Education Did you know that there is an election looming?

Absolute tosh, the ordinary guys vote counts for zilch once a government has been elected usually by a tiny percentage. I believe there should be a separate box that clearly states that you do not wish to vote for any of the above rather than just deliberately spoiling a ballot paper.

If you believe that just because you have voted that politicians will listen then what on earth were they doing when a million+ marched against the war in Iraq. Certainly not listening.

 

I fear you have missed my point. I didn't say that the politicians would listen. That's another matter entirely, and something I am not going to get dragged into discussing.

What I did, however, state is that in carrying out the act of voting, you are having your say (however insignificant you perceive it to be) as to who 'runs the country', so to speak. That, to me, is the important bit.

EDIT: PS - Why the aggressive tone?

 

Sorry I'm with jinq-sea here. The system is flawed, it's rubbish, but its there. If you don't make a vote then you abdicate right to complain as you haven't tried to do anything (as fruitless as you expect the effort to be, it's not difficult).

If you don't know what/who to vote for, then think of the worst thing you expect and vote against that. Or find someone who shares your worldview and ask them where their vote will go and why.

I have some sympathy for your position of not liking any option and if there is no scale of dislike then I personally would see abstention as better than a protest vote that leads to another coalition where nobody can reasonably be held to their manifesto as they are not given the power and mandate to deliver.

 

Indeed, I don't think I could have described the credulity of your public statement more succinctly if I tried.

 

Why do you take such great delight in trolling? This isn't the first time, is it?

 

I'll vote, it's a nice walk and goes past a pub, but it's not worth owt, I'm in a safe seat so counts for nothing

That's not the whole picture though is it.
Just from that one graph it could be read that Labour had the biggest loss from +16.7 to -42.6, it would also bring one to question how the trend would have continued should they have retained power for another term (ignoring the crash)

 

I can see where Kronos is coming from: it being the only one available is not necessarily a reason to collude with a badly flawed system. Sometimes you need to name the fact that it is a badly flawed system and challenge it.

Think of the Suffragettes: they named and challenged a flawed system rather than going along with the status quo because a male democracy is better than no democracy at all.

 

You really are taking a logical, grown up mindset in this aren't you...

*not sure if feeding troll but...*


EDIT, nope. Can't be arsed.

 

The analogy of suffragettes is a poor one, they had no vote and therefore no legitimate alternative to their movement if they want to influence the future.

 

Kronor is arguing that he does not have an effective vote. Arguably the same thing.

 

We'll not agree here. The vote can be effective but one out of millions seems seem irrelevant.
I suspect the definition of effective is open to debate though...

Dont get me wrong, I really dont like the system but in the absence of a better solution I can describe, I'll try to work with it.

 

I wouldn't consider questioning someone's belief that something is true with facts as trolling, I'm more than willing to debate opposing facts or why the information I form an opinion on is incorrect, that I maybe exhibiting confirmation bias.

If someone makes a statement that I consider may not be correct is it not right to question that statement, if someone believed they could fly should I withhold information to the contrary and hope they don't jump of a building.

Indeed, but that's the only information we have at present to work with (outside of how the politicians want to put their own spin on things). I often hear people say they wished the politicians would just give them the facts, yet judging from the response so far when those facts are available people seem more interested in mud throwing than actually discussing the validity of said facts.

I'm more than happy to agree with your point that labour had the biggest swing from a surplus to a deficit, even after GB said the days of boom and bust were over.

As for if the trend towards higher deficit would have continued I'll leave that up to others to hypothesise over (personally I believe it probably would have), but seeing as it seems the majority seem to think I'm trolling simply because I wish to debate the facts that so many people say they wish they had I think it's best if I leave that hypothesising to others for fear of eliciting an emotional response when the facts don't fit with someone's perception.

Yea well I'm trying to but it seems people aren't happy to discuss the facts or provide any evidence of their own, it seems people prefer to base their opinion on emotive, unsubstantiated allegations.

 

Corky, which belief of Scroome's are you challenging? That the economy would be in better hands if the Tories get in rather than Labour? If so, historical data as to surpluses or deficits run by previous governments doesn't prove or disprove anything regarding what might happen in the future, does it?

To be honest, your attitude in this thread is pretty off. If Scroome holds an opinion, he's perfectly entitled to do so, and doesn't need to provide you with anything to back that opinion - he's not trying to change your mind, is he? On the other hand, you seem to be going out of your way to "prove" that his opinion is incorrect, which is pretty unnecessary and a little bit rude tbh.

 

Meanwhile in David Icke's head...

 

To be honest we look more like the Wolfman than a Gorilla, we'd need muscles for the Gorilla look.

 

Hahahaha I had temporarily forgotten about the wonderful world of David Icke...

 

Thing is, there's facts and there's the interpretation of those facts --what they mean and what you can infer from them (which is why science is such an argumentative discipline). On the one hand the graph shows Labour as the only government running at a significant surplus. On the other hand it also shows Labour as presiding over the biggest crash from surplus to deficit in history. It also shows the Tories as turning this around again.

Of course we don't know if this pattern wouldn't just have happened regardless of who is in government; it is equally possible to postulate that these swings are unrelated to which party is in charge; we are just perceiving one of those meaningless correlations.

 

I find the idea that 'if you don't vote, you can't complain' a bit daft.

If anything, it's the opposite. You can't choose to participate in a process, knowing full well the range of outcomes before you begin, and then proceed to whinge when the actual outcome is not in your favour.

You don't sit down to a game of Monopoly and then whine if you don't win, not unless you're a dick anyway. If you don't want to lose at Monopoly, don't play Monopoly!

If you participate in an election then you've played your part in legitimizing the election of whoever wins, regardless of who you voted for.

But if you refuse to legitimize the enforced process, I'm much more open to hearing you out.

 

Might just be me, but I feel if you can vote, you should vote, or at least go through the process even if its to tick a box to abstain from choosing the candidates on offer in your constituency.

I believe the fact we all have the right to vote is a pretty great thing, especially when you look at the trials and tribulations that people went through in order to get the right to do so. I might slightly disagree with you Porkins' in the fact that, if you vote for a person and they aren't elected, at least you tried to make a difference, more so than sitting at home or down the local.

However, I suppose the same right that lets us vote, lets us choose to not vote.

And don't forget, we're British. We can always complain about something.