Today, I received an envelope full of bumph (TLDR) about our shiny new mayor, whom we get to vote for on the 1st of May. Like the ridiculous and unnecessary crime commissioners, this is another layer of bureaucracy, a waste of money and something we do not need. So, as with the aforementioned crime commissioners, I will not be taking part. Sure, you can argue that I don’t have a say if I don’t vote, but I refuse to take part in a charade that shouldn’t be happening anyway. Declining to be a part of the process – in any shape or form – is my say.
Comments are closed.
This I’m afraid is the issue, out of 8 or 9 mayors we have only one that isn’t a member of the Islamic community. If the indigenous people don’t vote the Muslim community do, they are told too.
I’m with you I have no time for this extra layer of government totally superfluous but some think it’s the way to have power and they get elected. Unless we the original inhabitants change it will get worse. And we will just moan about it.
It’s a hard truth but unless we change they will get stronger year by year.
At least you’re area is having elections. I’ve just found out that because of last year’s mayoral election in Greater Manchester, there won’t be any local elections in any of the ten boroughs. Why the fuck weren’t the mayoral elections postponed until this year and held simultaneously with the local elections? It makes much more sense.
Agree
In Venezuela, the opposition decided not to participate in the farce of the general elections. The result was that Chavez obtained a super majority and used that to legitimize his subsequent grasp on power.
The lesson is that if we don’t fight when we have a chance of success, we may have to fight when there is none.
I do so agree.
Margaret Thatcher knew that any extra level of bureaucracy will be captured by careerist leftists and their self-serving agenda. Which is, of course, why she abolished the GLC and its equivalents, for example in Manchester.
That sock puppet Osborne re-I traduced them, because he, of course, knew better.
Well, surprise, surprise, he didn’t. And now here we are again.
There’s a big difference between passive and active abstention – staying out of it, passive, says you don’t give a toss, you’re happy for them to do what they want. Active abstention involves going to the Polling Station and spoiling your ballot paper with the reason why you are abstaining.
All ‘spoilt papers’ get far more attention than correct ones – if enough active abstainers do this, then messages can get through.
There is a difference, but the ‘winner’ will ignore both and claim to have widespread support. The more that stay away or spoil their papers, the more hollow that sounds.
Guy I know is standing in the elections for the Limp Dumbs. Personable enough chap, though always full of exciting ideas how he can get others to do more free work ‘for the community’ or say, raising ‘support’ for refugees — as if that enhances the lives of we voters. Can’t see it myself but it keeps him busy.
He admitted the other day he was worried about the growth of Reform, yet never seems concerned that every election most voters aren’t the least interested in his party’s feeble attempts at success. Funny people, these politicians.
It is sort of moot for me as I will be on a boat on the Norfolk Broads when this election is happening. I could get behind more localised democracy if they were abolishing something else to make way for it. The last thing that we need is even more meddling politicians sticking their ill informed spanners in the works of everything.