that is honest and has credible policies, especially economically.
This is ultimately why Johnson and the Tories got kicked out and why Starmer and Labour appear to have lost the support of the country after just a (albeit disastrous) few months.

 

[Rdodge30]

My own opinion is Starmer lacks the gut appeal of a Johnson: he's not funny, or charismatic and has a weird nasal voice.
Sadly these things are incredibly important to millions of voters )

If your opinion of the electorate is correct we could probably do with a new system of elections, perhaps a short but high level intelligence test on the ballot where you need to get 4 out of 5 correct before your vote is counted

 

[schmunk]

Which 16yo’s are paying taxes? …that would
be none.

Those who have income* or gains above the relevant thresholds for the tax year.

Not many, but not none.




*unless >£100 arises from funds gifted by parents, when it's considered to be the parents' income for tax purposes.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

If your opinion of the electorate is correct we could probably do with a new system of elections, perhaps a short but high level intelligence test on the ballot where you need to get 4 out of 5 correct before your vote is counted

Oh, I have long been in favour of making people pass a fitness test before they can vote. My son (born in Canada) had to do citizenship test before he was allowed to become a UK citizen. And rightly so. To be able to vote I am sure some sort of equivalent test process could be invented.

The challenge would be the syllabus, and the fact that vested interest groups would attack it for bias. For example I can see numerus different 'groups' objecting to a test that affirms the equality to men of women, and people of diverse gender and orientation. Some of that is 'tough titty', some isn't.

Trouble is the Tories and Reform would oppose it citing 'rights of the British People', knowing they would lose thousands of votes from thickies who would be unable to pass the test.

The liberals would oppose it on the basis of fundamental rights.

Labour would oppose it because they would lose millions of first gen immigrant and *Muslim vo....... oh, hang on.

(*in order to avoid confusion, many people who vote on the basis of their Muslim religion not only abandoned Labour but stood against them after Starmer failed to condemn Israel quickly enough after their retaliation over the Hamas atrocity. Which 'was caused by the Jews'. Course it was. Probably reason enough to rescind their voter rights, frankly. I appreciate this may seem a bit.....authoritarian, but it pains me to see capricious ignorant members of the public voting according to the siren call of manipulators of their bigotry and prejudices, whether based around race, religion or 'Britishness'. And for further clarity I do not aim that brickbat at decent tories, liberals, labourites or greens.)

 

[Jim in the West]

That's the sign that democracy is in crisis. When they don't like the result of democracy so they try to fudge the vote to get a different result.

Just look at what the Tories did with the changes to constituency boundaries and the ID required to vote (mysteriously allowing a whole load of documents ONLY for the over-60s). There should be no issue allowing 16 & 17 year olds to vote - they will all be adults for most of the new government's lifetime. Similarly, foreign nationals who have the right to remain in the UK should logically be able to contribute to our democratic process. (IMHO)

 

[Curious Orange]

Just look at what the Tories did with the changes to constituency boundaries and the ID required to vote (mysteriously allowing a whole load of documents ONLY for the over-60s). There should be no issue allowing 16 & 17 year olds to vote - they will all be adults for most of the new government's lifetime. Similarly, foreign nationals who have the right to remain in the UK should logically be able to contribute to our democratic process. (IMHO)

Adolescents brains are not the same as an adults, and they aren't particularly good at decision making (neither are some adults! People's brains mature at different rates, males tend to be later - probably why the voting age used to be 21), I'd be very cautious about allowing them to vote given it has the potential to scew elections in unexpected ways.

 

[schmunk]

Adolescents brains are not the same as an adults, and they aren't particularly good at decision making (neither are some adults! People's brains mature at different rates, males tend to be later - probably why the voting age used to be 21), I'd be very cautious about allowing them to vote given it has the potential to scew elections in unexpected ways.

I've just registered The Party McPartface Party with the Electoral Commission...

 

[Rdodge30]

Oh, I have long been in favour of making people pass a fitness test before they can vote

If people voted for Boris because they found him charismatic as you say then we need to lower the bar considerably for an intelligence test to be eligible to vote… it could be that even a brief set of questions on the five times table may result in the lowest voter turnout in history!!!

 

[Simster]

I think millions of voters simply want a leader and party that is honest and has credible policies, especially economically.
This is ultimately why Johnson and the Tories got kicked out and why Starmer and Labour appear to have lost the support of the country after just a (albeit disastrous) few months.

Disastrous?

The winter fuel allowance wasn't their finest hour. Apart from that, call me when they are responsible for anything remotely as disastrous as dividing the country for their own ends, implementing austerity measures to cripple the UK's most in need, tripling the national debt, watching food banks numbers rise from 35 to TWO THOUSAND nationally and spooking banks costing £100s in additional mortgage payments owing to moronic ill-considered economic policy.

The Labour party probably inherited the biggest mess any UK government have ever inherited in history, so it's a bit early and very rich of Tory apologists to be calling them disastrous for a bungled attempt to cut costs and not an awful lot else.

 

[Codner's Crackpipe]

Those who have income* or gains above the relevant thresholds for the tax year.

Not many, but not none.




*unless >£100 arises from funds gifted by parents, when it's considered to be the parents' income for tax purposes.

Or those that buy anything with a non-zero VAT rate. Which is loads.

 

[abc]

Disastrous?

The winter fuel allowance wasn't their finest hour. Apart from that, call me when they are responsible for anything remotely as disastrous as dividing the country for their own ends, implementing austerity measures to cripple the UK's most in need, tripling the national debt, watching food banks numbers rise from 35 to TWO THOUSAND nationally and spooking banks costing £100s in additional mortgage payments owing to moronic ill-considered economic policy.

The Labour party probably inherited the biggest mess any UK government have ever inherited in history, so it's a bit early and very rich of Tory apologists to be calling them disastrous for a bungled attempt to cut costs and not an awful lot else.

A bit confused by this to be honest. Where did I make any comparison between the Tory years and the first months of this government? Where did I defend the last gov and come across as a 'Tory apologist'? Yes of course the last gov took 'disastrous' to an unprecedented level but its still a perfectly good adjective to describe Labour's progress thus far.

Their rhetoric on taking office seriously damaged business and consumer resulting in negative growth (from an economy that was growing), the most economically inept budget in living memory (aside of course from the Truss loony tune moment) has meant inflation will stay high, interest rates will stay higher, growth predictions are being scaled back, the social care sector and charities are in serious financial trouble etc. Issues with their attitude to the WFA, Farming, energy, social care, etc combined with the blatant political dishonestly that they have displayed from day one, have just added to the reason why a government who won with with a massive majority are now polling as one of the most unpopular in history and are enabling the far right to make hay.

To me that is disastrous - for labour, for democracy, for the economy and for the vast majority of people in this country.

I hope they turn things round because we desperately need them to, but like many people who voted for them (tactically or actually) I am really angry with Starmer and co right now and I have seen nothing to give me hope.

 

[Rdodge30]

spooking banks costing £100s in additional mortgage payments owing to moronic ill-considered economic policy.

Liz Trusses Unfunded tax cuts in October 2022 sent the ten-year bond yield above 4.5 per cent. That is what “spooked the banks”.

The speed of the sell-off of UK Government debt caused a market shock. Fixed-term mortgage costs rocketed overnight.

Yet, despite a £40billion TAX RAISING budget on October 30 AND a shift in the fiscal rules to make it easier for Government to invest, instead of narrowing, the yield on ten-year Government bonds is up to 4.63 per cent. That is as high as it was during Liz Truss’s DISASTROUS REIGN and more than 30 per cent up over the past year.