It is dangerous to let the unemployed vote (UKIP)

[Manic Impressive]

http://cdn.politicalscrapbook.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/farage_swann.jpg?cda6c1 (http://cdn.politicalscrapbook.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/farage_swann.jpg?cda6c1)
After Scrapbook exposed sick comments (http://politicalscrapbook.net/2012/04/tom-bursnall-should-unemployed-have-vote/) from a UKIP councillor on banning unemployed people from voting, the party’s most high-profile new recruit has rushed to his defence (https://twitter.com/#%21/AlexandralSwann/status/192271270484770817), claiming Cllr Tom Bursnall “has a point”, going on to say it is “dangerous” to let unemployed people vote.
Having defected from the Tories, 23 year-old Alexandra Swann was the star turn at UKIP’s recent conference in Skegness — with party leader Nigel Farage proudly declaring that “the Swann has migrated”.
But appearing to agree with Cllr Bursnall, who as the former chair of Conservative Future is also a defector from the Tories to UKIP, she continued (https://twitter.com/#%21/AlexandralSwann/status/192344869887422464):

“allowing people to vote on how other people’s money is spent — if they dont contribute — is dangerous”
With these views, Scrapbook was unsurprised to learn that Swann idolises anarcho-Libertarian philosophers and is completing a PhD in social Darwinism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_darwinism).


http://politicalscrapbook.net/2012/04/alexandra-swann-unemployed-voting/?utm_source=politicalscrapbook.net&utm_medium=psbook_featt&utm_campaign=psbook_featt2

[Sasha]

Half of their votes are ressentiment by unemployed whites...

[Bostana]

Why is it dangerous for them to vote?

Because instead of having corrupt Bourgeois idiots who enslave the Working Proletariat, and lay off thousands of people everyday being in charge you have the actual Worker vote.

Goddamn I hate Capitalists

[bricolage]

Half of their votes are ressentiment by unemployed whites...
dunno about that, for bnp that is definitely the case and as such have at points eaten into labour strongholds. ukip is far more middle england that thinks the conservatives are too soft on immigration. I definitely think there's a demographic split between the two. for example the only council UKIP run is in ramsey, a semi-rural market town, which is completely different from when the bnp was a force in barking, a previous heartland of car manufacturing.

[Os Cangaceiros]

So UKIP is basically a UK nationalist, Euroskeptic, free-market oriented political party?

[Railyon]

“allowing people to vote on how other people’s money is spent — if they dont contribute — is dangerous”


Totally sounds like she wants to abolish parliament.

[bricolage]

So UKIP is basically a UK nationalist, Euroskeptic, free-market oriented political party?
yeah pretty much.
I mean the thing is you rarely see them come up in regards to anything but europe. they've have done pretty well in elections to the european parliament but have generally flopped everywhere else. they've managed to colonise a fair bit of thatcher descendants that became jaded with the tories but to be honest if they ever did manage to get the UK to pull out of the EU I imagine they'd lose their electoral base overnight.

the highlight was when a plane their leader nigel farage was using to fly a UKIP banner crashed into a field.
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01631/farage-460_1631031c.jpg

[Os Cangaceiros]

Yeah the only thing I know about UKIP is their leader Farage, and then nothing but his rants in and about Brussells.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Weirdly enough he's on American television with some frequency, on the news shows.

[Blanquist]

Should unemployed people be allowed to vote under socialism?

[ed miliband]

if only this was true...

[Manic Impressive]

if only this was true...
What do you mean? Are you doubting the validity of the article?
Here's the original piece from the guys blog.

Should people on benefits* be allowed to vote?

“No Taxation Without Representation” a phrase coined by Reverend John Hampden with complaint regarding colonial taxes on the U.S back in the 18th Century British Empire.
Most people in the modern day would regard this point as a central tenet to a healthy functioning democracy. That is, if you want to tax us for common goods (the army, police, roads etc), then we should have the right to stand for election and the right to vote for someone who will represent our interests, ensuring we voters have input in how our money is spent.
Indeed, this is a line of argument often used by folk who want to lower the voting age, allowing idealistic 16 year old kids to get the vote.
Why, then, should those people who are not net contributors to the government bank account be allowed to decide on how the money is spent? Would you mind if you neighbour ‘Bob’ came round to your house and told you how to spend your most recent pay cheque?
You would reply, “Bob, sorry it’s my money, i earnt it, you should not have any input in how it is spent…”
Furthermore, what if Bob suggested, because he has mild eczema, you give the money to him in the form of a weekly incapacity allowance? Your reply may be: “Bob, you are out of your mind my friend – you would be free-riding on my earnings without contributing to them. Go home”.
The situation in the UK is perhaps more ludicrous than the above example – for not only does ‘Bob’ get the opportunity to vote for political parties that will increase his share of your income, the parties complicit in this state sanctioned theft have been only too happy to increase the amount of cash allowances/benefits given to ‘Bob’.
Moreover, those same political parties have also increased the number of ‘Bobs’ (net receivers), ensuring it has a solid voter base who then in turn gift that party with their vote – thereby protecting or enhancing their vested interests (public sector employment, the welfare state, social housing etc).
Is it ‘fair’ therefore that those whom do not positively contribute to government revenue (i.e the ‘net receivers’) should get to participate in the voting that helps to determine the political party and direction in where the country’s monies are spent?
So, if we re-phrase Reverend Hampden’s notion, then we could assert with equal confidence that ‘no man should get representation without taxation’.
But what if we take this idea to its logical conclusion. That is, if someone contributes substantially more to the government ‘pot’, then shouldn’t they be allowed to get more than one vote?
It would be terribly ‘unfair’ of you to give equal representation rights to the chap who contributes 50 times more than the next person. In the same way as if you own 60% of shares of a company, you’ll get 60% of the voting rights at the Annual General Meeting. People with no financial stake in a company cannot turn up to the meeting and determine who the board representatives (the purse holders) are. Even some of the couscous eating tent-frequenting anti-capitalists would find such a concept somewhat laughable. Why do we accept one person, one vote then?
Given the top 1% of successful hard working earners in the UK contribute 27% of all income revenue – would it not be ‘fairer’ if they were given 27 times the number of the votes? Fiscal qualified majority voting if you like.
Perhaps a system would foster a culture whereby those without the vote would be encouraged to find work in the hope of gaining full citizenship’. The result may also re-balance the government spending into a more sustainable financial model: no deficits, no borrowing, a smaller welfare state, and a proportionate public sector relative to the wealth creating private sector.
*unemployment

[SHORAS]

They are irrelevant, but on the morning of the great evening of the great day they may find themselves facing the fullness of proletarian justice.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Surely bankers, politicians and newspaper execs shouldn't get the vote then, as they take take take and give us nothing but grief, debt and misery.

Fucking hate the bourgeoisie. Nigel Farage's UKIP is the worst kind of party. Far-right conservatives of the worst sort of 'traditionalist' tradition. Go burn, assholes.

[dodger]

Call me an old cynic....."the unemployed might well vote against us for making them unemployed!" May well have been the worm wriggling in her brain!(if she ever had one)

[Left Leanings]

Voting doesn't change anything, anyway. I can't be arsed voting anymore. But the idea that people on the dole shouldn't have the vote is a right scandal. I am on benefits. So these dickheads say I can't vote? They can piss right off.

At the moment in the UK, peeps banged up in prison are denied the vote. I think they should be able to. I don't care if they have done crimes. Most of the crimes are economic, and down to the bosses throwing them on the scrapheap and leaving them with nothing anyway.

[Manic Impressive]

This question has been raised before. After the English civil war there was a debate about who should be allowed to vote. The position of Colonel Rich (no joke)

You have five to one in this kingdom that have no permanent interest. Some men have ten, some twenty servants — some more, some less. If the master and servant shall be equal electors, then clearly those that have no interest in the kingdom will make it their interest to choose those that have no interest. It may happen that the majority may, by law — not in a confusion — destroy property; there may be a law enacted that there shall be an equality of goods and estate.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Should unemployed people be allowed to vote under socialism?

Sod off, troll.

[Ocean Seal]

Hmm, they don't want to let the unemployed vote? Okay, that's fine with me, but when they find that the unemployed are voting with molotovs and bricks, don't come crying to the BBC about how your families quaint business was burnt down.