I think we might be a bit closer to democracy when all convicted prisoners are allowed the vote.

If we were to go the other route, and settle for a dictator, I might just vote for Michael Howard because his brother John did wonders for prison reform...

This is nothing to do with the matter under discussion. I have just spotted a discussion thread you ran five weeks ago about a piece I wrote in The Independent about the internet. Please tell Paul Macmanomy that I am indeed the same journo who sought him out in a pub in 1995. Remember him. Don't remember the pub.

Andy, that means you must be the very same Andy McSmith who took Paul and myself a walk up 1,000 steps to the Press Bar in the House of Commons.

Andy
You have been spending too much time on the campaign trail and not enough on being a journalist? You remember the irrelevant(my name) and forget the important(the pub)!
I can remember talking to you about what was happening at that time and how destructive it was for local democracy. I could have a very similar coversation with you now about how Walsall has been governed over the past few years under the previous Chief Executive (now in Southwark I understand).
Bob
Remember the walk to the press gallery that Andy took us on - nearly killed me and cured Ernesto of climbing stairs for good. I suspect the Manager would have called it a day after the first couple of hundred steps!Or perhaps not!

How you exaggerate! From ground level to the press bar is 102 steps. That''s all. One year, as a New Year resolution I gave up using the lift and did those steps several times a day, two steps at a time every working day for a whole year. Luv to everyone in Walsall except the undeserving.

Without an election Mr. Piper, Brown will not have a mandate.

I'm not particularly hot for Brown, as readers of tygerland will know, but if he wins the Labour leadership election (as he probably would), I would delighted to rally behind him.

Unless we all have a shout in who leads us, I'm not prepared to put my neck out to defend them. Why should I? Party unity depends on a democratic foundation not a Coup d'état.

Andy
Just out of interest WHY THE F*** DIDN'T YOU TELL US THERE WAS LIFT!

This has to be one of the most terrifying and idiotic things I've ever read.

Bob, you may be a "mere" councillor but even you should understand the concept that not everyone has the same views. People aren't put off politics or politicians on the basis they don't share views. That is precisely why they exist in the first place - to represent and reflect the different opinions of the electorate.

What people hate about the current shower is the way they dictate to the electorate on minuscule turnout claiming they're the best thing since sliced bread.

We hate the way they don't talk to the electorate, that they spin everything, the lie, they cheat and treat the public like idiots.

These problems have been hugely exacerbated over recent years by the cretinous New Labour government.

People loathe and detest being answerable to the state - politicians are there to serve, not dictate.

Quite frankly, we should abolish Parliament and use technology to allow everyone to have a say on policy. Its far from impossible and more democratic.

But of course, it would never happen because we'd need the power hungry zealots in Labour and the Conservative Parties to allow this.

As for Jailhouselawyer - they day we give convicted prisoners the right to vote is the day I leave this country for good.

The public don't want politicians to agree, they want them to grow up! Argument is fine, it's vital, but Parliament is just a rabble of badly behaved school children - laughing at bad jokes mostly. The public want politicians to have some dignity and decency.

uk-events, I think you should celebrate the fact that those sectioned under the mental health act have a vote, because you are clearly losing the plot. Frankly, you didn't understand the posting, and I can't be bothered to spell it out for you.

Chameleon, you too clearly do not do irony. Perhaps if you took the trouble to follow the blink in the post, you may get it... but maybe not. I don't know how I summon up the dignity and decency to respond to you.

>uk-events, I think you should celebrate the fact that those sectioned under the mental health act have a vote, because you are clearly losing the plot. Frankly, you didn't understand the posting, and I can't be bothered to spell it out for you.

You're probably right, perhaps I don't "understand" your posting.

Its fair to say i've not understood much to come out of the Labour party in the last 10 years.

What I have observed though is the ongoing invasion of privacy, move towards authoritarianism & legislation compelling the citizen to answer to the state.

Now Its possible your post is far too intellectual for us mere mortals. It may be that you aren't being literal in your comment.

I have no way of knowing - as you say, you "can't be bothered to spell it out".

I don't know your views or background. I do know you're a member of a party which is about to go into opposition for a very, very long time.

I do know that generations of my family voted Labour and now refuse to do so as you do not represent those you are supposed to.

That said, the Tories aren't any better.

So perhaps you are right, perhaps elections are a waste of time and effort. After all, doesn't matter who you vote for, the ethos is the same: spin, lie, sell your granny - do whatever it takes to get votes then do whatever you like!

Your last paragraph merely emphasises that you either didn't bother to read the post, or weren't capable of grasping the point. I will take the trouble though, being as you bothered to comment again.

Liam Byrne and Andy Burnham (the link at the bottom of the page) were arguing that an election for Leader of the Labour Party shouldn't take place because it is disruptive. My post was aimed at trying to point out that this was a perverse logic, which, if extended out could mean we could abolish democracy altogether because general elections are also 'divisive'.

I think your political analysis is also shaky. At the last general election Labour polled just over 35% of the votes. 10 years in to a Labour Government, in mid term, the average in the poll of polls shows Labour on 31% so it isn't a lot of ground to make up in two years or more.

Incidentally, I agree with much of what you say on the 'privacy' issue, and I suspect the War on Terror is being used to promote a clampdown of bigger proportions.

Bob, I'm disturbed that 40% of the electorate could not be bothered to vote at the last election. Just 22% of the entire electorate voted Labour last time give or take postal fraud!

I agree, and that was almost the point of the post. If you give people no choice, New Labour marginally more socially concerned than Cameron's New Labour Mark II, then what is the incentive to the electorate. Whatever happens the social democrats win.

>Your last paragraph merely emphasises that you either didn't bother to read the post, or weren't capable of grasping the point. I will take the trouble though, being as you bothered to comment again.

Its been a long week. Have to say I've not been on top form so thats a fair comment!

>Liam Byrne and Andy Burnham (the link at the bottom of the page) were arguing that an election for Leader of the Labour Party shouldn't take place because it is disruptive. My post was aimed at trying to point out that this was a perverse logic, which, if extended out could mean we could abolish democracy altogether because general elections are also 'divisive'.

Understood & agreed. I guess I did totally misunderstand your post!

>I think your political analysis is also shaky. At the last general election Labour polled just over 35% of the votes. 10 years in to a Labour Government, in mid term, the average in the poll of polls shows Labour on 31% so it isn't a lot of ground to make up in two years or more.

Labour got 35.3% of the vote, the Tories got 32.3% a difference of 3%. Labour ended up with 356 seats, the Tories with 198, a difference of 158. I quite frankly can't comprehend how such a small difference led to Labour retaining such a substantial majority. Honestly, I find it undemocratic and given that the Tories and Labour are so similar these days, a worrying position to be in.

>Incidentally, I agree with much of what you say on the 'privacy' issue, and I suspect the War on Terror is being used to promote a clampdown of bigger proportions.

Y'know Bob, I have to say I'm really pleased to hear someone who is a Labour party member openly saying that. So much so I might bookmark your blog!