| What they need to be doing is raising the age of voting, not lowering it. No one under 30 allowed to vote and no one under 60 allowed to stand for Parliament. The Spartans seemed to like it like that and they were a jolly bunch of folk. |
Question Time
•
Page 2
-
-
make it 20 to vote and 30 to sit but make voting mandatory and add a 'none of the above' option for the "they're all cunts" grumpy people, also go for proportional representation -
Fat-Boy 4,300 posts
Seen 3 months ago
Registered 16 years agoEl_MUERkO wrote:
make it 20 to vote and 30 to sit but make voting mandatory and add a 'none of the above' option for the "they're all cunts" grumpy people, also go for proportional representation
Rubbish, 16 to vote, or no taxation until 20. It's a fucking disgrace that people in this country can have money taken from them by the government but get no say in which party that government is made up from. -
gang_of_bitches 5,707 posts
Seen 2 months ago
Registered 14 years agoMetalDog wrote:
gang_of_bitches wrote:
Linky
You know, the older I get and the more stories like that I read, the more I think that the best thing for all of us would be to rip the whole lot of them out and elect some completely unsuspecting nobodies every four years - at least we'd have /some/ chance of them not being complete cunts.
In an unusual turn of events we're in complete agreement.gif)
.
Its an incredibly depressing state of affairs. When power is concentrated amongst so few people corruption is almost certain to ensue.
My personal solution would be to pay every MP £1,000,000 p.a. but ban them from holding any other position while in the job or for 3 years afterwards. On top of this far heavier penalties for infringements of parliamentary standards, possibly even jail terms.
I'd also ban party donations over £10,000 from any organisation and £1,000 from any individual. -
Fat Boy wrote:
El_MUERkO wrote:
make it 20 to vote and 30 to sit but make voting mandatory and add a 'none of the above' option for the "they're all cunts" grumpy people, also go for proportional representation
Rubbish, 16 to vote, or no taxation until 20. It's a fucking disgrace that people in this country can have money taken from them by the government but get no say in which party that government is made up from.
no taxation till 20 then, cause if we force them to vote they'd vote in pete doherty or the sugababes or something -
The idea of 16 year olds being able to vote doesn't really fill me with much glee I have to say. Especially when it seems to get aired as a serious idea. -
pjmaybe 70,666 posts
Seen 10 years ago
Registered 18 years agodisussedgenius wrote:
The idea of 16 year olds being able to vote doesn't really fill me with much glee I have to say. Especially when it seems to get aired as a serious idea.
Oh I dunno, any 16 year old that can bother their arse probably actually does want to vote. So it's no bad thing.
I think the problem the government has is getting anyone over the age of 18 just voting their first time "because they can" to continue voting, tbh! -
MetalDog 24,076 posts
Seen 11 months ago
Registered 18 years agoWhat would they actually do if the percentage of people voting dropped to something like 10%?
Personally I prefer to turn up and put 'deliberately spoiled' on the paper rather than not vote, but I am curious. Would they just lie and say more had voted? -
Fat-Boy 4,300 posts
Seen 3 months ago
Registered 16 years agopjmaybe wrote:
disussedgenius wrote:
The idea of 16 year olds being able to vote doesn't really fill me with much glee I have to say. Especially when it seems to get aired as a serious idea.
Oh I dunno, any 16 year old that can bother their arse probably actually does want to vote. So it's no bad thing.
I think the problem the government has is getting anyone over the age of 18 just voting their first time "because they can" to continue voting, tbh!
Too right Peej. most people are at their most political during their late school and sixth form years (however embarassed they might be of their views at the time, now a days!), so why not let them in early and use their peaked interest, instead of letting it wain. -
Maybe... [dramatic pause] ...they already have. -
X201 19,577 posts
Seen 3 hours ago
Registered 14 years agoGiven the public's distrust of politicians, should all voting forms have a "None of the above" option so that voters can display their distrust? -
pjmaybe 70,666 posts
Seen 10 years ago
Registered 18 years agoFat Boy wrote:
pjmaybe wrote:
disussedgenius wrote:
The idea of 16 year olds being able to vote doesn't really fill me with much glee I have to say. Especially when it seems to get aired as a serious idea.
Oh I dunno, any 16 year old that can bother their arse probably actually does want to vote. So it's no bad thing.
I think the problem the government has is getting anyone over the age of 18 just voting their first time "because they can" to continue voting, tbh!
Too right Peej. most people are at their most political during their late school and sixth form years (however embarassed they might be of their views at the time, now a days!), so why not let them in early and use their peaked interest, instead of letting it wain.
Hear hear. Not all 16 year olds like to stand around drinking WKD and listening to tinny loud annoying shite on their mobiles out loud... -
MetalDog 24,076 posts
Seen 11 months ago
Registered 18 years agoX201 wrote:
Given the public's distrust of politicians, should all voting forms have a "None of the above" option so that voters can display their distrust?
Of course they should. -
Fat-Boy 4,300 posts
Seen 3 months ago
Registered 16 years agopjmaybe wrote:
Hear hear. Not all 16 year olds like to stand around drinking WKD and listening to tinny loud annoying shite on their mobiles out loud...
Which, let's face it, are not the 16 year olds who would actually bother voting anyway which should avoid 50 Cent being voted in or something.
Actually, knowing this government they'd probably trawl the streets offering an iPod to anyone between 16-18 who voted. -
nickthegun 79,230 posts
Seen 3 hours ago
Registered 14 years agoI'd like to see, however briefly, a system where we vote for people qualified to do the jobs.
Ex-Teachers in Education positions, Dr's as Health Ministers, Ecology Professors as Environment guys.
I dunno how well that would work out in reality, but when im the benevolent dictator of this country, im going to try it out for a while.
I mean, how much worse can they be than fucknut career politicians who know about their roles other than the lies they told to get into them? -
gang_of_bitches 5,707 posts
Seen 2 months ago
Registered 14 years agoMetalDog wrote:
What would they actually do if the percentage of people voting dropped to something like 10%?
Personally I prefer to turn up and put 'deliberately spoiled' on the paper rather than not vote, but I am curious. Would they just lie and say more had voted?
I imagine if it looked like it was heading that way they'd make voting compulsory like they do in some other countries.
If it became secure, cost effective and practical I'd be in favour of there being more use of the internet to conduct referenda (obvioulsy this would need universal access).
I think one of the main reasons people put forward for not voting is that no political party truly reflected their views. If we were able to seperate out some of the issues it may encourage people to take more interest. -
samk 703 posts
Seen 4 years ago
Registered 14 years agogang_of_bitches wrote:
its been rubbish since Robin Day left and they started having celebrity panellists
Indeed. I remember watching a Question Time which had Davina McCall on the panel; it was truly embarrassing watching her trying to get across her views. -
pjmaybe 70,666 posts
Seen 10 years ago
Registered 18 years agosamk wrote:
gang_of_bitches wrote:
its been rubbish since Robin Day left and they started having celebrity panellists
Indeed. I remember watching a Question Time which had Davina McCall on the panel; it was truly embarrassing watching her trying to get across her views.
Did she do that weird botox eyebrow thing? -
Ginger 7,252 posts
Seen 3 hours ago
Registered 17 years agoJune Sarpong FTUL 
-
fretto 634 posts
Seen 6 hours ago
Registered 13 years agoI think they have tv celebrities in order to try and communicate with the 'youth' lol
If your question is to conflictual (like having a dig at one of the panelists) it wont pass the censor, so it needs to be one of them mundane ones, if u actually want to do the starting question.
if u want to have a dig at one of the panelists u might as well not ask a question but put your hand up,and dimbleby might just come to u and u can let rip.....its just u have to do ur research on the panelists and see what skeletons they hiding -
I have to email my question today so any last ideas should be posted ... .. . now! -
DaisyD 11,816 posts
Seen 3 years ago
Registered 15 years agoI'm also going on.
Any sensible question suggestions based on this week's news? -
opalw00t 12,820 posts
Seen 1 day ago
Registered 15 years agoWhy does the goverment continue to ignore the human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia? Bonus points will be awarded for the use of the word 'oil' and general honesty.
Edit: Or use the BAe - Saudi investigation that was cancelled by the government without much of a reason. -
DaisyD 11,816 posts
Seen 3 years ago
Registered 15 years agoI've submitted this question:
There have been calls this week to ban the Mosquito device, popular with local councils and police. What methods would you propose to tackle anti-social behaviour amongst youths?
Now I just need to think of a 2nd question to submit on thursday. -
DaisyD 11,816 posts
Seen 3 years ago
Registered 15 years agoI need to think of a 2nd question to submit before the show tonight. So, opinions please on, my other question based on today's news. It'll be directed at the Bishop of Hulme:
"Bishops in Sydney &, today, Uganda are boycotting the lambeth conference this year. Where in the Anglican Church do you see a place for homosexuality?" -
Maybe something on the Bejing Olympics?
/Ahh, sorry, I see you've decided the topic already. -
DaisyD 11,816 posts
Seen 3 years ago
Registered 15 years agoMaybe El_MUERkO can ask one about that. -
X201 19,577 posts
Seen 3 hours ago
Registered 14 years agoInquisitor wrote:
Maybe something on the Bejing Olympics?
/Ahh, sorry, I see you've decided the topic already.
Shame a
Should the Olympics Games only be awarded to countries that have abolished the death penalty.
question would be nice. People would gnaw at the ethical, bad China bone and then realise the "that means the USA too" angle. -
DaisyD 11,816 posts
Seen 3 years ago
Registered 15 years agoThat question's being discussed right now -
You probably will see a far bit of El_MUERkO and myself too.
.gif)
.
Sometimes posts may contain links to online retail stores. If you click on one and make a purchase we may receive a small commission. For more information, go here.
