No compulsion in elections

gawain · 01-05-2006, 09:03 AM

Roger Knapman MEP today reacted to the calls by the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) to introduce compulsory voting in British elections. "This idea is typically statist and illiberal," he said.

"As we come up to the local elections we find that candidates cannot campaign on contentious local issues because of the Standards Board this government created, which the UK Independence Party would abolish", he continued.

"We all know that turnouts are dropping while political interest remains high, but nobody seems to be able to work out why". "It's simple really," he went on, "If nearly 80% of our laws are made in Brussels, why bother voting for MPs? If voting doesn't change things, forcing people to vote under penalty of the law won't, as the IPPR and many in this government believe, provide greater legitimacy to politicians, it will just increase the divorce between them and the electorate".

Knapman said, "People will vote if they find it worth their while. If real power were returned to Westminster then, surprise, surprise turnouts would shoot up. Just give us a referendum on EU membership and you will be surprised by how 'engaged' the British people are with politics".

People are not apathetic they are just antipathetic to the current system.

Notes to Editors

The IPPR website can be found http://www.ippr.org.uk/pressreleases/?id=2083

spaman · 01-05-2006, 10:17 AM

What an excellent retort....

This is after all an effort to control the masses and to keep telling us all what to do........ plus another reason to punish !

pentameter · 01-05-2006, 10:32 AM

Yes, it's to do with putting appearance over substance, and a move away from democracy.

Cumpulsory voting would produce the appearance of a healthy democracy - everyone turning out to vote, but the catch would be that the votes couldn't change anything. It all sounds a bit like the way things were done in the Eastern Block.

kernow · 01-05-2006, 11:31 AM

I can see the time when voting will be compulsory, but you will only be allowed one of three choices, Lib/Lab or Con the choice will be yours! :roll:

spaman · 01-05-2006, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pentameter

Yes, it's to do with putting appearance over substance, and a move away from democracy.

Cumpulsory voting would produce the appearance of a healthy democracy - everyone turning out to vote, but the catch would be that the votes couldn't change anything. It all sounds a bit like the way things were done in the Eastern Block.

I think you put your finger on it there pentameter - like the Easter block, indeed !

Lawrie Boxall · 01-05-2006, 02:20 PM

Roger gets part way there with his statement. I agree with him that compulsory voting would be a bad thing, and Prescott's chnages to local government are preventing democracy from functioning, but I think he then gets the basic reason for voter apathy wrong.

His message loses much of its power because it misses the target. It will thus be easily dismissed as the typical UKIP response of blaming anything they don't like on the EU.

This is the typical UKIP knee jerk reaction, to fight every single election on the issue of the EU, no matter how irrelevant it is to voters.

It's not primarily that 80% of laws are made in Brussels it is because voters don't feel that any British politicians in Westminster listen to what they have to say. Westminster is as much a part of the problem as the EU so restoring power to Westminster will not solve the problem at all. The absent voters already know this.

It is by the application of Direct Democracy at local and national levels, a positive initiative aimed at transferring power back to voters, that UKIP proposes as part of the solution to the problems of the overbearing nanny state, political correctness and low turnouts caused by the overpowerful executive, lying, spinning and generally following their own agendas oblivious to the wishes of the people.

Anthony Butcher · 01-05-2006, 07:51 PM

I agree with Lawrie. It is British politics and politicians that are turning people off, not the EU. Good to see a press release on this matter, but its impact is diluted by blaming the EU.

Does anyone know where the 80% number comes from please?

Intbel · 01-05-2006, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anthony Butcher

Does anyone know where the 80% number comes from please?

From Brussels ...

Biscuitman · 02-05-2006, 12:03 PM

If you go down the compulsion route, even with a 'none of the above' option - you would get people voting contrary out of annoyance at being forced into voting.

Not voting in itself is a vote - same as 'none of the above' - if the politicans engaged the public enough then they would turn out and vote.

The Lib/Lab/Con all express concern at low turn out - but they don't really give a monkeys - elections are an inconvenient distraction for them. However, they need better turn outs to create a veil of legitamacy for their anti democratic actions.

There are stats that show that if you dont vote in the first three elections you are eligible to then you are highly unlikely to ever vote. And that is one of the main resons turn out is dropping.

Our young people are disenchanted by politicians, dont see a difference between the Lib/Lab/Con - all they see are self interested careerists, espousing the same policies, trying to out lie each other fighting over the same trough.

This is compounded by the fact we are shipping a couple of hundrd thousand of them off to universities every year. they then spend three or four years living in a community they have no sense of belonging to, no responsibilty to and thus no reason to vote.

They are absent from their home communities - thus no sense of belonging there either - especialy as they dont expect to return to their home town when they graduate.

this is one of the areas that the think tanks are trying to address - the suggestion being that we should try and instill a sense of community responsibility into our young - (at the same time that the EU is trying to destroy community/national spirit).

One think tank highlighted the drop in community/volunteer work as another example of the break down in communal responsibility.

UKIPs proposals on Direct Democracy, initiated and promoted by the Lechlade Group, by genuinely involving voters in decisions throughout the term of the council/parliament should encourage voter particiaption at elections as the elected officials are directly accountable through out their term of office and can be recalled for re-election at any time.

brian lee · 02-05-2006, 02:12 PM

Compulsion is not the answer to voter apathy. A bit like forcing people to go to the opera when they want rock.

Pulling out of the EU won't make much difference.

There are three essentials:

1 A proportional voting system.
2 Restore power to the House of Commons that Tony and his gang have hijacked.
3 Restore power at local level that has been hijacked by Prescott and the numerous quangos.

None of the 3 above is likely without a revolution. If we want UKIP to lead that, there will need to be a revolution in UKIP first.

01-05-2006, 09:03 AM	#1 (permalink)
gawain Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 257	No compulsion in elections Roger Knapman MEP today reacted to the calls by the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) to introduce compulsory voting in British elections. "This idea is typically statist and illiberal," he said. "As we come up to the local elections we find that candidates cannot campaign on contentious local issues because of the Standards Board this government created, which the UK Independence Party would abolish", he continued. "We all know that turnouts are dropping while political interest remains high, but nobody seems to be able to work out why". "It's simple really," he went on, "If nearly 80% of our laws are made in Brussels, why bother voting for MPs? If voting doesn't change things, forcing people to vote under penalty of the law won't, as the IPPR and many in this government believe, provide greater legitimacy to politicians, it will just increase the divorce between them and the electorate". Knapman said, "People will vote if they find it worth their while. If real power were returned to Westminster then, surprise, surprise turnouts would shoot up. Just give us a referendum on EU membership and you will be surprised by how 'engaged' the British people are with politics". People are not apathetic they are just antipathetic to the current system. Notes to Editors The IPPR website can be found http://www.ippr.org.uk/pressreleases/?id=2083

02-05-2006, 12:03 PM	#9 (permalink)
Biscuitman Uber Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Reading Posts: 3,485	If you go down the compulsion route, even with a 'none of the above' option - you would get people voting contrary out of annoyance at being forced into voting. Not voting in itself is a vote - same as 'none of the above' - if the politicans engaged the public enough then they would turn out and vote. The Lib/Lab/Con all express concern at low turn out - but they don't really give a monkeys - elections are an inconvenient distraction for them. However, they need better turn outs to create a veil of legitamacy for their anti democratic actions. There are stats that show that if you dont vote in the first three elections you are eligible to then you are highly unlikely to ever vote. And that is one of the main resons turn out is dropping. Our young people are disenchanted by politicians, dont see a difference between the Lib/Lab/Con - all they see are self interested careerists, espousing the same policies, trying to out lie each other fighting over the same trough. This is compounded by the fact we are shipping a couple of hundrd thousand of them off to universities every year. they then spend three or four years living in a community they have no sense of belonging to, no responsibilty to and thus no reason to vote. They are absent from their home communities - thus no sense of belonging there either - especialy as they dont expect to return to their home town when they graduate. this is one of the areas that the think tanks are trying to address - the suggestion being that we should try and instill a sense of community responsibility into our young - (at the same time that the EU is trying to destroy community/national spirit). One think tank highlighted the drop in community/volunteer work as another example of the break down in communal responsibility. UKIPs proposals on Direct Democracy, initiated and promoted by the Lechlade Group, by genuinely involving voters in decisions throughout the term of the council/parliament should encourage voter particiaption at elections as the elected officials are directly accountable through out their term of office and can be recalled for re-election at any time. __________________ IF THE EU WAS THE ANSWER, IT MUST HAVE BEEN A STUPID QUESTION!

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

01-05-2006, 10:17 AM	#2 (permalink)
spaman Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Kent Posts: 874	What an excellent retort.... This is after all an effort to control the masses and to keep telling us all what to do........ plus another reason to punish !

01-05-2006, 10:32 AM	#3 (permalink)
pentameter Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 310	Yes, it's to do with putting appearance over substance, and a move away from democracy. Cumpulsory voting would produce the appearance of a healthy democracy - everyone turning out to vote, but the catch would be that the votes couldn't change anything. It all sounds a bit like the way things were done in the Eastern Block.

01-05-2006, 11:31 AM	#4 (permalink)
kernow Uber Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 4,829	I can see the time when voting will be compulsory, but you will only be allowed one of three choices, Lib/Lab or Con the choice will be yours! :roll:

01-05-2006, 02:20 PM	#6 (permalink)
Lawrie Boxall Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Sandhurst Posts: 1,015	Roger gets part way there with his statement. I agree with him that compulsory voting would be a bad thing, and Prescott's chnages to local government are preventing democracy from functioning, but I think he then gets the basic reason for voter apathy wrong. His message loses much of its power because it misses the target. It will thus be easily dismissed as the typical UKIP response of blaming anything they don't like on the EU. This is the typical UKIP knee jerk reaction, to fight every single election on the issue of the EU, no matter how irrelevant it is to voters. It's not primarily that 80% of laws are made in Brussels it is because voters don't feel that any British politicians in Westminster listen to what they have to say. Westminster is as much a part of the problem as the EU so restoring power to Westminster will not solve the problem at all. The absent voters already know this. It is by the application of Direct Democracy at local and national levels, a positive initiative aimed at transferring power back to voters, that UKIP proposes as part of the solution to the problems of the overbearing nanny state, political correctness and low turnouts caused by the overpowerful executive, lying, spinning and generally following their own agendas oblivious to the wishes of the people.

01-05-2006, 07:51 PM	#7 (permalink)
Anthony Butcher Administrator Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Long Ashton, Bristol Posts: 9,685 Party: None	I agree with Lawrie. It is British politics and politicians that are turning people off, not the EU. Good to see a press release on this matter, but its impact is diluted by blaming the EU. Does anyone know where the 80% number comes from please?

02-05-2006, 02:12 PM	#10 (permalink)
brian lee Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: South Essex Posts: 611	Compulsion is not the answer to voter apathy. A bit like forcing people to go to the opera when they want rock. Pulling out of the EU won't make much difference. There are three essentials: 1 A proportional voting system. 2 Restore power to the House of Commons that Tony and his gang have hijacked. 3 Restore power at local level that has been hijacked by Prescott and the numerous quangos. None of the 3 above is likely without a revolution. If we want UKIP to lead that, there will need to be a revolution in UKIP first.