Mecky Posted December 4, 2013 Share Posted December 4, 2013 Politicians rarely represent the people who vote for them? Don't vote for them then. Better still, stand as an Independant. The thing is, you can't please everyone and people tend to vote to try and benefit themselves or the lesser of evils. People rarely vote for the benefit of others, it's always Me Me Me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted December 4, 2013 Share Posted December 4, 2013 Problem is, would people even bother to vote even if we had electoral reform? I don't think your average person pays nearly enough attention to what's going on, and with all parties experts in 'spin' you have to listen very carefully indeed to not have the wool pulled over your eyes. That's if you bother to listen at all... The standard of competence in government is poor, the sense of entitlement enormous, croneyism endemic, and the complacency of the administration staggering. And it all costs a fortune. Basically, it's just one big Old Boys club. We need reform as a matter of urgency, but turkeys won't vote for Christmas... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairyloon Posted December 4, 2013 Author Share Posted December 4, 2013 Sadly, I also believe asking for electoral reform is a bit like asking the monkeys if you might, pretty please, have the key to the banana plantation back, one day, if that's not too much trouble, you won't get it in any meaningful form that means politicians will answer to you rather than the other way round. That is one of the good things about introducing a "none of the above" option: it is only the tiniest of changes and to resist it, they would have to admit that they are scared of losing to nobody... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donkey Posted December 4, 2013 Share Posted December 4, 2013 Q:Why isn't there a police department especially for investigating political corruption? A:Because it would have to be authorized by the government I'd like a system where buying influence ('lobbying') in any form, blatant or subtle, was a serious criminal offence. A system where rules on MPs financial vested interests and links to big business were a lot tighter, with lengthy jail terms for wrong-doing. Then we would see a different type of politician. However, I don't expect this to happen, as no pig is going to vote to ban itself from sticking its nose in the trough, which leaves the only hope of changing the situation to the - not at all easily hoodwinked, ill informed or apathetic - British public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppet2 Posted December 4, 2013 Share Posted December 4, 2013 Possibly, if they thought their opinions carried any weight with politicians, but it's not going to happen with the politicians we have they need replacing first But even when a referendum was held to change the voting system, only 42.2% of people could be bothered to come out and vote, for a voting system that would make their vote count. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairyloon Posted December 4, 2013 Author Share Posted December 4, 2013 But even when a referendum was held to change the voting system, only 42.2% of people could be bothered to come out and vote, for a voting system that would make their vote count. But the change that was offered was to a system that nobody wanted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cressida Posted December 4, 2013 Share Posted December 4, 2013 No - I'm not happy with the government, all the talk of 'we are in it together' and 'fairer society' isn't ringing true to me, they seem as if they are playing for time, it's clear that Cameron does not want to leave the EU and will be able to say he tried to re-negotiate the terms but couldn't - so he won't have to, and we'll be stuck with more cuts if he is re-elected. They will say the economy is improving more and more towards 2015. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted December 4, 2013 Share Posted December 4, 2013 But the change that was offered was to a system that nobody wanted. Indeed. I'm wondering how Cameron will work it to get round the 'in or out' EU referendum after 2015, to get the result he wants. (Mind you, I doubt he'll be in power then, so doubt we'll get a vote at all.) They're slippery little buggers, these politicians... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
purdy Posted December 4, 2013 Share Posted December 4, 2013 No - I'm not happy with the government, all the talk of 'we are in it together' and 'fairer society' isn't ringing true to me, they seem as if they are playing for time, it's clear that Cameron does not want to leave the EU and will be able to say he tried to re-negotiate the terms but couldn't - so he won't have to, and we'll be stuck with more cuts if he is re-elected. They will say the economy is improving more and more towards 2015. Probably because it is. Unlike the period 2007-2010 when it was going down the pan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bladesman Posted December 4, 2013 Share Posted December 4, 2013 That referendum was a con and I am surprised that anyone fell for it. Cleggy most of all. ---------- Post added 04-12-2013 at 16:38 ---------- What reform would you like to see? I think we need some fundamental reform, but at a minimum we need the option to vote for "none of the above" like India and France have recently decided to do. I would prefer AV+ rather than what was put to us which was just AV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.