Britain - The Official Thread

[Liquid]

You can't force people to vote.

Depends if you view voting as a duty or a right. If you don't care enough to bother voting for the person who 'represents' your little patch of turf in the Government, fine. But don't bother complaining about things if you've done nothing about voting for a candidate whom you believe in.

Voter apathy and public apathy towards politics generally is a big problem in this country.

 

[Famine]

You can't force people to vote.

No.

And you can't call mobilising just 8% of people a victory. If you go up to 5 people in the street and 4 didn't vote for you, how are you representing them?

Depends if you view voting as a duty or a right. If you don't care enough to bother voting for the person who 'represents' your little patch of turf in the Government, fine. But don't bother complaining about things if you've done nothing about voting for a candidate whom you believe in.

And if you believe (or trust, or just plain agree with) in no candidates, your vote must be cast accordingly. Of course when the main news outlets are lying about turnout, this makes your voice being heard that bit more difficult.

Voter apathy and public apathy towards politics generally is a big problem in this country.

They're apathetic because people can get into positions of power despite being proven to be corrupt, racist, lying, cheating, swindling, embezzling and paedophilic with over 80% of people not voting for them in the very best cases...

I mean, even the current government - made up of two parties who between them weren't voted for by 55% of the electorate - is more legitimately a representation of the population than that. And they aren't. At all.

 

[Liquid]

And you can't call mobilising just 8% of people a victory. If you go up to 5 people in the street and 4 didn't vote for you, how are you representing them?

Agreed. You can not call that a victory.

And if you believe (or trust, or just plain agree with) in no candidates, your vote must be cast accordingly. Of course when the main news outlets are lying about turnout, this makes your voice being heard that bit more difficult.

I can't remember off the top of my head, but is "None of the candidates" an option on ballots?

They're apathetic because people can get into positions of power despite being proven to be corrupt, racist, lying, cheating, swindling, embezzling and paedophilic with over 80% of people not voting for them in the very best cases...

I mean, even the current government - made up of two parties who between them weren't voted for by 55% of the electorate - is more legitimately a representation of the population than that. And they aren't. At all.

Maybe there should have been a second election and so forth, until the winning coalition is at least 51% of the vote. Or perhaps the first past the post system needs changing. My vote at the last general election was a wasted ballot. That is, a ballot which was not contributory towards the winning margin of the winning candidate in the constituency in which I voted. (I voted at my university's constituency, not my home one). Kind of makes me feel as though my thoughts are neither valued nor represented at our central government. I haven't had the opportunity to vote in my devolved assembly elections yet.

Also, elect the House Of Lords. I do not like the fact that Conrad Black and Jeffrey Archer are eligible to vote on upper house matters. Since its inception, the House Of Lords has been a cronyistic deadweight over British democracy. Arguably this has only gotten worse since the House Of Lords Act 1999. Instead of hereditary peers, we get peers who bribe the Government. Joy.

 

[Famine]

I can't remember off the top of my head, but is "None of the candidates" an option on ballots?

No.

Anything other than "a clear mark" entirely within a single candidate's box is classed as a spoiled ballot. There will be a significant proportion of spoiled papers that are stupid people, some that are expletives and crude drawings and some that are "none of the above". The BBC, Sky News and ITN are not reporting any of these cast ballots.

Maybe there should have been a second election and so forth, until the winning coalition is at least 51% of the vote.

The problem is that elections are quite expensive, even without the ludicrous campaign expenses.

Or perhaps the first past the post system needs changing.

It does - but not to AV which merely displaces the problem (and is the system by which the main parties' leaders are elected - AV got Ed Miliband the leadership - nuff said). It improves some things, but it has shortcomings, not least of which is that you're expected to pick someone with whom you agree but then allow your vote to move to someone with whom you agree less.

A vote isn't a check mark to be bought, sold or bartered. A vote is a message. It's a mandate - a requirement - to act on your behalf. This is why:

My vote at the last general election was a wasted ballot. That is, a ballot which was not contributory towards the winning margin of the winning candidate in the constituency in which I voted.

is never true.

Every vote for a candidate is a validation of their previous behaviour - it's a sign of trust that the candidate has done what they say and will continue to do what they say. It's not just the votes that go to the winner that do this, but all votes that go to someone who isn't the winner. Every vote the winner doesn't get is a vote against their previous behaviour and a message that you do not trust them to represent you.

No vote cast is a waste, except one you fill in wrongly because you're stupid. This is why failing to report spoiled ballots is fraudulent - it gives an incorrect picture of who voted for what and gives false validation. Votes not cast are always a waste, because not caring enough to express an opinion is its own message.

Also, elect the House Of Lords. I do not like the fact that Conrad Black and Jeffrey Archer are eligible to vote on upper house matters. Since its inception, the House Of Lords has been a cronyistic deadweight over British democracy. Arguably this has only gotten worse since the House Of Lords Act 1999. Instead of hereditary peers, we get peers who bribe the Government. Joy.

In a properly functioning representative democracy, there's no need for a higher house - elected or otherwise. You don't need a second set of representatives if the first set actually represent the people.

Meanwhile in ours, we have Keith Vaz as the Commons ethics committee chairman. There are no words.

 

[Joel]

Similar thing here in Canada (makes sense given that we borrowed your political system). Our conservative government has a majority government (50%< of seats), despite getting only ~35% of the popular vote.

Edit: and that's without including people who didn't vote which was about 50% of voting age people IIRC.

 

[Liquid]

Oh.

Deputy Speaker does a Ken Barlow.

 

[lbsf1]

British politics is in a real problem at the moment, and that is that all of the parties represent and extreme to a certain extent. The Tories will do a bad job for the majority because they favour only the very rich. Labour will do a bad job for the majority because they favour the unions and will only make our debt much worse.

We don't have a middle ground party who represent the majority of the country, we need a party who simply just wants the best for the country, not the best for themselves or their group of people. My main point to prove this is that the tories wouldn't have George Osbourne as chancellor of the exchequer if they wanted the best for the country, they would have someone who is an expert in economics, not someone who did a degree in journalism.

If you were to vote using the strict idea (as famine said) that your vote was of who you trusted to be in power. Then many many more people would spoil their ballot. About 80% of all of my friends (all relatively intelligent, southern teenagers) are disillusioned by all parties, no matter who is in power the wishes of the public are ignored and consistently don't serve the public as they are elected too, it truly is a corrupted system at the moment.

Saying all this though I probably will end up voting Liberal in an almost useless attempt to try and get Micheal Gove out of power in our constituency.

Also if your MP is part of the cabinet and thus NEVER does anything for your constituency are they thus failing in their duty to represent you,hhhmmn????

 

[Famine]

British politics is in a real problem at the moment, and that is that all of the parties represent and extreme to a certain extent.

Nonsense. They all represent the same sector of society, but present themselves as representing certain groups.

That sector is "I should be allowed to do what I want because I'm special. Everyone else is an idiot who should be prevented from interfering in my life. Everyone who earns more than me is a rich, selfish bastard who should have money taken off them, but everyone who earns less is a shiftless layabout and doesn't deserve state handouts.".

This applies to the majority of voters anywhere at any time.

The Tories will do a bad job for the majority because they favour only the very rich.

Hogwash. They favour lower taxation in general and for companies in particular because of the trickledown effect - reduce the amount a company earns and you reduce the number of employees they can pay.

There's little evidence this works when there is no free market.

Labour will do a bad job for the majority because they favour the unions and will only make our debt much worse.

Also hogwash. They're only paid for by the unions - but the modern Labour party is a Tory party in red ties with the blind spot that the higher taxation is in general, the more tax money can be taken (ignoring the fact the richer people can afford to employ better tax accountants and shuffle more money about to avoid paying taxes - or just move to the Isle of Man) and that everyone must be tracked at all times to prevent crime.

We don't have a middle ground party who represent the majority of the country

We do - they all just wear red, blue and yellow ties. They all represent the slightly-right of centre, slightly-fascistic mindset of the majority of people. Blue is slightly more right than the other two, red is slightly more fascist than the other two and yellow is more right than red but less fascist than either.

we need a party who simply just wants the best for the country, not the best for themselves or their group of people.

Won't happen. People don't know what's best for the country and won't elect a party that does. In fact people don't know that what's best for the country isn't what's immediately best (lower taxation for them specifically, usually) for them.

The proportion of actual voter reasoning of those that vote at any given time is approximately:
~50% - Have always voted for this party. Go blue/red/yellow/green!
~30% - Time for a change/protest vote against incumbents
~15% - Have carefully read some manifestos and agree with more party promises for that party than they disagree with or agree with for other parties.
~ 5% - PAKIS OUT KEEP BRITTAN BRITTISH
~1% - Picked the funniest looking name

If you're not in power, you've got 45% of the population to play with and only 15% of them will pay attention to what you say. But if you can win a safe seat by getting just 8.4% of the population up off their arses to go vote for you, that's a good 15% to nab.

My main point to prove this is that the tories wouldn't have George Osbourne as chancellor of the exchequer if they wanted the best for the country, they would have someone who is an expert in economics, not someone who did a degree in journalism.

Which is a ludicrous main point and proves nothing - aside from the fact his degree is in modern history...

You'll find nary a handful of MPs of any kind who didn't do a degree in law or PPE. Osbourne's predecessors did law (Darling), history (Brown), law (Clarke), economics (Lamont), no degree (Major), PPE (Lawson), law (Howe), classics (Healey), law (Barber) - and we're already 40 years down the line. Only two studied economics of any kind at university (Lawson and Lamont), both Tories, and one presided over his own massive recession in the early 1990s...

If you were to vote using the strict idea (as famine said) that your vote was of who you trusted to be in power. Then many many more people would spoil their ballot. About 80% of all of my friends (all relatively intelligent, southern teenagers) are disillusioned by all parties, no matter who is in power the wishes of the public are ignored and consistently don't serve the public as they are elected too, it truly is a corrupted system at the moment.

And that's another reason why spoiled ballot misreporting is fraudulent. It's about the only way to change a system which preys on the moral ineptitude of the majority.

 

[DK]

It could be worse - you could have the Irish parties: Populist Party Who Blew Up The Economy, Catholic Puppet Party Which Is Facing Internal Struggles About How Catholic It Should Be, Socialists Who Can't Get Into Power Without Going Into Coalition With A Right-Wing Party, Populist Irish Republicans and a variety of "parish-pump" independents. Oh, and the Greens, but no-one gives a crap about them any more.

 

[Liquid]

BBC

Jimmy Tarbuck is the latest old bifter to come under scrutiny.

 

[axletramp]

There's just no shock factor anymore, is there? Always found him profoundly irritating and unfunny anyway - not that that has any bearing on these child abuse allegations.

 

[Liquid]

And just imagine how many non-celebrities were up to no good back then. The sort of non-celebrities whose crimes will either go uninvestigated or unreported.

Scary thought.

 

[Leo0308]

Just returning to the cycling conversation for a moment I'd just like to vent the following.

Traffic lights apply to bikes too!!!!!!!!

As a pedestrian, with a 10 minute commute to work, I am fed up of the majority of cyclists who feel its ok to cycle through red lights on crossings when people are on them!

 

[Crumpet]

What is it with England and Pound Shops nowadays? There are more Pound Shops in our town than people. And we also have the worlds most paranoid security guards... Not to mention the fact they built 3 of that Polish shop, what's the name... Aldi, that's the one. So, they built 3 of them on 2 blocks, literally a 3 minute walk between them. Yet you can't find a KFC for about 15 miles...

That's why I don't go outside anymore.

 

[Liquid]

Pardon?

Aldi's German, anyway. You're more likely to find Polish goods down your local Polski Sklep.

 

[DK]

I don't mind Pound Shops, but I guess that's because they sell 3 cans of Coke for £1.

 

[ASH32]

I don't mind Pound Shops, but I guess that's because they sell 3 cans of Coke for £1.

Even pounds shops have closed down where I live, there is still one though.

No one cares that towns are dying and it's no shock, when they allowed supermarkets and out of town complexes everywhere it was always going to happen.

I love to laugh at the people who think "art" will attract shoppers or that increasing car parking charges will attract more people. Although the amount wasted on the "art" is not really a laughing matter.👎

 

[Liquid]

A lot of town centres, especially 'local' or 'small' town centres, are becoming increasingly derelict, like out of some sort of plague-based horror film. Any places near me which get significant regeneration are the larger, and in this case largest, towns such as Wrexham. Wrexham is inaccessible by bus from my pokey conurbation, and getting there costs either £8 petrol money, or £4 for a horribly unreliable one train per hour railway service.

Not that I know what can be done to reintroduce successful businesses into those areas, but it's a crying shame. Local markets too. I used to love going up town with my grandparents to Mold market. The market is still there, but it's getting weaker and weaker as the years go on. My own town market, in Connah's Quay, died a death many a year ago. It's reduced to some bloke selling toilet rolls next to a meat van outside the Sue Ryder shop.

But the area where it once stood is put to use; it's now an amalgamated medical centre, with all the formerly local surgeries under one roof.

 

[Mark T]

I work in a relatively deprived coastal town in Essex. Same story on our high street. In the last three years we've had two Tesco Express stores pop up. We also had a massive Tesco store open about four years ago. We now have an Aldi going up across the road from a Lidl, both very similar in size.

Luckily we still have three very good butchers in the area and some not so great bakeries. Empty commercial units are now being propped up by pop up shops, charity shops and cash for gold/cash convertor stores.

I can only really see one way to solve the problem and that's to move the town centre......out of the town centre. Hear me out.

What we need is a retail park for independent retailers. Somewhere with ample parking, a location on the outskirts of town with a range of different size commercial units that are affordable.

 

[Liquid]

We had one of those in our town. Well, it was a neighbourhood shopping centre that catered for most shopping needs.

It died a death, and is now a Morrisons. But with a local chippy next door.

 

[Mark T]

We had one of those in our town. Well, it was a neighbourhood shopping centre that catered for most shopping needs.

It died a death, and is now a Morrisons. But with a local chippy next door.

Maybe not such a good idea then.

I don't think people actually like town centres any more. Unless it's one of those swanky cosmopolitan types.

 

[Liquid]

Well, just because it failed in Connah's Quay, doesn't mean it would fail all over the country. Like I've alluded to, the market in Mold still does okay.

Depends on how great the community spirit is, I suppose.

 

[Lizard]

So Mr Farage. What do you do when people say your party is racist and protest against it?

Say the people are racist.

I see this being a very circular argument.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-22566183

 

[Liquid]

He's got a point.

On the one hand, his party doesn't have much support north of the border. Fine. This happens. But that doesn't mean that those who disagree with him can act like penis craniums; they can politely disagree.

Calling them 'fascist yobbo scum' is just typical loony Farage [/opinion]. I cannot say I agree with what he stands for, on many levels, but that doesn't give us the right to aggressively heckle him. He has a right to voice his thoughts as much as the rest of us, even if we disagree with what is said.

UKIP are far from being a militant wing of the old National Front. You could at least have somewhat civilised conversation with Nigel Farage. There is no need to get so testy.

To reiterate, I don't agree with UKIP. I'm entitled to do so. But that doesn't mean I can go right out of my way to ridicule or suppress their opinions, which they have an equal right to having.

 

[Famine]

Or, more succinctly, there's nothing more fascist than trying to beat down opposing opinions simply for being opposing opinions. Calling people who want to beat him up because they disagree with him "fascist" is accurate.

 

[Liquid]

It's one of the most twisted forms of cognitive dissonance around.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Or, more succinctly, there's nothing more fascist than trying to beat down opposing opinions simply for being opposing opinions. Calling people who want to beat him up because they disagree with him "fascist" is accurate.

I had many an enjoyable moment suggesting to Socialist Worker supporters that seeking to ban the "fascist BNP" was facist in itself!

 

[Lizard]

I wasn't so much saying he is wrong I meant that the line of argument is going to go like this.

People call him racist. He responds by calling them racist and they will say he called them racist because he is racist thus creating a never ending circle.

 

[Liquid]

At £65,000 per annum, plus those expenses, do you think that MPs are paid enough?

Because according to the Grauniad, amongst other outlets, MPs could be set for a pay rise of between £10,000-£20,000. MPs themselves, under a survey, have stated on average that they believe that they should be paid £86,000 per annum.

The Daily Fail immediately goes on the offensive, with the suggestive and unverified quote that some MPs have labelled it, 'not snouts in the trough because if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys'.

Now, in spite of the public and press perception of being a member of Parliament, I do not doubt that it must be a stressful job. But come on, where's the common sense? As if £75,000 isn't cushty enough. It's a comfortable amount above the average salary, and an insane amount higher than the minimum salary.

Plus, during times of unpopular public cuts, are MPs forgetting where this salary comes from? That would be an extra £6,500,000 extra strain on the public purse using a £10,000 increase as a minimum. You accuse MPs as not being in touch with the common man, ironic given they're sitting in the House of 'Commons', but this is an incredibly insensitive move, if true.

Let's not forget that politicians aren't exclusively politicians. They frequently earn money from other ventures and 'jobs' such as directorships. And I use the term 'job' very loosely there.

Finally, I don't think it's just the pay that attracts so many monkeys to the House.

 

[MarinaDiamandis]

Better performance = higher pay.

Want a nice bonus? Then, as servants of the public, you will have to work together and get 🤬 done.