Regular mail from Simon Baptist, Chief Economist at the EIU. He makes the case for compulsory voting. I make him right.
I've been in Australia's capital, Canberra, this week, catching up with our clients here and talking to government. Politics in Australia is notoriously raucous, but is actually a lot more stable than the frequent changes of leadership suggest. The fundamentals of policymaking are broadly consistent between each of the country's two main political parties, and there is relentless competition over the centre ground. Australia has its nativist politicians, but they would never be challenging for the national leadership, as is the case in France this week.
One key reason for this is that Australia has compulsory voting. I used to be ambivalent about this, but over the last year have changed my mind to become an advocate. Spending an hour every few years at a ballot box is not an unreasonable request of a citizen in a democracy, and it means that a government's approach has to have solid mainstream support in order to become implemented. As we hold our breath over the second round of the French vote, I'd be feeling a lot more comfortable if France, too, had compulsory voting.
Regular mail from Simon Baptist, Chief Economist at the EIU. He makes the case for compulsory voting. I make him right.
I've been in Australia's capital, Canberra, this week, catching up with our clients here and talking to government. Politics in Australia is notoriously raucous, but is actually a lot more stable than the frequent changes of leadership suggest. The fundamentals of policymaking are broadly consistent between each of the country's two main political parties, and there is relentless competition over the centre ground. Australia has its nativist politicians, but they would never be challenging for the national leadership, as is the case in France this week.
One key reason for this is that Australia has compulsory voting. I used to be ambivalent about this, but over the last year have changed my mind to become an advocate. Spending an hour every few years at a ballot box is not an unreasonable request of a citizen in a democracy, and it means that a government's approach has to have solid mainstream support in order to become implemented. As we hold our breath over the second round of the French vote, I'd be feeling a lot more comfortable if France, too, had compulsory voting.
One day we will find common political ground Prague☺.
I don't agree with this, compulsory voting won't engage people just piss them off. We need PR to get people engaged in my opinion.
The only way that every vote counts is with the introduction of PR .But that would work against the two major parties and that's why they won't allow it. Where I live for instance the conservatives win by a landslide every election and that puts of a lot of people who just see their vote as being wasted. OR would I am sure encourage a lot more people to vote.
You have to be clever and concialiatory in the talks. I would be polite and respectful at all times and suggest a deal in line with Norway as a starting point! Rather than negotiate from zero, it will be harder for the EU negotiators to argue why they offer a deal to one nation and not a similar deal to another.
What we need to understand is that they don't want to because they want us to be a lesson to others in these turbulant times. That is why May's outburst was so damaging! The issue with a deal like Norway or Switzerland is going to be around free movement. I do think this could be overcome though. Especially as it has been benefitting our economy for years! We have to understand how important the single market is. Businessmen like me do, not because we are cleverer than others, but because we experience the benefits at first hand.
We have been in this market for 30 years and our economy is geared around it. We have a lot of investment from other countries - we produce more cars for instance than any other European nation, but we do so for foreign owners. One of the benefits for a comapny like Nissan in Sunderland, is the access they have as a result to the European markets. An angry Europe simply needs to lob some tariffs on our cars and the industry will be greatly affected.
They have more power to damage us than we have to damage them. Yes, if the EU decided to embrace us and let us do what we want, it would probably be the best for all parties, if it were not for one thing. That the more successful we are, the more other countries will want to follow suit. If you want to take the line, well we don't want to be part of such a malicious EU, well your high position will come at a great cost!
Even though Corbyn would be a useless PM, he would be a better negotiator because he is in a better position to gain EU co-operation. But he can't win the election realistically. So we have to send a message to May that we want to continue in the single market - hopefully a reduced majority would cause her to resign and we get a softer position in talks from a new Conservative leader. Who knows, we might even be able to keep Scotland.
But why are people voting for this damaging Chaos? Can't they see where it is going?
Because they wanted their country back (whatever that means.....)
I'm completely against the idea of compulsory voting, people should be able to decide if they want to vote or not. Not have it forced upon them. You can make an argument that it reduces the legitimacy of those elected as a proportion of votes will be made by people who have little or no interest and thus aren't truly representative of those that do care.
The census is compulsory. Why not voting? As long as you turn up at the ballot box, you are free to vote for any or none of the candidates.
I just feel that we have enough unnecessary rules and laws. For example, I share my home with a family member who literally has no idea what day of the week it is. There would have to be exceptions to allow for people like her and her already under pressure GP will have to find more time to excuse her from attending or risk prosecution.
People would rightly slag off a government that introduced legislation that could end up prosecuting people like her or anyone who simply forgot or even couldn't be arsed.
If you introduce compulsion then there needs to be consequences for not conforming. What consequences could they be and how severe need they be to force the can't be arsed?
It literally has never been easier to vote. In fact people in Tower Hamlets manage to send in dozens of postal votes in each household from the comfort of their own armchair.
As for punishment, it's usually a fine. Small enough not to be devastating but large enough that it'll sting (like speeding fines).
There is little more important, beyond looking after your friends and family and your local area, than taking part in the democratic process. The most apathetic voter group are youngsters, and I think forcing them to vote would at least make them think about how their vote matters.
The census is compulsory. Why not voting? As long as you turn up at the ballot box, you are free to vote for any or none of the candidates.
I just feel that we have enough unnecessary rules and laws. For example, I share my home with a family member who literally has no idea what day of the week it is. There would have to be exceptions to allow for people like her and her already under pressure GP will have to find more time to excuse her from attending or risk prosecution.
People would rightly slag off a government that introduced legislation that could end up prosecuting people like her or anyone who simply forgot or even couldn't be arsed.
If you introduce compulsion then there needs to be consequences for not conforming. What consequences could they be and how severe need they be to force the can't be arsed?
"Voting is compulsory in Australia. Failure to vote at a federal election without a valid and sufficient reason is an offence under section 245 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. You are required to pay the $20 penalty"
I take your point about the "man from the Pru" era. I think you have rather avoided mine. That is, that Thatcher swept away that reasonable, regulated, and self-disciplined approach. Building societies were changed into banks and their entire character and modus operandi with it. Estate agents started flogging mortgages with life insurance attached, as opposed to the more traditional repayment one. I took chose the new one, in 1985, attracted by the lower monthly repayments and totally unaware of the drawbacks. Nobody warned me. I wasn't the only one because in the 90s I was successfully compensated for mis-selling, and I was one of millions. (Were you not?)
You know better than most that vast tracts of the financial services industry are leeching a living by offering products of dubious value, to millions of us who find it difficult to evaluate such things. That's my worry.
If I thought this private provision were to be strictly regulated, then I might be more comfortable with the idea. But we have a dreadful record of installing such regulation. That's down to the politics. Such private provision is mainly proposed by the Tories. But many Tories also hate regulation, of anything. So you get watered down, toothless regulation, until it all goes tits up. Then our justice system swings in,not to mention the Consumers Association and, to be fair, people do get compensation, more so than in other countries. But the perpetrators are not held to account. They get off scot free with their riches, a small proportion of which finds its way back into Conservative party coffers. Or, nowadays, UKIP.
The Germans don't and won't stand for that kind of nonsense. And it does not seem like its economy is collapsing under the burden.
For what it's worth, and as someone who used to work in regulation, I think the system is a little wrong-headed. All the concentration (at least since Gordon Brown's disastrous "light-touch regulation" was swept away - yes it was he not the Conservatives who was responsible for that shambles) is upon regulating the firm. As long as it's within the rules, a firm can offer any old dodgy product it likes. I refer you to the aforementioned no questions asked "Over 50 Plans". Instead, would it not be better if the products rather than the firms were heavily regulated? With the dross advertised by the likes of Michael Parkinson and "the old bird on Countdown" just outright banned.
Interesting reading, especially after the HSBC allegations, that they were also calling for less money laundering checks...
Blimey John Redwood, there's a name from the past advocating all sorts of good stuff in that link, like getting rid of data protection rules, watering down money laundering laws and deregulation of mortgages. Thank gawd he's nowhere he can do any damage to UK consumers these days.
I take your point about the "man from the Pru" era. I think you have rather avoided mine. That is, that Thatcher swept away that reasonable, regulated, and self-disciplined approach. Building societies were changed into banks and their entire character and modus operandi with it. Estate agents started flogging mortgages with life insurance attached, as opposed to the more traditional repayment one. I took chose the new one, in 1985, attracted by the lower monthly repayments and totally unaware of the drawbacks. Nobody warned me. I wasn't the only one because in the 90s I was successfully compensated for mis-selling, and I was one of millions. (Were you not?)
You know better than most that vast tracts of the financial services industry are leeching a living by offering products of dubious value, to millions of us who find it difficult to evaluate such things. That's my worry.
If I thought this private provision were to be strictly regulated, then I might be more comfortable with the idea. But we have a dreadful record of installing such regulation. That's down to the politics. Such private provision is mainly proposed by the Tories. But many Tories also hate regulation, of anything. So you get watered down, toothless regulation, until it all goes tits up. Then our justice system swings in,not to mention the Consumers Association and, to be fair, people do get compensation, more so than in other countries. But the perpetrators are not held to account. They get off scot free with their riches, a small proportion of which finds its way back into Conservative party coffers. Or, nowadays, UKIP.
The Germans don't and won't stand for that kind of nonsense. And it does not seem like its economy is collapsing under the burden.
For what it's worth, and as someone who used to work in regulation, I think the system is a little wrong-headed. All the concentration (at least since Gordon Brown's disastrous "light-touch regulation" was swept away - yes it was he not the Conservatives who was responsible for that shambles) is upon regulating the firm. As long as it's within the rules, a firm can offer any old dodgy product it likes. I refer you to the aforementioned no questions asked "Over 50 Plans". Instead, would it not be better if the products rather than the firms were heavily regulated? With the dross advertised by the likes of Michael Parkinson and "the old bird on Countdown" just outright banned.
Interesting reading, especially after the HSBC allegations, that they were also calling for less money laundering checks...
Blimey John Redwood, there's a name from the past advocating all sorts of good stuff in that link, like getting rid of data protection rules, watering down money laundering laws and deregulation of mortgages. Thank gawd he's nowhere he can do any damage to UK consumers these days.
Oh wait...
He's one of the worst. As I've mentioned on this and other politics thread. Him, the Rees Moggs, the Oliver Letwins, tossers
It literally has never been easier to vote. In fact people in Tower Hamlets manage to send in dozens of postal votes in each household from the comfort of their own armchair.
As for punishment, it's usually a fine. Small enough not to be devastating but large enough that it'll sting (like speeding fines).
There is little more important, beyond looking after your friends and family and your local area, than taking part in the democratic process. The most apathetic voter group are youngsters, and I think forcing them to vote would at least make them think about how their vote matters.
The yoof need to be engaged - use technology. It could be made just as secure (more in fact) as turning up at a polling station and saying my name is .......
I take your point about the "man from the Pru" era. I think you have rather avoided mine. That is, that Thatcher swept away that reasonable, regulated, and self-disciplined approach. Building societies were changed into banks and their entire character and modus operandi with it. Estate agents started flogging mortgages with life insurance attached, as opposed to the more traditional repayment one. I took chose the new one, in 1985, attracted by the lower monthly repayments and totally unaware of the drawbacks. Nobody warned me. I wasn't the only one because in the 90s I was successfully compensated for mis-selling, and I was one of millions. (Were you not?)
You know better than most that vast tracts of the financial services industry are leeching a living by offering products of dubious value, to millions of us who find it difficult to evaluate such things. That's my worry.
If I thought this private provision were to be strictly regulated, then I might be more comfortable with the idea. But we have a dreadful record of installing such regulation. That's down to the politics. Such private provision is mainly proposed by the Tories. But many Tories also hate regulation, of anything. So you get watered down, toothless regulation, until it all goes tits up. Then our justice system swings in,not to mention the Consumers Association and, to be fair, people do get compensation, more so than in other countries. But the perpetrators are not held to account. They get off scot free with their riches, a small proportion of which finds its way back into Conservative party coffers. Or, nowadays, UKIP.
The Germans don't and won't stand for that kind of nonsense. And it does not seem like its economy is collapsing under the burden.
For what it's worth, and as someone who used to work in regulation, I think the system is a little wrong-headed. All the concentration (at least since Gordon Brown's disastrous "light-touch regulation" was swept away - yes it was he not the Conservatives who was responsible for that shambles) is upon regulating the firm. As long as it's within the rules, a firm can offer any old dodgy product it likes. I refer you to the aforementioned no questions asked "Over 50 Plans". Instead, would it not be better if the products rather than the firms were heavily regulated? With the dross advertised by the likes of Michael Parkinson and "the old bird on Countdown" just outright banned.
Interesting reading, especially after the HSBC allegations, that they were also calling for less money laundering checks...
Blimey John Redwood, there's a name from the past advocating all sorts of good stuff in that link, like getting rid of data protection rules, watering down money laundering laws and deregulation of mortgages. Thank gawd he's nowhere he can do any damage to UK consumers these days.
Oh wait...
He's one of the worst. As I've mentioned on this and other politics thread. Him, the Rees Moggs, the Oliver Letwins, tossers
Language!!! Mods are supposed to set a f*cking example.
I take your point about the "man from the Pru" era. I think you have rather avoided mine. That is, that Thatcher swept away that reasonable, regulated, and self-disciplined approach. Building societies were changed into banks and their entire character and modus operandi with it. Estate agents started flogging mortgages with life insurance attached, as opposed to the more traditional repayment one. I took chose the new one, in 1985, attracted by the lower monthly repayments and totally unaware of the drawbacks. Nobody warned me. I wasn't the only one because in the 90s I was successfully compensated for mis-selling, and I was one of millions. (Were you not?)
You know better than most that vast tracts of the financial services industry are leeching a living by offering products of dubious value, to millions of us who find it difficult to evaluate such things. That's my worry.
If I thought this private provision were to be strictly regulated, then I might be more comfortable with the idea. But we have a dreadful record of installing such regulation. That's down to the politics. Such private provision is mainly proposed by the Tories. But many Tories also hate regulation, of anything. So you get watered down, toothless regulation, until it all goes tits up. Then our justice system swings in,not to mention the Consumers Association and, to be fair, people do get compensation, more so than in other countries. But the perpetrators are not held to account. They get off scot free with their riches, a small proportion of which finds its way back into Conservative party coffers. Or, nowadays, UKIP.
The Germans don't and won't stand for that kind of nonsense. And it does not seem like its economy is collapsing under the burden.
For what it's worth, and as someone who used to work in regulation, I think the system is a little wrong-headed. All the concentration (at least since Gordon Brown's disastrous "light-touch regulation" was swept away - yes it was he not the Conservatives who was responsible for that shambles) is upon regulating the firm. As long as it's within the rules, a firm can offer any old dodgy product it likes. I refer you to the aforementioned no questions asked "Over 50 Plans". Instead, would it not be better if the products rather than the firms were heavily regulated? With the dross advertised by the likes of Michael Parkinson and "the old bird on Countdown" just outright banned.
Interesting reading, especially after the HSBC allegations, that they were also calling for less money laundering checks...
Blimey John Redwood, there's a name from the past advocating all sorts of good stuff in that link, like getting rid of data protection rules, watering down money laundering laws and deregulation of mortgages. Thank gawd he's nowhere he can do any damage to UK consumers these days.
Oh wait...
He's one of the worst. As I've mentioned on this and other politics thread. Him, the Rees Moggs, the Oliver Letwins, tossers
Language!!! Mods are supposed to set a f*cking example.
I take your point about the "man from the Pru" era. I think you have rather avoided mine. That is, that Thatcher swept away that reasonable, regulated, and self-disciplined approach. Building societies were changed into banks and their entire character and modus operandi with it. Estate agents started flogging mortgages with life insurance attached, as opposed to the more traditional repayment one. I took chose the new one, in 1985, attracted by the lower monthly repayments and totally unaware of the drawbacks. Nobody warned me. I wasn't the only one because in the 90s I was successfully compensated for mis-selling, and I was one of millions. (Were you not?)
You know better than most that vast tracts of the financial services industry are leeching a living by offering products of dubious value, to millions of us who find it difficult to evaluate such things. That's my worry.
If I thought this private provision were to be strictly regulated, then I might be more comfortable with the idea. But we have a dreadful record of installing such regulation. That's down to the politics. Such private provision is mainly proposed by the Tories. But many Tories also hate regulation, of anything. So you get watered down, toothless regulation, until it all goes tits up. Then our justice system swings in,not to mention the Consumers Association and, to be fair, people do get compensation, more so than in other countries. But the perpetrators are not held to account. They get off scot free with their riches, a small proportion of which finds its way back into Conservative party coffers. Or, nowadays, UKIP.
The Germans don't and won't stand for that kind of nonsense. And it does not seem like its economy is collapsing under the burden.
For what it's worth, and as someone who used to work in regulation, I think the system is a little wrong-headed. All the concentration (at least since Gordon Brown's disastrous "light-touch regulation" was swept away - yes it was he not the Conservatives who was responsible for that shambles) is upon regulating the firm. As long as it's within the rules, a firm can offer any old dodgy product it likes. I refer you to the aforementioned no questions asked "Over 50 Plans". Instead, would it not be better if the products rather than the firms were heavily regulated? With the dross advertised by the likes of Michael Parkinson and "the old bird on Countdown" just outright banned.
Interesting reading, especially after the HSBC allegations, that they were also calling for less money laundering checks...
Blimey John Redwood, there's a name from the past advocating all sorts of good stuff in that link, like getting rid of data protection rules, watering down money laundering laws and deregulation of mortgages. Thank gawd he's nowhere he can do any damage to UK consumers these days.
Oh wait...
He's one of the worst. As I've mentioned on this and other politics thread. Him, the Rees Moggs, the Oliver Letwins, tossers
Language!!! Mods are supposed to set a f*cking example.
Sorry bob, I promise never to say the R*** M*** words again
Link is from 2007 but I imagine the Tories are looking to implement all of that once they get their bigger majority. Can't wait.
Yeah it was to prove the point that they were calling for deregulation of the mortgage market in 2007, just before the financial crisis. I think it was earlier in this thread that someone posted a written question to the HSBC board at their AGM last week about potential money laundering allegations involving the Conservative HQ.
Funny how Michael Howard and Ian Duncan smith now seem a couple of general elections too early.
Don't know about anyone else but the thought of who to vote for, the bad, or the atrocious (you can make your mind up which is which) is starting to grate on me. They are all awful to varying degrees at the moment.
Even my local MP who is usually pretty good is jumping on the twisting bandwagon, don't know how many times i've pointed out to him his party (and his own election leaflets) are severely twisting the school budget issue as it suits them yet it's either a wall of silence or 'depends how you look at it' type response. He ought to look at how the local authority allow the money to be spent with their 'approved contractors' who charge 4x or more the going rates........
I take your point about the "man from the Pru" era. I think you have rather avoided mine. That is, that Thatcher swept away that reasonable, regulated, and self-disciplined approach. Building societies were changed into banks and their entire character and modus operandi with it. Estate agents started flogging mortgages with life insurance attached, as opposed to the more traditional repayment one. I took chose the new one, in 1985, attracted by the lower monthly repayments and totally unaware of the drawbacks. Nobody warned me. I wasn't the only one because in the 90s I was successfully compensated for mis-selling, and I was one of millions. (Were you not?)
You know better than most that vast tracts of the financial services industry are leeching a living by offering products of dubious value, to millions of us who find it difficult to evaluate such things. That's my worry.
If I thought this private provision were to be strictly regulated, then I might be more comfortable with the idea. But we have a dreadful record of installing such regulation. That's down to the politics. Such private provision is mainly proposed by the Tories. But many Tories also hate regulation, of anything. So you get watered down, toothless regulation, until it all goes tits up. Then our justice system swings in,not to mention the Consumers Association and, to be fair, people do get compensation, more so than in other countries. But the perpetrators are not held to account. They get off scot free with their riches, a small proportion of which finds its way back into Conservative party coffers. Or, nowadays, UKIP.
The Germans don't and won't stand for that kind of nonsense. And it does not seem like its economy is collapsing under the burden.
For what it's worth, and as someone who used to work in regulation, I think the system is a little wrong-headed. All the concentration (at least since Gordon Brown's disastrous "light-touch regulation" was swept away - yes it was he not the Conservatives who was responsible for that shambles) is upon regulating the firm. As long as it's within the rules, a firm can offer any old dodgy product it likes. I refer you to the aforementioned no questions asked "Over 50 Plans". Instead, would it not be better if the products rather than the firms were heavily regulated? With the dross advertised by the likes of Michael Parkinson and "the old bird on Countdown" just outright banned.
Interesting reading, especially after the HSBC allegations, that they were also calling for less money laundering checks...
Blimey John Redwood, there's a name from the past advocating all sorts of good stuff in that link, like getting rid of data protection rules, watering down money laundering laws and deregulation of mortgages. Thank gawd he's nowhere he can do any damage to UK consumers these days.
Oh wait...
He's one of the worst. As I've mentioned on this and other politics thread. Him, the Rees Moggs, the Oliver Letwins, tossers
Language!!! Mods are supposed to set a f*cking example.
Sorry bob, I promise never to say the R*** M*** words again
Did you say Richard Murray cabbles.... this place is going down hill fast.
Don't know about anyone else but the thought of who to vote for, the bad, or the atrocious (you can make your mind up which is which) is starting to grate on me. They are all awful to varying degrees at the moment.
Even my local MP who is usually pretty good is jumping on the twisting bandwagon, don't know how many times i've pointed out to him his party (and his own election leaflets) are severely twisting the school budget issue as it suits them yet it's either a wall of silence or 'depends how you look at it' type response. He ought to look at how the local authority allow the money to be spent with their 'approved contractors' who charge 4x or more the going rates........
I take your point about the "man from the Pru" era. I think you have rather avoided mine. That is, that Thatcher swept away that reasonable, regulated, and self-disciplined approach. Building societies were changed into banks and their entire character and modus operandi with it. Estate agents started flogging mortgages with life insurance attached, as opposed to the more traditional repayment one. I took chose the new one, in 1985, attracted by the lower monthly repayments and totally unaware of the drawbacks. Nobody warned me. I wasn't the only one because in the 90s I was successfully compensated for mis-selling, and I was one of millions. (Were you not?)
You know better than most that vast tracts of the financial services industry are leeching a living by offering products of dubious value, to millions of us who find it difficult to evaluate such things. That's my worry.
If I thought this private provision were to be strictly regulated, then I might be more comfortable with the idea. But we have a dreadful record of installing such regulation. That's down to the politics. Such private provision is mainly proposed by the Tories. But many Tories also hate regulation, of anything. So you get watered down, toothless regulation, until it all goes tits up. Then our justice system swings in,not to mention the Consumers Association and, to be fair, people do get compensation, more so than in other countries. But the perpetrators are not held to account. They get off scot free with their riches, a small proportion of which finds its way back into Conservative party coffers. Or, nowadays, UKIP.
The Germans don't and won't stand for that kind of nonsense. And it does not seem like its economy is collapsing under the burden.
For what it's worth, and as someone who used to work in regulation, I think the system is a little wrong-headed. All the concentration (at least since Gordon Brown's disastrous "light-touch regulation" was swept away - yes it was he not the Conservatives who was responsible for that shambles) is upon regulating the firm. As long as it's within the rules, a firm can offer any old dodgy product it likes. I refer you to the aforementioned no questions asked "Over 50 Plans". Instead, would it not be better if the products rather than the firms were heavily regulated? With the dross advertised by the likes of Michael Parkinson and "the old bird on Countdown" just outright banned.
Interesting reading, especially after the HSBC allegations, that they were also calling for less money laundering checks...
Blimey John Redwood, there's a name from the past advocating all sorts of good stuff in that link, like getting rid of data protection rules, watering down money laundering laws and deregulation of mortgages. Thank gawd he's nowhere he can do any damage to UK consumers these days.
Oh wait...
He's one of the worst. As I've mentioned on this and other politics thread. Him, the Rees Moggs, the Oliver Letwins, tossers
Language!!! Mods are supposed to set a f*cking example.
Sorry bob, I promise never to say the R*** M*** words again
Did you say Richard Murray cabbles.... this place is going down hill fast.
Comments
Whatever you think of the guy narrating, it's hard to argue with the point of the video.
I've been in Australia's capital, Canberra, this week, catching up with our clients here and talking to government. Politics in Australia is notoriously raucous, but is actually a lot more stable than the frequent changes of leadership suggest. The fundamentals of policymaking are broadly consistent between each of the country's two main political parties, and there is relentless competition over the centre ground. Australia has its nativist politicians, but they would never be challenging for the national leadership, as is the case in France this week.
One key reason for this is that Australia has compulsory voting. I used to be ambivalent about this, but over the last year have changed my mind to become an advocate. Spending an hour every few years at a ballot box is not an unreasonable request of a citizen in a democracy, and it means that a government's approach has to have solid mainstream support in order to become implemented. As we hold our breath over the second round of the French vote, I'd be feeling a lot more comfortable if France, too, had compulsory voting.
I don't agree with this, compulsory voting won't engage people just piss them off. We need PR to get people engaged in my opinion.
Where I live for instance the conservatives win by a landslide every election and that puts of a lot of people who just see their vote as being wasted.
OR would I am sure encourage a lot more people to vote.
In a democracy you have to be free to decide, not to be forced. It is down to the politicians to get voters engaged.
I'd love for us to use Mixed-Member Proportional Representation...
People would rightly slag off a government that introduced legislation that could end up prosecuting people like her or anyone who simply forgot or even couldn't be arsed.
If you introduce compulsion then there needs to be consequences for not conforming. What consequences could they be and how severe need they be to force the can't be arsed?
It literally has never been easier to vote. In fact people in Tower Hamlets manage to send in dozens of postal votes in each household from the comfort of their own armchair.
As for punishment, it's usually a fine. Small enough not to be devastating but large enough that it'll sting (like speeding fines).
There is little more important, beyond looking after your friends and family and your local area, than taking part in the democratic process. The most apathetic voter group are youngsters, and I think forcing them to vote would at least make them think about how their vote matters.
http://www.aec.gov.au/FAQs/Voting_Australia.htm
Oh wait...
Funny how Michael Howard and Ian Duncan smith now seem a couple of general elections too early.
Even my local MP who is usually pretty good is jumping on the twisting bandwagon, don't know how many times i've pointed out to him his party (and his own election leaflets) are severely twisting the school budget issue as it suits them yet it's either a wall of silence or 'depends how you look at it' type response. He ought to look at how the local authority allow the money to be spent with their 'approved contractors' who charge 4x or more the going rates........ Did you say Richard Murray cabbles.... this place is going down hill fast.
Are you going to answer the question or swerve it?