[user104658]

Originally Posted by Livia

Surely then kids should be introduced to politics properly in schools. Westminster, far from being an ivory tower, is open to the public. You can approach your MP for a visit, and even sit in on Prime Ministers Questions if you're lucky. There are always schools and groups of visitors trooping round the Commons.

Being able to physically go in and gawp at the "powerful people doing important things" and sit in their important little room listening to them lie about important issues "if you're lucky" does not make politics open. At best you're going to get a patronising handshake and then completely ignored if you actually have something to say. It is not inspiring or engaging at all.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Chewy

Last time young voters voted for someone they believed in, said person went against pretty much everything he stood for in the election. That's why young voters don't give a **** anymore.

I agree Chewy, but that just about sums up every weaselly, self-serving politician in the country, and every tedious political party. Politics is not only 'The last refuge of the scoundrel" (apologies to Johnson) but is also a very rich first class gravy train for those who are too smart to walk.

The day ANY politician in this country actually truthfully answers just one simple direct question during interviews, is the day I think Andrew Neil, Jeremy Paxman and Martha Kearney, and others will have heart attacks - and so will I.

[Pete.]

How do you know people aren't voting more than once

[arista]

Originally Posted by Petemitch

How do you know people aren't voting more than once

Because once you code goes in
You Vote - It says Thank You

You try to vote again
it says Invalid Code &
this Person has Voted and gives Time / Date

But Tests have to be done over some time
first


Feel The Force

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Being able to physically go in and gawp at the "powerful people doing important things" and sit in their important little room listening to them lie about important issues "if you're lucky" does not make politics open. At best you're going to get a patronising handshake and then completely ignored if you actually have something to say. It is not inspiring or engaging at all.

This is not a 'confrontational' question T.S., I am just interested in what you would propose to coax adolescents to vote?

I agree that we have insipid politicians making insincere empty promises they have no intention of keeping, and tedious political parties, but some party has to govern and that party has to have a leader.

Livia has suggested a more forward thinking, more proactive approach by schools which is an excellent idea in my book - "Give me the child until he is seven and I'll give you the man" - and mentions 'field trips' by certain schools to Westminster and the Commons, none of which seems to sit with you.

Obviously, more flamboyant but sincere politicians, more vibrant, relevant, and honest political manifestos, and more openness in all our political parties would be a start, but I'm afraid, such ideals are beyond our control.

So how do you suggest we interest our kids in politics and get them to vote?

[user104658]

I don't think there is any simple solution, Westminster politics is (rightly, in my opinion) often seen as being a bit "stuffy" and old fashioned, and most of the people involved in it are not really relatable to most people. I know a lot of people like the tradition, ceremony, and rooms with green leather seats and feel that it's a positive for UK politics but it's just not engaging for most of the public - especially young people. The whole thing would need to be overhauled. Even the very concept of the "house of lords" is off-putting and - let's face it - the upper tiers of the commons isn't much better. Blair, Cameron, Clegg, Miliband... Despite their differing policies, they're all very similar "sorts of chap". As someone said, they're all attending the same social gatherings and drinking the same sparkling wine.

[GypsyGoth]

It could be made illegal not to vote. And even then I don't think everyone would turn out. Part of the problem is that there is an assumption that nothing changes regardless of who is in power. When it's clear the result means something, like in the recent independence referendum in scotland, there is a large turnout (84.5%). But even then you have over 15% choosing not to vote.

Maybe it's just human nature, some people don't care who is running the country or what type of government is in power. And I feel that even if you went door to door, making it as easy as possible, people would abstain.

So the only solution I see is the one I mentioned, pass a law that you have to vote, if people don't, then agents from the government confiscate your smartphone, or your pets or your hairbrush, whatever it takes. This might also solve the nation deficit on hairbrushes.

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by GypsyGoth

It could be made illegal not to vote. And even then I don't think everyone would turn out. Part of the problem is that there is an assumption that nothing changes regardless of who is in power. When it's clear the result means something, like in the recent independence referendum in scotland, there is a large turnout (84.5%). But even then you have over 15% choosing not to vote.

Maybe it's just human nature, some people don't care who is running the country or what type of government is in power. And I feel that even if you went door to door, making it as easy as possible, people would abstain.

So the only solution I see is the one I mentioned, pass a law that you have to vote, if people don't, then agents from the government confiscate your smartphone, or your pets or your hairbrush, whatever it takes. This might also solve the nation deficit on hairbrushes.

lThat is not democracy that is a dictatorship.It is our right to vote if we so choose.All votes have a right to abstain.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Being able to physically go in and gawp at the "powerful people doing important things" and sit in their important little room listening to them lie about important issues "if you're lucky" does not make politics open. At best you're going to get a patronising handshake and then completely ignored if you actually have something to say. It is not inspiring or engaging at all.

TS, your post just says to me that you've never experienced it and are making the scenario up based on your own preconceptions. You're talking about our Parliament. It shouldn't be run like the X Factor for the Twitter generation.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Livia

Surely then kids should be introduced to politics properly in schools. Westminster, far from being an ivory tower, is open to the public. You can approach your MP for a visit, and even sit in on Prime Ministers Questions if you're lucky. There are always schools and groups of visitors trooping round the Commons.

I don't understand why, because voting is low with the young, that we have to brighten it up to encourage them to vote. I'm sure in the future texting and all kinds of methods will be brought in the way postal votes were, and now in my constituency something like 25% of votes cast are postal votes. As someone well versed in election law I've got to say, it would be a nearly impossible job to make sure there was no tampering or other monkey business because you can lock and seal a ballot box, you can you can't do that with a text.

Although not in agreement as to who we want to win the next election Livia, you know I love your views and always learn something from you too.
Valuable learning I call it.

I was wondering what you thought could be the means to get more people voting.
Looking back, there were times when only 2 or 3 names were on ballot papers.
We now have like a shopping list of candidates and even parties on many ballot papers.

For me it is hard to understand that there can be no one on those ballot papers that a potential voter cannot find some common ground with as to supporting them.

More Parties, more candiates from all backgrounds,yet less and less actually voting.

I don't think I could trust internet voting or phone voting.so am stumped as to what the answer is to get more out to vote.
I can understand disillusionment but again, that can pnly really apply to those who have ahd power and failed badly,also in the case of the Lib Dems,kicking their voters in tyhe teeth for theri trust and votes for a share of time in power.

None of that is good for politics or getting people to vote, for them but then it seems, a wider choice doesn't help too.

Is it the voting system? Do 'new' voters and those who don;t vote, feel they would be wasting their time voting,could a new system of voting help in that.
Although AV was voted against in the referendum a few years ago.
Do we now need to have a system that shows every vote could count more.

I can still see the merits of 'first past the post' as to usually bringing strong govt. however that now seems under threat too with this multi party system building up more and more.
A multi party system that gives more choice but still fails to get more and more people out to vote.
However should it be right that any party could be in power unchecked or moderated by getting around or just above a thrid of the votes cast as may well be the case in May this year.

I actually too don't like the current postal votes system.
Unless they were done and posted after polling day, something could be revealed in the dying days of an election campaign that could be crucial to what we were told in the campaign.
Which may even have altered how someone would have voted, it is too late to change that once the postal vote is already gone.

I am just interested in what you think as to getting more people out with your knowledge of politics.
I don't agree compulsory voting is the answer but it is worrying when so many people are turned off a subject and people like MPs and potential MPs so much, that they don't vote when a great deal of what happens after an election and a govt. is in place,is going to affect all their lives considerably by the decisions those MPs in power make.

[arista]

Joey
Papers ?


in the Future its Press Red Button Now to
Vote


Conservative
Greens
LibDem
Labour
UKIP
SNP

or
None Of The Above


What a Better Voting System

[arista]

Originally Posted by GypsyGoth

It could be made illegal not to vote. And even then I don't think everyone would turn out. Part of the problem is that there is an assumption that nothing changes regardless of who is in power. When it's clear the result means something, like in the recent independence referendum in scotland, there is a large turnout (84.5%). But even then you have over 15% choosing not to vote.

Maybe it's just human nature, some people don't care who is running the country or what type of government is in power. And I feel that even if you went door to door, making it as easy as possible, people would abstain.

So the only solution I see is the one I mentioned, pass a law that you have to vote, if people don't, then agents from the government confiscate your smartphone, or your pets or your hairbrush, whatever it takes. This might also solve the nation deficit on hairbrushes.

It will be
and with the Better Red button at home

those that hate all Politics
can click

None of The Above




Its a better Future in the Arista World

[arista]

and those that do not Vote by simply pushing the red button
will be posted a Fine

Thats Very Fair

[Livia]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

Although not in agreement as to who we want to win the next election Livia, you know I love your views and always learn something from you too.
Valuable learning I call it.

I was wondering what you thought could be the means to get more people voting.
Looking back, there were times when only 2 or 3 names were on ballot papers.
We now have like a shopping list of candidates and even parties on many ballot papers.

For me it is hard to understand that there can be no one on those ballot papers that a potential voter cannot find some common ground with as to supporting them.

More Parties, more candiates from all backgrounds,yet less and less actually voting.

I don't think I could trust internet voting or phone voting.so am stumped as to what the answer is to get more out to vote.
I can understand disillusionment but again, that can pnly really apply to those who have ahd power and failed badly,also in the case of the Lib Dems,kicking their voters in tyhe teeth for theri trust and votes for a share of time in power.

None of that is good for politics or getting people to vote, for them but then it seems, a wider choice doesn't help too.

Is it the voting system? Do 'new' voters and those who don;t vote, feel they would be wasting their time voting,could a new system of voting help in that.
Although AV was voted against in the referendum a few years ago.
Do we now need to have a system that shows every vote could count more.

I can still see the merits of 'first past the post' as to usually bringing strong govt. however that now seems under threat too with this multi party system building up more and more.
A multi party system that gives more choice but still fails to get more and more people out to vote.
However should it be right that any party could be in power unchecked or moderated by getting around or just above a thrid of the votes cast as may well be the case in May this year.

I actually too don't like the current postal votes system.
Unless they were done and posted after polling day, something could be revealed in the dying days of an election campaign that could be crucial to what we were told in the campaign.
Which may even have altered how someone would have voted, it is too late to change that once the postal vote is already gone.

I am just interested in what you think as to getting more people out with your knowledge of politics.
I don't agree compulsory voting is the answer but it is worrying when so many people are turned off a subject and people like MPs and potential MPs so much, that they don't vote when a great deal of what happens after an election and a govt. is in place,is going to affect all their lives considerably by the decisions those MPs in power make.

Hey Joey... actually, I'm not sure who I want to win the General Election. There isn't anyone out there who reflects my ideals.

As for engaging young people in politics, I'd get young interested in politics. into schools. Maybe politics students. When I worked for the Tories, they had Conservative Future (which used to be Young Conservatives) who would go into schools and talk to young people about voting and politics and how it works and affects them. It wasn't done from the Tory slant, their aim was to get young people thinking and discussing about politics. It was young people engaging with young people and in the areas it happened, it was successful. I don't know if other parties do this, but if they don't, they should.

I also think it's vitally important to remember that politicians are not some elite, far above us. They are public servants.

[arista]

"I don't think I could trust internet voting or phone voting"

Yes Joey thats why Red Button TV Remote is our future


"I'm not sure who I want to win the General Election"

Yes Livia this is what Mattters now
the 30% who do not know yet
they control the end result.
So you are like Gold

And I am Tin
Predicted/ Loyal etc.


So good job No MP's and Staff spying on my thread
can not locate you

[Kizzy]

If politicians really wanted young people to be interested in politics they would ensure it was an integral part of the curriculum.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

If politicians really wanted young people to be interested in politics they would ensure it was an integral part of the curriculum.

Yes thats on its way.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Livia

TS, your post just says to me that you've never experienced it and are making the scenario up based on your own preconceptions. You're talking about our Parliament. It shouldn't be run like the X Factor for the Twitter generation.

Thats entirely the point though Luvia. Like I said, I personally do find politics interesting and am engaged with it, but it's pretty obvious that the nation's youth is not interested, and that is BECAUSE of how Westminster is generally perceived. The fact that peoples ideas are based on preconceptions - whether they are accurate or not - almost proves the point. Westminster politics is stuffy and insular and doesn't do enough to properly engage the general public. If they did, these preconceptions wouldn't be commonplace.

As you say - it's important to remember that these people are not our betters, they are public servants. But do you honestly believe that the upper tier politicians WANT us to remember that? I'm talking your Thatchers, Camerons, Blairs, Osbournes, and the majority of the "minister for..."s here, not your salt of the earth local MPs who to be fair are often excellent.

I mean really. Come on. If you and I were to stroll up to Dave and George - assuming we didnt get shot for trying - and inform them that they are just public servants and in no way our superiors, can you see them sincerely agreeing? I personally suspect they'd struggle not to snigger.

[user104658]

Oh and come on arista! Red button is not the future of anything, let alone general elections. Over-the-air television probably wont exist at all in 20 years. Red button is going the way of Teletext, and soon!

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Thats entirely the point though Luvia. Like I said, I personally do find politics interesting and am engaged with it, but it's pretty obvious that the nation's youth is not interested, and that is BECAUSE of how Westminster is generally perceived. The fact that peoples ideas are based on preconceptions - whether they are accurate or not - almost proves the point. Westminster politics is stuffy and insular and doesn't do enough to properly engage the general public. If they did, these preconceptions wouldn't be commonplace.

As you say - it's important to remember that these people are not our betters, they are public servants. But do you honestly believe that the upper tier politicians WANT us to remember that? I'm talking your Thatchers, Camerons, Blairs, Osbournes, and the majority of the "minister for..."s here, not your salt of the earth local MPs who to be fair are often excellent.

I mean really. Come on. If you and I were to stroll up to Dave and George - assuming we didnt get shot for trying - and inform them that they are just public servants and in no way our superiors, can you see them sincerely agreeing? I personally suspect they'd struggle not to snigger.

Actually, I have spoken to both Dave and George. I might have gone to Cambridge but I also went to an east London comprehensive and they are in no way superior to me, to you, to anyone. And yes, I can see them agreeing that they're public servants because that's what they are. If they are voted out of their seats in May, they're out of a job the pair of them. In my previous job I had to interact with MPs on all levels, and while they are a few blowhards, mentioning no names... the majority of them are quite approachable and always meeting up with constituents who are, in effect, their employers.

Parliament's been much the same for hundreds of years, with a few notable modernisations. It isn't perfect but it's the very best we've got, and it's a model for other parliaments across the world. I don't see any need to change it simply because a section of society finds it stuffy. Young people don't engage with politics, they also don't engage with insurance, with getting a plumber in, with income tax returns... a whole host of things they haven't had anything to do with yet and frankly I don't think we should sex up these things so that they are accessible. Politics likewise... however, it desperately needs to be on the curriculum - as you said.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Oh and come on arista! Red button is not the future of anything, let alone general elections. Over-the-air television probably wont exist at all in 20 years. Red button is going the way of Teletext, and soon!

Thats Dead



Red Button Remote Voting
is our future it has to change
no other way

[GypsyGoth]

Originally Posted by Livia

Parliament's been much the same for hundreds of years, with a few notable modernisations. It isn't perfect but it's the very best we've got, and it's a model for other parliaments across the world. I don't see any need to change it simply because a section of society finds it stuffy. Young people don't engage with politics, they also don't engage with insurance, with getting a plumber in, with income tax returns... a whole host of things they haven't had anything to do with yet and frankly I don't think we should sex up these things so that they are accessible. Politics likewise... however, it desperately needs to be on the curriculum - as you said.

[James]

That was interesting behind-the-scenes documentary I have just watched 'Inside the Commons' on the BBC. First part of 4.

Apparently the Houses of Parliament needs a huge amount of renovation work on it, running into billions. They mentioned that in the (first part of the) documentary but didn't go into detail about it.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by James

That was interesting behind-the-scenes documentary I have just watched 'Inside the Commons' on the BBC. First part of 4.

Apparently the Houses of Parliament needs a huge amount of renovation work on it, running into billions. They mentioned that in the (first part of the) documentary but didn't go into detail about it.

"Need" is a strong word. They could just bulldoze it and build them a nice big shed. Maybe "forget" to tell a couple of them about the demolition...

[arista]

Originally Posted by James

That was interesting behind-the-scenes documentary I have just watched 'Inside the Commons' on the BBC. First part of 4.

Apparently the Houses of Parliament needs a huge amount of renovation work on it, running into billions. They mentioned that in the (first part of the) documentary but didn't go into detail about it.

Rats down stairs
how very nice