2015 Election

[zag]

Perhaps Nigel himself isn't racist but the majority of his party seem to be, there was a minor 'debate' with some representatives of various parties recently near me which I attended - needless to say by the end of it people were actually shouting "racist" at the UKIP rep. His argument was "I'm not racist, I work with a few blacks!".

 

Don't agree with that at all. A party to the right of centre will always attract fringe elements who will be quoted in national newspapers and called out for bad behaviour to make tabloid headlines. That doesnt make the majority "Racist". There are just as many extreme union left wing nutters on the other side of the polictical spectrum but that doesnt make the greens a communist party.

[Arreks]

That doesnt make the majority "Racist". There are just as many extreme union left wing nutters on the other side of the polictical spectrum but that doesnt make the greens a communist party.

 

I didn't call the majority racist (not sure why you're putting the word 'racist' in quotation marks) - I said the majority seemed to be racist, as in, from the debates and speeches I have seen from UKIP representatives - they give off the impression that their opinions lie in the realm of "let's get rid of those ethnics!" rather than "this is what is best for the country". That is my opinion.

 

As for fringe elements, there's quite a few judging by what a Google search brings up.

[zag]

Some good predictions here

 

U.K. General Election Predictions | FiveThirtyEight

[sparkeh]

Some good predictions here

 

U.K. General Election Predictions | FiveThirtyEight

Qualify "good".

 

YouGov predicts more seats for Labour: https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/04/16/latest-yougov-nowcast-confirms-conservatives-stuck/

[CAM]

Buckingham is a strange seat, I never knew the speaker took part in general elections as a neutral party.

[localzuk]

Quite alarmed that so many people on here will not be voting or will be voting UKIP.

[zag]

Quite alarmed that so many people on here will not be voting or will be voting UKIP.

 

They are a normal political party with a charismatic leader and the only party who really seems to care about the issue of too much immigration which consistantly comes up as a major issue for voters.

 

I won't be voting for them, but I don't believe in criticizing someone else's democratic choice.

 

I'm a little more critical of people who don't vote though, everyone should use their democratic power to change the country on how they see fit.

[abillybob]

Quite alarmed that so many people on here will not be voting or will be voting UKIP.

 

What's wrong with voting UKIP? Some of their policies are actually quite good, though whether or not they'd stick to them is another matter. I don't trust any of them say what they want us to hear to get into power and then do nothing but put their feet up.

 

[CAM]

BBC report on the SNP

 

Whatever it is called, the precise meaning is disputed, but is usually taken to describe Scotland having control of all taxation raised north of the border, including revenue from oil in its territorial waters.

 

The country would remain in the United Kingdom in something akin to a federal arrangement, paying the Treasury in London for shared services, such as defence and foreign affairs.

 

So uhhh, Scotland is heading towards becoming one giant Academy?

[Arreks]

So uhhh, Scotland is heading towards becoming one giant Academy?

 

But how well will they pay their IT Support?

[sparkeh]

Not voting (by choice) is just as valid a political statement as voting. You are saying that you reject the current parties offerings and you won't be empowering anyone to do enact policies in your name.

 

If enough people consciously chose not to vote then politics would have to change.

[CAM]

You still have to register to vote though. A spoiled ballot means you reject the choices, not turning up at all means apathy.

[localzuk]

What's wrong with voting UKIP? Some of their policies are actually quite good, though whether or not they'd stick to them is another matter. I don't trust any of them say what they want us to hear to get into power and then do nothing but put their feet up.

 

 

Quite simple really. They are xenophobic, anti-NHS (their manifesto isn't, right now, but a significant number of their leadership have expressed a desire to move to a private based system), unable to keep to their policies (they seem to change them incredibly regularly), they peddle nonsense about the EU (eg. ignoring the number of jobs that rely on us being in the EU, or the voices of the vast majority of businesses who want to remain in) etc... They want to cut taxes for the rich but don't explain how they'll fund it, or how that is a fair or progressive thing to do. They don't understand how foreign aid expenditure is not a loss-making thing, it gains us future business as the places it aids develop further and start doing more business with us. They want to scrap green subsidies but fail to mention anything about the vast subsidies that have been afforded to the oil and gas industries over the years (the figures are astonishing). Scrapping much needed rail capacity expansion. They fail to understand that the number of Brits outside the country is nearly identical to the number of immigrants within the country. They want to withdraw from the ECHR, an organisation that holds our government to account when it tramples on human rights. They think pubs should be allowed to have rooms which put their employees health at risk by allowing smoking in them...

 

The list is even longer, but there's some highlights.

[elsiegee40]

Quite simple really. They are xenophobic, anti-NHS (their manifesto isn't, right now, but a significant number of their leadership have expressed a desire to move to a private based system), unable to keep to their policies (they seem to change them incredibly regularly), they peddle nonsense about the EU (eg. ignoring the number of jobs that rely on us being in the EU, or the voices of the vast majority of businesses who want to remain in) etc... They want to cut taxes for the rich but don't explain how they'll fund it, or how that is a fair or progressive thing to do. They don't understand how foreign aid expenditure is not a loss-making thing, it gains us future business as the places it aids develop further and start doing more business with us. They want to scrap green subsidies but fail to mention anything about the vast subsidies that have been afforded to the oil and gas industries over the years (the figures are astonishing). Scrapping much needed rail capacity expansion. They fail to understand that the number of Brits outside the country is nearly identical to the number of immigrants within the country. They want to withdraw from the ECHR, an organisation that holds our government to account when it tramples on human rights. They think pubs should be allowed to have rooms which put their employees health at risk by allowing smoking in them...

 

The list is even longer, but there's some highlights.

 

You missed out their opinions on women in the work place

[localzuk]

Not voting (by choice) is just as valid a political statement as voting. You are saying that you reject the current parties offerings and you won't be empowering anyone to do enact policies in your name.

 

If enough people consciously chose not to vote then politics would have to change.

 

Nope, it quite literally wouldn't have to change. If people don't get up and actually do something (inaction is not doing something) then things will just remain the same.

 

If the parties don't represent you, stand against them. Spoil your ballot. Whatever.

 

Non-voters quite simply get ignored.

[sonofsanta]

Not voting (by choice) is just as valid a political statement as voting. You are saying that you reject the current parties offerings and you won't be empowering anyone to do enact policies in your name.

 

If enough people consciously chose not to vote then politics would have to change.

 

Turnout in 2001 was <60%, and no-one in Westminster batted an eye. Low turnout will never bother any politician; if anything, it probably gives them carte blanche in their own minds to do as they please, as no-one is taking any notice.

 

Spoiled ballots, on the other hand, are counted, are more likely to be recognised as a protest vote instead of apathy.

 

EDIT: source is http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm

Edited April 20, 2015 by sonofsanta

[Arreks]

My opinion coincides with the above also - this has been posted before but I'll repost it.

 

:: Spoil Your Vote :: Spoil Your Vote is an idea whose time has come.

 

Turnout in the 1997 general election was 71.8%, among the lowest since World War II. In 2014 it was barely 59%. This was the lowest percentage since 1918. However, in 1918 there wasn't universal suffrage - the total number of people who had the vote was under eight million. In 2014, it was over 44 million. So this past election saw far and away the lowest ever turnout under the present electoral system.

Nearly 17 million people didn't vote. That's more than twice as many as the entire 1918 electorate. Two Londons' worth, or more than the populations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland put together. Barely 100 constituencies out of the 659 in this parliament had turnouts better than 10% down on 1997. Those that were better than 5% down could be counted on your fingers. Respect to the voters of Belfast North, the only seat to see a slight increase in turnout.

[sparkeh]

They don't understand how foreign aid expenditure is not a loss-making thing, it gains us future business as the places it aids develop further and start doing more business with us.

I find UKIP's stance on this really irritating. Foreign aid is a very complex thing and not a case of 'cut £X and we'll be £X better off'.

[sted]

does spoiling a ballot actually do anything more than not voting it counts for exactly the same ie nothing.

 

as to low turnout I suspect politicians like that as demographically they can ignore chunks of the electorate and pander to those who do vote meaning old peoples issues are much more likely to be addresses in manifestos than young persons ones as they just don't vote as much so why aim policies at people who wont vote for you anyway

[Arreks]

does spoiling a ballot actually do anything more than not voting it counts for exactly the same ie nothing.

 

Yes.. there's quite a big difference..

 

If you don't vote, you don't count. You're not a person.

 

If you spoil your ballot, you count. You are a person.

[elsiegee40]

does spoiling a ballot actually do anything more than not voting it counts for exactly the same ie nothing.

 

as to low turnout I suspect politicians like that as demographically they can ignore chunks of the electorate and pander to those who do vote meaning old peoples issues are much more likely to be addresses in manifestos than young persons ones as they just don't vote as much so why aim policies at people who wont vote for you anyway

 

Spoiled ballot papers are counted. They show on the election result and spoil the majority of the winning candidate as you have effectively voted for "none of the above".

 

Not voting makes the "can't be bothered" indistinguishable from the "hate them all". Personally, I would rather show that I care and turn up, even if only to spoil my ballot than not have my opinion heard.

[localzuk]

does spoiling a ballot actually do anything more than not voting it counts for exactly the same ie nothing.

 

as to low turnout I suspect politicians like that as demographically they can ignore chunks of the electorate and pander to those who do vote meaning old peoples issues are much more likely to be addresses in manifestos than young persons ones as they just don't vote as much so why aim policies at people who wont vote for you anyway

 

Spoilt ballots are counted and tallied. They count towards turnout, and will actually affect an election - if a high percentage of people spoiled their ballot, the election would be called into doubt.

[sparkeh]

Of course things would have to change if no one voted. The system only exists because we allow it to by voting. Lots of people vote for something they believe in but a lot of people vote because they fell they have to so go for the least bad option which perpetuates a system which keeps the elite in power. Absolute disengagement destroys the system. I can't see any argument against that.

 

I defend anyone's right to consciously not vote. This is very different to apathy and shouldn't be confused.

[sted]

Spoilt ballots are counted and tallied. They count towards turnout, and will actually affect an election - if a high percentage of people spoiled their ballot, the election would be called into doubt.

 

but as far as I can see even if 95% of people spoiled their ballots the candidate with the most votes would still win even though 95% of the voters had effectively told them to get lost. granted it might send a message but im not sure as candidate a still won it would be much of one or that anything would change

Edited April 20, 2015 by sted

[Garacesh]

Lots of people vote for something they believe in but a lot of people vote because they fell they have to so go for the least bad option

The least smelly turd, at the end of the day, is still a turd.

 

I don't really see Not-voting-in-protest and voters apathy as having too distinct a difference. It's all down to attitude..

Apathy: Why vote? Voting is pointless. The system won't change if I vote.

Protest: Why vote? The system is corrupt and if I vote I continue its existence. The system won't change if I vote.

 

Both voter's apathy and the protest null-vote both stem from the same dislike of the current system.