Home› All Encompassing Trip

Londoners (UK)

MattCameronKicksButtMattCameronKicksButt Posts: 4,317
edited May 2008 in All Encompassing Trip
I'm curious to know who you voted for. :)
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1

Comments

  • harmless_little_f***harmless_little_f*** Posts: 8,005
    I didn't vote. I had a bit of an Existential crisis while watch the news and thought to myself, 'I better learn something about politics.'

    I dunno.. it all just seems like WWE wrestling in suits.
    'We're learning songs for baby Jesus' birthday. His mum and dad were Merry and Joseph. He had a bed made of clay and the three kings bought him Gold, Frankenstein and Merv as presents.'

    - the great Sir Leo Harrison
  • MattCameronKicksButtMattCameronKicksButt Posts: 4,317
    harmless_little_f*** wrote:
    I dunno.. it all just seems like WWE wrestling in suits.

    Yip.

    I didn't vote either because I didn't know who to vote for but I used the fact that I was away as an excuse because I felt guilty.

    I can't wait to find out what Boris Johnson is like as a leader. :D
  • Fender_ManFender_Man Posts: 408
    As an exiled Londoner, who voted in the first Mayoral elections ( In modern times, don't wanna' here any Dick Whittington references, thank you), I've watched this election in stunned disbelief. If ever there was a case for a "non of the above" option on the ballot slip, this was it. Didn't any Londoner learn from Ken's stint in the GLC? and as for Boris, give me a break!
  • MattCameronKicksButtMattCameronKicksButt Posts: 4,317
    Fender_Man wrote:
    As an exiled Londoner, who voted in the first Mayoral elections ( In modern times, don't wanna' here any Dick Whittington references, thank you), I've watched this election in stunned disbelief. If ever there was a case for a "non of the above" option on the ballot slip, this was it. Didn't any Londoner learn from Ken's stint in the GLC? and as for Boris, give me a break!

    I think that's how most people felt up and down the country. Probably why more people voted Lib Dem.
    So who would you have voted for if you were still in London? Would you have bothered?

    P.S. Your signature makes me giggle. :)
  • elmerelmer Posts: 1,683
    It's too complicated figuring out how to vote. I get in a fluster, dunno what to do, how to do it, what is what.

    I keep ignoring these letters from the council wanting me on a voting register, they claim its 'Law'.
  • Fender_ManFender_Man Posts: 408
    MattCameronKicksButt wrote:
    I think that's how most people felt up and down the country. Probably why more people voted Lib Dem.
    So who would you have voted for if you were still in London? Would you have bothered?

    P.S. Your signature makes me giggle. :)

    To be honest, I don't think I would have voted. Never been into just picking the lesser of two evils, I've got to believe in a candidate to make the effort. I voted for Stephen Norris in 2004, not out of any love for the Conservative party, just because I didn't want another four years of Ken. My signature, well you could always rely on FZ for a snappy comeback!
  • MattCameronKicksButtMattCameronKicksButt Posts: 4,317
    elmer wrote:
    It's too complicated figuring out how to vote. I get in a fluster, dunno what to do, how to do it, what is what.

    I keep ignoring these letters from the council wanting me on a voting register, they claim its 'Law'.

    Maybe if people felt more strongly about the council or government they wanted in, they'd try harder to figure out how to fill in the ballot form.
    So there's been about four or five people responded to this thread and none of us even voted!
  • duggroduggro Posts: 1,343
    i don't mean to cause offence, but the inability to fill out a ballot form is a shocking excuse for not voting. there are plenty of sources of information on the web and at polling stations which tell you how the form is organised, and how to cast your vote.


    on the other hand, with the recent controversy in scottish election with huge numbers of wasted votes due to incorrectly filled-in ballots, i think it might be a good method of discounting the political opinions of idiots. there were letters in the post, adverts on tv and posters at the polling station telling us how to vote, yet thousands of people couldnt manage it.

    if you lack the ability to fill out a form, you lack the sense to cast an informed vote
    Dublin Leeds Berlin Wembley
  • MattCameronKicksButtMattCameronKicksButt Posts: 4,317
    duggro wrote:
    i don't mean to cause offence, but the inability to fill out a ballot form is a shocking excuse for not voting. there are plenty of sources of information on the web and at polling stations which tell you how the form is organised, and how to cast your vote.


    on the other hand, with the recent controversy in scottish election with huge numbers of wasted votes due to incorrectly filled-in ballots, i think it might be a good method of discounting the political opinions of idiots. there were letters in the post, adverts on tv and posters at the polling station telling us how to vote, yet thousands of people couldnt manage it.

    if you lack the ability to fill out a form, you lack the sense to cast an informed vote

    I disagree. I think it says a lot about the government and politics. If you don't already know how to fill out the ballot paper why would you want to go out of your way to figure it out if you're only continueously disappointed by the results. It just seems to me that Labour voters are generally fatigued by the government at the moment and don't have anywhere else to turn. I THINK most voted Lib Dem this time round and some even voted BNP as a protest vote, which in my eyes, only proves my point.

    I just can't believe no one here voted for Ken, Boris or the others. I thought most pearl Jam fans were into their politics. Besides, I want to be nosy and see who voted for Boris and why.
  • Fender_ManFender_Man Posts: 408
    What I find most disturbing about this election (and most elections in this country) is that only 45% of the electorate actually bothered to vote. If we give Boris approximately 40% of that 45%, would I be correct in saying that only 18% of the electorate actually voted for Boris to be mayor?
    I know it's a little more complicated than that, because you had a second choice vote that counted towards the outcome, but even my O level grade C maths brain tells me that a whopping 82% of the London electorate does not want the new mayor! This can't be a good thing?
    I think that this was more of a vote against 8 years of Ken, than a vote for Boris. When you consider that the two previous mayoral elections only had turnouts of 34% and 36% (it appears that Ken didn't have to work too hard to get elected in the past), was the extra 9% turnout this time around due to a general desire to see the back of Ken or just a general raising of interest in the whole London mayor thing?
  • duggroduggro Posts: 1,343
    MattCameronKicksButt wrote:
    I disagree. I think it says a lot about the government and politics. If you don't already know how to fill out the ballot paper why would you want to go out of your way to figure it out if you're only continueously disappointed by the results. It just seems to me that Labour voters are generally fatigued by the government at the moment and don't have anywhere else to turn. I THINK most voted Lib Dem this time round and some even voted BNP as a protest vote, which in my eyes, only proves my point.

    I just can't believe no one here voted for Ken, Boris or the others. I thought most pearl Jam fans were into their politics. Besides, I want to be nosy and see who voted for Boris and why.
    your point has nothing to do with the ballot papers

    people being disillusioned and people not knowing how to fill out a ballot are separate things. if someone says "It's too complicated figuring out how to vote. I get in a fluster, dunno what to do, how to do it, what is what." that has nothing to do with lack of faith in the government, its to do with an inability to carry out a task

    i think your point is totally valid about not wanting to vote but as for "proving your point" you actually contradict yourself. you can't say a.) people didnt vote because they are fatigued and disillusioned and b.) they voted as a protest vote

    i'm honestly not arguing with you for the sake of it, i support most of what you said, i just have a total pet peeve about people with terrible excuses for not using their right to vote

    and ps. im also rather curious about who voted for who. i like boris, he seems like an alright guy who just shocks people by saying what he thinks, im just not too clued up on his policies
    Dublin Leeds Berlin Wembley
  • MattCameronKicksButtMattCameronKicksButt Posts: 4,317
    Fender_Man wrote:
    What I find most disturbing about this election (and most elections in this country) is that only 45% of the electorate actually bothered to vote. If we give Boris approximately 40% of that 45%, would I be correct in saying that only 18% of the electorate actually voted for Boris to be mayor?
    I know it's a little more complicated than that, because you had a second choice vote that counted towards the outcome, but even my O level grade C maths brain tells me that a whopping 82% of the London electorate does not want the new mayor! This can't be a good thing?
    I think that this was more of a vote against 8 years of Ken, than a vote for Boris. When you consider that the two previous mayoral elections only had turnouts of 34% and 36% (it appears that Ken didn't have to work too hard to get elected in the past), was the extra 9% turnout this time around due to a general desire to see the back of Ken or just a general raising of interest in the whole London mayor thing?

    I didn't get that second choice thing. Has it always been that way in London? I don't think so? There must have been some reason for it I guess.
    I was only really interested in this election because it was between Boris and ken. Like harmless says, it's sort of like watching WWF which sickens me a bit but, hey, I'm only human. I was also curious to know if people really like Boris or if they were just trying to out Ken... or even if it was a dig against Labour. So yeah, I think we're basicly on the same page.
  • Drop The Leash 10Drop The Leash 10 Posts: 7,011
    dumbeldore ;)
    I will be what i could be
    Once I get out of this town


    9/29/04;6/27/08;6/30/08;8/23/09;08/24/09;5/17/10
  • MattCameronKicksButtMattCameronKicksButt Posts: 4,317
    duggro wrote:
    your point has nothing to do with the ballot papers

    people being disillusioned and people not knowing how to fill out a ballot are separate things. if someone says "It's too complicated figuring out how to vote. I get in a fluster, dunno what to do, how to do it, what is what." that has nothing to do with lack of faith in the government, its to do with an inability to carry out a task

    i think your point is totally valid about not wanting to vote but as for "proving your point" you actually contradict yourself. you can't say a.) people didnt vote because they are fatigued and disillusioned and b.) they voted as a protest vote

    i'm honestly not arguing with you for the sake of it, i support most of what you said, i just have a total pet peeve about people with terrible excuses for not using their right to vote

    and ps. im also rather curious about who voted for who. i like boris, he seems like an alright guy who just shocks people by saying what he thinks, im just not too clued up on his policies

    Thanks for being polite :) but I don't know how to re phrase what I've written three times already. I think it has a lot to do with peoples lack of interest in politics these days. I don't know what else to say to you.

    I'm very aware that choosing the lesser of two evils is better than no choice at all but I can fully understand how people can lose interest. And as for the inability to carry out a task thing, I think that's a bit unfair. Anyone can work it out if they were that interested. You said yourself that there's been enough help. :)
  • duggroduggro Posts: 1,343
    you may have said it three times, but you have still not quite grasped the purpose of my responses to you

    your initial response to my post was unrelated to what i was saying really, and you followed it by contradicting yourself in your second reply

    "I disagree. I think it says a lot about the government and politics. If you don't already know how to fill out the ballot paper why would you want to go out of your way to figure it out if you're only continueously disappointed by the results"

    vs

    "I THINK most voted Lib Dem this time round and some even voted BNP as a protest vote, which in my eyes, only proves my point."

    thats all i was saying. i have stated that i agree with what you've written "three times already". i dont understand why you replying to my posts is interpreted as me picking apart your posts. i'm merely trying to understand why you are arguing, when our points arent really related

    me- wasted votes and people too thick to use them
    you- people are disillusioned

    sheesh
    Dublin Leeds Berlin Wembley
  • MattCameronKicksButtMattCameronKicksButt Posts: 4,317
    duggro wrote:
    you may have said it three times, but you have still not quite grasped the purpose of my responses to you

    your initial response to my post was unrelated to what i was saying really, and you followed it by contradicting yourself in your second reply

    "I disagree. I think it says a lot about the government and politics. If you don't already know how to fill out the ballot paper why would you want to go out of your way to figure it out if you're only continueously disappointed by the results"

    vs

    "I THINK most voted Lib Dem this time round and some even voted BNP as a protest vote, which in my eyes, only proves my point."

    thats all i was saying. i have stated that i agree with what you've written "three times already". i dont understand why you replying to my posts is interpreted as me picking apart your posts. i'm merely trying to understand why you are arguing, when our points arent really related

    me- wasted votes and people too thick to use them
    you- people are disillusioned

    sheesh

    I think our wires are crossed a bit. I don't think it's fair to say that some people are too stupid to vote but I agree with most of what you've said.
    Ignore my 'only proves my point' thing. I was just quickly trying to finish off my sentence. As for the one point vs the other thing, I just meant that some will give protest votes, others just won't bother getting involved. It pretty much means the same thing to me. Does that make sense to you?
  • duggroduggro Posts: 1,343
    it does indeed sir, it does indeed.

    wires uncrossed and sitting independently of one another, albeit pointing in slightly different directions.
    Dublin Leeds Berlin Wembley
  • MattCameronKicksButtMattCameronKicksButt Posts: 4,317
    duggro wrote:
    it does indeed sir, it does indeed.

    wires uncrossed and sitting independently of one another, albeit pointing in slightly different directions.

    Yeah, okay. :D

    *Gives kisses to duggro* (Tongue and all). ;):D:)
  • elmerelmer Posts: 1,683
    duggro wrote:
    i don't mean to cause offence, but the inability to fill out a ballot form is a shocking excuse for not voting. there are plenty of sources of information on the web and at polling stations which tell you how the form is organised, and how to cast your vote.


    on the other hand, with the recent controversy in scottish election with huge numbers of wasted votes due to incorrectly filled-in ballots, i think it might be a good method of discounting the political opinions of idiots.

    if you lack the ability to fill out a form, you lack the sense to cast an informed vote

    A sense socio-political duty forbids me from casting an idiot-vote, thus, I don't obscure the the vote of admirable, thinking citizens such as yourself.
    Aristotle wouldn't want me muddling the count either.
  • geniegenie Posts: 2,222
    Fender_Man wrote:
    What I find most disturbing about this election (and most elections in this country) is that only 45% of the electorate actually bothered to vote. If we give Boris approximately 40% of that 45%, would I be correct in saying that only 18% of the electorate actually voted for Boris to be mayor?
    I know it's a little more complicated than that, because you had a second choice vote that counted towards the outcome, but even my O level grade C maths brain tells me that a whopping 82% of the London electorate does not want the new mayor! This can't be a good thing?
    I think that this was more of a vote against 8 years of Ken, than a vote for Boris. When you consider that the two previous mayoral elections only had turnouts of 34% and 36% (it appears that Ken didn't have to work too hard to get elected in the past), was the extra 9% turnout this time around due to a general desire to see the back of Ken or just a general raising of interest in the whole London mayor thing?

    hehe, yep. i agree with everything you said in here. but honestly why did people vote for the same stale parties? couldn't they be at least more adventurous, and vote for LibDems instead? i've not even talking about those not very famous parties like GreenParty....

    those pricks, didn't they see shows with Boris Johnson, that idiot is going to fuck up this city and make mistakes.....i can just see it coming. He is a liar, he is a middleclass, and has he ever done any jobs that involved responsibility? no...besides being just a damn journalist. God even the way he talks annoys me, it's so fucking posh.

    oh, yeah and i did vote.
  • geniegenie Posts: 2,222
    duggro wrote:

    me- wasted votes and people too thick to use them

    i voted for the first time in my life, but i nearly lost paper with my number, and didn't know where to go because i've lost paper telling me where i should vote. but all in all i used my brains and asked for help when i wasn't certain about somethings, and that's how i got through voting. there is nothing difficult about it, it's just people not giving a shit, if someone gives a shit about something they'll find the way out.
  • harmless_little_f***harmless_little_f*** Posts: 8,005
    genie wrote:
    hehe, yep. i agree with everything you said in here. but honestly why did people vote for the same stale parties? couldn't they be at least more adventurous, and vote for LibDems instead? i've not even talking about those not very famous parties like GreenParty....

    those pricks, didn't they see shows with Boris Johnson, that idiot is going to fuck up this city and make mistakes.....i can just see it coming. He is a liar, he is a middleclass, and has he ever done any jobs that involved responsibility? no...besides being just a damn journalist. God even the way he talks annoys me, it's so fucking posh.

    oh, yeah and i did vote.

    Wow... a fuckload of generalisations there. Nice.

    You don't like him because he's:

    posh
    has an annoying way of talking
    a liar
    'a' middle class (Is he a liar because he's middle class or is there more to it? Are middle class people liars?)
    a journalist - with no responsibility (Are you sure journalists have no responsibility? Really?)
    'We're learning songs for baby Jesus' birthday. His mum and dad were Merry and Joseph. He had a bed made of clay and the three kings bought him Gold, Frankenstein and Merv as presents.'

    - the great Sir Leo Harrison
  • MattCameronKicksButtMattCameronKicksButt Posts: 4,317
    harmless_little_f*** wrote:
    Wow... a fuckload of generalisations there. Nice.

    You don't like him because he's:

    posh
    has an annoying way of talking
    a liar
    'a' middle class (Is he a liar because he's middle class or is there more to it? Are middle class people liars?)
    a journalist - with no responsibility (Are you sure journalists have no responsibility? Really?)

    No offense to genie but I couldn't agree more with what harmless just said there.

    I'd never vote LibDem though, I'd rather go for the conservative party.
  • duggroduggro Posts: 1,343
    elmer wrote:
    A sense socio-political duty forbids me from casting an idiot-vote, thus, I don't obscure the the vote of admirable, thinking citizens such as yourself.
    Aristotle wouldn't want me muddling the count either.

    stop being an eejit, my point is perfectly valid

    my point was not about the politically uninformed casting a vote, but about those who either refuse to vote as its "too complicated" or those who somehow can't manage to get it right.

    your sarcasm is rather amusing though
    Dublin Leeds Berlin Wembley
  • geniegenie Posts: 2,222
    harmless_little_f*** wrote:
    Wow... a fuckload of generalisations there. Nice.

    You don't like him because he's:

    posh
    has an annoying way of talking
    a liar
    'a' middle class (Is he a liar because he's middle class or is there more to it? Are middle class people liars?)
    a journalist - with no responsibility (Are you sure journalists have no responsibility? Really?)

    so? do you think it bothers me? i ain't bovvered :D see, face, bovveredd!

    yes i do generalise. and no i didn't mean to say middle class were liars, but Boris is.
    What's so responsible about writing in the damn newspaper? talk to me when you find out that he held jobs like: police commander ;), or bank manager or any other job which requires decision making skills
  • geniegenie Posts: 2,222
    MattCameronKicksButt wrote:
    No offense to genie but I couldn't agree more with what harmless just said there.

    I'd never vote LibDem though, I'd rather go for the conservative party.

    Usually i wouldn't vote for LibDems either, and just like yourself i'd go for conservative party BUT if conservative party has an idiot who is going to run and make decisions for London, than i'd rather vote for LibDems who appointed great candidate Brian Paddock who i think was very sharp and deserved a chance.
  • harmless_little_f***harmless_little_f*** Posts: 8,005
    genie wrote:
    so? do you think it bothers me? i ain't bovvered :D see, face, bovveredd!

    yes i do generalise. and no i didn't mean to say middle class were liars, but Boris is.
    What's so responsible about writing in the damn newspaper? talk to me when you find out that he held jobs like: police commander ;), or bank manager or any other job which requires decision making skills

    Journalism is largely responsible for challenging, shaping and potentially changing the minds of the entire nation, politically, socially, creatively or spiritually. That's quite a responsibility right there. I've never had a policeman or a bank manager change or influence my mind on anything.
    'We're learning songs for baby Jesus' birthday. His mum and dad were Merry and Joseph. He had a bed made of clay and the three kings bought him Gold, Frankenstein and Merv as presents.'

    - the great Sir Leo Harrison
  • geniegenie Posts: 2,222
    harmless_little_f*** wrote:
    Journalism is largely responsible for challenging, shaping and potentially changing the minds of the entire nation, politically, socially, creatively or spiritually. That's quite a responsibility right there. I've never had a policeman or a bank manager change or influence my mind on anything.

    Journalism is creative work, if someone makes mistake it's not as catastrophic as with banks, or policework, or government work.
    For a starters he is mad for wanting to bring back old busses to London, if he want's to keep English tradition then he should look for it elsewhere, like celebrating St. George's day in Trafalgar sq, but for god's sake don't bring back something useless and outdated.

    Boris will have to decide lots of issues which require thinking and putting his ass on the line, like transport, housing, and policing and those decisions are nothing compared to what he used to do previously. I will have the last laugh when Boris fucks up, which is a likely thing, unless someone else from conservative party is going to secretly do all the work for him.
  • geniegenie Posts: 2,222
    harmless_little_f*** wrote:
    I've never had a policeman or a bank manager change or influence my mind on anything.

    and another thing i want to add, yes policeman will never influence you however if they mistake your identity for a terrorist then you might find yourself dead one day.
    bank manager won't influence you either, however they will be deciding whether to lend you money or not.

    so don't underestimate the work those people do.
  • harmless_little_f***harmless_little_f*** Posts: 8,005
    genie wrote:
    and another thing i want to add, yes policeman will never influence you however if they mistake your identity for a terrorist then you might find yourself dead one day.
    bank manager won't influence you either, however they will be deciding whether to lend you money or not.

    so don't underestimate the work those people do.

    Oh don't get me wrong, I don't underestimate the work anybody does... whether that be policemen, bank managers, or journalists. Your points are exrtremely valid - but so are mine. You're obviously quite knowledgable about the issues because you read the newspaper and watch the news. Guess who puts your news on a plate? Journalists. And depending on how they spin that news, that'll be what creates your views. You think you came to them all on your own? Doubt it. ;)
    'We're learning songs for baby Jesus' birthday. His mum and dad were Merry and Joseph. He had a bed made of clay and the three kings bought him Gold, Frankenstein and Merv as presents.'

    - the great Sir Leo Harrison
Sign In or Register to comment.