andyofborg Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 OK well how about these then?: House of Lords rejects Labour's attempt to prevent student tuition fees trebling to £9000. http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/dec/14/lords-rejects-labour-derail-tuition House of Lords rejects bill to ban smacking children: http://www.cypnow.co.uk/news/749913/Children-Bill-Lords-rejects-move-ban-smacking/?DCMP=ILC-SEARCH House of Lords rejects 'medical necessity' defence for use of cannabis: http://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/2005/11/28/medical-cannabis-house-of-lords-reject-medical-necessity-defence-appeal-petition/ Again I could go on... all seem pretty reasonable things to reject Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Prime Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 very few of the current members of the house of lords are hunting and shooting right wing maniacs, the previous government created lots of lords who were broadly left wing (or at least their version of left wing) and so have a created a "new labour" majority in the lords. the purpose of the second chamber is to take a second look at legislation and where necessary improve it, and by and large it actually does this rather well. the most they can do is delay legislation for a year, after which the government can enact the legislation using the parliament acts. it may sound nice to have an elected second chamber, but having one would probably mean its ability to revise legislation would be reduced. Shame nobody told Cavegirl, real name Millie Tant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Prime Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Based upon your posts I doubt much of anything crosses your mind.... Has it ever crossed your mind why your opinions are held by only a few thousand in the country and not at all in mainstream politics? There are two possible reasons: 1. You and the other prophets in the wilderness are the cutting edge visionaries and only you can see the truth. 2. It's a load of extremist cobblers with no basis in reality. The other day you compared census refuseniks to Rosa Parks! That kind of judgement says it all. I rest my case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buck Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 People who refuse to vote have no right to complain about the way a country is run. There are people in the Middle East who are dying in an effort to achieve what you and I take for granted. Vote for a candidate. If he or she turns out to be what you voted for, good. If not try again next time with somebody else. Maybe some way you finish up eventually with a good government. but if only a few committed voters do so it doesnt work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxman Posted November 27, 2011 Share Posted November 27, 2011 It isn't just general and local elections that suffer from poor turnout. Over 2 million public sector workers will strike this Wednesday despite a turnout of less than 40% amongst all the unions. That's just pathetic. I can, in part, understand people not wanting to vote in a general election if either the result is a foregone conclusion or the choice is between Corrupt Politician A and Corrupt Politician B. But the union vote will directly affect all those constituents who either voted or didn't. They will lose money, they'll have double the work to do on their return, they'll disrupt their own lives and many other. So why did over half of them not bother voting? What went through their minds when they got their ballot paper? Were they apathetic, did they not understand the question, did they choose to let a minority answer the question on their behalf? A question was asked that will directly affect them, yet over 50% couldn't be bothered to answer it. Madness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muddycoffee Posted November 27, 2011 Share Posted November 27, 2011 The problem with this vote is that the Unions have not done a great job of getting the ballot papers out. Myself and many other colleagues never even received a ballot paper. I even rang the agency that sends out the ballot papers to make sure I was on the list, but I still did not get a vote. Apparently the government refuses to allow voting by internet or text from a registered phone or e-mail account. The reason for that is with a 90% turn out they would have a great difficulty making any excuses. They insist that a private agency which is seperate from the unions has to handle the ballot papers and at least in sheffield it has been a complete **** up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted November 27, 2011 Share Posted November 27, 2011 It isn't just general and local elections that suffer from poor turnout. Over 2 million public sector workers will strike this Wednesday despite a turnout of less than 40% amongst all the unions. That's just pathetic. What are you talking about you madman? Do you think all union subscribers are going to strike because their union has voted to strike? Weren't they saying that striking won't change anything? If that's the case why is he so bothered if people do strike? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vague_Boy Posted November 27, 2011 Share Posted November 27, 2011 They have enough votes behind them to win! Who would they vote for? The Labourtives? The Conbours? The Librotories? Twelve voices were shouting in anger, and they were all alike. No question, now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which. George Orwell, Animal Farm I would perhaps consider UKIP but if they were to gain any kind of leverage, the chequebooks would come out pretty quickly. Want to influence the "democratic process"? My tip: Start saving your pennies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyofborg Posted November 27, 2011 Share Posted November 27, 2011 But the union vote will directly affect all those constituents who either voted or didn't. They will lose money, they'll have double the work to do on their return, they'll disrupt their own lives and many other. So why did over half of them not bother voting? What went through their minds when they got their ballot paper? Were they apathetic, did they not understand the question, did they choose to let a minority answer the question on their behalf? A question was asked that will directly affect them, yet over 50% couldn't be bothered to answer it. Madness. perhaps they would have been satisifed whatever the answer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted November 27, 2011 Share Posted November 27, 2011 whoever you vote for government wins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.