Yeah.
Stoned teenagers are famous for voting.
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 14:47, 1 reply, 15 years ago)

Maybe they would be if they had that sort of incentive.
I think the point that has been made for years that appearing "soft on drugs" is electoral suicide is no longer the "fact" that it used to be and that there will be both good and bad consequences from that sort of policy decision.
(PsychoChomp, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 14:50, Reply)

We just rejected a move towards proportional representation.
Under the current fptp system, the government is effectively chosen by a small and unrepresentative group of reactionary middle-englanders.
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 14:52, Reply)

a small and unrepresentative group of reactionary middle-englanders The Daily Mail
(Reverend Fister "a disciplined fuckwit", Wed 25 Jan 2012, 14:57, Reply)

That's true if there isn't major swings in seats.
I think a controvertial policy like full reform of drug law could change things in previously safe seats.
And lets face it, it's a issue that nearly everyone has either been affected by or has an opinion on.
(PsychoChomp, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 14:58, Reply)

Can you give me some examples from the past fifty years where it hasn't been true?

( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 14:59, Reply)

1997

(PsychoChomp, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 15:02, Reply)

how was Blair's government not elected by a small and unrepresentative group of reactionary middle-englanders
again, exactly?
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 15:07, Reply)

Because it was a large group of reactionary middle-englanders

(PsychoChomp, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 15:18, Reply)

It wasn't really, though, was it?

( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 15:33, Reply)

I mean, the number that voted for him
was at least a factor of two smaller than the number who didn't.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 15:34, Reply)

See, what is happening here is you are each defining your own terms for 'large group of reactionary middle-Englanders'
Just thought I'd mention it...
( scarpe We Stole Bikes, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 15:37, Reply)

+ 2million votes from 1992
Torys got about 5 million less votes.
I don't think that change in voting behaviour could be called small.
(PsychoChomp, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 15:37, Reply)

I don't think you've quite got the point of this conversation.
I'm not for a second arguing there wasn't a huge swing. I'm just saying the government is still chosen by a relatively small group of middle-englanders regardless.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 15:47, Reply)

No need to be quite so patronising.
In 1997, 182 seats changed hands, nearly 28% of the total. That's not dissmissable as middle england deciding the parliment, that's over a quarter of MP's being chucked out.
(PsychoChomp, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 15:54, Reply)

It doesn't really work like that, though.
it requires a frightening small number of people to swing a close seat, so a very small number of people actually made a difference. You're right that there was a large swing in voters, but becuase of the system we use, the actual large swing in seats that made a difference was caused by a very small number of voters, relatively. I mean, you could probably work it out but I'd be astonished if the swing voters that changed seats added up to much more than half a million or so.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 16:00, Reply)

Surely every election can theoretically be won on one vote.

(PsychoChomp, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 16:08, Reply)

yes, but our system allows a government not wanted by the majority
to be placed in power by the actions of a minority.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 16:10, Reply)

Are you on crack?

( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 15:27, Reply)

I am
*grins*
( girlinthehole, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 15:38, Reply)

I can't imagine either of the two major parties' loyalist supporters backing that sort of change though

( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 14:54, Reply)

Just slip in "full independant review of UK drug policy, with binding recommendations to be put before parliment"
as part of the manifesto and I don't see a big problem with the majority of supporters.
(PsychoChomp, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 14:57, Reply)

Unless the papers get hold of it in which case it will be reported as:
'Tories want to feed your children and pets heroin on the NHS'
( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 14:58, Reply)

You might have some objections to that word "binding" from anybody who has even the slightest clue about our constitution and parliament.
Apart from that ... yeah.
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 14:58, Reply)

Well the word that follows it is recommendations
I was thinking more that every recommendation had to be discussed openly in the house or something.
(PsychoChomp, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 15:00, Reply)

So you've redefined the word "binding" then?
Good work, Humpty.
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 15:27, Reply)

words mean different things depending on the other words around them.

(PsychoChomp, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 15:28, Reply)

Now would probably be a good point to take a deep breath and admit that you shouldn't have used the word "binding".

( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 15:29, Reply)

But that might distract from all your effort from changing the point.

(PsychoChomp, Wed 25 Jan 2012, 15:38, Reply)