Which Political Party and Why?

[Jazzy G]

It could also lead to more engagement with younger voters? It'd be a tough one to work out. 

[chokeout]

20 minutes ago, jazzygeofferz said:

. I wonder whether there should be a term limit on how long somebody can serve in local government to avoid career politicians and the potential for toxicity that can come from it. 

As Keith said politics at a local level should be about forging links and relationships in the community and local knowledge. It doesn't always happen that way but there is still a lot of people sitting who have served the same area for decades. You'd also open yourself up for a lack of accountability. You could spend like it was going out of fashion, knowing you're out in a year. You get the positives of being the person who delivers and cripples the person who follows you with non existent budgets. The next person who gets in then has the built in excuse of blaming his predecessor. Rinse and repeat.

 

[Keith Houchen]

12 minutes ago, jazzygeofferz said:

It could also lead to more engagement with younger voters? It'd be a tough one to work out. 

Why remove an elected official just to replace them with a younger model?

[Jazzy G]

It could get younger people to engage more with politics. Changing things up may lead to people trying to use their limited time to maximise what they achieve during the time they're in that role to help make their mark. I understand that sometimes projects can take time and that it could prove challenging if something was to take place over the tenure of several incumbents of a role, but that must be how it feels for voters in swing seats as well. 

[patiirc]

Politically, I'm left wing. Usually that sits somewhere between Lib Dems and Greens. Went with Greens last time out as was intrigued by their local approaches and community based resolves on top the environmental stuff, fairness and empowerment of people. 

Lgbtq issues are important to me so a strong lgbtq pisition helps when making a decision to

I'm a bit of a political wanderer to be fair as tend to go with manifestos and ideas, still catch election hustings where I can. 

I was disenfranchised for a long time so try and make my vote count where possible 

 

[BomberPat]

One man's career politician is another's lifelong public servant. I think term limits would do more harm than good, and it feels like madness to have to boot someone out of office even if they're doing a good job and have the full support of their constituency, purely because an arbitrary amount of time has passed.

[Keith Houchen]

4 minutes ago, jazzygeofferz said:

It could get younger people to engage more with politics. Changing things up may lead to people trying to use their limited time to maximise what they achieve during the time they're in that role to help make their mark. I understand that sometimes projects can take time and that it could prove challenging if something was to take place over the tenure of several incumbents of a role, but that must be how it feels for voters in swing seats as well. 

It would lead to people who don’t see it as a vocation trying to get on board. Many public servants are just that, serving the public. If you have a role that someone can only serve for, say, 8 years, it’s not going to be used for public good, it’ll be a springboard for individuals to further their own career. Your pound shop Chuka Umunnas will be all over it. 
 

In his book “Chavs”, Owen Jones highlighted how the first time young people used to get involved in politics was joining their union when they started an apprenticeship. That engagement is now gone and I don’t think sticking a token young person up for local election at the expense of a seasoned councillor would change that. Let’s not forget that the person who has got more young people engaged and interested in politics in recent times was a pensioner in Islington. 

[Jazzy G]

Makes entirely more sense. Thank you, chaps. 

[Dead Mike]

3 minutes ago, Keith Houchen said:

Let’s not forget that the person who has got more young people engaged and interested in politics in recent times was a pensioner in Islington. 

And that 'engagement' didn't even result in them voting. 

[Keith Houchen]

4 minutes ago, Dead Mike said:

And that 'engagement' didn't even result in them voting. 

The numbers slightly increased, but isn’t it more a case of their being more young people eligible to vote than the percentage of young people voting?

[hallicks]

The middle ground between time limits/careerist nonentities would be mandatory reselection, I think? If Corbs had done that on day one, he might not have had four years of 80% of the party trying to oust him. 

Prob vote green next time but it’s as a safe a blue seat as you can get round here 

[Carbomb]

I discussed the nature of term limits with an American friend a few years back. At the time, it always seemed to me that the US passing a law limiting presidents to two terms was sour grapes on the Republicans' part regarding FDR getting four terms, but my friend said that, in actuality, prior to the law being passed, it had long been a gentlemen's agreement that no president would stand for a third term, and that FDR lost a lot of voters for that (not that it really cost him, as it got him elected) - I remember Groucho Marx was vocal about being one of them on his appearances on the Dick Cavett Show.

From what my friend was saying, the primary reason Americans tend to give for justifying term limits is that they prevent administrations from building long-running dynasties. To me, that doesn't seem a good enough reason, especially when you take into account different political cultures. The Germans in particular like having long-serving chancellors, hence why there haven't been that many since the end of WWII. Not to mention that, while informal, the Americans do have familial dynasties - the Bushes, the Kennedys, the Roosevelts, etc.

From my perspective, it just strikes me as undemocratic, and I say this in full knowledge that that turd Thatcher kept getting voted in. If people want to keep voting for an official they feel does a good job of representing their views on how a country should be run, they should be allowed to.

As regards council politics, term limits aren't the answer, but something definitely needs to change in terms of our political culture, because right now, it's shite. So many councils are elected or unelected as a result of council votes being perceived as a popularity vote for the Westminster party, and you end up with perfectly good councillors being voted out, or awful ones voted in, because of how the governmental party did. Quite a lot of councils end up with four unaccountable years in office, getting away with so much shite, because the average voter hasn't been encouraged to take local politics seriously. 

We might actually end up with a better country if we did. We'll only get real, serious change, if things are properly dealt with at a grassroots level, and not just in formal, ballot-box politics, but activism and organisation too.

Edited January 13, 2022 by Carbomb

[Dead Mike]

15 minutes ago, Keith Houchen said:

The numbers slightly increased, but isn’t it more a case of their being more young people eligible to vote than the percentage of young people voting?

Nah, it came from people switching. Some from the Greens and a lot of seats that thought Brexit was going to be a car crash and jumped thinking this was their chance of stopping it (voters in the likes of Canterbury & Kensington who temporarily switched). 

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/there-was-no-youthquake-so-why-did-labour-do-unexpectedly-well-at-the-election

[Keith Houchen]

2 minutes ago, Dead Mike said:

Nah, it came from people switching. Some from the Greens and a lot of seats that thought Brexit was going to be a car crash and jumped thinking this was their chance of stopping it (voters in the likes of Canterbury & Kensington who temporarily switched). 

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/there-was-no-youthquake-so-why-did-labour-do-unexpectedly-well-at-the-election

I was on about the turnout for the 18-24 demographic and people voting for the first time. Those numbers increased but probably because the group was bigger.  
 

15 minutes ago, Carbomb said:

From what my friend was saying, the primary reason Americans tend to give for justifying term limits is that they prevent administrations from building long-running dynasties. To me, that doesn't seem a good enough reason, especially when you take into account different political cultures. The Germans in particular like having long-serving chancellors, hence why there haven't been that many since the end of WWII. Not to mention that, while informal, the Americans do have familial dynasties - the Bushes, the Kennedys, the Roosevelts, etc.

There was a period recently where a Bush or a Clinton was in one of the top three jobs, from Reagan to Obama, with only a five year gap. 

[Factotum]

2 hours ago, Carbomb said:

prior to the law being passed, it had long been a gentlemen's agreement that no president would stand for a third term, and that FDR lost a lot of voters for that

Yeah it was because Washington never stood for a third term. FDR is a weird one though given Europe was at war and he strongly wanted to get involved in it. He also still won the popular vote in 1940 and 1944,  and carried the majority of states. Fascinating bloke.

Biggest issue with UK politics is the fact we have an unwritten constitution. It means any PM with a decent majority can run rough shot over everything.