On 07/05/2015 08:30, Rod Speed wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 07/05/2015 08:07, Rod Speed wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 07/05/2015 07:04, Jacko wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 06/05/2015 21:28, Jacko wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 06/05/15 15:59, Dennis@home wrote:
On 06/05/2015 10:50, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

The sad fact is that our civilisation will collapse, not in a
nuclear
holocaust, not on a welter of dangerous waste, but in a welter of
incompetence, because in the end, democracy has proved but one
thing:
mots people are too stupid to vote.





Well tomorrow we will see hoe many are stupid enough to vote UKIP.

Well tomorrow we will see how many are stupid enough not to vote
UKIP.

Nothing stupid about realising that there isn't a lot of point in
voting for a party that might get 3 MPs elected if they are lucky.

What you are effectively saying, is follow the crowd and don't vote
for who you really want to vote for.

No, vote for the party that has some chance of being
the government which proposes to do what you think
is the better way of doing things.



I'll vote for the party who I feel has the best policies for the
country as a whole.

There is no point in voting for a party that might
end up with just 3 seats if they are lucky and has no
hope of having any say on government policy at all.

To vote any other way is following the sheep

Nothing whatever to do with following sheep, it's
all about doing something useful with your vote.

and doesn't make sense.

Makes a lot more sense that wasting your vote.

I don't like the idea of tactical voting.

That approach is what sees your vote actually do something useful.

Have the conviction for what you believe in.

I do, but want to see at least some of what I believe in happen.

If you for example want to see Britain leave the EU,
it makes sense to vote in a way that will ensure that
the entire country will get to vote on the question
of Britain leaving the EU and that means voting for
the Torys in your seat if it isn't a safe seat for Labour.

Yes, it was certainly UKIP that got Cameron to promise
that there would be a referendum on that, but NOW
what matters on that is that the party that has promised
to do that gets to carry out that promise if that is what
you want to see happen.

But you can't trust the Tories on a definite vote for a referendum.

But they are a much better prospect for doing that than
a party that can only get 3 MPs elected if they are lucky.

Corse you may not actually want a referendum and would
prefer a govt that just leaves the EU without asking anyone,
but that isn't going to happen with a party which can only
get 3 MPs elected if they are lucky, even if they do end up
as part of the coalition that is the govt.

They reneged last time they promised one and they've left a loophole
to renege on their promise this time...namely,they said, if they
can't get a change from the EU then he'll allow a referendum. What
he'll probably do, is to get a tiny insignificant change that means
virtually nothing and then say "there! I got the change so there'll be
no referendum". He *desperately* wants to stay in the EU.

Still a better prospect of a referendum than with any other
party that has any possibility of being part of the govt.

Even if UKIP does end up being part of the coalition that
forms govt, they wont be able to force a referendum.

True, but they can heavily influence.