I'm finding it very hard to select a candidate to vote for.

The choice of party might be slightly easier (though not as a positive
thing) but the local candidate obviously doesn't have an effective media
adviser and all the publicity photos scream "Don't trust your child (or
pet, or...) to this person!".

We don't have a "None of the Above" option on the ballot paper.

If I had started earlier (with the time, money, inclination) I could have
formed the None of the Above party.

No manifesto.
No promises at all of any kind.
No campaigning.
Just someone local with enough cash to pay the deposit and get the party
name on the ballot paper.

This would provide an avenue for a pure protest vote without having to
tick Monster Raving Loony and the like.

I haven't worked out yet what would happen should a party member be
elected, not how to police the "no manifesto, no campaigning" rule but a
small price to pay for real(ish) democracy.

Cheers

Dave R

PM in waiting.

--
Windows 8.1 on PCSpecialist box

On Saturday, 2 May 2015 11:01:12 UTC+1, David wrote:
I'm finding it very hard to select a candidate to vote for.

http://rt.com/op-edge/249945-britain...key-questions/


NT

On Sat, 02 May 2015 10:16:15 +0000, Huge wrote:

On 2015-05-02, David wrote:
I'm finding it very hard to select a candidate to vote for.

The choice of party might be slightly easier (though not as a positive
thing) but the local candidate obviously doesn't have an effective
media adviser and all the publicity photos scream "Don't trust your
child (or pet, or...) to this person!".

We don't have a "None of the Above" option on the ballot paper.

If I had started earlier (with the time, money, inclination) I could
have formed the None of the Above party.

No manifesto.
No promises at all of any kind.
No campaigning.
Just someone local with enough cash to pay the deposit and get the
party name on the ballot paper.

You can always spoil your paper by writing in a "NOTA" candidate. Such
spoiled papers have to be shown to the candidates so they can agree it
is not a valid vote.

However they are unlikely to be included in the voting results - spoiled
papers can be an accident.

A vote for NOTA party should be clearly recorded and reported against all
the other results.

A bit like the Jedi religion in the last census.
Jedi party?????
Probably be scuppered by copyright.

Cheers


Dave R


--
Windows 8.1 on PCSpecialist box

David wrote

I'm finding it very hard to select a candidate to vote for.

Your vote is completely irrelevant to the result.

The choice of party might be slightly easier (though not as a
positive thing) but the local candidate obviously doesn't have
an effective media adviser and all the publicity photos scream
"Don't trust your child (or pet, or...) to this person!".

We don't have a "None of the Above" option on the ballot paper.

You do actually. Just dont vote for any of those on the ballot paper.

If I had started earlier (with the time, money, inclination)
I could have formed the None of the Above party.

I doubt they would have allowed that party name.

No manifesto.
No promises at all of any kind.
No campaigning.
Just someone local with enough cash to pay the
deposit and get the party name on the ballot paper.

See above.

This would provide an avenue for a pure protest vote

You've always had that.

without having to tick Monster Raving Loony and the like.

I haven't worked out yet what would happen should a party
member be elected, not how to police the "no manifesto, no
campaigning" rule but a small price to pay for real(ish) democracy.

Cheers

Dave R

PM in waiting.

Best not hold your breath.

On the other hand...

On 2 May 2015 10:01:09 GMT
David wrote:

I'm finding it very hard to select a candidate to vote for.

The choice of party might be slightly easier (though not as a
positive thing) but the local candidate obviously doesn't have an
effective media adviser and all the publicity photos scream "Don't
trust your child (or pet, or...) to this person!".

We don't have a "None of the Above" option on the ballot paper.

If I had started earlier (with the time, money, inclination) I could
have formed the None of the Above party.

No manifesto.
No promises at all of any kind.
No campaigning.
Just someone local with enough cash to pay the deposit and get the
party name on the ballot paper.

This would provide an avenue for a pure protest vote without having
to tick Monster Raving Loony and the like.

I haven't worked out yet what would happen should a party member be
elected, not how to police the "no manifesto, no campaigning" rule
but a small price to pay for real(ish) democracy.

Cheers

Dave R

PM in waiting.


Having seen the Green Party Manifesto, voting for them might have the
same pointless effect. Like most parties, they have some valid points,
but also some really nutball ideas, such as stopping all road
construction. But if only the Conservatives would take on that concept
and bin HS2, that would be a real vote-winner, and free up 50 billion
quid (or whatever the latest estimate is, especially if it goes to
Scotland, per the SNP' desire).
Just my view, of course.

--
Davey.

"David" wrote in message
...
I'm finding it very hard to select a candidate to vote for.

The choice of party might be slightly easier (though not as a positive
thing) but the local candidate obviously doesn't have an effective media
adviser and all the publicity photos scream "Don't trust your child (or
pet, or...) to this person!".

We don't have a "None of the Above" option on the ballot paper.

If I had started earlier (with the time, money, inclination) I could have
formed the None of the Above party.

No manifesto.
No promises at all of any kind.
No campaigning.
Just someone local with enough cash to pay the deposit and get the party
name on the ballot paper.

This would provide an avenue for a pure protest vote without having to
tick Monster Raving Loony and the like.



You do not use a tick when you vote. You just use Pounder's shaky illiterate
handwritten signature.

--
Adam

On 02/05/15 11:01, David wrote:
I'm finding it very hard to select a candidate to vote for.

The choice of party might be slightly easier (though not as a positive
thing) but the local candidate obviously doesn't have an effective media
adviser and all the publicity photos scream "Don't trust your child (or
pet, or...) to this person!".

We don't have a "None of the Above" option on the ballot paper.

Well you sort of do:

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/865898/thu...large570.jpg?4

Or draw a willy and "vote" for that.

It will still be counted as spoiled and that indicates something if 5+%
of people did that.

If I had started earlier (with the time, money, inclination) I could have
formed the None of the Above party.

No manifesto.
No promises at all of any kind.
No campaigning.
Just someone local with enough cash to pay the deposit and get the party
name on the ballot paper.

That I would vote for!

This would provide an avenue for a pure protest vote without having to
tick Monster Raving Loony and the like.

I haven't worked out yet what would happen should a party member be
elected, not how to police the "no manifesto, no campaigning" rule but a
small price to pay for real(ish) democracy.


How about the "Cut out the middleman party"

'Vote for me and I'll fiddle all the expenses I can and spend it on beer
and tarts. The difference is: you know what you're getting and I'll
update it all on a website to save you the money in buying the Sun to
find out the details.'

Refreshingly honest...

In message , David
writes

We don't have a "None of the Above" option on the ballot paper.

I've read all the manifestos
seen "the Leaders" on T.V.
arguing their policies,
trying to impress me.

The candidates leaflets
come floating through the door,
promising money for the N.H.S.,
education and the poor.

They are going to cut the deficit,
they plan for HS2,
They are going to build more houses,
find a job for me and you,

they'll sort out immigration,
and the E.U.
With their promises and policies,
there's very much to do.

I really don't believe them,
I've heard it all before,
the promises are broken,
we even went to war!

So, when I enter the polling booth,
this is what I'd love,
a box where I can put my cross for
NONE OF THE ABOVE.
--
Graeme

On 02/05/2015 11:01, David wrote:
....
We don't have a "None of the Above" option on the ballot paper.

If I had started earlier (with the time, money, inclination) I could have
formed the None of the Above party.

No manifesto.
No promises at all of any kind.
No campaigning.
Just someone local with enough cash to pay the deposit and get the party
name on the ballot paper.

This would provide an avenue for a pure protest vote without having to
tick Monster Raving Loony and the like...

What's wrong with voting OMRLP? They meet most of your criteria, except
that they do have election promises, one of which is not to keep any
election promises.


--
Colin Bignell

On 2 May 2015 10:29:29 GMT, David wrote:

You can always spoil your paper by writing in a "NOTA" candidate.
Such
spoiled papers have to be shown to the candidates so they can
agree it
is not a valid vote.

However they are unlikely to be included in the voting results - spoiled
papers can be an accident.

Pretty sure they'll be included in the full results that the
Returning Officer produces. The media on the other hand don't bother
to report them.

If you really want a "None of the above" then simply make voting
compulsory as it is in Australia(?).

As to who to vote for. Assuming this is for your MP, vote for the
person that actually represents and fights for the constituency and
doesn't just sit on their fat arse being whipped.

The ballot paper has the candidates address. Is it in the
constituency? The Labour one for here, Penrith & Borders, lives in
the Wirral... From memory of the ballot paper all the others actually
live in or very close to the constituency.

--
Cheers
Dave.

In message o.uk, Dave
Liquorice writes
On 2 May 2015 10:29:29 GMT, David wrote:

You can always spoil your paper by writing in a "NOTA" candidate.
Such
spoiled papers have to be shown to the candidates so they can
agree it
is not a valid vote.

However they are unlikely to be included in the voting results - spoiled
papers can be an accident.

Pretty sure they'll be included in the full results that the
Returning Officer produces. The media on the other hand don't bother
to report them.

If you really want a "None of the above" then simply make voting
compulsory as it is in Australia(?).

As to who to vote for. Assuming this is for your MP, vote for the
person that actually represents and fights for the constituency and
doesn't just sit on their fat arse being whipped.

Depends on the constituency.

If you live in a constituency which is a safe seat for one party - like
ours, which is strongly conservative (neighbouring seat to Majors old
one) then is essence, if you don't want to vote for them, who you vote
for makes no difference to who will be the MP.

The best really your vote can do is send some sort of message (FWIW).

However, this is shaping up to be the most interesting election for
sometime, and the aftermath could be quite significant in the long term
- the SNP dominating Scotland, the inability of Tories and labour to win
a majority and hence giving more power to smaller parties (if the same
situation occurs in 5 years time I suspect we will see real pressure for
changes to the voting system
--
Chris French

"Davey" wrote in message
...
On 2 May 2015 10:01:09 GMT
David wrote:

I'm finding it very hard to select a candidate to vote for.

The choice of party might be slightly easier (though not as a
positive thing) but the local candidate obviously doesn't have an
effective media adviser and all the publicity photos scream "Don't
trust your child (or pet, or...) to this person!".

We don't have a "None of the Above" option on the ballot paper.

If I had started earlier (with the time, money, inclination) I could
have formed the None of the Above party.

No manifesto.
No promises at all of any kind.
No campaigning.
Just someone local with enough cash to pay the deposit and get the
party name on the ballot paper.

This would provide an avenue for a pure protest vote without having
to tick Monster Raving Loony and the like.

I haven't worked out yet what would happen should a party member be
elected, not how to police the "no manifesto, no campaigning" rule
but a small price to pay for real(ish) democracy.

Cheers

Dave R

PM in waiting.


Having seen the Green Party Manifesto, voting for them might have the
same pointless effect. Like most parties, they have some valid points,
but also some really nutball ideas, such as stopping all road
construction. But if only the Conservatives would take on that concept
and bin HS2, that would be a real vote-winner, and free up 50 billion
quid (or whatever the latest estimate is, especially if it goes to
Scotland, per the SNP' desire).
Just my view, of course.

UKIP wants to bin HS2.
So there you are.

"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"Davey" wrote in message
...
On 2 May 2015 10:01:09 GMT
David wrote:

I'm finding it very hard to select a candidate to vote for.

The choice of party might be slightly easier (though not as a
positive thing) but the local candidate obviously doesn't have an
effective media adviser and all the publicity photos scream "Don't
trust your child (or pet, or...) to this person!".

We don't have a "None of the Above" option on the ballot paper.

If I had started earlier (with the time, money, inclination) I could
have formed the None of the Above party.

No manifesto.
No promises at all of any kind.
No campaigning.
Just someone local with enough cash to pay the deposit and get the
party name on the ballot paper.

This would provide an avenue for a pure protest vote without having
to tick Monster Raving Loony and the like.

I haven't worked out yet what would happen should a party member be
elected, not how to police the "no manifesto, no campaigning" rule
but a small price to pay for real(ish) democracy.

Cheers

Dave R

PM in waiting.


Having seen the Green Party Manifesto, voting for them might have the
same pointless effect. Like most parties, they have some valid points,
but also some really nutball ideas, such as stopping all road
construction. But if only the Conservatives would take on that concept
and bin HS2, that would be a real vote-winner, and free up 50 billion
quid (or whatever the latest estimate is, especially if it goes to
Scotland, per the SNP' desire).
Just my view, of course.

UKIP wants to bin HS2.

But haven't got a hope in hell of getting enough MP
elected to have any say whatever on that, you watch.

So there you are.

Fraid not.

On Sun, 3 May 2015 00:19:04 +0100
Chris French wrote:

However, this is shaping up to be the most interesting election for
sometime, and the aftermath could be quite significant in the long
term
- the SNP dominating Scotland, the inability of Tories and labour to
win a majority and hence giving more power to smaller parties ...

... which means the SNP might have an effective dominance over England.
Not good, nor fair.

--
Davey.

Well they could rename themselves as the none of the above, but in order to
be at the bottom of the ballot paper their candidates surname would need to
begin with ZZ.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"Nightjar .me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 02/05/2015 11:01, David wrote:
...
We don't have a "None of the Above" option on the ballot paper.

If I had started earlier (with the time, money, inclination) I could have
formed the None of the Above party.

No manifesto.
No promises at all of any kind.
No campaigning.
Just someone local with enough cash to pay the deposit and get the party
name on the ballot paper.

This would provide an avenue for a pure protest vote without having to
tick Monster Raving Loony and the like...

What's wrong with voting OMRLP? They meet most of your criteria, except
that they do have election promises, one of which is not to keep any
election promises.


--
Colin Bignell

On Sun, 3 May 2015 11:39:32 +0100
"Brian Gaff" wrote:

Well they could rename themselves as the none of the above, but in
order to be at the bottom of the ballot paper their candidates
surname would need to begin with ZZ.
Brian


ZZ Top, er, Bottom?

--
Davey.

On 03/05/2015 00:19, Chris French wrote:

Depends on the constituency.

If you live in a constituency which is a safe seat for one party - like
ours, which is strongly conservative (neighbouring seat to Majors old
one) then is essence, if you don't want to vote for them, who you vote
for makes no difference to who will be the MP.

The best really your vote can do is send some sort of message (FWIW).

However, this is shaping up to be the most interesting election for
sometime, and the aftermath could be quite significant in the long term
- the SNP dominating Scotland, the inability of Tories and labour to win
a majority and hence giving more power to smaller parties (if the same
situation occurs in 5 years time I suspect we will see real pressure for
changes to the voting system

And remember, the Limp Dems (or "I'll promise anything to stay in power"
Clegg to be more accurate) totally reneged on his side of the coalition
agreement that they made in May 2010 to allow the electoral boundaries
commission to realign the constituency boundaries to take account of the
gradual movements in demographic groups since 1994.

These movements make it easier and easier for Labour MPs to be elected.
It only needs a 3% shift to Labour to give them a majority. The
Conservatives need a 12% swing in their favour. As it stands, 2015 will
be the most undemocratic ballot we have had for decades.

On Sat, 02 May 2015 23:04:16 +0100, Dave Liquorice wrote:

On 2 May 2015 10:29:29 GMT, David wrote:

You can always spoil your paper by writing in a "NOTA" candidate.
Such
spoiled papers have to be shown to the candidates so they can
agree it
is not a valid vote.

However they are unlikely to be included in the voting results -
spoiled papers can be an accident.

Pretty sure they'll be included in the full results that the Returning
Officer produces. The media on the other hand don't bother to report
them.

If you really want a "None of the above" then simply make voting
compulsory as it is in Australia(?).

As to who to vote for. Assuming this is for your MP, vote for the person
that actually represents and fights for the constituency and doesn't
just sit on their fat arse being whipped.

The ballot paper has the candidates address. Is it in the constituency?
The Labour one for here, Penrith & Borders, lives in the Wirral... From
memory of the ballot paper all the others actually live in or very close
to the constituency.

Spoiled papers may be included in the full results, but this isn't a clear
indication that the vote was deliberately spoiled.

Also, the returning officer would have to announce "none of the above" as
part of the results and this would be a clear statement that someone took
a positive decision to record a protest vote.

I am not in favour of compulsory voting - granted you have the right to
vote, that doesn't mean you should be forced to exercise the right.

For an example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_City

" There are a number of rights traditionally but apocryphally associated
with freemen€”the right to drive sheep and cattle over London Bridge; to a
silken rope, if hanged; to carry a naked sword in public; or that if the
City of London Police finds a freeman drunk and incapable, they will
bundle him or her into a taxi and send them home rather than throw them
into a cell. While sheep have occasionally been driven over London Bridge
on special occasions, the rest of these "privileges" are now effectively
symbolic."

All very noble, but I would not expect all freemen of the City of London
to be FORCED to drive sheep and cattle over the bridges whilst carrying a
naked sword on pain of prosecution.

I think enforcement might turn ugly.

To note, again from Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Compulsory_voting "As of August 2013, 22 countries were recorded as having
laws for compulsory voting and 11 of these 22 countries as enforcing these
laws in practice."

So half the countries have the laws but are not enforcing them.

We have enough "media sound bite" laws already which are unenforced and/or
unenforceable without adding more.

Those who do not wish to vote can live with the consequences.

I think this may tend to keep politics fairly bland for the most part - so
as not to upset the silent majority.

Oh, and for Australia "At the 2010 Tasmanian state election, with a
turnout of 335,353 voters, about 6,000 people were fined $26 for not
voting, and about 2,000 paid the fine"

So 2/3 who ignored the law also ignored the fine.
Maximum respect for the law there.

Cheers

Dave R

--
Windows 8.1 on PCSpecialist box

On Sun, 03 May 2015 13:53:57 +0100
Andrew wrote:

On 03/05/2015 00:19, Chris French wrote:

Depends on the constituency.

If you live in a constituency which is a safe seat for one party -
like ours, which is strongly conservative (neighbouring seat to
Majors old one) then is essence, if you don't want to vote for
them, who you vote for makes no difference to who will be the MP.

The best really your vote can do is send some sort of message
(FWIW).

However, this is shaping up to be the most interesting election for
sometime, and the aftermath could be quite significant in the long
term
- the SNP dominating Scotland, the inability of Tories and labour
to win a majority and hence giving more power to smaller parties
(if the same situation occurs in 5 years time I suspect we will see
real pressure for changes to the voting system

And remember, the Limp Dems (or "I'll promise anything to stay in
power" Clegg to be more accurate) totally reneged on his side of the
coalition agreement that they made in May 2010 to allow the electoral
boundaries commission to realign the constituency boundaries to take
account of the gradual movements in demographic groups since 1994.

These movements make it easier and easier for Labour MPs to be
elected. It only needs a 3% shift to Labour to give them a majority.
The Conservatives need a 12% swing in their favour. As it stands,
2015 will be the most undemocratic ballot we have had for decades.


Amen to that. Clegg behaved like a spoiled schoolboy.

--
Davey.

On 3 May 2015 12:57:13 GMT, David wrote:

Those who do not wish to vote can live with the consequences.

I think that ought to be rephrased to:

"Those who choose not vote can live with the consequences."

One may wish to vote but not be able to due to unforseen
circumstances.

As I don't know where I will be on a Polling Day I have postal vote.
But to get a postal vote has about a 4 week deadline before the
polling day.

Oh, and for Australia "At the 2010 Tasmanian state election, with a
turnout of 335,353 voters, about 6,000 people were fined $26 for not
voting, and about 2,000 paid the fine"

So 2/3 who ignored the law also ignored the fine.

If some one is inclined to ignore the law, they doen't really care
which laws they ignore.

Maximum respect for the law there.

Well $26 is bugger all and would cost a lot more to collect than
would be raised. FFS the lowest Fixed Penalty is £50, most offences
incur at £100 Fixed Penalty. That would seem a reasonable level for a
failure to vote fine, plus court costs if you contest it and lose.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 03/05/15 14:07, Davey wrote:
Clegg behaved like a spoiled schoolboy.

Why the past tense?


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

In message , Davey
writes
On Sun, 3 May 2015 00:19:04 +0100
Chris French wrote:

However, this is shaping up to be the most interesting election for
sometime, and the aftermath could be quite significant in the long
term
- the SNP dominating Scotland, the inability of Tories and labour to
win a majority and hence giving more power to smaller parties ...

.. which means the SNP might have an effective dominance over England.
Not good, nor fair.

Will depend on what coalition is formed. But coalitions tend to give the
smaller party(ies) greater influence than their size might suggest cos
the bigger party needs to keep them sweet.

Though most ISTM likely outcome will be another referendum sooner rather
than later, with a yes vote more likely
--
Chris French

On Sun, 03 May 2015 15:07:36 +0100
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 03/05/15 14:07, Davey wrote:
Clegg behaved like a spoiled schoolboy.

Why the past tense?



I was referring to the blocked boundary reform, but your point is well
taken.

--
Davey.

On Sun, 3 May 2015 15:26:01 +0100
Chris French wrote:

.. which means the SNP might have an effective dominance over
England. Not good, nor fair.

Will depend on what coalition is formed. But coalitions tend to give
the smaller party(ies) greater influence than their size might
suggest cos the bigger party needs to keep them sweet.

The Labour Party veers wildly between "No deal with the SNP" to "We'll
deal with them on an ad hoc basis", giving me no confidence whatsoever.

Though most ISTM likely outcome will be another referendum sooner
rather than later, with a yes vote more likely
Just like the EU, keep asking until you get the right answer. Surely NO
meant NO? But again, my feeling is, let them go it alone, and see how
the finances work out, and don't come back asking for a bailout.

BTW, what does the SNP have against Trident? What would they replace it
with, William Wallace?

--
Davey.

In message , Davey
writes
On Sun, 3 May 2015 15:26:01 +0100
Chris French wrote:

.. which means the SNP might have an effective dominance over
England. Not good, nor fair.

Will depend on what coalition is formed. But coalitions tend to give
the smaller party(ies) greater influence than their size might
suggest cos the bigger party needs to keep them sweet.

The Labour Party veers wildly between "No deal with the SNP" to "We'll
deal with them on an ad hoc basis", giving me no confidence whatsoever.

Until the results are in we don't know what coalitions will be formed,
so I'd ignore what any party says. If they need to do a deal they will.

Though most ISTM likely outcome will be another referendum sooner
rather than later, with a yes vote more likely
Just like the EU, keep asking until you get the right answer. Surely NO
meant NO?

shrug It's called politics, 2, 5, 20 years, sooner or later the issue
was going to come up again.

At the time the referendum was setup, I don't think people saw the SNP
getting the results they are predicted. It probably won't mean a
referendum in the short term - further devolution probably, but it
surely must put tensions onto the whole political structure. We will see
a resurgence of the whole 'english votes for english laws' debate as
well I imagine

BTW, what does the SNP have against Trident? What would they replace it
with, William Wallace?


There is an argument about whether Trident should be replaced at all.

--
Chris French

On 03/05/15 00:19, Chris French wrote:

If you live in a constituency which is a safe seat for one party - like
ours, which is strongly conservative (neighbouring seat to Majors old
one) then is essence, if you don't want to vote for them, who you vote
for makes no difference to who will be the MP.

The best really your vote can do is send some sort of message (FWIW).

However, this is shaping up to be the most interesting election for
sometime, and the aftermath could be quite significant in the long term
- the SNP dominating Scotland, the inability of Tories and labour to win
a majority and hence giving more power to smaller parties (if the same
situation occurs in 5 years time I suspect we will see real pressure for
changes to the voting system

Yes, there are three way to look at it:

1) vote for the individual, or failing that party, who appears most
worthy. If you live in a safe seat and the inevitable winner is not your
choice then you have wasted your vote.

2) Consider, particularly in present circumstances, the effect of 'share
of popular vote' on the subsequent negotiations and conduct of the
government.

3) Believe in some mystic communion whereby your sentiments are somehow
part and parcel of the outcome: ie how you vote will somehow be how the
country votes.

On 03/05/15 19:56, DJC wrote:
On 03/05/15 00:19, Chris French wrote:

If you live in a constituency which is a safe seat for one party - like
ours, which is strongly conservative (neighbouring seat to Majors old
one) then is essence, if you don't want to vote for them, who you vote
for makes no difference to who will be the MP.

The best really your vote can do is send some sort of message (FWIW).

However, this is shaping up to be the most interesting election for
sometime, and the aftermath could be quite significant in the long term
- the SNP dominating Scotland, the inability of Tories and labour to win
a majority and hence giving more power to smaller parties (if the same
situation occurs in 5 years time I suspect we will see real pressure for
changes to the voting system

Yes, there are three way to look at it:

1) vote for the individual, or failing that party, who appears most
worthy. If you live in a safe seat and the inevitable winner is not your
choice then you have wasted your vote.

We've got an independent standing and his policies are all local and
none are national. I'm tempted.

2) Consider, particularly in present circumstances, the effect of 'share
of popular vote' on the subsequent negotiations and conduct of the
government.

3) Believe in some mystic communion whereby your sentiments are somehow
part and parcel of the outcome: ie how you vote will somehow be how the
country votes.


Or go on a vote swap website and try for a tactical approach of your
personal favourite has zero chance in your area.

On 03/05/15 19:56, DJC wrote:
Yes, there are three way to look at it:

1) vote for the individual, or failing that party, who appears most
worthy. If you live in a safe seat and the inevitable winner is not your
choice then you have wasted your vote.

Not os. protest votes get noticed if they are large enough.,


2) Consider, particularly in present circumstances, the effect of 'share
of popular vote' on the subsequent negotiations and conduct of the
government.

Yes

3) Believe in some mystic communion whereby your sentiments are somehow
part and parcel of the outcome: ie how you vote will somehow be how the
country votes.

Well of course at some level it will always be.


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 03/05/15 20:59, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , DJC wrote:

1) vote for the individual, or failing that party, who appears most
worthy. If you live in a safe seat and the inevitable winner is not
your choice then you have wasted your vote.

It's only safe because all those other people vote a particular way.
Doesn't mean you shouldn't bother.

all change starts with one person..


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

"David" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 02 May 2015 23:04:16 +0100, Dave Liquorice wrote:

On 2 May 2015 10:29:29 GMT, David wrote:

You can always spoil your paper by writing in a "NOTA" candidate.
Such
spoiled papers have to be shown to the candidates so they can
agree it
is not a valid vote.

However they are unlikely to be included in the voting results -
spoiled papers can be an accident.

Pretty sure they'll be included in the full results that the Returning
Officer produces. The media on the other hand don't bother to report
them.

If you really want a "None of the above" then simply make voting
compulsory as it is in Australia(?).

As to who to vote for. Assuming this is for your MP, vote for the person
that actually represents and fights for the constituency and doesn't
just sit on their fat arse being whipped.

The ballot paper has the candidates address. Is it in the constituency?
The Labour one for here, Penrith & Borders, lives in the Wirral... From
memory of the ballot paper all the others actually live in or very close
to the constituency.

Spoiled papers may be included in the full results, but this isn't a clear
indication that the vote was deliberately spoiled.

Also, the returning officer would have to announce "none of the above" as
part of the results and this would be a clear statement that someone took
a positive decision to record a protest vote.

I am not in favour of compulsory voting - granted you have the right to
vote, that doesn't mean you should be forced to exercise the right.

For an example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_City

" There are a number of rights traditionally but apocryphally associated
with freemen€”the right to drive sheep and cattle over London Bridge; to a
silken rope, if hanged; to carry a naked sword in public; or that if the
City of London Police finds a freeman drunk and incapable, they will
bundle him or her into a taxi and send them home rather than throw them
into a cell. While sheep have occasionally been driven over London Bridge
on special occasions, the rest of these "privileges" are now effectively
symbolic."

All very noble, but I would not expect all freemen of the City of London
to be FORCED to drive sheep and cattle over the bridges whilst carrying a
naked sword on pain of prosecution.

I think enforcement might turn ugly.

To note, again from Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Compulsory_voting "As of August 2013, 22 countries were recorded as having
laws for compulsory voting and 11 of these 22 countries as enforcing these
laws in practice."

So half the countries have the laws but are not enforcing them.

We have enough "media sound bite" laws already which are unenforced and/or
unenforceable without adding more.

Those who do not wish to vote can live with the consequences.

I think this may tend to keep politics fairly bland for the
most part - so as not to upset the silent majority.

In fact there isn't any evidence that it does keep politics fairly
bland for the most part given that those countrys that do not
have compulsory voting tend to have the least bland politics.

Oh, and for Australia "At the 2010 Tasmanian state election,
with a turnout of 335,353 voters, about 6,000 people were
fined $26 for not voting, and about 2,000 paid the fine"

The fine is rather higher than that in the bigger states.

So 2/3 who ignored the law also ignored the fine.

Had a valid excuse, actually.

Maximum respect for the law there.

No.

"Davey" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 3 May 2015 15:26:01 +0100
Chris French wrote:

.. which means the SNP might have an effective dominance over
England. Not good, nor fair.

Will depend on what coalition is formed. But coalitions tend to give
the smaller party(ies) greater influence than their size might
suggest cos the bigger party needs to keep them sweet.

The Labour Party veers wildly between "No deal with the SNP" to "We'll
deal with them on an ad hoc basis", giving me no confidence whatsoever.

Though most ISTM likely outcome will be another referendum sooner
rather than later, with a yes vote more likely
Just like the EU, keep asking until you get the right answer. Surely NO
meant NO? But again, my feeling is, let them go it alone, and see how
the finances work out, and don't come back asking for a bailout.

BTW, what does the SNP have against Trident?

The immense cost. Much better things to spend that sort of money on.

What would they replace it with,

Nothing. Trident doesn't stop anything from happening
except what that money can be spent on instead.

William Wallace?

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , DJC wrote:

1) vote for the individual, or failing that party, who appears most
worthy. If you live in a safe seat and the inevitable winner is not your
choice then you have wasted your vote.

It's only safe because all those other people vote a particular way.

Yes.

Doesn't mean you shouldn't bother.

Yes it does if it can't change the result.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 03/05/15 20:59, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , DJC wrote:

1) vote for the individual, or failing that party, who appears most
worthy. If you live in a safe seat and the inevitable winner is not
your choice then you have wasted your vote.

It's only safe because all those other people vote a particular way.
Doesn't mean you shouldn't bother.

all change starts with one person..

And hardly ever does one person make any difference at all.

On 03/05/15 22:59, Simon Brown wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 03/05/15 20:59, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , DJC wrote:

1) vote for the individual, or failing that party, who appears most
worthy. If you live in a safe seat and the inevitable winner is not
your choice then you have wasted your vote.

It's only safe because all those other people vote a particular way.
Doesn't mean you shouldn't bother.

all change starts with one person..

And hardly ever does one person make any difference at all.

well yes, and no.

In a sense everyone makes a difference, even if its just passing on
someone elses ideas.


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Simon Brown
wrote:

"Davey" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 3 May 2015 15:26:01 +0100
Chris French wrote:

.. which means the SNP might have an effective dominance over
England. Not good, nor fair.

Will depend on what coalition is formed. But coalitions tend to give
the smaller party(ies) greater influence than their size might
suggest cos the bigger party needs to keep them sweet.

The Labour Party veers wildly between "No deal with the SNP" to "We'll
deal with them on an ad hoc basis", giving me no confidence whatsoever.

Though most ISTM likely outcome will be another referendum sooner
rather than later, with a yes vote more likely
Just like the EU, keep asking until you get the right answer. Surely NO
meant NO? But again, my feeling is, let them go it alone, and see how
the finances work out, and don't come back asking for a bailout.

BTW, what does the SNP have against Trident?

The immense cost. Much better things to spend that sort of money on.

What would they replace it with,

Nothing. Trident doesn't stop anything from happening
except what that money can be spent on instead.

Yes it does. It stops Putin

No it does not. He has done what he wants to do regardless of
Trident and Trident has had no effect whatever on what he has
chosen to do, because he knows that Britain won't be using it.

who is busy threatening people with nuclear attack.

He isn't that stupid and what stops him doing
that isn't Trident, its what the yanks have.

Had Russia settled down to be a proper democracy, that argument
wouldn't exist, but it hasn't and so the argument is, unfortunately,
valid.

No they are not with either Trident or what the yanks have either.

You can certainly make a case that what the yanks have has ensured
that no one with nuclear weapons has been stupid enough to use them,
that that has nothing whatever to do with Trident which never stopped
anything and was a complete waste of the money that was spent on it.

The reason Russia didn't is because it has no history of democracy,

That isn't the reason.

unlike most of the other former Warsaw Pact countries.

Everywhere had no history of democracy at some point.

On Sunday, 3 May 2015 23:24:17 UTC+1, Simon Brown wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Simon Brown
wrote:

"Davey" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 3 May 2015 15:26:01 +0100
Chris French wrote:

.. which means the SNP might have an effective dominance over
England. Not good, nor fair.

Will depend on what coalition is formed. But coalitions tend to give
the smaller party(ies) greater influence than their size might
suggest cos the bigger party needs to keep them sweet.

The Labour Party veers wildly between "No deal with the SNP" to "We'll
deal with them on an ad hoc basis", giving me no confidence whatsoever.

Though most ISTM likely outcome will be another referendum sooner
rather than later, with a yes vote more likely
Just like the EU, keep asking until you get the right answer. Surely NO
meant NO? But again, my feeling is, let them go it alone, and see how
the finances work out, and don't come back asking for a bailout.

BTW, what does the SNP have against Trident?

The immense cost. Much better things to spend that sort of money on.

What would they replace it with,

Nothing. Trident doesn't stop anything from happening
except what that money can be spent on instead.

Yes it does. It stops Putin

No it does not. He has done what he wants to do regardless of
Trident and Trident has had no effect whatever on what he has
chosen to do, because he knows that Britain won't be using it.

You can't be sure of that, there are far too many varibles to what he or his country will do.


who is busy threatening people with nuclear attack.

He isn't that stupid and what stops him doing
that isn't Trident, its what the yanks have.

So you're saying he won't attack the UK because of the YANKS or because of the nuclear weapons they have ?


Had Russia settled down to be a proper democracy, that argument
wouldn't exist, but it hasn't and so the argument is, unfortunately,
valid.

No they are not with either Trident or what the yanks have either.

You can certainly make a case that what the yanks have has ensured
that no one with nuclear weapons has been stupid enough to use them,
that that has nothing whatever to do with Trident which never stopped
anything and was a complete waste of the money that was spent on it.

Maybe it's not trident itself but the fact we are in a nuclear 'pack' with the USA, who may well feel more inclined to help than the would if we had NO nuclear weapons.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Sunday, 3 May 2015 23:24:17 UTC+1, Simon Brown wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Simon Brown
wrote:

"Davey" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 3 May 2015 15:26:01 +0100
Chris French wrote:

.. which means the SNP might have an effective dominance over
England. Not good, nor fair.

Will depend on what coalition is formed. But coalitions tend to give
the smaller party(ies) greater influence than their size might
suggest cos the bigger party needs to keep them sweet.

The Labour Party veers wildly between "No deal with the SNP" to
"We'll
deal with them on an ad hoc basis", giving me no confidence
whatsoever.

Though most ISTM likely outcome will be another referendum sooner
rather than later, with a yes vote more likely
Just like the EU, keep asking until you get the right answer. Surely
NO
meant NO? But again, my feeling is, let them go it alone, and see how
the finances work out, and don't come back asking for a bailout.

BTW, what does the SNP have against Trident?

The immense cost. Much better things to spend that sort of money on.

What would they replace it with,

Nothing. Trident doesn't stop anything from happening
except what that money can be spent on instead.

Yes it does. It stops Putin

No it does not. He has done what he wants to do regardless of
Trident and Trident has had no effect whatever on what he has
chosen to do, because he knows that Britain won't be using it.

You can't be sure of that,

Wrong.

there are far too many varibles to what he or his country will do.

Not as far as Trident is concerned. It has always been completely
irrelevant, essentially because the US has always had much more
than one pathetic sub at sea at any particular time.

who is busy threatening people with nuclear attack.

He isn't that stupid and what stops him doing
that isn't Trident, its what the yanks have.

So you're saying he won't attack the UK because of the
YANKS or because of the nuclear weapons they have ?

No, that he won't attack Britain because it is completely irrelevant.

Had Russia settled down to be a proper democracy, that argument
wouldn't exist, but it hasn't and so the argument is, unfortunately,
valid.

No they are not with either Trident or what the yanks have either.

You can certainly make a case that what the yanks have has ensured
that no one with nuclear weapons has been stupid enough to use them,
that that has nothing whatever to do with Trident which never stopped
anything and was a complete waste of the money that was spent on it.

Maybe it's not trident itself

No maybe about it.

but the fact we are in a nuclear 'pack' with the USA,

Trident, with just one sub at sea at any time is completely irrelevant.

who may well feel more inclined to help than
the would if we had NO nuclear weapons.

Germany has nothing like Trident and is even more
likely to be helped if attacked by Russia than Britain is.

On Sunday, 3 May 2015 21:20:13 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 03/05/15 20:59, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , DJC wrote:

1) vote for the individual, or failing that party, who appears most
worthy. If you live in a safe seat and the inevitable winner is not
your choice then you have wasted your vote.

It's only safe because all those other people vote a particular way.
Doesn't mean you shouldn't bother.

all change starts with one person..

but that change is never started with a vote


NT

wrote in message
...
On Sunday, 3 May 2015 21:20:13 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 03/05/15 20:59, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , DJC wrote:

1) vote for the individual, or failing that party, who appears most
worthy. If you live in a safe seat and the inevitable winner is not
your choice then you have wasted your vote.

It's only safe because all those other people vote a particular way.
Doesn't mean you shouldn't bother.

all change starts with one person..

but that change is never started with a vote

Not started, no, but sometimes is achieve with one, most obviously with
referenda.

On Tuesday, 5 May 2015 12:53:36 UTC+1, Simon Brown wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Sunday, 3 May 2015 23:24:17 UTC+1, Simon Brown wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Simon Brown
wrote:

"Davey" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 3 May 2015 15:26:01 +0100
Chris French wrote:

.. which means the SNP might have an effective dominance over
England. Not good, nor fair.

Will depend on what coalition is formed. But coalitions tend to give
the smaller party(ies) greater influence than their size might
suggest cos the bigger party needs to keep them sweet.

The Labour Party veers wildly between "No deal with the SNP" to
"We'll
deal with them on an ad hoc basis", giving me no confidence
whatsoever.

Though most ISTM likely outcome will be another referendum sooner
rather than later, with a yes vote more likely
Just like the EU, keep asking until you get the right answer. Surely
NO
meant NO? But again, my feeling is, let them go it alone, and see how
the finances work out, and don't come back asking for a bailout.

BTW, what does the SNP have against Trident?

The immense cost. Much better things to spend that sort of money on.

What would they replace it with,

Nothing. Trident doesn't stop anything from happening
except what that money can be spent on instead.

Yes it does. It stops Putin

No it does not. He has done what he wants to do regardless of
Trident and Trident has had no effect whatever on what he has
chosen to do, because he knows that Britain won't be using it.

You can't be sure of that,

Wrong.

Doesn't matter what you think no one cares.


there are far too many varibles to what he or his country will do.

Not as far as Trident is concerned. It has always been completely
irrelevant, essentially because the US has always had much more
than one pathetic sub at sea at any particular time.

So,


who is busy threatening people with nuclear attack.

He isn't that stupid and what stops him doing
that isn't Trident, its what the yanks have.

So you're saying he won't attack the UK because of the
YANKS or because of the nuclear weapons they have ?

No, that he won't attack Britain because it is completely irrelevant.

Irrelivent to what exactly. Britain wasnt; going to be atttacked by germany during WWII as it was irrelivent. Was Spain relivent in WWII ?


Had Russia settled down to be a proper democracy, that argument
wouldn't exist, but it hasn't and so the argument is, unfortunately,
valid.

No they are not with either Trident or what the yanks have either.

You can certainly make a case that what the yanks have has ensured
that no one with nuclear weapons has been stupid enough to use them,
that that has nothing whatever to do with Trident which never stopped
anything and was a complete waste of the money that was spent on it.

Maybe it's not trident itself

No maybe about it.

What makes you an expert on this is this a job you have in government ?



but the fact we are in a nuclear 'pack' with the USA,

Trident, with just one sub at sea at any time is completely irrelevant.

And how many do you think it takes to make a differnce 10, 100, 1000 ?


who may well feel more inclined to help than
the would if we had NO nuclear weapons.

Germany has nothing like Trident and is even more
likely to be helped if attacked by Russia than Britain is.

You're proof of this ? NOTHING.

Russia won't attack with nuclear, it doesn't need to with such a nuclear deterent. They'll go through the Ukrain into parts or Europe and from their set up convental weapons, making sure they don;t use nuclear, unless nuclear is used against them. America will do **** all just likem they did in WWII untell it affects them which it won't. The closest they'l be affected is if they's a war with UK, if we don;lt have nuclear them we'll be over run with convental weapony, america will do NOTHING unless it is attack.