Your political inclinations - who do you vote for?

[odykas]

How can I vote for Angela Merkel?

[gadjo_dilo]

I am a firm beliver in reducing the size of Government and the Public sector. It creates jobs for the sake of it and a class of people that will always vote for a party that guarentees to keep them employed. I like employment but can't see the point of frivioulous employment for the purpose of having a job without actually producing or achieving anything.

[Mintexmemory]

How can I vote for Angela Merkel?

Presumably you have to first ensure you are registered to vote either in person in Germany or by postal vote or representation at the embassy in your country of residence. I believe there is now a paperless system (correct me if I'm wrong) operating in German elections so if you need help in the correct procedure for finding Angela's entry, where you want to make your choice I'm sure there will be a 'help' button or a nice young civil servant on hand to explain the intricacies to you. Good Luck in ensuring another term of office for Silvio Berlusconi's favourite woman.

[millencolin]

Living in Australia though, neither Labor or the Liberals or Nationals comes close to this, so I vote for a minor parties, out of spite.

As do I. All the big parties in this country are terrible. Politicians acting like children instead of trying to make Australia a better place.

In my electorate, the only minor party we had in the lower house election was the Greens, so they got my vote.

Until one of the major parties show some proper direction and start acting like grown ups, then I will keep voting for minor parties.

[Starter]

As do I. All the big parties in this country are terrible. Politicians acting like children instead of trying to make Australia a better place.

Nice (perhaps sad is a better word) to see we're not the only ones with that problem.

[Mark]

Isn't it a problem the world over? With every form of government.

[Knock-on]

Are you able to cite specific examples? It's all very easy to make such statements, but very often difficult to back them up with genuine cases of people whose jobs are actually worthless — an accusation that's often quite offensive to the individuals concerned.

Furthermore, I would far rather retain most of the public sector jobs you deride than the low-paid, often temporary ones the private sector, which has proved itself time and again no more capable of running public services than the public sector, has created in recent times. This has enabled the Government to trumpet the role the private sector is playing towards economic recovery, ignoring the nature of the jobs being created.

This is a thread in itself. I'll wait until Eurotroll starts it

How can one define 'social acceptance'? This is a dangerous road down which to go.

Socially acceptable is not something that can be defined, but just is. For example, it's socially acceptable to go out for a drink in the High Street but not socially acceptable to be blind drunk in the high street, falling all over the place and peeing in shop doorways.

And why has this happened? Not because of car parking, but because of the free market, in which I assume you believe. This is an essential contradiction in your point of view. If you want a free market coupled with a light touch by local authorities, you're going to have out-of-town shopping centres and a related decline in town centres — and this is before one even considers the changes in shopping habits, again brought about by the free market, that have contributed to the downfall of many long-established high street shops.

I don't remember advocating the curtailment of out of town shopping centres or even limiting the free market. If you have drawn that conclusion from what I wrote then you are wrong as it was never said or implied.

What I did say was that the draconian parking war that local government wages on town centre motorists, using them as a cash cow, turns people off using Town Centres which if anything, restricts the free market for those town centre shops.

Much better still to encourage public transport use and end the dependancy many people have on cars.

Why shouldn't I be dependant on my car. It's my choice and if I want to drive my car to commute, go shopping or even just go out for a drive for fun, then what's wrong with that? Public transport works very well in Cities and for those that want to travel to cities or home again but for those that live in the Country, it's pretty ineffectual.

If I travel to London, I jump on the train and then use the Tube or Busses in town. If I want to go to my local Sainsburys which is a mile and a half away, I must use the car or walk there and back half a dozen times with all the shopping I need.

Well, the individual can decide already on abortion, smoking and drinking. On drugs I tend to agree with you about decriminalisation.

I just don't think banning everything works.

So do I, but the sort of prison you suggest is not, I believe, the answer. We seem obsessed in the UK with the notion of toughening prisons up, when there is little evidence that this approach pays off. Indeed, examples from overseas suggest quite the reverse.

Again, one for Eurotroll this one However, I didn't say just have tough prisons which I agree do little (if anything) to rehabilitate offenders.

I suggested a multi dimensional approach where the first part of the sentence is the short, sharp shock. The tough prison if you like, to introduce a base line for criminals. "If you do wrong, you get punished" is a message I want to get across. BUT, once the punishment is administered and a prisoner conforms, then there is a consequence and that consequence is the provision of luxuries in their cells. Possibly the move to a different cell which is more comfortable and allows the prisoner to start building up dignity and self respect. Education, training and the tools necessary to leave prison and become a valued member of society rather than just an ex-con.

And more, a propper transition mechanism for when the prisoner is released, to integrate them back in society. Half way houses with proper support as part of their sentence so they have to participate and an understanding that help will be availiable to get them in employment and when they are ready, to leave the half way house and return to a full life. We can go further and have ongoing 24/7 support as and when needed that an ex-prisoner can call upon if crisis or temptation arises.

I would much rather have that sort of framework than the current process which does little to stop reoffending and the beauty is that it would pay for itself many times over by reducing the prison population as it succedes.

Workfare only benefits the employers, not the employees — it's cheap labour under a different name. Making benefits dependant upon participation in such schemes is not appropriate on those grounds alone, quite apart from all the others. I think we should be focusing on creating the conditions in which proper jobs exist rather than forcing people into menial, low-paid ones. Only then will the problem — if it is a problem; of this, despite the deliberate efforts on the part of sections of the media and certain politicians to demonise those on benefits, I am not convinced — truly be solved for the longer term.

Gordon Bennet. Don't blame it all on the Daily Mail FFS.

Seriously, I think we are failing every single person that's on long term unemployment benefit. Lack of dignity, respect and purpose are by products of sucessive governments failure to address this issue.

I think if we take all the points raised, this thread will spiral out of control but possibly take one that you feel is really worthy of discussion and start a thread. Lets have an open discussion looking at pro's and cons where we try to understand the others point of view and judge the subject on it's merits rather than just argue our corner in a closed, negative manner?

[BDunnell]

Socially acceptable is not something that can be defined, but just is.

There are many things that some people deem socially acceptable and others don't. It's wrong, therefore, to believe that there is too much common ground.

I don't remember advocating the curtailment of out of town shopping centres or even limiting the free market. If you have drawn that conclusion from what I wrote then you are wrong as it was never said or implied.

What I did say was that the draconian parking war that local government wages on town centre motorists, using them as a cash cow, turns people off using Town Centres which if anything, restricts the free market for those town centre shops.

The notion that car parking charges are to blame for declining town centre footfall really does strike me as rather fanciful. Town centres are declining because not enough people actively need or want to go to certain shops any more; therefore, they close. If a shop is good enough, or meets a particular need, people will go to it. It's all very well beating about the bush, but this is the central reason for the decline you outline, not car parking prices. Nothing's going to make the problem go away, and we need to bear that in mind rather than adopting a 'finger in the dyke' approach.

Why shouldn't I be dependant on my car. It's my choice and if I want to drive my car to commute, go shopping or even just go out for a drive for fun, then what's wrong with that? Public transport works very well in Cities and for those that want to travel to cities or home again but for those that live in the Country, it's pretty ineffectual.

Yes, precisely because the attitude you describe is very common, and has led to public transport in such areas being neglected by politicians at all levels.

I just don't think banning everything works.

Nor do I, but the ban on smoking in public places I wholeheartedly agree with.

However, I didn't say just have tough prisons which I agree do little (if anything) to rehabilitate offenders.

I suggested a multi dimensional approach where the first part of the sentence is the short, sharp shock. The tough prison if you like, to introduce a base line for criminals. "If you do wrong, you get punished" is a message I want to get across. BUT, once the punishment is administered and a prisoner conforms, then there is a consequence and that consequence is the provision of luxuries in their cells. Possibly the move to a different cell which is more comfortable and allows the prisoner to start building up dignity and self respect. Education, training and the tools necessary to leave prison and become a valued member of society rather than just an ex-con.

And more, a propper transition mechanism for when the prisoner is released, to integrate them back in society. Half way houses with proper support as part of their sentence so they have to participate and an understanding that help will be availiable to get them in employment and when they are ready, to leave the half way house and return to a full life. We can go further and have ongoing 24/7 support as and when needed that an ex-prisoner can call upon if crisis or temptation arises.

I would much rather have that sort of framework than the current process which does little to stop reoffending and the beauty is that it would pay for itself many times over by reducing the prison population as it succedes.

With much of this I agree, and I do appreciate the fact that you're not simply coming at this from the 'hang 'em and flog 'em' angle, I don't think there's a great deal of evidence for the 'short, sharp shock' approach working — at least, not in Europe. Would you deem it suitable for, to take a recent example, Chris Huhne and Vicky Pryce upon their entry to prison? In any case, we send far too many people to jail as it is.

Seriously, I think we are failing every single person that's on long term unemployment benefit. Lack of dignity, respect and purpose are by products of sucessive governments failure to address this issue.

Well, while there are those who are long-term unemployed through no-one's fault but their own, I don't see how forcing people into menial, low-paid jobs — which is basically what workfare means — does anything to help. It certainly doesn't assist those who have very good qualifications but don't especially want to be made to stack shelves for a large supermarket chain (which can thus take advantage of cheap labour, and is the prime beneficiary of the whole thing).

[keysersoze]

Are you able to cite specific examples? It's all very easy to make such statements, but very often difficult to back them up with genuine cases of people whose jobs are actually worthless — an accusation that's often quite offensive to the individuals concerned.

Furthermore, I would far rather retain most of the public sector jobs you deride than the low-paid, often temporary ones the private sector, which has proved itself time and again no more capable of running public services than the public sector, has created in recent times. This has enabled the Government to trumpet the role the private sector is playing towards economic recovery, ignoring the nature of the jobs being created.

Public school educators. Most are liberal, and while some are outstanding at what they do, there are many more who are "paycheck" employees, biding their time in a system where it's darn hard to get fired, in hope of an comfortable retirement. They tend to vote the way of the union, that is, for democrats. They are a large voting block (lobby) and, as such, can perpetuate their own "success." I frankly don't care if they are offended.

A federal job funded by taxpayers, say, one earning $60,000 annually, must be supported by 5-6 private sector employees making the same salary. Here's the math: each earner probably pays on average 10-12K in taxes. $10,000 x 6 employees= $60,000.

In this scenario, governments soon run out of O.P.P.: Other People's Money. In this sense, the job isn't necessarily worth-LESS, but it's clearly not sustainable. Oh yeah, I forgot, it IS sustainable--because the government just prints or borrows money.

My best friend built up a business to where he provided a livelihood to 15 full-time employees, with benefits. It took him about five years. Part of that time he was still waiting tables, working out of our apartment, etc. Of course, now he's done quite well himself, but I have the utmost respect for what he has accomplished--how he has helped the economy. He produced a product and provided a service--quantifiable proof. And some of those employees have used their experience to move to other jobs and make an even better living for themselves. All of those employees paid into the system--did not take out.

Now, on the other hand, I'm a schoolteacher (in a private school). It is difficult to quantify what I produce. It's more than nothing, sure, but arguably less than my friend.

There is a litany of examples of large private companies that run efficiently and responsibly. It's easy to say that the public sector creates jobs because they simply write checks on borrowed money. An privately-owned company can't do that. Even an incorporated one can't do that for very long, because soon word gets out--stock prices tumble--and then the poop hits the fan. Enter Enron--Exhibit A.

It's too bad--there are a LOT of people who think government-controlled business is a good thing. It's actually an oxymoron. They have no stake in it's succcess because, as I pointed out, they can simply keep writing checks.

BDunnell, you do realize you are also generalizing on this topic and haven't provided any solid evidence?

[Captain VXR]

I'll be voting Labour or Green at the next election, depending on if Labour have a chance of winning in whatever constituency I'm living in. If I can vote in any Polish elections as a non-resident, then I'll be voting for Palikot's movement. Janusz Palikot's views match up with mine almost totally, you can find out more about him here:
Janusz Palikot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My political views tend to stem from Scandanavian style Democratic Socialism, Liberalism and Libertarianism. I believe in economic stimulus over austerity, a big government in terms of providing services e.g. the NHS whilst staying out of people's private lives. I believe in legalising all drugs (some will obviously need to be far more heavily regulated than others - Tesco Value Black Tar Smack isn't something I ever wish to see on the shelves, however M&S outside grown 6 month cured Alaskan Thunder**** buds would be nice mokin , allowing all sorts of different marriage types between consenting adults (gay marriage, polygamy etc) and so on.

Foreign policy-wise, I view foreign aid as something that, carefully managed, is a good thing, and that military intervention can easily be justified to aid uprisings against dictatorships and prevent genocide, it's my view that we should have intervened in Syria long before the Islamists did, hell if those Golden Dawn ****s try to start racist massacres in Greece then I think we should nip it in the bud. I'm pro EU, and would like to see a global union in the long term future promoting ideas like democracy and unrestricted free movement of people (yes I know this will be unfeasible for AT LEAST 50 years). I'm moderately pro-Palestinian, and take the view that the UK should immediately recognise a PLO controlled Palestinian state that exists in peace with Israel.

Environmentally, I view protecting the rainforests as a higher priority than reducing greenhouse gas emissions as a way of fighting global warming, and vastly increasing the use of cannabis for paper, bio-fuels, food, hempcrete and medicine, either to reduce the use or replace many of the unsustainable sources of raw materials we use today (rainforest wood and crude oil, to name a couple). I'm against fracking, and I'd like to see most of our electricity generated through nuclear and renewable sources.

I could list opinions for ages, feel free to ask me what I think of any given issue.