I think dragon's point is that you make assumptions that inadvertently exclude.
As an example, things that for you and me are "easily researched" may not equally apply to someone too poor to own or have access to a computer and do not speak English. Tests do not have a level playing field.
We need all in votes, commitment is essential if the tick is in the right box.
Sorry, I don’t understand what you mean.
Does your ‘All in’ include all people over the age of 16 who were born in this country, adopted this country, those who live abroad who were born here, prisoners, including terrorists,murderers,rapists ?
Please could you specify if your ‘All in’ doesn’t include any of the above, thanks.
Hi My ( All in ) comment was not meant everyone should get to vote ( but do agree School leaver's) should be include as they are now classed as adults, as for Prisoners part of me says rehabilitation the other says if you break the law you forfeit your rights. Other poster covered the fact low turn out on some Election caused hung parliaments. I was advocating compulsory voting like the Census where you must comply or be fined. Seat belts type legislation. When they send out voting forms it includes party manifesto details plus all polling stations have them on notice boards when you go to vote. If only O.A.P.s go to vote and are the majority we will always be living in the past. fwiw
That’s a good point about manifestos being made public, so often when party political broadcasts come on tv people just shake their heads and turn to another channel, not so sure about being fined for not voting though..food for thought. Mind you, during the brexit vote the bus with the BIG MONEY to the NHS was pretty much seen by all, and after the vote it turned out that it isn’t what they really meant 😏
@markycash - I am not accusing you of discriminating against anyone (just to be clear).
I know you meant sexuality, ethnicity, religion, etc.
But if a number of people are prevented from voting just because they don't have a pre-determined level of knowledge about a subject, by definition they become a "group".
I believe we should all have enough knowledge to make an informed decision and it is clear many people don't for different reasons, as Phil said.
To deny someone a right to vote on that basis is wrong and would go against all those people who fought for that right.
If everyone who was eligible to vote was made to vote then it would be a true representation of the British people's view's and not the minority. The fine is necessary to make people comply or they will just not bother. The Sheep Whisperer
There is also a case for Parties that renege on election promises when in office to be held to account.
You just couldn't do it. You cant force people to take an interest in politics. Many people that don't take an interest don't bother voting anyway, and therefore don't affect the result. The answer for me is to require a bigger margin of victory for an important vote. I quoted someone earlier in this thread, who asked on tv if we had ever had a female Prime Minister. Therefore to suggest testing would never, ever work. Not only that, how much would in cost to test millions on people, all over the country? Followed by testing the 18 year olds, all over the country every year. On the Brexit vote where the vast majority of oldies voted to leave, and the youngsters voted to remain. So does that mean that by the time we get to the end of the transition period, which will be around four and a half years after the vote, and many of the oldies will have popped their clogs, and 14, 15, 16, and 17 year olds at the time will be entitled to vote, would we then have a majority in favour of remaining. On another note I was listening to an MP describing a PFI contract today for a school in his constituency. The deal was the school gets built free. The government then committed to pay 18.3% interest per year for 30 years on the cost of building the school. In addition they had to pay an annual management charge, which was not specified. At the end of the 30 years we still don't own the school. Cracking deal.
Amazing, that's all I can say. The NHS is skint, nurses in food banks, people have been dying in hospital corridors, and in ambulances, 55,000 operations were cancelled, cancer treatments postponed, the Armed Forces are skint, our schools are skint, we have got to bail out Carillion, and Boris wants to spend billions on a bridge.
Should we be getting ready for an Election? It would appear that Jacob Rees-Mogg, who went to school with Charles Dickens, has the backing of 100 Tory MPs, and intends put pressure on Mrs May over the transition period. What seemed to be just about agreed was that we would carry on as if we were still members for this 2 year period. Well hes not having it, he wont wear the ECJ, or continued freedom of movement during the transition. He has got enough MPs for a leadership challenge. So would a leadership challenge lead to an election? In addition to this Mr Macron has clearly confirmed what everyone except the government knew, which was that we were never going to get a cake and eat it deal. Moggy is also not having anything to do with the single market or the customs union. Not being members of the customs union would seem to make no border anywhere in Ireland impossible, unless we remain aligned with the EU, which would prohibit trade deals elsewhere. Mr Macron also made it clear that full access to the single market, would not be possible without being members, and less access may be available, but with the usual conditions, ie a contribution to the budget, ECJ, and freedom of movement. So if Moggy sticks to his word we will be crashing out over the cliff next March, but perhaps a new leader, and perhaps an election in the meantime.
Some good points. Some I agree with and some I don't as is usually the case with politics
Any test for eligibility for voting was always going to be contentious.
One idea I would hope would get more agreement would be that politics should be a bigger part of the education curriculum and at an earlier stage than it currently is.
@tomgoodun I would give all prisoners the vote . Once restricting certain groups I am sure some parties would like to exclude the homeless, unemployed or people with Scottish accents !
Some good points. Some I agree with and some I don't as is usually the case with politics
Any test for eligibility for voting was always going to be contentious.
One idea I would hope would get more agreement would be that politics should be a bigger part of the education curriculum and at an earlier stage than it currently is.
You surely cant be suggesting this as a serious proposition? Would we even be able to call ourselves a democracy, if we didn't allow all our citizens to vote. Are you saying we should have people employed, sitting in offices all over the country, testing the whole of the population that is qualified to vote. How many people would we need? Then continue to test everyone that reaches their 18th birthday, on an annual basis. Who would set the questions? How often would you change the questions? How would you stop the answers being posted online? How much would all this cost? If the test was really basic, it would be of limited value. If the test was more difficult, a much larger percentage would fail, and alienate many more people. Imagine the indignity of those having to admit to their friends and family that they weren't allowed to vote. Could people swat up and retake the test? How many times would you be allowed to sit the test? How many more people would you have to employ to cope with the resits? I cant think of anything more divisive than removing one of our current basic rights. Education is a good thing, but would you wish to force students to study politics. I think that you are either interested in politics, or you are not. You cant force people to be interested. This debate belongs in another era, long ago, but could never be justified. All this to prepare people for an important vote, which is likely to occur one or twice in a lifetime. Surely its our politicians responsibility to inform the electorate of the pros and cons of any issue to be voted on. When it comes to General Elections, people would usually vote according to how they are personally doing, rather than on their political knowledge. If they are doing well they would support the current government, and if doing badly vote for the opposition.
That’s a good point about manifestos being made public, so often when party political broadcasts come on tv people just shake their heads and turn to another channel, not so sure about being fined for not voting though..food for thought.
They do this in Australia. Its a $20 fine for not voting. A trip to court, a further $170 dollars, and a criminal conviction, if you fail to pay the fine.
@HAYSIE , some very good points, and unfortunately a lot of folk do vote on depending how well they are doing, and not for who may actually improve the whole country,or its citizens in most need.
This is a really good Thread which I should not be part of as I take nothing seriously.
But where we are now is the result of 40 years being in the E.U.
I am not sure why you keep making that comment. Perhaps you could expand?
Certainly it's a really really good well informed thread 10/10
I should not be taken seriously regard my Political comments - Why - not getting the " Goldilocks " feeling. The Cashcow that is the UK has been milked dry by the EU. cough!
This is a really good Thread which I should not be part of as I take nothing seriously.
But where we are now is the result of 40 years being in the E.U.
I am not sure why you keep making that comment. Perhaps you could expand?
Certainly it's a really really good well informed thread 10/10
I should not be taken seriously regard my Political comments - Why - not getting the " Goldilocks " feeling. The Cashcow that is the UK has been milked dry by the EU. cough!
@HAYSIE , some very good points, and unfortunately a lot of folk do vote on depending how well they are doing, and not for who may actually improve the whole country,or its citizens in most need.
Thanks. I don't suppose you can blame people who are struggling to be really concerned about their familys, and their own standard of living. I think that the responsibility for looking after the less well off, and the less capable, lies firmly at the door of the government. We give them the money, but they decide where it is spent.
Comments
As an example, things that for you and me are "easily researched" may not equally apply to someone too poor to own or have access to a computer and do not speak English. Tests do not have a level playing field.
Other poster covered the fact low turn out on some Election caused hung parliaments.
I was advocating compulsory voting like the Census where you must comply or be fined.
Seat belts type legislation. When they send out voting forms it includes party manifesto details plus all polling stations have them on notice boards when you go to vote. If only O.A.P.s go to vote and are the majority we will always be living in the past. fwiw
Mind you, during the brexit vote the bus with the BIG MONEY to the NHS was pretty much seen by all, and after the vote it turned out that it isn’t what they really meant 😏
I know you meant sexuality, ethnicity, religion, etc.
But if a number of people are prevented from voting just because they don't have a pre-determined level of knowledge about a subject, by definition they become a "group".
I believe we should all have enough knowledge to make an informed decision and it is clear many people don't for different reasons, as Phil said.
To deny someone a right to vote on that basis is wrong and would go against all those people who fought for that right.
There is also a case for Parties that renege on election promises when in office to be held to account.
The answer for me is to require a bigger margin of victory for an important vote.
I quoted someone earlier in this thread, who asked on tv if we had ever had a female Prime Minister. Therefore to suggest testing would never, ever work. Not only that, how much would in cost to test millions on people, all over the country? Followed by testing the 18 year olds, all over the country every year.
On the Brexit vote where the vast majority of oldies voted to leave, and the youngsters voted to remain. So does that mean that by the time we get to the end of the transition period, which will be around four and a half years after the vote, and many of the oldies will have popped their clogs, and 14, 15, 16, and 17 year olds at the time will be entitled to vote, would we then have a majority in favour of remaining.
On another note I was listening to an MP describing a PFI contract today for a school in his constituency. The deal was the school gets built free. The government then committed to pay 18.3% interest per year for 30 years on the cost of building the school. In addition they had to pay an annual management charge, which was not specified. At the end of the 30 years we still don't own the school.
Cracking deal.
It would appear that Jacob Rees-Mogg, who went to school with Charles Dickens, has the backing of 100 Tory MPs, and intends put pressure on Mrs May over the transition period. What seemed to be just about agreed was that we would carry on as if we were still members for this 2 year period.
Well hes not having it, he wont wear the ECJ, or continued freedom of movement during the transition. He has got enough MPs for a leadership challenge.
So would a leadership challenge lead to an election?
In addition to this Mr Macron has clearly confirmed what everyone except the government knew, which was that we were never going to get a cake and eat it deal.
Moggy is also not having anything to do with the single market or the customs union. Not being members of the customs union would seem to make no border anywhere in Ireland impossible, unless we remain aligned with the EU, which would prohibit trade deals elsewhere.
Mr Macron also made it clear that full access to the single market, would not be possible without being members, and less access may be available, but with the usual conditions, ie a contribution to the budget, ECJ, and freedom of movement.
So if Moggy sticks to his word we will be crashing out over the cliff next March, but perhaps a new leader, and perhaps an election in the meantime.
Any test for eligibility for voting was always going to be contentious.
One idea I would hope would get more agreement would be that politics should be a bigger part of the education curriculum and at an earlier stage than it currently is.
I am sure some parties would like to exclude the homeless, unemployed or people with Scottish accents !
Would we even be able to call ourselves a democracy, if we didn't allow all our citizens to vote.
Are you saying we should have people employed, sitting in offices all over the country, testing the whole of the population that is qualified to vote. How many people would we need? Then continue to test everyone that reaches their 18th birthday, on an annual basis.
Who would set the questions?
How often would you change the questions?
How would you stop the answers being posted online?
How much would all this cost?
If the test was really basic, it would be of limited value.
If the test was more difficult, a much larger percentage would fail, and alienate many more people.
Imagine the indignity of those having to admit to their friends and family that they weren't allowed to vote.
Could people swat up and retake the test?
How many times would you be allowed to sit the test?
How many more people would you have to employ to cope with the resits?
I cant think of anything more divisive than removing one of our current basic rights.
Education is a good thing, but would you wish to force students to study politics.
I think that you are either interested in politics, or you are not. You cant force people to be interested.
This debate belongs in another era, long ago, but could never be justified. All this to prepare people for an important vote, which is likely to occur one or twice in a lifetime.
Surely its our politicians responsibility to inform the electorate of the pros and cons of any issue to be voted on.
When it comes to General Elections, people would usually vote according to how they are personally doing, rather than on their political knowledge. If they are doing well they would support the current government, and if doing badly vote for the opposition.
They do this in Australia. Its a $20 fine for not voting. A trip to court, a further $170 dollars, and a criminal conviction, if you fail to pay the fine.
But where we are now is the result of 40 years being in the E.U.
Certainly it's a really really good well informed thread 10/10
I should not be taken seriously regard my Political comments - Why - not getting the " Goldilocks " feeling. The Cashcow that is the UK has been milked dry by the EU. cough!
I should not be taken seriously regard my Political comments - Why - not getting the " Goldilocks " feeling. The Cashcow that is the UK has been milked dry by the EU. cough!
Ok fair enough.
I don't suppose you can blame people who are struggling to be really concerned about their familys, and their own standard of living.
I think that the responsibility for looking after the less well off, and the less capable, lies firmly at the door of the government.
We give them the money, but they decide where it is spent.