General Elections

[Master Jmd 89]

Our school is running a 'mock election' as many schools do each time an election occurs, out of our year, only two people want labour to win, and it is infact the lib dems with the majority in our school. I think that the labour and conservative parties will have quite a shock in four or five years time.

In 1997, Labour won the election due to the many students that they had won over. I am not sure, however, if 'won over' is the correct terminology as I think that many students (especially the sixth-formers in our school) only wanted to change from Conservative because they have never really experienced a non-conservative government. And I believe that, maybe not this election, but quite cirtainly next election, many people will be 'bored' of the labour government and vote otherwise.

Well I hope that we can "wipe the smile of Blair's face" this election, but I doubt it - opinion polls arn't exactly helping conservatives or lib dems. Only three days to go now...

[Sylvester 15]

Well i'm in a Lib/Lab marginal seat, Cons aren't in the running in my area, so i've decided to play it tactically and hopefully help win the Libs a seat so that it'll weaken Lab.

[Geordie582 18]

I'd vote for anyone who will reflect the voter's opinions in Parliament - but there is no such beast! ALL polititions have the same priorities,

1. Power for themselves

2. To back up the party line

3. To make as much money as possible.

4. To placate the local party HQ.

And that's it! The voter is just a necessary irritation.

[krasnaya_vityaz 0]

How on earth did the SNP - Scottish Nationalist Party get left the otherwise fair poll?

My vote was thusly nulled.

It does appear at least from BBC that John Major will be re-elected in his district, but I have to wonder about his Prime Minister position being in jeopardy though.

[Emperor Oli 0]

ALL polititions have the same priorities

I disagree.

However, I do think our poltical system started its steady decline when it was decided to pay politicians.

[Sylvester 15]

ALL polititions have the same priorities

I disagree.

However, I do think our poltical system started its steady decline when it was decided to pay politicians.

I agree with you on that score Oli, politician should be a voluntary job.

[mint_mark 9]

I agree with you on that score Oli, politician should be a voluntary job.

Or we could all take turns...

[Sylvester 15]

I agree with you on that score Oli, politician should be a voluntary job.

Or we could all take turns...

That could be good.

Individual from a community puts themselves forward to represent the community (much like one of those voluntary magistrate people), if they get a certain percent of the town's popular support behind them (character witness type thing) then they can run for office in any particular town. All the town leaders then put themselves forward for leader of the city and the city population picks the best candidate, he or she becomes mayor of the city.

All the city mayors go together to pick county mayors and you keep going up until you have a guy at the top running the whole country with advice from the other leaders etc. below he or she. No party government system.

The law then requires that person to hold office for two/four years and then they must step down and allow a successor to take over.

Make it compulsory that eligable candidates must pass certain exams to get to each level, kinda like driving tests, the usual, advanced etc.

This should stop the system from falling into the hands of say a drug addict off of the street.

[mint_mark 9]

But... all you have to do to that is remove the exams and add some "lobbying" to try and influence the selections at each level... and you end up with what we've got :/

I had in mind something more like jury service

[Sylvester 15]

But... all you have to do to that is remove the exams and add some "lobbying" to try and influence the selections at each level... and you end up with what we've got :/

I had in mind something more like jury service

Jury service hey?

That would be both a very good method and a very bad one.

Problem is with it, is that power might shift hands too much, too quickly meaning you'd not get much done, plus you'd have to have an administration system set up to ensure that the 'government' didn't take advantage of it's new powers and decide to try an keep them.

Hopefully though most people will see it as an absolute chore (like Jury service) and would just go along with what the population at anytime wanted so that they could get the hell out of there as fast as possible and back home to their families.

[mint_mark 9]

So maybe it would work better for the administrative side of things... so civil service is more like national service. You're right... it would have to be for a year or two to get things done. And anyway, they are supposed to do what the population want... aren't they?

I'm sure a history buff friend of mine told me once that communist militia units in (I think) the Spanish civil war used to takes turns at being commander.

[Sylvester 15]

So maybe it would work better for the administrative side of things... so civil service is more like national service. You're right... it would have to be for a year or two to get things done. And anyway, they are supposed to do what the population want... aren't they?

I'm sure a history buff friend of mine told me once that communist militia units in (I think) the Spanish civil war used to takes turns at being commander.

They certainly are supposed to do what the population want.

Here's a few other random points to consider...

Whilst the communist militia may well have practised this, it's not my period so i cannot say, there is a fundamental problem with communism as i see it. Indeed perhaps socialism as well.

I think to gain the best out of an individual that person has to be allowed to be an individual and act in ways that are good for them (so long as it doesn't encroach upon the general will of society). Communism with it's collectivism is at odds with freedom because whilst it levels out the social playing field it is one that has to be maintained by force and a small elite (which means that it's not strictly communal as there's still a simplistic hierarchy which makes communism actually impossible).

Plus making everyone behave and act the same is paramount to brainwashing and goes against individual freedom.

Socialism whilst not as bad if used in a positive light (i.e generous charity from an individual, or from a government with the majority of the people's consent) to those that are deserving is okay. However socialism still has a doctrinal issue of making people conform, society over the individual, hence where all the political correctness twaddle comes from.

I think perhaps the best way of running a society is to do it upon an individual level but to ensure that there is some balance so that the individuals are encouraged to work co-operatively rather than conflicting against one another. I think this is best summed up from a Chinese theologian whom stated that Heaven and Hell were as follows;

Both Heaven and Hell had three things in common, 3 foot long chopsticks, a big table and lots of rice bowls.

In Hell the people suffered miserably because they were all sat around the table attempting to feed themselves with the three foot long chopsticks but they could never get the food to their mouth and thus there were starving. This was due to their selfish nature.

In Heaven the people had exactly the same setup, but instead of trying to feed themselves each person would feed the person opposite. They flourished because they realised that by helping others they themselves could recieve help also... in a capitalistic sense looking after your customers per say.

Constructive individualism that acknowledges their part within the community is therefore good, some capitalistic ventures are rather good in this respect because they further themselves whilst aiding the community around them. These are the businesses that remember their regular customers and ensure that they are looked after.

Negative individualism is when people get too greedy and go all out to screw the most money out of everyone possible and stuff society... and some capitalistic ventures take this approach, where it's 100% about the shareholders and so what if the customer comes back? This in my opinion is not so good.

Sorry for having gone off topic there, but perhaps the best society is one where individual and community are in harmony with perhaps emphasis on difference and individualism?

There is a tendency in this country to group people, "they are Asian", "they are Chinese"... leading to "you must not call a blackboard black because it might be insulting to black people"... hence the new terminology 'chalkboard'

This as far as i am concerned only shows the inherent racism of the powers that be, they feel the need that they have to point it out!

If they wanted an integrated society then why not treat everyone exactly the same regardless of skin colour/language differences, and abandon all this targeting them as 'groups' nonsense. Whilst ever the government think of them as distinct and separate groups and treat them as such (especially around election time) it to me appears as though they are seen as being external to the rest of the British population, which for a multi-ethnic society is a bit contradictory is it not?

[Guest Guest]

Interesting, about the "Blackboard"! I have never yet met a 'black' person, just various shades of brown. Except a friend, a fellow crew member in the RAF, who was Nigerian extraction and definitely more blue than black! He was also the first to get sunburn when we were detached to Malta!!!

[Geordie582 18]

:oops: That was me!---Forgot to log in!!