Re postal voting: A presenter mentioned on Today that interestingly, turn-out had increased in some areas that weren't using postal voting. It was a throwaway remark but might be a slap in the face for Prescott & show the "pilot" to be diminishing returns.

"...happy to see a nice low turn out ..."
Why does it matter what the turn out is ? I couldn't care less.

Jacob: It matters because I so dislike the fetishization of democracy, so having less people willing to vote cuts to the heart of the project of replacing civil society with a totally political democratic state. Having a large group of non-voters is always a healthy sign.

The worst thing about postal voting in yesterday's election was the ease with which votes could have been stolen.

Although we are told that incidents are 'being investigated' I suggest that very little will actually be done, other than to make soothing noises about a very narrow band of specific cases.

Any serious investigation would provoke the usual student politician's howl of 'racism!'.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3796075.stm

"After about half the results the turnout across England and Wales is running at 40%, up an average of 9% on last year - an increase not confined to the four regions piloting all-postal ballots. "

Note: postal ballots have no appreciable effect on 'turnout'.

Jacob,
Low voter turnout is an implicit rejection of the kleptocratic system, whether by apathy or on purpose.

The thief doesn't care if you buy into his political philosophy, as long as you hand the money over. Our current crop of politicians are delighted with low voter turnout - they take it to mean voters aren't paying attention or don't give a stuff what they're up to. How that is supposed to hasten the revolution, I have no idea.

Meanwhile, over here on MyResourcesAreNotUnlimited Street, even the tiny differences in fees and taxes and encroachments between political candidates are enough to make an actual day-to-day impact on my life. Even if I can only choose the lesser of evils, I can't pretend to be indifferent to the outcome.

I'm too old and too poor to make expensive political gestures. Especially when they're worthless.

I still don't understand why you choose to let others define property rights in Britain, seeing as how you have such strong views.

If you want to live in a Libertarian world, you have to vote for it.

I'm too old and too poor to make expensive political gestures. Especially when they're worthless.

Me too. Which is why I don't vote.

Which is why I don't vote.

Bless you, then. I have to assume you're so very poor, you have no property or income taxes to pay and so very old the state waives your fees and fares.

If you want to live in a Libertarian world, you have to vote for it

Sorry but that is not going to happen. There are many ways to change political reality other than participating in a system stacked against views such as ours, and the idea voting is the only way is quite incorrect. I am happy to try and change people's minds but actually legitiming the system seems pointless for the most part unless a rare opportunity presents itself. If I move to New Hampshire, I might indeed start voting with my FSP confrares, but to think meaningful change at the national level is currently possible by voting in the UK is simply delusional. And if you only think voting can change things, please explain how Sinn Fein managed to take a prominent role in Ulster.

I am just under no illusions it will really make much difference

I am just under no illusions it will really make much difference

A 1% difference in my property taxes is distinctly significant to me. That was the difference between the candidates in the last mayoral race I voted in. If it isn't significant to you, you either have nothing, or you have so much you don't have to care.

"A 1% difference in my property taxes is distinctly significant to me. That was the difference between the candidates in the last mayoral race I voted in. If it isn't significant to you, you either have nothing, or you have so much you don't have to care."

You are confusing the importance of different outcomes with your own ability to affect them by voting.

Your vote is pointless and will make no difference at all to how much property tax you pay, because you are hugely outnumbered by the rest of the voting population. When was the last time local elections ended with a 1 vote difference?

Cobden Bright writes:

"When was the last time local elections ended with a 1 vote difference?"

So what? Particularly given the low turnout in local elections, it only takes a handful of people to abstain, moaning: "my vote makes no difference" for high taxation/maximum government parties to win.

Statistically, perhaps, a single vote is a drop in the ocean. But local elections can be very small oceans and a handful of votes can make all the differene.

Blair Handed Electoral Drubbing Over Iraq

LONDON (Reuters) - Britons angry over Iraq (news - web sites) have given Prime Minister Tony Blair (news - web sites) a drubbing in local elections, relegating his ruling Labour Party to an unprecedented third place.

"It's a bad night for us, but it's not meltdown," Blair's Home Secretary David Blunkett said on Friday. "On Iraq, we are very clear about that -- it has damaged us."

Thursday's local council poll outcome -- likely to be echoed in London mayor results due on Friday night and European Parliament results on Sunday -- will inevitably renew speculation about Blair's leadership.

But analysts still expect him to take Labour to a third general election victory in 2005 despite his humiliation at the polls, the biggest test of public feeling both since the Iraq war and since Blair won a second term in 2001. ...

Scott, it was tiresomely predictable that the anti-war media would hail Bliar's drubbing as an anti-war vote. That, after all, is what they want it to represent.

Meanwhile, back on planet earth (where the polls clearly show a far more divided country than the BBC, Reuters et al would ever admit), there were many issues at work. High taxation, assylum, Europe, failure to deliver on promises... it's a long, long list and Reuters (as usual) has simply spun it the way they want it to appear.

Is there anything like the Libertarian, Taxpayers or Constitution Parties fighting elections in Britain, or do libertarians sit on the sidelines or operate through the bigger parties? How libertarian are "Liberal Democrats"?

PaleoMan: The Liberal Democrats are somewhere to the left of Labour, so not libertarian at all. There are no libertarian parties. This doesn't bother me; I think Perry is right. Trying to change minds is probably the right way to go.

For my part, I planned to vote UKIP but got sent away on business at the last minute. It seems it takes aeons to arrange a postal or proxy vote, and I decided the experience of living and working abroad for a while was worth more than the vote. Instead I feel quite happy knowing I contributed to the low turnout.

Scott,
If the vote was against the war then the party that opposed the war would gain the most councils...

The Tories (who supported the war) gained the most councils, the Lib-Dems (who were against the war) have LOST two councils.

This election was fought on one thing, namely taxation, tax is too high and we get very little value for the money we are forced to contribute to it.

Those who think that their votes do not count are simply wrong. One election was a dead heat and decided on a roll of a die. And the American Presidential election may have been decided by just a few hundred voters in Florida. Your vote counts and is counted.

RR you are so right. The numbnuts in the media are painting this an anti-war protest despite the fact that the two parties (the Tories and UKIP) who have done the best are pro-Iraq war.

RESPECT btw, didn't do well at all.

Andrew Ian Dodge writes:

"RESPECT btw, didn't do well at all."

It polled within a couple of thousand votes of the BNP in the London elections - a point conspicuously ignored by the BBC. If the anti-war lobby is, roughly, as popular as the BNP, why does the BBC give it so much coverage?

On the subject of Iraq (yawn), today's Independent (sic) had a front page of yapping Labour heads saying why they thought they'd lost their seats. It was all because of Iraq, naturally.

What this proves, is nothing more than the ability of politicians to convince themselves of whatever they wish to be true.

A 'New' Labour hack(ette) loses his/her/its seat to a Tory and that is an anti-war vote?!

It's enough to make a cat laugh.

Rob: So, there is no libertarian party in England. Is that because they work through the big parties or are there just not enough to form one? How are you gonna "change minds" without any organised persuading going on?

I can't figure out how you still have all these Socialist this and Workers that outfits but nothing on the right-wing side except nationalists and neo-fascists or eco-fascists. I thought you Brits were more sophisticated than Americans, and there were some elections where the voting system allowed for smaller groups. Are English libertarians like anarchists and don't think it's worth running for office at all?