tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30115942.post115652364990655325..comments2010-01-15T20:09:15.479+00:00Comments on worldwide opinions: Lord's Reform - A viewAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07027028952998373863noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30115942.post-1157135436543436422006-09-01T18:30:00.000+00:002006-09-01T18:30:00.000+00:00Yes, but from what I have read he didn't exactly a...Yes, but from what I have read he didn't exactly achieve a landslide victory on either occasion. In fact, wasn't the first election result a bit dodgy? <BR/><BR/>Anyway, the fact that he was elected just proves my monkey theory - no I'm not going to retell the chimp jokes LOL - the truth is people voted for him because of the party he represented not because of his aptitude or ability. And, the majority of Americans didn't vote for him at all. <BR/><BR/>I honestly believe one of the reasons for abstentions and apathy is the sense of disillusionment a lot of people feel about the candidates - no one believes a word they say, we all know they just spout the party line. I find myself voting for the candidate I disagree with least, rather than one I actually support, and I don't think I'm unusual in doing that. A number of my friends don't vote at all, and they aren't Big Brother watching idiots. Quite the contrary, all are intelligent and principled - to the point that they won't put a cross next to the name of someone they neither trust or agree with. <BR/><BR/>Your point about principles was a good one - the way to revive interest in the political process is to have a return of people with principles, who stood up for whatever it was they believed in.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07027028952998373863noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30115942.post-1156710574560219952006-08-27T20:29:00.000+00:002006-08-27T20:29:00.000+00:00Well someone voted for Bush....Well someone voted for Bush....Spadgerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10377896407379956402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30115942.post-1156624661980974832006-08-26T20:37:00.000+00:002006-08-26T20:37:00.000+00:00I can see your point. If the House of Lords was en...I can see your point. If the House of Lords was entirely populated by principled people who felt it was their duty to contribute to society I would be perfectly happy. Unfortunately, it has become as driven by the party line as the Commons. For every member with principles, there is another who is there to further their own interests by supporting the party that gave them that position. And even the herditaries come from an elite who don't have that much in common with real people or their problems. Some are good, some not so good. <BR/><BR/>I suppose the problem is, whichever system we have it will always be flawed. The House of Lords is a powerful institution, and that kind of power can corrupt. <BR/><BR/>On the whole I agree about the monarchy - I don't like the idea of having a hereditary head of state, but I would hate to have a US style president. The Queen does a good job - especially overseas, where I should imagine she is a good deal more popular than the PM. <BR/><BR/>Yes, there are certain people who would vote for a monkey if it was given the right PR, but I'm guessing they don't vote in elections. Well, not unless they are of the Big Brother variety. Most people are capable of making informed choices though. The problem is we aren't always given the information we need to make those choices. New Labour have made voting into a personality based issue - it's not about policies anymore it's about who has the best hair, the prettiest wife, the most photogenic children. Also, tax cuts. I think they matter more than anything. Thatcher knew that, and she made sure the right people got one just before a general election.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07027028952998373863noreply@blogger.com