Not sure what people in the past not having the right this has to do with it. It's a genuinely good thing that everyone has a vote, but that doesn't imply an expectation that we have to give it to a candidate.
Oxford East. Difference is that by spoiling it you're still participating in the process.
You have a right not to vote, I just don't see the logic in doing so. The best way of getting the political class to ignore and trample over you further is by proudly not voting. See the difference between how pensioners and young people are treated.
No pride in it mate, just disappointment at politicians and politics as a whole. The only candidate I so much as half agree with might get 10% of the vote if she's lucky, with most of my age group here voting for the winning Labour candidate anyway.
If we were to actually follow that logic we'd have to do a lot more than vote. And many of those things aren't particularly good.
And I've got a right to do so.
I don't get the logic of 'wasted votes' anyway. If that's the way you see it, every vote is 'wasted' unless a seat is won by just one vote.
You certainly seem to, otherwise you wouldn't be so determined to prove me wrong.
The only way to do that would be to stay at home, not spoil a ballot. It clearly shows you "give a shit" if you are bothered to cast a ballot.
It's definitely a positive thing given a lot of young people listen to what he says, and telling people to vote is a far greater message than its opposite. Well done to Ed for actually engaging with the argument rather than just labelling him a joke.
I agree. Fair play to Ed for convincing him and trying to get outside the standard political circles.
How is it hypocritical to encourage people to vote for one candidate based on her record, personality and chances of winning? He mentions in the video that he likes Greens the most but in every other case their candidate is very unlikely to win.
I can understand not liking the interview or thinking the endorsement is a bit rubbish, but I just don't get where hypocrisy enters the arena. His supposed point is that Miliband is willing to listen to ordinary people and govern accordingly, that he isn't beholden to the "elites". You may disagree with him on that, but it's what he seems to think. Miliband's entire leadership has been about trying to rein in some of the groups that are seen as having excessive power over the general citizen, often to derision from both inside and outside of the party.
It is bizarre that people can see Labour moved centrist under Blair and then drifted back left a bit under Ed, but they can't countenance any change of tack by the Conservatives. Who'd have thought it would be the Tories introducing gay marriage, for example?
Less than half voted for it.
You could see Cameron was passionate about driving the legislation through, regardless of opposition from within his own party.
The drive remains to push down everyone's tax bills if that's what you mean and Labour still have a fundamental problem with wealth creation, at a simplistic level.
I guess it's a secret ballot and all, but it is a bit weird. In real life I don't know anyone who openly intends to vote Ukip either.
The LibDem voters are shy too. Undecided on 30. Can't remember how high that got though?
