You can, but usually spoiled ballots are rare. Maybe 50 to 100 in a seat? Personally I think it may make more of a difference if 10 to 20% of an electorate had declared none of the above.
Keir Starmer Labour Leader
- Thread starter Damien
- Start date
As in you can explicitly vote for no one, or you can void your vote in other ways? In the last national election in Norway 0.64 % of votes were blank. In local elections it's usually higher, up to around 1.5 %. I don't know how that compares to the UK.
No mandatory voting here either, but "none of the above" is an option. They're technically invalid votes, but are counted separately from other types of invalid votes.
I'm not here to defend Starmer at all but I think you've been hoodwinked by the Tory party line here. Inflation has been stabilised by a combination of the world's central banks putting up interest rates (nothing to do with Sunak or Hunt), the supply side shocks after the pandemic easing (for example the Chinese rolling blackouts and factory shutdowns have stopped and shipping is more or less back to normal I think), and the price of gas going down again as the profiteering off the war in Ukraine settles down. And wholesale energy costs are back to roughly pre-war levels now, yet your bills aren't, because the government have no interest in making the energy market more affordable and as such are happily damaging the economy. In terms of taxes, they have gone up loads in the last few years, so even if they could afford to put them down, which I doubt given the anaemic growth in the economy and massive national debt, you'd still be worse off than you were before they came in.
So no, Sunak and Hunt don't have ideas, even less so than Starmer and his vapid Chancellor.
You can leave your ballot blank. You can also void your ballot by leaving your name, voting for more than one candidate, not being clear who you are voting for and writing something instead of voting.
What exactly is the point to any of this, if you cannot bring yourself to vote for anyone, just don't turn up?
Please do not disrespect the right to vote, it was too hard won by millions. It's one thing to decide you cant vote for someone, or even to use your vote to vote against someone, but don't disrespect the right to vote by defacing the ballot paper... and that includes leaving it blank.
My dad use to dress up in his best suite to go and vote.... bit OTT perhaps, but as a kid I took notice and as I got older had that bit extra pride in my old man.
Don't agree. I think you have a duty to vote in a democracy, so the disrespect is the act of not voting. Better to vote 'none of the above' than not vote at all.
Those millions also fought for the right to vote blank and all the other suggestions. It's a democratic statement, and it's perfectly valid. You are not defending the right to vote by telling people how they should or should not exercise their right.
Fair enough, but I don't think defacing a public form that is seeking real and legal empowerment from individuals, to designate those who should represent them, is in anyway showing respect for democracy; quite the opposite.
I suppose at some stage the option of 'none of the above' could be provided on the ballot, but until it is, defacing a legal form of voting that hundreds of people died for the right to complete, in private, is vandalism.... but still each to his own I guess.
Last edited:
Oh do get over yourself. Going to vote is still going to vote even if you spoil your ballot. My take is you should at least write something you're unhappy about if you don't feel you can vote for anyone, but even if all you do is draw a big dick on it then actually you've done your duty as a citizen. Turning up and voting with your conscience is all you can ask of anyone, even if you think their reasons for voting are stupid.
Rubbish ... how old are you?
What's that got to do with anything? How old are you?
By not voting for Labour you're helping the Tories hold on to power. Is that something you're ok with?
All those votes which don't have a vote for someone or any drawing etc but are in the ballot box are just ignored, put to one side and categorised as spoilt. No one reads them or cares.
Dont think that applies this time out. Your just limiting their majority which is probably desirable if you hate the people running the party.
Old enough to spot rubbish ..."going to vote is still going to vote even if you spoil your ballot paper".
It's childish rubbish, since all spoiled/defaced ballot papers are discarded.
If it's a message (of choice) people wish to send to the authorities I suspect they would take more notice if those who regularly voted, abstained and didn't exercise that right.......... it's not something I would advocate myself, because I think the right to vote is sacrosanct and should be undertaken.
However, if the levels of public participation in voting did decline among those eligible to vote and who have a record of voting regularly, then that might have more impact and might even lead to a change in the make up of the ballot paper, including a 'none of the above' box being added.
One of the most important element in casting a vote at present is it's done in private, at least its assumed (that) privacy is respected once the ballot is cast. Another is it's an attempt to find out what the public, as a whole want, rather than what they individually, don't want.
Transferring your vote, i.e. to try to stop a particular candidate by voting for someone else, is no doubt a regular occurrence in seats where a particular party always holds sway and is an acceptable use of the ballot, but defacing the ballot with scribbles or other amendments is not.
I knew I was putting myself out there by including the energy bit. I suppose I generally meant to say they've been better at managing the gobshite economy than I would've imagined. And i'm giving credit where credit is due. They do have ideas - they're stating them publicly. Vapid Reeves does not or is not at liberty to state any because that's Starmer's campaign strategy maybe - "don't give the voters and the Tories anything to hang us with, so whatever we do once we're in power we aren't breaking any promises"
I agree with point #1. I think #2 is just plain wrong but i'm not going to get into macroeconomic theory here - simply said, Sunak and Hunt have to given some credit for navigating the economy in their respective durations as Chancellor. They had to deal with Covid, Russia-Ukraine, and everything else that came as a result of that. The tricky bit is that their own party their Tories are primarily to blame for how much of a hole we found ourselves in to begin with, but those two in particular have been decent technocrats (albeit in a pool of really low quality alternatives). #3 - I think they're both bullshit tbh, just that Sunak-Hunt are a little more specific about their bullshit while with Reeves I just feel like i'm watching a Hogwarts wand-wavy person than someone grounded in reality.
Cheers didn't know that. Hoping against hope that Starmer-Reeves have magically decided to put some thought to their policy plans and the manifesto will show this.
That's why you scribble on it - somebody has to scrutinise it then and decide if it's a real vote.
I've worked on elections for many years, it's immediately taken out by the counters then onto the spoils pile. The only way it is scrutinised is by count staff to determine which category of rejection it falls under. It is pointless. I've seen it many times.
The absolute lowest Labour's majority has been projected at in the last two weeks is 240 seats, with most calling it at around 300.
I'm curious as to what credit you can apportion to Jeremy Hunt in terms of navigating the economy? I'm struggling to see anything on record that he's done other than a 2% tax cut on something they've increased during the term of this parliament.
The absolute lowest Labour's majority has been projected at in the last two weeks is 240 seats, with most calling it at around 300.
Ok, cool. Rely on other people to vote the Tories out (and Labour into power) on your behalf.
240 minimum majority.
Gary Glitter has more chance of headlining Glastonbury than the Tories being in charge on July 5th.
It's just a piece of paper designed to let you express your preference.
So you tell me. And all because other people will be voting the Tories out. Good for them, right?
If they want to vote for the 'Israel has the right to starve the people of Gaza' guy, they can knock themselves out.
They're a bunch of genocide enabling cnuts, but good for them.
So the people who getting off their arses to stop the Tories from continuing to make absolute shite of the country you live in are “genocide enabling cnuts”? Gotcha.
Yes, voting for the genocide is fine if Israel are doing it guy to run the country is indeed them enabling a genocide. Glad to help.
n.b. in the real world you are able to vote for Labour (or indeed other parties) without being a 'genocide enabling cnut' you can also rest assured that in spite of what some posters have said, you will remain human.
You can pretend you're not, but if you want Starmer to run the country so much that you vote for him your vote is definitely pro genocide.
Starmer himself is very much still human. A genocide enabling cnut, but still human.
Did that first sentence make sense in your head?
Out of interest, who are considered the “non genocide enabling” Uk political parties?
The ones whose leaders haven't gone on LBC (and elsewhere) to proclaim that they believe Israel has the right to starve the population of Gaza by cutting off food, water and power.
So you are quite happy with Sunak?
It is a bit mad that there's a dual mindset of 'if you don't vote Labour you're at fault for Tory policy' and at the same time denying any responsibility for Labour policy if you do vote Labour. That doesn't really add up.
If I don't vote Labour which I'm not certain of just yet it'll be because of their failure to get my vote. It'll be down to their decisions, if they have the electoral math wrong in leaning right then they'll have fecked up.
Pretty much all parties outside of Labour and the Tories. And even within the Labour party its predominantly the faction currently in leadership which has purged elements that have taken issue with the unfolding genocide. So it very much is just the Tories + Starmer and friends who remain the unashamed stubborn apologists.
No he's shit. But it's pretty hilarious that even the guy who thought leaving the final big D-Day remembrance event where veterans will still be alive was a good idea isn't a big enough fecking moron to proclaim Israel has the right to starve Gaza.
If you give Hunt and Sunak credit for reducing inflation, do you not by the same token blame them for inflation hitting a 40+ year high under their watch?
Ukraine,
Fair enough, then. So there's plenty of choice if you want to oust the Tories but can't stomach Labour's approach to Israel. So still worth making your vote count.
Sunak was saying vote Tory for lower interest rates the other day. They can spout any lies without comeback and people buy it.
Always global inflationary pressures on the way up, then Sunak/Hunt claiming credit for doing feck all on the way down.