You're all thick ****s

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...2/Ukip-voters-
feel-disconnected-because-they-cant-send-emails-Chuka-Umunna-says.html

"Jabba" wrote in message
ldhosting.com...

You're all thick ****s

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...2/Ukip-voters-
feel-disconnected-because-they-cant-send-emails-Chuka-Umunna-says.html





My Mother cannot send an email, is a racist **** and as also is as thick as
pig ****. But all is not lost has she has never bothered to vote.

--
Adam

ARW scribbled...


"Jabba" wrote in message
ldhosting.com...

You're all thick ****s

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...2/Ukip-voters-
feel-disconnected-because-they-cant-send-emails-Chuka-Umunna-says.html





My Mother cannot send an email, is a racist **** and as also is as thick as
pig ****. But all is not lost has she has never bothered to vote.


But if Carlsberg did elections...

"jake" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 22 Jun 2014 18:04:05 +0100, "ARW"
wrote:

"Jabba" wrote in message
orldhosting.com...

You're all thick ****s

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...2/Ukip-voters-
feel-disconnected-because-they-cant-send-emails-Chuka-Umunna-says.html





My Mother cannot send an email, is a racist **** and as also is as thick
as
pig ****. But all is not lost has she has never bothered to vote.
Yes she managed to produce you! Amazing.

At least I voted - tactical voting so that UKIP would not win.:-)



--
Adam

On 22/06/14 18:48, ARW wrote:
"jake" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 22 Jun 2014 18:04:05 +0100, "ARW"
wrote:

"Jabba" wrote in message
ldhosting.com...

You're all thick ****s

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...2/Ukip-voters-
feel-disconnected-because-they-cant-send-emails-Chuka-Umunna-says.html





My Mother cannot send an email, is a racist **** and as also is as
thick as
pig ****. But all is not lost has she has never bothered to vote.
Yes she managed to produce you! Amazing.

At least I voted - tactical voting so that UKIP would not win.:-)

I met some local UKIP types. They could not even manage to "get"
Facebook. And they were all over 50. With cardigans...

In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
On 22/06/14 18:48, ARW wrote:
"jake" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 22 Jun 2014 18:04:05 +0100, "ARW"
wrote:

"Jabba" wrote in message
ldhosting.com...

You're all thick ****s

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...2/Ukip-voters-
feel-disconnected-because-they-cant-send-emails-Chuka-Umunna-says.html





My Mother cannot send an email, is a racist **** and as also is as
thick as
pig ****. But all is not lost has she has never bothered to vote.
Yes she managed to produce you! Amazing.

At least I voted - tactical voting so that UKIP would not win.:-)

I met some local UKIP types. They could not even manage to "get"
Facebook. And they were all over 50. With cardigans...

cardigans are useful. You don't have to remove your glasses or hearing
aids to put one one - unlike a Pullover. I still hate them, though.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
news
On 22/06/14 18:48, ARW wrote:
"jake" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 22 Jun 2014 18:04:05 +0100, "ARW"
wrote:

"Jabba" wrote in message
ldhosting.com...

You're all thick ****s

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...2/Ukip-voters-
feel-disconnected-because-they-cant-send-emails-Chuka-Umunna-says.html





My Mother cannot send an email, is a racist **** and as also is as
thick as
pig ****. But all is not lost has she has never bothered to vote.
Yes she managed to produce you! Amazing.

At least I voted - tactical voting so that UKIP would not win.:-)

I met some local UKIP types. They could not even manage to "get" Facebook.
And they were all over 50. With cardigans...



Mum "Why did you not tell me that you got engaged?"
Me "I posted the photos on facebook what else can I do?"
--
Adam

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
On 22/06/14 18:48, ARW wrote:
"jake" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 22 Jun 2014 18:04:05 +0100, "ARW"
wrote:

"Jabba" wrote in message
ldhosting.com...

You're all thick ****s

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...2/Ukip-voters-
feel-disconnected-because-they-cant-send-emails-Chuka-Umunna-says.html





My Mother cannot send an email, is a racist **** and as also is as
thick as
pig ****. But all is not lost has she has never bothered to vote.
Yes she managed to produce you! Amazing.

At least I voted - tactical voting so that UKIP would not win.:-)

I met some local UKIP types. They could not even manage to "get"
Facebook. And they were all over 50. With cardigans...

cardigans are useful.

Nope.

You don't have to remove your glasses or hearing
aids to put one one - unlike a Pullover.

I never remove my glasses to put a pullover or sweat top on.

I still hate them, though.

On Sun, 22 Jun 2014 21:03:59 +0100 Charles wrote :
I met some local UKIP types. They could not even manage to "get"
Facebook. And they were all over 50. With cardigans...

cardigans are useful. You don't have to remove your glasses or hearing
aids to put one one - unlike a Pullover. I still hate them, though.

I'll confess to being an over-60 cardigan wearer - no danger of being a
UKIP voter though. Especially good when flying - fasten, unfasten or take
off depending on the cabin temperature, with shirt top pocket free for
passport and boarding card.

--
Tony Bryer, Greentram: 'Software to build on',
Melbourne, Australia www.greentram.com

Tony Bryer wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jun 2014 21:03:59 +0100 Charles wrote :
I met some local UKIP types. They could not even manage to "get"
Facebook. And they were all over 50. With cardigans...

cardigans are useful. You don't have to remove your glasses or hearing
aids to put one one - unlike a Pullover. I still hate them, though.

I'll confess to being an over-60 cardigan wearer - no danger of being a
UKIP voter though. Especially good when flying - fasten, unfasten or take
off depending on the cabin temperature, with shirt top pocket free for
passport and boarding card.


Fortunately enough of the sheeple voted for UKIP to give them the
biggest share of the vote.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .

In article , ARW
wrote:

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
news
On 22/06/14 18:48, ARW wrote:
"jake" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 22 Jun 2014 18:04:05 +0100, "ARW"
wrote:

"Jabba" wrote in message
ldhosting.com...

You're all thick ****s

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...2/Ukip-voters-
feel-disconnected-because-they-cant-send-emails-Chuka-Umunna-says.html

[this space intentionally left blank by some fathead]

My Mother cannot send an email, is a racist **** and as also is as
thick as
pig ****. But all is not lost has she has never bothered to vote.
Yes she managed to produce you! Amazing.

At least I voted - tactical voting so that UKIP would not win.:-)

I met some local UKIP types. They could not even manage to "get"
Facebook. And they were all over 50. With cardigans...

Mum "Why did you not tell me that you got engaged?"
Me "I posted the photos on facebook what else can I do?"

She obviously does get FB then. She's obviously read their Ts&Cs and
understands they they own anything you post there (for all practical
purposes). That's why I don't do FB.

+1
I doubt that the vast majority of connected people actually read Ts&Cs and
Privacy stuff. But then, I suppose that users who are prepared to share
their baser traits on FB don't give a toss anyway.

On Mon, 23 Jun 2014 06:07:39 +0100, Capitol wrote:

Fortunately enough of the sheeple voted for UKIP to give them the
biggest share of the vote.

Indeed. Just over one in eleven of the electorate. Which probably says
more about apathy generally than about the fringe-loons-du-jour.

On 23/06/14 08:33, Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jun 2014 06:07:39 +0100, Capitol wrote:

Fortunately enough of the sheeple voted for UKIP to give them the
biggest share of the vote.

Indeed. Just over one in eleven of the electorate. Which probably says
more about apathy generally than about the fringe-loons-du-jour.


somewhat more than that.


--
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 Mon, 23 Jun 2014 10:15:38 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Fortunately enough of the sheeple voted for UKIP to give them the
biggest share of the vote.

Indeed. Just over one in eleven of the electorate. Which probably says
more about apathy generally than about the fringe-loons-du-jour.

somewhat more than that.

No, not really. I realise that your maths skills are on a par with your
logical reasoning, but...

27.5% vote share on 34.15% turnout = 9.4% of the electorate at the Euro
election voted UKIP. 9.1% is one in eleven. 9.4% is just over 9.1%, right?

I think it safe to say that the turnout amongst UKIP supporters would
have been FAR higher than the electorate as an average, wouldn't you?
Ergo, it seems safe to say that around 10% of the population as a whole
are UKIP supporters. Assuming that translates to the general election
(unlikely, since protest votes never do), then going with a 70% turnout
average over the last few decades, that'll translate to about a 17% vote
share next year - about 3/4 of the LD's total in 2010.

On 22/06/2014 18:48, ARW wrote:
"jake" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 22 Jun 2014 18:04:05 +0100, "ARW"
wrote:

"Jabba" wrote in message
ldhosting.com...

You're all thick ****s

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...2/Ukip-voters-
feel-disconnected-because-they-cant-send-emails-Chuka-Umunna-says.html





My Mother cannot send an email, is a racist **** and as also is as
thick as
pig ****. But all is not lost has she has never bothered to vote.
Yes she managed to produce you! Amazing.

At least I voted - tactical voting so that UKIP would not win.:-)

Are you happy for the Polish and Bulgarians to take your jobs?

Have you not heard the new pressures from those countries to allow
members of equivalent professional bodies to work in this country?

If it wasn't for the language barrier I would go for the easier SEP
qualification. Lower fees as well.

On Sunday, 22 June 2014 17:42:13 UTC+1, Jabba wrote:
You're all thick ****s



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...2/Ukip-voters-

feel-disconnected-because-they-cant-send-emails-Chuka-Umunna-says.html

I think that's unlikely when you see some of the comments posted and the sort of comments you see on FB.

On Sunday, 22 June 2014 18:48:44 UTC+1, ARW wrote:
"jake" wrote in message

...

On Sun, 22 Jun 2014 18:04:05 +0100, "ARW"

wrote:



"Jabba" wrote in message

orldhosting.com...



You're all thick ****s



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...2/Ukip-voters-

feel-disconnected-because-they-cant-send-emails-Chuka-Umunna-says.html











My Mother cannot send an email, is a racist **** and as also is as thick

as

pig ****. But all is not lost has she has never bothered to vote.

Yes she managed to produce you! Amazing.



At least I voted - tactical voting so that UKIP would not win.:-)

I didn;t vote hoping no of the useless b'stards would get in, think I failed there.

Fredxxx scribbled...


On 22/06/2014 18:48, ARW wrote:
"jake" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 22 Jun 2014 18:04:05 +0100, "ARW"
wrote:

"Jabba" wrote in message
ldhosting.com...

You're all thick ****s

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...2/Ukip-voters-
feel-disconnected-because-they-cant-send-emails-Chuka-Umunna-says.html





My Mother cannot send an email, is a racist **** and as also is as
thick as
pig ****. But all is not lost has she has never bothered to vote.
Yes she managed to produce you! Amazing.

At least I voted - tactical voting so that UKIP would not win.:-)

Are you happy for the Polish and Bulgarians to take your jobs?

Have you not heard the new pressures from those countries to allow
members of equivalent professional bodies to work in this country?

If it wasn't for the language barrier I would go for the easier SEP
qualification. Lower fees as well.


There you are, you won't learn a language and them there foreigners
will.

On Monday, 23 June 2014 12:58:30 UTC+1, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jun 2014 03:50:36 -0700, whisky-dave wrote:



On Sunday, 22 June 2014 18:48:44 UTC+1, ARW wrote:

"jake" wrote in message



...



On Sun, 22 Jun 2014 18:04:05 +0100, "ARW"



wrote:







"Jabba" wrote in message



orldhosting.com...







You're all thick ****s







http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...10918012/Ukip-

voters-



feel-disconnected-because-they-cant-send-emails-Chuka-Umunna-

says.html























My Mother cannot send an email, is a racist **** and as also is as

thick



as



pig ****. But all is not lost has she has never bothered to vote.



Yes she managed to produce you! Amazing.







At least I voted - tactical voting so that UKIP would not win.:-)



I didn;t vote hoping none of the useless b'stards would get in, think I

failed there.



Politicians take the point of view that if you didn't vote, you're happy
with the status quo.

I wish I could believe that as I think IIRC the vote to go into the EC in 1973/4 was 47% less than 50% and yet we still joined the EC I had assumed that referedums were exacly as you say if less than 50% want a change then nothing changes, where as with a poll or vote the highest %age wins even if it's only 20%

On Mon, 23 Jun 2014 06:47:04 -0700, whisky-dave wrote:

I wish I could believe that as I think IIRC the vote to go into the EC
in 1973/4 was 47% less than 50%

Nope - 67.2% of those who voted said "Yes".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
United_Kingdom_European_Communities_membership_ref erendum,_1975

On 23/06/2014 14:47, whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 23 June 2014 12:58:30 UTC+1, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jun 2014 03:50:36 -0700, whisky-dave wrote:

snip googled mess



I didn;t vote hoping none of the useless b'stards would get in,
think I

failed there.



Politicians take the point of view that if you didn't vote, you're
happy with the status quo.

I wish I could believe that as I think IIRC the vote to go into the
EC in 1973/4 was 47% less than 50% and yet we still joined the EC

Total crap. A majority of those that had an opinion and voted wanted to
join the EU.

It's about time you learnt a no-vote doesn't count. Rightly so.

On 23/06/14 15:02, Fredxxx wrote:
On 23/06/2014 14:47, whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 23 June 2014 12:58:30 UTC+1, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jun 2014 03:50:36 -0700, whisky-dave wrote:

snip googled mess



I didn;t vote hoping none of the useless b'stards would get in,
think I

failed there.



Politicians take the point of view that if you didn't vote, you're
happy with the status quo.

I wish I could believe that as I think IIRC the vote to go into the
EC in 1973/4 was 47% less than 50% and yet we still joined the EC

Total crap. A majority of those that had an opinion and voted wanted to
join the EU.

No, we wanted to join a common market.

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


It's about time you learnt a no-vote doesn't count. Rightly so.

Someone counts em.


--
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 Mon, 23 Jun 2014 15:23:03 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

No, we wanted to join a common market.

We joined exactly what we voted to join - a group of other European
nations who wanted freedom of movement, freedom of trade, freedom of
capital, freedom of goods between themselves. At that time, it was called
the European Community (not that there's much in a name).

Then, once we were in, we HELPED to turn it into what it is today. Along
with every other member, the UK could easily have vetoed any membership
application from any country. The UK could easily have vetoed any major
changes to it. The UK chose not to.

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

Do they? Do you have any credible figures to support that?

Adrian posted
On Mon, 23 Jun 2014 15:23:03 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

No, we wanted to join a common market.

We joined exactly what we voted to join - a group of other European
nations who wanted freedom of movement, freedom of trade, freedom of
capital, freedom of goods between themselves.

Freedom of movement was not part of the deal then. That came later.


At that time, it was called
the European Community (not that there's much in a name).

It was called the European Economic Community (EEC) and almost
invariably referred to in the British media as the Common Market.

Then, once we were in, we HELPED to turn it into what it is today. Along
with every other member, the UK could easily have vetoed any membership
application from any country. The UK could easily have vetoed any major
changes to it. The UK chose not to.

Like all state power advocates, you're confusing the government of a
country with its people. *We*, the people, never made these choices
because we were never told explicitly what would be the outcome of
Maastricht 1992, and the later CEC expansion. In fact, we were
deliberately lied to. By the time we realised what had happened it was
too late.

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

Do they? Do you have any credible figures to support that?

I found the European parliament election results pretty persuasive.

--
Les

On Mon, 23 Jun 2014 16:24:08 +0100, Big Les Wade wrote:

No, we wanted to join a common market.

We joined exactly what we voted to join - a group of other European
nations who wanted freedom of movement, freedom of trade, freedom of
capital, freedom of goods between themselves.

Freedom of movement was not part of the deal then. That came later.

Freedom of movement was part of the EC/EEC/EU/
Whateverthehellyouwanttocallit from the very start. Before we joined.

At that time, it was called the European Community (not that there's
much in a name).

It was called the European Economic Community (EEC) and almost
invariably referred to in the British media as the Common Market.

Then, once we were in, we HELPED to turn it into what it is today. Along
with every other member, the UK could easily have vetoed any membership
application from any country. The UK could easily have vetoed any major
changes to it. The UK chose not to.

Like all state power advocates

....which I'm not...

you're confusing the government of a country with its people.

Not at all. I'm well aware that the government is the democratically
chosen proxy of the people.

*We*, the people, never made these choices

Yes, we did.

because we were never told explicitly what would be the outcome of
Maastricht 1992

Yet the population of the UK had voted overwhelmingly for a party with a
pro-European manifesto in 1987. That party then did what we'd given them
a mandate to do.

Government-by-referendum would be astonishingly expensive and dog-slow.
Still, since there's now a legal requirement for a referendum on any
major European treaties, I guess you'll be happier with any such treaties
agreed from now on?

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

Do they? Do you have any credible figures to support that?

I found the European parliament election results pretty persuasive.

Only 27% of those who turned out, less than 10% of the electorate as a
whole, voted for the one party arguing to leave the EU?

A party who actively DON'T want to give a referendum on EU membership to
the public. I wonder why that would be, if not a fear of it not going the
way they want it to? Some confidence in that "majority"...

On Mon, 23 Jun 2014 15:23:03 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Politicians take the point of view that if you didn't vote,
you're
happy with the status quo.

Yep.

I wish I could believe that as I think IIRC the vote to go into
the
EC in 1973/4 was 47% less than 50% and yet we still joined the
EC

Meaningless figure that 47% unless you state what it is 47% of.
Assuming the total population, why should those that chose not to
vote be included?

It's about time you learnt a no-vote doesn't count. Rightly so.

Someone counts em.

What is mean by "no-vote" in this context? A vote for the "no" option
or not bothering to vote at all? All the actual votes cast are
counted, including any spoiled papers.

If people chose not to vote, they also throw away their right to
complain if the result (immediate or long term) isn't to their
liking. TBH the sooner voting is made compulsilary the better.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Mon, 23 Jun 2014 17:12:47 +0100, Dave Liquorice wrote:

It's about time you learnt a no-vote doesn't count. Rightly so.

Someone counts em.

What is mean by "no-vote" in this context? A vote for the "no" option or
not bothering to vote at all?

Quite. BIG difference in a referendum. Of course, that's the only time
there is a "yes"/"no" vote...

If people chose not to vote, they also throw away their right to
complain if the result (immediate or long term) isn't to their liking.

*ding*

TBH the sooner voting is made compulsilary the better.

I'm less convinced about that. Abstention has a long and proud tradition
in any and every sphere of voting, and long may it remain. Not voting in
an election is just abstaining. Compulsory voting would require the
addition of a "positive abstention", though - a "None of the above"
option - and no reason not to introduce that without the compulsion.

I suspect there's times where "None of the above" might do very well
indeed - and I also suspect that it'd hit the "protest parties" hard.

In article o.uk,
Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jun 2014 15:23:03 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Politicians take the point of view that if you didn't vote,
you're
happy with the status quo.

Yep.

I wish I could believe that as I think IIRC the vote to go into
the
EC in 1973/4 was 47% less than 50% and yet we still joined the
EC

Meaningless figure that 47% unless you state what it is 47% of.
Assuming the total population, why should those that chose not to
vote be included?

It's about time you learnt a no-vote doesn't count. Rightly so.

Someone counts em.

What is mean by "no-vote" in this context? A vote for the "no" option
or not bothering to vote at all? All the actual votes cast are
counted, including any spoiled papers.

If people chose not to vote, they also throw away their right to
complain if the result (immediate or long term) isn't to their
liking. TBH the sooner voting is made compulsilary the better.

There was some years ago now, a car window sticker which read "Don't blame
me, I voted Liberal"

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

On 23/06/14 16:47, Adrian wrote:

Only 27%

That ^^ is the relevant figure.


of those who turned out, less than 10% of the electorate as a

This ^^ is irrelevant in a democracy that works as ours does.

Abstaining is abstaining - those who abstain cannot be inferred to hold
one view or the other.

On 23/06/14 17:36, Tim Streater wrote:
In article o.uk,
Dave Liquorice wrote:

If people chose not to vote, they also throw away their right to
complain if the result (immediate or long term) isn't to their
liking.

Agree.

TBH the sooner voting is made compulsilary the better.

Disagree. The size of the turnout is a powerful message to politicians
that they better find out why it is low.


I disagree - many people are just too ungrateful to those who fought for
their right to vote to be bothered.

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

60% spoiled ballots would send a far more potent message than 60%
no-show as the politicians can wish away the latter as "lazy" or "don't
really care".

On 23/06/14 17:12, Dave Liquorice wrote:
TBH the sooner voting is made compulsilary the better.

I'd settle for basic spelling mistakes disbarring people from voting..

--
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 23/06/14 17:31, Tim Streater wrote:
or "as elected govt, they had the right to do it". That's
as may be.
In fact it is actually NOT within their right which is why a private
prosecution for treason was taken out.

That was 'adopted' by the crown who them buried it..

http://www.freenations.freeuk.com/news-treason.html

--
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 Mon, 23 Jun 2014 17:58:58 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:

Only 27%

That ^^ is the relevant figure.

For the purposes of choosing the elected representatives, yes.

of those who turned out, less than 10% of the electorate as a

This ^^ is irrelevant in a democracy that works as ours does.

Not for the purposes of making claims as to what swathe of society
support a particular party's view.

Abstaining is abstaining - those who abstain cannot be inferred to hold
one view or the other.

They can be inferred not to strongly support one view, though.

On Mon, 23 Jun 2014 18:46:00 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

In fact it is actually NOT within their right which is why a private
prosecution for treason was taken out.

That was 'adopted' by the crown who them buried it..

http://www.freenations.freeuk.com/news-treason.html

points, laughs

On 22/06/2014 18:26, Jabba wrote:

But if Carlsberg did elections...


If they were so good at controlling England football matches, as the
advert suggest, why is England out of the world cup?


--
mailto:news{at}admac(dot}myzen{dot}co{dot}uk

Tim Streater scribbled...


In article o.uk,
Dave Liquorice wrote:

If people chose not to vote, they also throw away their right to
complain if the result (immediate or long term) isn't to their
liking.

Agree.

TBH the sooner voting is made compulsilary the better.

Disagree. The size of the turnout is a powerful message to politicians
that they better find out why it is low.


******** it is. The tories always do well when it rains and keeps the
turnout low.

The sheep who are not voting now are being led to believe that "voting
changes nothing, it doesn't matter who you vote for" - which given what
a load of self-serving ****s we've got in power now, is completely
wrong.

The Natural Philosopher scribbled...


On 23/06/14 17:12, Dave Liquorice wrote:
TBH the sooner voting is made compulsilary the better.

I'd settle for basic spelling mistakes disbarring people from voting..


That's you ****ed.

On Mon, 23 Jun 2014 19:03:46 +0100, Jabba wrote:

Disagree. The size of the turnout is a powerful message to politicians
that they better find out why it is low.

******** it is. The tories always do well when it rains and keeps the
turnout low.

Small problem with that theory... It's ********.

2010 saw a sizeable increase in the previous two elections, which were
record lows. '97 was also a big dip on the previous three. '79 was a
spike over the second '74. Both the '60s Labour wins were dips from the
'59 Tory win.

The ONE even-vaguely-recent time that it's proven true was 1970.

http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm

In article ,
alan wrote:
On 22/06/2014 18:26, Jabba wrote:

But if Carlsberg did elections...


If they were so good at controlling England football matches, as the
advert suggest, why is England out of the world cup?

because they're a Danish beer.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

On Mon, 23 Jun 2014 18:01:47 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:

TBH the sooner voting is made compulsilary the better.

Disagree. The size of the turnout is a powerful message to
politicians
that they better find out why it is low.

So why haven't the politicains managed to do anything about it for
decades?

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

60% spoiled ballots would send a far more potent message than 60%
no-show as the politicians can wish away the latter as "lazy" or "don't
really care".

+1

I don't think I've ever not voted and I have deliberately spoilt my
ballot once. It was just after we moved and found that the "rules"
meant our vote was where we had been, not where we were and couldn't
be moved. So we got postal votes and spoilt 'em.

--
Cheers
Dave.