Protect against UKGOV savings confiscation

bigadaj

Granariesgirl wrote: »

Sadly that is only too true. I think we should all vote, even if the vote is deliberately "spoilt" for lack of viable candidates in peoples' respective constituencies, it is the only way that political parties will listen... & if they don't listen then I guess it's just handing votes to the radical parties.:(

In some ways I like the Australian approach that you've got to vote. To be fair there would have to be a none of the above box which would be embarrassing for all of the political parties if this was the most popular option as it could well be.

I always vote though did take the opprotuntiy to spoil my ballot for the police and crime commissioner elections as I just thought it was a waste of money and introduced politics unnecessarily, I think maybe 15% were spoilt for that issue.

kidmugsy

bigadaj wrote: »

In some ways I like the Australian approach that you've got to vote.

Australians put up with sub-fascist bullying from their politicians quite meekly.

talexuser

This is a moral dilemma. We have a system that represents freedom yet would force to vote with some kind of sanction presumably? But the apathy of not voting and letting more and more unrepresentative minority governments do what they like for 5 years might be a worse option compared to the loss of that particular freedom. You would need a "reject all" option added up and compared to the winner vote (by constituency and nationally) to constantly highlight how an unpopular policy had no majority support perhaps.

Hapless_Harry

I agree with guitarman. We have many ticking time bombs in this country,not only financial ones,if the law of averages is applied one has to go off.
I have a friend who two years ago sold up here and went to New Zealand on a tourist visa. He's bought
five houses outright with the 3k he went with plus one to live in. All rented out .He's living near Christchurch and due to the recent earthquake has building work and they've given him a two year work visa with the option to stay. He won't be coming back. At 56 he would be unemployed here anyway. He's told me it's the friendliest country he's ever been to.

Hapless_Harry

That's £300,000 obviously!!

Glen_Clark

talexuser wrote: »

I want to vote for a party

I think thats where we are going wrong. The party system ensures nothing will change. There is little to chose between the two main parties and the Liberals are not much different.
I suggest vote for the candidate, not the party.
If the candidate is not tied to any party, so much the better.
And if anyone can't be bothered to vote they deserve whatever politicians they get - because they are just an insult to all those genuine heroes who have given their lives to get us the vote.

JohnRo

My personal view is that there should be compulsory voting, by law, and a box on every ballot paper that says "none of the above"

p00hsticks

JohnRo wrote: »

My personal view is that there should be compulsory voting, by law, and a box on every ballot paper that says "none of the above"

And what do you then propose happens if the majority of voters select the 'none of the above' box ?

JohnRo

Nothing, it'll just provide some much needed context and help to stop people who can't be bothered from ignoring their obligation in a so called democracy. If we ever get a government that actually does something useful then it'll probably command a real majority though I wouldn't expect to see that under the current pantomime system.

talexuser

p00hsticks wrote: »

And what do you then propose happens if the majority of voters select the 'none of the above' box ?

As per market forces, someone will come along to fill the space? At least it would break up the cosy 2 party, swap every couple of years, monopoly. One doctor was voted in twice on an independent ticket to save cuts at his local hospital. More like that and we might get policies people want - like making bankers pay for their mistakes.