On Tuesday, 24 June 2014 15:19:52 UTC+1, Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 03:41:59 -0700, whisky-dave wrote:


Then, once we were in, we HELPED to turn it into what it is today.



Who's this we.



The government,

So there you have it.




UKIP support and all thos elikie me that don;t support UKIP and don't

support labour or con-lib because we are inteligent enough to not trust

them.



You really do live up to your posting name, don't you?

No idea what you mean, do you know, I thought not.

On Tuesday, 24 June 2014 15:20:31 UTC+1, Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 04:07:21 -0700, whisky-dave wrote:



For "non of the above" there is the option to spoil the ballot.



Was theire such a thing on the vote to join the EEC I'd heard it was a

YES or a NO choice.



What other choices would you like?

If there's an option to spoil your papers then it's no longer just a YEs or No question is it.

Now it's been claim we have the option or spoiling a paper but spoiling the paper would mean nothing as there's only a Yes or NO option.
So no one ever takes any notice of spoilt papers.
I wonder what would have happened if terhe were 51% spoilt papers would that have been seen as a Yes or a NO vote ?

In article , charles
scribeth thus
In article , Tim Watts
wrote:
On 25/06/14 08:45, Adrian wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 08:43:08 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:

London has, IIRC, the sixth largest French population of any city in
the world. Including those in France.

Sounds like they are settled rather than mobile and temporary.

All of them? You can tell from that one snippet of information? Wow.
Even the students? Even those in the city who'd be off tomorrow, to
chase big numbers, if their job changed or required it?

Maybe even the settled ones didn't all start off with the intention to
settle?


I've never seen a french plumber in the UK undercutting the other
plumbers.

I don't care about students - they are not damaging the local economy,
rather the opposite - they are contributing to it by paying student fees.
Let's clarify my standpoint further:



They are damaging it, by taking up accomodation which might otherwise be
used by locals. This means extra housing needs to be built with all the
attendant infrastructure and loss of green fields.


Please Sir,


Weren't you a student here once .. in my back yard;/.


Still they by being here keep the missus in a job teaching them...

Education is a big local industry/employer here..
--
Tony Sayer

In article , Bod
scribeth thus
On 25/06/2014 08:33, Adrian wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 08:19:27 +0100, Bod wrote:

The very few call centre experiences that I've had, although they were
polite, I had great difficulty in understanding the broken English from
the Asian sounding voices. I also found one Scottish chap to be
impossible to understand.

So you're just not very good at understanding people with accents.

And that, apparently, is their fault.

A lot of people have trouble understanding Asian accents, especially
over the telling bone.

A young Chinese student we had staying here, (another source of income
for the local's around 150 quid a week they pay you), at home recently
spoke better English then most people I know!.

Plus a few other languages too...
--
Tony Sayer

On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 05:45:42 -0700, whisky-dave wrote:

For "non of the above" there is the option to spoil the ballot.

Was theire such a thing on the vote to join the EEC I'd heard it was
a YES or a NO choice.

What other choices would you like?

There's a box that says "Yes ( )". There's a box that says "No ( )".
There are no other boxes. If you think "Yes", then you tick "Yes ( )". If
you think "No", then you tick "No ( )". That makes it a yes/no choice.

I repeat - what other choices would you like?

The question is "Should we do X? Yes or No?"

There isn't a box for "Well, maybe, but I'm not sure ( )". Nor is there a
box for "Umm, neither, really ( )". Or one for "I'm going to try to make
some kind of ill-thought-out point that nobody will really understand
( )". There does not need to be a box for "Chew ( )", "Drool ( )",
"Scrawl rude and mis-spelled message ( )" or "Attempt to draw a penis
( )" on it. You don't need to be invited to do any of those things. You,
Whisky Dave, just need to sober up for long enough to massage that one
remaining firing synapse into sufficient action to excel yourself and
Just Do It.

So no one ever takes any notice of spoilt papers.

Who said they did?

I wonder what would have happened if terhe were 51% spoilt papers would
that have been seen as a Yes or a NO vote ?

They would have been ignored, and the number of votes cast by grown-ups
would have been counted.

On Tuesday, 24 June 2014 15:36:53 UTC+1, Tim Watts wrote:
On 24/06/14 15:02, whisky-dave wrote:



and that would mean what exactly.

Spoilt ballot = dissent

Now it also means a miskate if you vote for too many canditates your paper is spoilt.


Not going = dissent OR apathy OR some other reason.



Therefore (as I've said enough times before) spoling the ballot is a far
more useful way to "not vote" than not voting.

But still says nothing.
What do you think would change if there were 50% spoilt papers ?
Do you really think anyhting would change ?
Do you really think polititions would stop lying , or perhaps politics would be more transparnet.



Think what the news would be like if they had to announce 60% of voters
spoiled their papers?

Would it be that much differnt from 60% not turning up ?


If you spoil a paper you've not voted for anyone, same as not going.

Of course they'll tell you it makes a differnce but will they tell you what differnce. They might as well tell you it's secret.



At leat by not turning up they know you havent; voted, where as yuo could have voted for for any of them,





they could even add a vote for you once they find a spoilt paper.



With all due respect, ******** they could.

They could it's been done, you DO KNOW that every vote is recordeed it's not secret.




and means nothing. A spoilt paper can mean anyhting from someone ticking an extar box to someone wiping their arse on it.



It means everything. This is not a "hanging chad" scenario where a large
proportion of votes were "spoiled" due to a problematic voting process.

a spoilt vote mans nothing to those counting.
All you ever here about is worry low turnouts not people worrying about spoilt papers.

http://www.blankvote.org.uk/blank_votes_count.html

All votes, including blank and spoiled votes, are counted and announced in the results for each constituency on election night.

"Blank votes have traditionally been few in number because people have been unaware of the option. Instead, nearly 40% of registered voters have simply not voted. There has therefore been no media or political pressure to retain blank votes in the subsequent presentations of the results, or even to require all returning officers to separate blank from spoiled votes."

When has it been said and understood regarding blank voting.
Because we're not told that vit's a sperate option form a spoilt paper.



Very few spoiled papers will be accidental as even the thickest chav can
generally follow the big sign that says "put an X in the box".


Strange then that those worried by this don;t see it the way you do.
It's not quite as easy as you think.

http://www.electoralcommission.org.u...cemat-2011.pdf


So if you were vote counting and a tick appeared in a box would that indicate a spoilt vote (as I heard that ticks or crosses were both valid) or a counted one ?

What if your child puts an X in the box for you, as you might let a child ring the bell on a buss to get off ?



that is a
worthwhile option as it registers disapproval whilst taking away any
possible claim that you were too apathetic to be bothered.



That's what they want you to think.

Most vote for the opposition in any election rather than not going or spoiling teh paper which for most is seen a childish, it's like wiping a bogee on a door handle.


You might think it's childish. I'm not sure why. It has a specific
purpose in the absence of other options.

Drawing a penis on a voting paper is not childish ?
Writing micky mosue is not childish.
A friend once wrote "you're all a bunch of ****s".
I found that amusing not sure what that says about politics though.

Why can't they include "none of the above" is that so difficult ?
It's not like they'd have to change teh wording like they do with canditate names.

On Tuesday, 24 June 2014 16:14:38 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 24/06/14 15:40, charles wrote:

In article ,

Adrian wrote:

On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 04:07:21 -0700, whisky-dave wrote:



For "non of the above" there is the option to spoil the ballot.



Was theire such a thing on the vote to join the EEC I'd heard it was a

YES or a NO choice.



What other choices would you like?



I'm puzzled. UKIP want to leave the EU because it compromises the UK's

independence. But when Scotland wants its independence from Westminster

that different.



No they don't want to leave for that reason. They want to leave because

its an inefficient way to run a continent and unlike scotland,

devolution is not on offer.

I'd agree with that, perhaps if they showed us exaclty where the £55 million went each day....far to much appears to go on meetings and jollies to each others countries.

whisky-dave wrote:

Why can't they include "none of the above" is that so difficult ?
It's not like they'd have to change teh wording like they do with canditate names.


It may well not be the last entry as they are normally in
alphabetical order.

Huge wrote:
On 2014-06-25, wrote:
Rod Speed wrote:

[114 lines snipped]


Hmm. Impolite as well?

Wod's an idiot.

But could you consider snipping your responses a little? Ta.



Good point.

On Wednesday, 25 June 2014 14:34:48 UTC+1, Capitol wrote:
whisky-dave wrote:



Why can't they include "none of the above" is that so difficult ?

It's not like they'd have to change teh wording like they do with canditate names.





It may well not be the last entry as they are normally in

alphabetical order.

The put it at the top, bottom or middle .

I don't believe names should be used, the parties name should be used.
Afterall you're not voting for an indivual but a party.

There was an incident some years ago where someone got in because there name was spelt very much like the candadaite you wanted to vote for lost due to another coming slightly higher up on the list.

On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 06:46:26 -0700, whisky-dave wrote:

I don't believe names should be used, the parties name should be used.

Both are, of course, used.

Afterall you're not voting for an indivual but a party.

If you're talking about Westminster or local elections, then you are
absolutely 100% dead wrong. You are voting for THAT individual to become
your MP or councillor. You might choose which individual to vote for
solely because of their party, but the vote is SOLELY for THAT individual
to become your MP or councillor.

There was an incident some years ago where someone got in because there
name was spelt very much like the candadaite you wanted to vote for lost
due to another coming slightly higher up on the list.

I don't believe you. But if a sufficiently large percentage of the
electorate were too stupid to notice the party name clarifying which
named individual was which, then - frankly - they were probably too
stupid to notice fairly large distinctions between names.

On 25/06/14 14:12, tony sayer wrote:
In article , Bod
scribeth thus
On 25/06/2014 08:33, Adrian wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 08:19:27 +0100, Bod wrote:

The very few call centre experiences that I've had, although they were
polite, I had great difficulty in understanding the broken English from
the Asian sounding voices. I also found one Scottish chap to be
impossible to understand.

So you're just not very good at understanding people with accents.

And that, apparently, is their fault.

A lot of people have trouble understanding Asian accents, especially
over the telling bone.

A young Chinese student we had staying here, (another source of income
for the local's around 150 quid a week they pay you), at home recently
spoke better English then most people I know!.

Notable also last year when an Indian F1 driver was commenting - MUCH
better English than the presenters.

Plus a few other languages too...



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On Wednesday, 25 June 2014 15:03:59 UTC+1, Adrian wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 06:46:26 -0700, whisky-dave wrote:



I don't believe names should be used, the parties name should be used.



Both are, of course, used.

which is what I don;t agree with as I said.

Names are irrelivants they are just lables.


Afterall you're not voting for an indivual but a party.


If you're talking about Westminster or local elections, then you are
absolutely 100% dead wrong. You are voting for THAT individual to become
your MP or councillor.

As part of teh overall party they support.

You might choose which individual to vote for
solely because of their party, but the vote is SOLELY for THAT individual
to become your MP or councillor.

That individual; is 'contolled' to varying degrees by the party.
That's why htey belong to the party they belong to unless of course they are independant.
Or are yuo saying that Nigel Farage, Nick clegg, and the rest arent; aliegned to a party. They all have to 'tow' the party line it's standard practice it's why they joined the party they are in.


There was an incident some years ago where someone got in because there

name was spelt very much like the candadaite you wanted to vote for lost

due to another coming slightly higher up on the list.



I don't believe you.

that is your problem not mine, it was in teh news well in London anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confusing_similarity
In election law

There are examples of electoral confusion caused by would-be candidates deliberately choosing similar names to confuse the electorate, hence potentially affecting the outcome of an election. For example, in three instances in the United Kingdom during 1994-5: a candidate attempting to stand as a member of the 'Literal Democrat' party (in the UK there is a Liberal Democratic Party), and two instances of candidates standing for the 'Conservatory' party and the 'Conversative' party (against the Conservative Party candidate). All candidatures were rejected by the Returning Officer and the candidates had to stand using more distinguishable party names.[1]




But if a sufficiently large percentage of the

electorate were too stupid to notice the party name clarifying which

named individual was which, then - frankly - they were probably too

stupid to notice fairly large distinctions between names.

On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 09:00:45 -0700, whisky-dave wrote:

I don't believe names should be used, the parties name should be
used.

Both are, of course, used.

which is what I don;t agree with as I said.

You said "the parties name should be used". It is.

Names are irrelivants they are just lables.

They identify the individual. Which is who you're voting for.

Afterall you're not voting for an indivual but a party.

If you're talking about Westminster or local elections, then you are
absolutely 100% dead wrong. You are voting for THAT individual to
become your MP or councillor.

As part of teh overall party they support.

That might be why you choose who to vote for, but if what you say is
true, then there would be a right of substitution for another party
member, since the individual is irrelevant. There isn't. Quite the
opposite - that individual _remains_ your MP/councillor, even if they
leave the party and join another or stay independent.

You might choose which individual to vote for solely because of their
party, but the vote is SOLELY for THAT individual to become your MP or
councillor.

That individual; is 'contolled' to varying degrees by the party.
That's why htey belong to the party they belong to unless of course they
are independant.
Or are yuo saying that Nigel Farage, Nick clegg, and the rest arent;
aliegned to a party. They all have to 'tow' the party line it's standard
practice it's why they joined the party they are in.

You really have been hitting the bottle hard and early today, haven't you?

There was an incident some years ago where someone got in because
there name was spelt very much like the candadaite you wanted to
vote for lost due to another coming slightly higher up on the list.

I don't believe you.

that is your problem not mine, it was in teh news well in London anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confusing_similarity In election law

Did you actually read that?

There are examples of electoral confusion caused by would-be candidates
deliberately choosing similar names to confuse the electorate, hence
potentially affecting the outcome of an election. For example, in three
instances in the United Kingdom during 1994-5: a candidate attempting to
stand as a member of the 'Literal Democrat' party (in the UK there is a
Liberal Democratic Party), and two instances of candidates standing for
the 'Conservatory' party and the 'Conversative' party (against the
Conservative Party candidate). All candidatures were rejected by the
Returning Officer and the candidates had to stand using more
distinguishable party names.[1]

Well, you pasted it, even if you didn't actually read it. Clue: It was
the PARTY name which was "confusingly similar", not the individual's name.

But if a sufficiently large percentage of the electorate were too
stupid to notice the party name clarifying which named individual was
which, then - frankly - they were probably too stupid to notice fairly
large distinctions between names.

Thank you for proving my point.

On 25/06/14 17:34, Adrian wrote:

That might be why you choose who to vote for, but if what you say is
true, then there would be a right of substitution for another party
member, since the individual is irrelevant. There isn't. Quite the
opposite - that individual _remains_ your MP/councillor, even if they
leave the party and join another or stay independent.

This is what sucked arse about the recent MEP elections.

I had to vote for a party. MPs are already a weasley bunch of ******* -
but at least, if you are voting for one personally, by name, you have
some moral right to take him to task.

With the MEPs I have no idea if any of them would be remotely interested
in listening to me. Stupid voting system. Single transferable vote would
have been better.

On 25/06/14 18:11, Tim Streater wrote:
the egregious Euro-elections, where we have
the worst possible electoral system of all.

Ah. That would be the system that didn't get you the result you wanted then?


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 25/06/14 19:44, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 25/06/14 18:11, Tim Streater wrote:
the egregious Euro-elections, where we have
the worst possible electoral system of all.

Ah. That would be the system that didn't get you the result you wanted
then?

Now now, don't be soppy. I mean the system where you can't get rid of
the MEPs who are elected, if they are at or near the top of their list
(unless their vote collapses, but that'd never happen, now would it).
These days, MEPs don't have a constituency they have to answer to, so
no actual need to do any work on behalf of constituents.

Oh, and guess what. No by-elections either. If an MEP resigns or dies
etc, the next one on their party list gets the nod. As little as
possible of this boring consulting the electorate nonsense, you see.

Well that's why UKIP want out of the EU isn't it?


Anyway MEPS are as much use at changing anything the EU does as a
chocolate teapot.

Only use for an MEP is to blow the gaff on the EU corruption and use the
money to get us out.

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 06:46:26 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave wrote:

I don't believe names should be used, the parties name should be used.
Afterall you're not voting for an indivual but a party.

What about Independants? We have had some elections with two
Independant candidates...

Also for council and parlimentary elections I'll vote for who ever I
think is going to represent me and the community best. The party
isn't overly relevannt.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 25/06/14 19:59, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 06:46:26 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave wrote:

I don't believe names should be used, the parties name should be used.
Afterall you're not voting for an indivual but a party.

What about Independants? We have had some elections with two
Independant candidates...

They get a pseudo "party" shell, which is basically their name.

Also for council and parlimentary elections I'll vote for who ever I
think is going to represent me and the community best. The party
isn't overly relevannt.

"Capitol" wrote in message
...
Rod Speed wrote:


"Capitol" wrote in message
o.uk...
Rod Speed wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 24/06/2014 12:21, Rod Speed wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 24/06/2014 06:16, Rod Speed wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 23/06/2014 20:02, Dennis@home wrote:
On 23/06/2014 15:23, The Natural Philosopher wrote:


Today the majority of people WITH an opinion want to LEAVE the
EU.


Which bit of the EU do they want to leave?


Also you don't actually know how many want to leave as there
hasn't
been
a vote. Your opinion is almost certainly biased as you probably
don't
talk to anyone that wants to stay and they don't talk to you.

Erm, like him or not, Farage has actually got people talking to
each
other about the in/out EU issue.

No he hasnt. He is actually the RESULT of a significant
number who have never thought it made any sense.

Ukip has at the very least forced the hand of politicians to
listen to
a sizeable proportion of the electorate's dissension.

I dont buy that either.

Then you must have been living in a cave for the last few months,

Nope.

because Farage and the in/out issue debate has been in the news
virtually daily.

Irrelevant to what has driven those who want out of the EU.

Taint Farage.

Farage has forced the hands of the Tories and Labour

Pigs arse he has.

to confront the obvious dissent from many voters regarding the
dubious
value of staying in the EU.

That has nothing to do with Farage. There have always
been plenty that never thought it made any sense.

But he has put it top of UKIP's agenda,

Because it was getting so much controversy.

which has obviously made a lot more people think about the merits (or
not) of exiting the EU.

I dont believe that. I dont believe that many
take much notice of any politician at all.

That's why the voter turnout in elections is so pathetic.

In other words, he has brought in a lot of the previously apathetic
voters and given them food for thought

I dont believe that either. All he has done is provide
someone the worst of the rabid bigots can vote for.
And when he hasnt managed even a single Westminster
seat, that is VERY graphic evidence of how few of them
there are.

Yes, there will always be some of the least employable
who find it impossible to get a job when lots of foreigners
show up and are prepared to work a lot harder than the
worst of the unemployable locals are, but thats about
the only group someone like that appeals to.

and he's done it in a refreshing way.

Bull****.

A lot of people relate to his style.

Plenty more realise that he is just another lying politician.

All of the rest of our politicians have a propensity to not being able
to answer a straight yes/no answer in less than a thousand words.

Bull****.

Very limited vocabulary?

Fools like you dont qualify for anything else.

Hmm. Impolite as well?

Nope, I call a spade a spade and a fool a fool.

Nothing impolite about that.

In message , Rod Speed
writes


"Tim Watts" wrote in message
news
On 25/06/14 08:55, Capitol wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Tim Watts
wrote:

For what reason do nations exist and have borders, if not so they can
run as they see fit. If everyone thought the same way, we'd have a
single world government and no borders.

But we don't because we are human beings, not ants. This is a
fundamental distinction that certain people appear unable to grasp.

In fact it's worse than that. Countries larger that 50 to 100 million
are too big to govern properly. It's not just the EU that should be
broken up, but the USA, China, and India too. Probably make the world a
safer place.


I think you are all missing the point that any immigrant working in
a UK job which could be filled by a UK resident costs the UK taxpayer an
average of £10,000 a year. No wonder we have a budget deficit.

I agree. I like the europeans, as people and as countries, typically.

But anyone who thinks you can throw open the borders and have mass
highly fluid migration is deluded.

How odd that it worked in Britain.
No it didn't. And now we face the consequences.
--
bert

On Wednesday, 25 June 2014 17:34:54 UTC+1, Adrian wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 09:00:45 -0700, whisky-dave wrote:


I don't believe names should be used, the parties name should be

used.

Both are, of course, used.



which is what I don;t agree with as I said.


You said "the parties name should be used". It is.

But the candidates name should not.
Certain people might not vote for a mohhanad islam or a joe smith
or a Ms lefty (yes the name of the women next door).
Of miss or mrs or anje patel.

If you are really judging on polics rather than personality then their name race, religion and colour shouldn;t mater so why have it on the form ?
I feel the same about job applications too.



Names are irrelivants they are just lables.



They identify the individual. Which is who you're voting for.

That's the problem identifying the individual not the personality,
you should be judging them on the polics they are putting forward.



Afterall you're not voting for an indivual but a party.

If you're talking about Westminster or local elections, then you are

absolutely 100% dead wrong. You are voting for THAT individual to

become your MP or councillor.



As part of teh overall party they support.



That might be why you choose who to vote for, but if what you say is
true, then there would be a right of substitution for another party
member, since the individual is irrelevant. There isn't. Quite the
opposite - that individual _remains_ your MP/councillor, even if they
leave the party and join another or stay independent.

are you saying that UKIP aren't independant ?



There was an incident some years ago where someone got in because

there name was spelt very much like the candadaite you wanted to

vote for lost due to another coming slightly higher up on the list.



I don't believe you.



that is your problem not mine, it was in teh news well in London anyway.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confusing_similarity In election law



Did you actually read that?

I remmeber it at the time.


There are examples of electoral confusion caused by would-be candidates
deliberately choosing similar names to confuse the electorate, hence
potentially affecting the outcome of an election. For example, in three
instances in the United Kingdom during 1994-5: a candidate attempting to
stand as a member of the 'Literal Democrat' party (in the UK there is a
Liberal Democratic Party), and two instances of candidates standing for
the 'Conservatory' party and the 'Conversative' party (against the
Conservative Party candidate). All candidatures were rejected by the
Returning Officer and the candidates had to stand using more
distinguishable party names.[1]



Well, you pasted it, even if you didn't actually read it. Clue: It was
the PARTY name which was "confusingly similar", not the individual's name.

Yes I know, my point with individuals names was that of any ism from sexism to raceism as explained.
But if yuo want to stand for the Literal Democrat party then that;'s OK by me, but there are those out there that will use a name to prove a point, why don;t you think you see the name Hitler used much nowerdays, it's not rocket science.


But if a sufficiently large percentage of the electorate were too
stupid to notice the party name clarifying which named individual was
which, then - frankly - they were probably too stupid to notice fairly
large distinctions between names.



Thank you for proving my point.

Yep and I knew it happened and I'm not very policically minded,
I typcally scane headlines and read about scinece and technology so if I hear about people that are changing names in order to fool the electorate then I see that as wrong, even if it were 10+ years ago my memery of the event ....
well at least I knew it happened, just like I knew about imagration figures being wrong, just by waiting for a bus and listening to the languages.

If you know these things happen you cvan keepo an eye out for them,
just like you do with any fraud including winning the chinenese lotery that my dad won, by email.

On Thu, 26 Jun 2014 09:02:51 -0700, whisky-dave wrote:

If you are really judging on polics rather than personality

Except you ARE judging on "personality", because it is the INDIVIDUAL
candidate who you are voting for.

Names are irrelivants they are just lables.

They identify the individual. Which is who you're voting for.

That's the problem identifying the individual not the personality,
you should be judging them on the polics they are putting forward.

Indeed you should. Which is why THAT INDIVIDUAL sends you leaflets
around, telling you what they - personally - will do.

Afterall you're not voting for an indivual but a party.

If you're talking about Westminster or local elections, then you
are absolutely 100% dead wrong. You are voting for THAT individual
to become your MP or councillor.

As part of teh overall party they support.

That might be why you choose who to vote for, but if what you say is
true, then there would be a right of substitution for another party
member, since the individual is irrelevant. There isn't. Quite the
opposite - that individual _remains_ your MP/councillor, even if they
leave the party and join another or stay independent.

are you saying that UKIP aren't independant ?

Oooh, lemme think about that for a second... Nope. I don't believe I even
mentioned UKIP, let alone claimed they weren't a political party. I would
suggest you re-read what I actually wrote, but it probably won't help
much.

There was an incident some years ago where someone got in because
there name was spelt very much like the candadaite you wanted to
vote for lost due to another coming slightly higher up on the
list.

I don't believe you.

that is your problem not mine, it was in teh news well in London
anyway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confusing_similarity In election law

Did you actually read that?

I remmeber it at the time.

I meant "Did you actually read the link you just posted?"

Clearly, no, since it actually directly contradicts your statement.

There are examples of electoral confusion caused by would-be
candidates deliberately choosing similar names to confuse the
electorate, hence potentially affecting the outcome of an election.
For example, in three instances in the United Kingdom during 1994-5:
a candidate attempting to stand as a member of the 'Literal Democrat'
party (in the UK there is a Liberal Democratic Party), and two
instances of candidates standing for the 'Conservatory' party and the
'Conversative' party (against the Conservative Party candidate). All
candidatures were rejected by the Returning Officer and the
candidates had to stand using more distinguishable party names.[1]

Well, you pasted it, even if you didn't actually read it. Clue: It was
the PARTY name which was "confusingly similar", not the individual's
name.

Yes I know

So WTF did you post it to "prove" your point?

my point with individuals names was that of any ism from sexism to
raceism as explained.

Umm, that wasn't what you explained last time around. If you remember,
you posted that link to "prove" that party names shouldn't have
individual names, because individual names could be confused - and,
apparently, had been in the past. Except it was actually the party names,
and removing the individual names would exacerbate any confusion.

But if yuo want to stand for the Literal Democrat party then that;'s OK
by me, but there are those out there that will use a name to prove a
point, why don;t you think you see the name Hitler used much nowerdays,
it's not rocket science.

There's a village lacking an idiot today, and no mistake.

But if a sufficiently large percentage of the electorate were too
stupid to notice the party name clarifying which named individual
was which, then - frankly - they were probably too stupid to notice
fairly large distinctions between names.

Thank you for proving my point.

Yep and I knew it happened and I'm not very policically minded,

I think the word "politically" is redundant.

I typcally scane headlines and read about scinece and technology so if I
hear about people that are changing names in order to fool the
electorate then I see that as wrong, even if it were 10+ years ago my
memery of the event ....

Except, you raving ****wit, it was the PARTY name that apparently caused
confusion.

well at least I knew it happened, just like I knew about imagration
figures being wrong, just by waiting for a bus and listening to the
languages.

Thank you for proving my point. Again.

If you know these things happen you cvan keepo an eye out for them,
just like you do with any fraud including winning the chinenese lotery
that my dad won, by email.

You really are the gift that keeps on giving, aren't you?

"bert" ] wrote in message
...
In message , Rod Speed
writes


"Tim Watts" wrote in message
news
On 25/06/14 08:55, Capitol wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Tim Watts
wrote:

For what reason do nations exist and have borders, if not so they can
run as they see fit. If everyone thought the same way, we'd have a
single world government and no borders.

But we don't because we are human beings, not ants. This is a
fundamental distinction that certain people appear unable to grasp.

In fact it's worse than that. Countries larger that 50 to 100 million
are too big to govern properly. It's not just the EU that should be
broken up, but the USA, China, and India too. Probably make the world
a
safer place.


I think you are all missing the point that any immigrant working
in
a UK job which could be filled by a UK resident costs the UK taxpayer
an
average of £10,000 a year. No wonder we have a budget deficit.

I agree. I like the europeans, as people and as countries, typically.

But anyone who thinks you can throw open the borders and have mass
highly fluid migration is deluded.

How odd that it worked in Britain.

No it didn't.

Yes it did WITHIN Britain.

And now we face the consequences.