To be fair the 10% political party membership in Britain in the 50s came almost exclusively from the 2 main parties, and came from a society where consciousness of social class was more entrenched than now. So it's probably predictable that the 'workers' party of the time (Labour) has since dwindled in membership. What is more difficult to explain is the dramatic loss in the Conservative party - 3 million members in the 50s and only just over 100,000 now. I can't fully explain this decline in political activity (more other leisure time activities, less class identification etc.) but I can tell you the consequences. Firstly that the parties have only a small fraction of their original financial resources and so have become more dependent on sponsorship to cover their election expenses. Secondly there is less imput of ideas. Thirdly there is less competition for political posts - if you are a newbie in a political party nowadays you are more or less pushed into candidature for wards/councils whether you are ready or not. A compulsory voting system has many advantages in that it forces the population to take a more active role in politics. Evidenced maybe by Belgium having a 10% ratio of political membership. Also the country sent MEPs to Brussels from no less than 10 of it's political parties. - representing a very broad spread of Belgian opinion. Surely such a system should be more heavily weighted than another country where the majority of the population has no relationship to politics other than that of complaining from the sidelines.
I'm not convinced about your argument there. If I'm correct, you're stating that a country such as Belgium should have greater representation than one such as UK because of percentages? Not being aware of the respective enrolment figures & simply using population figures in their place, Belgium's (enforced) turnout of 90% equates to approx 10 million - whereas UK's turnout of 35% equates to approx 20 million. Why should a country with twice the number of voters have less representation? Neither am I convinced about compulsory voting. Having spent over three decades of my life in a country where it has been in place for 90 years at Federal level and 100 years at State level, I'm aware that, especially in recent years, it has simply led to an increase in both 'donkey voting' and informal voting. I've volunteered on a few election days to hand out the 'how to vote' cards created by each party, and the number of people who need them is rather alarming - incapable of thinking for themselves, it would appear. Democracy in action maybe - but a trifle worrying to my mind.
Slight misunderstanding there BB. I am saying that political representation in Brussels should be in direct proportion to the numbers of people actually voting, not to the size of the electorate. The direct comparison which I made was between Belgium and the Czech Republic (90% turnout and 18% respectively) who have more or less the same number of seats. In my opinion the one should be rewarded proportionally and the other have seats deducted. In fact I would set a lower limit under which a result is invalid (similar to with many referendums). It's not that I am in love with anything becoming compulsory - more that I am worried by non voting and political apathy and the possible consequences of it.
Perhaps not the right place for this, but it is almost European. I was reading a BBC page about penalty kicks at the end of World Cup matches and when I got to the end I noticed the information pages are now available in Welsh (as has been for a long time), Gaelic (slightly newer, but understandable) and Urse. Why Urse? It is a minority language in a foreign country. I appreciate the BBC's motto is "Nation Shall Speak Unto Nation", but why are they wasting the license money translating their stuff into a language such as Urse, why not a language where the speakers are not quite so versed in English: Spanish or Portuguese or somewhere they can draw people in like one of the Indian languages or Mandarin Chinese (not quite European, but you can see where I'm going).
zen, I'd like to know why they didn't do Cornish, Jèrriais (Jersey French), Manx, Guernésiais (Guernsey French), Sercquiais (Sark French), Auregnais (Alderney French) etc first? They are languages in the British Isles, but are generally dying out. All I'm suggesting is for just the local items. jerzeypie studied Jèrriais for a couple of years at primary school, thanks to volunteers from the Société Jersiaise but it was a voluntary option and he couldn't go to a higher level.
It's a typo for the language of the EU - which is Arse, most of the EU speak out of their's! Whilst searching for Urse I came across a page that stated that Polish was the 3rd Language of England & Wales.
Tonight Marine Le Pen is frantically back peddling after her father came out with a load of anti-Semitic remarks. The FN has been trying very hard to present its self as a responsible political party. He claims that before he makes a statement he clears it with his daughter. She says that he made a "political mistake". Many people here realise that the FN have problems keeping the more extreme under control in the same way that UKIP have problems keeping the more outspoken quiet. Eventually what is kept under the covers does come out and decent policies return.
