This is so transparent!
Thousands of polling stations would be closed and voting hours reduced under a plan to cut the cost of elections.
Other proposals include cutting staff, replacing polling cards with e-mail requests, increasing candidates’ deposits, fixed-term parliaments and reducing security at election counts.
\”Increase candidate\’s deposits\”. Otherwise known as the Incumbency Protection Act.
There are currently three political parties that have the financial clout to run candidates in most constituencies across the land. Con, Lab and LibDim can scratch up, without too much trouble, the £300,000 or more needed just to get someone on the ballot paper in every constituency.
There\’s another three parties, UKIP (yes, to an extent I am talking my own book), Green and BNP who are knocking on that door. Raising the deposit requirements in each constituency simply makes it harder for such parties to compete and thus entrenches the three majors.
It\’s specifically a device to aid the incumbents.
And whatever you think about UKIP, the Greens or the BNP the correct reaction from us all should be that they can fuck right off.
They\’re *our* elections, not theirs, they should not be allowed to put barriers in the way of our choices.
Why does it make it harder to compete? Surely if you are competitive you will get enough votes to get the deposit back? It’s not a high threshold, is it?
Tim adds: Because you’ve got to come up with the money first….
Not at all sure how your Libertarian attitude fits in with UKIP , more my territory I `d have thought
I agree with that
The deposit is currently £500, returned if you win 5% of the vote. This is so that only “serious candidates” will stand. Is that not high enough Matthew?
“Why does it make it harder to compete? Surely if you are competitive you will get enough votes to get the deposit back? It’s not a high threshold, is it?”
Why have any artifical barriers?
Of course the voting system is in itself the biggest problem. If we had the same system as in Holland we could have an English Geert Wilders or Pym Fortuyn which would be wonderful
worth noting that the “rural areas” where they’re talking about reducing access to voting stations are also predominantly not Labour-voting areas.
*finger on chin, pensive look*
Oh, you are all being so silly! You have this deranged idea that elections are to choose our leaders! That’s so outdated!
Elections are our chance to express our approval of the leaders and policies that have been chosen for us!
Anything that lessens the use of polling booths would (imo) increase the chances of vote rigging. We’ve seen that with postal voting. We’ll see it with electronic voting.
Voter turnout is dropping because there are fewer and fewer politicians worth voting for.
What makes you think that there will be any elections post the constitution/Lisbon treaty? MPs and MEPs will just be declared by our real government in Brussels, habitat of all those chosen of course. No say for the proles!
The good thing about postal voting is that I, as the rightful head of my family, can ensure that my wifes and my daughters vote for the correct candidate.
The deposit was £150 for a long time. It should be returned to that level, which is enough to prevent frivolous candidates from standing.
Looks like a thinly veiled attempt to make our elections easier to rig.
Why have elections, anyway? Every reduction is a reduction in cost–so why not all the way.
Reminds me of “the hermit named Dave/who kept a dead whore in his cave,” the last line of which is “and just look at the money you save.”
Same principle; probably similar smell.