The Queen's Jubilee

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

No they are not - when spoilt papers are the largest vote then you can say they are.

Well, yes, cloughie - and putting a large "A" across the ballot paper was my voting choice in my younger days.

The trouble is that there is no "counting" differentiation between a paper spoilt by choice and one by accident: both types of spoilt ballot are just ignored.

[cloughie]

Oh, and we were getting on so well on the "Bruckner Finale" Thread.

That you should think that anyone should lose your "particular concern and consideration" is surprising.

BUT: the trouble with the current voting system is that it makes no differentiation between those who find the options given them unacceptable (or even undemocratic) and those who simply can't be bothered. It would be interesting to see the results if an "abstention" or "None of the above" option were introduced onto ballot papers. For those of us who have no wish to be "represented" (least of all by someone who can drop everything s/he'd said s/he'd do for us as soon as s/he gets to Westminster) giving anyone our approval (let alone our "automatic" approval) is merely pouring petrol onto the flames of a burning house. The fact that some of them are talking openly about making voting compulsory only goes to show what a façade the whole voting system is.

ferney I may be cynical but I don't think it would significantly increase turnout.

[JohnSkelton]

BUT: the trouble with the current voting system is that it makes no differentiation between those who find the options given them unacceptable (or even undemocratic) and those who simply can't be bothered. It would be interesting to see the results if an "abstention" or "None of the above" option were introduced onto ballot papers. For those of us who have no wish to be "represented" (least of all by someone who can drop everything s/he'd said s/he'd do for us as soon as s/he gets to Westminster) giving anyone our approval (let alone our "automatic" approval) is merely pouring petrol onto the flames of a burning house. The fact that some of them are talking openly about making voting compulsory only goes to show what a façade the whole voting system is.

It also assumes there's no point wondering why the people who just can't be bothered to vote feel like that - just as there's apparently no point asking why people riot, or self-medicate / binge drink, etc. It assumes that only one perspective - the perspective of the citizen dissociating "us" from "them" - has any validity (or, in reality, has any existence). Which is perhaps how life often feels for the ones who have 'lost any particular concern and consideration from the rest of us!'

http://lauraoldfieldford.blogspot.co.uk/

[cloughie]

It also assumes there's no point wondering why the people who just can't be bothered to vote feel like that - just as there's apparently no point asking why people riot, or self-medicate / binge drink, etc. It assumes that only one perspective - the perspective of the citizen dissociating "us" from "them" - has any validity (or, in reality, has any existence). Which is perhaps how life often feels for the ones who have 'lost any particular concern and consideration from the rest of us!'

http://lauraoldfieldford.blogspot.co.uk/

I guess we all have some degree of self-centredness and selfishness, but this manifests itself in different and often destructive ways.

[french frank]

The trouble is that there is no "counting" differentiation between a paper spoilt by choice and one by accident: both types of spoilt ballot are just ignored.

They aren't actually ignored. Before ballot papers are 'discounted' they are scrutinised by all interested parties and a tally of spoiled papers in any poll is available. In my experience (now a bit dated! ) very few papers are deliberately spoiled, and all that's necessary for a vote to be counted is for party agents to agree that the intention to choose one party is clear.

Reasons for apathy, I agree, would be interesting to discover, and in individual cases are probably obvious, the overriding one being a general: It won't make any difference to me. It's certainly the case that turn-out is lowest in the most deprived areas, and highest in the wealthier areas - a factor that disadvantages the Labour party and benefits Conservatives when the share of votes is calculated.

[Lateralthinking1]

I have for some years had very real problems with the concepts of 'Britain' and indeed 'England'. There hasn't been a very radical change in me there. However, in this part of 2012, I have found some sort of reconciliation. I admit to being surprised. It has been achieved by seeing 'democratically elected' Governments, and Oppositions, as being counter to this country's interests and, in themselves, foreign. Frankly, they are not now a part of who most of us are or ever want to be. They are at best an irritant.

Most of the ills in this country, however broadly or narrowly you want to define it, are the fault of this so-called democracy. Any gross failings in the financial sector, private enterprise, the legal system, the police, the military, the media, public services and citizens are first and foremost the sickness of politics. One of the problems England has had in particular is that it lacks jigs and reels; daffodils and leeks. Hence its identity has been more closely aligned not only with Britain but an overtly political Britain. Its only answer now, give or take a few morris dancers and a half-reasonable football team, is to align strongly with any Britishness that isn't Parliamentary. Many people now appear to be doing so and it has been a long time since they have seemed so contented.

Back when Gordon Brown was Prime Minister, a neighbour asked me what I did for a living. When I explained, he said "do you work for the Labour Party then?". Realising that I hadn't quite got through to him, I tried again, emphasising my neutrality. "I think politicians have ruined this country" he replied and stormed off quickly down the path. At the time I thought he was misinformed although I felt considerable sympathy. Now I am in no doubt that he was absolutely spot on. Parliamentary democracy is both the alien and the enemy. And as things go, I can't think of any other fact that could be more disappointing, alarming and appalling.

[scottycelt]

Oh, and we were getting on so well on the "Bruckner Finale" Thread..

Yes, it was getting quite beyond a joke, ferney, wasn't it ... ?

That you should think that anyone should lose your "particular concern and consideration" is surprising..

Not my 'particular concern and consideration'.

The obvious point I made was that those who cannot even be bothered to drag themselves to their local polling booth and put their cross against who they reckon on balance to be the least awful candidate do indeed forfeit any particular concern and consideration from the rest of society as to which government ultimately gets elected.

Myself included if, heaven forbid, I ever happen to be one of them!

[aeolium]

This is another perspective on a deeply unpleasant development in British society which also featured in the Jubilee celebrations. It really shouldn't be acceptable in the 21st century that people should be forced to work for nothing. Perhaps the Queen could register a protest that that sort of thing was done in her name.

[JohnSkelton]

do indeed forfeit any particular concern and consideration from the rest of society as to which government ultimately gets elected.

Do you mean anything "those who cannot even be bothered etc." might have to say about the government ultimately elected (or any objections they might have to that government's policies) shouldn't be paid much notice by "the rest of society"? (Or "the rest of society" is under no obligation to pay much notice, or any notice?) As it stands what you say isn't clear (or it isn't to me).

That's the case with large swathes of the population anyway, isn't it? It's generally the voices of property owning, employed or with an adequate pension, citizens which are most attended to. The rest only get attention when it's time to send in the water cannon, as it were . Or am I misunderstanding you?

[JohnSkelton]

This is another perspective on a deeply unpleasant development in British society which also featured in the Jubilee celebrations. It really shouldn't be acceptable in the 21st century that people should be forced to work for nothing. Perhaps the Queen could register a protest that that sort of thing was done in her name.

Also on the Jubilee stewards, these together with the Emma Harrison scandal might say something about the direction 'our' society is taking:

http://politicalscrapbook.net/2012/06/close-protection-uk-molly-prince-companies-struck-off/

http://politicalscrapbook.net/2012/06/molly-prince-convicted-perverting-course-of-justice-jubilee-stewards/

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

The unelected monarch has little power, and is therefore harmless.
The unelected House of Lords is the real anathema that successive governments have done so little about. The Labour government took away the voting powers of most, but not all, of the hereditory peers. However, whatever party is in power has the ability to flood the upper chamber with its own yes-men, and does so. Now some of the Tories are squealing about the potential "time wasting" of introducing an elected House of Lords. I wonder why.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

ferney I may be cynical but I don't think it would significantly increase turnout.

Most days, I don't think you're wrong here, cloughie (and on my cynical days, I do wonder if there aren't huge numbers of people who prefer handing over "difficult" decisions to others so that they can blame "politicians" for whatever goes wrong).

On brighter days (and/or evenings when the air quivers with the aroma of Lagavulin!) I think "Well, why not give it a go and find out?"

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Yes, it was getting quite beyond a joke, ferney, wasn't it ... ?

FWiW, we also share a good many opinions about Europe!

Not my 'particular concern and consideration'.

Well, you did say "our particular concern" etc, in #1069, so I presumed you included your good self!

The obvious point I made was that those who cannot even be bothered to drag themselves to their local polling booth and put their cross against who they reckon on balance to be the least awful candidate do indeed forfeit any particular concern and consideration from the rest of society as to which government ultimately gets elected.

Well, again, this clause wasn't in #1069, so wasn't perhaps as "obvious" as it "left" your keyboard.

What is your opinion, out of interest (genuine, and not seeking to lay any "traps") of an "Abstention" Vote?

[scottycelt]

FWiW, we also share a good many opinions about Europe!


Well, you did say "our particular concern" etc, in #1069, so I presumed you included your good self!


Well, again, this clause wasn't in #1069, so wasn't perhaps as "obvious" as it "left" your keyboard.

What is your opinion, out of interest (genuine, and not seeking to lay any "traps") of an "Abstention" Vote?

Nice one ... !

My view, FWIW, is that abstention 'votes' may have their place in certain situations, but not in Elections.

At General Elections we are asked to choose someone to represent us in Parliament and to ask Mr or Mrs Nobody to represent us (which is in effect what abstaining does) is plainly absurd, don't you think?

I can't remember an election when I marched enthusiastically to the polling booth to vote for a particular individual. It has always been very much what I considered to be the least 'evil' at the time, and I suspect I am far from being alone in that regard ...

[scottycelt]

Do you mean anything "those who cannot even be bothered etc." might have to say about the government ultimately elected (or any objections they might have to that government's policies) shouldn't be paid much notice by "the rest of society"? (Or "the rest of society" is under no obligation to pay much notice, or any notice?) As it stands what you say isn't clear (or it isn't to me).

That's the case with large swathes of the population anyway, isn't it? It's generally the voices of property owning, employed or with an adequate pension, citizens which are most attended to. The rest only get attention when it's time to send in the water cannon, as it were . Or am I misunderstanding you?

What I am trying (but obviously failing miserably) to say is that those who decide not to vote, and then moan about the government that is elected, are hardly deserving of any sympathy whatsoever from those who have at least taken the trouble to cast a vote, whatever the result?

We certainly might have a fellow-feeling and sympathy for those who do take the trouble to vote yet end up on the losing side ... but then that's happened to all of us, and we just accept it and 'get on with it', don't we?