Originally Posted by Archimedes

Elections every year would be a bad thing - the administrative costs would be substantial. Second, there are some things that will take more than a year to achieve, or which cannot be imposed during the course of a parliament. Governments would be re-elected by default, or they would embark upon even more short-termist approaches to things than they do now in a bid to be re-elected. It'd be utter chaos.

I agree that some programmes would require more than a year. However, I disagree that elections every year would be a bad thing, just because of an ostensible rise in administrative costs. Anyway, to tout that as given and not an opinion is a bit disingenuous, since it's never been tried.

What it would do, in my opinion, is to keep the gobment on the straight and narrow. First off, it would effectively prevent them from welching on their campaign promises, which is what they all habitually do as soon as they have the bit between their teeth. Secondly it would lead to much greater transparency in gobment, for they'd have to present viable reasons (i.e. good-for-the-country reasons) for their measures and not attempt to thinly disguise the fact that they're only trying to get one over on the opposition (see 42-day detention and other nonsense). Thirdly, and again only in my opinion, it would lead to far less wastage in gobment and also to programmes that really do benefit the most people, instead of only their bosom buddies/"special friends.

MsG

With this government's record on electoral fraud the thought of elections on an annual basis is frightening, and with potential lowering of the voting age the possibilities are frightening. We are almost a banana republic, if it werent for HM the Queen.

Well, one thing absolutely certain about the date of the next General Election is that it's getting closer!

In order to make your own voting choice when the time comes, you must be registered to vote.

Registration as a service voter now lasts for three years, which is guaranteed to include the date of the next General Election.

http://www.baff.org.uk/links/service-voting-links.htm

Leaving the services? Remember that any Service Voter registration lapses on termination and you must re-register with your local Electoral Registration Office to be eligible to vote in future. www.aboutmyvote.co.uk

My own pet idea is an all by-election system in which 2-3 MPs are elected each week, with each MP serving approximately 5 years.

The idea is:

The government would be continuously facing a verdict on it performance, at the moment Labour would be seeing its majority shrink each week, which would concentrate some minds. If a government persisted in screwing up it would lose its majority is a short time.

It would be impossible for the party machine to do much at each election, so things would become much more local. The candidate would count for a lot more and he would have to address local issues, this would make the MPs more independent after they have been elected. There would also be more scope for normal people (i.e. not professional politicians) to get involved in the process.

My mother voted Liberal all her life.
She voted that way because her Parents where Liberal voters and for no reason to do with Policy.
As a Kid I was taught, Your working class therefore your Labour, that was by all my mates who had been brought up that way.
It was mid 70's before I was old enough to have some idea of Politics then I started to vote for The Conservative and Unionist Party.
I do think voters should be mid 20's before the are enfranchised.
All this talk of lowering the voting age to 16 is pure Labour Bull.
john

think democratic governments run out of steam at about ten years labour got in last time as the torys were unelectable.
as were labour while Maggie and major were in power.
either labour or tory will get in next time not a huge difference between them but nobody really wants radical stuff.
just half decent management and we won't get that

Originally Posted by brighton hippy

think democratic governments run out of steam at about ten years labour got in last time as the torys were unelectable.
as were labour while Maggie and major were in power.
either labour or tory will get in next time not a huge difference between them but nobody really wants radical stuff.
just half decent management and we won't get that

I did Civil Service (Army) Linguist German at HEC Muelheim AD Ruhr in three stretches through 1980. One of these stretches coincided with the Adjutant doing some promotion course at the same place and time. Since we crewed the same Sultan, it made perfect sense to share a car for the weekly commute between Paderborn and Muelheim. Come to think of it, we didn't discuss it at the recent Association weekend (where junior officers were fawning over their former CO until fecked off at the high port by former Lance Corporal Alien who wanted a good chat with his old mukker).

I discussed the names appearing at the Westfalenhalle as we drove through Dortmund; he discussed politics (one of his subjects). I passed comments on Maggie's recent election landslide after the winter of discontent and how maybe she could bury the evil of Socialism forever. (At this time I loved Germany and had vowed never to return to the sh!thole that was the UK in the 70s under Labour.) He predicted, based on what he'd learned that day, that history showed she should not have lasted more than 10 years because that is how long such administrations last.

That they stayed in power for 18 years shows just how poor the Socialists were.

That Neue Arbeit Macht Frei have lasted 11 years is only because of the vagueries of how we set out election dates and the power vacuum when the Tories fell out of love with Maggie.

My brother (who retired from a desk in Whitehall last year) always used to describe 5 years under Labour as long enough to remind us how good it really was under the Tories. That said, he was a Socialist as a young man, whereas my beliefs have never wavered.