Dubstepforum.com

soronery wrote:

NilsFG wrote:So conservatives won? If there's one thing the UK's good at its re-electing stnuc apparently.

There isn't a viable non-tnuc party at the moment.

The consequences of me failing to secure a seat for myself in the Commons would be significant for both myself and the party.

It is frankly just not credible for me to continue to lead the party without a Westminster seat.

What credibility would Ukip have in the Commons if others had to enunciate party policy in Parliament and the party leader was only allowed in as a guest?

Was I supposed to brief Ukip policy from the Westminster Arms? No - if I fail to win South Thanet, it is curtains for me. I will have to step down.

– Ukip leader Nigel Farage

Muncey wrote:

[+] Spoiler

hubb wrote:

Muncey wrote:The amount of shit I've read today like: IF YOU'RE A WOMAN MAKE SURE YOU VOTE, PEOPLE SUFFERED SO YOU COULD.

No, they suffered so you had the RIGHT to CHOOSE to vote or not. Choosing to vote or choosing not to vote are basically equal in this context. Being guilt tripped into voting is almost the opposite to what people protested and suffered for.

This is completely silly man. You can't be an adult in society and at the same time escape responsibility like that unless you're doing it politically. You can not respect politicians if you like, like most people. But it's more responsible to be a super selfserving anarchist or some other shit than taking an anti-position like that.
There's no purpose to a non position like that, except when it's used as levity in the sense of an undecided group.

When people can't read we decide they are either dyslexic or just haven't learned yet. They are never just non-readers. This is the same.

That had nothing to do with what I said. I meant the demonising of people who choose not to vote because people suffered so you could.. meaning you should. Its ridiculous and completely misinterprets what people suffered for, which is equal rights. Equality in having the right to choose to vote or not. Someone actually said to me today at work that they think all women should vote and shes annoyed because her daughter isn't voting, the suffering people went through all women should vote. I didn't wanna get into a debate so I just said they suffered for equality, to have a choice (like men) to choose to vote or not.. choosing to vote or choosing not to vote are the same. She replied "thats true, I'd never thought of it like that".

However what you're hitting at is whether you SHOULD vote or not.. my point was having the CHOICE to vote or not is what people fought for, not that you should.

But to reply to your actual point (which had nothing to do with mine imo) I still disagree. Your whole point is based on that fact that you can't not-vote unless its a political position but you absolutely can, if politics is in such a dire state you have absolutely no interest in it why would you join in? Your point would be perfect if we lived in a textbook democratic society but we don't and we get lied to and its entirely understandable, to me at least, why people feel lost or uninterested by politics. I'm 24 this month and this is the first time I've voted, it took me an economics degree and general interest in politics & economics to form some opinions on matters.. I decided to vote greens last year because 1. austerity is bullshit so instantly discard all of those parties advocating that 2. spending is important but only if its spent wisely, thats most left wing written off.. greens wanted to invest in sustainable infrastructure and stuff like that and it would actually create more jobs than investing in unsustainable stuff. I could almost argue against a lot of their manifesto too.. to the point where I wasn't going to vote again.. I only chose to stick with it because the green party will never win the majority and hopefully they can get a coalition and push a few of their sensible ideas through. Aside from that it'll be same old same old.

Plus if you wanna talk about 'not escaping responsibility', ask all the labour voters who ended up voting for a government that put into action and heavily supported the iraq war if they're happy taking the responsibility of that monstrosity. I think a few would mind.. it'd certainly put me off politics for live if I in some small way helped cause that.

soronery wrote:First past the post does a great job of keeping out the lunatic fringe

OGLemon wrote:

soronery wrote:First past the post does a great job of keeping out the lunatic fringe

Every system has its flaws, but a small lunatic fringe is worth the price for a fairer representative democracy.

soronery wrote:The only thing flawed here is your opinion.

soronery wrote:

NilsFG wrote:So conservatives won? If there's one thing the UK's good at its re-electing stnuc apparently.

There isn't a viable non-tnuc party at the moment.

[+] Spoiler

Dunno if that is even a critique lol