The political apathy thread - with added poll

BBassic · Mar 30, 2015

Badger said:
What annoys me more than anything else is the fact that they can't answer questions. The amount of times you see an interview with a politician when they are asked a question with a yes/no answer and they just go off on a tangent and start talking about something else to promote their policy. It makes me want to THROW things at the TV. I'd be far more likely to vote for someone who answers the questions they are actually asked. Even if I don't always agree with the answers they give, I'd be much more likely to trust them.

This.

I was listening to BBC Sussex the other night and they had a bit on PMQ's. Caroline Lucas raised a point about how the Brighton-London commuter trains were always late/cancelled etc. and rather than answer the point raised that smug little weasel just hit back with a snipe about the rubbish collection.

I would respect politicians a heck of a lot more if they were able to, just once, rise above the petty, point-scoring, screaming kids in a classroom mentality they all seem to have.

Pavilionaire · Mar 30, 2015

Simster said:
In the best interests of the country, I'd love to see the major parties get together and agree some guidelines in an attempt to avoid negative campaigning.

Some might say that over the last 5 years two of the three main parties have "got together" and, in getting on with the job, have produced one of the best governments in living memory.

I agree with you about negative campaigning, one of the reasons the Lib Dems did so well 5 years ago is because they largely steered clear of it. If they can continue to do so in this campaign then I believe they will recover some of their support.

In terms of affecting my life, my voting intentions are influenced more by steering clear of who I believe will mess things up, rather than buying into false promises.

MattBackHome · Mar 30, 2015

What's also annoying is the wilful and flagrant misinterpretaion, misleading aggregation or simple invention of figures to suit (or oppose) someone's argument. Grinds my gears,

Stat Brother · Mar 30, 2015

Domsdad said:
My great grandfather didn't march from Jarrow so that I could be apathetic.
And my great grandmother didn't throw herself under a racehorse so that my wife could be apathetic.

Did they march from Jarrow in order to preserve the right to be governed by an OxBridge union smashing (either one) political party cosying up to big business.
How far would you walk for Cameron, Milliband & Clegg?

Or for your wife to vote for a male candidate who still refuses to acknowledge any form of pay gap and glass ceiling, 100 years later?

LamieRobertson · Mar 30, 2015

glasfryn said:
lets hope you do not have a pension then
because they are coming for your money

I'll be raiding it anyway should be all cleared out within a few years

Stat Brother · Mar 30, 2015

pastafarian said:
Do not trust anyone who promotes political apathy

I'm not promoting political apathy, merely pointing to it as a product of our stale, corrupt, disingenuous, elitest politicians.

Nobody is prepared to say or do anything that might 'cost them a vote'.

We don't have 2 major parties, we have 1 party with slightly differing views.

If anyone wants to stand up and say "we will scrap Trident and spend that £25bn on health and education", they'll get my vote.

Any fool can stand up and say "education, education, education", but nearly 20 years and 3 governments later not a lot seems to have changed.

What possible reason do we have for being invested in which grey, vanilla, chinless, public school oik is in a position to fiddle his expenses and look after his friends and other employers.

LamieRobertson · Mar 30, 2015

fat old seagull said:
I share your sentiments. But imagine you won't be voting then!

Lol probably not on those grounds ..personally I'm finding I it hard to recall having been so undecided over who I will vote for..more than ever it will be down to the local candidates, as I guess it should be anyway

lawros left foot · Mar 30, 2015

Plooks said:
Because of the outdated crap first past the post system your vote means nothing as well. So even if you do vote it was just a waste of time.

I can remember when the argument against P.R. was that we would have perpetual hung, and therefore, coalition Governments. It now appears we will get that with FPTP, so maybe a form of P.R. should be introduced so that everybody's vote count, not just the electorate in the, roughly, one hundred marginals, as it is now

Domsdad · Mar 30, 2015

Stat Brother said:
Did they march from Jarrow in order to preserve the right to be governed by an OxBridge union smashing (either one) political party cosying up to big business.
How far would you walk for Cameron, Milliband & Clegg?

Or for your wife to vote for a male candidate who still refuses to acknowledge any form of pay gap and glass ceiling, 100 years later?

No, I told you already they didn't march.

studio150 · Mar 30, 2015

Mustafa said:
This form of democracy is now centuries old, it is archaic, it desperately needs modernising. Wouldn't it be marvellous for our votes to actually matter, to have an actual say in how our country was run, how our tax money was spent, or on the political decisions that shape our lives & futures.

How would this be achieved?

As most people would be only interested in improving their own position rather than thinking of the wider good, what happens when the majority of people say no to giving benefits to the unemployed, long term sick, etc on the basis that by rejecting this you get a reduction in the basic tax rate from 20% to 10%.

How do we have an actual say on the political decisions effecting our lives, given that many are EU Directives which must be implemented.

Would there be more voter apathy as everyone would no doubt have to vote on something on a very regular basis.

No political system is ever perfect for everyone, but I don't believe we are anywhere near a revolution just yet.

Cadiz Seagull · Mar 30, 2015

"Don't vote; it only encourages them"

Spike Milligan was not far off the mark.

On a more serious note, the main problem is that no politician or political party can or will take anything other than a relatively short term view, they always have one eye on re-election. So minor stuff can be tweaked but fundamental, underlying problems can't be solved, because they take too long to fix and almost always they involve unpopular decisions and short term pain.

So any politician going down that route will almost, by definition, not get re-elected.

The only politician in my lifetime who basically said I know what this country needs and I'm going to do it and I don't really give a shit if I'm re-elected or not was Margaret Thatcher.

But before you get on your high horse, no way am I suggesting that she was right or wrong, just that she had the guts to take unpopular decisions and stick with them, because she thought they were the right things to do. Agree with her or not at least we all knew where she stood. She was also a lucky politician; before the Falklands War she was one of the most unpopular Prime Ministers ever and for sure would have lost the next election if the war hadn't intervened, or if Argentinians had been a bit more street smart. same with the miners, they chose to strike when there was loads of coal in reserve so she could basically wait it out.

What was it Napoleon said about lucky Generals?

In my view, apathy from voters and short-termism from politicians is no way to run a country. I think people should vote, lots of people fought hard for that right and not to vote seems to me to be wasting a democratic right. OK, we know that an individual vote won't change anything, but what if everybody felt that way? There should be a law that says if you didn't bother to vote then you're not allowed to moan about the Government.

Back in the late 60's/early 70's I remember many people had bumper stickers saying "Don't blame me, I voted Conservative" But at least they voted.

But I don't see any way of stopping short term thinking by politicians which I think is actually quite a pity. But as Churchill said, "The British system of Government is the worst in the world, apart from all the others" Another man who wasn't far off the mark.

I feel better now.

A bit.

Wrong-Direction · Mar 30, 2015

Badger said:
My life may well change, but it will have f*** all to do with the result of the election.

This! I don't understand how so many of you keep believing all the bullshit you're being fed

yxee · Mar 31, 2015

I know for a fact it will be worse because taxes will rise, especially if Ed needs some PC/SNP mercenaries to prop his government up.

daveinprague · Mar 31, 2015

Im stunned to see 'Meh - same old same old, nothing will change' way ahead in the polls. DESPITE the earthquake in British politics.

Stat Brother · Apr 2, 2015

What are we watching tonight?

DavidinSouthampton · Apr 2, 2015

Plooks said:
I don't even understand how a coalition is necessarily a bad thing/.

Germany has done reasonably well with coalitions for a number of years.

I haven't voted in the poll, but is it just me, or is it just the Conservatives (and the Conservative Press) which is getting "nasty", or maybe that should be "nastier". Viz the Daily Mail branding martin Freeman a hypocrite after his party political broadcast was shown, and the politicians comments seem to be far more "personal".

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

The political apathy thread - with added poll

Does anyone actually believe their life will be noticeably different AFTER the election

I'm sure my life will improve if my lot get in.

I'm sure my life will be worse if they get in.

Meh - same old same old, nothing will change.

I changed this.

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Not awoke

Well-known member

Not awoke

Glory hunting since 1969

brother of Patch

Well-known member

Grey bearded old man

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Share this page