Reply to: Prince Charles ???!!

[Andyw]

We don't have both. In the UK the head of state is the monarch. She rules, not the government (by which I assume you mean the Commons.)

I know it is easy to forget, but the elected lot in the Commons are merely administrators, who propose changes to law on behalf of their constituents. The monarch still has to approve them.

Lets cut out the middle men then !!!!

[wendigo100]

Lets gets one thing straight here, most other countries, in fact all I can think of, have either a ruling government or a ruling royal family, NOT BOTH ! not that they both rule but why dont we have one or the other. Why do we have to pay for the idiots in parliament when we could have the queen to rule britannia. That way we can get rid of these clueless morons that prefess to be experts in everything.

We don't have both. In the UK the head of state is the monarch. She rules, not the government (by which I assume you mean the Commons.)

I know it is easy to forget, but the elected lot in the Commons are merely administrators, who propose changes to law on behalf of their constituents. The monarch still has to approve them.

[Gibbon]

WoW, even Circero would be humbled by this passionate debate

[ASB]

I believe also that if people HAVE to vote then they will be more likely to take an interest in the issues too, so they know who they're voting for.

Broadly I think compulsory voting is a good thing - but you might just have highlighted the problem with it. There is an inclination for people to actually vote for someone when compelled to.

There is a big difference between "I don't care" and "I can't support any of this lot". The vast majority of non voters are the former, if forced to the polls they'll just vote for somebody - often the first on the list.

It's probably better to make it much eaisier to vote (although it ain't exacly difficult now).

[NickIT]

Introduce compulsory voting. £20 fine for anyone who doesn't vote. Then the ballot paper either has 'none of the above' or you have to intentionally spoil it. It works like a charm in Australia, and you don't get people whining about politics whilst sitting on their hands. You can whine having at least bothered to make a choice. I believe also that if people HAVE to vote then they will be more likely to take an interest in the issues too, so they know who they're voting for. If you are really that apathetic then pay your £20 and whinge about having to do that instead.

That would work for me....if you have either the spoiling of ballots or none of the above....as long as it is known that it is a vote against all the respective candidates.

I would like to point out that I do not 'sit on my hands' although I do not vote. I am involved in political activities and like it or not I am still (but not for long the way Smiler is going) allowed my voice. People may not like it but there it is.

[Andyw]

Lets gets one thing straight here, most other countries, in fact all I can think of, have either a ruling government or a ruling royal family, NOT BOTH ! not that they both rule but why dont we have one or the other. Why do we have to pay for the idiots in parliament when we could have the queen to rule britannia. That way we can get rid of these clueless morons that prefess to be experts in everything.

[Ruprect]

Introduce compulsory voting. £20 fine for anyone who doesn't vote. Then the ballot paper either has 'none of the above' or you have to intentionally spoil it. It works like a charm in Australia, and you don't get people whining about politics whilst sitting on their hands. You can whine having at least bothered to make a choice. I believe also that if people HAVE to vote then they will be more likely to take an interest in the issues too, so they know who they're voting for. If you are really that apathetic then pay your £20 and whinge about having to do that instead.

[NickIT]

It's not spoiled. It's not returned. This causes "them" a lot more grief than a spoiled ballot paper. [These are simply argued about by the candidates who have to accept them as spoiled]

Yes...but there is nothing to explicitly state that this was damaged because I do not want any of the candidates to represent me.

Its not about screwing the electoral process via grief but rather to give a truer representation of what the populace thinks of the quality of its candidates.

Surely that would be a good thing? I suspect it would also help our democracy by stopping the main parties from parrotting each other policies as well.

[ASB]

Yes yes...and how will they know that the ballot was spoiled due to dissatisfaction of all the candidates?

Its actually quite a cosy little system...afterall they don't really want to find out that the majority of people think they are sleezy parasites.

It's not spoiled. It's not returned. This causes "them" a lot more grief than a spoiled ballot paper. [These are simply argued about by the candidates who have to accept them as spoiled]

[NickIT]

Arsey for a jumped up support monkey aren't you!

LOL is that the best you can do?

Pathetic.

I bet you had to google that insult.

[The Lone Gunman]

Sorry son but I only discuss politics with adults.

Arsey for a jumped up support monkey aren't you!

[NickIT]

What a tosser. You say I know nothing about you. You quite clearly stated you don't vote, or at least you tell people you don't. That makes you apathetic in my book and "one of those people" who don't vote. I have made no other assumptions about you or your politics.

Spoiled ballot papers. If the turn out were 100% and 75% were spoiled then a clear message would be given. Especialy if we all wrote none of the above across them.
Monster Raving Loonies. Doesnt matter how many there are it would simply be a protest vote. Enough protests might kick other parties into action.
Limiting the franchise: If you want to be a fascist twat then just say so. Myself I have great admiration for those who have stood up for the right to vote and commited themselves to democracy even making the ultimate sacrifice to allow ingrates like you the right to do so.

As I said, stop trying to justify your failure to vote with some suedo intellectual idealism.

If you failed to vote then you have no right to lecture those who did either on voting or on current policy.

BTW I know I wrote suedo!!

Sorry son but I only discuss politics with adults.

[The Lone Gunman]

My apathy? What do you know about my political activities? Nothing.

So before you make really quite stupid comments like that I suggest you open a dialogue before making a fool of yourself.

Spoiling ballot papers are just that. Spoiled ballot papers. They do not indicate in anyway dissatisfaction of our political parties.

People like you - once again you know nothing about me nor my politics. AS for the Monster Raving Loony Party....which one? You see you didn't even know that this insignificant party had split into two. And you presume to lecture me on this subject?

All those denied the franchise - maybe I happen to think that only men over the age of 30 are allowed to vote.

As for owing...oh that is rich...what are you? Another 'either your with us or against us' maroon?

What a tosser. You say I know nothing about you. You quite clearly stated you don't vote, or at least you tell people you don't. That makes you apathetic in my book and "one of those people" who don't vote. I have made no other assumptions about you or your politics.

Spoiled ballot papers. If the turn out were 100% and 75% were spoiled then a clear message would be given. Especialy if we all wrote none of the above across them.
Monster Raving Loonies. Doesnt matter how many there are it would simply be a protest vote. Enough protests might kick other parties into action.
Limiting the franchise: If you want to be a fascist twat then just say so. Myself I have great admiration for those who have stood up for the right to vote and commited themselves to democracy even making the ultimate sacrifice to allow ingrates like you the right to do so.

As I said, stop trying to justify your failure to vote with some suedo intellectual idealism.

If you failed to vote then you have no right to lecture those who did either on voting or on current policy.

BTW I know I wrote suedo!!

[NickIT]

There is a little trick you can get up to. Collect your ballot paper. Do not put it in the box.

The first part of the count is to validate the number of ballots cast equals the number issued. If you have taken yours away then they don't. This forces an instant recount. And then a sufficient number until the candiates all agree that the count of papers is at least correct. Only then can the real count begin.

Yes yes...and how will they know that the ballot was spoiled due to dissatisfaction of all the candidates?

Its actually quite a cosy little system...afterall they don't really want to find out that the majority of people think they are sleezy parasites.

[Mailman]

How disappointing. I was expecting this thread to be all about why we are paying to support the Prince Charlie (soon to be King Charles III)!

The heading on the beeb last night was something like "everyone pays 54p to support Charles"...then in the article it mentioned that Charles is paid from the profits generated by the farm he owns up the dutchie!

And anyway...show me a contractor who pays anything near 22% in tax and Ill show you a disguised employee!

Mailman