I know there's not alot to choose from and PR would help a great deal but not voting is exactly what those in power want - they go unchallenged and take more and more. That's not far off the mark, they do like to hand over taxpayer money to companies that then pass it on as share dividends. They don't want workers to get a fair share and be able to eat, drink, heat and clothe themselves but are quite happy to spread the money to dodgy contracts, those who want to see their profits rise and to save failing companies (not really capitalism is it).
I mean if you have the choice between do nothing and get nothing, or do something small and easy for even a 3% improvement seems like a no brainer? And of course the concept of next time if you can get another couple of % improvement, give it 10/20 years and there's potential for a decent amount of change. Whereas if you do nothing after 10/20 years you're still at nothing. I mean if by voting you increase the chance of getting the lesser evil, by not voting you increase the chance of getting the greater evil, so again, seems like an obvious choice.
I mean I voted when I lived in Witham and sadly there was no chance of getting rid of Priti Patel. But it's not like it was a huge effort/cost to me to indicate at least some people aren't happy. Whereas I tend to think not voting shows more that you're not fussed enough to want change, and therefore mean you're happy with the current way of things.
If I really couldn't bring myself to vote for option that I think is the best of those available I'd spoil my paper. At least that way it is counted and so shows that my non-vote is not a case of apathy. The problem with living in a country is that that opting out isn't an option even if you don't like it. It doesn't make any difference to the amount of power the people who are in charge have over you. The only options are: Try to change things (even if it's on a microscopic level), put up with it, or emigrate. The Lib Dems won Chesham and Amersham a year ago overturning a 16,000 majority in a seat that had been continuously Conservative since it's creation in 1974. Things can and do change, albeit sometimes so slowly it seems like it's not happening at all. They don't if enough people assume it is pointless to even try though.
I used to do that. I'd put a big cross right next to the Tory, to make it clear I definitely didn't want him to win... Not really, I used to draw dirty gert willies on the paper, making sure to steer clear of any of the boxes.
IIRC last GE there was a ballot deemed valid bc whoever filled it in wrote ... See You Next Tuesday [if you get what i mean], next to every name except one.
The Electoral Commission has a handy guide [PDF] to reading "doubtful ballots." Scroll down to the examples, where people have voted for candidates including "MILLER, Windy" of the Alternative Power Forum, "GREY, Earl" of the Mad Hatter's Tea Party, and "HOOD, Robin" of the Forest Party. It's kinda fun. That particular case would be allowed by the precedent of Levers v. Morris and Rule 47(2)(b) of the Electoral Guidelines: spoiling every candidate except one counts as a vote for the one you didn't spoil. My tactic of drawing willies everywhere except in the boxes would be rejected as uncertain intention, Rowe v. Cox (how appropriate) and Rule 47(1)(d).
Nothing will ever change in Westminster without true proportional representation. It is the starting point for a complete transformation of Westminster politics, nothing can ever get better without it. I'm still going to turn up and vote in general elections, but I'll be voting for Plaid Cymru.
As always, the gutter press serving as a bellwether for where a Conservative government will take us next... Tweet— Twitter API (@user) date
I just read that and I don't think he realises he's actually arguing that human rights aren't the problem but it's their lack of implementation that is.
I see BJ is currently out of the country for three days while the by elections take place. Ukranian PM too busy I guess to be burdened with him again so soon.
First thing I saw after the headline was the author's name. Didn't need to read another word after that. The problem here is that you read the article. You're not expected to do that, you're just supposed to see the attention-grabbing headline and gloss over the actual detail. I can guarantee you, even without reading the article, that what the vast majority of people will remember about that article is the headline and nothing else.
True, I'll ask my brexit voting regretting DM reading mum what her take is on it. I'll be interested her take on the strikes after being outraged at how the P&O workers were treated.
After Boris' response to losing 2 by-elections AND a party leader, I'm now waiting for reports to come in about him phoning random Returning Officers and asking them:- "What I want to do is this. I just want to find, uh, $NUMBER votes, which is one more than Labour have, because we won the constituency."
Or whip up the crazies and storm the Capitol! Hang Mike Pence. Hang Mike pen... Oh, wait... Um, wrong country.
So long as when BJ goes there's a big clear out. It's not like we have a Presidential system, the Tory Party have to ditch the whole gaggle of nonsense spouting, believe our illusion, self serving, mini Kremlin in the making, in it for themselves unpopular 'popularists'.
And when the electorate do, their remaining mates can give them a cushy job in the Lords. *gestures at Zac Goldsmith*
The cabinet wasn’t chosen because they might be popular but, because they say yes to Bozo and do whatever he says. Patel, for example, is as popular as having a cactus shoved up your arse.
