Comments on: Is the expenses scandal driving turnout down?

By: laz henson

laz henson — Fri, 22 May 2009 20:25:58 +0000

Paul H-J
Thanks for your opinion – just a little under my guestimate!
In my area 22% have postal votes and I realise some have moved etc but many will use them. I wonder if the figures holds up in all parts of the country?
Certainly there is a feeling of ”why should I vote” and of course the postal votes go out now, this the feeling gets voted on now (or not) and not on 4th June!
Any other guesses please?

By: Promsan

Promsan — Fri, 22 May 2009 19:50:18 +0000

…anyway it’s not the expenses scandal that’s driving turnout down, that’s just the surface of the ocean of resentment…. the straw that’s broken the camel’s back etc…

By: Promsan

Promsan — Fri, 22 May 2009 18:13:53 +0000

“Richard B

This same poll says that 54% of people want a general election now, yet only 45% say they would definitely vote in it. Strange. Very strange.”

Not really – many people feel overworked and underpaid and would be happy for someone else to do their voting for them!

By: Colin

Colin — Fri, 22 May 2009 18:10:49 +0000

“if you pay peanuts then you will get monkeys”

We certainly have some of the latter at Westminster.

Are they being paid “peanuts”?-when you compare the salary with those in a profession say who have had to gain a qualification by years of study?

Some may have professional qualifications of course, together with the associated expertise one hopes…..but it is not a requirement in order to be an MP.

You can just be a monkey-all you have to do is get elected.

I heard Nadine Dorries on radio this morning describing MPs as “professionals”. I think they get themselves way out of focus sometimes-that’s why they started troughing.

By: Paul H-J

Paul H-J — Fri, 22 May 2009 17:59:48 +0000

Laz,

Too high, nearer 25% – probably 27-28% on average.

Remember that the turnout in 2004 was inflated by all-postal voting in several regions. That is not happening this time, and with no local elections in Scotland, Wales, London, North East and large chunks of metropolitan England (affects NW, Y&H and WM most) we could see some areas drop as low as 20% turnout with 30% at the top end of the scale.

By: Bill Furness

Bill Furness — Fri, 22 May 2009 17:58:10 +0000

I am a little puzzled, the LibDems are supposed to be the Party that supports Europe most, and in the Euro elections this normally means they get a much lower vote then at other elections.
The latest opinion polls put them at 18% for the Euro’s
at this rate for the Counties they should be on 22/24%
Can someone throw light on this ?

By: Nick Keene

Nick Keene — Fri, 22 May 2009 17:52:29 +0000

In talking about the group of MP’s I deem to be behaving in an unacceptable fashion I should have thought it was fairly clear that I was referring to those MP’s who the likes of john tt have now rushed out to condemn. Mind you even then each case should be judged on ite merits.
I sense without having done a head count that most of the MP’s who are perceived to have milked the system are from the pre 2001 intake ie the longer standing members who have grown accustomed to treating their expense form as a kind of entitllement so over the years they have become more and more casual about what exactly they put down and all of it with the encouragement of the fees office. In lieu of the pay rise they should have had ages ago but dared not take because of the public outcry. I repeat that the public need to grow and realise that if you pay peanuts then you will get monkeys.
I have met many MP’s through my job over the years from all parties and I simply do not agree that these people are felons.

By: laz henson

laz henson — Fri, 22 May 2009 17:40:39 +0000

So I will go for a 30% turnout instead of 35%.
Anyone challenge that with their pediction?

By: Colin

Colin — Fri, 22 May 2009 17:17:05 +0000

“I think the issue here is that Hazel Blears has been deceitful”

….mmm yes…if you read the Accountancy press comments, there is some question as to who actually received that cheque.

There was no liability to CGT, so it has been suggested’ the “tax” paid with such a flourish by HB will have simply been returned by HMRC…??

By: charles

charles — Fri, 22 May 2009 16:27:15 +0000

Paul H-J

I think the issue here is that Hazel Blears has been deceitful. I am inclined to believe that what she did was entirely legal from a CGT perspective (avoidance not evasion). However, to simultaneously tell the HoC that it was her second home to maximise the allowances she received is what is unacceptable.

The public has a right to expect that those who we elect to represent us (and those who are appointed to the Cabinet in particular) will behave in a fair and straightforward manner.