You should have received a Poll card, but you don't need it to vote - just turn up at the polling station with suitable ID.

Of course, it's the poll card that tells you where your polling station is, so if you don't know where it is you'll need to ask someone.

Isn't the country already bankrupt? :S

Anyway, there shouldn't be a "tax policy", that would be a by-product of how many things people vote to spend money on - so high public spending results in higher taxes.

Still not sure it would work, but it'd be interesting if it could be experimented with somehow.

True, plus most people don't have a clue and would just vote for what seems to offer the most short-term gain.

 

In my ideal world there would be a benevolent dictator who truly had the best interests of the nation/world at heart, and people would know and accept this :C

 

Then I wake up :(

No.

And no (hug)

To expand on that a bit, people would still vote for lots of public services.

I mean, "would you like well-maintained roads or shitty ones?", "would you like a good health system or a shit one?", "would you like good schools or shit ones?".

And tax isn't just a pot to dip into to pay for what we spend. I mean, there are different taxes and they hit people differently. Sales taxes hit the poor hardest, road tax hits... those who own cars (or run them as part of a business), income tax hits everyone (above a certain threshold) but there are different bands - how do you decide where they go?

So, ok, you could offer package - pairings of tax policies with spending plans, that could work.

But then... would you really want the public to vote on foreign policy? We'd have to make intelligence information available to everyone voting (but no one else, obviously). Would you trust the public to make good decisions? And, probably more important, coherent ones?

Even if it worked, it would be more extremely mob rule-ish than the current system.

No, but I don't trust power-hungry politicians either.

Idiocy and ineptitude both result in bad choices, but (in theory) you can educate idiots - I'm less sure you can fix politicians.

I'm not so sure you can educate idiots - they're idiots by virtue of being unable or unwilling to learn, aren't they?

They're idiots because (on the whole) the education system in this country is absolutely awful, and doesn't teach people how to learn.

Well yeah - they're unwilling/unable because The System (which includes more than just the education system) has let them down.

Teaching kids how to learn isn't enough - they need to want to learn, and that's a problem that runs far deeper than the education system alone.

I dunno, I think I agree with Pete. Kids inherently want to learn. I mean they're fucking genetically programmed to want to learn. Though I agree with you that the problem is broader than just education (though that is a big problem), it's cultural.

Inherently yeah, they probably do want to learn, but in some places (basing this on my own experience in school, which I fully realise is purely anecdotal) peer pressure can override that - learning isn't "cool" (christ I feel like an old man writing it in quotes like that :( ), which where, as you say, the cultural issues arise.

I kinda agree with you on the peer pressure point of view, but I think that peer pressure is down to the group of friends you have.

 

One of my best friends (I'm not 8, honest) since high school has just recently graduated as a commercial pilot, and previously went to uni and graduated with a Masters in Aerospace Engineering. During high school he made the decision to change his group of friends, for a number of reasons, I still to this day believe if he didn't do that he wouldn't have been as academically successful as he has been. When comparing the two sets of friends the academic achievements of them are polar opposites.

 

I'm not saying academic achievement is the most important thing in life but since it's the context of this discussion I think it's relevant.

Which is a flaw in the current education system.

Put the exact same people in the right environment and they'll not only find it cool, they'll be bubbling with enthusiasm and curiosity. (Of course, what that environment is depends on the people involved.)


I'd also not say the problem is broader than just education - the problem is that education is not broad enough. (In that, "education" shouldn't be a distinct thing that happens for a while, it should be a general foundation to society, (if I'm making any sense at all?))

I agree that education isn't broad enough, and yeah, it should be much more integrated and fundamental to society.

And while I agree that theoretically "all" that needs to be done is to put kids into the right environment, in reality it's far from simple given the diversity of backgrounds, especially when the government try to standardise everything.

I don't think I said all that needs doing is putting kids in the right environment (if I did, I didn't mean that) - it's also a question of having the correct "required" subjects at appropriate stages, a real selection of optional/selected subjects, the right framework for providing a taste of different subjects, and lots more.

But yeah, the only way it's got the slightest chance of happening is if a half-decent government comes along and has enough time, money, and support to do it with - which is pretty much impossible, so we're all doomed. Oh well. :(

>>it's also a question of having the correct "required" subjects at appropriate stages, a real selection of optional/selected subjects,

 

Bollocks. All you need to teach someone are a teacher that knows teh subject, and a teacher that actually knows how to teach. Preferably the same person, tbh.

 

>>the right framework for providing a taste of different subjects

 

Do you mean a school?

No, I don't mean a school (in the form they currently exist), because that whole model doesn't work for most people. (Which is exactly what I'm whining about.)

I mean a way to identify what people are good at and what they enjoy, so that they can learn useful and engaging things - instead of everyone being taught about (and then mostly forgetting about) crevasses and arêtes and so on, because the majority will never need or want to know what they are.

>>I mean a way to identify what people are good at and what they enjoy, so that they can learn useful and engaging things

 

So some kind of system where people can learn a bit about everything, like about crevasses and arêtes for instance, so they can understand what they like/are good at and want to study in more depth? Like at, for instance, a university or something?

 

And I disagree that school is a system that doesn't work for most people. Surely it doesn't work for some people, but most? Come on, Peter. Could schools be better? Hell yes, mainly be teaching teachers how to actually teach, and teaching Heads how to be proper administrators.

What I'd like to see is a system where the party with the most votes wins, not one where the most seats does.

 

I think in the last election more of the population voted LibDem, however the cons won more seats and thus the election overall (kinda).

 

For example if out of 10 seats 4 are won by the LD and 6 by Con, Con take power. But 8 million people in total may have voted LD in the 4 seats and only 4million in total voted Con in the 6 seats. So twice as many of the population may have wanted a LD government than a Con one but because they won less seats the Cons take power.

You want PR then.