This climate of traditional political collapse can only help our fledgling Harrogate Agenda grow.

I'm just back home after spending all day with some young and very gifted jazz musicians. Only one knew that there had been a number of by-elections held but could not say how many. None knew the results and none are registered to vote, one 'thought' they had heard the name Denis MacShane but could say no more that that. These were not stupid people, they have years of study to their credit.


But what they could all do was complain about the way we, as a society, do things. The cost of living being a typical moan. For example none of them felt that a rise in the cost of energy was justified. These are the sort of people who regard politics as a deviant activity, but are also the very people we must get onside with the Harrogate Agenda.

And I feel this will be awkward for some other people, those already onside and who 'do' politics 25 hours a day to understand the nature of the task. The usual problem with political people is they think their 'brand' of politics is fantastic and all the others rubbish. But the musicians I met cannot tell Stork from butter, if you see what I mean. So I suggest some serious thinking goes into how to promote the HA. You may only get one chance.

ADDED: I see jazz606 was well ahead of me on this on the UK politics: the stay-at-home elections thread, which I hadn't read before posting what's below. Great minds .... :) [01/12/2012 at 3:09pm]
_______



I like this idea of the Sod Off Party, though a more apt name would be the F#cking Sod Off Party. It should be implicitly and actually a candidate in all elections.

The winning candidate, as usual, should be the one gaining the largest number of votes but with the twist that all members of the relevant electorate who didn't turn out to vote will have their votes automatically cast for the Sod Off Party. In the event that that party wins no candidate will be put in office and the seat will remain vacant until the next General Election.

So the constituents won't have an MP, and possibly for 5 years? Yes, that's their problem, if it is a problem at all, which I don't think it is these days. In fact, it would be wholly beneficial — we'd soon get rid of a lot of those less than useless bastards.

On the other hand, looking at it from the point of view of the concerned 'great & good' who pretend to desire more voter involvement "in the interests of democracy", I think it could have precisely that effect. Though whether your typical non-voter would be inspired to think more carefully before casting his vote, or whether it would encourage more independents to chance their arms I wouldn't like to guess.

I do like the idea though.

Edited by user 01 December 2012 15:08:25(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

The problem is that people who are turning away from the mainstream parties (now minority parties) are not going for the tiddlers. The low turnout flatters UKIP, as the proportion of the votes cast increase, but the actual percentage of the electorate stays obstinately low.

"82.5 percent of a century before...to this week's high-profile by-election, the turnout drops to 33.63 percent. A hundred-plus years have cut the turnout by sixty percent."

Oh dear.
And in an article about numerical illiteracy too.
Furthermore, Anthony King does not say that 22% is spectacular, he says it is "short of spectacular", in an article that basically dismisses UKIP..

However, if I can just interrupt the UKIP bashing, does anyone know what percentage of the electorate that the Tories and Lib Dems got in these six byelections?

Edited by user 01 December 2012 12:36:06(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Welcome to the forum and thank you for the correction on the "spectacular.

As to numerical literacy, there is nothing wrong with my arithmetic. A drop from 82.5 percent turnout to 33.53 percent means that, proportionately, the 2012 electorate that came out to vote was only 40 percent of the size it was in 2012 ... i.e., a 60 percent drop in those voting (taking 82.5 percent as the datum, representing 100 percent).

And for the spectacularly challenged on comprehension, this post was not about UKIP ... the hint was even in the text:



The piece was about the collapse of the political process.

Meanwhile, if you want to know what the Tory and Lib Dem percentages are, I suggest you work them out for yourself - if your arithmetic is up to it.

Edited by user 01 December 2012 12:57:09(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

What better illustration of the crisis in democracy than the Daily Mail and the Morning Star essentially agreeing with each other.

Fraud.

My first point is this, the Electoral Commission - are they investigating the inbuilt rottenness of the postal ballot, I mean - I thought they were but being full of common purpose apparats perhaps not?

What absolutely needs to be made known is a breakdown % of all the recent ballots, broken down and divided into allocations to each and all political candidates.

So, if 21% turned out in Rotherham, how many postal votes were counted for Labour, Tory, UKIP etc.............call me cynical but the proportion will greatly favour the Socialist candidate, this is a unarguable reason to completely bin the postal ballot - it skews results and is wide open to fraud.

On KING.

King's article is poor and not well thought out at all. How can any store be set on by-election ballots?

The main point being that people are mightily fed up with all the politicians. However, it has raised UKIPs profile, they are on the map, how many people actually noticed is open to debate but the (Westminster) bubble knows about them now.

Miliband, that Marxist gimp is as usual desperately grasping air and looking for a vestige of legitimacy - who knows what the Labour voting electorate think of him, however - it cannot be much - "feel the love" he's altered it to "try to feel something, anything but total apathy".

And that's it isn't it - a complete apathy towards all politics and Westminster.

I have been thinking on this, looking at the paltry turnouts, I believe many people are just not bothered about politics anyway [what a shame that is] but amongst the men and women who actually do exercise their franchise - their concentration is wavering and the will is waning - to get out of the house and vote.

Maybe it is that. many of the electorate have unknowingly reached a collective conclusion that whosoever they vote for - it is a wasted vote.
Furthermore, whether it is a subconscious thought, or a rational deliberation - most men and women realise that the EU rule this land and that there is no redress or come back from Brussels. And if one looks towards other nations in the EU - voting numbers are down in many countries.

The EU and it's pervasive malign influence has razed to its foundations what was left of the democratic process.

Edited by user 01 December 2012 14:08:22(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Yes a point made by Douglas Carswell in his excellent book: “the End of Politics and the birth of iDemocracy”

Yes TBF. It's important not to fall into the seductive trap of thinking of Brussels as a foreign government made up of a lot of nasty foreigners, ordering a resentful UK government about. It's very clear that British governments have been determined to be a part of it and play a part in it.

Since a large part of the problem is home-grown, it follows that merely leaving the EU wouldn't automatically fix it, although there's no doubt it would make it easier to fix.