With the upcoming local elections I had planned to spoil my paper [1]
but I got a call from a representative of one of the parties last
night, suggesting that even those they represent a minority of wards
in the borough, they do hold those in power to question and that in
itself should be worth voting for?

Whilst that sounds reasonably logical (from this political outsiders
POV), how do we know that those in power aren't doing what's best for
all of us (hah, I know ...) or that having this thorn in their side is
likely to make it as easy for them to do what they think best (and
after all, the vast majority in the borough voted for them) and that
this 'opposition' has any (more) teeth than they might with no
councilors in power in the borough?

The guy on the phone was pretty reasonable, no hard sell or
undeliverable promises, just this point re being able to keep the
incumbent in check? Can they (or can they more by having *some*
representation than not)?

Cheers, T i m

[1] Irrespective we will still bother to attend in spite of them
moving the polling station from 50 to 150 paces away. ;-(

On 20/04/2021 20:17, T i m wrote:
With the upcoming local elections I had planned to spoil my paper [1]

well why not simply not bother to vote. They really couldn't care
less about the people who do that.

On Tue, 20 Apr 2021 20:25:41 +0100, Andrew
wrote:

On 20/04/2021 20:17, T i m wrote:
With the upcoming local elections I had planned to spoil my paper [1]

well why not simply not bother to vote. They really couldn't care
less about the people who do that.

Unfortunately wouldn't understand even if I tried to explain it to
you. ;-(

Cheers, T i m

T i m wrote

With the upcoming local elections I had planned to spoil my paper [1]

Wota terminal ****wit.

but I got a call from a representative of one of the parties last
night, suggesting that even those they represent a minority of
wards in the borough, they do hold those in power to question
and that in itself should be worth voting for?

Whilst that sounds reasonably logical

Bull**** it is.

(from this political outsiders POV), how do we know that
those in power aren't doing what's best for all of us (hah,
I know ...) or that having this thorn in their side is likely to
make it as easy for them to do what they think best (and
after all, the vast majority in the borough voted for them)
and that this 'opposition' has any (more) teeth than they
might with no councilors in power in the borough?

You don't, stupid.

The guy on the phone was pretty reasonable, no hard
sell or undeliverable promises, just this point re being
able to keep the incumbent in check?

Its mindless bull**** and you are too stupid to work that out for yourself.

But then you actually are stupid enough to show up and spoil your ballot.

Can they (or can they more by having
*some* representation than not)?

Nope.

[1] Irrespective we will still bother to attend in spite of them
moving the polling station from 50 to 150 paces away. ;-(

On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 06:19:18 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the useless trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
Richard addressing senile Rodent Speed:
"**** you're thick/pathetic excuse for a troll."
MID:

On 20 Apr 2021 21:42:26 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:
snip

You should always vote, even if the person you vote for is in a no-hope seat.

What 'person'? Which of the several / many are we talking about here?
The canvasser was from the party that currently hold one ward but it's
possible that another (different to the incumbent) party might take it
so I'd have to do the same for all of them?

Equally, an opposition party should always try to put up someone against an
incumbent who regularly gets 60% of the vote.

This is probably more like 90%.

Why? Because if the said
incumbent has too easy a time of it at the election, they get complacent and
start taking the electorate for granted; they start thinking they "own" the
voters who vote for them. That is not good.

That was my question. Can they though, what can they do either as:

One ward out of many ...

or

No wards out of many (as is the case for all the other parties etc)?

You could try to figure out whether your councillor is in it for themselves or
to help their constituents.

And how much time is that likely to take and how much would we all
gain from that? What about all the others who vote one way because
they or their family have voted that way or they were suckered into
believing all the BS or because it suits them personally but may not
be good for the borough in general?

Being in it for themselves doesn't necessarily
mean they're a crook. It can just mean they want the kudos and perks of being
a councillor without understanding that their job is to be someone people can
turn to for help with some local issue. Even then the councillor may not
always be able to sort it, but they should be seen to have made an honest
effort even if they fail.

But if this special effort is for 'the people' then shouldn't they be
doing it anyway and what can be done if they aren't and if it's just
for 'a person', how many individuals could / would any one councilor
be expected to help in that way?

Democracy has to be tested and people voting is the way to do it.

Of course, and spoiling your paper is better than not voting if you
don't have any particular preference, faith or (therefore) interest.

It's not supposed to be a 'lucky dip' or be based on some bogus /
personal interest (in a real democracy) and given the chances are the
vast majority of those who will vote are politically ignorant / biased
I really don't want to join in as that might indicate I actively
support any of it.

So, my question was, would a party representing say 1 ward in 15, with
the other 14 held by one single party, actually be able to make a
difference in a way that we can be sure *will* benefit the majority?
Could they also thwart positive changes / plans that would be the sort
of thing that the majority that voted for them wanted and so not being
democratic?

Even if it's all bollox, the majority will have voted them in and so
that responsibility rests firmly on their shoulders and I'm only
willing to have my 'say' if that is likely to do no more than ensure
the incumbent do what's best (I don't even care if they don't keep to
any (often bogus) promises (as times / priorities change)).

See, you believe in the system and so are keen to play, I don't and so
therefore aren't ... but I want to retain that (or a known) system
because it's probably better than *some* (but certainly not all)
alternatives.

Now, if they offered a vote for some alternate democratic systems I
might be interested to have my say. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On Tue, 20 Apr 2021 20:47:30 +0100, T i m wrote:


On Tue, 20 Apr 2021 20:25:41 +0100, Andrew
wrote:


On 20/04/2021 20:17, T i m wrote:

With the upcoming local elections I had planned to spoil my paper [1]


well why not simply not bother to vote. They really couldn't care
less about the people who do that.


Unfortunately wouldn't understand even if I tried to explain it to
you. ;-(

Cheers, T i m


You're bonkers.
--
Dave W

On 20/04/2021 22:17, T i m wrote:

And how much time is that likely to take and how much would we all
gain from that? What about all the others who vote one way because
they or their family have voted that way or they were suckered into
believing all the BS or because it suits them personally but may not
be good for the borough in general?

This is a version of your Brexit Referendum position? Namely that you
don't have information on the what the future will actually hold, so you
can't vote for it? I get the impression that democracy is too difficult
a concept for you to grasp? Best perhaps that you stay home and ignore
it all? Or pull your favourite stunt of 'spoiling your paper'?

--
Spike

On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 00:05:36 +0100, Dave W
wrote:

On Tue, 20 Apr 2021 20:47:30 +0100, T i m wrote:

On Tue, 20 Apr 2021 20:25:41 +0100, Andrew
wrote:

On 20/04/2021 20:17, T i m wrote:
With the upcoming local elections I had planned to spoil my paper [1]

well why not simply not bother to vote. They really couldn't care
less about the people who do that.

Unfortunately wouldn't understand even if I tried to explain it to
you. ;-(


You're bonkers.

Hey, it sure beats the alternative if that means democracy being no
more than some bigoted / selfish opinion or down to the toss of a
coin.

Most councilors are going to say what they think we want to hear
(obviously).

Most councilors therefore will be promising things they will never be
able to deliver, even if they get elected.

I got a parking ticket (in a 20 min free parking area that had been
changed to requiring a ticket even for the first free 20 mins after
maybe 20 years being without a ticket being required). The signage was
poor, the machine obscured and I was there for no longer than 10 mins.

I appealed to the Council parking manager and it was declined. I
contacted our local councilor, he looked into it and I got an email
from the Council saying that 'in this case' they would drop the PCN.

So, should I vote for that councilor for that reason?

As it turned out, many many other people were caught out by this
stealthy change of the parking terms and *everone* you paid their fine
had them refunded ... then new / clearer signs were erected. [1]

Cheers, T i m

[1] After getting the PCN I went back to check the location and saw a
A4 laminated sign that had been tied to a lamp post (by the Council)
that was reinforcing the new parking rules. When I asked the parking
manager why that had been erected he said 'Because too many people
didn't notice the new signs'.

On 20/04/2021 20:17, T i m wrote:

With the upcoming local elections I had planned to spoil my paper [1]

I have never really understood why people do that[1] Is it the belief
that it sends some kind of message?

(I could perhaps understand the logic if there was a legitimate "none of
the above" voting option - but with the current system, ISTM the only
message it sends is "I am a tit"!)

If you don't want to vote for *any* candidate specifically, vote for the
one that you think will do you least harm, or the one you think will
form the most effective opposition to the one you expect to win.

but I got a call from a representative of one of the parties last
night, suggesting that even those they represent a minority of wards
in the borough, they do hold those in power to question and that in
itself should be worth voting for?

Well that is the way a democracy is supposed to function - it needs an
opposition to ensure there are checks and balances on the governing party.

Whilst that sounds reasonably logical (from this political outsiders
POV), how do we know that those in power aren't doing what's best for
all of us (hah, I know ...)

Well there are still plenty of "straight" ones out there that will at
least do what they think is the best thing (although that may still not
agree with what you think is the "best").

or that having this thorn in their side is
likely to make it as easy for them to do what they think best (and
after all, the vast majority in the borough voted for them) and that
this 'opposition' has any (more) teeth than they might with no
councilors in power in the borough?

The guy on the phone was pretty reasonable, no hard sell or
undeliverable promises, just this point re being able to keep the
incumbent in check? Can they (or can they more by having *some*
representation than not)?

Indeed - if nothing else it stops the administration getting complacent,
reduces the chances they will make legal errors, or try to act beyond
their authority etc.

Cheers, T i m

[1] Irrespective we will still bother to attend in spite of them
moving the polling station from 50 to 150 paces away. ;-(



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 21/04/2021 12:01, John Rumm wrote:
On 20/04/2021 20:17, T i m wrote:

With the upcoming local elections I had planned to spoil my paper [1]

I have never really understood why people do that[1] Is it the belief
that it sends some kind of message?


It may send a message.

First, it is a traditional way of protesting the
system/candidate/whatever but patently a bit vague.

Second, and more important, the papers have to be shown to the
candidates for them to agree they should not be counted so a message
written on them (preferably in bold marker) /may/ get through.



--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 12:01:54 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 20/04/2021 20:17, T i m wrote:

With the upcoming local elections I had planned to spoil my paper [1]

I have never really understood why people do that[1]

Really? I thought 'ethics' were your thing?

Is it the belief
that it sends some kind of message?

It's not a belief it's a fact (because spoiled papers *are* actually
counted). But irrespective of that, if you don't use something you can
lose it so ...

(I could perhaps understand the logic if there was a legitimate "none of
the above" voting option
There is, you add NOTA on there yourself? See, real democracy isn't
just a matter of choosing from what you are offered but maybe changing
how / what is offered?

- but with the current system, ISTM the only
message it sends is "I am a tit"!)

Yes, to you obviously because you are happy to tick the box not think
outside it?

If you don't want to vote for *any* candidate specifically, vote for the
one that you think will do you least harm,

Oh, that make perfect sense (not). We are supposed to vote *for*
something we want, not against something we don't (unless that was the
question). Why do all banners / flyers state in large letters, 'Vote
FOR xyz'?

or the one you think will
form the most effective opposition to the one you expect to win.

Any how would I ever get to fully understand exactly who / what that
might be? Say one of the 'other' candidates was a vegan and that was
the *only* thing amongst any of the candidates, should I vote for them
on that alone, even though they may not or may not be able to do the
best against animal suffering and exploitation?

but I got a call from a representative of one of the parties last
night, suggesting that even those they represent a minority of wards
in the borough, they do hold those in power to question and that in
itself should be worth voting for?

Well that is the way a democracy is supposed to function - it needs an
opposition to ensure there are checks and balances on the governing party.

Yes, sure, I know how it's *supposed* to work but I was hoping to ask
those who *are* interested in all this what the real world chances
were of it actually being the case, especially in the example of a
borough obviously supports just one party (all but one isolated ward)?

eg, Is any opposition likely to stymie good stuff along with the bad,
just because they are likely to oppose *everything*?

Whilst that sounds reasonably logical (from this political outsiders
POV), how do we know that those in power aren't doing what's best for
all of us (hah, I know ...)

Well there are still plenty of "straight" ones out there that will at
least do what they think is the best thing (although that may still not
agree with what you think is the "best").

It's not what I think is best that counts (democratically and
especially being an outsider to it all). It's what those who voted for
them think and by definition that could be 50% + 1 in this weird
system we use.

or that having this thorn in their side is
likely to make it as easy for them to do what they think best (and
after all, the vast majority in the borough voted for them) and that
this 'opposition' has any (more) teeth than they might with no
councilors in power in the borough?

The guy on the phone was pretty reasonable, no hard sell or
undeliverable promises, just this point re being able to keep the
incumbent in check? Can they (or can they more by having *some*
representation than not)?

Indeed - if nothing else it stops the administration getting complacent,
reduces the chances they will make legal errors, or try to act beyond
their authority etc.

OK, well if that *is* the case and as long as it doesn't negatively
impact any of the good things.

But what if the underdog are less able to do that compared with all
the other candidates / parties that don't even gain one seat (or
whatever).

A 'world champion' runner isn't likely to be the fastest person in the
world, the chances are they are only the fastest person of those who
have / had the opportunity / interest to take part.

It seems (as a political outsider) we are quite happy to simply accept
the system as it is, it's something we have always done this way but
not questioned if it could be done better?

The very fact that someone can get into power simply for their own
interests (eg, not the best interests of the people they are supposed
to represent) allows me to say 'I'm out' very early on.

They get into power by being voted in by a number of people who don't
know them personally but just happen to represent the tribe they (or
their family) have always supported because it matches their
fundamental beliefs (irrespective in most cases of what the practical
outcome is).

I wonder how many people here have *always* voted the same way all
their lives?

Cheers, T i m

On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 12:22:06 +0100, Robin wrote:

On 21/04/2021 12:01, John Rumm wrote:
On 20/04/2021 20:17, T i m wrote:

With the upcoming local elections I had planned to spoil my paper [1]

I have never really understood why people do that[1] Is it the belief
that it sends some kind of message?


It may send a message.

Quite and they are counted so have a tangible 'value' as such (even
though the number may be very low in most cases). Now, if *enough*
people understood that that was a formal option and did the same
*maybe* the system could be changed to better reflect what the very
people it was supposed to represent might want?

First, it is a traditional way of protesting the
system/candidate/whatever but patently a bit vague.

Yup, because (I'm told) 'they' don't want to 'encourage giving the
people an opportunity to indicate a dissatisfaction with the system or
options as presented. What if the ~50% who don't even bother to turn
up are dissatisfied with the status quo but feel no point in going and
playing along because it just suggests a pro-active support for it?

Second, and more important, the papers have to be shown to the
candidates for them to agree they should not be counted so a message
written on them (preferably in bold marker) /may/ get through.

Q. Ignoring the 'it's what we have' answer, what percentage of the
electorate do you think have any real understanding or put any real
effort into deciding what to vote (at any level)?

If the turnout was normally around 100% I might imagine the electorate
actually had an opinion on any / all of it but it never is.

Then you have the tribalists who only ever vote one way, leaving the
actual decision to those who are the most opinionated or a coin toss
(the floating voters).

I asked this question in this thread because I *do* care about
democracy and that starts with the very people who have *put
themselves up* to represent us.

Maybe it should be more like when they vote for people who gave given
most for the community doing say voluntary work? Chances are they
wouldn't want it, because they only want to do good things, not 'play
politics'? ;-(

Cheers, T i m

On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 12:01:54 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

On 20/04/2021 20:17, T i m wrote:

Well that is the way a democracy is supposed to function - it needs an
opposition to ensure there are checks and balances on the governing
party.

Whilst that sounds reasonably logical (from this political outsiders
POV), how do we know that those in power aren't doing what's best for
all of us (hah, I know ...)

One option for T i m of course would be to stand himself in the local
elections. That way he could best represent himself and those who share
his views and ensure that a proper challenge could be given to those he
considers are not doing their best for 'all of us'.

On Tuesday, 20 April 2021 at 20:47:32 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 20 Apr 2021 20:25:41 +0100, Andrew
wrote:

On 20/04/2021 20:17, T i m wrote:
With the upcoming local elections I had planned to spoil my paper [1]

well why not simply not bother to vote. They really couldn't care
less about the people who do that.
Unfortunately wouldn't understand even if I tried to explain it to
you. ;-(

I'd be interested to see you try because I know they don't care .
Spoilt papers are a very small minority, they are more interested in those that don't vote
and why or floating voters.
If yuo spoil yuor vote you are more than lilely not interested in the current system of voting
or any of the parties standing.
Those that vote the 'wrong' way are unilkely to change especailly the traditional labour/tory voters.


Cheers, T i m

On Wednesday, 21 April 2021 at 12:01:57 UTC+1, John Rumm wrote:
On 20/04/2021 20:17, T i m wrote:
With the upcoming local elections I had planned to spoil my paper [1]
I have never really understood why people do that[1] Is it the belief
that it sends some kind of message?

And is that message taken in the right way. ;-)

https://metro.co.uk/2015/05/09/voter...ry-mp-5188845/
I did wonder what the person spoiling his paper intented.

I'm betting he didn't want to vote tory, but I can't be sure.

Maybe T i m knows.

On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 05:47:25 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave
wrote:

On Tuesday, 20 April 2021 at 20:47:32 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 20 Apr 2021 20:25:41 +0100, Andrew
wrote:

On 20/04/2021 20:17, T i m wrote:
With the upcoming local elections I had planned to spoil my paper [1]

well why not simply not bother to vote. They really couldn't care
less about the people who do that.
Unfortunately wouldn't understand even if I tried to explain it to
you. ;-(

I'd be interested to see you try because I know they don't care .

Quite (any why I wouldn't bother).

Spoilt papers are a very small minority, they are more interested in those that don't vote and why

Cite?

or floating voters.

Which I potentially am of course.

If yuo spoil yuor vote you are more than lilely not interested in the current system of voting
or any of the parties standing.

Exactly, but could be more interested in a real system that represents
the will of the people than others seem happy to use.

Those that vote the 'wrong' way are unilkely to change especailly the traditional labour/tory voters.

Quite, even if their choice is based on little in the way of current
fact.

Cheers, T i m

On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 12:45:30 -0000 (UTC), Bev wrote:

On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 12:01:54 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

On 20/04/2021 20:17, T i m wrote:

Well that is the way a democracy is supposed to function - it needs an
opposition to ensure there are checks and balances on the governing
party.

Whilst that sounds reasonably logical (from this political outsiders
POV), how do we know that those in power aren't doing what's best for
all of us (hah, I know ...)

One option for T i m of course would be to stand himself in the local
elections.

I could indeed.

That way he could best represent himself and those who share
his views and ensure that a proper challenge could be given to those he
considers are not doing their best

That's a given for those putting themselves up to represent us isn't
it?

for 'all of us'.

I didn't actually suggest they weren't doing their best for 'all of
us', I asked what difference it would make to have any 'opposition'
and if it made any difference if they were in power (as in 'a' ward
amongst many) or not.

Ordinary 'non elected' people often stand up for themselves or a group
and counter the incumbent or protect themselves or another group so
why would you have to be a local councilor to do that (and have to
comply with any party rules)?

Cheers, T i m

On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 05:59:54 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave
wrote:

On Wednesday, 21 April 2021 at 12:01:57 UTC+1, John Rumm wrote:
On 20/04/2021 20:17, T i m wrote:
With the upcoming local elections I had planned to spoil my paper [1]
I have never really understood why people do that[1] Is it the belief
that it sends some kind of message?

And is that message taken in the right way. ;-)

https://metro.co.uk/2015/05/09/voter...ry-mp-5188845/
I did wonder what the person spoiling his paper intented.

I'm betting he didn't want to vote tory, but I can't be sure.

Maybe T i m knows.

Why would I know? Have you had your meds today?

I didn't say I drew anything on my paper (and certainly nothing that
would perk your obvious penis interest), I said I 'spoiled it' and I
normally do so simply by writing 'NOTA' underneath.

They know who that 'secret ballot' paper was entered by and could ask
me why if they I did so if they were interested.

They won't be interested until they allow the sheep with no real
interest or imagination (happy to choose between what they are given
.... and the system used to obtain it) to do the same by formally
printing a NOTA box on the paper).

If the only way 'most people' can indicate their lack of support for
the current system, candidates or party is by abstaining, therefore
risking their opportunity to vote in the first place.

Cheers, T i m

In article , Tim Streater
writes
On 20 Apr 2021 at 20:17:59 BST, T i m wrote:

With the upcoming local elections I had planned to spoil my paper [1]
but I got a call from a representative of one of the parties last
night, suggesting that even those they represent a minority of wards
in the borough, they do hold those in power to question and that in
itself should be worth voting for?

Whilst that sounds reasonably logical (from this political outsiders
POV), how do we know that those in power aren't doing what's best for
all of us (hah, I know ...) or that having this thorn in their side is
likely to make it as easy for them to do what they think best (and
after all, the vast majority in the borough voted for them) and that
this 'opposition' has any (more) teeth than they might with no
councilors in power in the borough?

The guy on the phone was pretty reasonable, no hard sell or
undeliverable promises, just this point re being able to keep the
incumbent in check? Can they (or can they more by having *some*
representation than not)?

You should always vote, even if the person you vote for is in a no-hope seat.
Equally, an opposition party should always try to put up someone against an
incumbent who regularly gets 60% of the vote. Why? Because if the said
incumbent has too easy a time of it at the election, they get complacent and
start taking the electorate for granted; they start thinking they "own" the
voters who vote for them. That is not good.

You could try to figure out whether your councillor is in it for themselves or
to help their constituents. Being in it for themselves doesn't necessarily
mean they're a crook. It can just mean they want the kudos and perks of being
a councillor without understanding that their job is to be someone people can
turn to for help with some local issue. Even then the councillor may not
always be able to sort it, but they should be seen to have made an honest
effort even if they fail.

Democracy has to be tested and people voting is the way to do it.

Most of an MPs time these days seems to be taken up with things that
should be done by the local councillors. This is partly driven by some
MPs need to be seen to be "busy".
--
bert

On Wednesday, 21 April 2021 at 13:05:49 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 12:01:54 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 20/04/2021 20:17, T i m wrote:

With the upcoming local elections I had planned to spoil my paper [1]

I have never really understood why people do that[1]
Really? I thought 'ethics' were your thing?

what has ethics got to do with this.

Is it the belief
that it sends some kind of message?
It's not a belief it's a fact (because spoiled papers *are* actually
counted).

So are those that aren;t counted it's called maths or more likely statistics.

But irrespective of that, if you don't use something you can
lose it so ...

When has that been true they still have votes in russia adn other countries.
Sure they are faked but they still exist and I very much doubt spoilt papers
are taken notice of.

(I could perhaps understand the logic if there was a legitimate "none of
the above" voting option
There is, you add NOTA on there yourself? See, real democracy isn't
just a matter of choosing from what you are offered but maybe changing
how / what is offered?

But none of the above is pretty meaningless.
it basically means you don't agree with voting.
The sounds like the sort of thing Putin does, I don;t give a **** what you vote for
I will be your president, end off.


- but with the current system, ISTM the only
message it sends is "I am a tit"!)
Yes, to you obviously because you are happy to tick the box not think
outside it?

What do you mean by out of the box.
In the EU ref there was stay in the Eu or leave the EU

Out of the box would be to stay in the EU on Monday, wed and friday,
and leave on tuesday thursday and saturday.
And we can pretend sunday doesn't exist.

Is that outside the box enough for you ?


If you don't want to vote for *any* candidate specifically, vote for the
one that you think will do you least harm,
Oh, that make perfect sense (not). We are supposed to vote *for*
something we want, not against something we don't (unless that was the
question). Why do all banners / flyers state in large letters, 'Vote
FOR xyz'?

Well I want someone to turn water into wine, I can only do it the other way around.

or the one you think will
form the most effective opposition to the one you expect to win.
Any how would I ever get to fully understand exactly who / what that
might be? Say one of the 'other' candidates was a vegan and that was
the *only* thing amongst any of the candidates, should I vote for them
on that alone, even though they may not or may not be able to do the
best against animal suffering and exploitation?

Depends on what you truely believe in. Weighing up pros and cons.
Remmeber Hitler was a vegtarian .

I'm betting no one will come up to your standards other than you.
I'm the only one to comes up to my standards ;-)




It's not what I think is best that counts (democratically and
especially being an outsider to it all). It's what those who voted for
them think and by definition that could be 50% + 1 in this weird
system we use.

I noticed you said those that vote what about those that draw a penis on their paper ?
Do we count them ?




A 'world champion' runner isn't likely to be the fastest person in the
world, the chances are they are only the fastest person of those who
have / had the opportunity / interest to take part.

So give me a gold medal for being the fastest person in the world problem sorted.


It seems (as a political outsider) we are quite happy to simply accept
the system as it is, it's something we have always done this way but
not questioned if it could be done better?

Then come up with a better system.


The very fact that someone can get into power simply for their own
interests (eg, not the best interests of the people they are supposed
to represent) allows me to say 'I'm out' very early on.

How do they know what yuo want if you spoil your paper .
You preved you didn't want to leave the EU and proved you didn;t wan tto stay in it.


They get into power by being voted in by a number of people who don't
know them personally but just happen to represent the tribe they (or
their family) have always supported because it matches their
fundamental beliefs (irrespective in most cases of what the practical
outcome is).

Best way iunless you want them to be voted in by those that recieve money or sex from them.


I wonder how many people here have *always* voted the same way all
their lives?

Depends what you mean by the same way doesn't it.


Cheers, T i m

On Wednesday, 21 April 2021 at 14:01:58 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 05:47:25 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave
wrote:

On Tuesday, 20 April 2021 at 20:47:32 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 20 Apr 2021 20:25:41 +0100, Andrew
wrote:

On 20/04/2021 20:17, T i m wrote:
With the upcoming local elections I had planned to spoil my paper [1]

well why not simply not bother to vote. They really couldn't care
less about the people who do that.
Unfortunately wouldn't understand even if I tried to explain it to
you. ;-(

I'd be interested to see you try because I know they don't care .
Quite (any why I wouldn't bother).
Spoilt papers are a very small minority, they are more interested in those that don't vote and why
Cite?

EU referendum 2016
17,410,742 Leave votes
16,141,241 remain votes
12,922,659 No votes
25,539 spoilt papers

I'll leave you to work out what would the result be if all the spoilt papers
were counted ar remainers.



or floating voters.

Which I potentially am of course.

Not if you spoil your paper you're not.

If yuo spoil yuor vote you are more than lilely not interested in the current system of voting
or any of the parties standing.
Exactly, but could be more interested in a real system that represents
the will of the people than others seem happy to use.

So what is this majik system.
The one where what you want is the outcome ?


Those that vote the 'wrong' way are unilkely to change especailly the traditional labour/tory voters.
Quite, even if their choice is based on little in the way of current
fact.

For that you need to define the fact.


Cheers, T i m

On 20/04/2021 20:47, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 20 Apr 2021 20:25:41 +0100, Andrew
wrote:

On 20/04/2021 20:17, T i m wrote:
With the upcoming local elections I had planned to spoil my paper [1]

well why not simply not bother to vote. They really couldn't care
less about the people who do that.

Unfortunately wouldn't understand even if I tried to explain it to
you. ;-(


The only reason I can think of is to then pillory the winners. You
spoiled your vote in the referendum, and then whinged at the outcome.

I may understand your philosophy, but only if you like being taken for a
fool.

On 21/04/2021 10:10, T i m wrote:
On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 00:05:36 +0100, Dave W
wrote:

On Tue, 20 Apr 2021 20:47:30 +0100, T i m wrote:

On Tue, 20 Apr 2021 20:25:41 +0100, Andrew
wrote:

On 20/04/2021 20:17, T i m wrote:
With the upcoming local elections I had planned to spoil my paper [1]

well why not simply not bother to vote. They really couldn't care
less about the people who do that.

Unfortunately wouldn't understand even if I tried to explain it to
you. ;-(


You're bonkers.

Hey, it sure beats the alternative if that means democracy being no
more than some bigoted / selfish opinion or down to the toss of a
coin.

Most councilors are going to say what they think we want to hear
(obviously).

Most councilors therefore will be promising things they will never be
able to deliver, even if they get elected.

I got a parking ticket (in a 20 min free parking area that had been
changed to requiring a ticket even for the first free 20 mins after
maybe 20 years being without a ticket being required). The signage was
poor, the machine obscured and I was there for no longer than 10 mins.

I appealed to the Council parking manager and it was declined. I
contacted our local councilor, he looked into it and I got an email
from the Council saying that 'in this case' they would drop the PCN.

So, should I vote for that councilor for that reason?

Why not, he's more proactive than my councillor.

As it turned out, many many other people were caught out by this
stealthy change of the parking terms and *everone* you paid their fine
had them refunded ... then new / clearer signs were erected. [1]

Cheers, T i m

[1] After getting the PCN I went back to check the location and saw a
A4 laminated sign that had been tied to a lamp post (by the Council)
that was reinforcing the new parking rules. When I asked the parking
manager why that had been erected he said 'Because too many people
didn't notice the new signs'.

On 21/04/2021 12:05, T i m wrote:

We are supposed to vote *for* something we want

Who says?

--
Spike

On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 07:01:23 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave
wrote:

snip crazy stuff, mostly unread

If you don't want to go back to being ignored dave, please try to stay
sensible. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 07:13:43 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave
wrote:

snip

Spoilt papers are a very small minority, they are more interested in those that don't vote and why
Cite?

EU referendum 2016
17,410,742 Leave votes
16,141,241 remain votes
12,922,659 No votes
25,539 spoilt papers

I'll leave you to work out what would the result be if all the spoilt papers
were counted ar remainers.

Irrelevant to the question around your statement.

so the rest snipped unread as it's likely to be the same nonsense

Cheers, T i m

On 21/04/2021 16:35, Fredxx wrote:
On 20/04/2021 20:47, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 20 Apr 2021 20:25:41 +0100, Andrew
wrote:

On 20/04/2021 20:17, T i m wrote:
With the upcoming local elections I had planned to spoil my paper [1]

well why not simply not bother to vote. They really couldn't care
less about the people who do that.

Unfortunately wouldn't understand even if I tried to explain it to
you. ;-(


The only reason I can think of is to then pillory the winners. You
spoiled your vote in the referendum, and then whinged at the outcome.

I may understand your philosophy, but only if you like being taken for a
fool.


+1

On 21/04/2021 14:10, T i m wrote:

I could indeed.


Always assuming there are any like-minded nutters like limp-dems or
greenies who will vote for you

Ordinary 'non elected' people often stand up for themselves or a group
and counter the incumbent or protect themselves or another group so
why would you have to be a local councilor to do that (and have to
comply with any party rules)?

That worked well for UKIP didn't it. Not a single elected MP

On 21 Apr 2021 17:26:15 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:

snip


Most councilors therefore will be promising things they will never be
able to deliver, even if they get elected.

Then part of your job,

I don't want 'a job' thanks, they (councilors / politicians / MP's)
want that job and are elected by 'the people'.

as a voter,

Are you suggesting *everone* takes this on as 'a job' before they vote
or just that I should'? Do you think 'everyone else' already does?

if you care enough,

I care sufficiently to know there is little to no chance of me ever
getting to sufficient fact to be able to make a considered decision.

Maybe that's not expected and if it isn't, I'll pass thanks.

is to learn how to tell
whether a candidate is feeding you a line or not.

And within reason, how (ITRW) would I do that? How would I know if the
funds were really available to be able to support what they promise or
that monies would have to come from something others think equally /
more important?

Is the candidate already a
councillor who has a good/bad record of helping people and/or getting useful
stuff through or changes at, the Council?

In this case I don't think so but how much effort would I have to put
in to find out? Is everone else doing this before they vote OOI?

Is the candidate someone who is not
yet a councillor but has form in your location for assisting people?

Pass. I sat down this morning g and read the pamphlets from both the
main candidates / parties and couldn't say that I believed either
outside of them all being 'sensible' things to do. Both say they are
going to crack down on crime or build more houses but can either
actually do that and where (and do we want any more houses around here
without an obvious equal improvement in the infrastructure)?

They both say what they know people want to hear (of course).

And so
on.

Yeah, good words but I'm not sure how many other people do what you
suggest ... rather than just being ignorant 'pub' specialists on it
all?

I got a parking ticket (in a 20 min free parking area that had been
changed to requiring a ticket even for the first free 20 mins after
maybe 20 years being without a ticket being required). The signage was
poor, the machine obscured and I was there for no longer than 10 mins.

I appealed to the Council parking manager and it was declined. I
contacted our local councilor, he looked into it and I got an email
from the Council saying that 'in this case' they would drop the PCN.

So, should I vote for that councilor for that reason?

As it turned out, many many other people were caught out by this
stealthy change of the parking terms and *everone* you paid their fine
had them refunded ... then new / clearer signs were erected. [1]

So to what extent did these changes come about due to actions by this
councillor?

As in the change in parking rules? The chances are none. The getting
*me* off the PCN? Possibly 'lots'. Getting all the others refunded ...
the chances are they (the Council) had enough people counter their
PCN's to get the whole thing re-evaluated, possibly around someone
taking (or threatening to) take them to court.

And that's the point ... as we have just seen with this recent
football BS ... I really don't think those in power have all the
power, no matter what they try to do and it's not any political
opposition that keeps them in check but 'us' (often with help of the
media) in general.

Let's face it, they (whoever we are talking about who has power over
others who have a say in them being there or not) aren't going to do
(or carry on doing) anything that ****es enough of the ordinary people
off as it will be political suicide for them, even if it's actually
the right thing to do. And given they are generally in power because
they want to be, they won't risk that.

Boris has 'always wanted' to be the PM whilst most people wouldn't
want the job if you gave it to them (well, those that have a clue what
the role / responsibility means etc). Did stop BoJo of course.

Cheers, T i m

On 21 Apr 2021 17:59:28 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:

On 21 Apr 2021 at 14:10:46 BST, T i m wrote:

Ordinary 'non elected' people often stand up for themselves or a group
and counter the incumbent or protect themselves or another group so
why would you have to be a local councilor to do that (and have to
comply with any party rules)?

Any fool can be a protestor.

True, but lots of intelligent people also protest. But I wasn't taking
about 'protesting', I was talking about putting together a peoples
action group that hold the councilors to their word.

It takes rather more than the ability to pick up
a placard and spout ******** at passers-by through a megaphone, to actually
get something done (which is why Corbyn never got anywhere).

Of course. It also sometimes takes enough people marching and telling
the truth to get stuff changed.

One might have
more respect, don't you think, for someone who can make a coherent argument,
get themselves elected (so they have some actual power and authority), and
then get it done.

Yes, assuming the latter is the case (and a big and dangerous
assumption). How do you know they *will* 'get it done' till you elect
them and see if they can? And what if they can't (or worse, **** a
loads of things up in the process).

OOI, how many councilors have you met that you would want running your
business?

And you can always stand as an independent.

I would think they would have less RW power than a group of determined
people.

Cheers, T i m

On 21/04/2021 13:20, T i m wrote:
On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 12:22:06 +0100, Robin wrote:

On 21/04/2021 12:01, John Rumm wrote:
On 20/04/2021 20:17, T i m wrote:

With the upcoming local elections I had planned to spoil my paper [1]

I have never really understood why people do that[1] Is it the belief
that it sends some kind of message?


It may send a message.

Quite and they are counted so have a tangible 'value' as such (even
though the number may be very low in most cases). Now, if *enough*
people understood that that was a formal option and did the same
*maybe* the system could be changed to better reflect what the very
people it was supposed to represent might want?

What "better" system do you propose?

I asked this question in this thread because I *do* care about
democracy and that starts with the very people who have *put
themselves up* to represent us.

Stand for election then :-)


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 20/04/2021 20:25, Andrew wrote:
On 20/04/2021 20:17, T i m wrote:
With the upcoming local elections I had planned to spoil my paper [1]

well why not simply not bother to vote. They really couldn't care
less about the people who do that.

The stupid **** is probably is unable to know what to do with a ballot
paper.

--
Adam

On 21/04/2021 10:10, T i m wrote:
On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 00:05:36 +0100, Dave W
wrote:

On Tue, 20 Apr 2021 20:47:30 +0100, T i m wrote:

On Tue, 20 Apr 2021 20:25:41 +0100, Andrew
wrote:

On 20/04/2021 20:17, T i m wrote:
With the upcoming local elections I had planned to spoil my paper [1]

well why not simply not bother to vote. They really couldn't care
less about the people who do that.

Unfortunately wouldn't understand even if I tried to explain it to
you. ;-(


You're bonkers.

Hey, it sure beats the alternative if that means democracy being no
more than some bigoted / selfish opinion or down to the toss of a
coin.

Most councilors are going to say what they think we want to hear
(obviously).

Most councilors therefore will be promising things they will never be
able to deliver, even if they get elected.

I got a parking ticket (in a 20 min free parking area that had been
changed to requiring a ticket even for the first free 20 mins after
maybe 20 years being without a ticket being required). The signage was
poor, the machine obscured and I was there for no longer than 10 mins.

I appealed to the Council parking manager and it was declined. I
contacted our local councilor, he looked into it and I got an email
from the Council saying that 'in this case' they would drop the PCN.

So, should I vote for that councilor for that reason?

It demonstrates that they are prepared (and able) to act in the
interests of their constituents, and suggests they might be an effective
councillor. So unless you find their politics abhorrent for some other
reason, you could.

Its a bit like if I order something from a new supplier, and something
goes wrong. How they deal with it and fix it is far more important than
the fact that something went wrong.



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 22:05:28 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

snip

I appealed to the Council parking manager and it was declined. I
contacted our local councilor, he looked into it and I got an email
from the Council saying that 'in this case' they would drop the PCN.

So, should I vote for that councilor for that reason?

It demonstrates that they are prepared (and able) to act in the
interests of their constituents, and suggests they might be an effective
councillor.

This is the issue then. The canvasser for this single ward party
suggested I vote for him, even if to just to keep *someone* in
opposition to the incumbent. But if my only dealing with the incumbent
was a positive one, why would I risk that?

So unless you find their politics abhorrent for some other
reason, you could.

To do that I'd have to find out what their politics were and compare
it with all the others presumably?

Its a bit like if I order something from a new supplier, and something
goes wrong. How they deal with it and fix it is far more important than
the fact that something went wrong.

And often used as a trick to make people happy.

If a sale goes well the customer says nothing (it's what's expected
after all).

If a sale goes wrong and is fixed to your satisfaction you tell people
how good they are. ;-)

We (in Field support) were envied by the Sales Dept because *we* we
generally invited into customers with opened arms whereas they had to
fight, struggle and grovel to get in. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 21:39:57 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 21/04/2021 13:20, T i m wrote:
On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 12:22:06 +0100, Robin wrote:

On 21/04/2021 12:01, John Rumm wrote:
On 20/04/2021 20:17, T i m wrote:

With the upcoming local elections I had planned to spoil my paper [1]

I have never really understood why people do that[1] Is it the belief
that it sends some kind of message?


It may send a message.

Quite and they are counted so have a tangible 'value' as such (even
though the number may be very low in most cases). Now, if *enough*
people understood that that was a formal option and did the same
*maybe* the system could be changed to better reflect what the very
people it was supposed to represent might want?

What "better" system do you propose?

One that allows for people to formally express their apathy for the
status quo for one.


I asked this question in this thread because I *do* care about
democracy and that starts with the very people who have *put
themselves up* to represent us.

Stand for election then :-)

And why would I do that! I appreciate in your world of black and
white, that would be the only other option. ;-)

See, like (I suspect) the majority, I *really* don't know enough about
it (at any level) to make a truly informed decision and until
something happens that means I need to learn more, I'll keep my head
in the sand, just like most people do re animal cruelty and
exploitation etc.

If it can work (and be perfectly normal / acceptable) for that,
logical consistency says it should equally be valid for politics (and
religion etc).

Cheers, T i m

On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 14:25:56 +0100, T i m wrote:



I didn't say I drew anything on my paper (and certainly nothing that
would perk your obvious penis interest), I said I 'spoiled it' and I
normally do so simply by writing 'NOTA' underneath.

Cheers, T i m


What does 'NOTA' mean?
--
Dave W

On 21/04/2021 22:24, T i m wrote:
On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 21:39:57 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 21/04/2021 13:20, T i m wrote:
On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 12:22:06 +0100, Robin wrote:

On 21/04/2021 12:01, John Rumm wrote:
On 20/04/2021 20:17, T i m wrote:

With the upcoming local elections I had planned to spoil my paper [1]

I have never really understood why people do that[1] Is it the belief
that it sends some kind of message?


It may send a message.

Quite and they are counted so have a tangible 'value' as such (even
though the number may be very low in most cases). Now, if *enough*
people understood that that was a formal option and did the same
*maybe* the system could be changed to better reflect what the very
people it was supposed to represent might want?

What "better" system do you propose?

One that allows for people to formally express their apathy for the
status quo for one.

I'm not sure what you mean by apathy? Please explain.

You therefore imply you were apathetic to the Brexit referendum, yet
have consistently whinged about the outcome. You don't make any logical
sense.

I asked this question in this thread because I *do* care about
democracy and that starts with the very people who have *put
themselves up* to represent us.

Stand for election then :-)

And why would I do that! I appreciate in your world of black and
white, that would be the only other option. ;-)

If you want to make a real protest, then stand for being a councillor.
You are even allowed to vote for yourself.

See, like (I suspect) the majority, I *really* don't know enough about
it (at any level) to make a truly informed decision and until
something happens that means I need to learn more, I'll keep my head
in the sand, just like most people do re animal cruelty and
exploitation etc.

Sounds like laziness and consequential firefighting to me. The point of
democracy is to empower the people. Obviously democracy is wasted on the
likes of those who actively propose to spoil their paper who are too
idle or too thick to research the issues at hand.

If it can work (and be perfectly normal / acceptable) for that,
logical consistency says it should equally be valid for politics (and
religion etc).

When you mention logic and religion in the same sentence you really have
lost the plot.

On 21/04/2021 21:56, ARW wrote:
On 20/04/2021 20:25, Andrew wrote:
On 20/04/2021 20:17, T i m wrote:
With the upcoming local elections I had planned to spoil my paper [1]

well why not simply not bother to vote. They really couldn't care
less about the people who do that.

The stupid **** is probably is unable to know what to do with a ballot
paper.

He does admit research is beyond his capability.

On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 22:24:31 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

On 21 Apr 2021 at 23:15:23 BST, Dave W wrote:

On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 14:25:56 +0100, T i m wrote:


I didn't say I drew anything on my paper (and certainly nothing that
would perk your obvious penis interest), I said I 'spoiled it' and I
normally do so simply by writing 'NOTA' underneath.

Cheers, T i m

What does 'NOTA' mean?

None of the above.

Our student union always had an additional candidate named RON.

Re-Open Nominations.

--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor