If there was a general election tomorrow...

[Awol]

you've **** our futures up so who can we trust to sort it out?

genuine question but how exactly have "they" **** your future ?

Debt, the rising cost of university education (that "they" all had for free), more debt, energy insecurity, more debt, climate ruin, more debt, an international reputation in the toilet, more debt, the selling out of our national sovereignty, massive wealth inequality, societal breakdown and economic ruin (in the post), unaffordable housing, nowhere near enough social housing and did I mention more debt??

It's not just Labour either Tony, "they", the happy clappy, free love, 'me me' generation have taken advantage of everything their parents tried to build post WW2 and pulled the ladder up behind them. "They" have proved to be utter shysters in the main.

And yes, it's the weekend here and I have a drink or two...

[tonyh29]

I realise it sounded more sinister than it was

Ii left school in 85 and it was pretty much the same thing then .. It was all the doom and gloom about high unemployment and we were told jobs would be hard to find and so forth .. well the reality of it was we all left school and either went onto college and Uni or into work .. and the future wasn't actually quite so bad as we had been lead to believe afterall ...

it's kinda the same with this broken Britian arguement .. for every hoodie teenager with an Asbo I can find you a lot more who are decent well raised kids

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

I'm not sure how reform of the system would make it more accessible to anyone. Reform of how politics conducts itself and how politicians conduct themselves might make it more attractive to more people but I don't think it is particularly inaccessible.

How do you think it is inaccessible?

Well I think a reform is necassary, so we disagree there

How do i think it is inaccessible? It's the language, it's the culture surrounding it. When you see politicians you see people you can't relate to, you rarely see a politician who is genuine and honest in their approach. It's hard for people to warm to them. I don't mean to advocate persoality politics but the people will be more interested in what happens if the politicians are able to convey their enthusiam and whip of the passions of voters.

I know a lot of people dislike the man but Blair was a master of that, he got people into politics because he had a personality which warmed people to him...initially He seemed different to the John Major's of Westminster, he didn't come across like the public school educated elitists that make up the majority of politicians.

I think Politics in this country is elitist, and it's exclusive. I think it's difficult for people to truly feel part of the system.

However I believe that everyone is passionate about politics if they put their minds to it, but with the current system the Government and the politicians are failing to tap into this passion and instead they are boring people into a comatose state if they even attempt to watch Prime Ministers questions.

There is a lot of problems with the system, and most of all that Party Politics is stuck in the 90s and they are too busy point scoring and arguing amongst eachother rather than dealing with policies and beliefs. Die hard labour/tory voters (in the older generations, granted) are not paying attention to the policies as such but instead they are sticking by what they know and have been brought up with.

There needs to be a different approach because the world has changed dramatically over the past 20 years, and unless that change happens and we keep the silly traditions and exclusivity of Westminster then i'm afraid Politics will die a slow and painful death.

[tonyh29]

He seemed different John Major's of Westminster, he didn't come across like the public school educated elitists that make up the majority of politicians.

and yet Blair was Public school and Major went to a grammar school :-)

Blair was a smarmy git it just took the rest of you a bit longer to wake up to the fact

[TrentVilla]

I realise it sounded more sinister than it was

Ii left school in 85 and it was pretty much the same thing then .. It was all the doom and gloom about high unemployment and we were told jobs would be hard to find and so forth .. well the reality of it was we all left school and either went onto college and Uni or into work .. and the future wasn't actually quite so bad as we had been lead to believe afterall ...

it's kinda the same with this broken Britian arguement .. for every hoodie teenager with an Asbo I can find you a lot more who are decent well raised kids

They don't sell papers though do they.

Broken Britain is a myth, things are no worse than they ever were they are just different.

Each generation always thinks the next is lowering standards, sending the country to the wall or generally responsible for the moral rape of our values.

[snowychap]

Well I think a reform is necassary, so we disagree there

Well, we don't, actually. I think there needs to be a great deal of reform but I just don't see that attempting to reform it simply to be more popular is a good starting point or reason.

We have to look at where it is fundamentally wrong and begin reform there (e.g. funding, the power of the executive, statutory instruments - for a start).

How do i think it is inaccessible? It's the language...

The language? I don't understand what you mean.

Are you talking about how people refer to others in parliamentary proceedings? If so, you're now starting to sound a lot like the politicians themselves who think that it is much more important to debate the use of 'Chair', 'Chairperson' or 'Chairman' than it is to worry about, debate and scrutinize the legislation put before it.

...When you see politicians you see people you can't relate to, you rarely see a politician who is genuine and honest in their approach. It's hard for people to warm to them. I don't mean to advocate persoality politics but the people will be more interested in what happens if the politicians are able to convey their enthusiam and whip of the passions of voters.

That isn't personality politics, though. At the heart of that would be conviction politics. It isn't just about conveying one's enthusiasm, it is about having it to begin with. Without that enthusiasm, there is only a lie to get across (i.e. that they are really interested, honest, guv).

I know a lot of people dislike the man but Blair was a master of that, he got people into politics because he had a personality which warmed people to him...initially He seemed different to the John Major's of Westminster, he didn't come across like the public school educated elitists that make up the majority of politicians.

Blair was a master of dishonesty. If you want more Blairs in politics then you are looking for the wrong type of reform.

I would imagine that Blair (Fettes educated, Oxford graduate) would seem different to John Major (Grammar School educated, non graduate)?

I think Politics in this country is elitist, and it's exclusive.

But how is it elitist and exclusive?

However I believe that everyone is passionate about politics if they put their minds to it, but with the current system the Government and the politicians are failing to tap into this passion and instead they are boring people into a comatose state if they even attempt to watch Prime Ministers questions.

I don't believe that everyone is passionate about politics even if they put their minds to it.

Politicians are, currently, very much to blame for the contempt in which they and their profession are held by the public but that isn't just down to 'the system'. It is more down to the people themselves and the world in which we live (which doesn't really like the idea of seriously debating a subject - much preferring instant answers and knee-jerk reactions).

There is a lot of problems with the system, and most of all that Party Politics is stuck in the 90s and they are too busy point scoring and arguing amongst eachother rather than dealing with policies and beliefs.

That's very true but I can't see how anything about which you have been talking will address that. :?

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

.The language? I don't understand what you mean.

Are you talking about how people refer to others in parliamentary proceedings? If so, you're now starting to sound a lot like the politicians themselves who think that it is much more important to debate the use of 'Chair', 'Chairperson' or 'Chairman' than it is to worry about, debate and scrutinize the legislation put before it.

But that is part of the elitism, it's the traditions that turn people off. My right honorable so and so...to be honest it bores people. Debate the issues, dont bother with the poncey language. If you want to convey your points to the electorate then speak to them in a language they will understand.

But how is it elitist and exclusive?

Because the every day working man/woman can access it with the ease he can access and understand things like sport of celebrity culture. It's a poor comparison but a valid one, and in relation to the point i made above. The traditions and exclusivity that comes across when you look at parlimentary proceedings are so distanced from reality that it just simply turns people off. It is just stuck in the past and it needs to move on.

That's very true but I can't see how anything about which you have been talking will address that. :?

That's because it was a different point in relation to the rest of my post

Honestly I don't know how to transform party politics because it would take so long to reform an establishment that has been built over hundreds of years.

The best bet is to educate the future politicans the basic fundementals of a democratic society which is that they are representative of the people and if they wish to go into that job for personal gain then they can **** off and become a banker.

Apologies for my ranting, but I've been job seeking for ages and every application is getting the old 'we require experience' bullshit and it's pissing me off

[snowychap]

But that is part of the elitism, it's the traditions that turn people off. My right honorable so and so...to be honest it bores people. Debate the issues, dont bother with the poncey language. If you want to convey your points to the electorate then speak to them in a language they will understand.

It really isn't (part of the elitism). If people have such a problem with that then they really aren't that interested in politics, in my view.

If referring to someone in a specific manner 'turns people off' then I submit that they would find any old excuse to get turned off.

But how is it elitist and exclusive?

Because the every day working man/woman can access it with the ease he can access and understand things like sport of celebrity culture. It's a poor comparison but a valid one, and in relation to the point i made above. The traditions and exclusivity that comes across when you look at parlimentary proceedings are so distanced from reality that it just simply turns people off. It is just stuck in the past and it needs to move on.

I have to say I think that is nonsense. It is borne out of an obsession that only the new is any good, that if something hasn't changed then it hasn't progressed and it is, necessarily, worse than what might be in vogue now.

Well, I think that is just plain wrong because it doesn't ever address any problem properly.

The 'every day' working man/woman has been quite able to cope with things much more complex than forms of address for quite some time.

The best bet is to educate the future politicans the basic fundementals of a democratic society which is that they are representative of the people and if they wish to go into that job for personal gain then they can **** off and become a banker.

I think that will/would only work in conjunction with educating the public that it is not all about politicians; that they need to put some effort in (by doing things like reading a manifesto or by trying to understand how parliament works and how it should work); that they actually ought to stand up and make their politicians accountable (which they have failed to do, on the whole, over the expenses issue).

Politics and politicians have failed the people (and will always continue to do so) but the people have failed themselves and are unlikely to get a better breed of politician and politics until they stop failing themselves.

Apologies for my ranting, but I've been job seeking for ages and every application is getting the old 'we require experience' bullshit and it's pissing me off

No worries (I think you'll have a few more years of that, though).

[leviramsey]

Highest youth unemployment of all European countries apart from Spain, immense levels of national debt.

Not to mention an entitlement time bomb...

[leviramsey]

Agreed that seperate votes for a PM and a local representative make sense. My MP does very good work, but a vote for him is tacit endorsement of Brown, so as harsh as it is on my MP, he won't be getting my vote, through no fault of his own.

Perhaps something along the lines of the German system... e.g. half the seats are proportionally allocated based on a national vote for PM and half of the seats are by constituency (with the number of constituencies cut in half, which would probably reduce the safe constituency issue as well), with a requirement that candidates for a constituency have to have actually voted in the previous general election in that constituency (and thus presumably have some sort of connection to the constituency).

[wiganvillain]

requirement that candidates for a constituency have to have actually voted in the previous general election in that constituency (and thus presumably have some sort of connection to the constituency).

Levi, you've stumbled upon something very very good there. With the dominance of "Party" politics in the UK our career politicians get on a centralised list and depending how far up some party bigwigs arse they are they get parachuted into constituencies they've probably never heard of and we the electorate go along with this - sad and something we could and should change

[Jon]

they get parachuted into constituencies they've probably never heard of and we the electorate go along with this - sad and something we could and should change

always happened that though Wig, sadly.

[drat01]

To be brutally honest a lot of people who vote are **** idiots that do not deserve the privilege.

They do not understand who they are voting for and what they are voting for. They assume that a vote for a particular candidate is a vote for the leader of that party rather than their own constituency MP. It's voting on image rather than what your MP will do for you. Unless you live in the same constituency as the leader of whatever political party a vote for Labour is not a vote for Brown, likewise a Tory one is not a vote for Cameron and likewise with Clegg.

Why dont people actually think a bit before they vote and find out a bit more about their local candidates, what they stand for, what their background is and then see if they are suitable to represent your views. It really does piss me off about these stupid leaders debates on TV, pandering to the media and their own self importance.

There is a still a moral argument for PR in this country, the system we have at the moment is not a fair one.

Its probably worse in local councils because why the hell do they have to follow party political lines? Surely at that level it is only about local matters?

[Rodders]

Fully agree ^. Not sure why local candidates on local issues should be employed / sacked based on the PR of success / failures of their leader.

[tonyh29]

but how would it work? .. Would you vote for you local MP and then have another vote box for who you want as PM ?

Imagine if for example you had a conservative majority in the house but a Labour or Lib PM .. it wouldn't work , would it ?

[wiganvillain]

I'm not so sure Tony.

The Yanks frequently have a "Paliament" of a different hue to their President and it works, and lets be honest the PM's been a "Presidential" role for many many years now

[Rodders]

I'd remove party affiliation from the Prime Minister and make him a President. It would need tweaking to avoid issues like the above and I'm sure there are other practical considerations as well, but then I've inly got as far as establishing my principled preference, not quite established designs - but with enough overhaul I'm sure it could work.

[mjmooney]

Well group me in with the **** idiots then.

Because, on the whole, I don't really care too much about local issues. I'm much more interested in what direction the PM and cabinet are taking the country. I vote on what's in the party manifesto, rather than what my local candidate has on his leaflet. That used to mean a pretty automatic vote for Labour, because I could usually agree with at least 75% of the Labour manifesto, compared to maybe 50% of the LibDems and 10% of the Tories.

That has, admittedly, changed in recent years, to the point where I'm swinging towards the LibDems in disillusionment with Labour. But the point stands. I think that who the PM is is far more important than who my local MP is.

Similarly, I read national newspapers, never local ones, and take far more interest in the BBC news at ten than "the news where YOU are".

A good local MP is of little use to me if the PM is implementing policies I radically disagree with, on a national and international scale.

As it happens, I know my local Labour candidate fairly well - and he's a ****. Which makes my choice a little easier anyway (although I suspect the other candidates are equally if not more fuckwitted). Ho hum.

[Gringo]

To be brutally honest a lot of people who vote are **** idiots that do not deserve the privilege.

They do not understand who they are voting for and what they are voting for. They assume that a vote for a particular candidate is a vote for the leader of that party rather than their own constituency MP. It's voting on image rather than what your MP will do for you.

A little harsh to blame the idiots that vote instead of blaming the idiots who have developed the pop-idol political era.

[tonyh29]

I guess if you took the Martin Bell thing people clearly voted on local issues , but as Mike says I doubt many people really know what the local candidate is all about ... I don't even know the name of mine but then i don't usually vote so I've not really ever made the effort to find out

and 10% of the Tories.

your previous posts said 0 % tory .. does that mean you mellowing towards them , Cameron is convincing you :winkold: