Post by Teddy Bear on Mar 9, 2015 18:55:14 GMT
I don't know if you the reader have ever thought about just who should decide which politicians and political party should run our country, or for that matter, any free society.
Seems to me there are a few basics that would determine how successful we are going to be at providing a secure and beneficial future. I know that 'democracy' is taken for granted in its present form, and few really think about whether it works in the best way for what our needs are.
Perhaps it's time to rethink our 'democracy'.
Who should be voting on our nation's future?
I'll make a few suggestions and any member who wishes to add anything or disagree can feel free to do so.
1. They should be those who support the infrastructure that provides the money that creates the services we enjoy.
2. They should have been in full employment, paying taxes, for at least 5 years.
3. Only those working for private companies, based in this country, should be eligible. Since they are the ones paying for all the service organisations, it is up to them how these organisations will be funded, and what services are required.
4. They should have perfect command of the language.
5. They must have been full citizens for at least 10 years.
I think this is a good foundation to start from in making sure that only those who contribute to society, and its future, would decide how it will move forward. What benefits should be in place to support the infrastructure. How much should be paid and for how long, What policing, health service, school systems, etc. needs to be in place. It might be worth considering adding a half-vote to public service workers, since they also pay taxes, but they should definitely not have equal status to private workers.
With these basics in place, we can see that many who are now able to vote will lose their right. But hopefully, with the more intelligent and productive, integrated citizens deciding on the future of this country, it should be able to develop a lot more than it is now.
Who on earth would wish for 16 year olds, those who have no experience yet of the real world, to have a vote?
Frankly, only those politicians who need to rely on propaganda and bullshit to push their policies. In this case Labour.
Few will be surprised that they are pushing for this.
As if this wasn't bad enough, the director general of our 'fair, balanced, and impartial BBC has also launched into this debate, and is supporting this Labour proposal.
Why do you think that is?
What do you think is the future of this country?
Seems to me there are a few basics that would determine how successful we are going to be at providing a secure and beneficial future. I know that 'democracy' is taken for granted in its present form, and few really think about whether it works in the best way for what our needs are.
Perhaps it's time to rethink our 'democracy'.
Who should be voting on our nation's future?
I'll make a few suggestions and any member who wishes to add anything or disagree can feel free to do so.
1. They should be those who support the infrastructure that provides the money that creates the services we enjoy.
2. They should have been in full employment, paying taxes, for at least 5 years.
3. Only those working for private companies, based in this country, should be eligible. Since they are the ones paying for all the service organisations, it is up to them how these organisations will be funded, and what services are required.
4. They should have perfect command of the language.
5. They must have been full citizens for at least 10 years.
I think this is a good foundation to start from in making sure that only those who contribute to society, and its future, would decide how it will move forward. What benefits should be in place to support the infrastructure. How much should be paid and for how long, What policing, health service, school systems, etc. needs to be in place. It might be worth considering adding a half-vote to public service workers, since they also pay taxes, but they should definitely not have equal status to private workers.
With these basics in place, we can see that many who are now able to vote will lose their right. But hopefully, with the more intelligent and productive, integrated citizens deciding on the future of this country, it should be able to develop a lot more than it is now.
Who on earth would wish for 16 year olds, those who have no experience yet of the real world, to have a vote?
Frankly, only those politicians who need to rely on propaganda and bullshit to push their policies. In this case Labour.
Few will be surprised that they are pushing for this.
As if this wasn't bad enough, the director general of our 'fair, balanced, and impartial BBC has also launched into this debate, and is supporting this Labour proposal.
Why do you think that is?
What do you think is the future of this country?
BBC's director general backs lowering voting age to 16
Lord Tony Hall tells school pupils in Camden he backs dropping voting age to 16 – a policy backed by Labour but opposed by the Tories
The director general of the BBC has risked controversy by saying he supports lowering the voting age to 16 – a policy proposed by Labour.
Lord Tony Hall told school pupils in London that he supported dropping the age Britons can cast a vote after seeing the effect it had in the Scottish independence referendum,
While Ed Miliband has called for the voting age to be lowered, David Cameron and the Conservatives had argued to keep it at 18.
Given the BBC’s need to remain impartial the comments could trigger fresh tensions with the Tories, who clashed with the Corporation of its coverage of the Autumn Statement.
Lord Hall was asked about his views on voting age during a question and answer session with teenagers at La Sainte Union in Camden, north London.
He said: “I think I’d go for 16. What was really key about watching the younger people taking part in the Scottish referendum campaign was that they got very excited about it.”
Speaking about the importance of voting and the role of the BBC in democracy, Lord Hall encouraged students to make an informed decision.
“I really urge you to vote, and if it’s for the first time, enjoy it too,” he said.
“Because it’s an important moment for our democracy, and the BBC has a big role there, which is actually putting voters in touch with the people who seek to lead this country.”
Lord Tony Hall tells school pupils in Camden he backs dropping voting age to 16 – a policy backed by Labour but opposed by the Tories
The director general of the BBC has risked controversy by saying he supports lowering the voting age to 16 – a policy proposed by Labour.
Lord Tony Hall told school pupils in London that he supported dropping the age Britons can cast a vote after seeing the effect it had in the Scottish independence referendum,
While Ed Miliband has called for the voting age to be lowered, David Cameron and the Conservatives had argued to keep it at 18.
Given the BBC’s need to remain impartial the comments could trigger fresh tensions with the Tories, who clashed with the Corporation of its coverage of the Autumn Statement.
Lord Hall was asked about his views on voting age during a question and answer session with teenagers at La Sainte Union in Camden, north London.
He said: “I think I’d go for 16. What was really key about watching the younger people taking part in the Scottish referendum campaign was that they got very excited about it.”
Speaking about the importance of voting and the role of the BBC in democracy, Lord Hall encouraged students to make an informed decision.
“I really urge you to vote, and if it’s for the first time, enjoy it too,” he said.
“Because it’s an important moment for our democracy, and the BBC has a big role there, which is actually putting voters in touch with the people who seek to lead this country.”