Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
The Conservative party is the same as Labour, they have the same agenda.
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
Yep, gain power and keep power, same as all political parties - same agenda, Red, Blue, Purple, Yellow, Green or whatever.
You don't seem to use the ballot box Alexander - happens to be the only way that most of us get to select someone who could make a difference in our country and a right that my father, grandfather and great grandfather fought to protect and my fore-mothers suffered loss and deprivation to gain and keep. Every time you encourage others not to vote at all, you spit on their graves and defile their sacrifice. If you choose not to count or be counted, that's your own affair, but perhaps you should consider that a turn-out of 90%+ showing a result of 20% for one party, 19% for another 5% for a third and 5% for a fourth and with 51% papers spoiled speaks far louder against all established political parties than a turn-out of 40% with 45% of that going to one party, 30% going to another, 15% to another, 8% to a fourth with 2% of papers spoiled.
Politicians of all colours will count only those who turn up and vote on the day, those who don't vote, don't count (in any way) as far as they are concerned. It doesn't matter to them if only 40% of those entitled turn up at the polling station or vote via post, if they get the majority of them, they have a majority and are duly elected. They'd have a far tougher time justifying their democratic legitimacy if the majority of voters effectively said 'none of the above' by spoiling the paper.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
fully agree neil the only time i have not voted was for police commissioner, only because i didn't know who was who or really what the job was about.
when there are multiple ballots like district and town elections together i don't use all my votes, just vote for individuals that i know of that i would expect to do a good job.
to sit at home and either sulk or show total indifference is an insult to all that have fought for the rights we have now.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
I am being mobbed!
This is an attempt to sideline a British citizen as a reneger, when I have always honoured Britain.
If I had done what Neil suggests, that would have meant denouncing UKIP at the ballot box as a useless party equal to all others.
I didn't, and have never campaigned against UKIP,
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
did you vote at all alex?
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
nah don't think so.
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
Alexander, you said that you wouldn't vote at all and encouraged others not to vote either. You said that not turning out at all would send a message to the politicians, I'm saying that not turning out doesn't count at all and certainly doesn't really bother the politicians who are elected. Additionally not voting at all is a betrayal of all those who have gone before us and suffered to ensure that we can vote in free and fair elections today, de facto - not honouring Britains.
You didn't vote FOR UKIP either. So no vote for, no campaign against, what message were you trying to convey to the politicians? You can be damn sure that by sitting at home and not casting a ballot, not one of them heard it.
No one has said that you campaigned against UKIP.
My view is that UKIP is pretty much of a muchness with the rest of the political parties, they just haven't been around long enough in sufficient numbers yet to demonstrate just how much alike they are, to the other parties to the general population, however signs from the EU Parliament indicate that there is no discernable difference in the way that they act, only in what they say.
I'll go out and vote for the woman or man I think is the best (regardless of political affiliation) after I've met them and taken a good look at their record in the public realm. If I think none of them will do a good job, I'll turn up and spoil my paper.
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
Let's take Alexander's logic on voting, as espoused by him on this and other threads on this forum and in his blogs, to its logical end re the most recent KCC elections:-
Labour Candidates polled 6.2% and 5.7% of those eligible to vote in Dover Town ward and won both seats - total 11.9% of those eligible to vote
UKIP candidate polled 4.9% of those eligible to vote in Dover Town ward
Conservative Candidates polled 4.3% and 4.3% of those eligible to vote in Dover Town ward - total 8.6% of those eligible to vote
Liberal Democrat Candidates polled 0.8% and 0.8% of those eligible to vote in Dover Town ward - total 1.6% of those eligible to vote
and approx. 0.1% of papers were spoiled.
That means, in relation to UKIP, that 95.1% of the voters of Dover Town rejected UKIP according to 'Alexander logic'. 88.1% of voters rejected Labour and 91.4% rejected the Conservatives.
It also means that the DPPT has more democratic legitimacy than the lot of them put together (if we follow the Alex logic line).
Of course, we'll never know what those who didn't vote wanted, because they made themselves uncountable and left 11.9% of the Town's electorate to grant democratic legitimacy to its regional council representatives in Maidstone.
However, in the real world, the record will forever show that our two Labour councillors collected 44% of Dover's vote between them and those who didn't vote will remain forever uncounted in support of or opposition to any candidate whatsoever (in fact, they are likely to be claimed (with some legitimacy) by the winners because they'll be as if they were among the 44% as far as the electoral history is concerned.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
a couple of small points here neil, with the peoples port referendum there was very little notice and no postal voting, which meant a smaller turn out.
some people i spoke too did not understand the question on the ballot paper.
i hasten to add that i think the result would have been the same anyway.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
That day of the County elections I went to the Castle and renewed my English Heritage membership.
English patriots who really care for England join English Heritage and support the Cause of our Country!
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,888
Most people who join English Heritage do so to save money when they visit old or interesting places, nothing to do with English patriotism.
I am sure a day at the castle is much more important than choosing who can spend our taxes, those who do not vote have no justification to complain about the people or parties that were voted in.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Yep neils just been saying what iv been saying for a long time
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Jan, I am fully justified to complain about "the Government".
Between 70 and 80% of the electorate boycotted the County elections.
The Government had lied to us about Localism and never introduced it, but instead cut Council budgets and inflicts Austerity on us.
The State has lost the trust of the vast majority of people.
County election turnout this time was about one third lower than four years ago.
So I am part of a popular trend.
And no, people join English Heritage to enjoy our Heritage.
Because we CARE for our Country!
The State just goes about ripping down or converting churches and handing over the land to developers for money, money, money.
30 silver pieces!
I boycotted the State! I am PROUD to have done so!
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
jan
you are of course correct(this is becoming a habit agreeing !!!!! lol)
alexander;
you will find its falling numbers in churches that are closing churches nothing to do with govts or such bodies
there are church councils that makes these decisions
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
Alexander - You failed to exercise the right that my (and apparently your) forefathers died or suffered to give you. You have no business complaining about anything that people you failed to effectively oppose do in spending/not spending our money.
English Heritage is a quango, a branch of the State, you actually went up the Castle in support of the State when you thought you were boycotting it - risible. It is a quango that seems only to maintain and protect from decay those monuments and structures where it thinks it can make money - just look locally at its failure to maintain and protect the Western Heights.
Churches where attendance is strong do not close. Churches close due to apostasy and the great 'falling away' that has happened over the last 40 years. They are not closed or disposed of by whatever Government happens to be in power today (or yesterday).
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Churches have been ripped down following an agenda of atheism.
Furthermore, Neil, I have turned the tables around, and because the State feels fit to rip down or convert our churches owing to an alleged "non attendance", my view is that, if people do not attend State elections, for the same reason and following the same logic, the atheist State must be changed.
As the State did to our churches, so we must do back to the State.
We shall give them their own medicine!
The State shall be judged by its own measure.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
And furthermore, UKIP is a Libertarian party that does not consider the Christian Faith as the One Faith of Britain and of the State.
And I shall complain about "the Government" as much as I see fit to!
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
And further, Neil, as you mention our forefathers, they built churches for attendance and the Christian Faith.
Did they fight and die so that someone later could come along in the name of the State and madly tear them down or "convert" them?
Generations of British people went to Church.
Did they live and die in vain so that others could come later and rip the churches down?
The German military may have destroyed several churches in Dover, but Dover authorities later have had by far more churches in Dover ripped down or converted.
More British churches have been demolished since 1953 than Russian churches in 70 years of Communism in Russia.
But the crowds are spoon-fed on Kate and William by the mass media!
Well not me!
I shall never renege my Christian Faith!
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Alexander
in previous threads you have attempted to say you are not forcing your view on others yet your thread above the atheiest state must be changed(your words) is doing just that.
No one is saying you should not carry out your beliefs in the christian faith, where i draw the line is that it should not be the only faith, or be pushed at everyone and on everyone.
Neil has again9as i have) explained the reasons why YOUR CHURCH COUNCILS (not govts) close churches
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 943- Registered: 15 May 2013
- Posts: 449
In light of the cruel apalling murder in London.I am not posting comments on this forum as a sign of respect to the family of the victim of this murder for the time being.