So someone says who they are voting for (which was the point of this whole thread), they say 'UKIP' and they get jumped all over. Other people have said 'Green Party', who's leader is bat shit crazy, and its fair do's.
This is one of the reasons i cant be getting on with politics.
My statement that there does not seem to be a fag paper of difference between the 3 main parties is borne out by 66% each Conservative and Labour and 62% Lib Dem.
So someone says who they are voting for (which was the point of this whole thread), they say 'UKIP' and they get jumped all over. Other people have said 'Green Party', who's leader is bat shit crazy, and its fair do's.
This is one of the reasons i cant be getting on with politics.
Nigel is definitely a Ukippers name and not just because it's Sir Farage's first name. I'd put me house on anyone going to the polls called Nigel WILL be voting Ukip. Wish my name was Nigel, really do..... Ffs
Re, the vote spoiling, would it be fair to argue that not voting at all is in fact far more effective a way of registering your displeasure, considering the turnout/'numbers not voting' figures always seems to be more of a headline than the number of spoilt papers etc.
Personally I have always voted and during the count have always enjoyed the many spoilt papers I have had to collate, but I think it's a justified question.
Non-voters usually get vilified but people spoiling don't - is there really any difference other than the exercise (less now due to postals of course)?
I think just not voting shows you don't care.
Actually spoiling shows you care enough to go (slightly) out of your way to physically communicate it.
It's currently the only (easy) option of proactively showing your disapproval of all the available options but I'm not sure it achieves anything in doing so beyond providing a break in the monotony for the count staff.
We've had falling turnouts for many years now, has anything changed in terms of voter engagement? I doubt it and despite this likely being a very close election I suspect that turnout will be down again.
Spoiling a vote should be a last resort IMO and I would not encourage anyone to do it. I think a lot of voters tend to look for a party that completely matches their views, which in my mind is impossible. Indeed it should be impossible if you've given it any thought whatsoever.
So when they can't find one that completely matches their views they adopt a position of "well I won't vote for any of them then", which makes no sense to me and if nothing else voters should vote for the party that is most likely to benefit them and their family even if its not by very much (or least likely to harm their interests if you're a glass half empty sort of person).
The thought of effectively wasting your vote is anathema to me and why young people, who stand to gain or lose probably more than any other group in society, do not vote in the numbers they could is depressing. I could not wait to start voting personally* but when I talk to younger relatives they are not really interested it seems. Why no party has done more to engage with the 18-25 age group is a complete mystery to me tbh.
*this may be related to the lady in power at the time though ;-)
Re, the vote spoiling, would it be fair to argue that not voting at all is in fact far more effective a way of registering your displeasure, considering the turnout/'numbers not voting' figures always seems to be more of a headline than the number of spoilt papers etc.
Personally I have always voted and during the count have always enjoyed the many spoilt papers I have had to collate, but I think it's a justified question.
Non-voters usually get vilified but people spoiling don't - is there really any difference other than the exercise (less now due to postals of course)?
I think just not voting shows you don't care.
Actually spoiling shows you care enough to go (slightly) out of your way to physically communicate it.
It's currently the only (easy) option of proactively showing your disapproval of all the available options but I'm not sure it achieves anything in doing so beyond providing a break in the monotony for the count staff.
We've had falling turnouts for many years now, has anything changed in terms of voter engagement? I doubt it and despite this likely being a very close election I suspect that turnout will be down again.
Spoiling a vote should be a last resort IMO and I would not encourage anyone to do it. I think a lot of voters tend to look for a party that completely matches their views, which in my mind is impossible. Indeed it should be impossible if you've given it any thought whatsoever.
So when they can't find one that completely matches their views they adopt a position of "well I won't vote for any of them then", which makes no sense to me and if nothing else voters should vote for the party that is most likely to benefit them and their family even if its not by very much (or least likely to harm their interests if you're a glass half empty sort of person).
The thought of effectively wasting your vote is anathema to me and why young people, who stand to gain or lose probably more than any other group in society, do not vote in the numbers they could is depressing. I could not wait to start voting personally* but when I talk to younger relatives they are not really interested it seems. Why no party has done more to engage with the 18-25 age group is a complete mystery to me tbh.
*this may be related to the lady in power at the time though ;-)
So someone says who they are voting for (which was the point of this whole thread), they say 'UKIP' and they get jumped all over. Other people have said 'Green Party', who's leader is bat shit crazy, and its fair do's.
This is one of the reasons i cant be getting on with politics.
Unless I've missed something I think you're being a bit unfair/over sensitive on that. For the most part it's been a very grown up discussion but to use your terminology plenty of posters on the left have also been "jumped all over" if that's the case.
a t m I intend voting Labour, the party which I consider will do the most for the most neglected members of our country; the young .. looks like I am a left wing (ish) fascist ((:>)
Personally, I believe that instead of cutting £12 billion from the welfare budget we could stop the £12 billion we give away instead, in the form of overseas aid.
We should then looked to offer aid when it is actually required for disasters and the like.
I know it's difficult, but why are we so keen to help the rest of the world before our own welfare dependents ? If we can afford both, then fair enough, but we can't.
I am afraid I don't agree for historical, practical and moral reasons. Britain was able to tramp and trash around the world with the creation of colonies, and suck the resources from the countries it occupied to fuel it's industrial development. Many of those places now are incredibly poor, and the west still gains because the children of those poor make our Primark clothes, and Nike Trainers on the cheap. If we abandon support for the poorest countries, unrest and the desperation of a lot of people will impact on us one way or another. I also believe we can afford it whatever the argument about our struggles as a nation. One cup of Costa Coffee represents a couple of days wages for a lot of workers around the world, I also believe that it represents a small percentage of our annual wealth. I also like to think that as a country, governed by whichever party, that we would want to help if we can. I do know there is an argument that a lot of aid is siphoned off by dodgy characters, but that is something we can try to tackle.
It is ironic that the Republic of Ireland is the 'goodest' country in the world
when Ireland has largely taken the hit in the Eurozone without whinging, and tried to find ways to climb back. If a tiny state like the Republic of Ireland, itself a previous British Colony, can still reach out to try to do good in the world, then I reckon Britain can continue with it's overseas aid.
It's a shame Seth plum has such a low opinion of the british empire and the way the British spread industrialisation and civilisation across the world.
I'm guessing Seth would prefer the disgusting murderous and communist Chinese empire.
If Seth wants to give more money to the third world, rather than it coming from the tax payer, Seth should put his hand in his own pocket.
A good way to start would be to cancel your broadband and give that saving to the third world. This has two advantages; it appeases Seths conscience and secondly it saves the rest of us from reading his left wing, pretending to offended at everything nonsense.
smudge7946
OK. I saw your post just before I went out, so I am now going to attempt to defend myself against your attack.
You have not bothered to counterbalance my opinion of the British Empire beyond declaring that it spread industrialisation and civilisation across the world. I disagree because it is not true in my view that the places the British colonised were uncivilized before the British got there, by that I certainly mean places such as China (Hong Kong was not a colony though, but a leased agreement), India, large parts of Africa and elsewhere. These places may have been less able to stand up to the military power of the British, but it is nothing to do with the degree to which a country is 'civilized' which is open to debate and dispute. Industrialisation is also not the automatic benefit you allude to either, and indeed I believe that it was riding on the back of such places that Britain was able to industrialise itself. One example that could be cited is the immense wealth Britain gained from the slave trade, that was possibly justified by the British at the time as no biggie because the slaves were not 'civilised', but the slave traders were. I observe you have brought Chinese communism into things (presumably because you know I have a Chinese wife and mixed race son). You have said 'murderous' which is true in part, as it was in Stalins Russia, Nazi Germany, and indeed in the British Empire too. here is one example:
If you research 'Lizzie van Zyl' you will also see the effects of a Concentration Camp invented by the British in the Second Boer War.
To say you are guessing that I would prefer that kind of thing is a mistake on your part, and it is what you say, a guess, but you have guessed wrongly. However I doubt if it bothers you if your guess is wrong because the tone of your post is to try to put me down personally, and it may be difficult for you to let any facts or statements get in the way of that.
I contribute to overseas aid already, which you call the 'third world', I prefer to call it 'other people'.
You have suggested I cancel my broadband, and give the money saved away. I can partially agree with you on this. I post so much on here it is inevitable I piss a lot of people off, I am aware of that. my counter argument is that a lot of us who post piss a lot of other posters off, and I am not sure if it is any form of natural justice to single me out, but hey ho there you go.
However you have no idea about my conscience beyond what I write here because we don't know each other. You wish to label me as 'left-wing', again you don't know me (beyond what I write here), so you may well be mistaken there, and you say I 'pretend' to be offended at everything, but you are unable to back that statement up in the slightest.
You also say that what I write is nonsense, which I disagree with but then again everybody is entitled to their opinion are they not? Well maybe that's not an entitlement you would extend to me given what you have written, but I suspect it is an entitlement you would wish to keep for yourself.
Incidentally my original piece was an 'opinion' regarding overseas aid which seems to have exercised you so much.
Surely it is too simplistic to ignore both the good and the bad and within that we must make allowances for the times. To say the British Empire was all good is to ignore the great levels of suffering endured by its hands, but to say it is all bad is to ignore the massive technological/engineering/inventing achievements that came from that period. Maybe rather than generalise it is best to look at things on a case by case basis.
94% Tories 82% UKIP (as a mixed race person that shocked me) 65% Lib Dems 43% Labour
Yep - I am right on the bubble between right and left of centre, aren't I?
Incidentally, I did a similar survey last time around. I found a message on my Facebook feed and I have swung 1% toward Labour in 5 years. Don't lose faith in me Ed. In about 470 years time I will be standing outside my ad agency in a strike of defiance, screaming Power to the People! As a lack of quality advertising brings hard-working Londoners to their knees and people wonder how they will cope without their daily dose of brand messaging.
Either that or I will be stretched out at home, with 10 kids, and watching Jeremy Kyle
Has anyone heard or seen anything by any party on the UK's woeful productivity figures? They bear down heavily on the prospects for strong economic growth. But I guess no one wants to tell us we've all got to work harder. Banning Charlton Life would be a good place to start....
Perhaps someone will bring up the productivity issue now? (Perhaps not - the Conservatives won't want to mention that business is not investing anywhere near as as much as it should and Labour won't want to mention that the workforce are a bunch of lazy bastards.)
I can't tell you how shocked I was this morning to read that the likes of firebrand socialists like Sir Philip Green are supporting a party that wants to reduce corporation tax even further.
In other news, the unions would prefer a Labour government and the Pope remains a Catholic.
Quite a few former Labour donors and supporters in that list actually.
I can't tell you how shocked I was this morning to read that the likes of firebrand socialists like Sir Philip Green are supporting a party that wants to reduce corporation tax even further.
In other news, the unions would prefer a Labour government and the Pope remains a Catholic.
Quite a few former Labour donors and supporters in that list actually.
Well 5 out of 103 to be accurate. I'd say they were very heavily outnumbered by existing Tory peers and soon to be Tory peers.
94% Tories 82% UKIP (as a mixed race person that shocked me) 65% Lib Dems 43% Labour
Yep - I am right on the bubble between right and left of centre, aren't I?
Incidentally, I did a similar survey last time around. I found a message on my Facebook feed and I have swung 1% toward Labour in 5 years. Don't lose faith in me Ed. In about 470 years time I will be standing outside my ad agency in a strike of defiance, screaming Power to the People! As a lack of quality advertising brings hard-working Londoners to their knees and people wonder how they will cope without their daily dose of brand messaging.
Either that or I will be stretched out at home, with 10 kids, and watching Jeremy Kyle
Haven't they got a couple of ethnic candidates/party members?
I can't tell you how shocked I was this morning to read that the likes of firebrand socialists like Sir Philip Green are supporting a party that wants to reduce corporation tax even further.
In other news, the unions would prefer a Labour government and the Pope remains a Catholic.
Quite a few former Labour donors and supporters in that list actually.
Well 5 out of 103 to be accurate. I'd say they were very heavily outnumbered by existing Tory peers and soon to be Tory peers.
Somebody asked why Brits abroad such as me should even have the vote. I rattled off the reasons why. Funny enough I doubt Philip Green can compile half of the same list, not least because mine includes: "I pay UK income tax".
Comments
This is one of the reasons i cant be getting on with politics.
My statement that there does not seem to be a fag paper of difference between the 3 main parties is borne out by 66% each Conservative and Labour and 62% Lib Dem.
Rather worryingly I am 53% Green!!
:-)
85% Green
84% Lib Dem
Shows how close pretty much every party is with their policies.
We've had falling turnouts for many years now, has anything changed in terms of voter engagement? I doubt it and despite this likely being a very close election I suspect that turnout will be down again.
Spoiling a vote should be a last resort IMO and I would not encourage anyone to do it. I think a lot of voters tend to look for a party that completely matches their views, which in my mind is impossible. Indeed it should be impossible if you've given it any thought whatsoever.
So when they can't find one that completely matches their views they adopt a position of "well I won't vote for any of them then", which makes no sense to me and if nothing else voters should vote for the party that is most likely to benefit them and their family even if its not by very much (or least likely to harm their interests if you're a glass half empty sort of person).
The thought of effectively wasting your vote is anathema to me and why young people, who stand to gain or lose probably more than any other group in society, do not vote in the numbers they could is depressing. I could not wait to start voting personally* but when I talk to younger relatives they are not really interested it seems. Why no party has done more to engage with the 18-25 age group is a complete mystery to me tbh.
*this may be related to the lady in power at the time though ;-)
Mrs Robinson syndrome.
:-)
Lab 90
Lib dem 78
BNP 52
UKIP 39
Tory 27
I am a complicated person as you can see.
79% Lib Dem
79% UKIP
60% Labour
...
15% SNP
Sounds about right.
82% UKIP (as a mixed race person that shocked me)
65% Lib Dems
43% Labour
Yep - I am right on the bubble between right and left of centre, aren't I?
UKIP 85%
BNP 74%
Lib Dem 70%
Labour 56%
a t m I intend voting Labour, the party which I consider will do the most for the most neglected members of our country; the young .. looks like I am a left wing (ish) fascist ((:>)
89% Lib Dem
82% Green
60% Conservative
36% UKIP
Interestingly
82% Plaid Cymru
80% Sinn Fein
79% SNP
24% Democratic Unionist
18% BNP
OK. I saw your post just before I went out, so I am now going to attempt to defend myself against your attack.
You have not bothered to counterbalance my opinion of the British Empire beyond declaring that it spread industrialisation and civilisation across the world. I disagree because it is not true in my view that the places the British colonised were uncivilized before the British got there, by that I certainly mean places such as China (Hong Kong was not a colony though, but a leased agreement), India, large parts of Africa and elsewhere. These places may have been less able to stand up to the military power of the British, but it is nothing to do with the degree to which a country is 'civilized' which is open to debate and dispute. Industrialisation is also not the automatic benefit you allude to either, and indeed I believe that it was riding on the back of such places that Britain was able to industrialise itself. One example that could be cited is the immense wealth Britain gained from the slave trade, that was possibly justified by the British at the time as no biggie because the slaves were not 'civilised', but the slave traders were.
I observe you have brought Chinese communism into things (presumably because you know I have a Chinese wife and mixed race son). You have said 'murderous' which is true in part, as it was in Stalins Russia, Nazi Germany, and indeed in the British Empire too. here is one example:
https://abagond.wordpress.com/2013/05/10/the-tasmanian-genocide/
If you research 'Lizzie van Zyl' you will also see the effects of a Concentration Camp invented by the British in the Second Boer War.
To say you are guessing that I would prefer that kind of thing is a mistake on your part, and it is what you say, a guess, but you have guessed wrongly. However I doubt if it bothers you if your guess is wrong because the tone of your post is to try to put me down personally, and it may be difficult for you to let any facts or statements get in the way of that.
I contribute to overseas aid already, which you call the 'third world', I prefer to call it 'other people'.
You have suggested I cancel my broadband, and give the money saved away. I can partially agree with you on this. I post so much on here it is inevitable I piss a lot of people off, I am aware of that. my counter argument is that a lot of us who post piss a lot of other posters off, and I am not sure if it is any form of natural justice to single me out, but hey ho there you go.
However you have no idea about my conscience beyond what I write here because we don't know each other. You wish to label me as 'left-wing', again you don't know me (beyond what I write here), so you may well be mistaken there, and you say I 'pretend' to be offended at everything, but you are unable to back that statement up in the slightest.
You also say that what I write is nonsense, which I disagree with but then again everybody is entitled to their opinion are they not? Well maybe that's not an entitlement you would extend to me given what you have written, but I suspect it is an entitlement you would wish to keep for yourself.
Incidentally my original piece was an 'opinion' regarding overseas aid which seems to have exercised you so much.
UKIP 88
LIB DEM 71
BNP 57 (!!!!!)
LAB 53
GREEN 12
81% UKIP
71% LIB
68% LAB
Surprised in my labour score. I have a job
88% TORY
69% BNP
41% LABOUR
Either that or I will be stretched out at home, with 10 kids, and watching Jeremy Kyle
93% Labour
84% Greens
64% Conservative
58% UKIP
bbc.co.uk/news/business-32143552
Green 84%
Lib Dem 83%
Ukip 63%
Conservative 43%
About right I guess.
Cons - 91%
BNP - 82%
Lib Dem - 55%
Lab - 23%
Green - 2%