Yes, and let's also have a big man with a gun at polling stations,
shooting people if they don't vote for the right party.

--
message by Robin May, founder of International Boyism
"Would Inspector Sands please go to the Operations Room immediately."

Unofficially immune to hangovers.

Robin, there is a difference between voting for no-hope candidates (like the
Greens) or out-and-out morons (like the B.N.P.) on the one had, which is
everyone's democratic right, and causing law-abiding folk massive disruption
when trying to get to or from work. Personally I'd just treat the former with
disdain, but as for the latter I'd throw whatever the law allows at them.

Marc.

(Mait001) wrote the following in:


Yes, and let's also have a big man with a gun at polling stations,
shooting people if they don't vote for the right party.

--
message by Robin May, founder of International Boyism
"Would Inspector Sands please go to the Operations Room
immediately."

Unofficially immune to hangovers.

Robin, there is a difference between voting for no-hope candidates
(like the Greens)

Ah, so they're allowed to vote to express their opinions, but you admit
that they are voting for people with no chance of electoral success.
They therefore have no hope of being represented in the political
system and voting doesn't really offer them a chance to influence the
running of the country. Boltar said in his reply to me "I'm sick of
these so called activists who seem to think the voting booth isn't good
enough for them". Well I'd suggest that in actual fact the voting booth
isn't good enough for them, because they have no hope of electing a
candidate who would represent their political views.

or out-and-out morons (like the B.N.P.)

I doubt those protesters would ever consider voting for the BNP.

on the
one had, which is everyone's democratic right,

So it's everybody's democratic right to cast votes which, being
realistic, have no hope of influencing government. What a wonderful
right that is!

and causing
law-abiding folk massive disruption when trying to get to or from
work.

I'd point out that the law is a human creation and if laws have been
passed to remove from them the one form of political expression that
might actually get their views noticed, then it's them who we should
probably be sympathising with. Not the law abiding folk trying to get
to or from work who are caused a slight inconvenience on one day but
enjoy some kind of ideological representation in the House of Commons.

Personally I'd just treat the former with disdain,

Ah, so even if they express themselves by being good little girls and
boys and casting a useless vote you think badly of them.

but as
for the latter I'd throw whatever the law allows at them.

Stalin had the right idea, didn't he?

--
message by Robin May, founder of International Boyism
"Would Inspector Sands please go to the Operations Room immediately."

Unofficially immune to hangovers.

"Robin May" wrote in message
...

Ah, so they're allowed to vote to express their opinions, but you admit
that they are voting for people with no chance of electoral success.
They therefore have no hope of being represented in the political
system and voting doesn't really offer them a chance to influence the
running of the country. Boltar said in his reply to me "I'm sick of
these so called activists who seem to think the voting booth isn't good
enough for them". Well I'd suggest that in actual fact the voting booth
isn't good enough for them, because they have no hope of electing a
candidate who would represent their political views.

Personally, I'd doubt that most of them were even on the electoral register
as they might end up having to pay community charge!

"Robin Mayes" wrote in message
...

Personally, I'd doubt that most of them were even on the electoral
register
as they might end up having to pay community charge!

Unfortunately, Community Charge was replaced several years ago :-(

"Stimpy" wrote in message
...

Unfortunately, Community Charge was replaced several years ago :-(

Was trying to think of the word Council tax!

Robin, there is a difference between voting for no-hope candidates
(like the Greens)

Ah, so they're allowed to vote to express their opinions, but you admit
that they are voting for people with no chance of electoral success.
They therefore have no hope of being represented in the political
system and voting doesn't really offer them a chance to influence the
running of the country. Boltar said in his reply to me "I'm sick of
these so called activists who seem to think the voting booth isn't good
enough for them". Well I'd suggest that in actual fact the voting booth
isn't good enough for them, because they have no hope of electing a
candidate who would represent their political views.

or out-and-out morons (like the B.N.P.)

I doubt those protesters would ever consider voting for the BNP.

on the
one had, which is everyone's democratic right,

So it's everybody's democratic right to cast votes which, being
realistic, have no hope of influencing government. What a wonderful
right that is!


Robin, you have to take the rough with the smooth. I rather suspect that,
overall, in the U.K. parties like the B.N.P. would enjoy as much electoral
support as the Greens. Now, the Greens might be seen as a respectable party (if
rather naive perhaps) and therefore be tolerated by decent-minded people, were
we to have, for example, proprtional representation in Parliament. But, would
you be so tolerant of the B.N.P. or National Front?

Or is it a case of the "right-on" politically-correct parties being more equal
than the nasty fascists?

and causing
law-abiding folk massive disruption when trying to get to or from
work.

I'd point out that the law is a human creation and if laws have been
passed to remove from them the one form of political expression that
might actually get their views noticed, then it's them who we should
probably be sympathising with. Not the law abiding folk trying to get
to or from work who are caused a slight inconvenience on one day but
enjoy some kind of ideological representation in the House of Commons.

If these people don't like arms fairs, or even arms manufacturers, their
options are (a) make arms fairs and/or manufacturers illegal - by Parliamentary
democratic means (although, I suspect, the tens of thousands that are employed
in this Country in arms manufacture might have an equally vociferous opposite
viewpoint) or (b) demonstrate (if they must) in a way that brings their
viewpoint to the attention of either politicians or arms traders - but NOT so
as to inconvenience the rest of us who neither support nor oppose arms fairs -
but who just happen to live and work in London.

Personally I'd just treat the former with disdain,

Ah, so even if they express themselves by being good little girls and
boys and casting a useless vote you think badly of them.

Don't be so peurile: if their vote is "useless" that is because hardly anyone
else agrees with them - that is hardly my fault. I don't think badly of them
for so voting - that is their right - but I do think that certains parties are
useless - on both extremes of the political spectrum. I hardly think I am
unusual in that regard.

but as
for the latter I'd throw whatever the law allows at them.

Stalin had the right idea, didn't he?

I despise demonstrations and demonstrators: I liken it and them to
mass-bullying and bullies. If the law allows violent and disruptive
demonstrators to be stopped, searched and arrested, then so be it. If you (or
anyone else) doesn't like those laws, then the solution lies in the ballot box.



Marc.

(Mait001) wrote the following in:


Ah, so even if they express themselves by being good little girls
and boys and casting a useless vote you think badly of them.

Don't be so peurile: if their vote is "useless" that is because
hardly anyone else agrees with them - that is hardly my fault.

No, their vote is useless not because hardly anyone else agrees with
them but because the people who do agree with them are spread out
across the country. That means there's never a single constituency with
enough people agreeing with them to elect an MP. It seems a bit unfair
to let geography and the first past the post system dictate whether you
get an MP elected.

This problem doesn't just affect very small parties. There's the well
known case of the Lib Dems where their share of the vote isn't really
reflected by their share of the seats. In the 1992 election they got 3%
of the seats and 17.85% of the votes.

There are also constituencies where it doesn't matter who you vote for,
the (insert political party) here candidate will always win. I live in
a constituency where Labour will always win, so I might as well not
vote because whoever I vote for the outcome will be the same. People
wonder about voter apathy but when there are so many people for whom
voting will make no difference, it seems more like voter sensibility.

--
message by Robin May, founder of International Boyism
"Would Inspector Sands please go to the Operations Room immediately."

Unofficially immune to hangovers.

Unless I'm very much mistaken, it was Robin May
), in message
who said:
(Mait001) wrote the following in:


Ah, so even if they express themselves by being good little girls
and boys and casting a useless vote you think badly of them.

Don't be so peurile: if their vote is "useless" that is because
hardly anyone else agrees with them - that is hardly my fault.

No, their vote is useless not because hardly anyone else agrees with
them but because the people who do agree with them are spread out
across the country. That means there's never a single constituency
with enough people agreeing with them to elect an MP. It seems a bit
unfair to let geography and the first past the post system dictate
whether you get an MP elected.

This problem doesn't just affect very small parties. There's the well
known case of the Lib Dems where their share of the vote isn't really
reflected by their share of the seats. In the 1992 election they got
3% of the seats and 17.85% of the votes.

There are also constituencies where it doesn't matter who you vote
for, the (insert political party) here candidate will always win. I
live in a constituency where Labour will always win, so I might as
well not vote because whoever I vote for the outcome will be the
same. People wonder about voter apathy but when there are so many
people for whom voting will make no difference, it seems more like
voter sensibility.


I don't see how we can go on under the current system.

Currently the electoral landscape is far more skewed in favour of one party
than it has ever been in history.

The Lib Dems complain about being robbed in the past, but then they
contribute to the problem by encouraging tactical voting, targetting specfic
seats, and making 99% of their electoral gains from the Tories, not from
Labour.

BTN

No, their vote is useless not because hardly anyone else agrees with
them but because the people who do agree with them are spread out
across the country. That means there's never a single constituency with
enough people agreeing with them to elect an MP. It seems a bit unfair
to let geography and the first past the post system dictate whether you
get an MP elected.

That's okay if you are content for the B.N.P. and any other far right party to
be treated in the same way, whose overall electoral support is, I suspect,
rather higher than the politically-correct brigade would be willing to
tolerate.

The price we pay for having a stable democracy is the exclsuion of extremists
on both wings. Personally, I think it's a price well worth paying.

Marc.

Robin May wrote in message .. .
enough for them". Well I'd suggest that in actual fact the voting booth
isn't good enough for them, because they have no hope of electing a
candidate who would represent their political views.

Hmm, interesting. So you're saying that any group of people whose views are
of such a minority standing that they'll never get anyone elected, should
force their views on the majority by illegal means. Now correct me if I'm wrong
but I was always under the assumption that democracy was government by consent
of the majority. If suddenly the minority should be in control why not just
take that to its logical conclusion and have the minority as one person which
for arguments sake we'll call a dictator.

I get the feeling you're the sort of person who only thinks a vote is democratic
if it happens to agree with your views, which is generally the attitude of
extremeists everywhere.

B2003