Couple of things: firstly, if you decide not to vote, it’s only your own vote you’re wasting. An election with 50% turnout still works, whereas a census only filled out by 50% of the population might well be useless.

Liberal issues aside, I’m never sure whether compulsory voting would be a good thing for democracy or not. It would mean that more people were represented in parliament – but under non-compulsory voting, it’s their choice not to be. Also, apparently even some people who choose to vote admit to getting to the polling station and then selecting someone on a whim. I imagine that would get worse if people were forced to vote.

The state has no right to information relating to me and my family. My form arrived this morning and has already been consigned to the non-recycling bin.

Equally it has no right to compel me to participate in the sham that is the democratic process. To have it do so would legitimise the power that politicians have taken to create more appalling laws intended to further blight my life.

Happily people are beginning to resist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxEN1FDteaE

But noone’s talking about withholding the right to vote; and making it compulsory wouldn’t answer that particular (illusory) problem. (Or have I misread?)

Even if you think that there’s a duty to vote, that doesn’t mean that it should be compulsory; there’s a duty not to cheat on your wife, and a duty to give to charity, but that wouldn’t justify the state enforcing either, and the same considerations apply in all manner of cases, including the duty to vote. But that assumes that there’s such a duty to begin with. I’m not so sure.

There’s a few reasons why I don’t vote: first, I don’t care; second, I’m concerned that it just becomes a majoritarian pissing-contest – I’d much rather have wise government than popular government; third, I’m not qualified to express an opinion on the policies under discussion – and, again, I’d much rather have wise than popular policies. That last point is important; part of me thinks that, actually, I have a right to vote but some kind of a duty not to.

Does that amount to quietism? Not in the least. Open politics oughtn’t to be confused with elections; it’s possible to be politically engaged without voting. For example, I submit evidence (written and oral) to Parliamentary committees on subject concerning which I know my stuff; I’ll march and lobby and write letters with the best of ‘em. If it’s influencing policy that bothers you, I reckon I’m easily as effective as most voters in respect of the things about which I know and care; and in respect of those things about which I don’t know and don’t care, I don’t really lose anything by not having put a cross in a box.

The analogy with witnesses in court is bogus, too, btw, since there’s a matter of justice at stake there. I don’t see any justice aspect to whether or not someone votes; you aren’t unjustly harmed or unjustly benefitted by my not voting, though you may be if I refused to give evidence in your trial.

Pagar, how do you write with both eyes swivelling in different directions under that tinfoil hat of yours?

At least your £1000 fine will go towards deficit reduction.

“there’s a duty not to cheat on your wife, and a duty to give to charity, but that wouldn’t justify the state enforcing either, ”

This is in fact enforced, (the latter only I believe), by the state. Where do you think those “charities” given money by the government ultimately get their cash from?

Personally I’m not particularly bothered by the census, (proud of the chance to show my Jedi beliefs), but arguing that people should fill it in to assist with central planning when many people don’t support central planning is unlikely to sway them.

” That last point is important; part of me thinks that, actually, I have a right to vote but some kind of a duty not to.”

Best defense of not voting I’ve heard (although I don’t know why we so often act as if those who decide not to vote have a duty to defend their decision).

A census has to count everybody that’s the idea. If the census only counted those that cared to be counted it would have something of a meaningless result. A plebiscite is to gauge the expression of the people, there is little evidence (imho) that the result would be ‘improved’ by compulsory voting. Not sure about “letting people opt out altogether as we do is the worst option “, when the candidates are all rubbish surely the electorate ought to be able to express disaffection through not turning out.

@Chaise G -
Ta!

@2 – hopefully other residents in your road will do the same, and then the local authority will then conclude nobody lives there, and thus decide it isn’t worth scheduling bin collections, providing street lighting, or repairing any potholes.

@5 Falco: “…but arguing that people should fill it in to assist with central planning when many people don’t support central planning is unlikely to sway them.”

Central planning? This year’s census designers want to know whether you own central heating…

I can understand some of the “What” and “How many” questions in the census. It is even pertinent to ask questions about ethnicity or birth place, to establish who lives in the UK.

But it’s the questions like religious belief or where I work to which I will be giving fictitious answers. Central planners don’t need to worry about whether the local authority is serving my needs because I tell them what I think, not what they perceive based on a handful of attributes. I am a citizen who can vote, write letters and express an opinion about what I want.

Does my home have central heating? That’s my affair.

The census is a count of people so that the government, local authorities and NHS, etc., can allocate the necessary resources and funding throughout Britain to keep our society running for the benefit of everyone. To get these things right the figures need to be accurate, so EVERYONE must counted. That’s why there is a law to say so.

Voting is important, but we live in a country where it’s hard to tell the difference between the political parties. Voter apathy will continue until a candidate steps forward who really speaks for the people of England, Scotland, Wales and NI.

Don’t hold your breath, but do fill out your census form.

@11 Dave Willis-Jones: “The census is a count of people so that the government, local authorities and NHS, etc., can allocate the necessary resources and funding throughout Britain to keep our society running for the benefit of everyone.”

My local authority knows that I generate rubbish, put it in a bin from which they then empty. They know who I am as a customer and they know how much rubbish in total is produced by my neighbours and others on the collection round.

My local authority knows how many children attend local schools and they know the birth rate at local hospitals. They know how many properties are exchanged and can extrapolate future school attendances.

There are lots of data sources that can be used to determine demand. And there are some demands that are really tricky to predict.

“To get these things right the figures need to be accurate…”

Absolutely. How useful was the 2001 census at predicting demand for Polish speaking teaching assistants? Given that a census won’t be accurate for such purposes, keep it simple and don’t try to misapply the data.

Central planners don’t need to worry about whether the local authority is serving my needs because I tell them what I think, not what they perceive based on a handful of attributes. I am a citizen who can vote, write letters and express an opinion about what I want.

Wow… that sounds pompous. You do realise that the information is for local authorities and not just central government, right? Furthermore, are you really able to account for every single requirement that every member of your family will have of the local authority at all times?

I am working on the 2011 census, and so seeing people’s objections is interesting… Even on sites like this, people conflate the ONS and government as if they are the same thing, when the ONS has a 200-year track record of protecting data and the private data within this census is not only not going to be viewable for 100 years, but won’t be being read or processed by humans either.

@13 KJB: “Wow… that sounds pompous. You do realise that the information is for local authorities and not just central government, right?”

It is the opposite of pompous; it is democratic. I understand that local authorities need population trend data, for which there are many sources, but local government is about politics and choice as well as demand prediction.

“…when the ONS has a 200-year track record of protecting data and the private data within this census is not only not going to be viewable for 100 years, but won’t be being read or processed by humans either.”

I think you mean that the ONS *had* a 200-year track record of protecting data. NO2ID argue that if disaggregated data are shared with public bodies or approved researchers, that trust has been destroyed.

guys…what do we know about how people mlived 100 years ago? we have diaries (mainly from the upper classes) and we have newspapers and magazines if they have survived, and we have books and novels. We also have the census data. It is vital for social history. Housing densities, age spans, all that stuff. of course, it could be captured online if anyone could figure out how to cross-refer the database state but a standard census form makes it easier.

The census should be lots of fun. It is just the type of issue to get the swivel-eyed howling at the moon because filling in a form is just the same as totalitarianism. How on earth do they manage to cope with the stress of applying for a passport, they must feel physically sick completing the form.

The census should be lots of fun. It is just the type of issue to get the swivel-eyed howling at the moon because filling in a form is just the same as totalitarianism.

Er, I didn’t howl at the moon or swivel my eyes. I just put it in the bin and went to the pub.

NO2ID argue that if disaggregated data are shared with public bodies or approved researchers, that trust has been destroyed.

Yes, but the disaggregated data is not going to be shared with anyone. Why is this not getting through to anyone? The raw data is going to be scanned, encrypted and stored by computers for 100 years, whilst the paper forms will be securely destroyed. In 100 years’ time, the raw data will be available for use by genealogists, family historians, etc. The ONS is only making statistical information available to ‘public bodies or approved researchers.’ I am very much sympathetic to NO2ID’s campaign overall, but it really seems like there is serious misrepresentation/misunderstanding going on with regards to the Census. What they are calling for (‘we haven’t called for a census boycott. We said the data should be kept confidential then deleted’, according to this Tweet) is what the ONS is doing!

Spot on KJB

@17 Geraint

That’s another £1000 towards paying off the the deficit. Smart move!

Don’t pay any mind to the nonsense threats about 1000 pound fines. If the authorities really did try to fine all non-respondents, the courts would be overwhelmed.

Personally I don’t mind ticking a box saying there are two adults in my property. What I do object to is the other stuff (religion, central heating, work address etc). So just don’t fill that bit in. Or lie.

In the last census Jedi was the fastest growing “religion”. Exactly zero were fined for this lie.

@18 KJB

I’ve supported NO2ID for some time because I oppose ID cards and they were doing a good job opposing the scheme. It’s sad to see how they have picked up on the census. However, they are advising that people do not complete the voluntary questions, not that they dump the whole form as the ZOG-paranoiacs above have said they’ve done.

@ 21 astateofdenmark

“Personally I don’t mind ticking a box saying there are two adults in my property. What I do object to is the other stuff (religion, central heating, work address etc). So just don’t fill that bit in. Or lie.”

Genuine question: assuming you play by the rules, how many of the questions are compulsory? I’d be very surprised if stuff like religious affiliation didn’t have a “no comment” section or similar.

I find it hilarious when people who vote get self-riteous abput it.

As a union rep I can make an immediate, significant difference to individual lives: I rate that far more politically effective than casting one vote out of millions once every five years – the political equivalent of voodoo or homeopathy.

Never mind that – why am I being forced to take part in an exercise that will add to the profits of an American weapons manufacturer? One, moreover, whose loyalty is to the US government, not me, and who might be ordered “by law” (the PATRIOT act) to turn my information over to the war-mongering, public service hating bigots who rule the USA.

It takes effort, costs time and even money to exercise your vote and let’s be honest, the chances that your individual vote will make any difference to the result is miniscule (especially under our present voting system). With this in mind, it is surprising anyone bothers voting at all.

But as you argue, low turnout is a big problem especially as the young and lower socio-economic voters tend to have the lowest turnout distorting the results. This is not a problem to politicians who need to persuade even less people to be able to get elected, but to society in general where the disconnect with their representatives becomes a chasm. We owe it to OTHERS to vote – it is a civic duty as well as a right. Arguably the civic duty part is more important.

But I disagree with compulsion for 3 reasons; it discourages registration thereby defeating the object of higher turnout, fining people is administatively expensive and penalises the poor more than the rich, and it restricts freedom of choice.

Better to offer a direct financial incentive to vote, to compensate people for the time, effort and cost. A bank holiday on election day would help, but with the priviso you only receive your holiday pay/benefits/extra days holiday etc. if you turnout to vote. This I am sure would boost turnout massively and particularly remedy the problem of lower turnout amongst the poorest voters. Of course a more representative voting system would be nice as well.

Compulsory voting is not something you want.

Here in Australia, campaigns have become increasingly negative and people have become increasingly disaffected with politics since it was introduced.

The state has no right to force people to vote (or fill out a form, as far as I’m concerned).

@18 KJB: “Yes, but the disaggregated data is not going to be shared with anyone. Why is this not getting through to anyone?”

Because we have read enough bits of the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007. If you conduct a Google search for the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007, the first hit is the act itself and the second is section 39 of the act.

Section 39 is euphemistically labelled “Confidentiality of personal information”. It explicitly defines personal information (not aggregate data) and who may have access to it. It explains that personal data may be revealed to approved researchers or “for the purposes of a criminal investigation or criminal proceedings (whether or not in the United Kingdom)”.

Evening all,

Just one quick point; Enzyme, I think you did slightly misread the last line. It’ s not your vote that’s under threat, but your right to have a government in place that actually represents the population and is thus able to get on with it IS.

Any government that gets elected with low voter turnout is basically a loose canon operating with no job description. Governments, and all of us, need to know what most people thought of their manifesto; an absence of this is so obviously open to abuse not only by them but, assuming a case where they’re the good guys, the vested interests that oppose them (“the public all hate paying tax!”"Nobody really values a state-funded BBC!”)

Surely this is more important than the question on the census where they ask what forms of central heating you have, including the ones you don’t use?!

23 – I’m pretty sure religion was the only one that stated explicitly that it was voluntary.

Section 39 is euphemistically labelled “Confidentiality of personal information”. It explicitly defines personal information (not aggregate data) and who may have access to it. It explains that personal data may be revealed to approved researchers or “for the purposes of a criminal investigation or criminal proceedings (whether or not in the United Kingdom)”.

Mmmmm… planning a crime spree are you?

It doesn’t say ‘will,’ it says ‘may be’ – which suggests that it may well depend on the criminal proceedings in question. I can’t help thinking as well that in such circumstances, they would probably get the information they wanted through stuff like your passport first, and go for census data second. As I said above, the data is all going to be encrypted, so they would have decrypt it first. It really sounds like you are reaching for any reason you can not to do the census, frankly. I don’t care – I doubt you’re in my ED!

To all the people complaining about certain questions: if you do the census online, it automatically filters out questions that aren’t relevant to you (which is really good if you’re a single-person household).

Cherub – I’m glad to hear that they’ve moderated their stance somewhat. A lot of this (frankly very middle-class) privacy obsession is not something I’m actually going to have to worry about, as I said – apathy or language are likely to be bigger issues for me. I think the database state is something we should definitely be wary of and oppose, but it seems like that gets mixed up with all the ‘small state’ stuff, which offers a convenient excuse for privatisation, privatisation, privatisation! For anyone who didn’t read AllyF’s piece on the real meaning of the ‘Big Society,’ it’s scarily prescient. At least we CAN hold the state accountable – what about the ISPs who have your data? The banks? The online businesses who are obsessed with focussing ever-more targeted advertising at you?

The low response to the last census led to Waltham Forest losing £9m of funding. That’s a LOT of money, in one of the poorest areas of London. We have a Tory-led government that is slavering for chances to cut, and I feel like a lot of the census objectors are handing it to them on a plate – but then I’m sure some of them approve… I think the only argument I can really relate to is the moral argument being made against Lockheed Martin, but still I can’t help feeling like those arguments come from a very privileged place – people who aren’t going to lose out much if there are massive funding cuts, or who, like Charlieman, have got the time to chase up councils over every little problem they have:

Any boycott of the census could lead to further funding problems for local councils, who already fear they will miss out on hundreds of millions of pounds of funding from central government because hundreds of thousands of people will not be counted.

The last census in 2001 has been accused of failing to count a million people and this time a number of major councils have expressed fears that lessons have not been learnt, a claim denied by the Office for National Statistics.

Source

@31 KJB: “It doesn’t say ‘will,’ it says ‘may be’ – which suggests that it may well depend on the criminal proceedings in question. I can’t help thinking as well that in such circumstances, they would probably get the information they wanted through stuff like your passport first, and go for census data second.”

I am not against a census per se. I believe that there is some merit to a simple head count with simple demographics. I think that it would be good if minorities such as Jews or illegal immigrants had comfort in the exercise so that their numbers are recorded.

However, any suggestion that personal data could be used for purposes other than a head count undermines the census. If we seriously want to know how many illegal immigrants are settled in the UK, they need the confidence that data is collected for a single purpose and will not available to, say, the UK Border Agency.

The fact that many 21st century Jews did not identify themselves in the last census demonstrates distrust that existed before the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007.

“As I said above, the data is all going to be encrypted, so they would have decrypt it first. It really sounds like you are reaching for any reason you can not to do the census, frankly. I don’t care – I doubt you’re in my ED!”

Nope, the data will not be encrypted. The data will be disaggregated so that individuals or households are not identifiable. This bit of data will be published and available to all in a year or so. The published data will describe neighbourhoods or villages.

Raw personal data will be stored, securely, for 100 years. In 2111, should we be alive, we will have access to the raw data provided by our neighbours or our favourite footballer. That is no different from the census conducted in 1911.

What is different is the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007. I do not believe that the law makers intended to make census data available for fishing expeditions into criminality, but the possibility is one of the consequences of the act.

Let me make it clear: I do not seek excuses to discard my census form; my responses to impertinent questions may not be accurate, but I have no problem with the head count stuff.

Given that access to census data has changed, however, I am not surprised that other people might not wish to share their personal data.

no government in the Eu as compulsory voting. Strange that the only one Australia also as AV! Australia is also a country that as marsupials who carry their young in a pouch and one mammal that as duck bill. COmpulsory voting is likewise an evolutionary dead end?

I wonder what the value is of the votes of people who really have little idea of what each party stands for or is trying to achieve? Of those who do vote I know of many people who vote for a particular party because ‘I always have’, ‘my family always votes that way’ or because they don’t like someone in another party because they did something else that affected them personally. What we do need is to really educate people in British politics, starting perhaps at school.

@25 Briar.

Totally agree. It doesnt seem like anyone wants to address that issue. Perhaps they are collecting the information so they can decide who to get rd off, enslave or otherwise..

Why would an arms manufacturer want to be collecting the data? For the profit?yes but perhaps for more ulterior motives…and as @25 stated its a USA company too who may be liable o disclose under the Patriot Act.

I filled my census and posted it (so i have done my part as required by law its posted so it must be recived by that party an i cannot be held liable if its not)..Only the force knows if it will get to its destination