h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"Actually I think this is a lifestyle choice made by both partners in a marriage - male and female. And I actually feel that people who wish to have these lifestyles shouldn't have children".

Well why did you specifiy mothers in the first place then?

I'm not sure why having a parent around would be any better than a trained minder, or indeed a relative or friend of the family.

In many cases a profesional would be better - however many people child-minding are only professional in the sense that they are paid to do it.

However - in a play group nobody stimulates the individual child the way a parent does, the child gets confused values due to the changing support models, the 'difficult' child effectively gets the attention, the quiet ones are left to sit, thus each learns a lesson according to its needs.

Go and stand outside your local primary school at 08:30, and see how many children are dropped off at the gates, before they're even open, because the parent has to get to work.

If you have a dog and don't look after it, you get a badly behaved animal, and the RSPCA on your back. Neglect a child and you'll have a good chance of getting away with it.

"What about those who spoil their ballot on purpose but make the effort to go? Do they have a right to say?"

If they don't agree with any of the wide-range of political parties offered then they can and should start their own unique political party. I've already covered this.

"What about those who are "politically aware" but don't vote?"

See above. If people are 'politically aware' but refuse to vote then I'd like to understand their reasons. There really is no other way to change things in a democratic country.

"Those who affiliate themselves with certain political parties or pressure groups but abstain?"

Who are you referring to here? And why do they abstain? Certainly, if I support a party I vote for them. If I support a pressure group I am more likely to vote for a party that supports that pressure group. Who on earth supports a political party but won't vote?

"Zagreb put his finger on precisely what is going to happen - "In other words, the Tory vote has nowhere to go from here. The Labour vote can and will get bigger next time, unless the economy colapses wholesale.""

I think that was Blueshark and I was quoting him, although I do basically agree with it.

In reply to Zagreb:

>>"What about those who spoil their ballot on purpose but make the effort to go? Do they have a right to say?"

If they don't agree with any of the wide-range of political parties offered then they can and should start their own unique political party. I've already covered this.<<

Right.

>>"What about those who are "politically aware" but don't vote?"

See above. If people are 'politically aware' but refuse to vote then I'd like to understand their reasons. There really is no other way to change things in a democratic country.<<

Precisely - therefore democracy fails. Sad that, really.

>>"Those who affiliate themselves with certain political parties or pressure groups but abstain?"

Who are you referring to here? And why do they abstain? Certainly, if I support a party I vote for them. If I support a pressure group I am more likely to vote for a party that supports that pressure group. Who on earth supports a political party but won't vote?<<

This was given as a potential reason for why a lot of Tory voters didn't go to the polls when Labour won in 1997; Tory voters felt a number of negative feelings towards their party but were still staunch supporters and failed to vote because they had lost faith and wouldn't relent and vote for something else.

I notice you didn't comment on my point about the "vote for the sake of it" aspect I raised of 'going thru the motions' and voting for the party you've always voted for.

Starting your own political party is a rather expensive proposition. Even standing for a seat requires a deposit that you stand a good chance of losing.

On the other hand, I do think anyone who cares should vote. A spoiled ballot paper is at least showing some interest, but I think even if you don't feel any of the parties represent you accurately, its probably in your best interests to work out which one you would prefer

There are plenty of people out there who don't know about politics, don't care about politics or actively resent the intrusion of politics into their busy busy TV schedule. If you don't vote then you're going to get lumped in with them, as they're probably a majority of non-voters.

"Actually I think this is a lifestyle choice made by both partners in a marriage - male and female" - so why did you aim your comment specifically at mothers who work?

"and I'm glad to see you brought yours with you" Uh huh. I've seldom heard that kind of comment from anyone *other* than middle-aged men (I say seldom, I don't recall ever having heard this kind of comment from a woman or a young man but I guess there are female Mail readers out there).

Was I right?

"See above. If people are 'politically aware' but refuse to vote then I'd like to understand their reasons. There really is no other way to change things in a democratic country.<<

Precisely - therefore democracy fails. Sad that, really."

No. If, say 50% of the country felt strongly about supporting a certain party and got out and voted and returned a majority for that party then their collective votes counted and *they win*. If not a single Labour supporter had voted on 5th May then the Conservatives would have won and Labour non-voters would have had nothing to complain about as they let it happen. The same applies to your comments about Conservatives who didn't vote in 1997 - they got what they allowed to happen.

You can't claim 'democracy fails' if the party that won the most seats through the most votes in the various constituencies gets into power. You can say it's flawed, that it should be proportional representation for example, but you can't seriously argue that it's 'failed'.

"notice you didn't comment on my point about the "vote for the sake of it" aspect I raised of 'going thru the motions' and voting for the party you've always voted for."

If people only go and vote for a party because 'it's what they've always done' then they're plainly not terribly politically opinionated. I've voted for two different parties in separate elections and I changed parties because my views changed. I didn't 'go through the motions' or I would still be voting for someone else on 5th May. The vast majority of voters keep voting for the same party because they largely still agree with that party. Looking at the 'vote swings' in a lot of constituencies it's clear that a lot of people changed their vote and the changes in majority and party seat-totals in Westminster also reflects that.

"See above. If people are 'politically aware' but refuse to vote then I'd like to understand their reasons. There really is no other way to change things in a democratic country.<<

Precisely - therefore democracy fails. Sad that, really."

Hang on, I misunderstood. You're saying that *because* voting is the only way to change things in a democratic society that 'democracy fails'?!

What are you driving at, I really don't understand. Are you saying government by popular vote is a bad thing? (I know that might seem inflamatory but I really don't understand your point).

>>You're saying that *because* voting is the only way to change things in a democratic society that 'democracy fails'?!<<

What I mean is that if those who are politically aware and STILL refuse to vote or refrain from voting, democracy must fail because it leaves no credible route to change things. Either that or it "legitimises" those who wish to abstain from voting as they have made a 'political decision' to do so.

>>Are you saying government by popular vote is a bad thing?<<

As Labour only got 36% of that popular vote, yes I suppose I am.

I've never made a secret of my age or sex - and my photo's on Az's h2g2 friends pages - twice.

Because I feel that in the majority of cases mothers are better carers than fathers. Not 100% I know, but mainly. I know families who have chosen for the father to be the carer, because the mother earns more.

Much as it displeases some people the traditional image of a family is a Father who works, a mother who looks after the children. This is not the only family image, however over time it has proved the most successful.

So are you saying that the only role that one parent has (primarily the father) is to be solely based around the financial capital of that parent?

If that's the case, why do so many dual-parent families have both parents working? My parents, and they are only now in their late 40s, have both always had to work to maintain their household since I was five years old, and that was 1981!

Plus, where does the paternal (going on the basis of your male-centred example) interest come in the nurturing aspect of the child(ren)'s growth and education?

"As Labour only got 36% of that popular vote, yes I suppose I am."

What alternative do you suggest?

Given the fact that 36% is extremely low, we could go for the more Germanic style of voting.

1 Vote for the Party to lead Parliament.

1 Vote for the person who does the best for your local area.

This could lead to local MPs actually caring about their jobs a bit more than they appear to.

Plus, it gives you the opportunity to separate your local and national concerns. For example, you live in a highly Tory area yet you will always support Labour. You realise that your vote is worthless because they'll never get in in your local area but have a chance in the wider national arena. Your Labour vote is lost in your local area but would count in the national arena. Plus, for example, if you know that the Lib Dems would topple the Tories and you have some liking for them, you could use your vote wisely (or, as I believe a previous postee said, "deviously") to get a change in your local government AND the party for you on national issue.

If we include proportional representation in the local governments and the "first past the post" system in national government (in the first instance so that there is an easier transition should it be considered fairer to use proportional representation) we should be in a more dynamic position where governments really could be more representational of the diversity in society.

Just a thought?

"
1 Vote for the Party to lead Parliament.

1 Vote for the person who does the best for your local area."

So you're suggesting separating the Westminster system from local representation?

Could work. In my case, I didn't vote for an MP so much as a political party. Had I voted for someone to look after the local area I would have preferred a wider choice, even several from the same parties.

This would require a complete upheaval of the UK political system, though.

I agree, it would.

Perhaps that's what we need?

Local government actually caring about its local area.

I would like to think most local government reps are interested in their communities but I fear that's not the case. Most people probably don't even know who their local MP is, particularly if they're not in the more prominent areas of the cabinet.

It might recharge our politics and could kick-start the important principle of taking responsibility... See how it comes full circle? Might reinvigorate the entire "write to my MP" mentality as well. Instead of mentioning your issue once (if at all) at PMQs, you might get someone to change things for you?!

Radical eh?

Additionally, you COULD vote for both your preferred local MP AND the national representative of both parties but at least the option gives you the choice of choosing the right person.

I have to admit that multi-representatives of the same party would be a farce. It would lead to an increased spread of votes. One candidate per party in each constituency - keep it simple. The German way of voting is just completely strange sometimes. I looked at a ballot paper once and nearly cried!

Zagreb,

"If people are 'politically aware' but refuse to vote then I'd like to understand their reasons. There really is no other way to change things in a democratic country."

There are other ways to change things in a democratic country, thankfully. Indeed, many campaigners on all sorts of issues probably think quite rightly that their vote is almost totally irrelevant compared to their other activities.

Personally, I always vote. Not because I think it will elect a good government, none of the parties I've voted for ever had a chance of winning even that seat, let along the general election, but because it might just give them a bit of a morale boost if enough people vote for them. The only other function of my vote is if a block of people who might conceivably vote for a mainstream political party switch off and vote for small parties, maybe the mainstream political parties will take notice. This is all very marginal stuff though, and I can quite easily see why people wouldn't want to take part in it. Especially if they were already taking part in a more meaningful way (for instance, some sort of campaigning).

"So are you saying that the only role that one parent has (primarily the father) is to be solely based around the financial capital of that parent? "- No - I'm heavily involved with children, from playing with them, going to football with them, and being a school governor, as well as supporting my wife in the caring role - I do ironing as well. I don't go out drinking with my mates very often though, nor do I indulge in extra-marital affairs. Marriage is supposed to be a partnership - you support each other, but you have different roles within the team.

"If that's the case, why do so many dual-parent families have both parents working? My parents, and they are only now in their late 40s, have both always had to work to maintain their household since I was five years old, and that was 1981!" Both my parents worked as well - long hours too - firstly to pay my sister's school fees, then supposedly to pay mine - but I got a free place - so I suppose it was to pay for the boat and the second home. Don't misunderstand me, I saw nothing wrong with my upbringing - until I had children - when I suddenly thought "you know I wouldn't let my children get up in the morning on their own, and go to school without seeing anyone" and began to question the values I'd been raised by.

I think if people choose to have children then there role extends beyond the moment of conception - caring during pregnancy - and after the birth, and doesn't stop as soon as junior can be farmed out to a paid help.