Russell Brand champion of the people?

[jaysay]

If voting changed anything they abolish it

[Margaret Pilkington]

John, I have been saying that for more years that I care to think about.
We are only allowed to vote to let us think we have some influence over how the country is run - oh yes, and if it all goes horribly wrong then those in government have a 'patsy' to blame - us!

[Margaret Pilkington]

Dotti - what happens if you turn up to vote and just put your voting slip in the box without marking your choice - or if you spoil your paper by writing 'none of the above' on it...do you still get fined?

If you do then this means that the vote is not secret........and this is a crime against democracy. No-one should be able to tell who voted in which particular way.

[DaveinGermany]

Whether it's compulsory or not, I was under the impression voting was secret regarding your choice of party/candidate, but the way they can tell if you'd voted was by your being checked off on the electoral role.?

Like I say, that's my understanding of the system in UK. Having lived in Germany for the last near on 30 years my information may be wrong.

[Margaret Pilkington]

Yes they do check your name off the roll, but they are not supposed to know what you have done on your ballot paper, though someone once told me that if they really wanted to know how you voted they could find out....though I don't know how they would go about this.

[Guinness]

Ballot papers are numbered, as are the counterfoils they are taken from, I think the number is written against your name when you vote.

It is possible to check what you voted, though I doubt they actually do.

[Studio25]

Originally Posted by Guinness

...He [Brand] says 'don't vote'..don't give them the mandate, the argument against [Webb's] is 'if you don't vote you lose the right to argue'...

I think they are both wrong.
You get some people who can't be bothered. You get some people who vote based on tradition, others who change "sides" routinely because they don't feel any traditional attachment. You get some whose contribution to the campaign is an A4 poster in their window or a sign outside their house, while others campaign furiously for a particular party actually visiting you at your door to see what issues you will be voting on.

Sorry if I missed anyone out - but I think that pretty much covers everyone (Lords, convicts, election fraudsters, foreigners and people under 18 can't vote). They are all ultimately responsible for who gets into power - even the ones who don't vote.

I'm always entertained by people who say "It's not my fault, I voted for the other guy" when in reality it's just as much their fault as anyone else. If they really disliked the politician who eventually got in, they would have made an active effort to educate others about how bad he is.

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

What I would do is immaterial...I am not the one standing up pontificating in the media...

Actually you are, it's just he's using a camera while you're using a keyboard; and your audience is a bit smaller.

[Margaret Pilkington]

I take your point Studio25......but have you ever tried to educate someone who has a firm belief that the chap or party they support is the only one suitable.......that they might be better looking at someone else?
It is nearly impossible to change the views of a dyed in the wool political supporter, and that is one of the reasons that the solution offered by Russell Brand is both implausible and unworkable. You only have to look at the numbers of people who attend the conferences of each political party to see that.

As for me pontificating...I accept your view of that and concede that my influence on the subject is about as much as a gnat bite on an elephants bum......so little that is practically unnoticeable.

[Wynonie Harris]

Originally Posted by Guinness

the failings of thatcherite yuppie capitalism

The irony is that many politicians who rail against "thatcherite yuppie capitalism" have views on other subjects that would see them castigated as "bleeding heart PC liberals" on here.

Many Accywebbers seem to be searching for something that doesn't exist - politicians with left wing socialist views on the NHS, renationalising the public utilities, bringing the bankers to heel etc and right wing Tory/UKIP views on immigration, law and order, the EU etc. There's no such political animal and I doubt there ever will be.

[Margaret Pilkington]

While that political animal might not exist...a bit of honesty and integrity among our political leaders would not go amiss...and would mean that there would be less cynicism about their aims.
I am not five years old...and don't expect to be treated like one......I want to see a politican who knows and understands the difficulties of life today...someone who has done a real job of work, got their hands dirty in the pursuit of putting bread on the table for their family...not these career politicians who think they know what is good for us.
How on earth can they know what is good for us unless they have lived something which approximates to a working life?

[Margaret Pilkington]

I thought that Graham Jones fit this bill...but it appears that he doesn't.
Maybe he has forgotten his roots and his background, now he is down in the big city.
Maybe he has had his head turned.

[Studio25]

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

I take your point Studio25......but have you ever tried to educate someone who has a firm belief that the chap or party they support is the only one suitable.......that they might be better looking at someone else?
It is nearly impossible to change the views of a dyed in the wool political supporter, and that is one of the reasons that the solution offered by Russell Brand is both implausible and unworkable. You only have to look at the numbers of people who attend the conferences of each political party to see that.

My mates and I sorted all this out over the table at the pub the other night. The only solution that we agreed could work (after three pints) was a voting system where the policy drives the vote - but nobody in power would ever allow it to happen. Basically, you are no longer voting for a party or individual, and grouped with the people who live near you. Potential MPs publish an individual stance on a list of policies, and voters put those same policies in order of preference. Whichever politician most closely matches the voters' manifesto becomes PM.

Everything else can stay the same the same - except that if a politician lies and votes contrary to their own manifesto, they get shot at by the Duke of Edinburgh and only allowed to remain in politics if they survive. (You can tell we'd had that third beer by now.) You can tell in advance which politicians are shady because they will go on a crash diet to make them harder to hit.

Obviously the idea would need tweaking - such as whether to use a shotgun or a rifle, but for an alcohol-influenced political reformation, it wasn't too bad.

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

As for me pontificating...I accept your view of that and concede that my influence on the subject is about as much as a gnat bite on an elephants bum......so little that is practically unnoticeable.

I wouldn't go that far: I read your entire post, I didn't watch any of the Russell Brand video (I can't stand him - I just picked up on what he said based on the comments here and Robert Webb's response). So your opinion has had far more influence on me than his.

[Margaret Pilkington]

Studio25...I would have loved to be at that gathering..just reading about it made me chuckle.
I can mentally picture the D of E taking potshots at the lying MP's...and if he can hit a flying bird thenhe would be sure to hit a few of those(MP's).
I cannot stand Russell Brand either, but had he said something which I felt I could tune into(something that wasn't purely a cynical Google Page Ranking stunt to keep him in the public eye)...I would have said so.

[Margaret Pilkington]

Oh...and I am surprised at my influence...no-one else listens to me

[dotti34]

In answer to your question, Margaret, once they have checked off your name from the Electoral Roll (and asked you if you have voted anywhere else that day - as if once isn't enough!!!!) it is up to the voter to write what he/she likes on the paper. You don't have to show any identification, so it is an honesty thing (which is more than can be said of a lot of the politicians). Then you put the papers in closed boxes.
Apparently there are some very funny - and yes, some very rude - things written on the voting papers at times, as you can imagine. Of course this makes that vote null and void.
I did once just put a line through the lot of them as I was so fed-up with all parties and I went home feeling right chuffed with myself. But after I had given it some thought I realised that no-one would know of my little protest except me. So what was the point. Now I do try to vote properly.
Compulsory or otherwise - doesn't improve the way the Country is run.....