Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » For their own good, it can be argued, young people should b

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited February 2016 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » For their own good, it can be argued, young people should be compelled to vote

Eddie Izzard writes his own jokes. He made that very clear when I offered him what I thought was a good line he could use in pressing young people to get out and vote. “Vote and you get stuff, don’t vote and you get stuffed.”

I was touring North London marginals with the Labour-supporting comedian and Eddie was a bit sniffy about my offering.

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • You had me at Eddie Izzard
  • Labour would do much better if they concentrated on putting forward a moderate centre-left platform with concrete solutions than endless initiatives to change the voting system in their favour.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,279
    Does this help the case for votes at 16?

    Perhaps the Australian system of compulsory voting could be adopted, but it only makes sense if the fines are enforced.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    edited February 2016
    So on one side we have Izzard, Brand, Montie and Khan.

    Just need Galloway for the fool house.

  • You can't get a mortgage in a day.

    You might be able to get an offer in principle in a day.
  • Any article that starts with 'Eddie Izzard' does not belong on PB. :lol:
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    Sounds desperate. We can't persuade the young (who mostly vote left) to vote for us, I know, we will MAKE them vote for us. What is it with the left and totalitarianism, I thought that was mostly associated with the far right.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    FPT:
    Sean_F said:

    tyson said:

    Indigo- it so obvious that this is the way things are going to go. Future generations will not think of liberty or choice. They'll be much healthier and not quite understand how their predecessors made such poor choices with their health.

    Indigo said:

    tyson said:

    Preventative health is the way forward. A sugar tax is the start- in the future our dietary intake and movement will be entirely regulated and monitored through simple trackers- the technology is there, it is only a matter of time before it is implemented. Over the next forty years the health service will be transformed due to technology- and mostly will be shifted down into prevention.

    If we cannot take responsibility for our own care and health then the government will do it for us.

    I didn't have you down as a totalitarian. You have just in effect made the argument for inserting an RFID chip into everyone at birth, the modern equivalent of tattooing a bar-code on their arm.
    Perhaps. OTOH, if you take responsibility for their choices away from people, the likelihood that they will make bad choices increases.
    We have already done that. If you live unhealthily, everyone else pays for your treatment. My preferred model (simplistically) is for everyone to have to take out health insurance, with the government subsidising or paying for the insurance of the poor, and all the hospitals being privately run. If you live an unhealthy life your insurance costs you more, and the government only covers the basic cost for a healthy person, and then some percentage of additional costs if you are poor. Being unhealthy then costs the unhealthy and doesn't effect the healthy. Similar if you participate in dangerous sports or go mountaineering and don't take the required precautions.
  • In any other industry, falling sales would result in the management reviewing their business model. In politics they result in management looking for ways to force non-buyers to buy.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,841
    Not sure compulsory voting would be the panacea for Labour that Brind is hoping for.

    See Australia.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,958
    edited February 2016
    Is there any evidence that there is a huge reservoir of middle aged and elderly who would only vote Labour if it was compulsory? Or are they likely to mirror the population as a whole, in being more inclined towards the Conservatives if forced to vote?

    This would probably be a classic example of Labour taking heavy-calibre weaponry to its own feet. Their problem is there just aren't enough voters convinced by their (non)policies, however you march them to the ballot box.

    Rather than finding new non-voters, Labour needs to find a new Tony Blair for those who already vote....
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,958
    dr_spyn said:

    Does this help the case for votes at 16?

    Perhaps the Australian system of compulsory voting could be adopted, but it only makes sense if the fines are enforced.

    Only the rich can afford not to vote. The bastards!
  • Most of the replies so far have taken pot shots at persons mentioned in the article and the Labour party generally.
    While that is all good fun, are there any suggestions that would help encourage more young people to vote?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,841
    I think if compulsory voting was in, Labour would increase it's already overly large majorities in inner city areas - it might be closer but the Tories would still have won GE2015.
  • In any other industry, falling sales would result in the management reviewing their business model. In politics they result in management looking for ways to force non-buyers to buy.

    "You don't like it? Fuck off then. You don't have anywhere to go."

    The attitude of the Chancellor to his core buyers, who also help fund the advertising and promotion of the business and volunteer their time on the tills.
  • Pulpstar said:

    Not sure compulsory voting would be the panacea for Labour that Brind is hoping for.

    See Australia.

    How exactly does complusory voting work? If you just don't turn up on the day, do you get fined or something?
  • PClippPClipp Posts: 2,138

    In any other industry, falling sales would result in the management reviewing their business model. In politics they result in management looking for ways to force non-buyers to buy.

    No point iin voting if you live in a safe seat, and always get the same old Labour/ Tory MP.

    Compulsory voting is the wrong answer.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966

    Most of the replies so far have taken pot shots at persons mentioned in the article and the Labour party generally.
    While that is all good fun, are there any suggestions that would help encourage more young people to vote?

    It would certainly encourage the voters to ensure that the government enacting it lost the next election.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 4,784
    Just catching up on the weekend's postings. McDonnell and Miliband (E) touted as good bets for next Labour leader. I know talk is cheap, but still, oh dear!
  • isamisam Posts: 40,728
    Maybe a Council tax discount for voting rather than a fine for not voting?
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966

    Pulpstar said:

    Not sure compulsory voting would be the panacea for Labour that Brind is hoping for.

    See Australia.

    How exactly does complusory voting work? If you just don't turn up on the day, do you get fined or something?
    Yes. A$170 at the moment in Australia. Hence they get a 95% turn out.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    ''The attitude of the Chancellor to his core buyers, who also help fund the advertising and promotion of the business and volunteer their time on the tills. ''

    Indeed.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,164
    FPT:

    Dead cat tactics only work when there isn't a connection between the dead cat and what you're distracting from. Problem for Cameron is that the dead cat and bad EU deal have common thread of Cameron obviously saying stuff he knows is untrue. It remind me of Gordon Brown saying polls didn't affect his election decision. We don't mind politicians bending the truth, but when its so blatant we don't like our intelligence being insulted.

    That's exactly what I was thinking. A dead cat to divert attention from the EU debacle would have been to send Jeremy Hunt on to the TV to call the junior doctors a bunch of layabouts.
  • Pulpstar said:

    Not sure compulsory voting would be the panacea for Labour that Brind is hoping for.

    See Australia.

    How exactly does complusory voting work? If you just don't turn up on the day, do you get fined or something?
    After each election, the Aussie electoral commission (AEC) will send a letter to all apparent non-voters requesting that they either provide a valid and sufficient reason for failing to vote or pay a $20 penalty.

    If, within the time period specified on the notice, you fail to reply, cannot provide a valid and sufficient reason or decline to pay the $20 penalty, then the matter may be referred to a court. If the matter is dealt with in court and you are found guilty, you may be fined up to $170 plus court costs and a criminal conviction may be recorded against you.


    http://www.aec.gov.au/faqs/voting_australia.htm
  • On topic, I favour making voter simpler and easier (although detest online voting) but compelling people to vote?

    Nah. People have a right to not be arsed. Those that do also have a right for politicians to consider their needs accordingly.

    A better question to ask would be why young people aren't bothering. Perhaps they just don't care?
  • Most of the replies so far have taken pot shots at persons mentioned in the article and the Labour party generally.
    While that is all good fun, are there any suggestions that would help encourage more young people to vote?

    A change of voting system so that more people felt their votes counted (STV would probably be best). More emphasis on civics in school would be no bad thing. But mainly it's about getting better and more relevant policies.
  • isamisam Posts: 40,728
    edited February 2016
    tlg86 said:

    FPT:

    Dead cat tactics only work when there isn't a connection between the dead cat and what you're distracting from. Problem for Cameron is that the dead cat and bad EU deal have common thread of Cameron obviously saying stuff he knows is untrue. It remind me of Gordon Brown saying polls didn't affect his election decision. We don't mind politicians bending the truth, but when its so blatant we don't like our intelligence being insulted.

    That's exactly what I was thinking. A dead cat to divert attention from the EU debacle would have been to send Jeremy Hunt on to the TV to call the junior doctors a bunch of layabouts.
    I am surprised there hasn't been more criticism of it from the people who say mentioning immigration in the EU debate is complete idiocy
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,841
    How accurate is opinion polling in Australia btw ?
  • Perhaps some young people rightly think that they don't have enough experience of the world to take a view?
  • Most of the replies so far have taken pot shots at persons mentioned in the article and the Labour party generally.
    While that is all good fun, are there any suggestions that would help encourage more young people to vote?

    A change of voting system so that more people felt their votes counted (STV would probably be best). More emphasis on civics in school would be no bad thing. But mainly it's about getting better and more relevant policies.
    Even when they were in office Labour had a mixed record on the goodies.

    On the one hand there were tax credits and the EMA. On the other, the introduction of tuition fees a high level of NEETs and creeping authoritarianism.
  • Perhaps some young people rightly think that they don't have enough experience of the world to take a view?

    That was the theme of the Sound Of Music song: "Sixteen going on Seventeen". But the confidant offering to look after the 16 year old's interests ended up a Nazi.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517

    Most of the replies so far have taken pot shots at persons mentioned in the article and the Labour party generally.
    While that is all good fun, are there any suggestions that would help encourage more young people to vote?

    As I've said passim, I'm all for compulsory voting for everyone, not just the young. But I would also want two additional boxes: "None of the above" and "I do not agree with this system".

    If the latter got a certain percentage (15%? 20%), there might be a referendum on the voting system.

    If people do no vote, you might have a system where they pay a stiff fine which will go to a charity of their choice (from a shortlist)
  • Regarding Don's last paragraph, has he linked to the right article? It doesn't seem to be to an article about Osborne being a flop, or to a 'must-read dissection of the Chancellor’s record'.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    edited February 2016
    The following might be useful for people: an official faq about the Aus system:
    http://www.aec.gov.au/faqs/voting_australia.htm


    Oops. Already posted.
  • The right to vote includes the right to not vote. Though I understand why a committed Labour supporter wants to force more youngsters who don't really care to the polls...!
  • PClipp said:

    In any other industry, falling sales would result in the management reviewing their business model. In politics they result in management looking for ways to force non-buyers to buy.

    No point iin voting if you live in a safe seat, and always get the same old Labour/ Tory MP.

    Compulsory voting is the wrong answer.
    Seats are only safe because the voters vote that way...
  • stodgestodge Posts: 12,741
    Afternoon all :)

    I can see why some Conservatives are reticent at the prospect of change as the current system works for them so well and indeed in the past changes to the electorate have worked in their favour - Jenkins cited the reduction in the voting age from 21 to 18 as a reason for Labour's defeat in 1970 as newly-enfranchised young women broke disproportionately for the Conservatives.

    As with others, I'm torn between a rejection of compulsion and the desire to have as many vote as possible and not to create a gerontocracy (nice word, very grown up). The idea of creating incentives to vote isn't one with which I'm wholly comfortable but perhaps for first-time voters it might help.

    I'm not a huge fan of voter registration - the smokescreen of preventing corruption (which in truth makes very little difference to the overall result) isn't a justification for disenfranchising anyone - and if people genuinely don't want to vote that's their prerogative and if they want to sell their vote to a third party or swap it that's presumably their right as well not that I'm comfortable with those practices either but we know they happen.

    The Right to Vote is, however, a fundamental and too many people have fought and died in too many countries for that simple right for us to be blase about it. Anything which increases turnout (weekend elections, longer hours, more polling stations at different locations, the ability to vote in person for your constituency at a different polling station etc, etc) should all be tried and tested and as we live in a digital age, secure on-line e-voting should be available as another option.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,766

    Perhaps some young people rightly think that they don't have enough experience of the world to take a view?

    Have you ever met a young person who felt they didn't know enough about anything?
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    edited February 2016

    The right to vote includes the right to not vote. - Though I understand why a committed Labour supporter wants to force more youngsters who don't really care to the polls...!

    Indeed – and the motive here is transparently obvious.
  • Compulsory voting is a dreadful system. The equal opportunity to vote is all that's needed. If people can't be bothered with politics, why should politics be bothered with them?

    What is needed can be summed up in three points:

    1. Easy but secure access to vote. I remain to be convinced that there's a secure system that's better than paper in ballot boxes. Yes, it's old-fashioned but it's reliable. It's also familiar (we need to be careful that in introducing innovations, we don't introduce barriers to people already in the system while trying to reduce them for others currently outside it). I'm willing to listen to arguments about electronic voting but am concerned that the problems with postal vote fraud apply just as much there. The point about Thursdays is well-made though. Sunday would be a much better election day. It's not even as if there's much tradition in it - go back before the 1950s and elections were on all any old day of the week.

    2. More and better public education. Voting matters because politics matters. But not everyone understands why politics matters, failing to see the link between parliament and housing benefit, healthcare or whatever. The kind of civic bonds that educated and reinforced the importance of voting to new generations are much weaker these days. The gaps that erosion has left need to be filled by public adverts, education in schools and the like. I accept that a lot's already done here but there's scope for more.

    3. Better politics. It needs to be about ideas, not personalities and not theatre for its own sake (and particularly not for the sake of the actors). PMQs gives people a dreadful idea of what politics is about. The media also has a part to play, although this is to some extent circular as the media follows what the public respond to, and politicians tend to follow both.

    What is not needed are:

    - voting reform. Every vote matters, whether it elects someone or not; they all send a message. There's not necessarily anything wrong with voting reform as such but it doesn't form part of this argument.
    - compulsion. Too much is already banned or compulsory. Freedom of choice includes the right not to exercise a choice - but people need to understand that in not doing so, they leave themselves open to biased policies, as now.
    - increasing ease of voting at the expense of security. Nothing is more important than the result truly being the choice of the electorate.
    - Votes at 16. The 18-24 section already doesn't vote much. Why would allowing 16 and 17 year olds to do so increase the turnout of the upper group? Again there may be an argument (I don't think there is, FWIW), but it's a different debate.
  • Perhaps some young people rightly think that they don't have enough experience of the world to take a view?

    By the same token, I've met people who are in their 60s who don't have enough experience of the world to take a view.
  • Indigo said:

    Sounds desperate. We can't persuade the young (who mostly vote left) to vote for us, I know, we will MAKE them vote for us. What is it with the left and totalitarianism, I thought that was mostly associated with the far right.

    No, it's part of the Big State, which has always been a left-wing idea.
  • PClippPClipp Posts: 2,138

    PClipp said:

    In any other industry, falling sales would result in the management reviewing their business model. In politics they result in management looking for ways to force non-buyers to buy.

    No point iin voting if you live in a safe seat, and always get the same old Labour/ Tory MP.

    Compulsory voting is the wrong answer.
    Seats are only safe because the voters vote that way...
    Or because everybody else just gives up, knowing that their vote willl make no difference to the outcome.
  • This article assumes is that the young will register to vote. If you cannot be bottomed to vote, you certainly will not register.

    And if you don;t register, you cannot be fined for non-voting.

    So all this proposal ensures if fewer people registering to vote.

    Inane.

  • If you want people to vote for you then give them something they care about to vote for. It is that simple.

    Turnout does not just inexorably go down, it has gone up at the last three General Elections in a row and reached nearly 85% in the Scottish Indy Referendum.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    edited February 2016
    Off-topic, three more polls over the weekend in Ireland. In each case I've given the vote-share percentages and then Adrian Kavanagh's projection of what those would mean in seats:

    RedC: FG 31%, FF 17%, SF 17%, Lab 10%, Other 25%
    giving FG 59, FF 27, SF 23, Lab 15, Other 34

    B&A: FG 28%, FF 20%, SF 17%, Lab 8%, Other 26%
    giving FG 54, FF 33, SF 25, Lab 8, Other 38

    MB: FG 27%, FF 22%, SF 21%, Lab 6%, Other 23%
    giving FG 52, FF 37, SF 33, Lab 2, Other 34

    https://adriankavanaghelections.org/2016/02/07/poll-axed-constituency-level-analysis-of-the-sunday-independent-millward-brown-opinion-poll-7th-february-2016/

    As you can see, the current polling still shows Labour at a point where it might either be almost wiped out, or get enough seats to be a useful coalition partner for FG.
  • By the same token, I've met people who are in their 60s who don't have enough experience of the world to take a view.

    True. Quite a lot of them seem to post on here!

    [That's a joke, BTW]
  • Compulsory voting is a dreadful system. The equal opportunity to vote is all that's needed. If people can't be bothered with politics, why should politics be bothered with them?

    What is needed can be summed up in three points:

    1. Easy but secure access to vote. I remain to be convinced that there's a secure system that's better than paper in ballot boxes. Yes, it's old-fashioned but it's reliable. It's also familiar (we need to be careful that in introducing innovations, we don't introduce barriers to people already in the system while trying to reduce them for others currently outside it). I'm willing to listen to arguments about electronic voting but am concerned that the problems with postal vote fraud apply just as much there.

    2. More and better public education. Voting matters because politics matters. But not everyone understands why politics matters, failing to see the link between parliament and housing benefit, healthcare or whatever. The kind of civic bonds that educated and reinforced the importance of voting to new generations are much weaker these days. The gaps that erosion has left need to be filled by public adverts, education in schools and the like. I accept that a lot's already done here but there's scope for more.

    3. Better politics. It needs to be about ideas, not personalities and not theatre for its own sake (and particularly not for the sake of the actors). PMQs gives people a dreadful idea of what politics is about. The media also has a part to play, although this is to some extent circular as the media follows what the public respond to, and politicians tend to follow both.

    What is not needed are:

    - voting reform. Every vote matters, whether it elects someone or not; they all send a message. There's not necessarily anything wrong with voting reform as such but it doesn't form part of this argument.
    - compulsion. Too much is already banned or compulsory. Freedom of choice includes the right not to exercise a choice - but people need to understand that in not doing so, they leave themselves open to biased policies, as now.
    - increasing ease of voting at the expense of security. Nothing is more important than the result truly being the choice of the electorate.
    - Votes at 16. The 18-24 section already doesn't vote much. Why would allowing 16 and 17 year olds to do so increase the turnout of the upper group? Again there may be an argument (I don't think there is, FWIW), but it's a different debate.

    On making voting matter, you left out Leaving the EU under (2)

    If our politicians were fully accountable for all (or practically all) trade, local tax, regional policy, migration, justice, human rights, social and employment policy (and even agriculture and fisheries for those whose livelihoods depend on it) with all the levers in their control perhaps a few more people might bother.
  • In any other industry, falling sales would result in the management reviewing their business model. In politics they result in management looking for ways to force non-buyers to buy.

    "You don't like it? Fuck off then. You don't have anywhere to go."

    The attitude of the Chancellor to his core buyers, who also help fund the advertising and promotion of the business and volunteer their time on the tills.
    I'm a core buyer and I like the Chancellor's actions. Corporation tax down, spending as a proportion of GDP down, welfare being reformed and the deficit getting cut.

    I know not every Tory likes the Chancellor as much but none of that is a "fuck off" to his core, those are all core Tory values. Not sure how much more he can do given the ludicrously massive deficit inherited.
  • PClipp said:

    PClipp said:

    In any other industry, falling sales would result in the management reviewing their business model. In politics they result in management looking for ways to force non-buyers to buy.

    No point iin voting if you live in a safe seat, and always get the same old Labour/ Tory MP.

    Compulsory voting is the wrong answer.
    Seats are only safe because the voters vote that way...
    Or because everybody else just gives up, knowing that their vote willl make no difference to the outcome.
    Well then, that's their fault for not trying.

    Everyone starts on zero. Scotland last year proves a safe seat is only a safe seat as long as the electorate wants it to be.

    There are plenty of other examples of one-time safe seats, whether Con, Lab or LD falling because parties and candidates *didn't* give up, or because the electorate revolted against local complacency and arrogance.
  • WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838
    I think non-voting is a non-problem. Turnout has been steadily increasing from the 2001 trough. Two-thirds of eligible people are voting. That seems OK to me though it would be nice to see it increase further.

    At all events there's no case for making non-voting an offence. Who or what is the victim of this crime?
  • I think PR is the answer to higher turnout.

    Make every count.

    Multi member STV (or AV) might be the best option.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966

    2. More and better public education. Voting matters because politics matters. But not everyone understands why politics matters, failing to see the link between parliament and housing benefit, healthcare or whatever. The kind of civic bonds that educated and reinforced the importance of voting to new generations are much weaker these days. The gaps that erosion has left need to be filled by public adverts, education in schools and the like. I accept that a lot's already done here but there's scope for more.

    I am nervous with politics (and for that matter religion) going anywhere near schools. There is too much temptation for the political active to turn a session that should be about thinking and understanding into one of indoctrination. I suppose given the massive liberal/left bias in the teaching profession at the moment its one way to increase Labour's vote :p
  • Most of the replies so far have taken pot shots at persons mentioned in the article and the Labour party generally.
    While that is all good fun, are there any suggestions that would help encourage more young people to vote?

    A change of voting system so that more people felt their votes counted (STV would probably be best). More emphasis on civics in school would be no bad thing. But mainly it's about getting better and more relevant policies.
    Some good suggestions there, I also like Josias' idea for two extra boxes ('None of the Above' and 'Change the Voting System').
    Also ISAM's idea of a council tax discount if you vote. Could also give everybody who votes a free music download?
  • My right not to vote is one that I treasure and which I have exercised. If things don't change I will be actively not voting in the referendum and at the next GE.

    That the Tories throw goodies at their client vote is neither here nor there. Labour needs to be more credible, end of story. Young people will vote if they are inspired to do so.
  • In any other industry, falling sales would result in the management reviewing their business model. In politics they result in management looking for ways to force non-buyers to buy.

    "You don't like it? Fuck off then. You don't have anywhere to go."

    The attitude of the Chancellor to his core buyers, who also help fund the advertising and promotion of the business and volunteer their time on the tills.
    I'm a core buyer and I like the Chancellor's actions. Corporation tax down, spending as a proportion of GDP down, welfare being reformed and the deficit getting cut.

    I know not every Tory likes the Chancellor as much but none of that is a "fuck off" to his core, those are all core Tory values. Not sure how much more he can do given the ludicrously massive deficit inherited.
    The Chancellor has been reported as saying that he calculates he can do what he likes with pensions tax relief because current Conservative supporters who are affected have nowhere else to go.

    I accept that not all Conservatives will be bothered by being taken for granted, but I am.
  • stodge said:

    Afternoon all :)

    I can see why some Conservatives are reticent at the prospect of change as the current system works for them so well and indeed in the past changes to the electorate have worked in their favour - Jenkins cited the reduction in the voting age from 21 to 18 as a reason for Labour's defeat in 1970 as newly-enfranchised young women broke disproportionately for the Conservatives.

    As with others, I'm torn between a rejection of compulsion and the desire to have as many vote as possible and not to create a gerontocracy (nice word, very grown up). The idea of creating incentives to vote isn't one with which I'm wholly comfortable but perhaps for first-time voters it might help.

    I'm not a huge fan of voter registration - the smokescreen of preventing corruption (which in truth makes very little difference to the overall result) isn't a justification for disenfranchising anyone - and if people genuinely don't want to vote that's their prerogative and if they want to sell their vote to a third party or swap it that's presumably their right as well not that I'm comfortable with those practices either but we know they happen.

    The Right to Vote is, however, a fundamental and too many people have fought and died in too many countries for that simple right for us to be blase about it. Anything which increases turnout (weekend elections, longer hours, more polling stations at different locations, the ability to vote in person for your constituency at a different polling station etc, etc) should all be tried and tested and as we live in a digital age, secure on-line e-voting should be available as another option.

    The problem with e-voting is how do you ensure that the person voting is not doing so under duress (or even that it is them at all rather than a vote farm)?

    I'd be happy to support e-voting if that reservation could be satisfied but I've not seen any proposal that can do so.

    The right to vote has to be a right to vote in private.
  • isamisam Posts: 40,728
    Yes one of the options on the ballot, if voting is compulsory, should be NOTA
  • On making voting matter, you left out Leaving the EU under (2)

    If our politicians were fully accountable for all (or practically all) trade, local tax, regional policy, migration, justice, human rights, social and employment policy (and even agriculture and fisheries for those whose livelihoods depend on it) with all the levers in their control perhaps a few more people might bother.

    Has turnout in your eyes gone up at the last three elections in a row because we've become more detached from Europe or despite deeper integration in Europe?

    Not a rhetorical question it's possibly true that we are more detached now. In '01 when turnout hit its lowest nadir Europe seemed to dominate (with the Euro a real possibility) more than it does now.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966

    In any other industry, falling sales would result in the management reviewing their business model. In politics they result in management looking for ways to force non-buyers to buy.

    "You don't like it? Fuck off then. You don't have anywhere to go."

    The attitude of the Chancellor to his core buyers, who also help fund the advertising and promotion of the business and volunteer their time on the tills.
    I'm a core buyer and I like the Chancellor's actions. Corporation tax down, spending as a proportion of GDP down, welfare being reformed and the deficit getting cut.

    I know not every Tory likes the Chancellor as much but none of that is a "fuck off" to his core, those are all core Tory values. Not sure how much more he can do given the ludicrously massive deficit inherited.
    Attacking buy-to-let, that's core aspiration Tory territory he is pissing off there.
    Increasing the regulatory burden of small businesses - more pissed off Tories
    Telling MPs not to listen to their local associations - pissed off Tories
    Endless brownite tinkering and social engineering - pissed off Tories
    The whole piss poor lying and bad party management around EURef - piss off Tories
    Massively taking their vote for granted because of Jeza - pissed off Tories
    and so on...

    Party cheerleaders like you might be happy, lots of people out in the country that we rely on, no so much.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited February 2016

    In any other industry, falling sales would result in the management reviewing their business model. In politics they result in management looking for ways to force non-buyers to buy.

    "You don't like it? Fuck off then. You don't have anywhere to go."

    The attitude of the Chancellor to his core buyers, who also help fund the advertising and promotion of the business and volunteer their time on the tills.
    I'm a core buyer and I like the Chancellor's actions. Corporation tax down, spending as a proportion of GDP down, welfare being reformed and the deficit getting cut.

    I know not every Tory likes the Chancellor as much but none of that is a "fuck off" to his core, those are all core Tory values. Not sure how much more he can do given the ludicrously massive deficit inherited.
    The Chancellor has been reported as saying that he calculates he can do what he likes with pensions tax relief because current Conservative supporters who are affected have nowhere else to go.

    I accept that not all Conservatives will be bothered by being taken for granted, but I am.
    I find that report very unlikely given that pensions and pensioner issues have been so gold plated for the last decade that he has been either Chancellor or Shadow Chancellor which is the very point of this thread. I don't believe every anonymous report that comes out especially when it so contradicts the last decade of actions taken.
  • Compulsory voting is a dreadful system. The equal opportunity to vote is all that's needed. If people can't be bothered with politics, why should politics be bothered with them?

    What is needed can be summed up in three points:

    1. Easy but secure access to vote. I remain to be convinced that there's a secure system that's better than paper in ballot boxes. Yes, it's old-fashioned but it's reliable. It's also familiar (we need to be careful that in introducing innovations, we don't introduce barriers to people already in the system while trying to reduce them for others currently outside it). I'm willing to listen to arguments about electronic voting but am concerned that the problems with postal vote fraud apply just as much there.

    2. More and better public education. Voting matters because politics matters. But not everyone understands why politics matters, failing to see the link between parliament and housing benefit, healthcare or whatever. The kind of civic bonds that educated and reinforced the importance of voting to new generations are much weaker these days. The gaps that erosion has left need to be filled by public adverts, education in schools and the like. I accept that a lot's already done here but there's scope for more.

    3. Better politics. It needs to be about ideas, not personalities and not theatre for its own sake (and particularly not for the sake of the actors). PMQs gives people a dreadful idea of what politics is about. The media also has a part to play, although this is to some extent circular as the media follows what the public respond to, and politicians tend to follow both.

    What is not needed are:

    .

    On making voting matter, you left out Leaving the EU under (2)

    If our politicians were fully accountable for all (or practically all) trade, local tax, regional policy, migration, justice, human rights, social and employment policy (and even agriculture and fisheries for those whose livelihoods depend on it) with all the levers in their control perhaps a few more people might bother.
    I don't believe that more than a tiny number don't vote because the EU is a bit remote. Few are seriously concerned about the EU as an issue at all and for those who are, there are candidates standing who offer policy solutions to that problem.

    However, I suspect you know that.
  • isam said:

    Yes one of the options on the ballot, if voting is compulsory, should be NOTA

    NOTA is a dreadful, smug option that allows people to abdicate all responsibility for taking a decision while feeling superior about themselves. It's worse than not voting at all. If people are not happy with the options on offer, it's down to them to do something about it. That's what being a citizen means.
  • stodge said:

    The Right to Vote is, however, a fundamental and too many people have fought and died in too many countries for that simple right for us to be blase about it. Anything which increases turnout (weekend elections, longer hours, more polling stations at different locations, the ability to vote in person for your constituency at a different polling station etc, etc) should all be tried and tested and as we live in a digital age, secure on-line e-voting should be available as another option.

    I fundamentally disagree that high turnout is a worthwhile end in itself. People should vote because politics matter and what politicians and Parliament do affects their lives - not because it's as easy and insecure to vote for as the winner of the X Factor.

    In particular, "secure on-line e-voting" is an oxymoron.

  • isam said:

    Yes one of the options on the ballot, if voting is compulsory, should be NOTA

    NOTA is a dreadful, smug option that allows people to abdicate all responsibility for taking a decision while feeling superior about themselves. It's worse than not voting at all. If people are not happy with the options on offer, it's down to them to do something about it. That's what being a citizen means.
    If voting is compulsory, there has to be a NOTA option even if it's only an unofficial one of spoiling your ballot paper.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,841

    isam said:

    Yes one of the options on the ballot, if voting is compulsory, should be NOTA

    NOTA is a dreadful, smug option that allows people to abdicate all responsibility for taking a decision while feeling superior about themselves. It's worse than not voting at all. If people are not happy with the options on offer, it's down to them to do something about it. That's what being a citizen means.
    I play lucky dip on the UKIP; independent; yellow peril and green candidates when I fancy NOTA :)
  • PClipp said:

    PClipp said:

    In any other industry, falling sales would result in the management reviewing their business model. In politics they result in management looking for ways to force non-buyers to buy.

    No point iin voting if you live in a safe seat, and always get the same old Labour/ Tory MP.

    Compulsory voting is the wrong answer.
    Seats are only safe because the voters vote that way...
    Or because everybody else just gives up, knowing that their vote willl make no difference to the outcome.
    If they can't be arsed to vote, they will be certain to make no difference to the outcome.

    How many seats in Scotland were safe in the lead up to the 2015 election?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited February 2016
    Indigo said:

    In any other industry, falling sales would result in the management reviewing their business model. In politics they result in management looking for ways to force non-buyers to buy.

    "You don't like it? Fuck off then. You don't have anywhere to go."

    The attitude of the Chancellor to his core buyers, who also help fund the advertising and promotion of the business and volunteer their time on the tills.
    I'm a core buyer and I like the Chancellor's actions. Corporation tax down, spending as a proportion of GDP down, welfare being reformed and the deficit getting cut.

    I know not every Tory likes the Chancellor as much but none of that is a "fuck off" to his core, those are all core Tory values. Not sure how much more he can do given the ludicrously massive deficit inherited.
    Attacking buy-to-let, that's core aspiration Tory territory he is pissing off there.
    Increasing the regulatory burden of small businesses - more pissed off Tories
    Telling MPs not to listen to their local associations - pissed off Tories
    Endless brownite tinkering and social engineering - pissed off Tories
    The whole piss poor lying and bad party management around EURef - piss off Tories
    Massively taking their vote for granted because of Jeza - pissed off Tories
    and so on...

    Party cheerleaders like you might be happy, lots of people out in the country that we rely on, no so much.
    Attacking buy to let - that is aspiration yes but we have a mammoth deficit to plug and people have universally said that property bubbles have become a major problem here. Attacking buy to let while lowering corporation tax should rebalance aspirational investments away from bricks and mortar and towards companies producing something. It doesn't take a cheerleader to see the advantages of that (I suspect if there was no deficit the buy to let reforms would not be made).

    I run a small business which is why I care about corporation tax etc and I've not felt any increase on regulatory burdens. If others have I'll defer to that.

    EU issues are surely for the PM not the Chancellor.
  • Pulpstar said:

    I play lucky dip on the UKIP; independent; yellow peril and green candidates when I fancy NOTA :)

    Clearly you need a Winston Mackenzie option on the ballot paper.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966

    isam said:

    Yes one of the options on the ballot, if voting is compulsory, should be NOTA

    NOTA is a dreadful, smug option that allows people to abdicate all responsibility for taking a decision while feeling superior about themselves. It's worse than not voting at all. If people are not happy with the options on offer, it's down to them to do something about it. That's what being a citizen means.
    NOTA with teeth would be okay. If NOTA wins in the constituency then none of the candidates on the card can stand again in the rerun, would help stop parties foisting crap candidates on seats.
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    Cumpulsory? An ejaculate of young voters?
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    I'm not sure if this is partly to do with the suspension of Schengen, but european government bonds are doing strange things again. Greece, Portugal under pressure today.

    That's all David Cameron needs.
  • isam said:

    Yes one of the options on the ballot, if voting is compulsory, should be NOTA

    NOTA is a dreadful, smug option that allows people to abdicate all responsibility for taking a decision while feeling superior about themselves. It's worse than not voting at all. If people are not happy with the options on offer, it's down to them to do something about it. That's what being a citizen means.
    If voting is compulsory, there has to be a NOTA option even if it's only an unofficial one of spoiling your ballot paper.
    I don't mind spoilt ballot papers. Sometimes the highlight of a count can be a good spoilt paper, arguing the toss with a rival agent and the returning officer as to whether a cock and balls drawn against one candidate's name is an 'expression of [positive] intent'.

    The problem with an official NOTA is that if it wins then no-one is elected and nominations are re-opened. Does anyone seriously think that the electorate would get a better set of candidates second time round, that not being without a representative for several more weeks is a benefit, or that the extra cost of another election is a good use of public funds?
  • Attacking buy to let - that is aspiration yes but we have a mammoth deficit to plug and people have universally said that property bubbles have become a major problem here.

    What Osborne has done is shift the risk/reward ratio quite heavily in favour of people buying their own homes (including most recently 'Help to Buy London', which has received surprisingly little comment in the press, but is certainly being touted heavily in the London property market).

    Whether one regards what he is doing as good or bad, I'm baffled that anyone is seriously arguing that it's not a Tory policy.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,841

    Attacking buy to let - that is aspiration yes but we have a mammoth deficit to plug and people have universally said that property bubbles have become a major problem here.

    What Osborne has done is shift the risk/reward ratio quite heavily in favour of people buying their own homes (including most recently 'Help to Buy London', which has received surprisingly little comment in the press, but is certainly being touted heavily in the London property market).

    Whether one regards what he is doing as good or bad, I'm baffled that anyone is seriously arguing that it's not a Tory policy.
    I assume everyone with Buy to Let properties are in favour of planning laws being vastly relaxed ?
  • isam said:

    Yes one of the options on the ballot, if voting is compulsory, should be NOTA

    NOTA is a dreadful, smug option that allows people to abdicate all responsibility for taking a decision while feeling superior about themselves. It's worse than not voting at all. If people are not happy with the options on offer, it's down to them to do something about it. That's what being a citizen means.
    If voting is compulsory, there has to be a NOTA option even if it's only an unofficial one of spoiling your ballot paper.
    I don't mind spoilt ballot papers. Sometimes the highlight of a count can be a good spoilt paper, arguing the toss with a rival agent and the returning officer as to whether a cock and balls drawn against one candidate's name is an 'expression of [positive] intent'.

    The problem with an official NOTA is that if it wins then no-one is elected and nominations are re-opened. Does anyone seriously think that the electorate would get a better set of candidates second time round, that not being without a representative for several more weeks is a benefit, or that the extra cost of another election is a good use of public funds?
    If that's what the public votes for then yes, let the public decide. In any event I suspect it will be a non-issue and that NOTA will barely scrape more than the Lib Dems. I see no issue with NOTA on the ballot and would support it wholeheartedly, far better than encouraging voters to either spoil their ballot (which conflates idiots who can't vote properly with protestors) or vote for a minor party (which conflates protestors with that parties supporters).
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966

    I don't believe that more than a tiny number don't vote because the EU is a bit remote. Few are seriously concerned about the EU as an issue at all and for those who are, there are candidates standing who offer policy solutions to that problem.

    However, I suspect you know that.

    Does this tired old nag really have to be trotted out all the time ?

    The number one issue for voters by some margin is immigration, that's is absolutely an EU issue, our ability to provide services in the NHS and schools are likewise linked to immigration and hence the EU, as is housing. People aren't fussed by the EU, but they are pretty damn exercised by a number of things that are directly caused or in the purview of the EU.
  • watford30watford30 Posts: 3,474
    Indigo said:

    In any other industry, falling sales would result in the management reviewing their business model. In politics they result in management looking for ways to force non-buyers to buy.

    "You don't like it? Fuck off then. You don't have anywhere to go."

    The attitude of the Chancellor to his core buyers, who also help fund the advertising and promotion of the business and volunteer their time on the tills.
    I'm a core buyer and I like the Chancellor's actions. Corporation tax down, spending as a proportion of GDP down, welfare being reformed and the deficit getting cut.

    I know not every Tory likes the Chancellor as much but none of that is a "fuck off" to his core, those are all core Tory values. Not sure how much more he can do given the ludicrously massive deficit inherited.
    Attacking buy-to-let, that's core aspiration Tory territory he is pissing off there.
    Increasing the regulatory burden of small businesses - more pissed off Tories
    Telling MPs not to listen to their local associations - pissed off Tories
    Endless brownite tinkering and social engineering - pissed off Tories
    The whole piss poor lying and bad party management around EURef - piss off Tories
    Massively taking their vote for granted because of Jeza - pissed off Tories
    and so on...

    Party cheerleaders like you might be happy, lots of people out in the country that we rely on, no so much.
    Fortunately party members still have the final say in any leadership elections. They can pass their verdict.
  • Indigo said:

    I don't believe that more than a tiny number don't vote because the EU is a bit remote. Few are seriously concerned about the EU as an issue at all and for those who are, there are candidates standing who offer policy solutions to that problem.

    However, I suspect you know that.

    Does this tired old nag really have to be trotted out all the time ?

    The number one issue for voters by some margin is immigration, that's is absolutely an EU issue, our ability to provide services in the NHS and schools are likewise linked to immigration and hence the EU, as is housing. People aren't fussed by the EU, but they are pretty damn exercised by a number of things that are directly caused or in the purview of the EU.
    What kind of immigration though?

    If people are OK with (white) immigrants from across Europe but against immigrants coming here from the Middle East and Africa then that is not a European issue as much as some may want to make it one.
  • isamisam Posts: 40,728
    Actually, my suggestion of a council tax discount wouldn't really incentivise youngsters that much, maybe withdrawing the ability to have a student card, or provisional driving license would be better
  • Compulsory voting is a dreadful system. The equal opportunity to vote is all that's needed. If people can't be bothered with politics, why should politics be bothered with them?

    What is needed can be summed up in three points:

    1. Easy but secure access to vote. I remain to be convinced that there's a secure system that's better than paper in ballot boxes. Yes, it's old-fashioned but it's reliable. It's also familiar (we need to be careful that in introducing innovations, we don't introduce barriers to people already in the system while trying to reduce them for others currently outside it). I'm willing to listen to arguments about electronic voting but am concerned that the problems with postal vote fraud apply just as much there.

    2. More and better public education. Voting matters because politics matters. But not everyone understands why politics matters, failing to see the link between parliament and housing benefit, healthcare or whatever. The kind of civic bonds that educated and reinforced the importance of voting to new generations are much weaker these days. The gaps that erosion has left need to be filled by public adverts, education in schools and the like. I accept that a lot's already done here but there's scope for more.

    3. Better politics. It needs to be about ideas, not personalities and not theatre for its own sake (and particularly not for the sake of the actors). PMQs gives people a dreadful idea of what politics is about. The media also has a part to play, although this is to some extent circular as the media follows what the public respond to, and politicians tend to follow both.

    What is not needed are:

    .

    On making voting matter, you left out Leaving the EU under (2)

    If our politicians were fully accountable for all (or practically all) trade, local tax, regional policy, migration, justice, human rights, social and employment policy (and even agriculture and fisheries for those whose livelihoods depend on it) with all the levers in their control perhaps a few more people might bother.
    I don't believe that more than a tiny number don't vote because the EU is a bit remote. Few are seriously concerned about the EU as an issue at all and for those who are, there are candidates standing who offer policy solutions to that problem.

    However, I suspect you know that.
    You're missing the point.

    It's not "the EU" per say but the "why do I bother voting, it never changes anything?" line.

    A significant part of that is because our politicians aren't able to change it. Immigration being the most obvious example of this.

    It's not the EU or Europe people care about, it's about self-governance and confusion as to why voting doesn't change anything (hint: often it's because it can't)
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517

    stodge said:

    The Right to Vote is, however, a fundamental and too many people have fought and died in too many countries for that simple right for us to be blase about it. Anything which increases turnout (weekend elections, longer hours, more polling stations at different locations, the ability to vote in person for your constituency at a different polling station etc, etc) should all be tried and tested and as we live in a digital age, secure on-line e-voting should be available as another option.

    I fundamentally disagree that high turnout is a worthwhile end in itself. People should vote because politics matter and what politicians and Parliament do affects their lives - not because it's as easy and insecure to vote for as the winner of the X Factor.

    In particular, "secure on-line e-voting" is an oxymoron.
    Indeed. Anyone thinking secure on-line e-voting is possible with current tech needs their head checking.

    It's another opportunity to link to this video:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3_0x6oaDmI
  • In any other industry, falling sales would result in the management reviewing their business model. In politics they result in management looking for ways to force non-buyers to buy.

    "You don't like it? Fuck off then. You don't have anywhere to go."

    The attitude of the Chancellor to his core buyers, who also help fund the advertising and promotion of the business and volunteer their time on the tills.
    I'm a core buyer and I like the Chancellor's actions. Corporation tax down, spending as a proportion of GDP down, welfare being reformed and the deficit getting cut.

    I know not every Tory likes the Chancellor as much but none of that is a "fuck off" to his core, those are all core Tory values. Not sure how much more he can do given the ludicrously massive deficit inherited.
    The Chancellor has been reported as saying that he calculates he can do what he likes with pensions tax relief because current Conservative supporters who are affected have nowhere else to go.

    I accept that not all Conservatives will be bothered by being taken for granted, but I am.
    I find that report very unlikely given that pensions and pensioner issues have been so gold plated for the last decade that he has been either Chancellor or Shadow Chancellor which is the very point of this thread. I don't believe every anonymous report that comes out especially when it so contradicts the last decade of actions taken.
    If you are already 65+ or collecting a pension you're quids in.

    If you are in your 30s, 40s or early 50s you are fair game.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966

    EU issues are surely for the PM not the Chancellor.

    So Cameron didn't put Osborne in charge of the EU renegotiation then, I must have imagined it.

  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited February 2016

    Attacking buy to let - that is aspiration yes but we have a mammoth deficit to plug and people have universally said that property bubbles have become a major problem here.

    What Osborne has done is shift the risk/reward ratio quite heavily in favour of people buying their own homes (including most recently 'Help to Buy London', which has received surprisingly little comment in the press, but is certainly being touted heavily in the London property market).

    Whether one regards what he is doing as good or bad, I'm baffled that anyone is seriously arguing that it's not a Tory policy.
    Indeed it is far more Tory (and will win more Tory votes) to have five homeowning families than one homeowning landlord and four tenant families. Osborne/Cameron are the most positive politicians since Thatcher for helping people own their own homes.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,958
    PClipp said:

    PClipp said:

    In any other industry, falling sales would result in the management reviewing their business model. In politics they result in management looking for ways to force non-buyers to buy.

    No point iin voting if you live in a safe seat, and always get the same old Labour/ Tory MP.

    Compulsory voting is the wrong answer.
    Seats are only safe because the voters vote that way...
    Or because everybody else just gives up, knowing that their vote willl make no difference to the outcome.
    So little faith in the system. Look at those folks who went out to vote to overthrow all those safe LibDem seats last May....
  • On making voting matter, you left out Leaving the EU under (2)

    If our politicians were fully accountable for all (or practically all) trade, local tax, regional policy, migration, justice, human rights, social and employment policy (and even agriculture and fisheries for those whose livelihoods depend on it) with all the levers in their control perhaps a few more people might bother.

    Has turnout in your eyes gone up at the last three elections in a row because we've become more detached from Europe or despite deeper integration in Europe?

    Not a rhetorical question it's possibly true that we are more detached now. In '01 when turnout hit its lowest nadir Europe seemed to dominate (with the Euro a real possibility) more than it does now.
    I think turnout suffered with the end of the Cold War and battle of ideas in the 1990s and has never really recovered since. Partly, that's due to evolving generational attitudes. But I do think more would turn out if it did really matter.

    I think the prospect of the single currency brought 'Europe' very much into focus as it would (literally) affect what people had in their wallet.

    Today, it's mainly immigration and human rights which are a 2nd order differential, but over the last 18 months viewed also as a first order derivative as seen on our TV screens.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    edited February 2016

    If you are already 65+ or collecting a pension you're quids in.

    If you are in your 30s, 40s or early 50s you are fair game.

    If you're already collecting your pension, then you are not quids in as a result of Osborne's changes (unless you have retired very recently). The pension freedoms which are really quite dramatic only applied from April 2015. It's those coming up to retirement who benefit. Anyone who retired before got shafted by pitiful annuity rates.
  • Indigo said:

    EU issues are surely for the PM not the Chancellor.

    So Cameron didn't put Osborne in charge of the EU renegotiation then, I must have imagined it.

    Osborne been heavily involved in the renegotiation yes but that's not what you complained about. You complained about so-called "lying and bad party management" which I've not seen Osborne do.
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    :smiley:

    The last GE is a great example of people power given the big change in seats.

    PClipp said:

    PClipp said:

    In any other industry, falling sales would result in the management reviewing their business model. In politics they result in management looking for ways to force non-buyers to buy.

    No point iin voting if you live in a safe seat, and always get the same old Labour/ Tory MP.

    Compulsory voting is the wrong answer.
    Seats are only safe because the voters vote that way...
    Or because everybody else just gives up, knowing that their vote willl make no difference to the outcome.
    So little faith in the system. Look at those folks who went out to vote to overthrow all those safe LibDem seats last May....
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,766
    taffys said:

    I'm not sure if this is partly to do with the suspension of Schengen, but european government bonds are doing strange things again. Greece, Portugal under pressure today.

    That's all David Cameron needs.

    10 year Spanish bonds are at 1.7%, so nothing too concerning just yet
  • Compulsory voting is a dreadful system. The equal opportunity to vote is all that's needed. If people can't be bothered with politics, why should politics be bothered with them?

    What is needed can be summed up in three points:


    2. More and better public education. Voting matters because politics matters. But not everyone understands why politics matters, failing to see the link between parliament and housing benefit, healthcare or whatever. The kind of civic bonds that educated and reinforced the importance of voting to new generations are much weaker these days. The gaps that erosion has left need to be filled by public adverts, education in schools and the like. I accept that a lot's already done here but there's scope for more.



    .

    On making voting matter, you left out Leaving the EU under (2)

    If our politicians were fully accountable for all (or practically all) trade, local tax, regional policy, migration, justice, human rights, social and employment policy (and even agriculture and fisheries for those whose livelihoods depend on it) with all the levers in their control perhaps a few more people might bother.
    I don't believe that more than a tiny number don't vote because the EU is a bit remote. Few are seriously concerned about the EU as an issue at all and for those who are, there are candidates standing who offer policy solutions to that problem.

    However, I suspect you know that.
    You're missing the point.

    It's not "the EU" per say but the "why do I bother voting, it never changes anything?" line.

    A significant part of that is because our politicians aren't able to change it. Immigration being the most obvious example of this.

    It's not the EU or Europe people care about, it's about self-governance and confusion as to why voting doesn't change anything (hint: often it's because it can't)
    The UK could change the non-EU migration rules today if it chose to. The intra-EU migration is, as you say, a given while we're in the EU but if that's what's motivating someone then it's down to UKIP or whoever to make the case - or the other parties to explain why it's not the problem they think it is.

    You're right that there is that perception but I don't believe it's an accurate one. A good council or government can and does change people's lives, just as a bad one can. I suspect that for most people who deploy that cynical argument, it's more an excuse than a reason.
  • Does anyone know how the oldies voted between 1992 and 2005.

    I'm assuming Blair won the older voters quite comfortably.
  • isam said:

    Yes one of the options on the ballot, if voting is compulsory, should be NOTA

    NOTA is a dreadful, smug option that allows people to abdicate all responsibility for taking a decision while feeling superior about themselves. It's worse than not voting at all. If people are not happy with the options on offer, it's down to them to do something about it. That's what being a citizen means.
    We need RON, not NOTA if we have compulsory voting.

    Compulsory voting without the ability to tell the candidates to get stuffed would be an abomination.

    But we should not have compulsory voting at all.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,841

    If you are already 65+ or collecting a pension you're quids in.

    If you are in your 30s, 40s or early 50s you are fair game.

    If you're already collecting your pension, then you are not quids in as a result of Osborne's changes (unless you have retired very recently). The pension freedoms which are really quite dramatic only applied from April 2015. It's those coming up to retirement who benefit. Anyone who retired before got shafted by pitiful annuity rates.
    George has offered an excellent annuity himself iirc.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited February 2016

    Attacking buy to let - that is aspiration yes but we have a mammoth deficit to plug and people have universally said that property bubbles have become a major problem here.

    What Osborne has done is shift the risk/reward ratio quite heavily in favour of people buying their own homes (including most recently 'Help to Buy London', which has received surprisingly little comment in the press, but is certainly being touted heavily in the London property market).

    Whether one regards what he is doing as good or bad, I'm baffled that anyone is seriously arguing that it's not a Tory policy.
    Indeed it is far more Tory (and will win more Tory votes) to have five homeowning families than one homeowning landlord and four tenant families. Osborne/Cameron are the most positive politicians since Thatcher for helping people own their own homes.
    At the same time all those people in the middle with one buy-to-let on the side, probably as a retirement investment, just got screwed and will be looking for someone else to vote for. Lots of WVM types fall into that category. Meanwhile the rich property companies, oligarchs and plutocrats (George's mates) are completely unaffected as they self finance.

    Middle Class Strivers 0
    Fat Cats 3
  • Am I right thinking if we leave the EU but are in the EEA, EEA citizens can still come over here and work. The free movement of people will still exist ?
  • On making voting matter, you left out Leaving the EU under (2)

    If our politicians were fully accountable for all (or practically all) trade, local tax, regional policy, migration, justice, human rights, social and employment policy (and even agriculture and fisheries for those whose livelihoods depend on it) with all the levers in their control perhaps a few more people might bother.

    Has turnout in your eyes gone up at the last three elections in a row because we've become more detached from Europe or despite deeper integration in Europe?

    Not a rhetorical question it's possibly true that we are more detached now. In '01 when turnout hit its lowest nadir Europe seemed to dominate (with the Euro a real possibility) more than it does now.
    I think turnout suffered with the end of the Cold War and battle of ideas in the 1990s and has never really recovered since. Partly, that's due to evolving generational attitudes. But I do think more would turn out if it did really matter.

    I think the prospect of the single currency brought 'Europe' very much into focus as it would (literally) affect what people had in their wallet.

    Today, it's mainly immigration and human rights which are a 2nd order differential, but over the last 18 months viewed also as a first order derivative as seen on our TV screens.
    I think your first paragraph sums it up and frankly it is good news not bad news. That terrible ideas like communism have faded away and that there is little difference between the parties is good news if you support sensible government and only really bad news if you support the terrible ideas that have been dropped. In 2001 I think the turnout hit the lowest point because the two parties were seen as so similar, I naively voted Labour in 2001 as I saw in Tony Blair a Tory with a heart and couldn't stand Hague then - I regretted it when Brown then turned the spending taps on after that election and we still haven't recovered as a country.

    Since 2001 the gulf between the parties has widened and so has turnout. If in 2020 Corbyn is still Labour leader then expect turnout to get even higher.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,841

    Am I right thinking if we leave the EU but are in the EEA, EEA citizens can still come over here and work. The free movement of people will still exist ?

    We can put in place some Norway type restrictions I think, Mr Tyndall knows his stuff about those.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    edited February 2016

    Am I right thinking if we leave the EU but are in the EEA, EEA citizens can still come over here and work. The free movement of people will still exist ?

    Yes, exactly the same EU directive applies, including the right to come here and study, to look for work for a reasonable time, and to come here as of right if one is self-sufficient. Spouses and other family members as well. EEA citizens can't come here in order to live on benefits, but neither can EU citizens.
This discussion has been closed.