Fun and games with ballot papers

[Joseph K]

No I don't. But it's easy to select those web surveys and polls that support your own viewpoint. I'm not going to play that game.

No, you're going to do something much more difficult, like calling Corbyn 'Agent Cob', which is, frankly, puerile.

The proof is from YouGov polls, here: https://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.c...nt-you-to.html

[Joseph K]

One believes in a Magic Money Forest.

Truly embarrassing to see you come out with infantile phrases like this, especially in light of this: https://www.ier.org.uk/news/129-econ...bour-proposals

[LMcD]

Re #1:
I've filled in and posted my ballot paper, having crossed out the name of the candidate I mistrusted even more than the others, and 'written in', US style, the Royal personage of my choice. It won't make a jot of difference, any more than voting for any of the 5 will, but it's given me a degree of childlike pleasure, it might amuse one or two people at the count (or at least relieve the boredom, however briefly) and it will, I hope, help our local postie keep his job. I shall probably stay up for at least the early stages of the BBC's results programme, mainly to watch and listen respectively to the faces and explanations of those whose expectations have been confounded .. or I might start on series 2 of 'Life On Mars'.
Of course, if the suspicions of those who worry about postal votes are well-founded, my modest contribution to the Great Democratic Exercise may well be on its way to a waste paper bank or landfill site even as I write

[MrGongGong]

Re #1:
I've filled in and posted my ballot paper, having crossed out the name of the candidate I mistrusted even more than the others, and 'written in', US style, the Royal personage of my choice.

I thought King Oliver was dead ?

[Richard Barrett]

It won't make a jot of difference, any more than voting for any of the 5 will, but it's given me a degree of childlike pleasure, it might amuse one or two people at the count

I spoiled my ballot at the 2016 EU referendum and have regretted doing so ever since.

[Dave2002]

I spoiled my ballot at the 2016 EU referendum and have regretted doing so ever since.

Not worth worrying too much - I doubt that your non-vote made enough of a difference.

Mentioning it might help others in the future to avoid such actions.

In the case of the current election I doubt whether many of us have a real choice, due to the way the party/constituency things work. It’ll either be support the status quo if one wants that, or a random vote, which will probably be ineffective, otherwise.

[Richard Barrett]

Not worth worrying too much - I doubt that your non-vote made enough of a difference.

That isn't the point. Treating the whole thing as a game you can just opt out of is wrong.

[LHC]

Re #1:
I've filled in and posted my ballot paper, having crossed out the name of the candidate I mistrusted even more than the others, and 'written in', US style, the Royal personage of my choice. It won't make a jot of difference, any more than voting for any of the 5 will, but it's given me a degree of childlike pleasure, it might amuse one or two people at the count (or at least relieve the boredom, however briefly) and it will, I hope, help our local postie keep his job. I shall probably stay up for at least the early stages of the BBC's results programme, mainly to watch and listen respectively to the faces and explanations of those whose expectations have been confounded .. or I might start on series 2 of 'Life On Mars'.
Of course, if the suspicions of those who worry about postal votes are well-founded, my modest contribution to the Great Democratic Exercise may well be on its way to a waste paper bank or landfill site even as I write

With a bit of luck the poor counters will simply bin your spoiled ballot paper without a second glance. Of course, they might try and decide whether, despite defacing your ballot paper, you have expressed a preference for any particular candidate. If you placed an X next to the candidate you claim to mistrust the most, they might conclude you have expressed a preference for him or her even though you wrote over the name. It would be ironic if you end up voting for the candidate you like the least.

[oddoneout]

With a bit of luck the poor counters will simply bin your spoiled ballot paper without a second glance. Of course, they might try and decide whether, despite defacing your ballot paper, you have expressed a preference for any particular candidate. If you placed an X next to the candidate you claim to mistrust the most, they might conclude you have expressed a preference for him or her even though you wrote over the name. It would be ironic if you end up voting for the candidate you like the least.

Well it would get a second glance as spoiled ballot papers have to be counted and then put into a category according to the nature of the spoiling- I think there are 4.

[Serial_Apologist]

Thanks to all of you who have come around to the viewpoint I've been expressing with regards to BBC "impartiality" here for a long time now.

[Serial_Apologist]

Here's another thing. As a remaining consistent remainer, I can't figure out how it is that they're all out to diss Corbyn, who has not stated which way he voted in the 2016 referendum but has a policy to re-negotiate a Brexit deal that would protect existing customs and free passage arrangements that would help protect the jobs of many who for reasons of their own want Brexit, while at the same time (apart from the Piers Morgan interview linked to in MrGG's post above) Tory remainers are not questioned over contrarily still believing in remain while urging support for a Johnson government that would ensure we leave. A lot of selective obscurantism is being deliberately stirred up on the fallacious basis that whichever way Britons voted in the referendum, they earn the right, day in and day out in street interviews where they are never asked to back up their opinions one way or another, to claim that they knew their reasons for so voting at the time, when, notwithstanding all the information, expertise and advice officially on offer, clearly nobody in any of the main political parties represented in Parliament had a clue or been able to justify their stance under proper scrutiny, on rare occasions we've been lucky to witness the latter.

It almost seems as if media pundits and presenters are getting their own back on Corbyn for putting "the people" before himself in relation to the whole issue, which from the start was one gigantic diversion intended to solve the Tories' inability to resolve their inner party contradictions since joining the EEC. But why do I say that? Much of the BBC's supine acquiescence before the might of money and power must surely relate to its subservience to the press. Rather than itself consistently setting the journalistic agenda, apart from the occasional thorough job, usually well after the event, it must be said, done by Panorama investigators, the BBC, like the rest of the broadcasting media, choose to follow the stories presented by the press. We've now seen this for many years in What The Papers Say slots and the amount of time stories always selected for reportage for political purposes and presented in slanted and often sensationalised ways. But, while one explanation might be found in having always to please the paymaster, was there ever a time when it was the BBC that set the priorities for topics of public importance, providing a leading example of standard bearing that would have challenged the billionaire-owned press and its compliant subservient editors?

Free press? Impartial BBC?? My a*se!!

[Anastasius]

Which particular Andrew Neil question (bear in mind you have only now introduced Neil into this thread). The excessively childish use of distortions of Corbyn's name in your posts does any argument you may have no favours.

Carry on patronising. As if I care....I don't ...in case you're still confused.

[Anastasius]

No, you're going to do something much more difficult, like calling Corbyn 'Agent Cob', which is, frankly, puerile.

The proof is from YouGov polls, here: https://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.c...nt-you-to.html

Yabba..yabba..yabba. Patronise if you must. I've already pointed out that YouGov's selection criteria and extrapolation is questionable. By all means...keep Googling and quoting those sites that support your views.

[Anastasius]

Truly embarrassing to see you come out with infantile phrases like this, especially in light of this: https://www.ier.org.uk/news/129-econ...bour-proposals

Oh FFS...stop living in a dream world. Do you actually understand economics ? Do you actually understand reality ? Do you even understand that maybe, just maybe, there are websites out there that are deliberately providing distorted information ? Or do you only look at those that support your viewpoint ?

Is there an Ignore option on this forum ? If there is, I'll put you on it.

Even MrGongGong agrees with me that I can offset my putative capital gains tax on the sale of my property by the amount I've spent on adding value to it...

[Richard Barrett]

Is there an Ignore option on this forum ? If there is, I'll put you on it.

Yes there is. Put me on it too please.